From Stanford University, a claim easily refuted with a single graph of Tmax. See below.
Global warming has increased risk of record heat, say Stanford scientists
Drought shriveled crops in the Midwest, massive wildfires raged in the West and East Coast cities sweltered. The summer of 2012 was a season of epic proportions, especially July, the hottest month in the history of U.S. weather record keeping.
And it’s likely that we’ll continue to see such calamitous weather.
In the north-central and northeastern United States, extreme weather is more than four times as likely to occur than it was in the pre-industrial era, according to a new study by Noah Diffenbaugh, a Stanford associate professor of environmental Earth system science, and Martin Scherer, a research assistant in the department.
Diffenbaugh and Scherer found strong evidence that the high levels of greenhouse gases now in the atmosphere have increased the likelihood of severe heat such as occurred in the United States in 2012.
The researchers focused primarily on understanding the physical processes that created the hazardous weather. They looked at how rare those conditions were over the history of available weather records, going back over the last century.
Then, using climate models, they quantified how the risk of such damaging weather has changed in the current climate of high greenhouse gas concentrations, as opposed to an era of significantly lower concentrations and no global warming. Their findings don’t pinpoint global warming as the cause of particular extreme weather events, but they do reveal the increasing risk of such events as the world warms.
“Going forward, if we want to understand and manage climate risks, it’s more practically relevant to understand the likelihood of the hazard than to ask whether any particular disaster was caused by global warming,” Diffenbaugh said.
In 2012 alone, the United States suffered 11 extreme weather events that each caused at least $1 billion in damage. “It’s clear that our greenhouse gas emissions have increased the likelihood of some kinds of extremes, and it’s clear that we’re not optimally adapted to that new climate,” Diffenbaugh said.
While Diffenbaugh cautions against trying to determine whether global warming caused any individual extreme event, the observed global warming clearly appears to have affected the likelihood of record heat, according to Diffenbaugh and Scherer.
The study, looking at the likelihood of July 2012 U.S. temperatures recurring, is part of a larger report edited by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and published Sept. 5 in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The report includes studies of a dozen 2012 extreme weather events by research teams around the world, about half of which found some evidence that human-caused climate change contributed to an extreme weather event.
Close study of extreme weather events can help quantify the likelihood that society will face conditions similar to those that occurred in the summer of 2012, thereby informing efforts to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience. Diffenbaugh argues that the new results can also help to quantify the true cost of emissions to society, since the cost of the disaster is measurable.
“Knowing how much our emissions have changed the likelihood of this kind of severe heat event can help us to minimize the impacts of the next heat wave, and to determine the value of avoiding further changes in climate,” Diffenbaugh said.
Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
Rob Jordan is the communications writer for the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
================================================================
Diffenbaugh is looking at the average temperature, which is sensitive to the effects of heat sinks/UHI in the overnight low temperature (Tmin). A better way to judge if it really is getting hotter is to look at the daily high temperature (Tmax).
Even with all the flaws and adjustments of the data, Tmax for the USA (bias corrected by Menne) according to NCDC shows the cyclical 60-70 year ocean/solar wave. The positive trend since 1895 is because we start at a minimum of the cycle and ended up at a maximum, the same as if we started in 1970 or even 1950 as some have done.
Note that 2010 is not hotter than 1934, though we are often given graphs of Tmean that say 2010 was hotter that 1934.
Source: Menne et al (2012) http://www.samsi.info/sites/default/files/Menne_january2012.pdf
Note the pattern of up/down in Tmax, now look at this graph of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, there is a rough correlation:
(h/t to Joe D’Aleo) Note the similarity in the pattern. As we have seen in the past few days, it seems ENSO rules the temperature quite well.
What will Diffenbaugh do on the downcycle now?
And finally, if “Global warming has increased risk of record heat”, wouldn’t we be seeing more records?
Apparently, according to other peer reviewed work, the warming over the past 20 years has been exaggerated:
Red= Observations Gray= Models Source: Fyfe et al. 2013
Statistical proof of ‘the pause’ – Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Devil’s Advocate viewpoint.
Richard Telford is expressing contempt for occasional poor gate-keeping in the short history of WUWT.
And also for the unclear authority inferred by publication on WUWT.
And he’s right because such issues have arisen.
But countering that viewpoint.
This is merely creating barriers to entry into the activity if science communication. Technology has changed and the internet allows new opportunities. Or it should do unless you have a Luddite attachment to tradition.
Are these teething problems or specific problems or necessary problems of the internet?
Personally I think..
These are not necessary problems of the internet. The internet can record what a printed paper, parchment or holodisk can record.
It is too early to distinguish teething and specific problems.
So if their are problems (if) then they can be resolved by clarity in the meta-data.
Perhaps a page that is linked in the header tab that states the certainty and hurdles passed before publication…
Followed by a later update on archived pages that have passed a week of review by comments?
Well a time local periodic Temperature max wasn’t the only thing that happened in the 1930s.
The USA went off the gold standard then, and the dollar amount of property damage being done by everything and anything, including simply wearing out, has sky rocketed. Severe weather events are simply linked to the consumer price index., which causes them.
“”””””…… “It’s clear that our greenhouse gas emissions have increased the likelihood of some kinds of extremes, and it’s clear that we’re not optimally adapted to that new climate,” Diffenbaugh said……””””””……….”””””” it’s clear that we’re not optimally adapted …….””””””
Slight factual adjustment called for there ; Diffy old chap; for “we’re” read “I’m”.
Why is that individuals who are survivally challeneged, simply assume, that everyone else is similarly afflicted.
Actually, I never even noticed any of those eleven “kinds of extremes”, that got your jockeys in a bunch.
And for simple factual precision; I’m not aware that anyone has actually proved that greenhouse gas emissions have actually caused any specific phenomenon; well other than an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Noah seems to be a “Senior Fellow” for the Woods Institute for the Environment.
Interesting list of advisors for the Woods Institute: woods.stanford.edu SLASH about SLASH advisory-council
Reading the advisory committee bios, they seem to be about money, and not environmental science, but maybe I’m misinterpreting.
Well a bottle of “Pinot Noir” (wine, not grape) could be purchased for a pittance before some idiot featured such wine, in a stupid movie.
So all the yuppies started drinking it, and the manufacturers (of the wine, not the grape) just jacked up their prices to take advantage of the yuppies.
But fear not, even in California, there still are people who think Cabernet Sauvignon, tastes good.
M Courtney,
Anthony has repeatedly pointed out that this is his home on the internet. Would you invite someone into your home, to insult you constantly, belittle your accomplishments, and rant about you on every thinly-trafficked no-account blog they can find? I wouldn’t.
Anthony and others here take plenty of criticism. Being critical doesn’t get their comments deleted. But Telford’s M.O. is consists of a series of baseless, personal attacks. The reason is obvious: he does not have credible scientific arguments to support his beliefs. That’s fine in itself, lots of true believers have no understanding of science. But Telford is one of those people who uses personal attacks simply because he has no testable, measurable facts to back up his beliefs.
There is nothing wrong with having no facts. There is nothing wrong with having emotional beliefs. Those folks still get their comments approved. But IMHO Telford is just a nasty individual. He can be nasty all over the internet. But not so much here.
Regarding ‘gate-keeping’, there are about a half dozen WUWT moderators, and some are obviously less tolerant of insulting ad hominem attacks than others. No doubt Telford’s comments would be posted if he limited them to the science in question. Otherwise, he has no reason to complain. He is the cause of his own problems.
“The US record follows AMO, not PDO. PDO started to go down in 1990, AMO peaked around 2006.”
@juraj,
The PDO officially went negative in late 2007. It went positive in late 1976. The increase in global temps mirrored the the positive PDO more than you realize. And while the AMO may influence temps along the Eastern Seaboard, the PDO has a profound influence on the Western half of the CONUS. But, you are correct, in that from 1994 until 2007, both the AMO and PDO were in phase on the + side.
KNR says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:28 am
Facts be dammed , its the messages ‘impact’ that matters…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That became obvious after the Cook and Lew papers. Doesn’t matter if the papers are retracted, the public now ‘Knows D*niers are crazy’ just like they ‘Know D*niers are funded by Big Oil’
Don’t debate just dish up the dirt and hope some of the mud you sling sticks. – Very much politics not science as Richard Telford just showed us. (I wonder if he is the Dr. Richard Telford, climate scientist. That makes his mud slinging even worse.)
bit chilly says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:44 am
,i am fairly new to this debate,so am not aware of the nuances….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stick around and you will get an education. Some commentors have been here for years and are well known but new people are constantly showing up. Don’t miss the black navigation bar to reference pages under the top heading and Ric Werme’s guide to WUWT
M Courtney says: @ur momisugly September 5, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Devil’s Advocate viewpoint.
Richard Telford is expressing contempt for occasional poor gate-keeping in the short history of WUWT.
And also for the unclear authority inferred by publication on WUWT.
And he’s right because such issues have arisen.…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not think it is ‘poor gate-keeping’ but a light touch.
As the header says it is “commentary on puzzling things”…. So WUWT was never meant to be a Science Journal nor to publish only what Anthony agrees with. This is one of WUWT’s strengths. The other strength is the high caliber of commenters. The meat of WUWT is not in the topic posted but in the comments that follow. Very few other sites on the internet that are geared toward the average person have such high caliber comments.
Last, as long as you are polite and obey the site rules you can comment free of censorship unlike at many other sites that are nothing but echo chambers.
AllanJ says:
“I wonder if he calculated inflation. There was a time in the recent past when a billion dollars was a lot of money.”
…..
dbstealey says: @ur momisugly September 5, 2013 at 11:41 am
Excellent point. What was recently $billions is now $trillions…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For example my parents bought a home near NYC for $3,000 in the 1930s. My cousin bought a home in the same area for $300,000 in the 1980’s. Today the average listing price for homes for sale in New York NY was $2,598,415. Without an inflation adjustment the numbers are completely meaningless.
george e. smith says: @ur momisugly September 5, 2013 at 1:29 pm
….Slight factual adjustment called for there ; Diffy old chap; for “we’re” read “I’m”.
Why is that individuals who are survivally challeneged, simply assume, that everyone else is similarly afflicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Very good point.
Building in areas with KNOWN hazards is just plain stupid. I could have build a nice river view home like my neighbors did but I prefer not to build on the flood plain of a river and built 100 ft higher up the ridge. Next big hurricane that comes inland and hits the Raleigh area is going to wipe those new houses out. I have seen that area under water during the last hurricane that hit inland and I am not even a native of the area.
Richard Telford seems to be a seriously confused individual.
chris moffatt says:
September 5, 2013 at 12:30 pm: A man after my own heart. California is starting to grow Rhone grapes, maybe there is a great Shiraz (Syrah) or Rhone blend out there now. (Australia produces some fabulous Shiraz).
george e. smith says:
September 5, 2013 at 1:37 pm
“…Well a bottle of “Pinot Noir” (wine, not grape) could be purchased for a pittance before some idiot featured such wine, in a stupid movie….” I think not. Pinot Noir (or “Red Burgundy”) from Burgundy has fetched premium prices since, well, grapes have been grown in Europe. Clos Chambertin (Champs de Bertin) dates back more than a thousand years when Bertin was cropping it, and maybe, another thousand before that. When the Burgundian vintage is great, some wines may go for $500 to $1000 a BOTTLE; in off years you can steal them for maybe $400. When they are great, there is nothing like them, regardless of what the folk over in Bordeaux (red wines of Cab Sav, Cab Franc, Merlot (the “bête noire” of the movie you cited) and other blending grapes, like Malbec (not worth your time)). Californian pinots are typically low-rent (although Windward down in Paso Robles area makes some truly dynamite burgundian pinots). Great Pinot is one of God’s gifts to mankind.
thanks for the advice gail,much appreciated .
Our 1890s in Oz had some dramatic reversals, but I reckon nothing beats that period of three seasons in the US which produced extreme cold then extreme heat and threw in the Labor Day Hurricane. (Oh, and a Dust Bowl, because all the rain had gone to flood China in the 1930s). Of course, back then they could say: “Look ma, no CO2!”
Now, could someone please take a photo of me looking all smug and pensive? If you get the light and angle right I’ve got these great little dimples…
Bob says: September 5, 2013 at 12:45 pm
…
He’d be called a junior lecturer here and not be let loose with much at all.
bit chilly says:
“thanks for the advice gail,much appreciated.”
You won’t go wrong listening to Gail Combs. She’s been here a long time, and has much common sense to offer.
You should ban Mr Telford for a period of one week to six months. don’t tell the exact time. Each time he tries to comment and finds himself banned will allow him to reflect on why. Okay it’s more likely to cause appoplexy, still works for me
Diffenbaugh and Scherer found strong evidence…. OK…so I read until…Then, using climate models, they quantified how the risk of such damaging weather has changed in the current climate of high greenhouse gas concentrations, as opposed to an era of significantly lower concentrations and no global warming So WHERE is the EVIDENCE here?
===================================================================
It’s in two places. A model that won’t fly and a tree ring that died.
Associate Professor and Research Assistant = rent-seeking academics, and damn junior ones at that.
“””””…..@ur momisugly jimF
When the Burgundian vintage is great, some wines may go for $500 to $1000 a BOTTLE; …..”””””
Well that’s the whole problem isn’t it Jim; once in a great while something happens and they get a decent wine..
Drives them batty that in California we grow great ones every year.
European wines are highly over rated.
Nothing new here; Jim-bob Hansen has been peddling the “loading the dice” scenario since, when – 2006 or something? Just another sign of the times that academics can snag funding for repeat malarkey (and that journos keep hacking it back up, for that matter), even as mother nature conspicuously refuses to follow the script.
Another sign of the times: The term “scientist” is getting so diffuse that it’s about lost all meaning. What does it take to be a “professor of environmental Earth system science” anyway – a science-lite curriculum similar to Peter Glitch’s? Sure sounds impressive, at least to a journo.
The Age of Science. Nice while it lasted.
If you are going to complain about scientists, Peter Gleick is still described in Wikipedia as working on issues related to the environment, economic development, international security, and scientific ethics and integrity,, with a focus on global freshwater challenges.
Even the Pacific Institute has dropped the science ethics bit from his bio.
I have made several attempts to get it changed on Wikipedia but there is a heavy green contingent that always gets it re-instated.