Well, it didn't take but minutes after the Nor'Easter blizzard event named Juno hit New England on January 26-27 for the climate alarmists to come out of the woodwork and declare this to be proof of climate change. In fact, one science writer for National Geographic couldn't wait for the aftermath. He wrote his article the day before the storm hit. In support of his assessment, he produced this graphic:
more than 70 percent in the past six decades in the Northeast, according to the 2014 National Climate Assessment report." So, after reading that, and then seeing this graphic, one immediately concludes that the change in precipitation rates took place in just the last 60 years. Also, understand that his chart is supposedly based on the intensity of the top one percent of storms each year. Not to be confused with total rainfall amounts in each year.
But, you need to look at the fine print at the bottom of the graphic. That 71% increase in New England is based on a comparison of the years 2001-2012 and the years 1901-1960. By doing that, 40 years from 1961 to 2000 are omitted; and, I'm sure intentionally in order to accentuate and skew the report. Also, the start period of 1901 is odd since weather records go back to the late 1800's in New England. Is it possible that the years prior to 1901 were a lot wetter than even the period of 2001 to 2012? And, why wasn't a decade by decade, 100+ year graph of rainfall intensities used to prove the writer's point? Wouldn't that have been a more accurate and scientific presentation in support of his opinion? But, of course, not if those missing 40 years would ruin your story! What we will never know is whether or not precipitation rates have been heavier in the decades and centuries prior to keeping accurate records.
It seems as if, climate change science statistics, always involve the appearance of (and sometimes proven) data manipulation in order to prove its existence. Perhaps that is why one in four Americans don't believe that global warming is man made and another 36% are mixed (not sure) on the topic; while only 39% are certain and actually worried about it.
If that pro-climate change article at the prestigious National Geographic organization is based on manipulation, it is truly sad. Also, if so, it would once again prove that climate change is more politics than science.
National Geographic: Blizzard of Nor'Easters No Surprise, Thanks to Climate Change: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/150126-blizzard-weather-climate-northeast-science/
U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17500-u-s-agencies-accused-of-fudging-data-to-show-global-warming
NASA Scientists Admit Only 38% Chance 2014 Was Hottest Year: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2015/01/18/nasa-scientists-admit-only-38-chance-2014-was-hottest-year-record
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
2014: Another Year Without Global Warming: "...no global warming for 18 years 3 months since October 1996": http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/05/2014-another-year-without-global-warming/
Quiet Atlantic hurricane season spares U.S. for ninth year running: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/24/us-usa-weather-hurricanes-idUSKCN0J825O20141124
With Ice Growing at Both Poles, Global Warming Theories Implode: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-with-ice-growing-at-both-poles-global-warming-theories-implode
Report: 95 Percent Of Global Warming Models Are Wrong: http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/12/report-95-percent-global-warming-models-are-wrong
Climate models wildly overestimated global warming: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/