From Pierre Gosselin’s Notrickszone
A new paper authored by Reinhard Böhm of the Austrian Central Administration For Meteorology (ZAMG) refutes the notion that anthropogenic warming is causing an increase of climate extremes and making weather more variable and extreme.
Pressure – temperature – precipitation (Source ZAMG)
The paper uses the monthly resolved data of the HISTALP data collection, which provides 58 single series for three climate elements: air pressure, air temperature and precipitation, which start earlier than 1831 and extend back to 1760 in some cases.
The paper’s abstract writes:
The main goal is the analysis of trends or changes of high frequent interannual and interseasonal variability. In other words, it is features like extremely hot summers, very cold winters, excessively dry or wet seasons which the study aims at.”
The paper also concentrates on the recent three decades because “they are the first 30 years with dominating anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing”.
Conclusion? No change!
WUWT reader Jimbo writes in Tips and Notes:
Extreme weather paper out. It’s worse than we thought! Head for the hills!
“The main goal is the analysis of trends or changes of high frequent interannual and interseasonal variability. In other words, it is features like extremely hot summers, very cold winters, excessively dry or wet seasons which the study aims at.”………………
We can show that also this recent anthropogenic normal period shows no widening of the PDF (probability density function) compared to the preceding ones………………
It shows that interannual variability changes show a clear centennial oscillating structure for all three climate elements in the region. For the time being we have no explanation for this empirical evidence.”
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=l446053m40t06j43&size=largest
See also my compilation of extreme weather trends (not).
Floods – no increase in frequency, less intense
Extreme weather events – no trend
Global precipitation – no trends
Rate of sea level rise – deceleration over 80 years
Related articles
- Weather is climate, or loaded dice, or something (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Comment On Andy Revkin’s Post On May 11 2012 Titled “Varied Views On Extreme Weather In A Warming Climate” (pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com)
“It shows that interannual variability changes show a clear centennial oscillating structure for all three climate elements in the region. For the time being we have no explanation for this empirical evidence.”
Of course, they don’t, they don’t understand fundamental climate mechanisms. The IPPC knows even less, but worse their prognostications are coloured and biased by a political agenda – scare every with impending disasters.
The IPCC predicts that warming would manifest more in the polar regions than the tropical, if so it reduces the Zonal Index and reduces potential for severe weather. Change the pattern of flow in the circumpolar vortex from zonal to meridional and weather variability increases.
http://drtimball.com/2012/claims-global-warming-increases-severe-weather-are-scientifically-incorrect/
The trend in increasing claims that extreme weather events are also increasing, and that such events are caused by anthropogenic global warming, is directly related to the trend in heat sensors (thermometers and satellite sensors) failing to show global warming.
Follow the Money: I suspect that you’ve hit on the cause of AGW doom predictions.
Rhoda R says:
May 27, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Follow the Money: I suspect that you’ve hit on the cause of AGW doom predictions.
___________________________
Yes Follow the Money is correct. The narrative had to be switched so people would not notice the temperature rise due to CO2 has stalled for over a decade.
For example in my town in 2004 (two years after cycle 23 max when solar influence should cause the highest temperature according to some) we had 17 days over 90F, three of those days were over 95F and two were 98F. This May however has been a total wimp. ONE count them one day at 91F and only 8 days over 85F. The rest of the week is forecast for a high of 84. I would think I was back in New England with May temps like this.
Little Ice Age looks to have missed the Alps.
Yet another CAGW myth hits the canvas yet again. How many more strikes until they are counted out for good? The increasing frequency of wild claims about extreme weather events is proportional to their desperation as the temperatures fall in contradiction of their fiction. Nature is failing to show mercy to their fabrication.
Down and out but the alarmist crawl to the edge of the ring and claw their way back up for another round of make believe, as long as the money holds out. It’s always been about the money only problem is it’s in very short supply these days!
Anthony, you may want to indent the following showing it’s not from you and to avoid any misunderstanding in future.
The Alps are doomed to record snowfall. Skiing is over. Snowfalls are just a thing of the past. The Scottish ski industry is finished.. 😉
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/snowandski/9006670/Skiing-Is-this-the-best-ski-season-ever.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/snowandski/9005075/Record-snowfall-in-the-Alps-latest-pictures.html
Let me be clear. R. Gates has informed me that more snow is a sign of global warming. No problemo. I have also been informed that a lack of snow is also a sign of global warming. This is a problemo.
I’ve been saying for some time now that warming should reduce temperature extremes (more winter, cold day warming than summer, hot day warming) and move extratropical storms northward and/or weaken them. Even those “extremes” that might be connected to warming don’t appear to be changing.
Mike McMillan says: “Little Ice Age looks to have missed the Alps.”
Reading the abstract, it’s clear that is a plot of the thirty year temperature variances. Presumably this means the average absolute departure from the mean. So a colder climate (the LIA) was a more variable climate. A warmer climate should see smaller variance.
Jimbo says:
May 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Let me be clear. R. Gates has informed me that more snow is a sign of global warming. No problemo. I have also been informed that a lack of snow is also a sign of global warming. This is a problemo.
=========================================
Only for people with the ability to reason. The rest see no problem with that.
From the look of your “conclusions: , which fly in the face of virtually all trends discovered by academies of science, I concludeu are simply a committed contrarian. No more, no less. Your own “trend” is simply to contradict mainstream conclusions. i.e. you are quite predictable and unreliable. And when the stakes are this high, please hang your head. Who supports this site anyway? Petroleum intitute? Heartland?
[my bold]
Were you being sarcastic? If not then show me the peer reviewed evidence of worsening / extreme weather trends.
@Jan
I for one support this site with my clicks because it allows discussions of evidence. “Contrarian”? Is that when someone opposes anything, evidence or idea, that shows catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a baseless hypothesis with no grounding in reality?
@Jan
Science is ‘the best guess of the moment’ which may indicate ‘truth’ the longer the moment lasts without falsification of the original hypothesis. Studies such as this help us understand that the current ‘best guess’, the use of CO2 as the Occam’s Razor to cut through the Gordian Knot of climate complexity, leaves an large number of loose ends and is over simplistic.
It is always sensible to approach any area of study with an open mind and while relying on authority is a starting point, it is not the be all and end all of science. Evidence which contradicts the current paradigm should be evaluated and the paradigm judged accordingly. As more and more evidence builds up to contradict the paradigm then adjustment is needed, not holding on to the discredited idea.
The stakes are indeed significant and this site can hold its head high as a beacon of the application of the scientific method, with an open exchange of scientific information which helps put the recent political frenzy over climate change into focus.
Support for this site extends widely among these who wish to understand the science behind the real world observations, rather than relying on models to do our thinking for us.
global warming? 1937 remains the hottest year on record at the Indy 500
Indy 500 falls short of heat record
Updated: May 27, 2012, 8:29 PM ET
Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS — Fans sought shade under the grandstands and beneath umbrellas. Misting stations got a healthy workout. But Sunday’s Indianapolis 500 won’t go down in the record books as the hottest in the 101-year history of the race.
The temperature in Indianapolis hit 91 degrees at the end of the race, just one degree shy of the race-day record of 92 set in 1937, according to the National Weather Service. It was also 91 on race day in 1919 and 1953.
James Sexton says:
May 27, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Only for people with the ability to reason.
========
If more snow and less snow are both a sign of global warming, then what happens when temperatures cool? Does the amount of snow remain unchanged? No, it must also increase or decrease, or we have a physical nonsense were the process follows different laws during warming than during cooling..
Thus you cannot use snowfall (weather) to indicate climate, because a change in snowfall could mean either warming or cooling, or that chance plays a role in determining snowfall.
timetochooseagain says:
May 27, 2012 at 8:25 pm
I’ve been saying for some time now that warming should reduce temperature extremes
========
That is what the temperature records show. The high temperatures are not increasing, which is why the Indy 500 record temperature was set back in 1937. It should have been set yesterday if we truly are seeing global warming.
What is increasing are the nighttime low temperatures. They are not as extreme as they were in the past. This if anything is going to reduce the extremes in weather, by reducing the contrast between hot and cold which drives the winds. This is confirmed by a general observation that average wind speeds are reducing globally.
The weather is becoming less extreme, not more extreme, which is one of the many benefits of global warming. In the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s famine was a real problem around the world with large crop failures not uncommon. Except for a few regions around the world which are subject to wars or extreme political ideology, we have doubled the population, decreased food prices in real dollars, and eliminated much of the famine.
This is the real legacy of CO2 and global warming. We are feeding double the number of people, we are feeding them better, and we are doing so at a lower cost per person. This is only a catastrophic if you believe the world has too many people.
If you believe that, then the logical solution is to help reduce the population be removing yourself first before calling for others to sacrifice. Then, once you are gone we will do a recount of the population, and anyone that also thinks there are too many people, they can be the next to help. I expect the recount will show not many who think the population should be reduced further.
ntesdorf says:
May 27, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Yet another CAGW myth hits the canvas yet again. How many more strikes until they are counted out for good?
=======
The claims are becoming more extreme in order to attract government money, which is becoming much more scarce in the poor economy.
This current drying up in climate related funding is a sign of negative feedback in the system. As hysterical over global warming increased to fever pitch and it looked like the US would vote in cap and trade, the bankers pulled their money out of the system. Had that not happened, cap and trade would have passed the US congress.
The real danger is climate science itself. In the guise of helping , they have destroyed the economy by removing confidence. The very economy that fed them, driven by fossil fuels. They have bitten the hand that fed them, and now are crying there is no food.
Now we have a large number of climate scientists that did very well when the gravy train was running. they are chasing an ever shrinking pool of funds, so in order to maintain their funding they are repeating what has worked so well in the past. They are crying wolf to try and force the politicians to give them money.
Instead of one wolf, there are two, no, three, no a dozen wolves. No wait, there are hundreds of wolves, thousands even. We must leave the children to fend for themselves while we go fight the wolves.
However, the population has had enough. They wolf has not appeared, and children need to be fed and clothed. Peoples priorities have changed and climate science is trying to change them back through increasingly extreme claims.
Tim Ball says:
May 27, 2012 at 2:46 pm
“For the time being we have no explanation for this empirical evidence.”
=========
In other words, had we stated the obvious conclusion from the data, we would never have gotten this paper published. For the time being we have no explanation because scientific censorship prevents us from giving an explanation.
Censorship is rampant in climate science as scientists try and silence anything and anyone that threatens their funding. Look at the extreme censorship and re-writing of posts on Real Climate. RC gives you a first-hand look at how climate science as practiced by “real scientists” The search for truth in science was long ago replaced by the search for funding..
ferd berple says: “The high temperatures are not increasing…What is increasing are the nighttime low temperatures.”
There are good reasons to doubt that the diurnal temperature range signal is attributable to AGW and thus whether or not is benefit of warming. See the blog proprietor’s work which shows that at well sited stations the diurnal temperature signal disappears. AFAIK, the seasonal effect is much less ambiguous in it’s origin. In the US, the most recent warming is concentrated in the coldest days of the year:
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/17/c017p045.pdf
That’s a definite decrease in extremes.
Have we just seen the first conclusion that, since the conclusion doesn’t fit with CAGW theory, there has to be someone else wrong because CAGW theory is not a theory but a fact?