This NOAA report was released today, and it claims to see an AGW link in half of the severe weather events of 2012 they studied. I’ll comment in detail later, but for now I’ll simply provide the report, and this reminder from the editors of Nature last year while all the vain attempts at linking severe weather and AGW were unfolding:
Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
– Anthony
Explaining Extreme Events of 2012
Human influences are having an impact on some extreme weather and climate events, according to the report Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective released September 5, 2013 by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Scientists from NOAA served as three of the four lead editors on the report. Overall, 18 different research teams from around the world contributed to the peer-reviewed report that examined the causes of 12 extreme events that occurred on five continents and in the Arctic.
The report shows that the effects of natural weather and climate fluctuations played a key role in the intensity and evolution of many of the 2012 extreme events. However, in several events, the analyses revealed compelling evidence that human-caused climate change was a secondary factor contributing to the extreme event. “This report adds to a growing ability of climate science to untangle the complexities of understanding natural and human-induced factors contributing to specific extreme weather and climate events,” said Thomas R. Karl, LHD, director of NCDC. “Nonetheless, determining the causes of extreme events remains challenging.”
In addition to investigating the causes of these extreme events, the multiple analyses of four of the events—the warm temperatures in the United States, the record-low levels of Arctic sea ice, and the heavy rain in both northern Europe and eastern Australia—allowed the scientists to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of their various methods of analysis. Despite their different strategies, there was considerable agreement between the assessments of the same events.
Thomas Peterson, PhD, principal scientist at NCDC and one of the lead editors on the report, said, “Scientists around the world assessed a wide variety of potential contributing factors to these major extreme events that, in many cases, had large impacts on society. Understanding the range of influences on extreme events helps us to better understand why extremes are changing.” See more of what Dr. Peterson has to say on global warming and weather in this Climate Q&A from Climate.gov.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, yes.
A secondary factor (like UHI) will exacerbate the worst effects of the weather.
But so what?
It’s the weather that needs to be dealt with unless the secondary effect overwhelms the primary.
Which it doesn’t by definition.
Right?
“human-caused climate change was a secondary factor contributing to the extreme event.”
I wonder how many ‘secondary factors’ there are, or could be. It ain’t numero Uno, that’s for sure!
Wonder if they could find the human fingerprint on “extreme” events if they were handed a number from throughout history but not given the year in which they occurred.
This reads as a “full employment manifesto” for the AGW community. My question is: what did this cost?
When they can define the boundries of natural variability, then we will talk.
“No AGW influence at all” never ever ever seems to be an option with these guys, ever. Even though it’s a very real possibility.
“This report adds to a growing ability of climate science to untangle the complexities of understanding natural and human-induced factors…”
They must have borrowed the notion of “growing ability” from the Long Johns:
“People trust these companies because they have good names … One of these funds was called High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Fund. And the other was called the High Grade Structure Credit Leverage Fund.”
“I like the sound of it.”
“It is very good. It sounds fascinating. I mean, it’s got good words in it; it’s got the word ‘High’…”
“High is good.”
“Yes, better than Low, anyway, isn’t it?”
“Yes, yes, absolutely!”
“And ‘Structured’ is another good word.”
“Very good.”
“Enhanced…”
“I love Enhanced! I’ll buy anything if it says ‘Enhanced’.”
Beware the Ides of September!
Increased preaching activities to herald the latest “tablets of stone”
Section 1 is the intro.
Section 2 is the first study reported. Conclusion: no difference between two models, one with and one without anthropogenic forcing. Null hypothesis kept.
In London and SE we had one of the extreme events yesterday and today with temperature reaching 30C, unfortunately it is ending abruptly overnight. My sympathy is with the Bognor bound.
Can I suggest to our London weather experts from Met Office (as a contributor to their salaries) to take note from French how to show local weather synopsis:
http://skepler.free.fr/station_nice/station_nice.htm
or if there is such a web page I would appreciate a pointer to it.
Weather is not climate.
It takes 30 years, apparently.
So how does climate change become weather?
Confirmation bias, writ large.
And a large cheque, writ.
In the UK right now on TV Channel – Yesterday is “Perfect Storms: Disasters That Changed the World”
Episode 1 – America’s Deadliest Disaster A look at the hurricane that hit the island city of Galveston, Texas, in 1900, killing thousands of residents.
Reminds me of that homeless advocate who kept finding homeless in every nook and cranny.
Years ago there was a strong tornado that hit a town out on the plains of Eastern Colorado. Denver TV, when covering the storm that night, followed the track of the storm straight down the main street of town for several blocks doing considerable damage as it progressed. The storm then took a 90 degree turn to the left for a couple of block, walked through a trailer park, then turned back to main street and followed it out of town.
To me, this was compelling evidence that human-caused environment change (as opposed to climate change) was a secondary factor contributing to the extreme event. If we hadn’t built all those house trailers and placed them in such an enticing group that storm would not have left main street.
Vukcevic says at September 5, 2013 at 1:25 pm…
Do not confuse weather with climate.It h as been a pleasant week in Britain. And next week they predict badness.
Yet, except for spotting clouds on RADAR how accurate can they be?
BuggerBognor may be wonderful next week as it is too small for the forecast cells to predict…
That’s what I’ve told the my lady, ahem
“The report shows that the effects of natural weather and climate fluctuations played a key role in the intensity and evolution of many of the 2012 extreme events.”
This should read “The report ASSERTS that …
AGW remains the reason for restructuring society and the economy and as you will hear if you listen to this audio, the very nature of the mind itself. http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2013/the-further-reaches-of-adult-development-thoughts-on-the-self-transforming-mind
AGW is the excuse to resume a rulers and cronies dominated economy. With sponsorship from the UK’s RSA that’s an influential view even if it is not a correct one. Also the OECD is building it’s entire global Competency push around Kegan’s work.
We are left with social scientists trying to change the nature of people to fit behavioral models and billing taxpayers for the time and effort. Must keep the fantasy that it is all necessary as long as possible.
How is it that I’m always being told by the warmists that my examples of weather disproving their predictions are irrelevant and that weather is not climate…but NOAA can use weather to “confirm” AGW?
the analyses revealed compelling evidence that human-caused climate change was a secondary factor…
They can’t predict the weather, can’t predict future warming or cooling….
…but they can find a human fingerprint…..which if they could…..they would be able to predict future warming or cooling
So ask these bozos to let us all see their climate models………
Impending budget cuts?
Then ratchet up the alarmist BS and make scary interpretations about some natural phenomena of some mildly abnormal weather.
Sitting down here in Florida laughing my butt off after the ‘experts’ declared a record-breaking year and so far we’ve had ZERO activity. Their climate models need to be trashed.
I’m appalled!! This has to be absolutely politically driven. There’s no data whatsoever that one can link AGW to any individual weather event. I smell a rat!!
I see a green spot in eastern Oz.
Have not read the paper.
But make a rain map here for 2012 and it looks pretty normal.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/archive.jsp?colour=colour&map=anomaly&year=2012&month=12&period=12month&area=nat
Obama and his destroy the USA plan. Every time he opens his mouth, out comes the toxic CO2 of lies.
—————————–
and your cost of insurance?