Floods, Heat Waves, Storms, and Fires

[RWebb]

A study of a dozen of 2012’s wildest weather events found that man-made global warming increased the likelihood of about half of them, including Superstorm Sandy’s devastating surge and the blistering U.S. summer heat.

The other half — including a record wet British summer and the U.S. drought last year — simply reflected the random freakiness of weather, researchers with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the British meteorological office concluded in a report issued today.

The scientists conducted thousands of runs of different computer simulations that looked at various factors, such as moisture in the air, atmospheric flow, and sea temperature and level.

The approach represents an evolution in the field. Scientists used to say that individual weather events — a specific hurricane or flood, for example — cannot be attributed to climate change. But recently, researchers have used computer simulations to look at extreme events in a more nuanced way and measure the influence of climate change on their likelihood and magnitude.

This is the second year that NOAA and the British meteorology office have teamed up to look at the greenhouse gas connection to the previous year’s unusual events.

“We’ve got some new evidence that human influence has changed the risk and has changed it enough that we can detect it,” study lead author Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution for the British meteorological office, said at a news conference.

The researchers said climate change had made these 2012 events more likely: U.S. heat waves, Superstorm Sandy flooding, shrinking Arctic sea ice, drought in Europe’s Iberian peninsula, and extreme rainfall in Australia and New Zealand.

The 78 international researchers, however, found no global warming connection for the U.S. drought, Europe’s summer extremes, a cold spell in the Netherlands, drought in eastern Kenya and Somalia, floods in northern China and heavy rain in southwestern Japan.

That doesn’t mean that there weren’t climate change factors involved, just that researchers couldn’t find or prove them, said the authors of the 84-page study, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

All 12 events — chosen in part because of their location and the effect they had on society — would have happened anyway, but their magnitude and likelihood were boosted in some cases by global warming, the researchers said.

The two events where scientists found the biggest climate change connection both hit the United States.

The likelihood of the record July U.S. heat wave that hit the Northeast and north-central region is four times greater now than in preindustrial times because of greenhouse gases, Stanford University climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh found in his analysis.

The kind of surge-related flooding that Superstorm Sandy brought to parts of New York City is about 50 percent more likely than it was in 1950, said study co-author William Sweet, a NOAA oceanographer.

Stott said one of the hardest connections to make is for rainfall. The researchers were able to connect three of the eight instances of too much or too little rain to climate change; the five other instances were attributed to natural variability.

The different authors of the 21 chapters used differing techniques to look at climate change connections, and in some instances came to conflicting and confusing conclusions.

Georgia Institute of Technology professor Judith Curry, who often disagrees with mainstream scientists, said connecting shrinking sea ice to human activity was obvious, but as for Sandy and the rest: “I’m not buying it at all.”

Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, said the study provides “compelling evidence that human-caused change was a factor contributing to the extreme events.”

- AP

[Bill Douglas]

I know what you mean. Two nights ago we were having 88mph winds AND an earthquake at the same time.

A couple of months ago winds were over 120mph.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by RWebb

The different authors of the 21 chapters used differing techniques to look at climate change connections, and in some instances came to conflicting and confusing conclusions.

Thanks for that, weeby. Very insightful stuff. Compelling, huh?

[RWebb]

that is for rainfall only

I know the facts don't fit your politics but at least be honest

[GH85Carrera]

I think it is funny that the US has not had one hurricane this year. The experts predicted a bad year for them.

[RWebb]

you must talk to different experts than I do


still waiting for some sammy cartooning...

[KNS]

Phoenix is having a fairly normal summer. Still hot, of course, but not as hot as the last few summers.

[Bill Douglas]

I'm not an expert, but this is what I think is going on - from another weather thread.

Originally Posted by Bill Douglas

I think.... It's because the cold north is still cold, cold as it ever was. But the tropics are hotter than normal for the time of year. High pressure systems are created which stall low pressure systems so the wind blows, dragging in warm moist air condensing against the cold air, and it stays there for days, weeks instead of moving off and away. Also the difference between the hot and the cold, and high pressure and low pressure, brings stronger winds (as in OK), or different winds when compaired with what we are used to. Also bigger pressure systems drag warm or cold air from further away than normal (more cold, or more hot) creating more extreme conditions on land.

[KevinTodd]

Originally Posted by RWebb

A study of a dozen of 2012’s wildest weather events found that man-made global warming increased the likelihood of about half of them, including Superstorm Sandy’s devastating surge and the blistering U.S. summer heat.

The other half — including a record wet British summer and the U.S. drought last year — simply reflected the random freakiness of weather, researchers with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the British meteorological office concluded in a report issued today.

The scientists conducted thousands of runs of different computer simulations that looked at various factors, such as moisture in the air, atmospheric flow, and sea temperature and level.

The approach represents an evolution in the field. Scientists used to say that individual weather events — a specific hurricane or flood, for example — cannot be attributed to climate change. But recently, researchers have used computer simulations to look at extreme events in a more nuanced way and measure the influence of climate change on their likelihood and magnitude.

This is the second year that NOAA and the British meteorology office have teamed up to look at the greenhouse gas connection to the previous year’s unusual events.

“We’ve got some new evidence that human influence has changed the risk and has changed it enough that we can detect it,” study lead author Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution for the British meteorological office, said at a news conference.

The researchers said climate change had made these 2012 events more likely: U.S. heat waves, Superstorm Sandy flooding, shrinking Arctic sea ice, drought in Europe’s Iberian peninsula, and extreme rainfall in Australia and New Zealand.

The 78 international researchers, however, found no global warming connection for the U.S. drought, Europe’s summer extremes, a cold spell in the Netherlands, drought in eastern Kenya and Somalia, floods in northern China and heavy rain in southwestern Japan.

That doesn’t mean that there weren’t climate change factors involved, just that researchers couldn’t find or prove them, said the authors of the 84-page study, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

All 12 events — chosen in part because of their location and the effect they had on society — would have happened anyway, but their magnitude and likelihood were boosted in some cases by global warming, the researchers said.

The two events where scientists found the biggest climate change connection both hit the United States.

The likelihood of the record July U.S. heat wave that hit the Northeast and north-central region is four times greater now than in preindustrial times because of greenhouse gases, Stanford University climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh found in his analysis.

The kind of surge-related flooding that Superstorm Sandy brought to parts of New York City is about 50 percent more likely than it was in 1950, said study co-author William Sweet, a NOAA oceanographer.

Stott said one of the hardest connections to make is for rainfall. The researchers were able to connect three of the eight instances of too much or too little rain to climate change; the five other instances were attributed to natural variability.

The different authors of the 21 chapters used differing techniques to look at climate change connections, and in some instances came to conflicting and confusing conclusions.

Georgia Institute of Technology professor Judith Curry, who often disagrees with mainstream scientists, said connecting shrinking sea ice to human activity was obvious, but as for Sandy and the rest: “I’m not buying it at all.”

Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, said the study provides “compelling evidence that human-caused change was a factor contributing to the extreme events.”

- AP

Here's to random freakiness.

[wdfifteen]

Paul Thorn's "What The Hell Is Goin' On?" Music Video - YouTube


"Scared to read my paper
Can't watch TV
The world's gettin' way too crazy for me"


How do you embed a video in a message?

[onewhippedpuppy]

We are absolutely sure we can attribute 1/2 of the weather this year to global warming. As for the other 1/2 of the weather, well we have no freaking clue. Not exactly a strong hypothesis there.

[Geary]

"Doesn't take a weather man to tell which way the wind blows .."

Action starts at 1:40. Watch 'til the end and KEEP COUNT ..
Lightning Hits My Truck - YouTube

[red-beard]

[ForBell]

Originally Posted by KNS

Phoenix is having a fairly normal summer. Still hot, of course, but not as hot as the last few summers.

So 114 is not as hot as 118? j/k'g

[911SauCy]

3 things I take from this:

-typical moron weather "experts" with embellished weak connections at best.
-Weather trends and patterns can not bring solid conclusions....weather mapping is equivalent to the width of a hair on a 1-mile timeline of the Earths life
-Hate Hybrid cars even more

Happy LONG HOOD FRIDAY

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

We are absolutely sure we can attribute 1/2 of the weather this year to global warming. As for the other 1/2 of the weather, well we have no freaking clue. Not exactly a strong hypothesis there.

wow - I thought you were an engineer??

They used advanced statistical analysis to partition the variance in an observed phenomenon and were able to explain 50% of the variance.

Even look at crack propagation? That is one similar thing off the top of my head.

or turbulence - eddy sizes, yada yada

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by RWebb

wow - I thought you were an engineer??

They used advanced statistical analysis to partition the variance in an observed phenomenon and were able to explain 50% of the variance.

Even look at crack propagation? That is one similar thing off the top of my head.

or turbulence - eddy sizes, yada yada

Yup. Do you want to fly on an airplane in which I can accurately predict 50% of a cause and effect relationship?

The entire field of climate science is fuzzy because it's all theory backed by a very small sample size (relative to the entire data set aka the life of the earth). There are relatively few ways to actually test or prove a hypothesis, it is more an attempt to establish links between variables through statistics and extrapolation. We use analysis to do initial airplane sizing and design, then test the hell out of it. More often than not we discover that the analysis was not perfect and drive design changes due to test results. In this case, there is no way to definitively test the analysis. Hell, meteorology struggles to accurately predict yearly temperature and rainfall patterns.

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Yup. Do you want to fly on an airplane in which I can accurately predict 50% of a cause and effect relationship?

The entire field of climate science is fuzzy because it's all theory backed by a very small sample size (relative to the entire data set aka the life of the earth). There are relatively few ways to actually test or prove a hypothesis, it is more an attempt to establish links between variables through statistics and extrapolation. We use analysis to do initial airplane sizing and design, then test the hell out of it. More often than not we discover that the analysis was not perfect and drive design changes due to test results. In this case, there is no way to definitively test the analysis. Hell, meteorology struggles to accurately predict yearly temperature and rainfall patterns.

Sure that's all well and good. But because the weather is so damn hard to predict the posted experiment is precisely what is needed to help advance our understanding of the processes. Without such exercises we'll never arrive at a predictive model.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Yup. Do you want to fly on an airplane in which I can accurately predict 50% of a cause and effect relationship?

The entire field of climate science is fuzzy because it's [1] all theory backed by a [2] very small sample size (relative to the entire data set aka the life of the earth). There are relatively few ways to actually [3] test or prove a hypothesis, it is more an attempt to [4] establish links between variables through statistics and extrapolation. We use analysis to do initial airplane sizing and design, then test the hell out of it. More often than not we discover that the analysis was not perfect and drive design changes due to test results. In this case, there is no way to definitively test the analysis. Hell, [5][weather prediction] struggles to accurately predict yearly temperature and rainfall patterns.

1. wrong
2. wrong & the age of the Earth is not relevant
3. yes, it is a complex field
4. only a part of it
5. you are conflating two different things here

You might want to look into this area of science a bit more. It IS science, not engineering.

My comment re cracking was where it would go not whether it would occur. As you know, large safety factors are included to ensure low risk. That makes sense in other areas, does it not?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by RWebb

1. wrong
2. wrong & the age of the Earth is not relevant
3. yes, it is a complex field
4. only a part of it
5. you are conflating two different things here

You might want to look into this area of science a bit more. It IS science, not engineering.

My comment re cracking was where it would go not whether it would occur. As you know, large safety factors are included to ensure low risk. That makes sense in other areas, does it not?

You asked me if I was an engineer, I gave you a practical engineer answer. If I was wrong 50% of the time I'd be out of a job pretty quickly.

As for #2, I strongly disagree. How can scientists claim to understand the natural patterns of the Earth with MAYBE 100 years of good data? How can they prove that what we are experiencing today isn't simply part of the natural climate pattern that occurs every XXXX years? Validity of statistical data is very strongly tied to sample size, especially when extrapolating. 100 years of data compared to 4 billion years is pretty damn insignificant.