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.
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.