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…
Astonishing ignorance and arrogance of Professor. Why he supposes that frequency distribution of extremal events follows Gaussian bell-curve? It is well known that it does not, and appropriate distribution is hyperbolic (Zipf’s law). Climate is a system, not an assemblage of independent random variables. Gaussian statistics is not applicable to behavior of complex systems.
Krugman, our own Mike and fellow AGW propagandists (who I don’t feel entirely believe their own assertions for some reason), would do well to read the speech of another great nobel prize winner, then take a long cold look at the level of certainty and observational evidence (as opposed to empty assertion, tautology and spin) in their prognostications:
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf
(Richard Feynman coins ‘cargo cult’).
@BenH, February 8, 2011 at 6:05 pm:
And after all this time we’re still waiting..
The man bent over, squeezed between his height extenders and crawled upwards. It took some fierce pushing but once inside, darkness fell but the sounds made it an alien disillusion.
Where can a bean counter go to count the missing beans?
The knowledge of his own abyss came with the pressing matter. Had it not starred back at him before he entered? He was sure of it. Which meant, he might be in the right place after all.
Beans are beans in all matter of shapes and forms, it don’t matter non.
Trying to make heads and tails of it all he went on the offensive with the last great push. The best defense is offense! He was so deep inside now, so far up his own outgassing facility he could even feel his intestines when his bowl moved.
And move it did! But was it in defense of violation of this most horrid of misaligned yoga position or was it himself delivering an epiphany by proxy of once read beans?
Everybody who knows something about stastistics and meteorology should know the classical paper on Nile floods. There is a very long time series record of Nile peak levels, and on the basis of this record for the fist time the Zipf’s law was established outside the realm of linguistics. After this, the same distribution was found in occurence of earthquakes by magnitude, distribution of biological species by taxonomy and many other systemic features.
Wow, he has spent several days reading about climate change. He must be ready for his PhD then. There is a gradual trend of rising temperatures but it is from about 1600. Plot the monthly HadCRUT3 data. There has been no warming since Jan 1998. Fact. Carbon dioxide levels have risen by about 26 ppm since then. Fact.
i love the fact that we live in an age now, where some so called expert pulls rank over our own sense of touch. yes, when you walk outside and it’s -35 and you feel the cold, it’s really not cold, it’s warm. Why is it warm? because the expert told us so!. Even though, the frigged temperatures cracked the engine block on your car and caused water pipes in your house to burst…. it’s still warm. Even though, today, they are currently warning people to not expose bare skin to these temperatures for longer than 15 minutes or the result will be frost bite….. it’s still warm. Want the truth about global warming or climate change or climate truthiness? walk out side and use your fuckin’ common sense.
Weather is not climate. These heat records prove global warming no more than cold records in winter prove global cooling. You are aware of the El Nino that has persisted for the previous two years?
This article claims that there has been an “unusual number and severity of extreme weather events around the globe,” but nowhere does it provide evidence that this statement is true. The links provided as evidence within the article merely restate the original premise and offer no actual evidence. For example, the main article highlights “extreme weather events have become more frequent” with this URL, but that link connects to an article that only restates the premise again, and even offers outright falsehoods: “The power and frequency of Atlantic hurricanes have increased substantially in recent decades.” This is directly contradicted by the latest report on global tropical cyclone activity, which states: “Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE] remains lowest in at least three decades, and expected to decrease even further.”
It’s easy to find media reports of heat waves, droughts, melting glaciers, disappearing ice caps; once one looks at the actual studies done on these phenomena a different picture usually appears. Heat waves caused by El Ninas, a naturally-occuring event not related to “climate change”; glaciers retreating in some locations, but growing in others; winds blowing ice out of the area, and not melting at all. The list goes on and on. It’s always better to look at the primary sources for scientific information rather than to rely on press releases.
Ack! I left a blockquote open somewhere. Can the editors patch that up?
[Fixed ? Robt]
One would have expected better from a Nobel Laureate, although admittedly many economics laureates do not have a good track record when trying to undersatnd the real world in which we live (e.g. Scholes and Merton and Long Term Capital Management). However, for Krugman to stipulate a Gaussian distribution and then to shift it to the right without affecting the pattern in any other way is making not one but several assumptions which have yet to be proven is a shoddy piece of work.
Mike
What poor references: They do not in support your opinion.
The cherry picked heat events do not provide evidence of an up-tick.
Mike the article you quoted on droughts does not say there is an up tick. It does provide some interesting data. Look at the conclusion and you will read>
‘The IPCC and the global warming alarmists continue to insist that droughts are becoming more frequent, more intense, more spatially extensive, and of longer duration. However, Sheffield et al. analyzed drought patterns at the global scale for the period 1950 to 2000, and found no evidence to support claims of increasing drought activity.
Enough said. ‘
Your third reference links to speculation by a scientist. But, the scientist provides zero data to support the speculation. Whenever I have looked for data on increases of extreme events I find that the alamist lacks useful data. They can cite cherry picked events which can be impressive. But the trend data does not support the alamist position. After all, the question is not “are there extreme weather events?’. The questions is are these events increasing in any measurable way? The only evidence you have provided is that they are not.
How can you expect anyone to be convinced by that?
As most of us have noted, AGW theory should lead to fewer storms. The amplification of warming at the poles creates less differences in temperatures. It’s that difference that fuels many storms. But hey, why let facts get in the way of some good propaganda.
Also, Mike’s analogy of a car engine is so poor it makes one wonder about his critical thinking abilities. Car engines are built by people. They are completely understood. There a few, if any, unknowns that come into play. Climate is basically a huge unknown. New insights occur yearly. To claim an expert in climate knows as much about climate as as expert mechanic knows about engines is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.
@ur momisugly Ken Hall says: February 9, 2011 at 2:00 am
Ken,
You have less risk of getting ripped off asking several qualified mechanics then asking an untrained person. And it is safer to risk getting ripped off on occasion than to risk causing an accident. There is no risk free path. If it turns out the scientists are wrong, and we acted to reduce GHG emissions, we will have wasted money. If it turns out they are right and we do nothing, we are in deep trouble. It is about balancing relative risks.
Your charge of corruption on the scientists is not supported by the reviews of several independent commissions. Even if some scientists were found to be corrupt it would be hard to explain how scientists from every major country where all bought off. And scientists do not keep the grant money they get. They are mostly on salary.
Richard M says: February 9, 2011 at 7:22 am
Richard,
You raise a fair point. Thank you! If you replace the car mechanic with a medical doctor then the analogy holds better.
“It is plausible that the recent up tick in extreme weather events is related to climate change.”
What ‘recent up tick in extreme weather events’?
@ur momisugly JamesS says:February 9, 2011 at 6:05 am
I was asked about an up tick in extreme weather. It remains to be seen if they fit into a statistically robust climate pattern over time. The evidence I gave is from fairly mainstream sources and would be accepted as evidence (not as proof) in most contexts. You are free to be skeptical, and should be, until more definitive studies become available. But there is a difference between healthly skepticism and paranoidal cynicism.
You might check out the “fire marshal” analogy I used in a similar thread: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/08/food-fight/#comment-594092
Dr. Krugman, why is the x axis unlabeled? Please insert the exact numbers your hours of research have determined are appropriate. Use whatever scale you want C or F. Inquiring minds want to know exactly where the change in slope in your distribution occurs from positive to negative. What is the ideal temperature? Please round to the nearest .ooox. Thanks in advance for your scholarly addition to the climate debate. /sarc
Mike
What “independent commissions”? When you tell a bald faced lie like that around here people notice. Commissions made up of former coworkers that refuse to even interview anyone other than the culprits about the facts of the case? are those the commissions you want us to accept.
Your claim that if the “scientists” (which is a mislabel) “…are right and we do nothing, we are in deep trouble” is a howler. Please give us some data that suggests warmer is worse in any practical way? More than half of the land in the Northern Hemisphere is North of me. More than 90% of the population is South of me. Today we have a balmy day at -20C. Human beings simply don’t agree with you. If you are worried about the heat go and live in the Yukon or Yakutia; land is cheap, heck you can afford beach property! If you want to farm there is a lot of farmland in Greenland that has been abandoned.
As for other life on the Earth . Warmer is better across the board in terms of diversity fecundity, pretty much any rational measure. If you have evidence otherwise I wait to hear it.
@Mike:
The problem with your articles is that none provided evidence of an uptick in extreme weather. The first article list a bunch of record highs closely grouped during the last summer when the El Nino was at full strength. The Russian heat wave was explained by NOAA thusly:
Where are the “unprecedented” record highs so far in this Northern Hemisphere winter? One would expect that if record highs in summer were caused by climate warming, then there should be an equivalent amount of record highs set during the winters as well.
So far for February, all the record highs in the US are clustered around South Florida, and are hardly extreme, and actually misleading. For example, Fort Myers set a record high for 3 Feb of 85F; however, the record high for the city is 92F — so is it really significant that a high was set on a particular day that is 7F less then the record for the month? I don’t see it as statistically significant.
Not typing well today; the record high for Fort Myers I mentioned is the record high for February, not an entire year.
There have been several comments about the ‘shape’ of the distribution, in addition to considering a ‘shift’ in the distribution shown in the graph.
Average recorded temperature (Taverage) is determined from the maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin). If there was a shift in one or the other, it would affect both the average value and the ‘shape’ of the distribution.
For example, if the minimum values shifted to ‘less cold’, it would shift the average up a bit, without necessarily shifting the Tmax values. The Krugman figures assume that everything shifts together, but there is some indication that Tmin’s have shifted up without the Tmax values changing concurrently.
Less Cold on the low end does not necessarily make it More Hot on the upper side of the curve.
Taking that thought another step, if extreme weather events are driven by differences in temperature, then moving Tmin and Tmax closer together would argue for LESS extreme weather, not more. At a qualitative level, a Tmin shift would be consistent with a shift in average temperature, but also with reduced ACE trends.
Mike says:
February 9, 2011 at 8:03 am
You are free to be skeptical, and should be, until more definitive studies become available. But there is a difference between healthly skepticism and paranoidal cynicism.
But there isn’t any difference between you, qua “Mike”, and a babbling bot. So, “Mission Accomplished”?
Professor Krugman has produced a scary little graphic showing that small trends in global warming/slight increases global temperature will shift the “probablity density curve” of storm frequency and thereby dramatically increase the area under the tail of the curve outside the threshold – and put us all in a bunch of danger. We’ll be subject to the insatiable whims of “extreme events.”
It’s a nice story, intended for nuanced, smart, nice people – our Ivy-Educated Elite Opinion Leaders (IEEOLs) – who know that small antecedants can have large concequences. Krugman knows that his IEEOLs understand the concept: while prepping at Choate, a few points in SAT score or a couple basis-points in GPA can mean the difference between Yale and (gasp!) Southern Connecticut State University. A foul wind blows North out of New Haven, and the Eli tragically becomes the Owl. Sad. If we could have done something but, instead, sat idly by? Tragic…
The problems with Krugman’s cute little example are legion, as are the reasons for the IEEOLs overestimation of their own knowledge of Everything (a later rant). First of all, his curve assumes there is actually a known relationship between global warming and the frequency of storms. For the timeframe from 1970 to the present, plot 12-month average global temperature data on top of the storm frequency data above, and you’ll see temperatures flat through the mid-1970s, then increase steadily and significantly through the mid-1990s, then level off with slight, but statistically insignificant, increases to the present.
Contrast the temperature plot with the storm frequency plot above – seasonal fluctuations, with several cyclical up-and-down trends (tied to el Nino and la Nina). With the temperature data we have a pattern of: flat-up-strongly-flat. And we’re comparing that to the weak pattern of: down-up-down-up-down-up-down seen in the storm data. Sure. Those are correlated…
Those 100% reliant on public funding for their research/livelihood, (and for their invitations to conferences in exotic places soon to be ravaged by global warming) know our IEEOLs understand the whole small-things-lead-to-big-results thing. And they also know that the IEEOLs think they know everything – or can learn everything as soon as other IEEOLs tell them what’s what. So the researchers milk both the understanding & cluelessness of the IEEOLs to collect all the grant money, all the CNN face-time, and all the Fijian ‘hot stone’ exfolliation rituals (combined with a hydrating Coconut Sugar Body Glow – of course!) at the best tropical spas soon to be swallowed by Al Gore’s angry sea…
Too bad, that in this case, the idea is just bunk.
Chalk one up for the intellectually dishonest leading the blind…
(Sorry to any SCSU Owls out there, but the school’s location between Choate and Yale made it an unavoidable target. And I’m an SCSU grad, so I can indirectly hate on the school all I want…)
“Mike says:
February 8, 2011 at 8:32 pm
“[ryanm: how do you quantify a recent “uptick” — just asking]” This was in response to my comment above @February 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”
In the Midwest and Northeast snow and extreme cold temperatures have been the rule in Winter.
How Mike can ignore these facts and use a two week heatwave, ( Weather=Climate, it’s ok when you do it right ?) to justify the outrageous position that it provides evidence of “Globalized Warming”, and its fictitious generalized, self-contradictory, dangers,
while completely ignoring the far more persistent and far more dangerous LOW winter temperatures, I cannot understand.
“paranoidal cynicism” That seems to be the most common trait I find among warmists…now why is that?
You guys are so hell-bent on thinking that man is causing all change in the climate, and anyone who does not toe the line of the “great and powerful OZ” is ostracized, risks losing their funds, and above all else is hampered by peer review policies that make their work take twice as long.
I tend to think that you insult sceptics and subconsciously realize that you exhibit the same characteristics you accuse us of. Deniers? Yes, you deny the scientific method and refuse to refute the null hypothesis on your theory. No amount of weather data will ever prove your theory, the only thing that will is what proves any other theory in science…refute the null hypothesis that any climate change is not natural. go do that and then come back here with policy decisions. Until then, you are just being a paranoid cynic.
Trenberth and Krugman, the blind leading the blind. The global man made warming theory is already dead, and this is because their models have got the entire atmospheric circulation ass backwords. They predicted over time the atmospheric circulation would evolve into an ever increasing +AO ,well it has been evolving into an ever increasing -AO. Next they predicted a lower tropospheric hot spot over the equator, in response to positive feedbacks with water vapor, due to an increase in CO2, that has not happened. Third they said out going long wave radiation would decrease, that has been on the increase. Fourth ,they said less extremes in weather ,we are having more extremes in weather.
THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF GLOBAL COOLING AND THIS WILL BE KNOWN AS THE DECADE OF GLOBAL COOLING.
,