MORE EXTREME WEATHER?

[marchesarosa]

‘Extreme weather is an integral part of the Earth’s climate’
Posted on July 10, 2012 on WUWT
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/10/extreme-weather-is-an-integral-part-of-the-earths-climate/#more-67199

Extreme caution best in assessing future weather
By Madhav Khandekar.

Published in The Starphoenix July 6, 2012

In the viewpoint article Extreme weather becoming norm (SP, June 28) Lidsay Olson, vice-president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, provides a glimpse of weather extremes for various regions of Canada and warns Canadian to be prepared to live with such extremes over the next several decades. Olson refers to the study on future weather extremes done by Gordon McBean, former assistant deputy minister of Environment Canada.

When did Canada witness a climate free of extreme weather, is what Olson fails to explain to Canadians.

Extreme weather is an integral part of the Earth’s climate.

Throughout the recorded history of the Earth’s climate, extreme weather events have always occurred somewhere, and are caused by large-scale atmosphere ocean flow patterns and their complex interaction with local/regional weather and climate features.

An examination of the 20th century climate of North America reveals that the decades of 1920s and 1930s, known as the Dust Bowl years, witnessed perhaps the most extreme climate over the Great American Plains and elsewhere. There were recurring droughts and heat waves on the Canadian/American Prairies.

The prairies also witnessed some extreme cold winters during the 1910s and 1920s – for example in 1907 and 1920. We meteorologists still do not fully understand why the climate of North America was so anomalous during the 1920s and 1930s.

During the 1950s and 1960s most of Canada witnessed extreme cold winters, especially on the prairies where record breaking low temperatures (Edmonton at minus 45C and below in the 1960s) were registered. In Ontario and Quebec, cold and snowy winters was a norm during the 1960s and early 1970s.

Parts of the Canadian Atlantic witnessed long winters with lots of snow. Spring ice jam on the St. John’s River was a common occurrence during the 1960s and 1970s. The recent decades of the 1980s and 1990s have witnessed a warmer climate across most of NorthAmerica and worldwide.

Madhav Khandekar is a retired Environment Canada scientist with more than 50 years of experience in weather and climate science, and an expert reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Climate Change Assessment.

============================================================

Gordon Fulks supplies some commentary by email:

Dear Madhav,

Your newspaper Op-Ed is excellent. I especially liked your statement:
“Extreme weather is an integral part of the earth’s climate.”

Because climate alarmists are selectively using extreme weather events to sell a climate catastrophe from carbon dioxide, it is very important for us to point out that “abnormal weather” is perfectly normal.

When I lived in Santa Barbara, California with its very placid climate, there were stories of an extraordinary mid-19th century heat wave where the temperature exceeded 130 F. There is some dispute as to whether the temperature could have gotten that hot but little doubt that it was extremely hot. And the globe as a whole had not yet come out of the “Little Ice Age” at that point.

Similarly, we have had substantial hot spells here in Portland, Oregon where the Pacific Ocean normally keeps our temperatures moderate, just like Santa Barbara. One of those hot spells occurred a few years ago with the temperature reaching 106 F over several days in late July.

Alarmists would say “that is consistent with Global Warming.” But a previous and more unusual one occurred in early July 1942 when the mercury reached 107 F downtown and 105 F at the airport. That was especially unusual because it occurred more than a month before our average summer temperatures peak and at a time when climate alarmists say the world was cooler than it is today. Of course, as you point out, the reality is that the Dust Bowl era was probably more extreme than our recent warm period which is still lingering.

Such reasoning carries no weight with extremists in journalism:
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/10/extreme-weather-manmade-climate-change?newsfeed=true

who say such things as:

Peter Stott, of the UK’s Met Office, said: “We are much more confident about attributing [weather effects] to climate change. This is all adding up to a stronger and stronger picture of human influence on the climate.”

But the researchers also said that not every extreme weather event could be attributed to climate change. For instance, the extremely cold British winter of 2010-11 – starkly exemplified by the satellite picture of the UK and Ireland covered in white on Christmas Eve, as snow gripped the nations – was owing to variations in the systems of ocean and air circulation.”

In other words, extremely cold weather can just be ignored as due to natural causes, while extremely hot weather is extremely significant and probably anthropogenic! The British winter of 2010-2011 was the second coldest in the 350 year Central England Temperatures.

As scientists with excellent credentials, we can easily dispute the stupidity coming from other scientists and their media allies. But we will never be able to convince this media of the need to understand the logic of science before taking the word of government scientists selling a fraud. Why? Because it is almost impossible to convince ignorant men that they are ignorant.

Thanks again for writing the Op-Ed and thanks to Professor Brian Pratt of the University of Saskatchewan for suggesting that you do so.

Gordon

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)

Corbett, Oregon USA

P.S. to others: Madhav Khandekar, PhD is a well-known meteorologist who worked for Environment Canada for 25 years:
www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2894

[StuartG]

"in early July 1942 when the mercury reached 107 F downtown and 105 F at the airport. That was especially unusual because it occurred more than a month before our average summer temperatures peak"
That was the World War uz did thatt, them jearmins 'an that 'itler, thatt wus.

[nickrr]

Extreme weather is an integral part of the Earth’s climate

Of course it is. Why are you telling us something so obvious?

Because climate alarmists are selectively using extreme weather events

It's not selective. In this case there is a clear and plausible mechanism that is causing extreme events, as previously shown in this thread.

Incidentally I note that you still haven't addressed any of theses points. I presume from this that you are happy to accept them?

[marchesarosa]

By Patrick Michaels on World Climate Report
www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/07/

The Heat Was On—Before Urbanization and Greenhouse Gases

Sure is hot out! And what better time for a paper to appear in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology describing the construction of the “all-time” records for various types of weather extremes for each of the 50 United States plus Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The paper details efforts of the U.S. State Climate Extremes Committee (SCEC) established by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and led by Dr. Karsten Shein. Basically, the SCEC dusted off old records and found other new sources. So now we have “new and improved” data (available here www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/searchrecs.php) for the value, the date and the location of the all-time high and low temperature, greatest 24-hr precipitation, greatest 24-hr snowfall and greatest snowdepth for 50 states and two territories. The statewide record extremes have been updated through 2011 and are subject to continuous updating.....more



The chart shows when those maximum temperature records were initially set, by decade. In addition, the black dots represent the average CO2 level by decade.

--------

Per NOAA, 82% of all maximum records were initially set prior to 1960 and prior to the accelerated growth of human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels.

As can be seen, through 2011, no maximum temperature records have been set since the 1990's. This is simply amazing since all the climate doomsday scientists and pundits have stated that recent global warming was "unprecedented" and that U.S. temperatures were rapidly increasing due to CO2 levels.

Based on the hysterical hyperbole from mainstream media sources, one would naturally have expected that many new maximum temperature records would have been set (not tied) since 1999.

www.c3headlines.com/2012/07/extreme-global-warming-noaa-confirms-modern-us-warming-not-as-hot-vs-1930s.html

[StuartG]

Just so we don't get too centred on the Northern Hemisphere, here's a weather video from NZ ...

www.nzherald.co.nz/weather/news/video.cfm?c_id=10&gal_cid=10&gallery_id=126749

... they've had plenty of weather too, just like us. Nice video of Aurora Australis on the page from our own,oft forgotten, climate changer, The Sun.

[marchesarosa]

From James Taylor
blog.heartland.org/2012/08/taylor-at-forbes-is-global-warming-causing-a-record-breaking-lack-of-tornado-activity/



The year 2012 is breaking all-time records for lack of tornado activity, inviting the question whether
global warming is causing a long-term decline in destructive extreme weather events.

According the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, only 12 tornadoes touched down in the United States during July 2012, shattering the previous July record low of 42 tornadoes recorded in 1960. Because radar technology in 1960 could not detect many of the smaller tornadoes that are detectable today, scientists believe the actual number of tornadoes that occurred in the previous record-low July 1960 was actually about 73. Accordingly, six times more tornadoes occurred in July 1960, the previous record-low year, than occurred in July 2012.

Similarly, less than 300 tornadoes were recorded in this year's peak tornado season, which runs from mid-April through late-July. Approximately 850 tornadoes touch down during the peak season in an average year. Accordingly, three times more tornadoes occur during an average peak-tornado season than occurred in 2012.

Harold Brooks, a research meteorologist at the National Severe Storms Laboratory, says the lack of tornado activity is due to warm, dry weather in the American Midwest and a northerly tracking jet stream this year. These two factors have also reduced the number of strong thunderstorms that global warming alarmists claim are made more frequent and severe by global warming.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data show a long-term decline, at least since the mid-1970s, in strong tornadoes. This decline in strong tornadoes began precisely when global temperatures rebounded from a 30-year cooling spell. [i.e the Great Pacific CLimate Shift]

Although strong tornado activity is declining in sync with the recent modest rise in global temperatures, global warming alarmists frequently assert that whenever one of the ever-less-frequent tornadoes occurs, global warming must be to blame. This is typical of the tactics of global warming alarmists, who rarely miss an opportunity to misrepresent scientific facts to further their political agenda.

After some tornadoes touched down in March of this year, for example, Brad Johnson of the leftist activist group Center for American Progress wrote an article tying the tornadoes to global warming. In the face of this warning, we must ask if our current path of increased pollution and decreased investment in public safety is the wisest course, wrote Johnson.

Similarly, CNN meteorologist Alexandra Steele told viewers in April of this year that global warming was responsible for tornadoes that touched down in the Dallas area that month.

Tornadoes are becoming less frequent and less severe as our planet modestly warms. Yet global warming alarmists focus attention on the few tornadoes that still do occur and say that global warming is causing these increasingly rare tornadoes. The true question, however, is not whether global warming is causing more tornadoes, but whether the declining frequency and severity of tornadoes is being caused by global warming.

[marchesarosa]

"Hurricane" Isaac downgraded to a tropical storm as Gulf residents enter survival mode.

Still, all the overblown media hype may have convinced a few that climate "extremes" are on the increase! Every cloud has a silver lining for someone, eh?

[marchesarosa]

"Nature" puts its foot down!

Anthony Watts of WUWT talks on radio about the absence of any known link between extreme weather and purported "CO2-induced global warming".

soundcloud.com/thelarslarsonshow/anthony-watts-has-been

Nature editorial

Extreme weather
Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.

19 September 2012

As climate change proceeds — which the record summer melt of Arctic sea-ice suggests it is doing at a worrying pace — nations, communities and individual citizens may begin to seek compensation for losses and damage arising from global warming. Climate scientists should be prepared for their skills one day to be probed in court. Whether there is a legal basis for such claims, such as that brought against the energy company ExxonMobil by the remote Alaskan community of Kivalina, which is facing coastal erosion and flooding as the sea ice retreats, is far from certain, however. So lawyers, insurers and climate negotiators are watching with interest the emerging ability, arising from improvements in climate models, to calculate how anthropogenic global warming will change, or has changed, the probability and magnitude of extreme weather and other climate-related events. But to make this emerging science of ‘climate attribution’ fit to inform legal and societal decisions will require enormous research effort.

Attribution is the attempt to deconstruct the causes of observable weather and to understand the physics of why extremes such as floods and heatwaves occur. This is important basic research. Extreme weather and changing weather patterns — the obvious manifestations of global climate change — do not simply reflect easily identifiable changes in Earth’s energy balance such as a rise in atmospheric temperature. They usually have complex causes, involving anomalies in atmospheric circulation, levels of soil moisture and the like. Solid understanding of these factors is crucial if researchers are to improve the performance of, and confidence in, the climate models on which event attribution and longer-term climate projections depend.

Event attribution is one of the proposed ‘climate services’ — seasonal climate prediction is another — that are intended to provide society with the information needed to manage the risks and costs associated with climate change. Advocates of climate services see them as a counterpart to the daily weather forecast. But without the computing capacity of a well-equipped national meteorological office, heavily model-dependent services such as event attribution and seasonal prediction are unlikely to be as reliable.

“To make this emerging science of ‘climate attribution’ fit to inform legal and societal decisions will require enormous research effort.”
At a workshop last week in Oxford, UK, convened by the Attribution of Climate-related Events group — a loose coalition of scientists from both sides of the Atlantic — some speakers questioned whether event attribution was possible at all. It currently rests on a comparison of the probability of an observed weather event in the real world with that of the ‘same’ event in a hypothetical world without global warming. One critic argued that, given the insufficient observational data and the coarse and mathematically far-from-perfect climate models used to generate attribution claims, they are unjustifiably speculative, basically unverifiable and better not made at all. And even if event attribution were reliable, another speaker added, the notion that it is useful for any section of society is unproven.

Both critics have a point, but their pessimistic conclusion — that climate attribution is a non-starter — is too harsh. It is true that many climate models are currently not fit for that purpose, but they can be improved. Evaluation of how often a climate model produces a good representation of the type of event in question, and whether it does so for the right reasons, must become integral to any attribution exercise. And when communicating their results, scientists must be open about shortcomings in the models used.

It is more difficult to make the case for ‘usefulness’. None of the industry and government experts at the workshop could think of any concrete example in which an attribution might inform business or political decision-making. Especially in poor countries, the losses arising from extreme weather have often as much to do with poverty, poor health and government corruption as with a change in climate. The United Nations is planning to set up a fund with the aim of reducing loss and damage due to climate change, but the complexity of such issues is making negotations difficult.

These caveats do not mean that event attribution is a lost cause. But they are a reminder that designers of climate services must think very clearly about how others might want to use the knowledge that climate scientists produce. That could be a task for social scientists, who have good methods for analysing decision-making and social trans-actions. They need to be more involved in shaping the production and dissemination of climate knowledge.

Nature 489, 335–336 (20 September 2012) doi:10.1038/489335b



p.s. in case you are wondering about the nature of the landscape for which Kivalina holds Exxon et al responsible by way of "climate debt" and "climate change" here it is.


www.avec.org/communities/community.php?ID=19

Note the runway, the aeroplane, the storage tanks and the power plant. Without Exxon's products this community would not even exist. I reckon Exxon is due a credit not a debit for its very continuation.

Just another example of bad faith litigation promoted by "environmentalists" and the compensation culture.

[marchesarosa]

The last paragraph of the Nature editorial is highly dubious! It is already more than clear that the ideological nature of the social sciences has already infected so called climate science far too much.

People with "environmental concerned" should stick to activism. Scientists should stay well away from it. The IPCC , sadly, is a politically motivated organisation like all UN bodies. Climate science has been hijacked.

[marchesarosa]

Dr. John Christy’s testimony before congress –
Posted on September 21, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Hot on the heels of Nature’s editorial about climate modellers not being able to link Global Warming to extreme weather, we have this testimony today from Dr. John Christy.

‘Extreme events, like the recent U.S. drought, will continue to occur, with or without human causation’

‘These recent U.S. ‘extremes’ were exceeded in previous decades’ — ‘The expression of ‘worse than we thought’ climate change as documented in [James] Hansen’s OpEd does not stand up to scrutiny’

John R. Christy, PhD
Alabama State Climatologist
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
House Energy and Power Subcommittee

20 September 2012



Selected Excerpts:

To put it simply, Andreadis and Lettenmaier (2006) found that for the Midwest, “Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, less severe, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century.” In other words, droughts have always happened in the Midwest and they are not getting worse.

…

Another extreme metric is the all-time record high temperature for each state. Theoccurrence of the records by decade (Figure 1.1 below) makes it obvious that the 1930s were the most extreme decade and that since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade. The clear evidence is that extreme high temperatures are not increasing in frequency. The recent claims about thousands of new record high temperatures were based on stations whose length-of-record could begin as recently as 1981, thus missing the many heat waves of the 20th century. So, any moderately hot day now will be publicized as setting records for these young stations because they were not operating in the 1930s.

…

About 75 percent of the states recorded their hottest temperature prior to 1955, and, over 50 percent of the states experienced their record cold temperatures after 1940. Overall, only a third of the records (hot or cold) have been set in the second half of the whole period. One could conclude, if they were so inclined, that the climate of the US is becoming less extreme because the occurrence of state extremes of hot and cold has diminished dramatically since 1955. Since 100 of anything appears to be a fairly large sample (2 values for each of 50 states), this on the surface seems a reasonable conclusion.

Then, one might look at the more recent record of extremes and learn that no state has achieved a record high temperature in the last 15 years (though one state has tied Energy and Power Subcommittee 16 John R. Christy, 20 September 2012 theirs.) However, five states have observed their all-time record low temperature in these past 15 years plus one tie. This includes last year’s record low of 31°F below zero in Oklahoma, breaking their previous record by a rather remarkable 4°F. If one were so inclined, one could conclude that the weather that people worry about (extreme cold) is getting worse in the US. (Note: this lowering of absolute cold temperature records is nowhere forecast in climate model projections, nor is a significant drop in the occurrence of extreme high temperature records.)

I am not using these statistics to prove the weather in the US is becoming less extreme and/or colder. My point is that extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change. Indeed, because of their rarity (by definition) using extreme events to bolster a claim about any type of climate change (warming or cooling) runs the risk of setting up the classic “non-falsifiable hypothesis.” For example, we were told by the IPCC that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4). After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, “Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html).

The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, “whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would “falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is “anything may happen.” In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. This is not science.

…

The evidence above suggests that climate models over-react to greenhouse gas increases. Also there is a lack of evidence to blame humans for an increase in extreme events. One cannot convict CO2 of causing any of these events, because they’ve happened in the past before CO2 levels rose.

Christy’s full testimony available here.
energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/Hearings/EP/20120920/HHRG-112-IF03-WState-ChristyJ-20120920.pdf

[marchesarosa]

Just a thought (but it is my very own)!

If climate science is so advanced as to be able to attribute an extreme weather event to an anthropgenic cause, why can't it also predict them in advance? Seems climate science is only wise after the event.

[nickrr]

If climate science is so advanced as to be able to attribute an extreme weather event to an anthropgenic cause, why can't it also predict them in advance? Seems climate science is only wise after the event

All these debates and you still haven't learnt the difference between weather and climate! Why does such basic stuff have to be explained over and over again.

Climate change may predict that there will be more extreme weather in general but it can't predict individual events. No scientist has ever claimed that it can.

[marchesarosa]

But climate scientists DO attribute individual events to "Co2-induced climate change", nickrr.

They attributed hurricane Katrina to "climate change". They attributed the 2003 European heatwave to "climate change". They attributed the 2010 Russian heatwave and drought to "climate change'". They have attributed the long Australian drought now over to "climate change", in fact some of them said it was permanent. They attributed the Tropical cyclone Yasi of 2011 which ended the drought to "climate change". They attributed tornadoes in 2011 to climate change They have attributed this year's drought and high temperatures in parts of the USA to "climate change". Severe winters in Europe, Siberia, China, North America and South America have been attributed to "climate change".

We need to know the precise mechanism whereby extra atmospheric CO2 is somehow translated into "extreme weather" of various types - hot, cold, wet, dry. Without that (1) it's just so much politically motivated assertion from scientists and others and (2) simply anything "extreme" qualifies as "evidence".

Trenberth predicted global warming would cause more hurricanes and tropical storms. He was wrong. Others have predicted an acceleration in sea level rise and nothing changed. Some predicted tropical islands would be inundated - wrong. Others predicted increasing Saharan decertification and we got the greening of the Sahel. Yet others said Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 (uh oh!). Antarctic sea Ice was supposed decline. It hasn't.

Stuff like cloud cover they have no idea how to model or predict and this is what determines how much sunshine falls on the planet - THE crucial variable for climate.



Climate science is indeed only wise after the event.

If IPCC climatology wishes to earn the accolade of "science" it must recognise the scientific method and practise it.

[mrsonde]

Sept 23, 2012 20:23:28 GMT 1 nickrr said:

If climate science is so advanced as to be able to attribute an extreme weather event to an anthropgenic cause, why can't it also predict them in advance? Seems climate science is only wise after the event

All these debates and you still haven't learnt the difference between weather and climate! Why does such basic stuff have to be explained over and over again.

Climate change may predict that there will be more extreme weather in general

Another prediction which has turned out to be incorrect.

[marchesarosa]

Right, Mr Sonde. Not only is "climate science" only wise AFTER the event, it is also indiscriminate in its attributions, summed up by "it's all grist to the mill".

By the way, in case you hadn't noticed, "attribution" is the latest killer concept in the disputes over "climate science".