mhaze, you would have us believe that warm Oceans and Seas along with a warming atmosphere have nothing to do with rain bombs.

Science keeps moving, the reference below is about researching atmospheric rivers, though it is still in its infancy:

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/researching-the-wet-wild-world-of-atmospheric-rivers

Max
mhaze, is getting caught out every which way

We are both quoting from the same report, sort of. But I'm quoting from the Working Groups. You, unsurprisingly, go to the SPM.

Science v. politics.

mhaze, the SPM has clearly identified the trend. Nature bats last.
Previously, I have written about South Carolina being flooded where in some cases flood waters were above the top of posts placed to show flood levels.
The Mississippi and Missouri Rivers flooded out of season creating record floods not long ago.
Remember, Eric Holthaus, a Meteorologist stated that the US had been rain bombed 8 times in about a year causing huge financial costs.

It is not long ago that a stone bridge in Britain built about 400 years ago was damaged to the extent of being irreparable by flood waters. At about the same time a castle had to be evacuated due to the risk of flood waters undermining the foundations.
It is not long ago that France and Germany were hit hard by flooding; and the list goes on.

While Louisianna is being hit hard by flooding the Middle East is being impacted by high temperature:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/the-middle-east-is-in-the-middle-of-a-hellish-heatwave-right-now/news-story/faaff6a64926163839894e1c50f6376e

The first sentences say:

"THOUGHT your average Aussie summer was rough?
The Middle East is currently facing one of its most extreme heatwaves ever, with experts warning temperatures are getting almost too hot for human survival."

Down further in the article temperature of 60C is discussed.

OK, so to clarify some statements MHaze made, we need to realise that the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM) is actually a chapter in the Working Group 1 paper. It’s just the science, abbreviated for politicians.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

What does the Executive Summary on page 121 say? This is the same Working Groups summary that Mhaze endorses in the post above, where he smugly says: “We are both quoting from the same report, sort of. But I'm quoting from the Working Groups. You, unsurprisingly, go to the SPM. Science v. politics.”

Sorry dude, but the SPM is within the one and same Working Group document you’ve endorsed, and the Working Group Executive Summary itself says:

“Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcing, can lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events or both. Since the AR4, the observational basis has increased substantially, so that some extremes are now examined over most land areas. Furthermore, more models with higher resolution and a greater number of regional models have been used in the simulations and projections of extremes. {1.3.3; Figure 1.9}

(Continued next post....)

... (continued from above)
Do you comprehend what’s going on? Your dishonest heroes have conned you. You’ve fallen for it hook line and sinker. They cherrypicked a paragraph or two about the difficulty of presenting summary statements for GLOBAL models, which are very hard to do, but instead the focus of the consequences has moved to REGIONAL modelling. There is no ‘science’ versus ‘politics’ here, but ‘comprehension’ versus ‘illiteracy’, or ‘honesty’ versus ‘dishonest cherrypicking’.

Page 134 says:

“Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcings, can lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events such as extreme precipitation events or warm spells .” (Page 134)

Also on page 134 we read more about the GLOBAL V REGIONAL modelling: “By definition, the characteristics of what is called extreme weather may vary from place to place in an absolute sense.“

Chapter 9 has an interesting paragraph on BLOCKING, a REGIONAL weather phenomenon that can exacerbate regional extreme weather.

In fact, the whole of Chapter 10 is entitled:

“Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional”

Where page 916 says: “ Because most of this large-scale warming is very likely due to the increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations, it is possible to attribute, via a multi-step procedure, some of the increase in probability of these REGIONAL events to human influence on climate. We conclude that it is LIKELY that human influence has substantially increased the probability of occurrence of heat waves in SOME LOCATIONS.“

But Mhaze wants to narrow our focus in on the GLOBAL comments, and then draw up a completely phoney distinction between the Working Group and the SPM!

To paraphrase what Mhaze said to me:
“Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case unthinkingly parrot your denials heroes, and use cherrypicked data”.

mhaze, what scientists have to say about rain bombs/flooding:

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/louisiana-flooding-natural-disaster-weather-climate-change-oliver-milman-the-guardian/

Loss of arable land:

http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/08/arable-land-lost-at-unprecedented-rate-33000-hectares-a-day/

Ice melt ponds/lakes on the East Antarctic ice sheet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/17/these-stunning-blue-lakes-just-gave-us-a-new-reason-to-worry-about-antarctica/?utm_term=.811d23325c15

mhaze, have you registered with AAAS yet?