The 'Diffenbaugh Delusion' – refuted with a single graph of temperature

Noah Diffenbaugh
Noah Diffenbaugh – Stanford.

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.

conus_tmax

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:

PDO_cycle

(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?

USA_HighTemperature_records

Apparently, according to other peer reviewed work, the warming over the past 20 years has been exaggerated:

Ffe_figure1

Red= Observations  Gray= Models   Source: Fyfe et al. 2013

Statistical proof of ‘the pause’ – Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

88 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
beng
September 6, 2013 6:51 am

A certain Dr S should walk across campus & box the ears of these Diffenbaugh and Scherer neophytes…

mpainter
September 6, 2013 8:15 am

Richard Telford: you have a primary interest in diatoms. But, scanning the article on the (claimed) meteoritic diatom, which article you sneer at, I find no comment from you. Most comments indicated skepticism about the claim, but you never did. Curiously, having made no contribution to that thread, although it touched on your primary interest, you now refer to that post sneeringly in order to snipe at Anthony. You will be forty-one years old next month. Is it not time that you showed a little maturity in public?

Dan Clauser
September 6, 2013 10:49 am

LdB, I fail to see your issue with Wikipedia. Peter Gleick is, in fact, “working on issues with …scientific ethics and integrity.” Wikipedia makes no claim in that statement whether he is working towards higher ethics and integrity or if he is actively pursuing their decline.

September 6, 2013 11:04 am

george e. smith says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:38 pm
The French are modernizing their wine-making practices, but until they permit irrigation, have no hope of matching the consistency of American wine quality.

Snotrocket
September 6, 2013 12:55 pm

Churchill was wont to say you should always read a [newspaper] that did not support your political point of view. With that in mind I tend to welcome the comments for the likes of Telford et al, not to mention the reports from his heroes, Cock-a-Le(w)ekey. I find that they give me pause: I think about their pov and often take on the task of looking up their gripes. But then, I realise the anti-humanist bile they preach is worthy only of a guffaw.
That said, without Telford’s (now there is a name he has to live up to – he’s failing miserably so far!) caustic comments about insects I would not have taken on board the fact that termites are quite so gaseous!
My vote would be to keep his comments – within the limits that he does not offend our ladies nor frighten the horses. Even the Court Jester gave the King pause…and the people much merriment.

Samuel C Cogar
September 6, 2013 1:47 pm

(quoting article) And finally, if “Global warming has increased risk of record heat”, wouldn’t we be seeing more records?
In answer to the above question; “yes”, I surely think so. And they would be “Max. Records” like is shown on the article’s graph titled: “U.S. State Maximum and Minimum Monthly Records by Decade”
But the big question is, given the different types of “records”, which one (1) is actually responsible for the calculated increase in heat?
If one looks at most any multi-year Annual Average Temperature graph it will show an increase in the Average Temperatures for the specified time frame, …… but how does one know if said increase is due to an increase in the Average night time and/or Winter Temperatures or an increase in the Average daytime and/or Summer Temperatures?
If the Average “cool/cold” Temperatures were steadily getting less cold (warmer) over the past 60 years …. which we know is an observational fact …… and the Average “daytime” Temperatures remained about the same, ……. then wouldn’t that produce a steady increase in Average Temperatures over said 60 year time frame? ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD.
And if so, wouldn’t that rule out the presumed “greenhouse” effect of atmospheric CO2? ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD.
If the atmospheric CO2 is increasing but the Summer temperatures are not getting hotter then atmospheric CO2 is not affecting near earth temperatures.
If the Average Summer Temperatures had been increasing at the same rate as the Average Winter Temperatures, which they should have been if atmospheric CO2 is the culprit, then 100+ degree F days would now be commonplace throughout the United States during the Summer months. But they are not commonplace and still only rarely happen except in the desert Southwest where they have always been commonplace.
Now, instead of saying that “the Earth is warming” it is more technically correct to say “the earth has not been cooling off as much during its cold/cool periods or seasons”.
One example of said “short term” non-cooling occcurs quite frequently and is commonly referred to as “Indian Summer”. REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_summer
Given the above, anytime the earth’s average calculated temperature fails to decrease to the temperature recorded for the previous year(s), it will cause an INCREASE or spike in the Average Temperature Calculation results for that period ….. which is cause for many people to falsely believe “the earth is getting hotter”.

John West
September 6, 2013 1:54 pm

richard telford
I’ve spent a good deal of time “Sou’s Blog” since I first noticed it a few months ago. The irrationality there is astounding. Basically, the overlying principle there is that since she’s a woman anyone that disagrees with her is sexist. Donna Laframboise’s drama queen series came to mind immediately. Obviously, you’re smart enough to use a keyboard and navigate the internet so IMO you’re not a lost cause. I implore you to take a step back and look at the bigger picture and do some fact checking before making up your mind. Basically, most of us skeptics are not “denying” science at all, we’re just pointing out that the CAGW meme is one possibility and is very far from reasonably certain. And no, we’re not asking for absolute certainty, no much is absolutely certain. But before I sign on to an action that is reasonably certain to increase poverty I’d like to be reasonably certain there’s a good reason for it. It’s like when you’re at a stop sign, you’d like to be reasonably certain you have enough time to pull out before another car tries to occupy the same space your car is occupying. Many times you can’t be absolutely sure you have enough time to pull out, that car coming might be going twice the speed limit or if it’s at night there might be a car on the road without its lights on. Nevertheless, before pulling out from the stop sign I like to look both ways in order to be reasonably confident/certain that I have enough time to pull out safely. Similarly, before signing up for economy killing legislation shouldn’t we look both ways?

Gail Combs
September 6, 2013 3:43 pm

george e. smith says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:38 pm
….Drives them batty that in California we grow great ones every year.
European wines are highly over rated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When stationed in Germany, I found it highly amusing that the Californian wines were much prized and more expensive. Those were the wines recommended by the wine stewards even though we were sitting in the wine country between the Mosel and Rhine rivers. (California ships its great wine to Europe and leaves the dregs for the Philistine in the USA to drink so I hear.)

JimF
September 6, 2013 3:52 pm

george e. smith says:
September 5, 2013 at 10:38 pm
Sorry to disagree, but good to great red burgundies (French) have no match in the USA (or anywhere else). US Pinot Noir is a pleasant glug (maybe; it is amazing how they can sometimes truly dispense with anything in the taste or nose that even resembles Pinot Noir), and even they will set you back $30 – $100. Truly overrated; they should stick to Cab Sauvignon and some Rhone varieties, and maybe Sauvignon Blanc (don’t get me started on California chardonnays). There is little risk-taking in Californian wines; the “gurus” from Cal-Davis make the same wine over and over, from $5 to $100 a bottle. When you have paid so much for the land, the palatial winery, the taxes, etc. there is no room for error. Some of that is showing up in France, I hate to say.

bit chilly
September 6, 2013 3:52 pm

is it possible to contact anthony by email ?

bit chilly
September 6, 2013 5:50 pm

thanks anthony,sorry to be so inept at using the site features

bit chilly
September 6, 2013 6:28 pm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/the-diffenbaugh-delusion-refuted-with-a-single-graph-of-temperature/#comment-1409972
please accept my apologies for how the email is displayed,i will make sure to paragraph appropriately if there is a next time.