Gradual Trends and Extreme Events
Professor Krugman: “I’ve spent a lot of the last several days reading about climate change, extreme weather events, food prices, and so on. And one thing that became clear to me is that there’s widespread misunderstanding of the relationship between the gradual trend of rising temperatures and the extreme weather events that have become so much more common. What I’m about to say may seem obvious, because it is obvious, at least if you approach it the right way; but I still think it needs saying.”
“The point is that the usual casual denier arguments — it’s cold outside; you can’t prove that climate change did it — miss the point. What you’re looking for is a pattern. And that pattern is obvious.”
from Ryan Maue: January 2011 Global Tropical Cyclone Update
During the last 12-months on planet Earth, 68 tropical cyclones occurred. This is near the record low of 66, which was set last month. Now for over 4-years, global tropical cyclone energy and frequency has plummeted to the lowest levels observed in our historical record.
This is all the evidence that Krugman needs to convince himself of the perils of climate change. Expect to see this (tired) argument parroted throughout the mainstream (liberal) media during the next few days, and when the next storm or weather event pops up. It is almost word for word from the Trenberth AMS talk in Seattle last month.
The Climate Science Rapid Response Team at work…
It’s more like the “probability of extreme wild claims by climate alarmists” that happens when one has the “red warming graph” shown above in one’s brain. Mental models can shape how one perceives the world. One can take on a mental model such as the good Professor Krugman does and come up with the thoughts that he utters, the belief stricken do it all the time… the challenge with mental models is that they are not the territory! When the map does not map well or accurately to the objective reality of Nature you’re going to just be making stuff up and others will have no choice but to point this out to you and if you keep making utterances from a mental model that miss maps reality you’re, well, going to get people smiling about you (to be polite about it).
“Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.” – Alfred Korzybski
“The meaning of the world is the separation of wish and fact.” – KURT GÖDEL
Unfortunately those spreading “alarm” with climate doomsday scenarios seem to have an endarkened vision of the future that Nature keeps falsifying. Neither the skeptics, “deniers”, alarmists nor even I are the final judge, the Objective Reality of Nature reserves that role exclusively to itself (no entity intended nor implied) and has been doing an exquisite job of educating the alarmists that their soothsaying, ahem, projections are well, falling well neigh on the side of doomsday while Nature is well cycling along just fine as usual.
At it’s core science is skeptical. Consensus is supposed to be derived not from Agreement on Reality but by the validation or refutation of the specific scientific claims being made about Reality that can be OPENLY VERIFIED. The scientist must validate the claims themselves and not just take another scientists word for it on trust, otherwise they fall into the Agreement Reality Trap that politicians and regular mere humans fall into when they agree without actually taking the time to verify the facts themselves.
In science it’s very important to have a mental map that questions the mental map itself! At it’s core science is skeptical. This is why it is so crucial that experimental and observational data are so important, without accurate data one has a much reduced chance of determining if one’s mental map is anywhere near objective reality. Where conclusions are drawn from an incorrect map one is very likely to get it wrong. In rare cases one might be able to guess (e.g. Einstein) but the systems of weather and long term climate are of such complexity that observational data and experimental data are crucial for a comprehensive verifiable attempt to understand the climate of the Earth, Moon, Sol and Milky Way systems and how they influence day to day weather.
The importance of the Scientific Method and the Philosophy of Science can’t be understated. Clearly the good professor needs to bone up on the scientific method and how it works. A few of the aspects of the scientific method that the good professor fails to grasp in his writing and comments are the following:
Quoting from “On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition (2009) “:
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192
“Though “On Being a Scientist” is aimed primarily at graduate students and beginning researchers, its lessons apply to all scientists at all stages of their scientific careers. In particular, senior scientists have a special responsibility in upholding the highest standards for conduct, serving as role models for students and young scientists, designing educational programs, and responding to alleged violations of ethical norms. Senior scientists can themselves gain a new appreciation for the importance of ethical issues by discussing with their students what had previously been largely tacit knowledge. In the process, they help provide the leadership that is essential for high standards of conduct to be maintained.”
“Given the expectation that data will be accessible, researchers who refuse to share the evidentiary basis behind their conclusions, or the materials needed to replicate published experiments, fail to maintain the standards of science.”
“Some forms of data undergo extensive analysis before being recorded; consequently, sharing those data can require sharing the software and sometimes the hardware used to analyze them.”
“Science is largely a self-regulating community. Though government regulates some aspects of research, the research community is the source of most of the standards and practices to which researchers are expected to adhere.”
“Scientists and their institutions should act to discourage questionable research practices (QRPs) through a broad range of formal and informal methods in the research environment.”
“The circumstances surrounding potential violations of scientific standards are so varied that it is impossible to lay out a checklist of what should be done. Suspicions are best raised in the form of questions rather than allegations. Expressing concern about a situation or asking for clarification generally works better than making charges.”
“Researchers have a professional obligation to perform research and present the results of that research as objectively and as accurately as possible. When they become advocates on an issue, they may be perceived by their colleagues and by members of the public as biased. But researchers also have the right to express their convictions and work for social change, and these activities need not undercut a rigorous commitment to objectivity in research.”
“Over many centuries, researchers have developed professional standards designed to enhance the progress of science and to avoid or minimize the difficulties of research. Though these standards are rarely expressed in formal codes, they nevertheless establish widely accepted ways of doing research and interacting with others. Researchers expect that their colleagues will adhere to and promote these standards. Those who violate these standards will lose the respect of their peers and may even destroy their careers. Researchers have three sets of obligations that motivate their adherence to professional standards.
First, researchers have an obligation to honor the trust that their colleagues place in them. Science is a cumulative enterprise in which new research builds on previous results. If research results are inaccurate, other researchers will waste time and resources trying to replicate or extend those results. Irresponsible actions can impede an entire field of research or send it in a wrong direction, and progress in that field may slow. Imbedded in this trust is a responsibility of researchers to mentor the next generation who will build their work on the current research discoveries.
Second, researchers have an obligation to themselves. Irresponsible conduct in research can make it impossible to achieve a goal, whether that goal is earning a degree, renewing a grant, achieving tenure, or maintaining a reputation as a productive and honest researcher. Adhering to professional standards builds personal integrity in a research career.
Third, because scientific results greatly influence society, researchers have an obligation to act in ways that serve the public. Some scientific results directly affect the health and well-being of individuals, as in the case of clinical trials or toxicological studies. Science also is used by policy makers and voters to make informed decisions on such pressing issues as climate change, stem cell research, and the mitigation of natural hazards. Taxpayer dollars fund the grants that support much research. And even when scientific results have no immediate applications—as when research reveals new information about the universe or the fundamental constituents of matter—new knowledge speaks to our sense of wonder and paves the way for future advances.
By considering all these obligations — toward other researchers, toward oneself, and toward the public — a researcher is more likely to make responsible choices. When beginning researchers are learning these obligations and standards of science, the advising and mentoring of more-experienced scientists is essential.
…
THE TREATMENT Of DATA
In order to conduct research responsibly, graduate students need to understand how to treat data correctly. In 2002, the editors of the Journal of Cell Biology began to test the images in all accepted manuscripts to see if they had been altered in ways that violated the journal’s guidelines. About a quarter of the papers had images that showed evidence of inappropriate manipulation. The editors requested the original data for these papers, compared the original data with the submitted images, and required that figures be remade to accord with the guidelines. In about 1 percent of the papers, the editors found evidence for what they termed “fraudulent manipulation” that affected conclusions drawn in the paper, resulting in the papers’ rejection.
Researchers who manipulate their data in ways that deceive others, even if the manipulation seems insignificant at the time, are violating both the basic values and widely accepted professional standards of science. Researchers draw conclusions based on their observations of nature. If data are altered to present a case that is stronger than the data warrant, researchers fail to fulfill all three of the obligations described at the beginning of this guide. They mislead their colleagues and potentially impede progress in their field or research. They undermine their own authority and trustworthiness as researchers. And they introduce information into the scientific record that could cause harm to the broader society, as when the dangers of a medical treatment are understated.
This is particularly important in an age in which the Internet allows for an almost uncontrollably fast and extensive spread of information to an increasingly broad audience. Misleading or inaccurate data can thus have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences of a magnitude not known before the Internet and other modern communication technologies.
Misleading data can arise from poor experimental design or careless measurements as well as from improper manipulation. Over time, researchers have developed and have continually improved methods and tools designed to maintain the integrity of research. Some of these methods and tools are used within specific fields of research, such as statistical tests of significance, double-blind trials, and proper phrasing of questions on surveys. Others apply across all research fields, such as describing to others what one has done so that research data and results can be verified and extended.
Because of the critical importance of methods, scientific papers must include a description of the procedures used to produce the data, sufficient to permit reviewers and readers of a scientific paper to evaluate not only the validity of the data but also the reliability of the methods used to derive those data. If this information is not available, other researchers may be less likely to accept the data and the conclusions drawn from them. They also may be unable to reproduce accurately the conditions under which the data were derived.
The best methods will count for little if data are recorded incorrectly or haphazardly. The requirements for data collection differ among disciplines and research groups, but researchers have a fundamental obligation to create and maintain an accurate, accessible, and permanent record of what they have done in sufficient detail for others to check and replicate their work. Depending on the field, this obligation may require entering data into bound notebooks with sequentially numbered pages using permanent ink, using a computer application with secure data entry fields, identifying when and where work was done, and retaining data for specified lengths of time. In much industrial research and in some academic research, data notebooks need to be signed and dated by a witness on a daily basis.
Unfortunately, beginning researchers often receive little or no formal training in recording, analyzing, storing, or sharing data. Regularly scheduled meetings to discuss data issues and policies maintained by research groups and institutions can establish clear expectations and responsibilities.”
http://www.btc.iitb.ac.in/library/On_being_a_scientist.pdf
The comments lauding Krugman after his piece are truly rediculous. He is writting to an echo chamber of people with no understnding whatsoever but with a wonderful list of talking points.
It doesn’t seem to bother any of them that the idea of more extreme events is absolutely not a part of the original or any widely held AGW theory.
[ryanm: by all means re-post those comments here surrounded by blockquotes, and a /sarc]
AGW basic problem is the inherent implausibility of their core belief being based on science: “We are all doomed, doomed I say, so give me a lot of money and power.”
Mike says:
February 8, 2011 at 6:27 pm
It is plausible that the recent up tick in extreme weather events is related to climate change.
==================================================
Mike, could you please provide any reference to any up tick in any extreme weather event.
…there are none, you bought into the lie
Hey! I am impressed. He is EPA material.
But. But. But. It ain’t getting no warmer no more. The trend has reached its end. That pattern no longer matters, for the warm has left the farm. They need to hush, rest on their laurels, and wait for the warming to come back. But, alack and alas, they’ve pushed it too far and their laurels are bitten by frost.
If you didn’t know it, I once was a poet, and none could be found who was finer. But Anthony’s blog has cleared up the fog, and now I’m climate denier.
Well, what more proof do you need than that plot.
Reminds me of an old Anacin (or Bufferin, etc.) commercial with [ostensibly] a medical professional in a white lab coat holding a clipboard next to an animation of a graph showing how their analgesic “gets to your headache 47% faster than the leading aspirin”.
Btway, Krugman is not a professor of climatology or meteorology or any other climate science. Like IPCC head Pachauri, like Lord Stern of UK, Krugman is an economist.
[ryanm: sarcasm my dear]
Just what the world needs……..
Another self-aggrandising, arrogant jerk who thinks that eight hours reading on the Internet makes him a leading authority on the Earth’s climate.
So the blue (cool) standard deviation curve represents the climate in 1955 the best of all possible climates and the red (hot) curve represents the climate now.
Ah the penny drops, as a simple layman now I understand.
It’s worse than I thought.
Plagarism. (Adding anything else would be excessive)
Climate Professor Paul Krugman destroys deniers with his knowledge
Hey, where’s the /sarc tag??☺
There’s something wrong with your graph of storms.
I need to ‘adjust’ my head to see Krugman’s obvious trend.
Perhaps somebody needs to read up on climate science for a few days like Krugman did, and correct that.
[yes, lame sarc]
Extreme weather events happen at both ends of the scale, hot and cold.
Assuming Krugmans bell curve is representative of the climate system, then there should be less extreme cold events.
So the last 3 winters in the Northern Hemisphere………………?
Mike says:
February 8, 2011 at 6:27 pm
“My experience working with students is that most people won’t understand the graphs and what the shaded areas mean.”
“Since all but handful of the qualified experts see GHG emissions as leading to significant climate change, it makes sense to find ways to reduce our GHG emissions.”
==============================
Really? A handful??
And do you really think your “students” are that stupid??
Your “arguments from authority” laced throughout your post, are quite revolting.
If you are indeed a teacher or professor, then you should be ashamed to succumbing to such group-think and anti-logic.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Breathtaking that Krugman didn’t conceive, even if his graph is correct, that it would mean fewer cold-related “extreme” events to counter increased heat-related events. I thought of it as soon as I looked at his chart as did several of the other people here.
Alas, we aren’t Nobel-prize material….
Of course, greenhouse gases should produce more warmth when the humidity is low – at the poles and during the winter. I highly doubt that we need to worry much about “extreme” heat related events during the winter.
Because of the recent weather events in Australia and stupid comments similar to Krugman’s being discussed in Australian media ,JoNova has come up with this brilliant post on her site. Well worth reading
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/questions-real-journalists-ought-to-be-asking-about-yasi/
Cross posted at the NYT-
Perhaps the most common “extreme event” is a Tropical Cyclone/Hurricane/Typhoon, which of course suck up tremendous amounts of excess heat energy and turn it into wind energy, etc. Since Paul Krugman’s graphical example shows a shift to higher temperatures, we should be seeing more of Cyclonic Energy, right?
But Global Accumlated Cyclone Energy (ACE) is at record lows and has a slight downtrend.
So if Paul Krugman’s theory about fat tails is correct, then the temperature pdf should be shifted to the left, not the right, based upon the ACE data.
That would mean we should be seeing more extreme cold events, like blizzards and snowfall in otherwise warm places.
Has anyone noticed if that is happening during the Northern Hemisphere winter at all?
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Unsurprisingly, Paul “Enron” Krugman, possibly the most often-wrong economist in America, spends several days researching a subject and his main take-away is the opposite of reality.
Just to sum things up.
If I (perish the thought) won a Nobel prize, I would take the cash but throw the little statue in the trash on the way out. And I would *never* mention it again, lest I lose all credibility in more refined circles.
Even assuming he is correct it still only would show that the planet is getting warmer. It does not prove AGW is causing the heating. But if I remember correctly the heat content in the oceans have flattlined for 6 years so what exactly did he “prove” that was so obvious?
After reading the article and finding it without any substance, I especially loved this post in the NYTimes
Julian Eaton
Weehawken, New Jersey
February 8th, 2011
9:20 amA cogent & effective breakdown! If this concise argument doesn’t assuage climate change deniers, then nothing will!
I guess an education and understanding of science and engineering handicaps those of us who can immediately see through Krugman’s article, specifically it is nothing short of ridiculous for it’s lack of data or logic connecting his claim that slight temperature increases cause more extreme events. Is he totally unaware of the data on Hurricanes, that is obvious to anyone living on the east coast?
His curve is just a pure fabrication, no wonder his economics is similarly screwed up.
I wonder if his curves will merit a Nobel Prize in Science. After all Gore got one for similar fabrications.
Krugman was a paid, former-advisor to Enron, the company that cooked up the energy trading scheme.
We all know how that worked out.
“[ryanm: how do you quantify a recent “uptick” — just asking]” This was in response to my comment above @ur momisuglyFebruary 8, 2011 at 6:27 pm. A few others asked this as well. Below are some examples.
The 2010 heat wave: 7 excruciating climate records
Los Angelenos have been burning up — but they’re not the only ones who have endured unprecedented temperatures this past year
posted on September 28, 2010, at 11:22 AM
http://theweek.com/article/index/205871/the-2010-heat-wave-7-excruciating-climate-records
—————————————————-
February 24, 2010
Update on Global Drought Patterns
Although precipitation has increased in many areas of the globe, the area under drought has also increased. Drought duration and intensity has also increased. While regional droughts have occurred in the past, the widespread spatial extent of current droughts is broadly consistent with expected changes in the hydrologic cycle under warming. Water vapour increases with increasing global temperature, due to increased evaporation where surface moisture is available, and this tends to increase precipitation. However, increased continental temperatures are expected to lead to greater evaporation and drying, which is particularly important in dry regions where surface moisture is limited.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/24/update-on-global-drought-patterns-ipcc-take-note/
———————————————————————————
Climate Risks: Lessons from 2010’s Extreme Weather
Submitted by Jay Gulledge | 08/23/2010
Last fall I posted a blog about the unusual number and severity of extreme weather events that have been striking around the globe for the past several years. That entry focused on the alternating severe drought and heavy flooding in Atlanta in 2007-2009 as an example of the roller coaster ride that climate change is likely to be. As every dutiful scientist does, I stopped short of blaming those individual weather events on global warming, but I am also careful to point out that it is scientifically unsound to claim that the confluence of extreme weather events in recent years is not associated with global warming; I’ll return to this question later. […] Returning to the question everyone wants answered: What can we say about the connection between these events and climate change? As usual, there is no definitive answer about these specific events, but direct observations show that extreme weather events have become more frequent in the past half-century, and in the extreme cases that have been studied, the mechanisms are those that one would expect from global warming.
http://www.pewclimate.org/blog/gulledgej/climate-risks-lessons-from-2010%E2%80%99s-extreme-weather
Listen to Krugman, for he is a Nobel Prize winner Like AlGore, and Pachauri.
Oh, wait….
Never mind…
Recpt: Oh Dr Corbyn?
Dr C: Yes.
Recpt: Your next patient is here to see you now.
Dr C: Send him in.
Recpt: Right this way Mr Krugman