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…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly savethesharks says: February 8, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Most people have not taken calculus or statistics. While one could explain to them what a bell curve is and how the area under it represents probability this would take some time and Krugman did not do this. Hansen’s loaded dice comparison is something almost anyone can understand.
As for arguments from authority, they are used constructively all the time. If your mechanic says you need a new transmission and you don’t know much about cars you might get a couple more expert opinions, and if they agree you get the new transmission. Suppose instead you then went to a blog run by someone who had not studied auto repair, does not read standard auto mechanics magazines because he does not want to pay for them, does not have diagnostic equipment, and he tells you the bad transition stuff is a lie and you should not worry one wit about the funny noises coming from your car. Who would you believe?
Most people do not have the training to follow the science in any depth. For them the issue is figuring out who to trust. I am not saying they should blindly trust authority. They should be skeptical and ask questions. But that is not what is going on on this blog or others like it.
Relative!
If a station records 100 record highs and 100 record lows over a 10 year period then the ratio would be 1 to 1.
If over the next 10 years the same station then records 3 Record highs and 1 Record Low then the ratio would be 3 to 1.
The 1 to 1 period would correspond to a time of very ‘interesting’ weather while the 3 to 1 period would correspond to a more ‘boring’ period.
I think another “i” would be quite in order, maybe even an improvement. Details matter.
So, is Krugman having to take up the warmist cause because the population has lost all faith in Mann and his ilk? Desperate times and desperate measures, eh?
I wonder if Paul Krugman can spot peanut butter in the pantry…
The trouble with his little graph example is the Earth has now been verified to be cooling and his red curve is moving to the left, not right. What a devious a–. Whatever respect I held for him is forever gone.
As the AGW cult collapses and loses members that have been successfully de-programmed either on their own intelligence or with the help of concerned friends and family, we should see more of these authoritative Cardinal figures appearing on the scene in an attempt to slow the mass exit, you can bet on it!
Who’s to say, anyway, that the extreme weather PDF remains invariant with a change in average global surface air temperature?
Mr. Krugman is making a naive error, assuming what no one knows.
His essay falls under Wolfgang Pauli’s critical rule: “Not only is it not right, it’s not even wrong!”
Where to start with these few words?
“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.”
“casual denier arguments”? Just what are casual arguments? I suppose the casual insult term “denier” counts along with ‘its getting warm outside’ is another and proving climate change did ‘it’ did what exactly? Climate does change, its what climate does and has always done, no stasis with climate or weather just constant natural cyclic change. Krugman cannot even tell the difference between climate change and CAGW, one is a fact and one is a theory.
“what you,re looking for is a pattern” And BINGO we have found a pattern straight away and no super computer models are needed at all! The pattern is ‘natural cyclic climate variation’ and guess what? We have evidence that NCCV has been happening for hundreds of millions of years. So in fact the pattern we are looking for is right there under our noses and has been all along, thanks to Mr Krugman we have found it.
The pattern is natural and cyclic, three cheers for Mr Krugman who has just found the answer we have all been looking for.
“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.”
He shoots and he scores, boy this guy is smokin today eh? Yes there has been a great deal of misunderstanding and much is based around flawed computer models, the relationship between temperature and weather events is a great place to start because there is an inverse relationship so no wonder it has been misunderstood, the warmer(as measured by warmists) it gets the fewer storms we see and the less power and intensity they are showing, so the models were wrong, we see the opposite effect occurring, Mr Krugman does it again.
Here we have a man that claims to see the pattern, a pattern that we cannot and a pattern for which the evidence is non existent. The priests of ancient Greece and Rome would divine the future by examining the fresh entrails of a goat or chicken, ordinary people could not see this but the priests could.
I see a pattern in the clouds right now, if you were to look from a short distance away you would never see my pattern at all and the question is who is right and who is the denier? The urge to see pattern in nature from cloud gazing to goat entrails to the climate is as old as humanity, Mr Krugman sees because he wants to see, he believes so he cannot see that others cannot see and he cannot accept he may be mistaken so he attacks others who fail to see and fail to believe.
I fail to see the pattern so I am a denier of the faith/truth, the cloud he is so sure has a definite pattern is simply a cloud to me therefore I am a denier of the truth as he believes it to be.
So a big thank you to Mr Krugman, he has explained his position so well it cannot fail to recruit more sceptics, it is in fact the finest way to make an open minded person veer toward scepticism. A prize for services to climate realism should be sent to Krugman ASAP, he fully deserves it.
Dan Lee says:
February 8, 2011 at 6:05 pm
And the solution to high food prices due to “bad weather” is what? To make food prices even higher by increasing the cost of the fuel needed to get it to market?
This guy’s an economist?
More like a political reassurance man. Have watched him before on other topics.
Delivers with a monolith stone face.
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.
Mike says:
February 8, 2011 at 8:57 pm
I am not saying they should blindly trust authority. They should be skeptical and ask questions. But that is not what is going on on this blog or others like it.
Therefore, Mike, maybe the problem is that you don’t know how to read [Dr. Ryan Maue’s main blog post above] or to interpret graphs [his “Figure” above] yourself?
Do you see the “obvious pattern” which answers a question that Krugman intentionally didn’t look into – along with you – apparently because he don’t need no stinking facts?
Absolutely stunning, Mike!
OK, I’m a Social Scientist but looking at his graphs I was wondering…If the temperature rises wouldn’t the (undefined) “Threshold” value rise too?
Anyone could get a Nobel Prize these days…
Couldn’t Krugman achieve the same result by simply changing the variance (shape of the curve) around the “mean?” Or by using a asymmetrical curve? Why move the curve? There are all kinds of different ways you can make up the answer…
Droughts happen just as floods happen as weather patterns go through their unstoppable paths. I can’t believe they still use weather events to prop up the failing theory of global warming. The climate has been changing for 5 billion years on this planet…and the fact that it changes a little within 100 years is suddenly a big deal……The entire name of climate change is missing the boat…its global warming and it has always been. Ask any of the public…thats what they know it as. Climate will continue to change as it always does whether Man is here or not. We can’t stop it.
Every prediction is based upon what is the most famous weather event of the time, and hence if something happens, by golly it must be global warming. We have all been through this, and the more they publicize the weakness of their theory by pointing to tragedies and saying “hey that is global warming” the stupider they will look.
I can’t wait for these charletons to be thrown into the street and given jobs that they can do to some degree.
I am pretty sure they can all say “Would you like fries with that” pretty well. Abusing statistics and such since their theories did not pan out since 2003 is the sure sign that they couldn’t even admit they were wrong. If they commited crimes after that date in order to cover-up their mistakes instead of simply admitting they were wrong… I hope they do meet Bubba and Bubba makes some good friends.
Science is going down the drain as time drags on. I used to think the Virginia thing was a bad idea, but over the last few months I have started to come around. Maybe the useful idiots who post here and elsewhere talking about how weather means climate when they mean it does can also get their just-deserts. They can also probably say “would you like fries with that.”
Maybe I am rambling a little…but posts such as Mike bring this out in me. I Appologize to all except those idiots who still believe we are warming up. .7C in a century is very scary now….
The argument is hilarious. Weather will become more extreme. Or, as it were, less average. How do we know? Because of the averages.
Krugman manages to be both non-tangential and obtuse in such a short article. Was it edited down from something longer? jk
Dr Ryan, while you’re on 🙂 … would be great if you’d do an article on how your latent heat flux map at http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/lh_flux.html is derived. What appears to happen in the north atlantic is fascinating.
[ryanm: the NCEP GFS model generates the Latent Heat flux products using the typical bulk formulation. The Arctic blasts, one after another, behind the powerful extratropical cyclones in the Atlantic are being modified by the warmer ocean surface…Hence, strong, almost extreme upward LH flux. I updated the graphics through 192 hours, and made them bigger]
Krugman is also on Project Syndicate, the Soros globalization project.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/contributor/6
Whenever i see an economist coming from there, i expect him to act as mouthpiece for Soros, spruiking what Soros wants you to hear.
What a silly graphic !
Extreme events occur on both sides of the curve, those on right become more likely on the left side less likely. simply ignoring half the information, is below primary school level.
And guess what, the “less likely” events are what the northern hemisphere currently experiences.
And guess why ?
Because current temperatures (UAH) are below “average”, globally, and that means Krugman’s curve is currently actually right in the middle.
Basic question – has Krugman justified the depiction of a straight right-shift of his imaginary distribution? Why has he kept the same shape? Why not a flattening of the peak and increasing events on both tails? Why is it depicted as a symmetrical distribution?
Looks like pure guesswork with no scientific basis. The sort of thing that they wish to attack others for. But the good consensus will stay silent on this, rather than pointing out the weakness of the arguments behind the misleading hype.
[ryanm: how dare you question Dr. Krugman — the audacity]
The “bell shaped” curve figures are interesting. Most likely the probability distribution is a normal or probably even a log-normal distribution, not the near Lorentzian that he has drawn. However, I’m sure it’s just an “eye guide”. My issue with his idea is that the distribution will simply shift upward. How does he know this? How does he know it won’t just be a broading or even decrease in width? Or a shift and decrease in width? Or an increase in height? There’re three parameters in a normal probabilty distribution. And he knows exactly how each will respond to global warming?
Looks like more simplistic handwaiving in lieu of real scientific discourse.
“The storm god is unhappy with your sins and will punish you with thunder and rain. Fire god will rain burning rocks and lava on you. Sungod will withhold food from you and devastate your crops. Sea god will lift the seas and bring a flood upon your houses! Humans, lower your voices, prostrate yourselves, seek not knowledge, be poor…and appease the gods, their prophets and the kings”
See how much humanity has progressed in the last 5000 years…theocracy all over again and all because they want to make a little money from a trace gas.
Surely we get “extreme” weather events at both ends of that distribution? Those associated with heat at one end (hurricanes) and those associated with cold at the other (ice fairs on the Thames). By shifting to the “hot” end we’ll have the same amount of extreme events but the balance will change?
Or doesn’t it work like that?
To Rbateman, BaaHumbug and others who have discussed the pdf of global weather at the top of the article:
This was the first thing that jumped out at me, too. If the most often-occurring weather is ‘normal’ weather, then that’s around about the mode on the diagram. Thus, both tails represent ‘extremes’ of weather. So, shifting the curve has no effect on the frequency of extreme events – it just changes their character.
Assuming of course you can boil down climate to a single axis like that.
Every time one of these idiots opens there mouth and says something like this it just brings down the reputation of all science.
I am reminded of one animal documentary where some fruit tree dropped fermenting fruit onto the group – to be eaten by animals from baboons to elephants, which then wondered around in a drunken state to the hilarity of the audience.
The pickings were just too rich and they couldn’t help making a fool of themselves.
Global weather is that fruit tree and this is one more who has taken too much and is talking gibberish.