From the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) more instituitional worrying turned press release leading up to the upcoming WMO report. I wonder where they get the increase in hurricane intensity from? Apparently they’ve never seen Dr. Ryan Maue’s ACE graph discussed recently in the GRL journal: “Historical global tropical cyclone inactivity (Editor’s Highlight):
And then there’s the report of a weather station in Germany that got more rain than ever before in 2002, which is just frightening on a decadal old scale isn’t it. Gosh. Loaded dice, that’s the ticket.
Weather records due to climate change: A game with loaded dice
The past decade has been one of unprecedented weather extremes. Scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany argue that the high incidence of extremes is not merely accidental. From the many single events a pattern emerges. At least for extreme rainfall and heat waves the link with human-caused global warming is clear, the scientists show in a new analysis of scientific evidence in the journal Nature Climate Change. Less clear is the link between warming and storms, despite the observed increase in the intensity of hurricanes.
In 2011 alone, the US was hit by 14 extreme weather events which caused damages exceeding one billion dollars each – in several states the months of January to October were the wettest ever recorded. Japan also registered record rainfalls, while the Yangtze river basin in China suffered a record drought. Similar record-breaking events occurred also in previous years. In 2010, Western Russia experienced the hottest summer in centuries, while in Pakistan and Australia record-breaking amounts of rain fell. 2003 saw Europe´s hottest summer in at least half a millennium. And in 2002, the weather station of Zinnwald-Georgenfeld measured more rain in one day than ever before recorded anywhere in Germany – what followed was the worst flooding of the Elbe river for centuries.
“A question of probabilities”
“The question is whether these weather extremes are coincidental or a result of climate change,” says Dim Coumou, lead author of the article. “Global warming can generally not be proven to cause individual extreme events – but in the sum of events the link to climate change becomes clear.” This is what his analysis of data and published studies shows. “It is not a question of yes or no, but a question of probabilities,” Coumou explains. The recent high incidence of weather records is no longer normal, he says.
“It´s like a game with loaded dice,” says Coumou. “A six can appear every now and then, and you never know when it happens. But now it appears much more often, because we have changed the dice.” The past week illustrates this: between March 13th and 19th alone, historical heat records were exceeded in more than a thousand places in North America.
Three pillars: basic physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations
The scientists base their analysis on three pillars: basic physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations. Elementary physical principles already suggest that a warming of the atmosphere leads to more extremes. For example, warm air can hold more moisture until it rains out. Secondly, clear statistical trends can be found in temperature and precipitation data, the scientists explain. And thirdly, detailed computer simulations also confirm the relation between warming and records in both temperature and precipitation.
With warmer ocean temperatures, tropical storms – called typhoons or hurricanes, depending on the region – should increase in intensity but not in number, according to the current state of knowledge. In the past decade, several record-breaking storms occurred, for example hurricane Wilma in 2004. But the dependencies are complex and not yet fully understood. The observed strong increase in the intensity of tropical storms in the North Atlantic between 1980 and 2005, for example, could be caused not just by surface warming but by a cooling of the upper atmosphere. Furthermore, there are questions about the precision and reliability of historic storm data.
Overall, cold extremes decrease with global warming, the scientists found. But this does not compensate for the increase in heat extremes.
Climatic warming can turn an extreme event into a record-breaking event
“Single weather extremes are often related to regional processes, like a blocking high pressure system or natural phenomena like El Niño,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, co-author of the article and chair of the Earth System Analysis department at PIK. “These are complex processes that we are investigating further. But now these processes unfold against the background of climatic warming. That can turn an extreme event into a record-breaking event.”
Article: Coumou, D., Rahmstorf, S. (2012): A Decade of Weather Extremes. Nature Climate Change [DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1452]
Weblink to the article once it is published: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1452
=============================================================
Sigh, my rebuttal still stands: Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
People easily believe that the past was constant and predictable and the future is chaotic and unpredictable. I think it has to do with the way the consciousness works. When your “subconscious” fails to understand what is going on, your consciousness tries to use your knowledge of the past to make sense of what is happening. So your past is a source of knowledge about what is constant and predictable. And the future is a source of chaotic and unpredictable event that you try to turn into something predictable using your knowledge of the past. You don’t think about predictable events like breathing except if you lack air. So you think of the past when you need knowledge of predictable patters and you think about the future when something does not seem predictable into the future. I would call that the fallacy of the constant past and the chaotic future. Every time I see that, I’m suspicious.
@izen
“Can you think of any other scientific theory with over a century of research behind it and with the support of 99% of the scientific community that was totaly falsified and replaced with a alternative?”
Yes; the cause and treatment of chronic gastritis and, gastric and duodenal ulcers often leading to cancer of the stomach such as Gastric MALT lymphoma. Lots of people suffered and died because of the failure of the scientific consensus.
However, your question is not scientific. CAGW is not a theory it is a hypothetical guess which has not been confirmed by experiment, experience or observation. “If it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong. In this simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn’t make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is; If it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong.”
If I remember correctly, Dr. Judith Curry describes the overdramatization of modern weather extremes as “Climate Amnesia”.
I dub such a person “a shoot-‘n-scooter,” and his act “shoot-and-scooting.”
I followed PS’s link to a blog where she (he?) is the most frequent, loudest and rudest commenter. Apparently this person is happy about the recent election results in Qld and not a Labor fan, but might favor tax and dividend as a way to lower carbon emissions while paying the utility bills of some unfortunates with the proceeds of the tax. Conflicted.
By the way, were not the floods of 2010 and 2011 exacerbated by mismanagement of installed flood mitigation systems, preceded by failing to follow through on planned construction? That’s the word I get from Theodore.
Vuk
The warmest March day since records began, omitted to say that records began in 1910
tonyb
It seems that an important first response to any claim of a new record of any sort should be “when does the record begin”? invariably, the record referenced is quite short.
Well. Perfect Stranger was a drive by and obviously a perfect stranger to truth.
I remember well talking with the late Jan Pompe…
Our only question was why aren’t they emptying Wivenhoe?
izen.You have no idea what a scientific institution is! The majority of scientists join scientific institutions purely for the gravitas of the institution! I can see many leaving when the institutions lose their gravitas!
DaveE.
“…detailed computer simulations also confirm the relation between warming and records in both temperature and precipitation.”
Does this guy realize what he just said? There’s a relation between warming and temperature !! Oh my ! WHO KNEW?! LOL
Oh, I like this one too… “the worst flooding of the Elbe river for centuries.”. OK, so the flooding was more extreme then, even though man had not yet excreted poisonous deadly CO2 massively (sarc) into our atmosphere. Got it. Thanks.
izen says:
March 26, 2012 at 6:55 am
“[buncha stuff in response to others omitted]
A fact established in science – like the role of CO2 in warming a planetary surface – is not subject to changing fashion, it stays accurate whatever the variation in contemporary beliefs.”
Yeah, I’m with you on that one, izen. Now if we can only explain why a rise in CO2 lags a rise in temperature by 800 years, we’ll have it all nailed down, eh?
@Bill Tuttle says:
March 26, 2012 at 3:30 am
“PerfectStranger says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:15 am
No kidding, I been reading many of the blogs on this site for over a year now, and I’ve also read many of the comments, and I don’t know what is worse, the dork who runs it or the fools who read the stuff and pretend that they too are climate scientists.”
I smell a drive-by troll-bot…
=============================================
Nahhh… can’t be a bot. No sign even of artificial intelligence ;o)
“…It´s like a game with loaded dice,” says Coumou. “A six can appear every now and then, and you never know when it happens. But now it appears much more often, because we have changed the dice…”
I hate this analogy. With a single die (as he implies with a single six), the odds of one side of an “unloaded” die coming up is still 1/6. Every time you toss, it’s still 1/6.
He’s trying to say that with a “loaded” die, the “six” (with the extreme being implied) will come up more often. Let’s say that it’s increased to 2/6. But the problem is this: There are two “extremes” on a die – the one and the six.
If the “high” extreme (the six) comes up more often because of the loading, then the “low” extreme (the one) comes up LESS often. As a matter of fact, the other FIVE sides will all have an odds of less than 1/6.
Izen is calling all of the skeptics on this blog a bunch of creationist, anti science boobs. It’s the heart of his argument and is repeated over and over again in rebuttal by many university educated leftest boobs. Completely and uterly brain washed.
Jim
JimJ says:
March 26, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Izen is calling all of the skeptics on this blog a bunch of creationist, anti science boobs. It’s the heart of his argument and is repeated over and over again in rebuttal by many university educated leftest boobs. Completely and uterly brain washed.
_________________________________
Do not worry Jim, the infantile ad hominems backfire because anyone with a half a brain realizes only someone with a losing argument resorts to mud slinging.
Anthony has the best defense. Polite (or at least relatively polite) debate of the topic.
You can always post this as a response to the ad hominems
“A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot…” ~ Robert A. Heinlein the “Dean of science fiction writers,” and some one Isaac Asimov called “a flaming liberal.”
PerfectStranger says:
March 26, 2012 at 1:15 am
No kidding, I been reading many of the blogs on this site for over a year now, and I’ve also read many of the comments, and I don’t know what is worse, the dork who runs it or the fools who read the stuff and pretend that they too are climate scientists.
_________________________________
Bill Tuttle says:
March 26, 2012 at 3:30 am
I smell a drive-by troll-bot…
_________________________________
Or someone with a really really closed mind.
Gary Pearse says:
March 26, 2012 at 6:54 am
John Marshall says:
March 26, 2012 at 2:04 am
“Flooding will get worse over the years quite naturally due to river systems silting up.”
I don’t know about in Oz but in Canada and USA, there has been broad use of tile drainage in farmland that gets the water to the river quicker than it used to, too….
_____________________________
The skuttlebutt among farmers is now the Ag multinationals want “STERILE” fields so we may be looking at the tearing up of all the tree line wind breaks and grass filter strips.
Unfortunately I do not think it is alarmism on the part of US farmers.. Sir Julian Rose in an address to the agricultural committee of the Polish parliament. ~ I gave some vivid examples of what had happened in the UK over the past two decades: the ripping up of 35,000 miles of hedge rows; the loss of 30 percent of native farmland bird species, 98 percent of species-rich hay meadows, thousands of tons of wind- and water-eroded top-soil; and the loss from the land of around fifteen thousand farmers every year, accompanied by a rapid decline in the quality of food.
THAT is the type of threat to the earth and to people I am concerned about not some piddling little 1 degree change in the temperature over a decade or two.
Gail Combs said @ur momisugly March 26, 2012 at 8:48 pm
The Git is with you all the way on that one Gail 🙂
It is perhaps revealing of the minority zeitgeist at this website that the ostensible subject of this thread is almost entierly absent in the posted comments.
A brief reference is made to the flaws/uncertainty in its projection of changes in hurricane incidence. But even this miss-states the finding of increased intensity of some storms, but no definitive prediction on numbers.
However the main thrust of this research, that the probability of extreme weather events is increased by the measured climate change is conspicuous by its abscenmce from the discussion. A few posts mention extreme events in the historical past. apparently making the mistake that the prediction is for extreme events that are unique, not just more probable. The major storms experienced in the past do not refute the judgement that such events are now MORE LIKELY than they were because of the changed climate.
I don’t think there is one post that engages with this issue and makes any response, skeptical or otherwise., There is no dicussion how such projections of changed probabilities can be tested.
A discussion of how the non-Gaussian pattern of extreme climate events make it hard to use Nyman/numerical probability and how Baysian methods might be more appropriate would have been nice to see….
@- mfo says:Re- an example of a scientific theory/concensus overthrown –
“Yes; the cause and treatment of chronic gastritis and, gastric and duodenal ulcers often leading to cancer of the stomach such as Gastric MALT lymphoma. Lots of people suffered and died because of the failure of the scientific consensus.”
Sorry but that is inaccurate and revisionist history.
It was known that chronic gastrc imflamation was strongly correlated with gastric MALT NHL lesions. There was NO theory about the cause of chronic gastritis beyond consigning it to the medical catch-all of ‘stress’. Later as the genetics of the immune system were better understood it was also hypothesised to be linked to auto-immune conditions.
Ther was no concensus position or credible theory explaning the cause of the chronic condition, it was an entierly new hypothesis that an infective agent was involved, and a good bit of standard science in the testing and confirmation of the hypothesis. But it does not represent the overthrow of an existing scientific viewpoint – there wasn’t one on the cause of chronic gastritis. Its a good example of the way in which science expands its understanding. The role of persistant imflamation causing malignant changes in the associate lymph tissue in the gastric lining was known. The cause of the chronic gastritis was not. Finding it was an infective agent did not replace the old knowledge, it extended it to include the cause of the cause…
izen says:
March 27, 2012 at 1:31 am
However the main thrust of this research, that the probability of extreme weather events is increased by the measured climate change is conspicuous by its abscenmce from the discussion. A few posts mention extreme events in the historical past. apparently making the mistake that the prediction is for extreme events that are unique, not just more probable. The major storms experienced in the past do not refute the judgement that such events are now MORE LIKELY than they were because of the changed climate.
I don’t think there is one post that engages with this issue and makes any response, skeptical or otherwise., There is no dicussion how such projections of changed probabilities can be tested.
A discussion of how the non-Gaussian pattern of extreme climate events make it hard to use Nyman/numerical probability and how Baysian methods might be more appropriate would have been nice to see….
We’ve seen the actual numbers many times. There has been no statistical increase in extreme weather events. You (and most alarmists) have cherry picked 2011 which did have more extreme weather events. However, most people with a couple working neurons understand that is just one year and not a particularly warm one. Why was 2010 uneventful? It was warmer than 2011. How about 2006, 1998, etc.? Since warming has been going on for 300 years why isn’t every year filled with weather disasters?
Sorry, but you fail completely to look at the big picture. Puts all your comments into perspective.
izen says: March 27, 2012 at 1:31 am …
Theory is nice. Data is better. Possible refutation of your comments, below?
Juraj V. says: March 25, 2012 at 11:55 pm
http://blog.sme.sk/blog/560/284762/blockingjuly.jpg
Hovemueller diagram, showing frequency and strengths of blocking events, shows no correlation whatsoever with any background warming or whatever. fail.
__________
Allan MacRae says: March 26, 2012 at 2:32 am
At a glance, it appears that Dr. Ryan Maue’s graphs show tropical cyclone energy correlates positively with global temperature.
My 2005 analysis showed a (slight) negative correlation, based on data from
“The most intense mainland United States hurricanes, 1851- 2004”
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-4.pdf
I’m not claiming to be right here – just curious.
Or is there no correlation of significance?
JimJ says: March 26, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Izen is calling all of the skeptics on this blog a bunch of creationist, anti science boobs. It’s the heart of his argument and is repeated over and over again in rebuttal by many university educated leftest boobs. Completely and uterly brain washed.
Jim
Now that you know, you no longer have to read it. Your blood pressure is more important than examining the latest regurgitation.
@- Richard M says:
“Why was 2010 uneventful? It was warmer than 2011. How about 2006, 1998, etc.? Since warming has been going on for 300 years why isn’t every year filled with weather disasters?
Sorry, but you fail completely to look at the big picture. Puts all your comments into perspective.”
I am suggesting looking at the big picture, ie what weather events are reported and how we judge if it IS getting more probable that extreme event occurr.
It seems a bit odd to suggest 2010 was uneventful !!! – that was the year of the Russian heat wave and extreme flooding in Asia and China amongst many other events. The reality of these extreme events is obvious. It is harder to see why you think 2010 was uneventful.
The big picture is given the measurable increase in extreme heat records and food events what type of analysis would clearly show that the probabilities had changed ?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/12/us-climate-temperatures-weather-idUSTRE70B55Q20110112
Factbox: 2010 hit by weather extremes: Pakistan to Russia
OTHER EXTREMES – Floods and landslides killed more than 1,400 people in Gansu province in China. Floods in Colombia have killed about 300 people since April, displaced 2 million and caused estimated damage of up to $5.2 billion.
The Amazon basin was hit by drought and the Rio Negro, a major Amazon tributary, fell to its lowest level on record.
SEA ICE – Arctic sea ice shrank in summer to the third smallest in the satellite record, behind 2007 and 2008. Antarctic sea ice was slightly bigger than normal.
Extreme weather is caused by something other than “probability”. In each instance, these events have a describable and known cause unrelated to CO2 warming. Blocking highs are not caused by CO2 warming. Hurricanes and tornadoes of the type we have experienced in the past few decades are not caused by CO2 warming. izen seems to be implying that probability speaks to causation of the recent extreme weather events. It does not in the least do such a thing. An uptick, were it to occur, in hurricanes and tornadoes as well as cold and warm trends, has a perfectly natural intrinsic explanation that needs no “umph” from anthropogenic CO2.