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.
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
—————————————————