One of the most vocal criticisms I get is when I write about weather events around the globe. For example one commenter, “beaker” recently wrote this criticism to my story about Denver setting two new record low maximum temperatures on consecutive days, breaking one record that stood for 118 years:
“Why is this site so obsessed with short term extrema? All this will do is reinforce crackpot opinions on long term climate change on the basis of irrelevant weather noise.”
In a nutshell he’s saying “weather is not climate”. We all understand that. I always make sure that I tag such entries as “weather” and not “climate change”. It’s not the first nor will it be the last time I get criticized for talking about weather events on a blog that focuses mostly on climate change. As I pointed out though, weather is in fact my career, so I reserve the right to talk about it.
To his credit, “Beaker” was gracious in acknowledging that he was not specifically referring to me as a “crackpot”. It is true that any single weather event can’t be linked to climate change, and even in periods of a year, linking even a collection of weather events to long term climate change is problematic. And yes, as “Beaker” points out, can be fodder for “crackpots”. Tim Flannery and Al Gore come to mind as people that use specific weather events to point out “climate change”.
Take for example Hurricane Katrina, long the poster child for climate change, yet several studies have shown that there is no trend linking global warming to increased hurricane activity. Thus naming specific storms as linked to climate change is just not supportable. Senator (and former presidential candidate) John Kerry recently said that a tornado outbreak in the USA was attributable to “global warming”, when in fact it is related to the La Nina pattern in the Pacific.
There seems to be no dearth of prominent people willing to connect weather events with climate change. But these are often politicians, celebrities, and book pushers. They stand to gain from attention, even if the words they say are not based in fact, so it is not surprising.
Along those lines, this is a bit more troubling. I’d like to share this graphic, which is titled on the published page: “Figure 1.1 Geographical distribution of notable climate anomalies and events occurring around the planet in 2007“.
Click for a larger image
I apologize for the quality of even the large image, as it was scanned from paper.
Here are some of the “climate anomaly” events listed on the graphic:
- Northeast U.S.A/Southeast Canada – Major winter storm (Feb) Around 300,000 people affected
- Hurricane Felix (Sep) Max winds 270 km/hr – Second major hurricane in the 2007 season
- Uganda (Jun) Heaviest rainfall in 35 years
- China – heaviest snowfall in 56 years (Mar)
And the source for this graphic listing those “climate anomalies”?
This “Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 89, Number 7, July 2008, page S14”:
Click for a larger image
I find it odd that I get criticism when I talk about weather events and the oft repeated maxim “weather is not climate” yet here we have the premiere meteorological organization doing exactly the same thing – pointing out extreme weather events. Yet, they don’t even mention the word “weather” in the context of the graphic, preferring the more worrisome but less accurate label of “climate anomalies”.
At least I have the good sense to tag the sort of entires I make on this blog about record events, significant storms etc. as “weather”. Sadly AMS just wraps it up in a supplemental journal boldly titled as “State of the Climate in 2007 “. If I did such a thing, noting all the weather events I’d posted on during the year and titled it “State of the Climate in 2007” I’d be villified in comments for doing so:
“Anthony – what are you thinking? Weather is not climate!”
But in this case, it’s the AMS, so that makes it all OK I guess.
“Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get” – Robert Heinlein
The issue here is “Turf”. You are being accused of using the AGW proponents tricks.
They came up with the “Look at this cherry I just picked, ignore the mountain of apples behind me and look at the damn cherry”. “I’m right because I have a basket of cherries that all agree with my position, don’t think for yourself and ignore the man behind the screen”.
You are using their tactics and they have the copyright.
To be truthfull, you are simply presenting the data without saying “Aha! look here is proof”. The data is presented in a scientific manner, noone is saying that AGW is impossible, just very unlikely to be a significant factor in the many factors driving the climate.
I believe humans are adding heat to the lower troposphere, we just don’t have enough data to weed through the torrent of forcing factors to measure a few drops of rain contributed by Humans.
On the other hand, if someone puts up a good argument supported by real data and shows their work by going through the peer review process, I would change my mind.
I’m not about to take someone’s word that refuses to publish their methods, raw data, and calculations.
Anthony, as a member of the AMS, can’t you guys dump the board in favor of a objective representatives? I know others in the AMS are very concerned about the board’s shenanigans as opposed to the thoughts of the actual membership. Chicago’s Tom Skilling as well as former Chicagoan John Coleman come to mind in this area.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Some time back a tornado outbreak had John Kerry nattering about climate change and there wasn’t much criticism from the AGW side. What little there was could be summed up as “he’s right to say this because extreme events are what we’re up against and it’s best to get the word out.” For the most part there wasn’t much that was critical.
But — let a skeptic post something non-hysterical about weather extrema, and AGW supporters will literally crawl from the woodwork to condemn it.
***
Joel Shore — the use of anomaly and/or event are synonymous in graphics like these, which are intended to paint a particular picture. Trying to differentiate these is specious dissembling. Certainly the graph maker didn’t intend that.
This debate is heating up like a weather kiln in the oil fields of a texan dude ranch. Can’t we see that locally annual precipitation via subtropic/tropic cloud generation is all but tightroping on a potential watershed moment? Of course its related to larger geothermal and radiant heat indexing that over time will more or less be compensated through heatsink. On the other hand, I would hazard the guess that by 2050 or sooner, steppe and savana will be most affected.
I think, that definition of Hansen is:
Weather = a thermometer = 14.5ºC +/- 0.1 ºC.
Climate = the same thermometer + U$ 30 billion = 14.5ºC ++/- 0,001°C.
many Brahmas
Bill I.
“…we should be playing up the extreme cold events as well.”
That might not work for us. Some warmers also claim Greenland ice melt is going to halt the Gulf Stream and bring on another Ice Age.
Global Warming may also lead to Global Cooling! They have it covered one way or the other.
The Warmongers don’t like being tarred with their own brush. Their kettle and your pot are both black, but they think only they can cherry pick for political benefit.
Fair’s fair.
My prediction, based on his track record, is that when Al Gore arrives in Denver, they’ll be hit with a freak summer blizzard.
One eco freak begats one one eco freaky event.
From Moran & Morgan’s college textbook ” METEOROLOGY – The Atmosphere and the Science of Weather” (5th edition) ..”Climate is often defined as weather conditions at some locality averaged over a specified time period, but climate encompasses more than this. Departures from long term averages and extremes in weather are also important aspects of climate. For example, farmers are interested in knowing not only the average rainfall for July, but the frequency of extremely wet or dry Julys. Climate is the ultimate environmental control in that it governs, for example, what crops can be cultivated, the fresh water supply, and the average heating and cooling requirements of homes. Climatology is the study of the climate, it’s controls, and variability.”
Based on this, I would say that Anthony shouldn’t be faulted for reporting “weather events” because weather isn’t climate…actually it is. Departures from long term averages and extreme weather events form the envelope that completely characterise a location’s climate, not just long term averages.
2008 is definitely cooler than 2006 or 2007.
Look at this heat potential for the Carib.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2008231ca.jpg
Adjust the url for 2007 and 2006.
Ditto for the world.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2008231.png
That is A LOT of heat difference. Its really quite impressive. North America and the EU are kept warm by air blowing off the Oceans in the winter. IMHO this winter will be a lot colder than that of 2007.
Anthony
OT but we are now at day 31 of spotless days in a row
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt
This outs us at Rank 31 – a run of spotless days to 20 October 2008 will be a record
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Period
The 10cm solar flux is constant and at very low levels – this is getting interesting
ftp://lynx.drao.nrc.ca/pub/solar/FLUX_DATA/fluxtablerolling.text
Meanwhile we are experiencing record cold weather anomlies, particularly in the Australia
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/australias-coldest-warmest-driest-and-wettest-in-decades/9713
Flannery is keen to point to Hot weather anomolies as signs of AGW but is also quick to point out extreme cooling anomolies are part of everyday weather – I have an audio link of him saying this somewhere and if I can find will post.
Here’s a link to the map of events in the post, Anthony. You can read this one when you zoom it. LOL
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/significant-extremes2007.gif
David G.
That puts a whole new spin on things. I think that should be in “Resources”.
Climate has a broader definition now.
Apologies for off topic, Ferdinand Engelbeen please email me to discuss what portion of the oceans is in near equlibrium with the atmosphere with respect to CO2. My email address is david.archibald@westnet.com.au
REPLY: I’ll email him for you – Anthony
quote from Benjamin Franklin, ‘Some people are weatherwise, and the rest are otherwise’.
Having downloaded the AMS document, it seems to be built on the premise that AGW is solid and further builds on this premise by highlighting the weather extremes that happened last year.
Seems that leaders 0f numerous organization have embraced AGW, despite the questioning approach of the rank and file. Everyone that’s jumping onto the AGW/’Green’ bandwagon will get quite a shock when their bandwagon crashes into the cold hard wall of reality.
Meanwhile, reading about weather events that don’t necessarily fit the AGW paradigm is a refreshing break. Certainly such tales aren’t readily found in the MSM, which seem bent only on airing stories about extreme weather events that support their accepted viewpoint. While the chilly Great Lakes summer neither proves nor disproves AGW, you wouldn’t hear about it on the nightly news — only here on Anthony’s blog where we can all engage in one of mankind’s great pasttimes – talking about the weather.
I apologize for the quality of even the large image, as it was scanned from paper.
When scanning paper that has text on the other side of the sheet, place a piece of black paper behind it.
I have been wacked by AGW proponents across various forums many a time over this especially in regards to Canadian weather events. When I predicted the full + recovery of Arctic Ice back in August 2007, then the extent recovered and I proceeded to gloat I got the standard, one year recovery is not a trend! (keep in mind this was in Feb 08 before the Great ’08 melt [ i think that it is being called that] occurred)
Yet the same people will use a typhoon in Myanmar to point at and claim “see,see, told you so! Climate Change, Cliiimaate Chaaange right there, ha you see it! now do you believe?”
Keep reporting the record weather events!
This August’s temperature anomaly for the Southern Hemisphere will be a shock number (on the cooling side). It will be interesting to see if it penetrates the media’s AGW wall.
New Zealand has record snow accumulation and winter is barely half over.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/2008/08/20/12436e25acd8
Such is the way of things. When those who oppose the notion of global warming in its scientific and political senses see evidence that our opposition is correct – such as the short-term cooling WHEN, I might remind Beaker, we are absolutely SUPPOSED to be in the midst of a warming trend due to human industrial activity, of course we are going to say something about it. And we are at times probably guilty of assuming things will go on like this or get worse without variation when that is not yet substantiated. I will say, as Anthony notes, that those who favor the global warming hypothesis both scientifically and politically are far worse about citing specific weather events as evidence of climate change and are far worse about honestly evaluating the science of climate change, whether natural or man-made, than we who oppose the hypothesis. In addition they are far worse at criticizing their own chief spokespeople, such as Al Gore and James Hansen, when those do err in such methodology. I have never seen one liberal blogger, one liberal news commentator, one liberal politician say that Al Gore was wrong. The only person who was bold enough to do so on record and who had any kind of weight in the world was a British judge! How sad is that.
Some notable temperature anomolies:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Continent.jpg
Proof positive of a warm earth.
Mike, those temperatures are RAW data. They haven’t been adjusted yet.
Off topic: for those who are posting long URL’s, you can shorten them by copying the URL and going to tinyurl.com to to create a short URL. For instance the map that Anthony scanned is available at
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/fullMaps_Wd.nsf/luFullMap/DB762E9558DF4791852573BF0056A3C1/$File/noaa_WT_wrl071130.pdf?OpenElement
which is shortened to http://tinyurl.com/5zq6gf
I was listening to the radio today and the station uses CNN for it’s “news.” They were having updates on “tropical storm flo” or whatever it is in Florida. My gosh, it’s dumped 3 INCHES of rain and has winds in excess of 35 MILES PER HOUR. And when it gets into the warm waters of the gulf it will probably INTENSIFY.
c’mon people, we have Thunderstorms bigger than that. I had to smile, but it was just so STUPID.
O.K. I’m getting really distrustful of all this AVG temperature stuff. Is there anywhere that the data for both highs and lows is sorted out?
All I can say is:
Thanks for the collection of select anecdotes. But they by themselves are meaningless. Time and resources are being wasted.
“beaker” is correct. The unscientific random and select use of anecdotes is just bad science. As easily as we can find cooling anecdotes, so can others also find warming anecdotes.
I think beaker’s advice ought to be seriously heeded. Focus on assembling related data points to establish a trend, rather than cherry picking isolated incidences from a chaotic system.