From Stanford News Service:
MEDIA ADVISORY. Stanford at AGU Fall Meeting.
Global warming’s influence on extreme weather
Understanding the cause-and-effect relationship between global warming and record-breaking weather requires asking precisely the right questions.
Extreme climate and weather events such as record high temperatures, intense downpours and severe storm surges are becoming more common in many parts of the world. But because high-quality weather records go back only about 100 years, most scientists have been reluctant to say if global warming affected particular extreme events.
On Wednesday, Dec. 17, at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco, Noah Diffenbaugh, an associate professor of environmental Earth system science at the Stanford School of Earth Sciences, will discuss approaches to this challenge in a talk titled “Quantifying the Influence of Observed Global Warming on the Probability of Unprecedented Extreme Climate Events.” He will focus on weather events that – at the time they occur – are more extreme than any other event in the historical record.
Diffenbaugh emphasizes that asking precisely the right question is critical for finding the correct answer.
“The media are often focused on whether global warming caused a particular event,” said Diffenbaugh, who is a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. “The more useful question for real-world decisions is: ‘Is the probability of a particular event statistically different now compared with a climate without human influence?'”
Diffenbaugh said the research requires three elements: a long record of climate observations; a large collection of climate model experiments that accurately simulate the observed variations in climate; and advanced statistical techniques to analyze both the observations and the climate models.
One research challenge involves having just a few decades or a century of high-quality weather data with which to make sense of events that might occur once every 1,000 or 10,000 years in a theoretical climate without human influence.
But decision makers need to appreciate the influence of global warming on extreme climate and weather events.
“If we look over the last decade in the United States, there have been more than 70 events that have each caused at least $1 billion in damage, and a number of those have been considerably more costly,” said Diffenbaugh. “Understanding whether the probability of those high-impact events has changed can help us to plan for future extreme events, and to value the costs and benefits of avoiding future global warming.”
Diffenbaugh’s talk takes place Dec. 17 at 2:44 p.m. PT in Room 3005 of Moscone West, Moscone Convention Center.
-30-
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No shame.
If severe weather outcomes are judged by cost then inflation will make them increasingly more common.
Precisely. But the concept that the Federal Reserve (by inflating the money supply) might have a hand in any increase in property damage costs is undoubtedly a concept that a Stanford University professor could not possibly grasp.
With the non-linear increase in population expected to reach 11 billion by 2100 along with changing life styles and consequent ecological destruction certainly show multifold increase in the damage for the same intensity weather system.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
And those 11 billion face 85 more years of ever-increasing death, disease, hardship and suffering BECAUSE OF the CAGW community artificial demands to restrict energy production, raise prices, and forced death. Are YOU, personally, willing to acknowledge that YOU personally though YOUR advocacy are causing that harm to billions deliberately for the next 85 years to “perhaps” avoid “non-linear” changes due to weather damages that will not themselves be changed by restricting man’s CO2 release?
Wait a minute, (sniff, sniff, sniff) Ah, yes; BS
I would invite your attention to the book “What to Expect When No One is Expecting”.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Expect-When-Ones-Expecting-ebook/dp/B00KK6CBCY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418568805&sr=1-1&keywords=what+to+expect+when+no+one%27s+expecting
There is a real problem with global population, but it is not what you think.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
This is the conference you are attending??
“One research challenge involves having just a few decades or a century of high-quality weather data with which to make sense of events that might occur once every 1,000 or 10,000 years in a theoretical climate without human influence.”
Yup, going to definitely need “advanced statistical techniques” and probably a theoretical planet.
Who needs “advanced statistical techniques” when you have models??
So no evidence that the weather / climate is becoming more extreme due to man. I like this bit:
So more bollocks and garbage in and out. No chance of statistical bias entering the “advanced statistical techniques”.
Just a little something for ya. Here is the bit from the AGU. [my bold]
I can’t help but wonder about bias creeping in.
Here is our Gavin.
Sorry, I can’t find this extreme weather thingey. It must be in the deep oceans.
No trends in extreme weather
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/27/another-paper-shows-that-severe-weatherextreme-weather-has-no-trend-related-to-global-warming/
Little change in global drought over the past 60 years
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html
No trend in global hurricane landfall
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2012.04.pdf
Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
http://www.nature.com/news/extreme-weather-1.11428
It gets worse. It’s worse than we thought!
It’s hiding in the oceans. It has to be or the observations are wrong.
From AR5
http://turiteadocuments.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ipcc-ar5-chapter-12-table-12-41.png
More proof that extreme weather event claims are scare mongering and are not caused by AGW…even the IPCC gives them low probability and confidence levels.
Jimbo writes “I can’t help but wonder about bias creeping in.”
Yeah, its hilarious isn’t it. They’re not asking the question as the whether the increased CO2 causes extreme weather events any more, that assumption has been made. Its now a question of finding evidence to support that proposition. That’s no longer science.
And lots of grant money…
Noah is a great name for an extreme weather investigator. I wonder if his $70 billion in damage losses is ‘normalized’ data that takes account of increased vulnerability due to population increase/movement and inflation? I wonder how just a century of data can realistically relate to 1000 or 10,000 years? Is Michael Mann supplying ‘the advanced statistical techniques?’
So let’s make money the lead factor in how good a PGA tour player is. You would have the then conclude on the basis of career earnings that Ryan Moore is three times the golfer that Jack Nicklaus is and Mathew Goggin is 10x better than Sam Snead. While I am pretty sure Ryan and Mathew would not necessarily agree, below is some of their totals. (from a few months ago)
Ryan Moore $ 17,541,028 3 wins no majors
Jack Nicklaus $ 5,734,031 career earnings 73 wins 18 wins + 19 2nd place finishes in major championships
Mathew Goggin $ 7,368,691 no wins 49 top 25 finishes
Sam Snead $ 713,155 career earnings 82 wins 7 majors. 52 top 25 finishes after age 52
Another result of inflation.
Noah is correct in focusing on what the probability of the extreme events were vs without human influence. But first I want to see the list of 70 events that each caused $1 billion damage. What kind of events? Were we where we should not have been in the first place. Would we have been there 200 years ago? Would anyone have even been aware of the event 200 years ago? A lot of spurious conjecture will be involved I’m sure.
What are “events that might occur… in a theoretical climate?”. Is that like forecasting what the weather should have been next Tuesday?”
Hi Anthony –
This statement is where their work is fatally flawed – they assume
“a large collection of climate model experiments that accurately simulate the observed variations in climate;”
As we have shown; e. g. see
Pielke Sr., R.A., R. Wilby, D. Niyogi, F. Hossain, K. Dairaku, J. Adegoke, G. Kallos, T. Seastedt, and K. Suding, 2012: Dealing with complexity and extreme events using a bottom-up, resource-based vulnerability perspective. Extreme Events and Natural Hazards: The Complexity Perspective Geophysical Monograph Series 196 © 2012. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved. 10.1029/2011GM001086. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/r-3651.pdf
and
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/b-18preface.pdf
the multi-decadal regional climate predictions of changes in climate statistics (when run in hindcast) show no significant skill. Thus, they cannot be used robustly for attribution studies,.
On the issue of extreme events and climate, see the new book by my son
The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change.
http://www.amazon.com/Rightful-Place-Science-Disasters-Climate/dp/0692297510/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418494133&sr=1-1&keywords=pielke
Roger Sr. .
… “climate model experiments” …
Typical Orwell’ian Climatism-Newspeak!
Computer models can and will never be “experiments” – full stop!
Thank you for that, Dr. Pielke. I also read that sentence about needing ACCURATE models. And we have none.
The IPCC in their previous report were clear that the probability was that extreme whether could not be shown to have been linked to increased CO2 or that in fact had been increasing in both intensity or frequency. I think before they try to prove that there is an increased probability of extreme events occurring that as a matter of fact that they establish they are incurring. From the post it appears that is assumed. If I wasn’t mistaken this discussion in the context of the previous IPCC report is warmists arguing amongst themselves.
To me the extreme weather claims is a desperate attempt to maintain a scare campaign that is dying because the world refuses to warm.
Yup, but there’s still money to be made:
“Dr. Diffenbaugh is currently a Lead Author for Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a member of the National Academy of Sciences Ad Hoc Committee on Effects of Provisions in the Internal Revenue Code on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”
https://earth.stanford.edu/noah-diffenbaugh
Exactly!
And if it hasn’t “warmed” for eighteen odd years, then how do they attribute recent bad weather to global warming?
I’m just asking because it’s as plain as the nose on your face.
Am I the only “denier” that can see the hypocrisy in the alarmists argument?
Global warming should lead to LESS types of extreme weather. They tell us that most of the warming should occure as you head towards the poles. The temperature differential is thus reduced. During the Little Ice Age the north Atlantic experienced some of the greatest storms. Warmists know this but would prefer to spew garbage in order to scare people. I always ask for the evidence that the weather is becoming more extreme AND caused by global warming as opposed to El Nino and other NATURAL climate oscillations. I always get nothing.
Further reading.
“Storminess Of The Little Ice Age”
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/storminess-of-the-little-ice-age/
I have found the evidence of extreme weather! The insurance industry would know the answers so here we have it. / sarc
Bring your umbrella to the AGU meeting. Heavy rain at times forecast for all four days and during “Noah’s Flood” talk. I wonder how many talks are going to be about California drought.
Failing to achieve their temperature predictions they are now going for scare mongering with individual events. They need to be reminded how Sandy was touted to be a direct result of AGW only to be downgraded from even being a hurricane at landfall.
It’s not actually record breaking when it’s happened before but outside the time frame chosen or the instrument record. The time frames are often chosen so as to be able to use a superlative to describe the event. (IE I heard the recent storm that hit California described as “the worst storm in five years”.)
Also, to be honest, that “$1 billion in damage” would need to adjusted for inflation and account for increased population and development in the area effected by the event.
If $$ are to be used, how about a new unit of measure? “$ per capita adjusted for inflation”?
>“$ per capita adjusted for inflation”
An excellent point, but you would also need to adjust for wealth. An average home destroyed in 1900 would not be as large as one in 2014, nor have insulation, AC or central heat. It would not be an economic equivalent of 2014 home. Maybe a better measure would be, “% of real (estate) wealth destroyed per capita adjusted for inflation”.
Basically you need to calculate the ‘at risk’ value when assessing relative damage – which is what the article says. A Billion $ damage is what % of asset value at risk?
The Great Storm of January 1862 destroyed 25% of the taxable property in California. Now that was a storm. Turning that asset value into 2014 $ is not enough. It was so much the State of California went bankrupt. Now that is an impact.
Notice how the weeks-long December rains preceding the storm was ‘a weather event’. Then there was a pause. Of course the massive January flood was ‘the result of climate change’. Isn’t that how it works? The only problem is the flood came 150 years too early.
David and Crispin, Good points.
Of course the best measure is and will always be the measure of the storm itself in the context of “climate change”. An EF1 tornado is still an EF1 tornado whether it hits a cornfield or a trailer park or downtown. The cost of the damage done might be greater but the strength of the tornado is the same.
A new unit of measure for damage would be useful when the $ amount is used to hype a storm as being stronger than the weather event actually was or to give the impression it was somehow new or unusual. A unit of measure to put things into a more honest perspective.
I see Moscone is in San Francisco, so presumably Thursday’s rainfall will be used as an example of extreme weather, likewise so will last year’s drought.
Sigh………….
Yes, whether dry or wet, cold or hot, cool or warm, climate change is all to blame.
Of course, “Rain-god, him plenty-plenty angry” is equally valid as a hypothesis.
The “extreme” weather attriution has the perfect CAGW qualities of non-falsification. But not only can any event not be said to be not CAGW related, every one of the events can be claimed to be “possiblly” caused by CAGW despite the impossibility of every one of them being CAGW related.
Let’s say that the alarmists say there is an increased “likelihood” of an extreme weather event, say there are 10% more than some earlier time (which is not true, but for this argument’s sake, let that issue ride). Out of ten events, one is therefore CAGW-caused. But the MSM say that all 10 “may” be CAGW related. So the reader hears not one, but ten.
The way the alarmists are allowed to work with possibilitiies or probabilities allows them to misdirect the public into believing, at least emotionally, that ALL extreme weather events are caused by CAGW. If they used such techniques on, say, violence by ethnicity in the light of increasing ethnic changes, and said that any violent incident by X type of person “may” reflect the increase in the X type of people coming into this country, the liberals would shriek at the wrongness of the argument. But when it comes to the climate, well, people burning fossil fuels “do” cause every nasty storm you see.
Nobody will believe this except the most deluded global warmers who, of course, believe anything.
The Gullibles™
It’s sunny outside even though a snowfall was predicted. That’s pretty extreme, you heathen. I’m going for a bike ride. Tomorrow has been denied.
“…a large collection of climate model experiments that accurately simulate the observed variations in climate; and advanced statistical techniques to analyze both the observations and the climate models.”
Makes sense… but only if you could find climate models that ‘accurately simulate’ any thing to do with climate on this ball of rock and water.
When are any of these idiots going to realize you can’t simulate something you don’t thoroughly understand!
They can’t admit that, it would mean the end of the paycheck and that is the final, irrevocable end.
It might be interesting to count the number of climate papers that only use the models as input vs. those that use real world data. Why do I get the feeling that the main purpose & value of the models, even though they have no relation to the real world, is provide a quick and easy way to get grants and publish junk without leaving the campus.
I’m only saying this in a general sense:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.”
Pretty good advice, of old.
I believe that it was Martin Sheen that narrated a nature documentary in which he injected his disgust in contrasting the beauty of the wilds of the Amazon and the blight of industrialization on the landscape as he scanned the horizon from his plane. While hiking out of Muir Woods reaching the crest looking down at SF and South along the California coast I too shared in that feeling of disgust. Perhaps it is time to lessen the influence of man on our climate. Maybe someone can ask Noah Diffenbaugh about returning the California coast to its pre-Columbian state and in particular the whole of Santa Clara county to grasslands. Would removing the anthropogenic blight on the lands of California lower the billions of dollars of potential losses to extreme events?
touché
If there’s no warming, the causal chain to extreme events is broken at the inception. And that’s assuming the bonfire of logical fallacies attributing warming to man is an impeccable proof.
The dude says “the research requires three elements: a long record of climate observations; a large collection of climate model experiments that accurately simulate the observed variations in climate; and advanced statistical techniques to analyze both the observations and the climate models.”
Right off the bat, the first two simply don’t exist. So, we can conclude that the AGU will let anyone of sufficient faith have a microphone even if the proposition they assert is risible on its face.
So is the third one (i.e., advance statistical techniques).
Quinn and Joe
+1, why can’t educated people see this?
Someone just sent me a column by George Monbiot where he implies that the moose population in Canada is exploding and upsetting the CO2 balance as a result of vegetation reduction and moose farts. I am sure extreme weather in Newfiundland is about to increase in frequency and intensity. God help us.
Yes, indeed. And if Moonbat is expert in any field, it’s certainly moose farts.
Which are probably causing the moose to explode.
Think of the implications. We must invoke the Precautionary Principle.
Don’t feed the moose then?
The use of $ damage as the metric highlights the first point made – that if you ask the wrong question you will get a misleading policy from the answer.
So, in conclusion, if we stop emitting CO2, the climate will stop changing, right?
“Diffenbaugh emphasizes that asking precisely the right question is critical for finding the correct answer.”
I can see a list of his hopeful questions now using AGW as an abbreviation for [)Human caused Global Warming) or Climate Change (Human caused of course)]:
#1. Is AGW causing increased flooding on any streams anywhere on the Earth?
#2. Is AGW causing increased tornado activity in any location on the Earth?
#3 Is AGW causing increased hurricanes in any location on the Earth?
#4. Is AGW causing any increased weather activity on any days on the Earth when I modify all the data involved? Eureka, he has some winners.
Regardless or not of AGW, a case can be made that there is no increased activity of floods, tornadoes, hurricanes or general weather. As a matter of fact I believe it has been repeatedly stated that the most severe of these events have waned.
But Paul, you don’t seem to see his methods.
“The media are often focused on whether global warming caused a particular event,” said Diffenbaugh, who is a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. “The more useful question for real-world decisions is: ‘Is the probability of a particular event statistically different now compared with a climate without human influence?’”
Diffenbaugh said the research requires three elements: a long record of climate observations; a large collection of climate model experiments that accurately simulate the observed variations in climate; and advanced statistical techniques to analyze both the observations and the climate models.
Seems that there is an ‘app for that’.
Somehow, I read that as “AGU Fail Meeting…”
“Quantifying the Influence of Observed Global Warming on the Probability of Unprecedented Extreme Climate Events.”
In other words, “How to Lie With Statistics”. Should be interesting.
Huff’s book, How to Lie With Statistics, is available here (used):
http://preview.tinyurl.com/l9vrydx
The case for it being caused by witchcraft is just as strong. And instead of banning CO2, perhaps we should just make a potent stew from albinos.
Please don’t joke on this at people with albinism. You don’t want to hear what superstitious people do in East Africa.
More info from Under the Same Sun and albinism associations.
A stew made from Climate Activists would go a long way towards reducing the problem of CAGW.