From the UNIVERSITY OF EXETER and the “weather is not climate” department comes this press release that comes with a blindingly obvious title. So far, the efforts trying to link “climate change” to extreme weather events usually come up short. Often they come amplified in social media by activists like Bill McKibben who sees climate change occurring behind almost every weather event and uses that as a tool to keep his followers excited and active. But the reality is that extreme weather just hasn’t been on the increase. Hurricane frequency is flat and accumulated cyclone energy has been down, and hasn’t reached levels seen in the 1990’s, US landfalling hurricanes of Category 3 or greater continue in an unprecedented 10 year drought, tornadoes aren’t increasing, in the U.S. at least, heat waves aren’t getting worse, even though activists like to falsely claim so, much of it has to to with urbanization. Droughts aren’t getting worse. Often flooding that is claimed to be worse due to “climate change”, is often a result of poor management, such as what happened in Southwest Britain. In fact, a lot of the ideas that extreme weather is becoming worse are little more than a bias due to increased reporting of [24]/7 news outlets.
Even the IPCC says in their SREX report ( IPCC Special Report on Extremes PDF) that with the exception of some warmer days and night and rainfall that “may” have been exacerbated by slightly warmer global temperatures, they can’t make any clear link to other type of severe weather, expressing “low confidence” in such linkages. It’s a dead issue.
Finally, it’s instructive to remember this editorial from Nature that said clearly there’s been no linkage:
Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
Sure, lets collect better information. More information is good, but let’s not collect it with a specific goal to use it to connect climate change to extreme weather. That’s not science, it’s activism.
Better information needed to understand extreme weather
UNIVERSITY OF EXETER
Scientists need more credible and relevant information to help communities become more resilient to extreme weather events such as floods, a University of Exeter expert has said.
Researchers need improved techniques to be able to understand why the climate is changing, and the part humans play in this process, according to Professor Peter Stott, who also leads the Climate Monitoring and Attribution team at the Met Office.
In an article in the journal Science Professor Stott, who is part of the Mathematics Department at the University of Exeter, says reliable information is vital for policymakers as they decide how to safeguard people from extreme weather. Knowing what causes natural disasters can help inform decisions about how to rebuild or price insurance.
“Placing recent extreme events in the context of past and future climate variability and change would enhance the ability of societies to manage weather and climate-related risks,” Professor Stott says in the article.
Climate change caused by humans has led to an overall increase in the frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes and has led to more extreme rain over the world as a whole. But the risks of unusual weather events such as floods, droughts, and heat waves have changed differently in different parts of the world. More research is needed to understand exactly how communities are being affected by climate change.
Professor Stott co-edits an annual report explaining how the climate has affected extreme events of the previous year. The report has grown from considering only six events in 2011 to covering 28 different events in 2014. These reports help to explain if climate change has influenced either the magnitude or the probability of specific types of weather events.
Most researchers use mathematical modelling to help assess the extent of climate change. It is easier for them to find evidence that human-induced climate change causes extreme temperatures because there is a wealth of data on extreme hot and cold events and they can be well captured in climate models. Heatwaves occur over a wide area.
It is more difficult to examine extreme rainfall because there is a lack of accurate data, climate models can fail to represent them adequately, and their relationship with climate variability and change is often not well understood. Flooding is often extremely localised. Scientists are trying to rectify this through projects, including the European project EUCLEIA (European Climate and Weather Events: Interpretation and Attribution) which is led by Professor Stott and a team from the Met Office.
Professor Stott believes better ways of modelling and analysing climate change will be available very soon. He said: “I believe there is the potential for improvement in our ability to attribute extreme weather events within the next year or two. It is both possible to do this and important that we do. With this information societies will be in a better position to manage the risks of weather and climate-related disasters.”
###
“Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.”
The innuendo here is that they see a linkage but they want it to be more reliable. They neglect to say that their linkage is pathetic if any at all and that they are simply wishing for better linkage from models. However, models are not science and only do what they are programmed to do, so models suggesting linkage are meaningless. What a shame.
Stott should get together with the Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clarke. See we had a rain event in the Dawson Creek, Chetwynd area that washed out a highway and flooding in those towns. She blamed it on climate change to reinforce the carbon tax she bestowed on us.
Now this flooding just proves the carbon tax is not working so either she has to cancel it or increase for more effect. Being a politician wonder what she will do?
Now there’s a site that will make the links between almost any bad thing and Climate Change for you:
http://www.climatesignals.org/
I checked out “Declining moose populations in Minnesota” and it showed me the tree of logic going back to increased CO2. It’s so simple, even them moose can unnerstand it.
Oh my. The mighty moose, capable of surviving brutal Minnesota winters, is undone by season creep. Six fewer days of frozen winter has led to the decline. If only we could keep Minnesota under snow for twelve more days, we’d recover the moose population. … Wait, that won’t work. No, spring emergence was perfect for the moose until it changed. Any change is bad. The globe must be held stable to p/m 1.5 degrees. Surely if the temperature of the globe is stable, climates will never change?
Gateway to hell in Iceland about to erupt at any moment, this would be bad news for Europe this winter alongside low solar activity and la nina coming on.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/icelands-gateway-to-hell-volcano-ready-to-blow-at-any-moment/ar-AAhxzng?ocid=spartandhp
“Hekla is a dangerous volcano,” said Professor Páll Einarsson at the University of Iceland. “We could be looking at a major disaster when the next eruption begins if we are not careful.”
…
And if we are careful?
From the article: “Speaking to Icelandic website visir.is, Professor Einarsson advised that tourists stay away from the volcano. “There are also 20-30 planes full of passengers flying right over the top of Hekla every day,” he said. “This is a risky moment which we need to take seriously.””
Nobody will fall in the volcano?
MarkW –
I was thinking along the lines of sacrificing a virgin or two, accompanied by appropriate ceremonies, on the off-chance that the volcano gods would be appeased. Maybe burn the odd witch in off years just in case they have something to do with it. I guess the modern term for being careful s the Precautionary Principle.
Bernie writes:
“And if we are careful?”
.
.
“We could be looking at a major disaster when the next eruption begins” if we are careful.
~ Professor Páll Einarsson at the University of Iceland
You’re right Bernie. Being careful doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with volcanic eruptions.
What is really wrong, having absolutely no scientific basis at all, is the implicit assumption that burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming that is causing climate change.
We may as well say that climate/weather is caused by Thor or Zeus.
Who was the alarmist scientist who back in the 80’s told his fellow warmistas that they would have to make a choice between being accurate, and being effective?
Stephen Schneider
There’s a whole group solely dedicated to answering the question of “Is it global warming”.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/researchers-push-out-study-of-european-floods-in-under-a-week/
I wonder what their answer will be? Ever. On anything.
Enough is known and has been known for years about atmospheric science to soundly conclude that Peter Stott is full of crap.
Violent crime occurs when people come into direct contact. People come into contact much more when they’re strolling outside enjoying warm summer weather and balmy moonlit nights than they do when they’re huddling safely in their cars or homes with the heaters turned on full. A simple correlation of the violent crime rate with the number of people actually out on the street at that time will probably explain everything.
Translating this into plain English “Send us more money!”
Despite his obvious bias in looking for a human caused problem, I believe Petter Stott is one of the more objective people in the industry.
I think the next winter arctic weather will change a lot of thinking.