From Northeastern University via Eurekalert, and the department of modeling for 10 million dollars, this seems to be all they could come up with. Nature has a way however, of taking the the best laid plans and rendering them moot. I don’t think they’ve noted ‘the pause’ yet. There’s no paper listed, nor data references, nothing, making it one of the worst press releases I’ve seen in awhile. The press release upstream at the University is hardly any better, citing the 97% consensus as if it has anything to do with extremes modeling, but at least they gave a link to the paper where Eurekalert didn’t.
Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay
In a paper published online today in the journal Scientific Reports, published by Nature, Northeastern researchers Evan Kodra and Auroop Ganguly found that while global temperature is indeed increasing, so too is the variability in temperature extremes. For instance, while each year’s average hottest and coldest temperatures will likely rise, those averages will also tend to fall within a wider range of potential high and low temperate extremes than are currently being observed. This means that even as overall temperatures rise, we may still continue to experience extreme cold snaps, said Kodra.
“Just because you have a year that’s colder than the usual over the last decade isn’t a rejection of the global warming hypothesis,” Kodra explained.
With funding from a $10-million multi-university Expeditions in Computing grant, the duo used computational tools from big data science for the first time in order to extract nuanced insights about climate extremes.
The research also opens new areas of interest for future work, both in climate and data science. It suggests that the natural processes that drive weather anomalies today could continue to do so in a warming future. For instance, the team speculates that ice melt in hotter years may cause colder subsequent winters, but these hypotheses can only be confirmed in physics-based studies.
The study used simulations from the most recent climate models developed by groups around the world for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and “reanalysis data sets,” which are generated by blending the best available weather observations with numerical weather models. The team combined a suite of methods in a relatively new way to characterize extremes and explain how their variability is influenced by things like the seasons, geographical region, and the land-sea interface. The analysis of multiple climate model runs and reanalysis data sets was necessary to account for uncertainties in the physics and model imperfections.
The new results provide important scientific as well as societal implications, Ganguly noted. For one thing, knowing that models project a wider range of extreme temperature behavior will allow sectors like agriculture, public health, and insurance planning to better prepare for the future. For example, Kodra said, “an agriculture insurance company wants to know next year what is the coldest snap we could see and hedge against that. So, if the range gets wider they have a broader array of policies to consider.”
The paper:
http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140730/srep05884/full/srep05884.html
Asymmetry of projected increases in extreme temperature distributions
Evan Kodra & Auroop R. Ganguly
A statistical analysis reveals projections of consistently larger increases in the highest percentiles of summer and winter temperature maxima and minima versus the respective lowest percentiles, resulting in a wider range of temperature extremes in the future. These asymmetric changes in tail distributions of temperature appear robust when explored through 14 CMIP5 climate models and three reanalysis datasets. Asymmetry of projected increases in temperature extremes generalizes widely. Magnitude of the projected asymmetry depends significantly on region, season, land-ocean contrast, and climate model variability as well as whether the extremes of consideration are seasonal minima or maxima events. An assessment of potential physical mechanisms provides support for asymmetric tail increases and hence wider temperature extremes ranges, especially for northern winter extremes. These results offer statistically grounded perspectives on projected changes in the IPCC-recommended extremes indices relevant for impacts and adaptation studies.
Figure S1
Hey NU, if you ever wanted to know why I never send you money …
chuck says:
I don’t know if [global warming] has stopped. It may have. It may not have. You cannot prove it has stopped, and you cannot prove it continues.
By that criteria, we know nothing, and we can never know. It’s all a mystery.
Well, that is nonsense. Per satellite measurements, global warming has stopped.
But the alarmist crowd cannot admit that they were wrong. They cannot admit that all their predictions were wrong. They cannot admit that Planet Earth is contradicting their CO2=cAGW Belief.
Once again, that is the difference between skeptics and alarmists: skeptics accept reality, whatever it is and wherever it leads. But alarmists only accept what confirms their bias.
That said, there is just a tiny bit of schadenfreude being enjoyed by skeptics. The alarmist clique was so very certain that they were right and skeptics were wrong. But the alarmists were wrong, and there is a little bit of enjoyment in seeing them get taken down a peg. Maybe next time they will be a little bit more humble.
Now if we can just get chuck to acknowledge that global warming has stopped…
☺
dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 4:12 am
” global warming has stopped. ”
…
Skeptics do not practice dogmatism. They keep an open mind. You continue to commit the fallacy of false dichotomy
Ok. My mistake. Should read more closely. I admit, I confused Northwestern and Northeastern and I have to apologize to Northwestern and the State of Illinois.
I also agree that the earth isn’t warming right now. However, over the whole historical record such a shift in extremes would be expected and you don’t have to crank a lot of computer time to prove it.
I still say that this is trivial and just shows that where climate science is concerned you can get anything published that fits the politics.
This drivel was painful to read. But what it seemed to me was an excuse for Gov’t to keep fear-mongering, and to claim that AGW, climate change, or whatever, will be even MORE expensive than was first estimated.
It’s an excuse to “act now” so that we save money in the “long run.” And those on the dole can keep raking in their coerced taxpayer dollars.
chuck:
In response to the empirically accurate statement at July 31, 2014 at 4:12 am by dbstealey which said:
at July 31, 2014 at 5:39 am you have replied by saying in total
Let me correct that for you.
Skeptics do not practice dogmatism. They keep an open mind but not so open that their brains fall out. However, members of the Cult Of Global Warming often pretend reality does not exist when confronted with facts such as global warming having stopped.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
July 31, 2014 at 7:24 am
..
” when confronted with facts such as global warming having stopped.”
Neither the “skeptics” nor the “warmists” in this line of study can conclusively show what it has doing. You cannot prove it has stopped, and you cannot prove it is continuing. You also are being “dogmatic” which is a sure sign of an unscientific take on things.
You need to stop confusing “facts” with your “beliefs.” Try saying this instead….”The evidence seems to indicate……..” instead of “…facts such as…..”
chuck:
At July 31, 2014 at 10:10 am in response to my attempt to correct your idiocy you write
OK. I will practice.
The evidence seems to indicate Elizabeth II was crowned Queen of England in 1993.
The evidence seems to indicate that gravity acts as a force.
The evidence seems to indicate that global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.
The evidence overwhelming indicates that ‘chuck’ is a troll.
I think I’m getting the hang of it. Do you think I need more practice?
Oh, and by the way, it is an empirical fact that global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.
I don’t need to practice that because it is science and I understand that.
Richard
chuck,
Richard is right, and you should pay attention. What you are doing is cherry-picking, which feeds your confirmation bias. That sounds more like religion than science.
Depending on the start date, you can show warming or cooling. There is no doubt that the planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age. But that is not the debate. The argument here is about whether global warming has occurred since 1997 — Phil Jones’ designated base year.
There is ample empirical evidence showing that global warming has been stopped for many years now. There has been no recent global warming, which contradicts the endless alarmist predictions of runaway global warming, leading to a climate catastrophe. That just did not happen. The climate alarmists’ predictions were wrong. All of them.
In fact, every alarmist prediction, from accelerating sea level rise, to disappearing polar ice, to methane hydrate burps, to decimated Polar bear populations, to coral bleaching, to frog extinctions, to runaway global warming itself, have all been proven wrong.
When every one of a particular group’s predictions are shown to be wrong, reasonable people will begin to look at their continued assertions with a jaundiced eye. Skeptics, especially, look at alarmist predictions with great doubt, because they have all been wrong.
So, two questions:
First: why should we believe anything the alarmist crowd tells us now? They have never been right. Why should we think they are suddenly right? What has changed?
And second: what would it take to convince you that the runaway global warming narrative has been falsified? Would anything convince you? If so, what would it be?
Take your time, I have all day…
richardscourtney says:
July 31, 2014 at 11:34 am
” it is an empirical fact that global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago.”
.
Well, that is a matter of opinion and not of “fact”
…
Even Monckton disagrees with you on that.
…
So do several other data source.
…
Sorry, the jury is still out, and your “belief” is not fact. You are no different than a warmist.
dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 12:08 pm
” which feeds your confirmation bias.”
..
Please explain how someone with an indeterminate position can even have bias? I will repeat, “the jury is still out.” I’m finding your US vs THEM attitude fascinating
chuck says:
Please explain how…
I keep answering your questions and comments, but you avoid answering mine.
Be a good sport and answer the 2 questions in my last post. Then I can continue, and give you your explanation.
dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 1:48 pm
answer the 2 questions in my last post”
1a) It’s not a matter of “belief”
1b) If “they” have been right JUST ONCE, you cannot say “They have never been right” You have opened yourself up to being shown wrong with a single example of an alarmist being correct.
1c) You don’t have to accept them as being “right” Just as you are not allowed to think of yourself as being “right” I will repeat….the jury is still out, the science is NOT settled.
….
2) I don’t accept “runaway” so …..why should bother with this question?
chuck:
I am flabbergasted by your post at July 31, 2014 at 12:44 pm.
Are you really claiming that you do not know the difference between “an empirical fact” and “a matter of opinion”?
Please explain.
It is an empirical fact that global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago: it is not merely a matter of opinion.
Anybody can dispute an empirical fact but that does not make the empirical fact mere opinion. For example, a fact that I stated to you earlier was that HM Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in 1953, but there are some people who claim to be the rightful monarch: those claims do not alter the fact that QE2 is the monarch.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
July 31, 2014 at 2:07 pm
It is an empirical fact that global warming stopped nearly 18 years ago”
…
It is also an empirical fact that global warming did not stop nearly 18 years ago. So, should one believe your fact or should someone believe the opposing fact?
chuck:
At July 31, 2014 at 2:15 pm you say
Bollocks!
To stop is a change of condition.
Global warming has stopped is an empirical fact.
Global warming has not stopped is not an empirical fact: it is a lie.
It can be disputed as to WHEN global warming stopped because different analytical methods indicate different dates. But that does NOT convert the lie that ‘global warming has not stopped’ into a fact.
Global warming has stopped. It either stopped or not, and it cannot be a bit stopped. The empirical data all shows it stopped but the various estimates differ about when it stopped.
Similarly, there can be a discussion about how long a woman has been pregnant, but that does not mean she is not pregnant. Either she is pregnant or not, and she cannot be a bit pregnant. The empirical data may show she is pregnant but the various estimates may differ about when she became pregnant.
And I still await your explanation of your claim that empirical evidence is merely opinion.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
July 31, 2014 at 2:41 pm
Global warming has stopped.”
…
There is empirical evidence that global warming has not stopped, and in fact continues as we type.
..
I learned in logic, that A and ~A is false.
Since you assert A, and there is evidence that A is not true, there is no way to “empirically” determine if global warming has in fact stopped. You are no different than a warmist in BELIEVING that your “fact” is true, especially when counterfactual empirical evidence exists that says you are wrong. The end result is that the truth or falsity of these statements becomes a matter of opinion, since the empirical evidence renders verification indeterminate. The sign of a good scientist is one that questions the evidence, not someone like you that ignores evidence that is contrary to your confirmation bias. I see no difference between you and a warmist in your approach to this matter.
chuck says:
there is no way to “empirically” determine if global warming has in fact stopped.
Wrong. Of course, you would say that. There is ample empirical evidence showing that global warming has stopped.
But thanx for trying. However, you didn’t answer my question: why should we believe anyone whose predictions always fail? They were all wrong. That was my point. Why should anyone assume that from this point on, alarmist assertions are correct?
1b) No. To be worthwhile, a conjecture must be able to make accurate, repeated predictions. Making one right guess is no more than the broken clock analogy. It means nothing.
1c) That is my point: I do not accept baseless assertions, which is all that the alarmist crowd has. And I don’t think of myself as being ‘right’, I look at it as gaining knowledge. And the jury has returned its verdict.
In case I haven’t made it clear enough: global warming stopped around 1997, and no one has seen it since, despite all the predictions that it would continue, and accelerate.
2) You misrepresent what I asked, regarding the empiurical fact that global warming has stopped: Would anything convince you? If so, what would it be?
Tell us, what would convince you that global warming has stopped? Would glaciers have to descend once again over Chicago, a mile deep? Or would that not be enough to convince you? For rational folks, satellite data showing no global warming for 17+ years is sufficient. But that assumes your belief isn’t religious. If it is, all bets are off, because then nothing can ever convince you.
chuck says:
It is also an empirical fact that global warming did not stop nearly 18 years ago.
No, that is not an “empirical fact”. Where do you get that nonsense from??
Post your “empirical” fact showing that global warming did not stop, chuck. Keep in mind that scientific evidence consists of verifiable observations and raw data. It does not consist of pal reviewed papers, or computer models. Those are not empirical evidence.
Also keep in mind that observations that are restricted to land measurments only are not sufficient; nor are observations that have been constantly “adjusted”, like GISS and NOAA routinely do.
Real world data encompasses the real world, not 29% of it, and unless those “adjustments” are posted chapter and verse along with the original raw data, they are worthless. The methodology used to arrive at the final numbers must be posted for falsification by other scientists. Otherwise, it’s just witch doctor juju.
dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 4:02 pm
In case I haven’t made it clear enough: global warming stopped around 1997″
….
That is not what the UAH data says
dbstealey says:
July 31, 2014 at 4:13 pm
.
“Post your “empirical” fact showing that global warming did not stop ”
..
In the past 17 years, there has been about 50 mm of sea level rise. It hasn’t stopped rising in the 17 years. Part of that is due to melting ice, part of it is due to thermal expansion.
chuck says:
July 31, 2014 at 5:07 pm (challenging dbstealey says:)
Hmmmn. What is your supposed “source” for that supposed “evidence”?
Are you sure you’re quoting millimeters per year, and not millimeters per decade? Centimeters per century? You sure of that “melting ice” volume? Give us the numbers for that too, since the deep ocean is cooling, according to the actual measurements.
On the plus side, I am glad to see increased use of the generalized extreme value distribution. With large computational facilities and budgets, I would like to see quantile regression used (to model the low and high quantiles approximately independently.)
On the minus side, the results are based on analysis of cmip model output and reanalysis data sets, so all they do really is elaborate on model outputs; here focusing on changes in variability rather than changes in means.
On the whole, the paper reads more like a statistical modeling exercise for the purpose of building a facility for modeling that might in future be informative when applied to actual climate data instead of model output.
Arthur wrote: Once you start keeping track of highs and lows (of anything) on a global scale there will ALWAYS be a new higher and a new lower over any given time period. How is this news?
The goal is to improve materially on the accuracy with which such statements can be made. clearly the authors can not claim much material improvement so far, but the use of extreme value distributions on real data sets should be informative.
RACookPE1978: Are you sure you’re quoting millimeters per year, and not millimeters per decade?
Isn’t that 50 mm in 17years, ca 3mm/year, or around average?
RACookPE1978 says:
July 31, 2014 at 5:58 pm
” What is your supposed “source” for that supposed “evidence”?”
CU Sea Level Research Group.