“…extreme heat events were roughly 20 times more likely in 2008 than in other La Niña years in the 1960s” It is this statement that has made headlines across the country. Headlines you shouldn’t believe.
Guest post submitted by Dr. Cliff Mass University of Washington
Last week the national media was full of stories about how global 
warming has made Texas heat waves TWENTY TIMES more probable. We are talking about hundreds of stories in respected national media outlets (including NY Times, Washington Post, and even the Seattle Times). These stories were all based on an article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (DID HUMAN 
INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE MAKE THE 2011 TEXAS DROUGHT MORE PROBABLE? with lead authors David E. Rup and Philip W. Mote of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute and some British colleagues…found here…scroll down to page 12).
The trouble is that this study is flawed and weak (and I will explain why) and its scary conclusions are insupportable. This is important story: about the hyping (past) of global warming, about poor research being published, about the media jumping on sexy, scary global warming stories. And most worrisome of all..this is not an isolated incident.
Before I go further, let me stress that I am believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century. The impacts could be both profound and serious. But exaggerating the impact of human-induced warming on what is happening now and in the past only serves to weaken the efforts of the meteorological community to provide information society needs to make rational decisions. If you cry wolf too many times and are proven wrong it is bad for credibility.
So lets consider the Rup/Mote et al. study. Texas had an extraordinary six-month heat wave and drought in 2011…no doubt about it. The question is whether we can ascribe this event to global warming..human or otherwise.
Now to examine this issue, the authors of this article compared temperatures and precipitation for March through August and June through August over Texas between observations (from the National Climatic Data Center) and simulations by the UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Center Atmospheric General Circulation Model 3P (HadAM3P). This is a global atmospheric climate model typically used to simulate climate. Specially, they ran the climate model many times for the decades of 1960-1970 and 2000-2010. This is called an ensemble. Each ensemble member is started with a slightly different initial state in order to get some handle on the uncertainty of the forecast. Totals of 171, 1464, 522, and 1087 ensemble members were analyzed for 1964, 1967, 1968, and 2008, respectively. Why these used different number of ensemble members for each year is never explained. Furthermore, they selected those specific years because all were La Nina years. The idea was that La Nina/El Nino variability is an important natural sources of climate/weather change and could skew the results, so they wanted to insure that they were comparing apples to oranges. It turns out they forgot some other fruit (more later!)
The following is from figure 8 of their paper, showing a graph of temperature versus precipitation over Texas for March through August for both observations (National Climate Data Center, NCDC, 1895-2011) and the climate model (HadAM3P) ensembles for 1964 and 2008. For both observations and the model, there is a tendency for drier years to be warmer. But there are real warning signs that the climate model is out to lunch (or out to whatever climate models do when they are not doing their job!).
First, the climate model is MUCH warmer and drier than reality…and the observations included the dry/warm conditions of the 1930s. A serious bias. Furthermore, the relationship between temperature and precipitation in the model and observations are VERY different…very different slope, with the model warming up much more quickly as precipitation declines than the observations. Clearly, the model is not simulating Texas climate very well.
 |
| Rupp, Mote et al., Figure 8 |
With this flawed GCM simulation, the authors should have been hesitant in going further in the analysis, but they decided to use the biased/flawed modeling results to determine whether the chances of heat waves are increasing over Texas.
Their next figure shows a return time analysis of the model temperatures over Texas.
Specifically, using the collection of simulations for each of four years (1964, 1967, 1968, and 2008) they calculated the typical number of years one would have to wait until a certain mean March-August mean temperature occurs. So a mean of 25C would be expected to occur every 1-2 years in a 2008 climate and every 3-4 years for the 60s. 27C is expected to happen every 10 years for the climate of 2008 and perhaps once in 500 years (extrapolating the graph) for a 60s climate.
Furthermore, 100-yr return period MAMJJA and JJA heat events under 1964 conditions (roughly 26.5C) had only 5- and 6-yr return periods, respectively, under 2008 conditions. It is this graph that was the basis of their statement:
“extreme heat events were roughly 20 times more likely in 2008 than in other La Niña years in the 1960s”
It is this statement that has made headlines across the country. Headlines you shouldn’t believe.
Let me explain why.
Now I already have shown you that the model “climate” was way too warm and dry, and its simulated relationship between temperature and precipitation was all wrong. But it is worst than that. Looking at their figure, you can see the average model temperatures (March-August) in 1964 (blue circles) are roughly 24.5C, while the model 2008 temperatures (red circles) are approximately 26.25C…so about 1.75C warmer (give or take .25C for my reading of the graph). (This kind of information SHOULD have been explicitly stated in the paper).
So what is really happening in Texas? How correct was the model? Mark Albright of the University of Washington acquired and plotted the NCDC observations over Texas and plotted the average Texas temperatures for March-June, and July-August (see below) for 1895-2011. In March through May there is a weak upward trend (perhaps .5F, .3C) over the entire period. The trend over June to August is much less. The second figure also shows how anomalous 2011 was…it was an extreme year that was completely outside the envelope of variability of the previous decades. There is no trend consistent with global warming…which slowly increased starting the mid-70s.
 |
| March-May |
 |
| June-August |
The bottom line: the actual observations show the temperatures over Texas have warmed by a perhaps a few tenths of a degree C since the mid-1960s, while the GCM model used by Rupp/Mote et al had major warming (1.5-2 C). Clearly, one can not trust the model and the conclusions reached in this paper are unsupportable.
And folks it is even worse than this. There are other modes of natural variability in the atmosphere, such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The AMO, which is associated with the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean, has a substantial impact on the weather of eastern N. America., including heat waves and droughts. During the mid to late1960s this cycle was in the negative (cool) phase, while in the 2000s it has been in the warm phase (associated with heat waves and droughts over the Midwest)–see graph.
Thus, the authors picked dates that would maximize the warming signal associated with natural variability, irrespective of global warming.
Moral of this Sad Story
This situation is so disappointing on so many levels. It is disappointing the peer review process has allowed this paper to be published in a well known and prestigious journal. I have learned from personal experience that articles noting major global warming effects fly through the review process with only cursory examination, while papers with a more nuanced view of the issue are given a hard time.
It is disappointing that the media distributed these results so widely…with headlines…throughout the nation and world. The faults noted above were easy to find…it appears that media folks don’t evaluate the materials they headline when it comes to science. Sometimes the media go wacky based on materials that are not even published in peer-review journals or are made available in press releases. They need to act more responsibly and secure the resources (e.g., trained science journalists) that have the time to insure the rigor of the materials they spotlight.
This is only one if series of weak global warming scare articles. My own sensitivity to the issue came five years ago when certain folks (including a coauthor of the Texas article) were hyping that global warming was resulting in the rapid loss of the Cascade snowpack (which has not declined in 30 years by the way). These folks think they are doing society a favor by hyping global warming impacts now and in the past. They aren’t. Most of the impacts of global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases are in the future and society will not believe us if you cry wolf now.
This work will only hammer the credibility of the scientific community at a time when society needs to be taking global warming seriously.
==========================================================
Cliff Mass is a professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington, as well as a frequent television and radio commentator. While we are sometimes on opposite sides of the issue, I have great respect for his work, and I’m honored that he asked for his essay to be published here. Please bookmark his blog Cliff Mass Weather – Anthony
Related articles
- 2011 Texas drought was 20 times more likely due to warming, study says – msnbc.com (blog) (usnews.msnbc.msn.com)
- Global Warming Makes Heat Waves More Likely, Study Finds (nytimes.com)
See the comment from betapug above at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/15/texas-tall-tales-and-global-warming/#comment-1033602
One thing that I have thought about when scientific research is said to be consistent with models is, must not the model be proven to work and predict climate accuratly before it can be used or related to? If I am not wrong 17 or 30 years is the minimum time that has to be used in order to claim it is climate on not weather.
I don’t think those models used have been predicting climate for up to 30 years with good accuracy yet.
We are talking about hundreds of stories in respected national media outlets (including NY Times, Washington Post…)
There — all fixed.
%$#@ur momisugly! The “close sarc font” didn’t take…
Dr Drown, could this be anything to do with the deadlines for getting a reference in the next IPCC tome? No, I didn’t think so.
Oops – that of course should read “Dr Brown”
rgb: Has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.
Perhaps not so “odd” if one looks closely. First, the centre popcorn-piece recently has been the Gergis paper, with all the fanfare and bad behaviour from Karoly (for reasons well noted here). Probably Gergis got grants at the time when the government was in maximum thrall to the warmists’ siren song and now the cuckoo has hatched. Second, there was the Gleick episode which might stick in your mind as “something like Gergis”. Third, you yourself have gotten really interested and involved, which means you personally notice more. Fourth, there is the warm-up to IPCC-5 and there must be a sense of Götterdämmerung where fewer and fewer diehards are pushing harder and harder with less and less substance.
Perhaps one day now we’ll finally see one of the august bodies breaking rank and owning corporately what many of its members individually and privately believe.
But people hate to own being in the wrong. Leaders especially. And even here, there are some topics I cannot bring up (or only with difficulty, fear of failure, and inadequate brevity) even though I might consider them highly relevant to Climate Science and of a substance that will, at some point in the future, need to be reconsidered, if the science is going to truly advance and reclaim integrity.
“The faults noted above were easy to find…it appears that media folks don’t evaluate the materials they headline when it comes to science.”
I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!
you would want to correct this line:
“Before I go further, let me stress that I am believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century. “
Dear Dr. Mass,
Thanks for your contribution. May I suggest the following approach to your collegues? Determine with a random number generator a region on the earth with the size of Texas. Determine with a random number generator a period of six months from the last few decades. Determine the likelihood of the observed temperatures in the obtained region and epoch with the models and repeat that with models assuming zero CO2 forcing. Compute the likelihood ratio. This may be the beginning of a scientific approach, avoiding post-hoc fallacies and meaningless comparisons of probabilities.
Sincere apologies & all that, but am I missing something, were there no La Nina years for the forty years from 1968 to 2008 at all? I know things go in cycles as is clearly demonstrated by the graphics, but surely there must have been something? Oh well, must be Global Warming, then!
BTW folks, here in the PDREU state of UK (get it? state of UK, brother what a state it’s in too!) it’s raining, again!!!!! Even we die hards are beginning to get fed up with it! Dear old Met Office, they haven’t a clue, bless their little cotton socks, they tell us authoritatively that it’s the Jet Stream, but very little info on why it’s the Jet Stream! They are truly hopeless, their forecasts are constantly peppered with doubt & uncertainty, yet we’re supposed to believe every word they utter about Global Warming,……bless! 🙁
and this: “But it is worst than that.”
(i would gladly send this privately if i knew where to send it!)
Its a tradgedy for science and demcoracy when it turnes out to be an corrupted idiocracy!
I think that corruption of science is the last stage before a collaps of society as we know it and there are many who wants that to happen. Some are acting with perpose most are just useful idiots! It takes guts and a lot of moral to publish this important proof of what we are up aginst!
Thanks Dr Mass…
When I look at Hansen’s 1988 projections / scenarios and compare them to today I really do have my doubts about this statement. There is a serious divergence problem as can be seen with one’s won eyes. Ditto IPCC’s earliest projections / scenarios.
I am afraid that the good doctor’s first statement-that he is a believer in the GHG theory- failed the whole article for me. The whole theory is based on model forecasts but observations show that this theory is false. Temperatures are falling but the atmospheric CO2 levels are rising. The very opposite to theory predictions. The middle troposphere hot spot predicted by the theory has not been found by the daily observations using radiosonde.
It is a fact of science that if observations are not as a theory predicts then the theory is wrong not the observations. Unfortunately it is also a fact that when observations are found not to agree with this onerous theory the observations are altered to fit. The good doctor should remember this.
Of course, as this comes from a convinced believer in AGW / CAGW, it probably carries more weight, as no one can accuse him of being a ‘climate change denier’.
He has done an excellent job of showing this research to be the nonsense that it is. But it doesn’t seem to occur to him that this nonsense is pretty standard practice for AGW science in general. Perhaps if he could be a bit more sceptical, as all scientists should be, he would start to question the very basis of AGW / CAGW.
Chris
rgb “has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.”
Since I too noticed that Australia is copping a similar barrage, I questioned whether these events are part of a far bigger plan, than to be just random publicity by individuals.
On a positive note, I caught a BBC comedy programme on Friday night ( a repeat from December last year) where comedian Steve Hughes hits CAGW head on – great fun, and his punchline got a roar of approval from the audience:
Steve Hughes (on BBC’s ‘Live at the Apollo’ – http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b018hb3p/Live_at_the_Apollo_Series_7_Episode_6/ at 27.30 mins)
‘Then we deal with that [War on Terror]. And then next, what do we deal with, while this is all happening?
“Aww, by the way, the planet’s broken. It’s all warmed up. And, er, yeah … we have to fix it … now, ‘cos we’ve broken it. And, er, y’know, we’ve done tests.”
“Who has?”
“Y’know, experts.”
“Who are they?”
“Aggh, don’t worry about it. They’re here.”
What are you talking about? I don’t even believe in it. People freak out.
“Waddya mean you don’t believe in it? You have to believe in it … it’s the law!”
“Oh, it’s not yet … I’m sure it soon will be, but until then, no.”
Why should I believe in it, what are you talking about? They’re running round the world dropping depleted uranium all over the earth, sitting there letting nuclear weapons off under the sea and the rest of us, what are we going to do? Sit at home, with a special light bulb and a shopping bag for life?’
[Biggest laugh of the evening from the audience.]
“I am believe that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases will cause the planet to warm significantly over the next century”
A scientist would have evidence rather than being a religious true believer.
Where is your evidence ?
“Thus, the authors picked dates that would maximize the warming signal associated with natural variability, irrespective of global warming.”
Where have I heard this before?
Oh Yeah, now I remember:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/13/hump-day-hilarity-bringing-in-the-sieves/
betapug-they are called memes–“units of information that, once mastered, condition–indeed constitute!–the way we think and that can be passed on to person to person.” TV sound bites to create the desired filtering memes.
When an economic model is wrong it can sometimes be difficult to locate the wrong variable or improper assumption. Models about future changes in temperature, not so much.
I have written about the Future Earth Alliance. Beyond the UN agencies and the Belmont Forum funders, you have the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the International Social Science Council trying to merge the natural and social sciences around the sustainability model. One of the other goals of this Earth System Science Partnership work is to “break down the traditional walls between scientific disciplines and between science and policy.”
Not only are the models wrong, it is erroneous models that are to serve as the basis for transformative policy changes in human behaviors, economic systems, political systems, and society itself.
So yes these are bad models but they are modelling with aspirations that have nothing to do with temperatures or even climate.
And I also want to thank Cliff Mass for being a plaintiff in the valiant effort to change the tragic math curriculum being used in Seattle schools and to get the school board there to quit disregarding the negative consequences in making their decisions. Believe it or not, there is a direct connection between those corrupting NSF Math-Science Partnerships to change curricula and instructional practices that too many states, universities, and school districts have in place and the climate science corrupting grants.
Apparently in the future all science is to be political science. And it won’t impact the weather or climate at all. Just our ability to respond to what ever happens.
This is a very minor point, but i think the thought might have been “comparing apples to apples” with regard to using la nina years in the comparisons.
terrarious says:
July 16, 2012 at 3:11 am
rgb “has anyone noticed that there has been an absolute barrage of questionable articles of exactly this sort recently? It’s a bit odd.”
—
No, it’s not odd. This is an election year in the U.S. The CAGW fanatics know their funding (aka Climate Ca$h) will be cut substantially if Obama is NOT reelected. Hence, they are pulling out all the stops to create a phony climate crisis – with help, of course, from the dysfunctional MSM.
I hope Dr Peter Stott of the UK Met Office reads this, he’s just used the Texas heatwave as evidence of a direct link bewteen climate change and extreme weather events – with the inevitable caveat that much more (lucrative) research is needed…
Yeah – this story got picked up by one of the ‘greenist’ columnists in the UK ‘Sunday Times’ this week. He also stated that ‘Arctic sea ice has shrunk by a third…’ er, really..? Not according to the (unbiased) satellite-viewed graphs – unless of course he’s talking about the normal seasonal shrinkage which takes place every year in the northern hemisphere summer….