
Francis Zwiers, University of Victoria and Ronald Stewart, University of Manitoba
Extreme weather and climate events causing extensive damage are a fact of the Canadian climate, and this year is no exception.
On June 13, a mammoth hailstorm pounded Calgary with damage in excess of $1 billion dollars, the most expensive hailstorm in Canadian history. In early July, eastern Canada was subjected to both persistent extreme heat coupled with high humidity and major flooding.
As we cope with these events, questions invariably arise about what role climate change may have played. Has a particular extreme been made worse because of our changing climate? How will these extremes change in the future?
Water cycle accelerating
Many of these questions are linked with the hydrologic cycle — the evaporation of water from the Earth’s surface and its vegetation, the transport of water vapour in the atmosphere from one place to another and the ultimate return of the water to the surface as precipitation.
The water cycle speeds up when the climate warms. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour, creating the potential for more intense precipitation events. The evidence that human activity has warmed the global climate over the past century is incontrovertible. Satellite data available since 1988 indicate that the atmosphere has moistened, and that this is primarily due to the human-induced warming of the climate.
Individual extreme events are, however, influenced by many other factors. A storm can leave behind moisture at the surface that can re-evaporate and strengthen subsequent events.
The collision between a cold front and a lake breeze can lead to heavy precipitation. A delayed lake freeze-up during a warm winter can enhance lake-effect snowfall. Or a drought could limit local evapo-transpiration — evaporation from the land surface and transpiration from plants — eliminating the rainfall that comes from local moisture recycling and further intensifying hot, dry conditions.
Heavy rainfall
Many studies have examined precipitation-related change, usually focusing on average conditions rather than extremes. This is understandable because individual events, like a tornado or hail storm, are complex, and sparse ground observations and evolving techniques mean there aren’t yet long-term records that allow scientists to reliably estimate trends.
In contrast, numerous rainfall records beginning in the 1950s or earlier exist across the globe. Statistical analyses of data from these rain gauges confirm that rainfall extremes have grown more intense at the global and continental levels, in agreement with climate models.
There are broad indications that these changes in rainfall extremes are due to human influence on the climate at global and continental scales. Extreme one-day rainfall events that occurred about once every 20 years in the past are now occurring about once every 15 years.
Even so, scientists still struggle to confidently say that a particular extreme rainfall event is the result of climate change. This is because there is naturally a large amount of variation in precipitation in one place, and the signal from climate change can get hidden within the natural noise.
Future extremes
Not all places have seen one-day rainfall extremes grow more intense over the past several decades, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. The science indicates, with considerable confidence, that as the climate continues to warm, precipitation extremes will become substantially more intense in the mid-latitudes and northern land areas, including Canada.
Although details are uncertain, heavy snowfall, freezing rain and hail will all change with continued warming. For example, a recent study suggests that large hail could become more likely in Alberta by mid-century, but less likely in some other parts of Canada.
There is no doubt that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have changed the climate. Nevertheless, the human imprint is often difficult to see in local meteorological observations. Despite that lack of direct “in your backyard” evidence, we should prepare for a future in which many precipitation-related extremes will become more intense.
Francis Zwiers, Director, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria and Ronald Stewart, Professor, Environment and Geography, University of Manitoba
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, is it extreme climate change when the last snow of the season has been April 30 consistently for four years now? Yeah, I have photos that date these events, otherwise I wouldn’t bother posing the question. Ditto, first snow of “winter”: if it’s October 31 for four years in a row (yes, dated photos, too) does that mean that “winter is coming earlier?
I don’t know, don’t have an answer, but also don’t have a weather station that provides humidity levels and barometric pressure readings, and where I live, early and late snows aren’t all that odd. And since these things happen in my area, then it’s local weather, NOT climate change.
There’s snow in the western states (WY, MT,etc.) so does that mean anything, especially when snow this “early” in Colorado at high elevations is a frequent occurrences? No, it does not. It is NOT unusual for snow to fall in those areas in July, either.
It is nothing but cotton-pickin’ weather, and as with real climate change, we have no control over it, never will. An indicator of REAL climate change is substantial growth in glacier thickness and their subsequent flow toward the equator in both hemispheres. And some day, it will happen but it will take real time to occur.
Such things do not happen overnight. If it comes early and stays late and never melts, period, what does that mean? The only direction the planet can take is toward the return of the ice sheets, not the other direction.
Probably dinosaur ph#rts wot done it.
Meanwhile few people have large enough brains to encompass your concepts.
Citizens dislike taxes and to minimize pain, the first thing to go is civil maintenance (like clear storm-water drains); add relentless pressure to build over drainages installed over the countless millennia by Mother Nature; couple this with a potent communication technology that didn’t exist three decades ago; factor in the large number of children born since then, not forgetting their questionable education. And be cognizant of the plethora of industries whose very survival is synonymous with click-baiting … and hey presto: welcome to our Brave New World.
But what ever will those children do if — suddenly, no warning, just BINK! – all their commlinks go dead?
The horror!!!! Oh, noes!!! The hysterics! The pain and suffering! They will be witless and wandering in a desert empty of “other”.
The horror…. or something….
For Canada overall extreme intensities have decreased for 24 hour intensities (per the most recent Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Engineering Climate Datasets v3.10): https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2020/07/how-have-rainfall-intensities-changed.html
The 24 hour trends may not match what is happening at a shorter temporal scale and that it critical to urban flooding – different regions in Canada have short duration intensities going in different directions: https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2020/07/can-we-use-daily-rainfall-models-to.html
That means one should be cautious about extrapolating the models (1 day resolution) to shorter durations. “Heavy precipitation” in a climate model is not the same as extreme rainfall from a civil engineering, municipal drainage perspective, but these are often conflated.
In Alberta the observed trends in annual maximum rainfall series are more downward for 24 hour periods:
significant decrease – 2 stations
decrease – 22 stations
no change – 1 station
increase – 17 stations
significant increase – no stations
For shorter periods there are more increases but no significant increases:
significant decrease – 1 station
decrease – 14 stations
no change – 5 stations
increase – 20 stations
significant increase – no stations
Despite these overall non-trends in observed data, models consistently overpredict higher frequency rainfall in that region. A recent paper in PNAS (https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2020/05/26/1921628117.full.pdf) notes: “In the west and central west, HadEX2 shows a decrease in extreme precipitation over this period, while all three models show increases of varying magnitude.”
Robert
Thanks for the excellent comment.
The alarmist must come up with a hypothesis why a region will have more or less rain.
Prove their hypothesis in say Calgary
And then prove it in Edmonton.
It is my understanding that they haven’t been able to do this anywhere.
But really when you are talking about the civil engineering aspects of flood control you will need to prove it for at least individual suburbs of Calgary and Edmonton
Thanks. The observed data trends don’t lie – this shows Edmonton and Calgary trends in annual maximum series: https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2019/03/environment-and-climate-change-canada.html
100 years of Edmonton data and no real change. Saskatoon just reviewed 126 years of data and found no overall change: “Historical weather station data from 1892 to 2018 was examined to determine rainfall changes. Results show a mix of increasing and decreasing rainfall trends that are mostly statistically insignificant and vary depending on rain gauge location, duration of rainfall, time period, and methodology to assess (e.g. linear trend or moving average trend).”
Nothing-burger in some regions.
There are always questions having driven through river valleys where it always seem to rain more. So could this be like the heat island effect? Well they only use experts–“We work only with recognized experts – epidemiologists, immunologists, public health scholars and others – to bring you information that is fact-based, accurate and 100% independent. ” These are their experts for their claim.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/26/11/3904/34112/Global-Increasing-Trends-in-Annual-Maximum-Daily
“The first was a Mann–Kendall nonparametric trend test, and it was used to evaluate the existence of monotonic trends. The second was a nonstationary generalized extreme value analysis, and it was used to determine the strength of association between the precipitation extremes and globally averaged near-surface temperature. ”
https://www.pacificclimate.org/%7Efwzwiers/CONV/JCLI-D-19-0892_Accepted_2-Sept-2020.pdf
“Australian data dataset is based on a historical rainfall dataset first documented in Lavery et al. (1992),that has been quality controlled by identifying and removing problematic records using statistical techniques, visual checks and station history information……Another caveat is that while we have attempted to use data that have been systematically quality controlled, the data quality remains a concern.”
Seems like there are still questions?
Looking at the picture at the top of the article. I’m willing to bet that the main cause of the street flooding was the hail (and possibly debris) clogging the drains.
Plus the fact that city is half paved over with all the roads and houses/buildings taking up such a footprint that there is not much natural drainage to begin with now. Throw in a few plugged storm drains, and you practically get a flood event in the city with every little downpour, where there would have been none 75 years ago in that same exact location with the exact same storm/precipitation event. But this gets the press now, because climate change. Oh, and when they search for the perfect flood picture, they go to the lowest spot in the neighborhood where it is guaranteed to pond until it slowly drains away. 3 blocks over, it is high and dry.
You are right. Calgary design standards allow for ‘trap lows’ or sags in the roadway profile where ponding can and should occur. In some regions with low grades (south west Ontario) this ‘saw tooth’ roadway profile is commonplace. When I was a municipal engineer we would get complaints about ‘roadway flooding’ during extreme rainfall events when in fact the system was design that way. Same thing for overland flow easements – residents call about flooding because they have not seen the drainage system at work as intended before.
NOAA’s Atlas-14 was what we typically use in the US for rainfall events in engineering design.
Volume 11 covering Houston was updated in 2018. The 100-yr, 24-hr rainfall total is 17.1 inches. The 90% confidence interval is 12.0 – 24.1 inches! Quite a range.
The nearest US locations to Calgary have not been updated since 1973.
Worst floods in World History/US +rain records
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/29362/
From a meteorological point of view, if we increase the amount of moisture in the warmer atmosphere(in this case by something like 6% but that varies-more in the higher latitudes) we WILL get more precipitation.
That includes high end, excessive rain/flooding events. To deny this, is to deny the physical laws and reality.
With regards to more extreme events, that’s not always the case. The warming has been greatest in the higher latitudes(coldest places warming the most, especially during the coldest times of year). Nights are warming more than days.
This has decreased the meridional temperature gradient. As a result there is less energy available for mid latitude cyclones/weaker jet streams and there has been a significant decrease in violent tornadoes.
Also, less extreme cold days.
But more extreme rain and extreme heat days from climate change.
Cold kills 16 times more humans than heat and cold kills hundreds of times more non human life than heat.
So life prefers it this way.
“So life prefers it this way”
That is, the beneficial warming(along with the heavier rains).
Otherwise known as a climate optimum using authentic scientific (not political) verbiage.
Mike
“That includes high end, excessive rain/flooding events. To deny this, is to deny the physical laws and reality.“
The physical reality is that excessive rain is NOT guaranteed to be linked to excessive flooding events.
In the civil engineering of flood mitigation and hydrology in general the key concept is the IDF ( intensity/ duration/ frequency) for each catchment.
Each catchment has it’s own unique topography and is impacted by its own unique storm event.
Example
The Yarra river flows through the Melbourne CBD
Flooding from the river will only occur at high tide after days of rain across the region ( 100to 1000sq km plus)
But Elizabeth Street in the heart of the city floods from
A short 30minute storm ( catchment 3sq km)
Any alarmist claim for more intense storm and subsequent flooding will have to be specific about intEnsity duration and frequency
Data shows trends in annual maximum rainfall observations (official Environment Canada data, updated in March 2020): https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2020/05/annual-maximum-rainfall-trends-in.html
Some provinces have more overall decreasing trends or no trend (Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, Prince Edward Island). Some regions like southern Ontario (where 1/3 of Canada’s population is and where high flood damage occur regularly) have decreasing annual maximum series trends and IDF (intensity) trends.
Meanwhile growth and hydrological effects have been significant for decades and can explain higher local flood risks: https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2019/04/is-wild-weather-and-new-normal-for.html
Those trends are only from 1940 or 1950. They used 1948 as a starting point to show temperature increase. they ignored the warm 1940’s which would have almost negated the trend increase.
Right. 60-years of record is considered relatively long (OK for estimating 100 year design intensities). Only 10% stations with IDF statistics have 45 years of record or more. Some records are over 100 years but those stations are limited – e.g., this shows annual series in Ottawa and Kingston over a 100 year period (with gaps) and Edmonton too : https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2019/03/environment-and-climate-change-canada.html
Saskatoon analyzed 126 years of data up to 2018 and found no overall change in rain intensities.
…and on the west coast of the United States, the great floods of 1861-1862 were preciptated by global warming? Look it up. And all because of CO2 emitted by the SUV trains that were bringing settlers across the great plains. There was was a lake in the Central Valley of California almost 500 miles long and up to 50 miles wide because…global warming?
My contempt knows no bounds for those who refuse to look at evidence that didn’t come from satellite guesses and electronic instruments. Photographs of flood don’t mean anything. Rain gauges dumped by hand are suspect. High water marks can’t be right unless we used a laser for measuring.
And guess what what, Griff (and all your over educated under thinking ilk), it is going to happen again. So called Arkstorms are going to hit us again, and again, and again. Get over it. It is called weather.
pbh
The gaslighting from vested green interests never ends.
Most precipitation falls on the oceans. Oceans cover 71% of the surface area of the planet, Antarctica is about another 9%, so there’s 80% of the earth practically untouched by humans. Of the remaining 20% of semi-habitable land mass, I would say at least 80% is mostly uninhabited. Vast chunks of northern Africa, most of Russia, eastern China, much of Canada and the western US, much of South America, the bulk of Australia: nobody in sight. Humans maybe impact on 5% of the planet by area. And that tiny chunk has good croplands, grazing lands, parks, forests, and gardens.
The doomsters, as usual, are full of bull.
Nice post, excellent even.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/08/record-year-for-atlantic-storms-as-two-new-systems-form-in-a-day
‘Record year for Atlantic storms as two new systems form in a day’
I note also the typhoon just recently off Japan, the Chinese floods and multiple other extreme weather events
From the Met Office annual climate report for the UK for 2019:
Precipitation
2019 rainfall for the UK overall was 107% of the 1981–2010 average and 112% of the 1961–1990 average.
England and Wales had its fifth wettest autumn in a series from 1766, although much less wet overall than autumn 2000 (the wettest autumn in the series).
Six of the 10 wettest years for the UK in a series from 1862 have occurred since 1998.
The most recent decade (2010–2019) has been on average 1% wetter than 1981–2010 and 5% wetter than 1961–1990 for the UK overall.
For the most recent decade (2010–2019) UK summers have been on average 11% wetter than 1981–2010 and 13% wetter than 1961–1990. UK winters have been 4% wetter than 1981–2010 and 12% wetter than 1961–1990.
You might like to look at the detail here:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.6726
Noting such information as:
019 was the 12th warmest year for the UK in a series from 1884, and 24th warmest for Central England in a series from 1659.
Four national UK high temperature records were set in 2019: a new all‐time record (38.7°C), a new winter record (21.2°C), a new December record (18.7°C) and a new February minimum temperature record (13.9°C). No national low temperature records were set.
February 2019 was the second warmest February in the series from 1884 and the warmest February for daily maximum temperature.
All the top 10 warmest years for the UK in the series from 1884 have occurred since 2002.
Griff
You still don’t get it.
Alarmists must use physical phenomena to hypothesise what impacts extra warming will have on regional rainfall.
They then must use the rainfall statistics of towns within the region to confirm their hypothesis.
You can’t use averages of locations
You can’t use averages of time scales
All alarmist attempts to do this fail.
Oh Griff, you do so want to pull up statistics without significance. You use a later start date rainfall set for UK, but reference CEP without talking about rainfall in that set. You are cherry picking your datasets to get the answers you want.
Lets look at the longest precipitation record in the world – the Central England Precipitation (CEP) record.
Using your period averages of 1981-2010 and 1961-1990 as the two baselines, lets just look at the high annual results in the series. I am not even going to go down to 107%/112% that you quoted:
Year 1981-2010 1961-1990
1768 132% 136%
1770 114% 118%
1782 117% 121%
1789 117% 121%
1792 118% 122%
1797 115% 119%
1799 114% 118%
1821 110% 113%
1828 113% 117%
1839 114% 118%
1841 112% 116%
1848 119% 124%
1852 128% 133%
1860 114% 118%
1866 111% 115%
1872 136% 140%
1876 112% 116%
1877 121% 125%
1882 121% 125%
1886 111% 115%
1903 122% 127%
1912 116% 120%
1924 114% 118%
1927 117% 121%
1946 111% 115%
1951 116% 120%
1954 115% 119%
1960 126% 131%
1966 112% 116%
1994 111% 115%
1998 112% 116%
2000 130% 135%
2002 118% 122%
2008 115% 119%
2012 131% 136%
2014 117% 121%
2019 116% 120%
Top 30 Annual Rainfall list from CEP:
Place YEAR ANN
1 1872 1284.9
2 1768 1247.3
3 2012 1244.4
4 2000 1232.5
5 1852 1213
6 1960 1195
7 1903 1160.3
8 1882 1146.2
9 1877 1144.1
10 1848 1130.1
11 2002 1117.8
12 1792 1116.8
13 1782 1109.3
14 1789 1109.3
15 1927 1108.2
16 2014 1105.6
17 1912 1098.6
18 2019 1095
19 1951 1094.6
20 1954 1092.7
21 1797 1090.4
22 2008 1089.6
23 1860 1083.2
24 1924 1082.7
25 1770 1079.4
26 1799 1079
27 1839 1076.2
28 1828 1073.2
29 1841 1064.4
30 1998 1062.6
The average year for the period 1766 – 2019 is 1892.5. The average year of the Top 30 is 1892.7. The average year for the Top 10 placings is 1897.4, for the Top 15 placings its 1884.4. So they are pretty much random.
If we divide the period 1766 – 2019 into three periods of 85 years each, the number of top 30 placings in each 85 year period is
1766 – 1849 11 years
1850 – 1934 9 years
1935 – 2019 10 years
That looks pretty random too.
An excellent and very pertinent statement by Demetris Koutsoyiannis in a recent paper discussed here at WUWT was:
(Koutsoyiannis, D., 2020, Revisiting the global hydrological cycle: is it intensifying?, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-3899-2020)
Climate change is a constant of global geological history, there is no doubt the climate is changing, indeed I would be very surprised and not a little worried if it were not. Mans contribution to that change is insignificant in terms of flooding when compared to the changes caused by development of flood plain land . In particular the development of huge industrial parks where there are acres of hard standing and more importantly run off from hundreds of acres of factory and warehouse roofing. Simple planning and design can reduce this flow by 80% by the introduction of ponds and sinks within the development areas to catch the water and slow the rising limb of the hydrograph smoothing out the flood curve of rivers affected. Perfect case in point is in NW England where the floods in the Whalley area earlier this year and last are exacerbated by the development of large industrial estates on the Calder River Drainage basin, no planning to intercept the water led to severe flooding in a rain event that was not despite media reports exceptional, Flooding is occurring in rainfall events that in previous years were not causing problems and this will no doubt continue and be blamed on climate change.