From the AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION. You have to love the title of the publication “CHANCE”.
Special issue of Chance explores complexities of global climate change models that prove existence of climate change, project future events and impact on mortality, economy
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Dec. 21, 2017) – Projecting the future of extreme weather events and their impact on human life, the environment and vulnerable ecosystems locally and across the globe remains a complex task in climate research–and one in which statisticians are increasingly playing key roles, particularly through the development of new models. The December issue of CHANCE examines complexities of intense, massive data collection and statistical analysis techniques in climate research and features new proposed statistical methodology that could be a “game changer” in understanding our climate system and in the attribution of extreme climatic events.
Changes in events related to atmospheric circulation, such as storms, cannot be characterized robustly due to their underlying chaotic nature. In contrast, changes in thermodynamic state variables, such as global temperature, can be relatively well characterized.
“Rather than trying to assess the probability of an extreme event occurring, a group of researchers suggest viewing the event as a given and assessing to which degree changes in the thermodynamic state (which we know has been influenced by climate change) altered the severity of the impact of the event,” notes Dorit Hammerling, section leader for statistics and data science at the Institute for Mathematics Applied to Geosciences, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Climate models are complex numerical models based on physics that amount to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lines of computer code to model the Earth’s past, present and future. Statisticians can analyze these climate models along with direct observations to learn about the Earth’s climate.
“This new way of viewing the problem could be a game changer in the attribution of extreme events by providing a framework to quantify the portion of the damage that can be attributed to climate change–even for events that themselves cannot be directly attributed to climate change using traditional methods,” continues Hammerling.
Another promising approach involves combining physics, statistical modeling and computing to derive sound projections for the future of ice sheets. Considering that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets span more than 1.7 million and 14 million square kilometers, respectively, while containing 90% of the world’s freshwater ice supply, melting of ice shelves could be catastrophic for low-lying coastal areas.
Murali Haran, a professor in the department of statistics at Penn State University; Won Chang, an assistant professor in the department of mathematical sciences at the University of Cincinnati; Klaus Keller, a professor in the department of geosciences and director of sustainable climate risk management at Penn State University; Rob Nicholas, a research associate at the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Penn State University; and David Pollard, a senior scientist at the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Penn State University detail how parameters and initial values drive an ice sheet model, whose output describes the behavior of the ice sheet through time. Noise and biases are accounted for in the model that ultimately produces ice sheet data.
“Incorporating all of these uncertainties is daunting, largely because of the computational challenges involved,” and to an extent, “whatever we say about the behavior of ice sheets in the future is necessarily imperfect,” note the authors. “However, through such cutting-edge physics and multiple observation data sets that piece the information together in a principled manner, we have made progress.”
Specific articles in this special issue of CHANCE include the following:
- “The Role of Statistics in Climate Research” by Peter F. Craigmile, professor in the department of statistics at The Ohio State University
- “How We Know the Earth Is Warming” by Peter Guttorp, professor at the Norwegian Computing Center and professor emeritus in the department of statistics at the University of Washington
- “Instruments, Proxies, and Simulations: Exploring the Imperfect Measures of Climate” by Craigmile and Bo Li, associate professor in the department of statistics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- “Climate Model Intercomparison” by Mikyoung Jun, associate professor in the department of statistics at Texas A&M University
- “Climate Change Detection and Attribution: Letting Go of the Null?” by Hammerling
- “Quantifying the Risk of Extreme Events Under Climate Change” by Eric Gilleland, project scientist at the Research Applications Laboratory at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; Richard W. Katz, senior scientist at the Institute for Mathematics Applied to Geosciences at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Philippe Naveau, senior scientist at the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE) at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
- “Statistics and the Future of the Antarctic Ice Sheet” by Haran, Chang, Keller, Nicholas, and Pollard
- “Ecological Impacts of Climate Change: The Importance of Temporal and Spatial Synchrony” by Christopher K. Wilke, Curators’ Distinguished Professor of Statistics at the University of Missouri
- “Projecting Health Impacts of Climate Change: Embracing an Uncertain Future” by Howard H. Chang, associate professor in the department of biostatistics and bioinformatics at Emory University; Stefanie Ebelt Sarnat, associate professor in the department of environmental health at Emory University; and Yang Liu, associate professor in the department of environmental health at Emory University.
###
“thermodynamic state variables, such as global temperature” That’s not a thermodynamic state variable.
The very first block quote in the article raised an eyebrow in me — the part that stated, ““Rather than trying to assess the probability of an extreme event occurring, a group of researchers suggest viewing the event as a given and assessing to which degree changes in the thermodynamic state (which we know has been influenced by climate change) altered the severity of the impact of the event, …”
“View the event as a given” ? — what does this mean ? — “given” when ?, where ?, how ? — how does one decide that an event is “given” ? Maybe I need to read the publication, but the wording just seems strangely circular on the surface.
translation:
the null hypothesis is that ‘your fault!’ and it only remains to assess the fees for damages.
I have to dwell on this for a bit more — a phrase at a time:
Rather than trying to assess the probability of an extreme event occurring , …
TRANSLATION: To hell with determining whether or not an event will, IN FACT, occur. Just wave our wands, abracadabra, and there it is, because we experts deem it so as a stipulation of our methodology.
… a group of researchers suggest viewing the event as a given
TRANSLATION: Researchers assume the truth of that which they are trying to prove true, which saves a lot of time, and if phrased properly by experts, will go right over the heads of most people as a totally ridiculous statement, because experts don’t make ridiculous statements.
… and assessing to which degree changes in the thermodynamic state (which we know has been influenced by climate change) …
TRANSLATION: You are NOT allowed to question whether or not we DO, IN FACT, know that changes in the thermodynamic state have been influenced by climate change — we DO, damn it, because we are the experts in this field saying so. You just have to take our word for it here and ignore any questions anybody might have about this. Oh, and we love impressing you with our technical vocabulary too, with the phrase, “thermodynamic state”, even though we are totally, bat-shit confused about what thermodynamic laws actually say.
… altered the severity of the impact of the event …
TRANSLATION: Blah, blah, bullshit, bullshit, blah, blah.
I love how a dash of “cutting edge” and “principled” sexes up the old pig wearing lipstick.
Wow, the State Penn… err … Penn State has pulled out all stops! I guess when you are the Chair of the Sustainable Human Gas Attenuating Center for Saving the World, you now know you will be walking into that Good Night, but not without kicking up a big fuss. I call this stage of the climate play ‘the chicken with head cut off leaping and bounding’ last act.
This is a general problem with fake mathematical approaches. Given unjustified assumptions, the outcomes are certain. This is classic: “viewing the event as a given and assessing to which degree changes in the thermodynamic state (which we know has been influenced by climate change) altered the severity of the impact.”
Once you buy that initial sack of offal–“which we KNOW has been influenced by climate change”–you have bought in to the occult and sold your scientific soul. Only alt science knows such things.
The proper way to assess thermodynamic states is their probability of existence. Period. Take it up with Herr Boltzmann.
Two things which caused warning bells to ring straight away ‘Penn State and Models Show’
I went back to writing to Santa at that stage.
With regard to any facts, the West is in a crisis. We have far too many people promoting the most absurd conspiracy theories and leaders claiming valid news is false news while believing ‘facts’ which have little basis in reality. It is the downside of social media, and probably one of the biggest threats to good governance we have ever faced. It’s why I follow this page, even though I believe most of the mainstream climate science is probably correct, this page challenges those assumptions; and occasionally shows my assumptions were in fact incorrect. Far too many people have given up hearing both sides of any debate, and we are all the poorer for it.
Incorporating all of these uncertainties is daunting, partly because we not even sure of their extent or nature. But ‘models ‘ make life so much easier as all we have to do is change some numbers and to get the result we ‘need’ and if we make the predictions for long enough in the future there is no chance or us being asked why we got it so wrong , so its gravy all the way.
This is a real scientific gem too:
“melting of ice shelves could be catastrophic for low-lying coastal areas”
Since ice-shelves are already floating their melting or not has no effect on sea-level. Archimedes anyone?
“…..Rather than trying to assess the probability of an extreme event occurring, a group of researchers suggest viewing the event as a given…..”
Wow that should work well on the stockmarket, at the races and the Casino.
There were two stalwarts I thought were safe from the carp some of these guys dish up.
1/ Statistical analysis in the sense that the models and data do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny and,
2/ The ice cores that show us nothing is new.
Now both are under siege.
This is going to be a long battle!
Some potential future titles:
> “Pearson R-squared as Silly and Incorrect Reasoning” by Michael E Mann, Director of the Penn State ESSC
> “Modern Centering in Principle Component Annalysis” by Michael E Mann, Director of the Penn State ESSC
> “Drawing Conclusions from Trivially Small Data Samples” by Stephan Lewandowsky, School of Psychology and Cabot Institute at University of Bristol
> “Ascertaining and Quantifying Conflicting Conspiracy Theories with No Data Points” by Stephan Lewandowsky, School of Psychology and Cabot Institute at University of Bristol