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.
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?
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.
Section 3 apparently rejects null hypothesis but for the models only.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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
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.
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
Tim OBrien says:
September 5, 2013 at 2:25 pm
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Salvatore, this thread is about the study. Pay attention.
“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 🙂
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.
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.
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.
If the paucity of hurricanes continues at the same pace for 2013 will this paucity be considered an extreme event? If so, will NOAA write a report regarding it?
In future people will laugh at us as to how the heck we confused weather with climate.
Seth Borenstein producing similar ‘results’:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/canada/Study+finds+global+warming+raised+likelihood+about+half+last/8874939/story.html
Thomas R. Karl, LHD, director of NCDC.
Thomas Peterson, PhD, principal scientist at NCDC
Literally: Data studiers; no skill at determining factors.
Coincidence does not equal causation. Do these guys know this?
I blame man.
Bad weather of the past
Great storms of the Little Ice Age
Holocene climate extremes
The economic realities of today make more of an impression on taxpayers than the drivel from the NOAA.
News just in, does the NOAA agree?
The IPCC, Nature and now the Met Office, do we have a consensus?
Amazing. They can’t find the human fingerprint on climate, but they can find it on weather. Flim Flam Flannery wrote a book about that, called “The Weathermakers”. It was awful.
Interesting that the warmth in the United States in 2012 was included. Drought was obviously a factor.
Interesting because the US represents represents only 2% of the planet and had just set a record for consecutive years (24) without a widespread severe drought in the Midwest/Cornbelt.
So over 2 decades of the best growing conditions in recorded history don’t score points with them, only the one year when it’s not that way.
The Dust Bowl decade of the 1930’s and worst long duration hot/dry weather in history, before CO2 had increased is powerful evidence compared to the 24 consecutive years from 1988 to 2012 with the longest duration of best growing weather in history would suggest that, if CO2 had anything to do with it, we should be doing everything possible to increase CO2.
OR, at the very least, do not fix something that isn’t broken.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/cornyld.asp
On the graph of US Corn yields. Technology had much to do with the increases. Extreme weather was responsible for the following dips 1983-hot/dry 1988-hot/dry 1993-flooding in Western Cornbelt 2012-Hot/dry.
That’s a 30 year period with 4 events and the previous one(flooding) was 19 year earlier.
There were at least that many in just one decade, the 1930’s.
HadCet has been -0.28C below normal so far this year.
One very warm day, a week of very cold temps, NO records however set on any day in 2013 hot or cold, otherwise temps have been between the 90% percentiles. Which is more-or-less what one would expect given the length of the record, the basic odds and a completely normal climate today compared to yesteryear.
This is the way the climate (temps at least) are supposed to be shown.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_act_graphEX.gif
Well, upon reading this latest end-of-the-world NOAA assessment, this comes to mind:
The title is actually “Explaining Weather Events from the Alarmist Claptrap Point of View”.
Reports like are to climate science what Solyndra was to solar power.
>sigh< :
"Reports like this are to climate science what Solyndra was to solar power."
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2013 at 3:36 pm
“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.”
You have all the facts correct, but maybe they are dim rather than liars. The increased negative AO/NAO from 1996 and again from 2005 is exactly when we see the ice extent rapidly reduce:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.timeseries.gif
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
They actually have the whole damn thing upside down, warming in the Arctic is a sign of global cooling, not warming:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/#comment-1398577
(and following comments)
This people are total bush league. How do they expect to get paid from this dribble.
He’s what they need to do if they want to join the big leagues. First use this Nostrdamus Quatrain Generator http://www.extremelysmart.com/diversions/askNostradamus.php
Then substitute you key scary words into the quatrain — sort of like the old MadLibs game.
So, for example, here are some scary sounding results that would be much more effective:
And that, my friends, is how to get paid for fortune telling.
Green Sand says:
September 5, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Dammit, Glaucarenas, you made me snork my coffee!
And yet no hurricanes by September
http://magicseaweed.com/news/Wot-No-Hurricanes-by-September/5545/
Pamela Gray,
Really great reporting, thank you very much.
The results of this study again relies on climate models which are unvalidated and therefore unproven. The study makes assertions not based on actual data but only model outcomes. As the failure of climate models to make projections of global temperatures grows climate alarmists simply move to more model based outcome assertions which cannot be connected to actual data. This is the same game as the temperature models but moved to an area where there is no data connection. These results amount to nothing but speculation by climate alarmists.
“Spinning Natural Weather Events of 2012 from a Climate Alarmist Perspective.”
There! Fixed it for them.
All they could find was 12?
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/Executive_Briefings/2013/08_12_2013.pdf
2013 corn production back on track as per above link.
mpaul says:
September 5, 2013 at 6:47 pm
——————————————————–
Brilliant link (here again):
http://www.extremelysmart.com/diversions/askNostradamus.php
Makes a hugely strong case for genetic profiling of climate liars. Do we have any Nostradamus DNA with which to compare ?
I got:
At five and forty degrees the sky will burn
Through rain afterwards, which will do them much harm
The arid earth will grow more dry
With blood, human bodies, water, and red hail covering the earth.
Michael Jankowski says:
September 5, 2013 at 12:49 pm
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.
Of course they wouldn’t. There is no way to do that.
Eyal
While NOAA is pushing climate alarmism, we have this:
2013 in Running for Latest First Atlantic Hurricane on Record
Alex Sosnowski
The 2013 season has a chance at producing no hurricanes through the middle of September, which would rival two records…
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/2013-in-running-for-latest-atl/17382707
I seem to recall our climate experts told us (after a lot of initial confusion on their part) that AGW would produce fewer storms…well, I guess they got that right. Of course, they also said they would be more powerful hurricanes – you know, like Gabrielle…and…the others…
NAME DATES MAX WIND (MPH)
—————————————————
TS ANDREA* 5-7 JUN 65
TS BARRY 17-20 JUN 45
TS CHANTAL 8-10 JUL 65
TS DORIAN 24 JUL-3 AUG 60
TS ERIN 15-18 AUG 40
TS FERNAND 25-26 AUG 50
—————————————————
Extreme weather events aren’t worth being precautionary about, because $12 billion + events per year isn’t a scary enough figure to make it worthwhile to mitigate CO2. Only high sea level rise and a high average global temperature rise threaten damages in the trillions.
After hearing Mr. Watts lecture recently, I am impressed on how he said after he received critiques on “surface station report”, he made changes/corrections so the report would be improved to increase the body of knowledge. It seemed like an open source peer review
This NOAA report seemes like a puppet review. How could this report even be presented on one year events! With their bias, next years report conclusion is already known. It is just getting harder to find ten events.
What properties of CO2 give rise to extreme weather events?
Since it has not warmed (at any rate there is no statistically significant evidence of warming) these past 17 to 22 years (depending upon data set used), if the claim that CO2 leads to more extreme weather events is based upon the heat trapping/warming attributes of CO2 and a warming globe, then the likelihood of extreme weather events ought not to have changed these past 17 to 22 years simply because there has been no further warming during this period. Put simply, we are no more likely in 2013 to experience extreme weather events than we were say a decade ago.
If it is because of sea level rise, then there is no evidence (that stands up to scientific rigour) that the rate of sea level rise has accelerated these past 50 or so years. There is no correlation between the increase in rate of sea level rise and increased manmade CO2 emissions. There is presently no evidence of man’s finger print on sea level rise.
All of these model studies are so divorced from reality. Hurricane, cyclone, typhoon activity is all down, not elevated these past 20 years. The facts contradict the study result, and the study is nothing more than an illustration of yet more model failures.
Given the timing, I suspect there was a mad rush to find a research paper in time to release just prior to the Australian elections.This was the only one available so it was “dressed up” at the last minute then sent off to the Australian Climate Institute for distribution to Oz media mates.It won’t make any difference now as the media have already declared (so to speak) and won’t be interested. Pretty silly really to put out junk like this just to get headlines.It will come back and bite them.
Has there been any reported climate extreme in 2012 which has not been exceeded by one or more climate extremes which have been recorded previouslly?
Promotions in the agency are evidently based on how many approved buzzwords/buzzphrases are contained in each document submitted.
test to see if the ‘pre’ (preformat) tag works to enforce fixed font, for DIY tables:
NAME DATES MAX WIND (MPH) ————————————————— TS ANDREA* 5-7 JUN 65 TS BARRY 17-20 JUN 45 TS CHANTAL 8-10 JUL 65 TS DORIAN 24 JUL-3 AUG 60 TS ERIN 15-18 AUG 40 TS FERNAND 25-26 AUG 50If this muddled study is the best an agency of the executive branch of government can produce in response to their President’s marching orders to defend his AGW-based energy policy, that policy is probably in its death throws. Grab your share of green energy giveaways while the getting is good and go long on coal futures.
Almost:
NAME DATES MAX WIND (MPH) ——————————————————————————— TS ANDREA* 5-7 JUN 65 TS BARRY 17-20 JUN 45 TS CHANTAL 8-10 JUL 65 TS DORIAN 24 JUL-3 AUG 60 TS ERIN 15-18 AUG 40 TS FERNAND 25-26 AUG 50 ———————————————————————————Apparently kerning causes some distortions.
Remember the ‘good old days ‘ when weather was not climate ?
Funny how now reality is biting them on the rear end that , weather is climate when claiming so supports ‘the cause ‘
For Australia, if you take the link from Warwick Hughes (above) you can look at the chosen study period from the start of year 2011, by month to the so-far end of year 2013, for study 19. I’ve chosen the State of New South Wales as it largely fills the square selected by the authors of study 19.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/archive.jsp?colour=colour&map=anomaly&period=12month&area=ns&year=2013&month=3&day=31
Although the paper specifies March 2012 as the main part of the study, you can see by flicking through these monthly map records that
(a) March 2012 is not particularly outstanding
(b) the BoM data have a persistence in contouring that lacks the variation of rainfall patterns changing with time. They look strange. The months M,A,M,J,J,A,S look quite similar and there is no stated reason for selection of March 2012 as opposed to these other months.
The authors use US or Canadian data sets for rainfall & some temperatures. Why? (Australia’s BoM has collected them, but maybe not homogenised them further).
Then, SST in Northern Australian waters is estimated from a model and in their fig 19(c),
these equatorial modelled temperatures over a range of 1 deg C for months SON are regressed against rainfall anomaly in S-E Australia in the later period DJFM using a linear least squares fit to attempt to show a hypothesis.
This is torturing of data to a high degree. Both the location and the time period of the 2 variables is different and the temperature variations are verging on the limits of accuracy of measurement.
The La Nina source temperatures are some 4,400 km from the rainfall study area, more than San Francisco to New York, but teleconnection is invoked. It is claimed that a past relation has been established between La Nina episodes near the equator and high rain in East Australia – well, there might be a relation in the 1983 paper cited, but it is not shown that is a consistent relation with predictive power for the months chosen here, nearly 20 years of data later.
I could go on, but it’s more valuable for readers to flick through the maps.
BTW, one of the authors, David J Karoly, has a long history of extremism in global warming matters. This does not mean that his work is incorrect, but it signals a caution when reading it.
This is indeed a desperate effort, something that to me, fails to add to good science.
mddwave says:
September 5, 2013 at 9:43 pm
After hearing Mr. Watts lecture recently, I am impressed on how he said after he received critiques…. It seemed like an open source peer review….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It was. He put his draft up here at WUWT and got a lot of constructive criticism.
The best company I ever worked for did the same thing. A new product presentation was made with the chem engineering/pilot plant information included as well as packaging design…. It was critiqued by an auditorium of people from PhD chemists and engineers to plant foremen. The audience caught a lot of snafus in the design stage before construction of equipment was even started.
I was later at another company where a presentation was given of a new product by a Chem Engineer. When I offered constructive criticism as I normally would he blew up. Didn’t help matters any that when the plant was build without the correction I offered they had to go back and fix the problem.
Egos don’t belong in science but it has been my experience that they are the norm. That first company was an exception due to it’s upper level leadership. It was a Fortune 500 company for a darn good reason.
CAGW reminds me of that second company. Egos and greed without morals from the top down. Too bad it is the taxpayer and poor who have to pay the price in this case.
richard verney says: @ September 5, 2013 at 11:10 pm
What properties of CO2 give rise to extreme weather events?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is a Magic Gas. It can do anything even make the sun sleepy from here on earth.
Isn’t it time they answered the question skeptics who think the sun might have influence keep getting asked?
Show me the mechanism, the physics that connects CO2 to extreme weather events and I do not mean hand wavy models with hidden code.
“Nonetheless, determining the causes of extreme events remains challenging.”
Hence, more funding please
You went full alarmist, man. Never go full alarmist. You don’t buy that? Ask Sean Penn, 2001, “I Am Sam.” Remember? Went full alarmist, went home empty handed…
So disappointing, with Uccellini running NOAA, I had hoped for better but like every department and organization in this Administration, NOAA is being used for political advantage to advance an agenda.
Joe Crawford says:
September 5, 2013 at 1:51 pm
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.
===============
That could well have been the path of least resistance that cause the tornado to veer. Do skyscrapers deflect tornadoes, forcing them onto less built of parts of the city?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-19/news/ct-wea-0719-asktom-20110719_1_tornadoes-dear-tom-fujita
University of Chicago tornado authority Dr. Tetsuya Fujita (1920-1998) believed friction caused by tall buildings in central Chicago would disrupt the inflow needed for tornadoes and would help to dissipate weak ones. He went on to say that almost nothing would stop the strongest F4 and F5 tornadoes. Computer modeling of the interaction of winds with various kinds of surface obstacles (like buildings) has since supported Fujita’s statements
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-11/fyi-can-skyscrapers-prevent-tornadoes
But tornadoes do in fact sometimes hit cities, says Gary Conte, a warning coordination meteorologist at the Upton, New York, outpost of the National Weather Service, citing recent touchdowns in Dallas, Memphis, Miami and four of New York City’s five boroughs (Manhattan has been spared, so far). Skyscrapers and topography don’t matter. “Tornadoes form thousands of feet above building tops,” Conte says. “Skyscrapers won’t prevent the funnel from coming down, but they might influence its shape so that it doesn’t look as nice and neat as it does on a flat surface like the plains.
What an amazing study. Sit on a beach. The longer you watch the waves, the more likey you are to see one that is bigger than all the rest. This is an extreme wave. Was it caused by global warming or climate change?
No. What has changed is the length of time you are keeping records. Keep record for 10 years and you will likely witness a once in 10 years storm. Keep record for 100 years and you will likely witness a once in 100 years storm. Since a once in 100 years storm is more extreme than a once in 10 year storm, does this mean that the climate has changed? Or does it mean that your time frame of observations has changed?
And this is the best science that the government and 18 research teams can produce? Its a good thing they aren’t in charge of managing the economy or the debt, or there could be real problems.
As usual, ferdberple cuts to the heart of the matter with his wave explanation. Gov’t ‘science’ is nothing but cherry-picking nonsense. None of it stands up to the mildest scrutiny. Its purpose is to generate tax revenue, nothing else.
Unfortunately, government schools have produced low-information voters, who dutifully head-nod, mouths agape, and do as expected: look to the government to provide for their redemption and safety over a non-existent problem. All it will cost is some more $billions — a pittance among the $Trillions spent every year.
But those pittances add up. They are a ratchet; they never go down, always up. And the low information voters who constitute a majority, along with everyone else, become progressively poorer every year. Thus, ‘progressive’ politics.
It is insidious. Any suggestions as to how to counteract this very successful separating citizens from their hard earned income would be appreciated. But the honest thinkers are too busy working, and the Obamaphone beneficiaries’ votes have been bought and paid for, cheap.
Is there an answer? Or is this the end of the American experiment in exceptionalism?
There is a logical error in this analysis:
It may be possible to “show” that increased warming may have been a major factor in say 6 of these 12 events,
BUT
it is also possible that warming has prevented 6 other extremes from happening. And those are not accounted for in this study.
Jimbo says:
September 5, 2013 at 3:59 pm
Compared to Nature and the IPCC the NOAA is an ‘extremist’ organisation.
I like your term “extremist” better than “warmist” or “alarmist.” If they are going to insist that occasional extreme weather is caused by global warming, as if such events never happened before, then they are extremists. We should refer to them as “weather extremists” or “climate extremists.”
Deja vu!
This name rings a bell; something about document properties for a presentation (powerpoint?) that used Anthony’s surface station old information, without permission or attribution to Anthony… Ring any bells for other folks?
Why would anything published by such a shyster be considered science or even worthwhile is a mystery to me.
Thomas Karl, LHD…
No one lists an honorary doctorate unless covering for some rather extreme inferiority.
How do we even know what constitutes “extreme” ? Compared to what ? If you look at measured temperature records and rainfall, we’ve only had good records since about 1880 and satellite temperature measurements since 1978. Proxy records are smoothed and cannot be compared logically to weather events of short duration. If you need perspective, just look at the long term records and see how tiny a blip the last 30 years represents.
They no doubt used the same climate models that failed to predict the recent “pause” in global warming in their analysis as well – not to mention totally fail in reliable predictions of regional weather. And it’s regional weather that their study addressed in actuality ! I’m strictly amateur, with a long standing interest in weather, but the whole thing looks like a bunch of scientists playing creative computer games – excuse me, simulations – on the taxpayers’ dime. Send that money to the SPC to improve our warnings for severe weather like this spring’s monster Oklahoma tornadoes. As I live in Oklahoma, there might be some bias in that statement – full disclosure 😉
What are the odds that NOAA bureaucrats, in a career threatening move, would even have allowed a release stating that the weather events included in their study had no connection to recent climate trends ? Low, very low.
The great thing about AGW is that it is “the theory of everything”. No matter what happens with the weather, it can be explained. Where are all the hurricanes, Al?
Section 11:
They used a single model that they drove with a historical data set plus greenhouse forcings and another one with Arctic ice info. None of the models simulated an incredibly wet European spring/summer. Regardless of the failure of the CO2/Arctic Ice -we are all going to die- models, they end with, because …damn… it was really wet compared to when they was kids:
“Thus we conclude that the recent precipitation anomalies over North Western Europe likely represent an unusual event not well represented in HadAM3P. Given that HadAM3P is not capable of simulating the recent heavy precipitation, the possibility remains that recent European summer precipitation anomalies are due to other drivers in the climate system rather than chance.”
Which means that, I think, humans did it. We just don’t know how. So kill the witches.
Section 12:
Loved this one. Their human forced versions of the human forced models didn’t work either. So the rest of the article is set on the spin cycle. Basically, “We are, in our minds, correct, or our models are wrong.”
“This implies one of two possibilities: either (1) our findings are correct for the prescribed atmospheric CO2 concentrations, SST, and sea ice fractions appropriate to 2012, then the chances of the observed summer UK rainfall patterns occurring are in fact incredibly small, or (2) there are systematic biases in our atmospheric modeling structure. These biases possibly correspond to raised rainfall amounts falling incorrectly over the seas more to the north of the United Kingdom, rather than over the United Kingdom as seen in the observations.”
Their formal conclusion at the end is even better spin but quite wordy so let me paraphrase: We just can’t find the weapons of mass destruction but we know they are there. We plan another experiment to look under the table for them.
Section 13
Nut shell
1. Trend is up for precipitation in northern Europe. (IE damn it has been wet) and significantly so
2. Typical atmospheric circulation shift patterns correlate well with wet conditions but were not significantly different than at other wet times.
3. Therefore we suggest that humans caused it to be really wet instead of just wet. Kill the witches.
Section 14
Nut shell
1. Trend is up for [drought] in [the Mediterranean] and significantly so
2. Typical atmospheric circulation shift patterns correlate well with [dry] conditions but were not significantly different than at other [dry] times.
3. Therefore we suggest that humans caused it be to really [dry] in stead of just [dry]. Kill the witches.
Section 15
First, the conclusion:
OMG!!!! It was really hot in Kenya run for the hills!!!! But kill the witches first!!!!
And now the method:
And just how did they determine this? First of all the weather: teleconnected oceanic/atmospheric circulation pattern predicted drought. BUT!!!! They ran some climate models cuz …models are sniff sniff better than weather predictions. In fact they ran two. One was of the “full ocean” (think full Monty). It has observed SST’s in it which they attribute some of the heat being provided by anthropogenic CO2 LWIR radiation heating the ocean from the top down…just like hot water tanks do with their LWIR heater sitting above the water, right? Right? RIGHT? The other was the “natural” version with the assumed anthropogenic “SST heat” taken away from the observed SST heat becuz of …well…the witches (between the lines read: “Tisdale be damned with the witches”). They ran both models. The one with more SST heat produced an extreme drought while the other one just a drought but anyway a bunch of civil war gangs killed a bunch of people and babies starved to death.
Ergo kill the witches. Along with Bob Tisdale.
It was really hard to report on section 15. There are so many places in their methodology that beg questions. But I just wanted to get the damned sticky thing off my fingers. But one wonders if “peer review” was done entirely internally among the authors that submitted to this special edition rag, as in you review mine and I’ll review yours. They clearly had knowledge of each other’s articles as some of them even refer to them in their own text.
Section 16
Already, I have coffee on my screen! I think I can predict this one.
Its introduction states:
“The occurrence of the 2012 flood in the context of a multidecadal drying tendency has received great attention. In this study, we analyze the 2012 North China flood in the context of summer monsoon changes in the past 62 years (1951–2012). We examine whether climate change may have played a role in either the 2012 extreme rainfall or the recent multidecadal trend of decreased precipitation in North China.”
Ah. I learned about his research methodolgy in grad school. It’s properly known as “hedging your bet.”
There is a 100% chance that the authors will be right. Their hypothesis: Climate change caused wet and/or dry conditions. Let’s read to find out if my prediction is spot on.
I really tried, I mean really tried to say something funny. But folks, I can’t top the authors, who’s off hours job simply has to be stand up comedy.
I present their conclusion (and a confirmation of my prediction) in its entirety:
“Although the damage caused by the 2012 floods in North China was large, the amount of precipitation was not unprecedented in the past 62 years. The flood occurred in the background of a longer-term drying tendency. Since the late 1970s, the total summer rainfall amounts have
significantly decreased, but the rainfall intensity of single events has increased in North China associated with the weakening tendency of the EASM circulation partly due to the phase transition of the PDO. We are unable to confirm or reject the role of climate change in the 21–22 July 2012 rainfall event due to the inability of the CMIP5 models to accurately replicate observations in this region of China. The CMIP5 models show an increasing trend from 1950 to 2000, in contrast to the decreasing trend observed during this period. Both the mean and extreme precipitation in North China are projected to increase in the future, but the creditability of the projection is limited by the weakness of models to simulate the climatology of EASM and the design of CMIP5 projection experiments, which were not initialized with contemporary ocean observations and would not be able to reproduce the observed phase transition of the PDO.
In addition, we should note that the inability of CMIP5 models to replicate the observations is not due entirely to the unmodelled phase transition of the PDO. The trend of the PDO during 1971–2012 is nearly zero, but the precipitation trend in North China is nonzero, which is -1.44 mm day-1 and statistically significant at the 5% level. This suggests an underlying trend caused by processes other than the PDO. Further studies are needed to understand the underlying processes.”
You just can’t make this stuff up!
Section 17
The paper did a great job of explaining macro and micro weather pattern variations that would result in rain in Japan. They also ran two atmospheric circulation pattern models, one forced with rising CO2 and one not forced. They ran lots of runs and got the typical wide ranging variations and an ensemble mean for each one. In their discussion they state:
“The PDFs of both ALL [forced] and NAT [anthropogenic SST removed] runs are shifted to the positive PJ pattern relative to the climatological distribution (green). On the other hand, the difference between the ALL and NAT runs is subtle and an ensemble mean of the ALL run is slightly larger than that of the NAT run; it implies that human-induced El Niño-like SST change slightly intensifies the “PJ pattern through the enhanced PASH. These results suggest that our results support the indication of Kusunoki et al. (2006), but in the case of the 2012 event, the effect of anthropogenic global warming is too small to be detected compared with the variability due to the natural variability of the SST.”
hmmmm. If their findings were insignificantly different how does that support Kusunoki et al’s findings?
The conclusion is weasily but not as bad as the rest of them.
“The extremeness of the Japanese heavy
rainfall of 2012 was mainly caused by the oceanic
natural variability and probabilistic atmospheric
natural variability rather than by anthropogenic
climate change.”
The event was “mainly” caused by natural variation (the weasily part), rather than by anthropogenic influences (the straightforward part).
A question that keeps popping up for me is how do they determine what portion of observed SST is anthropogenic? What is the “anthropogenic factor” amount they remove to run the “natural” models? I have yet to see the value stipulated in any of these studies. Bob?
Well, thanks to your observations and comments, my computer screen and keyboard now share this spotted dripping trait…
It was getting bad, I already knew the coming punch line was coming, “kill the warlocks…” and I’d laugh harder each time whilst reading the punch line and then again while reading your next paragraphs opening.
Is Bob Tisdale really a warlock? Of course not! Only the warmistas think that with his admirable ENSO analysis.
I just try to understand this. In my senior level classes I thought baroclinicity (difference in temperature) drove the strength of low pressure systems. Ice age models prove that storms in the ice age were super storms . During warmer times there is clear evidence there was less baroclinicity. Are we sure we’re not just reporting more storms due to the information revolution?
The under-reported side of this is the dramatic reduction in natural extreme weather events. Once we pull out the effects of the AGW, we are left with a very mild year of uninteresting weather events.
Thank goodness they can analyze the weather so accurately, or else we would have missed the dramatic reduction in natural extreme weather.
/sarc
Section 17
Question: It rained cats and dogs in Australia and ended a multi-year drought. Was the deluge, welcomed as it was, caused by anthropogenic climate changes?
Method: Run models with and without recent anthropogenic influence.
Results [que drum roll]:
According to their own statistical analysis:
English: no
Spanish: no
Catalan: no
Valencian: no
And one that’s a little bit different:
Romanian: nu.
Not to beat a dead horse, let me put it another way. There was not one drop of statistically significant evidence of anthropogenic causes. Not one massaged piece of statistical results. Null hypothesis kept. And finally, they couldn’t even find CO2 hidden under a wet rock. To put it bluntly, this dead dog ain’t gonna bark.
Yet….
In their conclusion they state:
“In summary, we detect limited evidence of a change in the relationship between ENSO and SE Australia extreme rainfall, or of a change in extreme rainfall itself, that may be attributed to anthropogenic climate change.”
WTF?
Kill witches anyway.
Section 18.
Ever study something that was…well…kinda dull and not interesting? As in “its happened before”? No? Well these authors did.
“Although the heavy rainfall event examined here is not unprecedented, the adverse impacts associated with two consecutive wet years in the region make it an interesting case to study.”
But it gets better. They have a secret weapon.
I paraphrase: So we are going to use some models and apply the best ^%$^*# tweaker there is to tweak the sh** out of the data till we get the #$%& results we want! To do that we got ahold of the best damned wizbang tweaker-massager out there! This one will even perk your coffee for you! And revves up to 400,000,000 bizillion cycles per second! Uh uh!
However, their own words are much better. In pristine Tim the Tool Man Taylor style they state:
I quote: “Here we investigate the possible contributions of the ENSO and the long-term effect of human influences on the climate to the heavy rainfall in March 2012 over eastern Australia (10°S–45°S, 140°E–160°E). The anthropogenic contribution is estimated with a new state-of-the-art system for Attribution of extreme weather and Climate Events (ACE; Christidis et al. 2013), built on HadGEM3-A, the latest atmospheric model from the Hadley Centre.” Aroo aroo aroooo!
The conclusion [with color commentary by yours truly]:
“The La Niña episode in early 2012 is unlikely to entirely explain why March 2012 was the third wettest in the observational record in eastern Australia [IE it wasn’t stupendously wet, it wasn’t extremely wet, but it was indeed more wet than just wet]. Warm north Australian SSTs, however, are expected to result in wetter conditions and given the continuing warming trend of the ocean, increased rainfall over the eastern part of the country could become more common [and you all are gonna die!]. Using the ACE [Yeh that’s right! We used the ACE!] methodology we find that the overall long-term effect of human influences on the climate increases the chances of above-average rainfall by 5%–15% (best estimate), although the impact on extreme precipitation is much more uncertain. Even when all climatic forcings are accounted for, the observed rainfall in March 2012 lies in the far tail [yeh that’s right! WE found the CO2 weapon of mass destruction and the other authors didn’t cuz they just didn’t look hard enough and didn’t use the…ACE!] of the expected rainfall distribution from the ACE [We bad! We bad!] ensembles. Therefore, despite the potential contribution of all factors examined here, the extreme magnitude [um…I thought it was just more wet than wet but not stupendously wet?] of the event appears to arise mainly from unforced internal climatic variations.”
Huh? Is that a yes or a no? I have no idea what they concluded but I do know they used the…ACE! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
The last one found a hockey stick! More later…
Section 20 is a confusing mix of 26 observations of extreme rain along with model runs with and without anthropogenic forcing. They didn’t use an…ACE…but they decided that the New Zealand rain event of December 2011 was 1% to 5% more extreme because of anthropogenic factors. It also found that the number of these events has increased along with the associated risks.
But…………………
“In this study, no attempt has been made to adequately assess the uncertainty on these results. A much larger ensemble of a higher resolution model, such as in the “weatherathome” experiment, is required for formal attribution statements about precipitation extremes.”
What? Does that mean “psych…we’re just kidding”?
I guess the conclusion is that everything is worse, we are all going to die, and it could be within the range of normal.
It sounds to me like the ensemble of participating authors is singing “Wolf. WOLf! WOLF!!!!” Except in New Zealand there are no wolves.
@ Pamela Gray. Do you have a blog ? If not, you should 🙂 Thanks for the excellent analysis and humor, which I would have neither the time nor knowledge to present. The sad thing is, on some forums, I skunk the alarmists( often with stuff I’m clued into here) – certainly more of a testament to their ignorance than my technical expertise.
I’m way too late to the party as usual. Never enough time to pursue good intentions. Speaking of time, I took a trip in my CliMate-chine and finally posted my parody of the Splaining Extreme Events press release and world map for 1912
And 1912 was a year of extremes! Record droughts on three continents, 50,000 Chinese killed by a mega-typhoon, an Arctic meltdown and epic cold wave, just to describe a few of them. One for the record books, but then, they all are, aren’t they? And I guess that was the point of my exercise. I am contemplating making this a yearly endeavor much as I’m sure Karl et al. (2013) will continue their campaign so I welcome any information regarding candidates for the 1913 version. Cheers!