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
richardscourtney says:
August 1, 2014 at 9:35 am
Global warming has stopped”
I have given you empirical proof that global warming has not stopped. The oceans of the earth right now are continuing to warm. The evidence of tis warming is the rise in sea level. Part of this rise of sea level is due to thermal expansion. The thermal expansion of the oceans is due to the oceans becoming warmer.
You are free to ignore the evidence of the oceans warming if you wish, but that just goes to show you that you are ignoring scientific evidence. I would like for you to explain how the thermal expansion of the oceans is occurring without the oceans warming. Your explanation of this effect would be an interesting overturning of basic physics.
chuck asserts:
I have given you empirical proof that global warming has not stopped.
Wrong, as usual. You have made an assertion. It is wrong. Deal with it.
Next, chuck says:
Thermal expansion is not “lagging”
chuck, you certainly are dense. The link you cited states:
…greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilised due to the long lag times involved in warming of the oceans…
That directly contradicts your belief. You continue:
the measurement of sea level rise indicates the warming HAS NOT STOPPED.
Folks, we are matching wits with an unarmed person.
Next, chuckles says:
You still have not explained the physics behind the “lagging thermal expansion”
The onus is on you to provide explanations, chuck. It is your conjecture that thermal expansion is instantaneous. But no one educated in the hard sciences would agree with that statement. You are just diggin a deeper hole.
It is the duty of skeptics to deconstruct conjectures wherever possible. What is left standing is as close to scientific truth as we can currently get. The problem with chuck is that there is nothing left standing with his conjecture.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JohnWho asks chuck:
No other factor(s) influences what we perceive as a “sea level rise”?
John, I read recently a peer eviewed paper, which convincingly shows that ground water extraction accounts for a large fraction of land subsidence, which appears as sea level rise, even though it isn’t. That process continues even though global warming has stopped.
But chuck admits:
Only thing I know that causes thermal expansion is heat.
Some day chuck might get up to speed on the subject.
Next, chuck says:
Richard, please explain to me how water can thermally expand without an increase in temperature.
chuck is incredibly dense. He still cannot undserstand the concept of lag time:
T rises, then thermal expansion occurs. They are not simultaneous, but chuck says they are. He is wrong.
When the alarmist crowd fails to make logical arguments, they fall back on the argument from authority fallacy: the ‘consensus’ agrees with them, so they must be right. They constantly use that fallacy to buttress their argument.
Well, chuck is the lone ranger here. No one agrees with him. Therefore, the ‘consensus’ must be right, eh, chuck?
In this case, everyone else is right. But not because of any consensus. Chuck is wrong because he lacks any credible facts to support his belief. Argument by assertion is his stock in trade. No wonder his argument fails.
Global warming has stopped. But chuck is forced to argue that thermal expansion is instantaneous. If he admits the truth — that there is a lag time affecting thermal expansion — then chuck’s argument fails. So he is forced to make that ridiculous argument.
Global warming stopped many years ago, chuck. Everyone knows that. The sooner you accept it, the sooner you will stop sounding like a crazy person.
dbstealey says:
August 1, 2014 at 10:21 am
That directly contradicts your belief.” <b?
Please explain to all of us the physics behind lagging thermal expansion.
How long must I wait after increasing the temperature of water 10 degrees C before the expansion takes place. Is it 10 minutes, 5 hours or 3 weeks?
dbstealey says:
August 1, 2014 at 10:21 am
e. No one agrees with him ”
Physics is not a popularity contest. Are you suggesting to all of us here that “consensus” is your “proof?”
dbstealey says:
August 1, 2014 at 10:21 am
” credible facts”
3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/yr for the past 17 years
Thermal expansion.
richardscourtney: Your claim that global warming has not stopped because of indications of “measurement of sea level rise” is like saying the parrot has not died because its feet are nailed to its perch.
that’s nonsensical. His claim that global warming has not stopped because the sea level continues to rise is like saying that the parrot has not died because its feet continue to grow, absent other signs of life.
As far as I can tell (links and references hereby solicited), there is no good explanation of why the sea level continues to rise while the surface and troposphere temperatures remain approximately constant if the “global warming” is caused by an increase in CO2 concentration in the troposphere.
chuck says:
Please explain to all of us the physics behind lagging thermal expansion.
How many times do you have to be told that instantaneous thermal expansion is your conjecture? That means you have the onus of explaining.
So show us how that works. Explain how heat received in the oceans trnaslates into instant thermal expansion. Does it happen at the speed of light? Explain. The onus is on you.
Next, chucles says:
Are you suggesting to all of us here that “consensus” is your “proof?”
Reading comprehension, me bnoi. You needs it. Read what I wrote: consensus is not a valid argument. The fact is that you are simply wrong. No consensus needed. Still, no one agrees with you, and folks here are well educated in the hard sciences. Clearlly, you are not.
Finally, chuck says:
3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/yr for the past 17 years Thermal expansion.
Disregarding the fact that there is a lag time, and disregarding land subsidence — which reduces your statement to a prayer.
Global warming has stopped, chuck. Deal with it. Because it is painful to watch you argue like a Jehovah’s Witness.
Matthew Marler,
The argument that the sea level is rising due to AGW is easily debunked. Here is a chart showing that SL rise is cyclical.
This chart shows the rate of SL rise from the 1900’s. Notice that there is no “fingerprint of AGW”.
And this chart shows the long term sea level rise. It is obvious that there is no acceleration in SL rise — one of the central predictions of the alarmist cult. But there has been no acceleration. Therfore, SL rise is due to the natural recovery from the LIA, and not to human emissions.
I have plenty more charts and sources that say the same thing, if you’re interested. The notion that SL rise due to thermal expansion from AGW is nonsense. There is no empirical evidence that supports that belief.
dbstealey says:
August 1, 2014 at 10:53 am
“instantaneous thermal expansion is your conjecture”
…
I’ll demonstrate it for you in my laboratory.
..
I can also explain it by telling you all about vibrating molecules
Matthew R Marler:
At August 1, 2014 at 10:50 am you assert
No, my analogy was sensible, correct and true. Yours is not.
The parrot seller claimed the parrot was alive because it had not fallen off its perch. But there was another possible reason why it had not fallen; i.e. the nails.
chuck claims global warming has not stopped because sea level rise has not stopped. But there are many possible reasons why the rise continues; e.g. glacial loss, tectonic movements, subterranian water extraction, etc..
The reality is that all estimates of global temperature anomaly indicate that global warming has stopped, but chuck’s superstitious belief prevents him accepting that global warming has stopped.
Richard
dbstealey says:
August 1, 2014 at 10:53 am
the fact that there is a lag time”
There is no lag time in thermal expansion.
…
[Snip. Bad email address. Please post using a legitimate email. ~mod.]
chuck asserts:
There is no lag time in thermal expansion.
Maybe not on your planet. But here on Planet Earth there is a lag time, as cited in the link above.
You are really sounding like a swivel-eyed lunatic. Faced with facts, you react like Leon Festinger’s Seekers, when they were told there was no flying saucer coming. They just refused to believe it.
Next:
Don’t change the subject.
Wake up. I wasn’t replying to you, I was answering Matthew Marler.
But now that you’re involved, explain why there is no acceleration in natural SL rise. Because that fact debunks everything you are arguing.
[Snip. Bad email address. Please post using a legitimate email. ~mod.]
[Snip. Bad email address. Please post using a legitimate email. ~mod.]
chuck:
I am losing count of the number of times you agree things which contradict your assertions.
The latest is in your post at August 1, 2014 at 11:21 am which says about sea level rise
But, as dbstealey has shown, there is a lag time between temperature and sea level rise.
Therefore, if – as you say – “There is no lag time in thermal expansion” then the sea level rise cannot be a result of thermal expansion. At very least, it cannot be a direct effect of thermal expansion.
And if the sea level rise is not a result of thermal expansion then it cannot indicate a temperature rise.
Richard
chuck:
re your post at August 1, 2014 at 11:29 am.
NO! I will not give you my opinion. Your request emphasises your earlier assertion that empirical evidence is merely opinion.
YOU claim that the ‘parrot is still on its perch’ because of thermal expansion of the oceans, and I am pointing to the nails attaching it to the perch. YOU need to show ‘the nails are not sufficient’ to keep the parrot on the perch.
Global warming has stopped. Your superstition does not change that.
Richard
[Snip. Bad email address. Please post using a legitimate email. ~mod.]
chuck says:
Still waiting for your physical explanation
Still waiting for you to visit Planet Earth, where the one making the conjecture has the onus of explaining it.
But chuckles cannot explain what he doesn’t understand. If 2 + 2 = 4 meant that chuck would have to acknowledge that global warming has stopped, then chuck would insist that 2 + 2 = 5.
That’s the kind of cognitive dissonance we’re dealing with.
chuck says:
Please post a link to the graph that shows the delay time in thermal expansion of heated water.
chuck, post a graph showing instantaneous therrmal response to input.
You can’t do it, because no such chart exists. Further: post your response to the source stating that there is a lag between input and response. You can’t do that, either. Thus, your argument fails, just like all your other impotent arguments.
chuck:
Yet again you demonstrate your lack of ability at reading comprehension with your post at August 1, 2014 at 11:42 am.
I wrote
and you have replied with this non sequitur
I refuse to believe you are as stupid as your posts indicate.
You have not demonstrated that “Part of that rise is due to thermal expansion” and if you could it would not be relevant. The irrelevance of it is because only ocean SURFACE temperature contributes to global warming and global warming has stopped.
Richard
[Snip. Bad email address. Please post using a legitimate email. ~mod.]
chuck says:
So, I guess you cannot explain your theory of “lagging thermal expansion”
Of course I can. But I am holding your feet to the fire of the scientific method. The onus is on you to explain. Trying to weasel out of it shows that you have no explanation.
Sea levels are rising at the same rate as they have for hundreds of years. There is no “fingerprint of AGW”, therfore, all of chuck’s arguments fail.
finally, what is “chuck’s” CV? I think he is a juvenile lemming who recently discovered the global warming scare. Let’s contrast ‘chuck’ with the link showing a clear lag time in thermal expansion. Because who should we beleiuve? An immature lemming? Or a scholarly paper? Because they cannot both be right, and clearly chuck is wrong.
[Snip. Bad email address. Please post using a legitimate email. ~mod.]
chuck:
In your post at August 1, 2014 at 12:13 pm you demand that dbstealey provide his “theory of lagging thermal expansion”.
He does not need one because it is YOU who is claiming the sea level rise is thermal expansion and he has shown there is a lag.
I keep telling you that when you claim the rise is thermal expansion then YOU need to explain the lag because the lag suggests the rise is NOT thermal expansion. But you ignore that reality with similar aplomb to your ignoring the reality that global warming has stopped.
Richard
[Snip. Bad email address. Please post using a legitimate email. ~mod.]