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
chuck:
Your idiocy has become so extreme that I am now convinced it is feigned.
At August 1, 2014 at 12:21 pm I wrote saying to you in total
You have yet again replied with non sequiter when at August 1, 2014 at 12:27 pm you write
THE LAG SHOWS THE SEA LEVEL RISE IS NOT THERMAL EXPANSION.
You claim it is thermal expansion so YOU – n.b. YOU and ONLY YOU – needs to explain the lag because it refutes your claim of thermal expansion.
And I am certain that you are not so devoid of any brain cells that you don’t understand this.
Richard
The Australian Government’s Department of the Environment states that:
But chuck insists that this is wrong. He claims that lag times are instantaneous.
So who should we believe? chuck?
Or an official publication, written by scientists who have forgotten more than clueless chuck will ever understand?
I really wonder about ‘chuck’. This is the middle of a work day. Either ‘chuck’ is unemployed, or he is cheating his employer by posting his comments incessantly on blogs.
Which is it, chuck? And what is your CV? Because as of now the evidence shows that you are commenting from profound ignorance. Are you an inmate in a mental facility? Or are you just trolling?
[Snip. Bad email address. Please post using a legitimate email. ~mod.]
dbstealey:
At August 1, 2014 at 12:46 pm you say
There is another possibility and I think it is the most likely; i.e.
‘chuck’ is employed to troll and is remunerated for each post he/she/they makes.
Richard
troll posting as chuck:
I am glad I am not in your “class” because I would not want to join you in primary school.
Your illogical, ignorant and silly posts are probably earning you money but they are achieving nothing else. Indeed, when your employer learns that your posts are discrediting warmunists then you may get fired as an employed troll.
Richard
[Snip. Bad email address. Please post using a legitimate email. ~mod.]
[Snip. Bad email address. Please post using a legitimate email. ~mod.]
Richard says:
There is another possibility and I think it is the most likely; i.e.
‘chuck’ is employed to troll and is remunerated for each post he/she/they makes.
That sounds reasonable. But if so, they should pay someone who makes sense. chuck doesn’t. His comments are nonsense.
troll posting as ‘chuck’:
What was your pay for providing your silly post at August 1, 2014 at 1:01 pm?
It asks me
I don’t have one and I don’t need one because I am not claiming the lagged sea level rise is a result of thermal expansion:
YOU ARE MAKING THAT CLAIM NOT ME.
So, what is YOUR citation on the time lag in thermal expansion of water.
Your failure to provide the citation will be proof that you know your claim that the lagged sea level rise is a result of thermal expansion is plain wrong.
Richard
chuck says:
August 1, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Do you seriously imagine that heat transfer is instantaneous?
Thermal lag describes a body’s thermal mass with respect to time. A body with high thermal mass (high heat capacity & low conductivity) will have a large thermal lag.
Thermal \ lag (s) = {\sqrt {1 \over {2 * \alpha * \Omega}} * L}
α = Thermal diffusivity (m2/s)
Ω = External angular frequency (s-1)
L = thickness (m)
Thermal lag is why temperatures next to oceans are moderated while those inland on continents aren’t, so are more extreme. Thermal lag explains why high temperatures in summer continue to increase after the solstice, & is why a day’s high temperature peaks in the afternoon instead of when the sun is theoretically at its peak, ie local real noon.
Why do you post here only to make a fool of yourself?
dbstealey says:
August 1, 2014 at 11:06 am
And this chart shows the long term sea level rise. It is obvious that there is no acceleration in SL rise
I suggest you recheck this one it doesn’t match its description.
Phil.,
The information is from a peer reviewed paper by Holgate & Woodworth, 2004. The satellite altimeter data is self-explanatory.
If you have a problem with either that paper or the satellite data, please contact the original sources and argue with them.
Pretty much the same information is contained in the other two charts I posted in the same comment, so you are just nitpicking.
richardscourtney: 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.
Rising sea level seems to me more similar to growing feet, not nailed feet. It’s in the “-ing”, indicating an ongoing process.
dbstealey: The argument that the sea level is rising due to AGW is easily debunked. Here is a chart showing that SL rise is cyclical.
I already agreed that there is no good explanation how the sea level rise can be caused by atmospheric CO2 accumulation if the surface and troposphere temps are not increasing. That SL rise is cyclical hardly matters since the system is a nonlinear dissipative system with a high dimension.
Matthew R Marler:
Your post at August 1, 2014 at 9:02 pm seems to be an argument for the sake of arguing.
No anology is perfect, and I think the ‘parrot & perch’ is a good one.
Don’t use it if you don’t like it.
The discussion is about cessation of global warming which is a rise in the global average surface temperature (GASTA). Global warming has stopped, and putative warming of deep ocean is not relevant to that because temperatures below the surface do not contribute to GASTA.
Richard
Matthew Marler says:
…the system is a nonlinear dissipative system with a high dimension.
Please translate that into terms that are easy to follow. Thanx.