NOAA goes full alarmist with new publication, seeing AGW in extreme weather events

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

Map of locations analyzed in Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective

Location and type of events analyzed in “Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective.” Credit: NOAA

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
M Courtney

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.

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?

Corey S.

“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!

Michael Jankowski

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.

Robert Doyle

This reads as a “full employment manifesto” for the AGW community. My question is: what did this cost?

Pathway

When they can define the boundries of natural variability, then we will talk.

Eustace Cranch

“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.

Gene Selkov

“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’.”

Green Sand

Beware the Ides of September!
Increased preaching activities to herald the latest “tablets of stone”

Pamela Gray

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.

Cheshirered

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.

Green Sand

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.

Joe Crawford

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.

M Courtney

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.

cargosquid

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?

Latitude

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………

Peter Miller

Impending budget cuts?
Then ratchet up the alarmist BS and make scary interpretations about some natural phenomena of some mildly abnormal weather.

Tim OBrien

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.

John

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

Steven Hill from Ky (the welfare state)

Obama and his destroy the USA plan. Every time he opens his mouth, out comes the toxic CO2 of lies.

Green Sand

Tim OBrien says:
September 5, 2013 at 2:25 pm
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.

—————————–
and your cost of insurance?

Pamela Gray

Section 3 is the second study. Conclusion: When comparing a pre-industrial model with a CO2 forced model, the extreme event studied was more likely to occur more frequently (4 times more) with CO2 forcing than without CO2 forcing, but it appears rare in the 1979-2011 forced regime, IE model does not match observation.

Pamela Gray

Section 3 apparently rejects null hypothesis but for the models only.

Pamela Gray

Section 4 was not a comparison study of natural versus CO2 forced but instead was an attribution study of atmospheric pressure systems. So kick this one out as it cannot be compared to the first two, which were comparison studies.

Pamela Gray

Section 5 compares an internal variability model with a CO2 forced model by temperature only and does not posit an attribution mechanism other than the extreme rise is similar to the long term trend attributed to CO2. Conclusion: The assumed null hypothesis (the observation is the same as the internal variability model) is rejected. The observed extreme event matches the forced model “better” than the internal variability model (IE the observed extreme event was outside the 95%ile range of the internal variability range runs).
This one is a weird write-up. They ask the question, “How much did anthropogenic forcing contribute to the extreme eastern U.S. warm anomalies during MAM 2012?”, but didn’t do a study that would answer that question. Instead it was a 2-model comparison to observations study. However, they give a WAG of 35% attribution of anthropogenic forcing. I think they just eyeballed that one.

Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 20, 2013 at 12:12 pm
For starters AGW theory said over and over again that due to global man made warming the atmospheric circulation would become more zonal not more meridional.
Secondly if one looks at the Arctic Oscillation Index especially during the winter months one will see the trend is toward a more negative Arctic Oscillation(go back to year 2009-present) meaning the atmospheric circulation has been becoming more meridional.(greater blocking)
Thirdly if one goes back in past history and looks at studies of past atmospheric circulation patterns, one will find many studies that show a connection between sustained prolonged low solar activity and a more meridionl atmospheric circulation pattern.
The up shot of what I am trying to convey is the article is wrong when it tries to suggest the atmospheric circulation has not shown a trend toward a greater blocking pattern in recent years which might very well correspond to very low solar activity and secondly the article is wrong in trying to say AGW Theory called for a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern, when in reality AGW theory maintained the exact opposite would take place due to global man made warming. They said a greater zonal atmospheric circulation pattern would take place(+AO) not a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern.
This article has all of it’s facts wrong in my opinion.

TomRude

What a sad state of disinformation for these institutions… “an AGW link in half of the severe weather events of 2012 they studied”… How come a supposedly global modification would influence some meteorological events and not others? This reminds me of those clowns who were claiming CAGW was affecting “some” wind patterns but not others…

Pamela Gray

Section 6 is anybody’s guess. Apparently it is just a set of scenarios of sea level rise under low to high rate conditions in the future combined with Sandy’s storm surge damage. Under high rates of sea level rise, the study suggests that lesser events will produce the same amount of water damage. File this one under “duh”. That would be the round basket file. I am guessing the hypothesis is that hurricanes of x, y, or z strength in the future will not cause the same amount of damage that Sandy’s storm did even though sea level is rising in all scenarios. They rejected the null hypothesis. I want my money back.

OssQss

Yet another avenue for the POTUS to extend influence outside of the constitution requirements to do his bidding. Add NOAA to the acronym list of puppets in hand raising the cost of energy for everyone. Unfortunatly, unlike CO2, this trend is linear. What next, another war in the middle east to push oil prices up !?!?! Ya think

Pamela Gray

I love number 7. Conclusion? The model didn’t work.

They are a bunch of liars, they said a positive AO(more zonal atmospheric circulation /less extreme weather) would come as a result of man made global warming originally. They did not REVERSE themselves until it began apparent that the atmospheric circulation was evolving counter to what they first claimed.
Then they came up with the story it was low Arctic Sea Ice in response to global warming that is/was the cause for a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern hence more extremes in climate if not a persistence. Another lie.
Past history will show that the Arctic Sea Ice coverage /atmospheric circulation pattern correlation does not hold up.
The reality for the more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern of late being the very low solar activity post 2005, not the low amounts of Arctic Sea Ice.
Dalton and Maunder Minimum, also showing much evidence of a more meridional atmospheric circulation in response to prolonged low solar activity.
One lie after another.

Pamela Gray

And number 8 is a winner. None of the models captured the event, forced or natural variability. But hell, let’s just attribute it to global warming anyway.

became apparent it should be

John M

Tim OBrien says:
September 5, 2013 at 2:25 pm

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.

Given the NHC’s trigger finger on naming storms, every year, there seems to be a new candidate for shortest lived tropical storm or hurricane.
Gabrielle looks like it may be a contender.
Twelve hours from being named a TS to just about declared dead.
I’m sure AGW/ACC/ACD can be blamed for yet another example of “extreme” weather.

Pamela Gray

Number 9 put coffee on my computer screen! It was bitterly cold but ice didn’t thicken up enough to have a bunch of skaters on it. Was that global warming’s fault? Amazingly, they didn’t study whether or not Gore was there. Combine with his ability to attract cold weather and the amount of hot air he blows, that could have been the reason! However, it turns out that models demonstrate it was the insulation of a thin layer of snow during extremely cold temperatures that kept the ice from thickening up. The null hypothesis was kept. Global warming did not interfere with ice thickening up.

At least Pamela Grey correctly thinks AGW is ridiculous. That is a start in the correct direction.
PAMELA ,explain what was responsible for all the abrupt climate changes the earth has had since the last glacial maximum some 20,000 years ago. There have been both rapid swings up and down several countless times, explain your take on this, since you leave solar out of it.
Do you think it was volcanic activity for example, or the thermohaline circulation just stopping and going all by itself , both without the aid of any external factors but all terrestrial in origin?
If so ,you must subscribe to the chaotic random theory for all climatic changes on the earth.
Better then AGW theory , I will say that.

Jimbo

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.

Wow! What a trend! 12 months is really something, I’m impressed. Now we await the paper showing at least 30 years of worsening weather events with evidence linking them to man made greenhouse gases – after removing signals for PDO, AMO, ect.

Pamela Gray

Number 10 is a doozy. Ahem…they are not done yet. The report was a preliminary one and it didn’t look promising. HOWEVER…just so we can get another grant, let’s tack this on at the end:
“The direct effects of changes in radiative forcing from
greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing are not included
in these experiments, but both anthropogenic forcing
and natural variability may have influenced the SST
and sea ice changes.”

Pamela Gray

Salvatore, this thread is about the study. Pay attention.

u.k.(us)

“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.”
============
Well, that settles that 🙂

Jimbo

Compared to Nature and the IPCC the NOAA is an ‘extremist’ organisation.
IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events and Disasters:
FAQ 3.1 Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? […]None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here. Thus we are restricted to questions about whether specific extremes are becoming more or less common, and our confidence in the answers to such questions, including the direction and magnitude of changes in specific extremes, depends on the type of extreme, as well as on the region and season, linked with the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models.
http://thegwpf.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=81852aa9db&e=c1a146df99
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

Pamela , I would like your take evenually on why the climate has changed so abruptly in the past, so many times and in both directions.. I am interested in your take. When that thread comes up please give us your explanation or explanations.

Pamela Gray

Jimbo, read the study. Each study looked at an extreme event in 2012 within the historical record (of defined length per study). They didn’t look at a 12 month period. In some cases, the study went back to the 50’s.

The atmospheric circulation counter to what they originally stated would happen has become more meridional post 2008 or 2009 but not due to their explanation much less thier original projections which called for a more zonal atmospheric circulation going forward.
Make up and cover that is what they do. Spin everything and make it fit, that is what they do. They cannot con us who know better.

harrywr2

It’s just silly season.
The IPCC will soon release it’s ‘worse then we thought’ report and all the PR people are rolling out whatever 1/2 truth’s they can to led credence to the report and need for ‘immediate action’.
It’s all a bit of a stretch given the ‘pause’ in Warming.

Whoa! Hold the horses.
Anthony, with all this hoopla, it sounds like they’re trying to spin the findings of the paper they just published. Refer to Peterson et al (2013) “Monitoring and Understanding Changes in Heat Waves, Cold Waves, Floods, and Droughts in the United States: State of Knowledge”:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00066.1
We posted about that paper:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/extreme-weather-a-quick-note-about-peterson-et-al-2013/
The WUWT cross post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/extreme-weather-a-quick-note-about-peterson-et-al-2013/
My guess is they got some heat from above about the paper.