Global Warming: Recent Data

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:47 am

Kim, There is a big difference between a extreme weather event, a record event, and a climate trend/change. I accept the assessment from the most recent IPCC assessment report (AR5, WG1) that since 1950 changes (trend) in warmer temps is assessed to be likely to very likely; for heavy rainfall events a trend is likely.

I've extracted the sections from the report you quoted highlighting all the indications of trends or records. The information relevant to increasing extreme weather is not impressive.
From America's hurricanes to Portugal's fires, ABC Weather looks back at 2017's deadly extremes

Cyclones, bushfires and heatwaves are typically Australian natural disasters, but in 2017 devastating fires, record heat, hurricanes and typhoons — what we call cyclones — struck around the world.
Here are a few of the events that caught our attention this year. ...

Cyclone Debbie
It was the cyclone that just kept on going.
Debbie made landfall near Airlie Beach as a category 4 system on March 28 with wind gusts of 263 kilometres per hour recorded at Hamilton Island, the highest gust ever recorded in the Queensland digital climate archive, and its initial impact was ferocious. ...
Pakistan record heat
In May, there was a major heat event which affected most of the Persian Gulf but seemed to go largely under the radar in western media.
The town of Turbat in south-west Pakistan recorded 54.0 degrees Celsius, equal to the maximum temperature recorded in Mitrabah, Kuwait in July last year. ...
California fires
These fires were not just significant because Ellen DeGeneres and Paris Hilton's homes were evacuated, the fires in early October led to tens of thousands of people being forced to flee their homes and more than 40 people lost their lives. ...
ANALYSIS
>> "devastating fires, record heat, hurricanes and typhoons"
  • A record in heat only, no trend reported
>> highest gust ever recorded in the Queensland digital climate archive
  • There has been a revolution in climate monitoring through instruments in my lifetime. This applies even for the basic, ground based station readings for temp, wind speed and barometric pressure. Older instruments were not capable of recording extreme gusts, in a number of cases the instrument was significantly damaged.
  • It's a mistake to assume a record means a trend or change. Why? Assume a 100 year weather record under conditions of no climate change; assuming random variation the chance of setting a record in any decade is about %10.
  • I'm guessing the digital climate archive is only a few decades old.
>> Ellen DeGeneres and Paris Hilton's homes were evacuated
  • Now I am worried. :P
Kim OHara wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:27 pm
As the old saying goes, once is bad luck, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action.
And the enemy here is climate change.
Ok climate hawk. On the scale of the old saying I put it to you that the data you presented ranks as bad luck or perhaps coincidence.
------------
IPCC AR5 WG1 -Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policy Makers
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... _FINAL.pdf
See B.1 Atmosphere
IPCC Assessment Report 5 (2013) Summary for Policy Makers wrote: Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950 (see Table SPM.1 for
details). It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights has decreased and the number of warm days and nights
has increased on the global scale6. It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe,
Asia and Australia. There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than
where it has decreased. The frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation events has likely increased in North America and
Europe. In other continents, confidence in changes in heavy precipitation events is at most medium. {2.6}
So where, in the summary above, are mentions of all the other changes or trends in extreme weather? There were good reasons other extreme weather changes were not included in the summary. For instance see Table SPM.1 which reports Low confidence that globally changes have occurred in the extreme weather types reported.
<revised>

Dig into the report to find that the record does not show a clear upward trend in other types of extreme weather events. In some cases the record suggests that the trend might be in the other direction.
AR5 WG1 Technical Summary (TS)
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... _FINAL.pdf
See TS.2.7 Changes in Extremes, TS.2.7.1 Atmosphere


So why, one might well ask, why have I heard so much about extreme weather? To use a much abused phrase ... "climate science denial" is suggested.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:32 am, edited 3 times in total.

chownah
Posts: 7020
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:43 pm

From:
AR5 WG1 Technical Summary (TS)
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... _FINAL.pdf
for the years since the 1970s, it is virtually certain
that the frequency and intensity of storms in the North Atlantic
have increased although the reasons for this increase are debated (see
TFE.9)
and
With high confidence, floods larger than recorded since the 20th century
occurred during the past five centuries in northern and central
Europe, the western Mediterranean region and eastern Asia. There
is medium confidence that in the Near East, India and central North
America, modern large floods are comparable or surpass historical
floods in magnitude and/or frequency. {5.5.5}
and
It is likely that the magnitude of extreme high sea level events has
increased since 1970 (see TFE.9, Table 1).
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

IPCC Changes in Extremes: Tropical Cyclones (Hurricane, Typhoons)

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:54 pm

:oops: Quote the entire paragraph at least to reduce the risk of 'cherry-picking'!

The SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) is a "summary written by climate diplomats for climate diplomats" in the words of one scientist who was an observer in the closed meeting for the last report.
The technical summary below was written by scientists.
Notes:
  • Tropical cyclone -- also known as a hurricane in the northern hemisphere.
  • The tropical cyclone designation is a broad term for various strength systems in the Atlantic basin. In other weather research the tropical cyclone designation is often subdivided into Tropical Storm, Hurricane and Intense (or Major) Hurricane.
  • There is confusing switch in terms -- tropical cyclone, storms, storminess. Are they talking about the same thing? Yes, probably. You have to read the main body of the reports (TFE.9 for instance) to find out. They won't win any awards for technical writing!
Technical Summary of Changes in Extremes wrote:Technical Summary TS.2.7 Changes in Extremes
TS.2.7.1 Atmosphere

Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone [hurricane] activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.
However, for the years since the 1970s, it is virtually certain that the frequency and intensity of storms in the North Atlantic have increased although the reasons for this increase are debated (see TFE.9).
There is low confidence of large-scale trends in storminess over the last century and there is still insufficient evidence to determine whether robust trends exist in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms. {2.6.2–2.6.4}
-- AR5 WG1 Technical Summary (TS), https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... _FINAL.pdf
Translation:
  • If you choose a start date of 1970 you get a trend. If you include the entire history of somewhat reliable weather records then we are unsure/have low assessed confidence. Low confidence is one step above very low where very low is the lowest level of confidence in the 5 part scale used in this report (see below).
  • Note there is not a "no confidence" or "the evidence points the other way" on the scale of terms the report uses. So logically very low confidence includes "zero or virtually zero confidence" or even "we have some degree of confidence that the evidence points in the other direction".
  • In the modern era, especially the satellite era (sometime after 1970 if I recall recorrectly) we have much better digital instruments, aircraft based hurricane chasers with drop radiosondes, and of course satellite based systems which see the entire global. For older records what happened at sea was quite uncertain, the best records come from landfalling hurricanes. A apples-to-apples comparison forces us to focus on landfalling hurricanes. Figure 2.34 shows a graph of that record.
IPCC AR5 WG1 2.6.3 Tropical Storms wrote:Current data sets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities
SUMMARY: You can find a trend or change if you pick the right time period and region of the world. But globally as in "global climate change" or "global warming"? No.

The summary I reported in viewtopic.php?f=54&t=18897&start=1280#p450450 IMO appropriately did not mention hurricanes or tropical cyclone in it's summary statement. Instead it referred readers to Table SPM.1.

Most of us have been told otherwise by people who ought to know -- I would say ought to know better. What to make of this? The situation makes more sense in light of a clear eyed, non-naive understanding of the current state of science in general and for politically contested science in particular. See for instance the assessment of this science and public policy analyst: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... remes.html

----------------------------------------------
Treatment of Uncertainty wrote:A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers:
very low, low, medium, high, and very high
Assessed Likelihood
Virtually certain 99100% probability
Very likely 90100% probability
Likely 66100% probability
About as likely as not 3366% probability
Unlikely 0 33% probability
Very unlikely 010% probability
Exceptionally unlikely 01% probability
-- Box TS.1 | Treatment of Uncertainty TS page 35 / 52
... continued

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

IPCC Changes in Extremes: Tropical Cyclones (Hurricane, Typhoons) Part 2

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:07 pm

History of Landfalling Cyclones, Typhoons & Hurricanes https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/ima ... ig2-34.jpg
Image
Figure 2.34 | Normalized 5-year running means of the number of:
(a) adjusted land falling eastern Australian tropical cyclones (adapted from Callaghan and Power (2011)
and updated to include 2010//2011 season) and
(b) unadjusted land falling U.S. hurricanes (adapted from Vecchi and Knutson (2011) and
(c) land-falling typhoons in China (adapted from CMA, 2011).
Vertical axis ticks represent one standard deviation, with all series normalized to unit standard deviation after a 5-year running mean was applied.

Do you see the trend? Don't strain your eyes, I don't either.

Those who don't read their history are condemned to fool themselves
Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma were in 2005. Between 2005 and 2017 there were no category 3 or higher hurricane landfalls in the US. For the US 2017 was the end of was the longest 'major hurricane drought', the longest longest stretch without a Category 3+ hurricane landfall for the US since at least 1900. 2017 was a big year -- by the usual measures it ranked among the worst 5 hurricane years in the US record but not in the top 2. Even when the US hurricanes of 2017 are included overall the last 10 years have been quiet after a unprecedented peace. A return back to normal (a regression to the historical mean) will be a increase.

There are some beliefs that-everyone-just-knows-are-true. The narrative about extreme weather is one of them.
-----------------
A Personal Conclusion
This doesn't mean that climate isn't changing. It is.
Among other policy changes I support a carbon tax. That stays the same.
I'd also like to see a 'tax' on low integrity.
Changes in temperature and pattern of rainfall. Yes.
More rain overall? No. In most cases not more rain overall. Extreme precipitation means "when it rains it pours", lots of rain in a short time period (in one hour for instance) but not more rain overall.
Changes in other extreme weather? No globally. In some cases, if the changes are real they are small relative to the measurement uncertainty so we don't have high confidence in the measurement. But that is a global average, your regional "mileage" may vary.

I support the ideas of the Eight-fold Noble path to this issue. That means no sloppy speech.
Buddhists may owe their friends and sangas an update to correct previous mis-statements.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

alan
Posts: 3010
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by alan » Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:53 am

True, Kim, it can be entertaining. Amazing how stupid people can be.
Here's a page for your pleasure: https://www.facebook.com/FlatEarthToday/

chownah
Posts: 7020
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: IPCC Changes in Extremes: Tropical Cyclones (Hurricane, Typhoons)

Post by chownah » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:25 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:54 pm
:oops: Quote the entire paragraph at least to reduce the risk of 'cherry-picking'!
Please don't try to tell me how to edit my posts. I included the caveat. My post was directed at a more typical reader so I just presented what I thought was some useful information about the certainty of some extreme climate events using the reference which you brought. IN a previous post you asked "So where are all the changes or trends in extreme weather?" so I went to your link and found some extreme events. Seems that you are just pounding away at one of them...and have ignored the others.
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:54 pm
SUMMARY: You can find a trend or change if you pick the right time period and region of the world. But globally as in "global climate change" or "global warming"? No.
Yes, if you pick the right period and region you can find a trend.....thank you for admitting that the trends are real.
Yes, you can pick a time period and region and move any changes outside the confidence interval.
You can also mess with the idea of what constitutes an event and change the results either way.
You can make the absurd statement that a trend must manifest everywhere in the world for it to be relevant to the topic of "global climate change".
You can also note that this stuff we have been reporting (I think) is from 2013....which means the science that went into it is even older......we should all keep tuned while things become clearer through ongoing data collection and analysis.
chownah

chownah
Posts: 7020
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: History of Landfalling Cyclones, Typhoons & Hurricanes

Post by chownah » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:29 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:07 pm
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/ima ... ig2-34.jpg
Image
Figure 2.34 | Normalized 5-year running means of the number of:
(a) adjusted land falling eastern Australian tropical cyclones (adapted from Callaghan and Power (2011)
and updated to include 2010//2011 season) and
(b) unadjusted land falling U.S. hurricanes (adapted from Vecchi and Knutson (2011) and
(c) land-falling typhoons in China (adapted from CMA, 2011).
Vertical axis ticks represent one standard deviation, with all series normalized to unit standard deviation after a 5-year running mean was applied.

Do you see the trend? Don't strain your eyes, I don't either.
I couldn't believe you posted this. You are suggesting to people that they can look at a graph and visually detect whatever statistically significant trends might be there.....shame on you.....this is like trump saying that the cold weather in the usa's northlands clearly shows that global warming is a scam.......I can't believe you posted this.
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: History of Landfalling Cyclones, Typhoons & Hurricanes

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:43 am

chownah wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:29 am
I couldn't believe you posted this. You are suggesting to people that they can look at a graph and visually detect whatever statistically significant trends might be there.....shame on you.....this is like trump saying that the cold weather in the usa's northlands clearly shows that global warming is a scam.......I can't believe you posted this.
chownah
No sir, I believe your indignation, to call it that, is inappropriate and unwarranted there. In good faith I say that I presented science in a responsible, informed and conventional manner. I believe you have failed to recognize a honest presentation of real science and decent science writing.
I have done what peer reviewed papers routinely do. Further I put it to you it's what the IPCC report authors indended the reader to do with this graph. If the authors of that chapter of the IPCC report didn't intend readers to "eye ball" or "visually detect" trends in the data then explain your theory as to why it was included in the report. Failing that I think you owe us a retraction.

Of course there are more rigorous methods of analysis and good papers usually present data with a graph and with statistical results. But it is possible to "eye ball" a graph to help understand the general shape of the data. This is an accepted mode of presenting results. It's not the exclusive way but acceptable for initial or summary presentations. There is a entire specialty that focuses on the effective visual presentation of data. Graphs like these are routinely presented in scientific papers because it is an effective visual presentation of data and can be done in a way that is not misleading.

To be blunt, in this case I believe you have failed to recognize a honest presentation of real science and decent science writing when you saw it.

I don't follow or understand the analogy to Trumps tweet -- which seemed silly to me too.
chownad I believe your analysis is in error. If there is something I missed or there is a more reasoned argument to be made please do so.
But at this point I say that If there is any shame to be had here it is not on me.

- Climate change & science tends to invoke strong emotions. At this point I'm going to take a 24 hiatus -
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

chownah
Posts: 7020
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: History of Landfalling Cyclones, Typhoons & Hurricanes

Post by chownah » Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:40 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:43 am

chownad I believe your analysis is in error. If there is something I missed or there is a more reasoned argument to be made please do so.
I'm not offering an analysis. You are missing how you are leading untrained lay people to believe that they can look at a graph and determine visually if there is a statistically significant trend depicted.....leading them to think in the manner of "I can't see it so it must not be there".....which is folly.......just like trump saying something like "global warming is a hoax....just feel how cold it is this winter. We don't need more people teaching the lay communities to think that their casual visual observations and gut feeling is a better way to understand the environment than is scientific research. Most lay people couldn't recognize a trend if it climbed up their leg and bit them someplace. Most lay people don't understand what it means to be "statistically significant". I think you should get out more often and rub elbows with some regular folks.
chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4734
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:44 am

Hi, chownah,
If you look at this blog post by Pielke Jr http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/20 ... remes.html and this profile of him on DeSmogBlog https://www.desmogblog.com/roger-pielke-jr you will see someone with a lot in common with Leeuwenhoek2. (Also a lot in common with a less famous scientist in my own community, which may be why I saw the similarity.)
All three of them can look like denialists to everyone except themselves and real denialists. The mind-set is ...odd. Science is stripped of its human context and then idealised and venerated, instead of being regarded as a way of understanding the natural world and used as a tool.

In terms of nailed-down, peer-reviewed, duly authorised Science, Leeuwenhoek2's statements are reasonably well justified. In terms of useful science, though, I'm with you because, as you say, s/he is out of date. And in climate science, being a few years behind the times means being wrong.
That, really, was the point of my post quoting Nature's editiorial - that now (2017 going into 2018) scientists are at last able and willing to say something they have been suspecting (but were unable to show) for some years, i.e. that climate change is certainly driving extreme weather events.
Hansen showed it as a statistical trend in 2012 with his 'climate dice' paper https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_17/ but tightening the attribution has been difficult.

Leeuwenhoek2,
Apologies for talking about you instead of to you, but it seemed the easiest way to make my perception clear. If you think I've been unfair, feel free to correct me.

:namaste:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 7020
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by chownah » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:29 pm

Kim OHara wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:44 am

In terms of nailed-down, peer-reviewed, duly authorised Science, Leeuwenhoek2's statements are reasonably well justified.
I know that very well. If you look at some of my older posts in this thread I think you will find some where I have actually questioned and argued about the ability to attribute strengths and damages from "extreme events" to climate change. However whenever I detect unneccessary bias or inappropriate ideas being presented I mention what I see and enter into discussion. You will notice that I really have not argued against much of what has been said....I just found some inconsistencies and some selective biased comments which I countered with what I hope have been somewhat bias free replies. I don't care about a posters history or pedigree.....I post to what is written here. I'll admit when I see that I am wrong but so far Leeuwenhoek2 has not shown it that I can see.
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Is IPCC 2013 Report "Out of Date" on Extreme Weather?

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:57 pm

Does The 6th edition of Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective from AMS make the IPCC's 2013 assessment report out of date on extreme weather? A reading of both suggests it does not.
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/p ... /abstract/
Abstract - Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective wrote:This sixth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous year (2016) from a climate perspective is the first of these reports to find that some extreme events were not possible in a preindustrial climate. The events were the 2016 record global heat, the heat across Asia, as well as a marine heat wave off the coast of Alaska. While these results are novel, they were not unexpected. Climate attribution scientists have been predicting that eventually the influence of human-caused climate change would become sufficiently strong as to push events beyond the bounds of natural variability alone. It was also predicted that we would first observe this phenomenon for heat events where the climate change influence is most pronounced.
My comments (re quoted below) are in harmony with, and do not contract, the BAMS report. (BAMS is the AMS journal in question. BAMS = Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (AMS))
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:47 am
Kim, There is a big difference between a extreme weather event, a record event, and a climate trend/change. I accept the assessment from the most recent IPCC assessment report (AR5, WG1) that since 1950 changes (trend) in warmer temps is assessed to be likely to very likely ...

IPCC AR5 WG1 -Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policy Makers (SPM)
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repo ... _FINAL.pdf
See B.1 Atmosphere
IPCC Assessment Report 5 (2013) Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) wrote: Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950 (see Table SPM.1 for
details). It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights has decreased and the number of warm days and nights has increased on the global scale. It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia. There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased. The frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation events has likely increased in North America and Europe. In other continents, confidence in changes in heavy precipitation events is at most medium. {2.6}
So where [, in the summary above, ] are mentions of all the other changes or trends in extreme weather? For instance see Table SPM.1 which reports Low confidence that globally changes have occurred in the extreme weather types reported.

Dig into the report to find that the record does not show a clear upward trend in other types of extreme weather events. In some cases the record suggests that the trend might be in the other direction.
SUMMARY --
  • The latest BAMS assessment does not contradict the IPCC AR5 report from 2013 in any important aspect regarding extreme weather events.
  • The major difference is in the confidence expressed in the 3 highlighted attribution studies. The difference is in the level of confidence. I haven't looked at the report on fire.
  • As far as I have seen so far both agree on detection of a trend or change in the number or intensity of extreme weather events as measured by temperature or heavy precipitation (lots of rain in a short time). On those two types of events there is good evidence, not so for others.
  • The key summary statement of the IPCC SPM appropriately spoke of those two types of events and not of others. I do not see claims in the BAMS assessment about other extreme weather events which significantly changes or challenging the IPCC's assessment in 2013.
===============================================

There is a human element to this story. Personal attachments to results, felt challenges to agenda's and desired outcomes may be a factor in interpreting these reports. I feel that grasping tug quite often. I seems to me that the BAM's editors anticipated this in the passage below. A statement which they thought important enough to include in the abstract (a kind of executive summary) of the report:
Abstract - Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective wrote: The editors have and will continue to support the publication of papers that find no role for human-caused climate change because of their scientific value in both assessing attribution methodologies and in enhancing our understanding of how climate change is, and is not, impacting extremes.
It seems to me remarkable that the editors feel the need to defend the publication of papers that find no role for human-caused climate change. I read the passage and thought to myself "well, yes, of course but why do you need to say the obvious? The statements would seem unnecessary in normal science - why do you need to say that ... except perhaps to ward off objections about giving aid the the enemy".

Their comments seem to acknowledge that they too feel the kind of pressure I pointed to in a recent post which quoted from an article 'The Science Police' published in Issues in Science & Technology. Issues in Science & Technology is a forum for discussion of public policy related to science, engineering, and medicine; a joint publication of the National Academy of Sciences and other science and public policy organizations.
from 'The Science Police' wrote:On highly charged issues, such as climate change and endangered species, peer review literature and public discourse are aggressively patrolled by self-appointed sheriffs in the scientific community.

... His experiences have left him wondering if other ecology studies are being similarly judged on “how the results align with conventional wisdom or political priorities.”
The short answer appears to be yes.
Everyone can play the role of sheriff. Do be sure to charge the right man though.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4734
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Is IPCC 2013 Report "Out of Date" on Extreme Weather?

Post by Kim OHara » Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:24 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:57 pm
Does The 6th edition of Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective from AMS make the IPCC's 2013 assessment report out of date on extreme weather? A reading of both suggests it does not.
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/p ... /abstract/
Abstract - Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective wrote:This sixth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous year (2016) from a climate perspective is the first of these reports to find that some extreme events were not possible in a preindustrial climate. The events were the 2016 record global heat, the heat across Asia, as well as a marine heat wave off the coast of Alaska. While these results are novel, they were not unexpected. Climate attribution scientists have been predicting that eventually the influence of human-caused climate change would become sufficiently strong as to push events beyond the bounds of natural variability alone. It was also predicted that we would first observe this phenomenon for heat events where the climate change influence is most pronounced.
...
(Quoting this much just so we both know what we're talking about)
The first sentence of the abstract was the new news I posted about here - viewtopic.php?f=54&t=18897&start=1260#p450074 - four days ago. That was what was new, that was what JAMS said was new, that was what Nature said was new, and that was what I said was new.
Ever since then you have been nitpicking, beginning by saying that it didn't say what Nature's editorialist said it did, which was (and I quote) (again), "Now, for the first time, climate researchers are reporting that some weather events would have been outright impossible without the warming influence of humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions."

As you say, "There is a human element to this story." So there should be. The story should tell us what we need to know. What most of us here need to know is that the most recent research is confirming (as you say) and extending (as you implicitly deny) the IPCC's 2013 assessment report and we should continue to do what we can to avert climate change.

End of story.

Really.

As Larry Edwards said in a comment on Real Climate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... l-warming/ a few months ago, "It is worth considering that at this point our salvation lies in putting pressure on the politics rather than in increasingly nuanced climate science discussions. As poignantly noted in RealClimate in 2009 ( “Hit the Brakes Hard”, the time is late, and even more so now. With “1-in-150” of humanity affected by flooding in just one recent month (and not counting the later impact of Hurricane Maria), the matter before us really is how hard can we hit the brakes and how fast politically can we hit them."

Now do you see why I have said you are too focused on science as method and not enough on science as a tool?

:namaste:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 7020
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is IPCC 2013 Report "Out of Date" on Extreme Weather?

Post by chownah » Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:26 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:57 pm

There is a human element to this story. Personal attachments to results, felt challenges to agenda's and desired outcomes may be a factor in interpreting these reports. I feel that grasping tug quite often. I seems to me that the BAM's editors anticipated this in the passage below. A statement which they thought important enough to include in the abstract (a kind of executive summary) of the report:
Abstract - Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective wrote: The editors have and will continue to support the publication of papers that find no role for human-caused climate change because of their scientific value in both assessing attribution methodologies and in enhancing our understanding of how climate change is, and is not, impacting extremes.
It seems to me remarkable that the editors feel the need to defend the publication of papers that find no role for human-caused climate change. I read the passage and thought to myself "well, yes, of course but why do you need to say the obvious? The statements would seem unnecessary in normal science - why do you need to say that ... except perhaps to ward off objections about giving aid the the enemy".
I think that the editors made that statement in the Abstract because they know that there is great concern in the public and in the government as to whether both sides of the issue are being presented.....they are reaffirming their commitment to presenting well researched article regardless of how they stand with regard to any issues. This is after all what good science is all about.

Now, it may be claimed that leeuwenhoek2's is perfectly consistent with what I said in the paragraph above....and I think that it is. I hope that the reader can see how leeuwenhoek2's post leads one towards agitated mental constructs.....while the one I presented leads one towards a much calmer mental state.
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Is IPCC 2013 Report "Out of Date" on Extreme Weather?

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:12 am

DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME reading this unless you want to see someone else's notes about possible posts in progress. If this information doesn't make sense to you please ignore this posting.
I offer this in part as a service to other writers -- It's often helpful and interesting when some else has tracked down various sources and URLs and made notes on the interesting bits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Point taken - the abstract to the entire BAMS publication -- which looks to be a collection of papers rather than a integrated assessment report like the IPCC -- does also use the word "impossible". Terminology like that gets used as a type of shorthand sometimes when talking among experts in private. When someone says "impossible" in terms of this kind of work I assume they mean "highly unlikely". In situations where there precise wording has consequences -- in court rooms, in government regulated fields -- such language is avoided; it's crazy talk like saying "I'm never wrong" or "my work is perfect".
I wasn't paying close enough attention to what was written -- that was an error.

Also, I have focused more on studies based on objectively measured weather rather than model based simulations. The simulations are a rough type of climate or weather pattern forecast although the modelers have mostly avoided characterizing it that way. The stability of the climate in terms of weather extremes has surprised me.
--------------------------------------------

Kim, let me clarify something that may resolve a misunderstanding and help make the rest of the exchange easier.

Contrast these two passages:
The Nature Editorial wrote: "Now, for the first time, climate researchers are reporting that ...
BAMS - Explaining Extreme Events of 2016 from a Climate Perspective wrote:This sixth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous year (2016) from a climate perspective is the first of these reports to find that some extreme events were not possible in a preindustrial climate. ...
I think they are saying very different things.

To understand what BAMS mean by "the first of these reports" note what the introduction from the 2015 edition says:
Explaining Extreme Events of 2015 from a Climate Perspective -- introduction wrote: The fifth edition of “Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective" presents 26 peer-reviewed research papers ...
-- https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explaini ... vents-2015
Attribution studies (that attribute climate changes to green house gases) have been published before in other journals. So I am very confident that what BAMS was trying to say might be more clearly stated as:
Clarified wrote:This sixth edition of the annual series of reports "Explaining Extreme Events ... from a Climate Perspective" is the first edition of the series to publish a paper that finds that ...
<revised>
SUMMARY: BAMS is saying that this is first time such reports have been published in BAMS annual series of reports. Not that this is the first time that such reports have ever been published in scientific journals.
Kim OHara wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:24 am
(Quoting this much just so we both know what we're talking about)
The first sentence of the abstract was the new news I posted about here - viewtopic.php?f=54&t=18897&start=1260#p450074 - four days ago. That was what was new, that was what JAMS said was new, that was what Nature said was new, and that was what I said was new.

Ever since then you have been nitpicking, beginning by saying that it didn't say what Nature's editorialist said it did, which was (and I quote) (again), "Now, for the first time, climate researchers are reporting that some weather events would have been outright impossible without the warming influence of humanity’s greenhouse-gas emissions."
Please note the difference between the language of the BAMS abstract and the editorial. At least for this scientist they are saying quite different things.

The editorial writer made two significant errors:
NOTE: 1) needs more work - information should be confirmed from at least 1 of the 3 papers.
1) The reports themselves did not say it "would have been outright impossible". I've only partly reviewed one report (I've not read every word) but key passages in one report indicates that they were not able to replicate recent conditions with their simulations without adding in anthropocentric forcing. Unfortunately the BAMS abstract used the word "impossible". If taken literally or without caveats such language removes appropriate recognition of the uncertainty inherent in modeling a complex system with areas of known uncertainty.

The use of this language can be explained. Climate modelers have a habit of talking about the model outputs -- simulations -- as "experiments" or as if the model output was objectively measured weather in the real world. It's a short hand way of talking but it confusing for people from other fields. It drives some engineers nuts. (They could get fired or sued for representing their work that way).
2) It is not the first time that climate scientists have published somewhat similar attribution studies in other journals. It may be the first time that AMS or BAMS published such a study in that series of annual reports.

That tells me that the editorial is not reliable and not to trusted.
I think I am being appropriately firm when I say that persons of good will and ethics would be well advised to disregard the editorial and advise others to do the same. It's not the worst exaggeration but it is exaggerated or in error. Further the editorial does not invalidate IPCC's AR5 summary conclusions regarding measured extreme weather events that have occurred up to now.

Having explained my thinking lets return to:
What most of us here need to know is that the most recent research is confirming (as you say) and extending (as you implicitly deny) the IPCC's 2013 assessment report and we should continue to do what we can to avert climate change.
Of course every additional report extends previous work in some way. The new reports in BAMS may be more confident of their attribution assessment than previous attribution assessments published in other journals up to now. Somewhat more confident than before is likely the main story. The significance of BAMS publishing a attribution assessment for the first time in that forum is notable but the actual scientific import of a first publication in and of itself is ambiguous. It's perfectly appropriate to maintain a skeptical stance ... especially until the community has had the chance to review and discuss the work for a while.
QUESTIONS: But other than that do still believe that the most recent research extends the IPCC's 2013 assessment report in some significant fashion?
If so please explain what you mean by "extending".
---------------------------------------
In regard to your prior post:
Kim OHara wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:20 pm
one of the things which I think is attracting the attention of the undecided middle is extreme weather. (See my next post.) Highlighting its sources in climate change therefore offers a good opportunity to shift opinion on climate change quite quickly.
Misinformation about extreme weather events would likely backfire. Because of the wide spread misinformation and misunderstanding around this story a reliable and honest advocate or teacher should acknowledge and correct the prevalent misunderstanding.
What we can say in respect to the science and the precepts includes:
1) There are clear indications of warming on average and in most regions
2) and projections of more to come including projections of increases in some types of extreme weather.

------------------------------
This is not an abstract issue for me but rather resembles issues of 'socially engaged action' I see going on within my tradition that is threatening it's integrity. Leadership is not surrounding itself with reliable council. It is only right and compassionate to inform others, especially leaders, of the situation and the risk.

It seems to me that anyone in a position of leadership who doesn't distance themselves from the editorial should be informed of the information. If they persist that I think they rightly should be questioned by the sanga and/or senior persons as to their reliability and fitness to serve.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:42 am, edited 10 times in total.

chownah
Posts: 7020
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is IPCC 2013 Report "Out of Date" on Extreme Weather?

Post by chownah » Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:34 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:12 am
Kim, let me clarify something that may resolve a misunderstanding and help make the rest of the exchange easier.

This passage is easy to misinterpret.
BAMS - Explaining Extreme Events of 2016 from a Climate Perspective wrote:This sixth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous year (2016) from a climate perspective is the first of these reports to find that ...
In contrast note the edition from the previous year - 2015:
Explaining Extreme Events of 2015 from a Climate Perspective i introduction wrote: The fifth edition of “Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective" presents 26 peer-reviewed research papers ...
-- https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explaini ... vents-2015
Because I know that similar attribution studies have been published before I am very confident what they mean is:
Clarified wrote:This sixth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous year (2016) from a climate perspective is the first report in this series of annual reports to publish a paper that finds that ...
I don't understand what you are saying here...... as a starter, you could explain what you see as being the significance between the BAMS - Explaining Extreme Events of 2016 from a Climate Perspective passage and the Explaining Extreme Events of 2015 from a Climate Perspective i introduction passage.
chownah

chownah
Posts: 7020
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is IPCC 2013 Report "Out of Date" on Extreme Weather?

Post by chownah » Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:12 pm

chownah wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:34 am
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:12 am
Kim, let me clarify something that may resolve a misunderstanding and help make the rest of the exchange easier.

This passage is easy to misinterpret.
BAMS - Explaining Extreme Events of 2016 from a Climate Perspective wrote:This sixth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous year (2016) from a climate perspective is the first of these reports to find that ...
In contrast note the edition from the previous year - 2015:
Explaining Extreme Events of 2015 from a Climate Perspective i introduction wrote: The fifth edition of “Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective" presents 26 peer-reviewed research papers ...
-- https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explaini ... vents-2015
Because I know that similar attribution studies have been published before I am very confident what they mean is:
Clarified wrote:This sixth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous year (2016) from a climate perspective is the first report in this series of annual reports to publish a paper that finds that ...
I don't understand what you are saying here...... as a starter, you could explain what you see as being the significance between the BAMS - Explaining Extreme Events of 2016 from a Climate Perspective passage and the Explaining Extreme Events of 2015 from a Climate Perspective i introduction passage.
chownah
I see that you have edited your post. I want to take one thing at a time because I am a rice farmer and so I am easily confused.....so.....can you explain the significance issue I have presented here first?.....and then maybe that will clarify things for me....or if not then perhaps we can discuss your post as it stands after your most recent edit.
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Working notes

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:45 pm

DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME reading this unless you want to see someone else's notes about possible posts in progress. If this information doesn't make sense to you please ignore this posting.
I offer this in part as a service to other writers -- It's often helpful and interesting when some else has tracked down various sources and URLs and made notes on the interesting bits.
A glimpse inside my investigation ... my comments in brackets [ ]
========================================================
Explaining Extreme Events -Abstract wrote:This sixth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous year (2016) from a climate perspective is the first of these reports to find that some extreme events were not possible in a preindustrial climate. The events were the 2016 record global heat, the heat across Asia, as well as a marine heat wave off the coast of Alaska.
-- https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/p ... /abstract/
THe "3 TENORS"
1. INTRODUCTION TO EXPLAINING EXTREME EVENTS OF 2016 FROM A CLIMATE PERSPECTIVE wrote: • In a paper analyzing the 2016 global heat record by NOAA scientist Tom Knutson et al., the authors concluded that record global warmth “was only possible due to substantial centennialscale human-caused warming.”
• Similarly, a study of the record heat over Asia led by Yukiko Imada of the Japanese Meteorological Agency found that the extreme warmth across Asia in 2016 “would not have been possible without climate change.”
[The 1 paper I looked at, I picked the Pavaratti by chance? -- claims are more appropriate qualified, no mission impossible here.]
• In addition to these two papers looking at atmospheric temperatures, a team led by John Walsh of the University of Alaska determined that a large, persistent area of anomalously warm ocean water off the coast of Alaska (often referenced as “the Blob”) found “no instances of 2016-like anomalies in the preindustrial climate [simulation]” for sea surface temperatures in the Bering Sea.
-- http://www.ametsoc.net/eee/2016/2016_ba ... ow_res.pdf
3. CMIP5 MODEL-BASED ASSESSMENT OF ANTHROPOGENIC INFLUENCE ON RECORD GLOBAL WARMTH DURING 2016
Thomas R. Knutson, Jonghun Kam, FanRong Zeng, and andRew T. wiTTenbeRg
Knutson, header wrote:According to CMIP5 simulations[that we ran], the 2016 record global warmth was only possible due to substantial centennial-scale anthropogenic warming.
Ah! The difference a peer reviewed quality paper makes. I admit to feeling somewhat relieved, the radicals haven't completely taken over the editorial offices.
And some people like to beat you up for correctly labeling model results as "simulations"!
The inconsistency of observed long-term global warming with simulated natural variability (detection), and its consistency with simulations incorporating anthropogenic forcing (attribution), are in agreement with previous studies and assessments [that we considered]
Detect /attribution 101 - Important concepts. thank you
However, events as warm as 2016 are clearly possible in at least some of the All-Forcing experiments with anthropogenic forcing (Fig. 3.1a).
We therefore estimated ensemble and individual model p1’s, for the seven models having more than one All-Forcing/RCP8.5
Experiment = changing settings on simulation software -- this is one of the less potentially misleading uses (experienced readers aren't mislead ... once they learn the odd climate science usage of "experiment".)
Am I out of touch? Is there some field(s) that talk of models runs as experiments in published research?
RCP8.5 = high end of climate sensitivity
We conclude that for the seven individual CMIP5 models having adequate numbers of ensemble members
and having All-Forcing runs that are consistent with recent observations, the risk of exceeding the 2015
(2016) threshold is entirely attributable to anthropogenic forcing (FAR = 1).

Our analysis has important caveats. The internal variability of the climate system and the response to historical forcings have been estimated here using a combination of observations and models following Knutson et al. (2013, 2016). Uncertainties also remain in historical climate forcings by various agents, including anthropogenic aerosols. However, simulated internal variability would need to be more than twice as large as the most extreme case found in the CMIP5 models, for even the most extreme simulated natural warming event to match the 2016 observed record.

Summary.According to the CMIP5 simulations, 2016’s record global January–December warmth would not have been possible under climate conditions of the early 1900s—anthropogenic forcing was a necessary condition (Hannart et al. 2016) for the event.
OK as long as a FAR is presented as a estimate based in part on simulated/forecasts of climates.
the CMIP5 simulations = simulates run on estimates from " a combination of observations and models following Knutson et al.[/b] (2013, 2016)." CMIP5 simulations using my inputs.
Kinda puts a different light and context on: "events were not possible in a preindustrial climate."
Explaining Extreme Events -Abstract wrote:This sixth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous year (2016) from a climate perspective is the first of these reports to find that some extreme events were not possible in a preindustrial climate. The events were the 2016 record global heat, the heat across Asia, as well as a marine heat wave off the coast of Alaska.
I wonder what the AMS membership reaction is going to be? Fireworks soon?
STRIKING ------------------------------------------------------
It is striking how quickly we are now starting to see such results, though their dependence on model-based estimates of natural variability in the absence of human-induced change will require ongoing validation of the time-of-emergence for extreme event magnitudes at local scales.
Why "striking"? Really am curious what they were thinking. Noam Chomsky style I think of the often sited rhetorical pattern/trope: admit how far away we were up to now only once you think we've arrived.
Meaning: when phenomena first occurred? - circular
first occurred in models/virtual worlds? -- modeler shorthand?
It is helpful to consider the methodology used in these studies to understand the conclusions. Each
used the commonly accepted event attribution technique of calculating the fraction of attributable risk
(FAR)
for the event, a statistical approach borrowed from epidemiology and public health, establishing [[calculating]] the probability of the event happening with greenhouse gas emissions at current levels due to human activity.
statistical calculations of probability should warn of probability and uncertainty!
VIRTUAL PLANETS
1. INTRODUCTION TO EXPLAINING EXTREME EVENTS OF 2016 FROM A CLIMATE PERSPECTIVE wrote:All three papers concluded that the FAR was 1, meaning that the event was not possible in the “control” planet, and only possible in a world with human-emitted greenhouse gases.
It should also be recognized that although FAR = 1 in relation to a human-induced impact in these cases, other climate drivers! that also affect the probability of such extremes may have been major additional contributors to the likelihood! of the event occurring.
Each of these papers applied large model ensembles (CMIP5 for both the global heat and Alaska marine heat wave analyses and the atmospheric general circulation model MIROC5 for the Asia heat study) to determine the FAR for these events.
not possible in the “control” planet -- good, honest phrase
and complete the thought guys --> and only possible in a [virtual] world/planet with human-emitted greenhouse gases.
That mod puts you on a intellectually honest 'planet' we can live on.
WE would CAUTION
... and ... the caution wrote:As is always the case, we would caution that the results of any single study should not be interpreted as the final word on the matter for that event, nor be generalized to a broader class of extremes.
For example, authors of these papers selected specific modeling approaches and made other choices about factors that are important in how the models replicate extreme events, such as terrestrial heat or sea surface temperatures. If other study designs were applied to these events, it is possible a different result would be reached.
The importance of the methodological approach in attribution research is further discussed in the summary of this report (Stott et al.).
This is the language the public needs to see.
Also: As is always the case, we would caution that the results of any attribution study should not be interpreted as the final word on the matter or confused with objective events. If other study designs were applied to these events, it is possible a different result would be reached.
On principle It is virtually certain (apodictic?) that some study designs (better, more complete theory; different climate sensitivity) would reach contradictory results. -- that is the tradition of normal science and scholarship.
While several of the studied events were found not to be possible without climate change, natural variability still laid the foundation for the events to occur, and the authors acknowledge this in their papers. Extreme events are always the result of a cumulative set of factors. The building blocks that form the foundation of any event continue to include natural variability, with factors such as El Niño potentially adding to the strength of the event.
SEEN to PALE in Comparison
These temperature-related extremes would likely still have been warm events [but not past extreme warm thresholds] even without human-caused climate change,
but according to these analyses, the [models simulated] events could not have surpassed the extreme warm thresholds that they did without climate change.
This was especially the case for the record-setting globally averaged temperature. At the global scale, the natural variations of Earth’s temperature are increasingly seen to pale in comparison to the growing intensity of human-induced warming. Overall, human-caused climate change allowed them to pass a threshold that they could not otherwise have exceeded.
increasingly seen to pale in comparison -- increasingly in whose eyes? Hansen didn't suspect in the 1980s?
a social construct, how long can this increasing go on before we burst in flames or something
I'm sorry I failed to appreciate just how right I was all along ... laughing at self :tongue:
the natural variations - that is the crux of the issue % attribution, climate sensitivity
You got us at the serious possibility ---- stop gilding the lily; downplaying the uncertainty
Are you being served episode =3rd floor ... cosmetics, PR, "compelling narratives", Trump tweets
These papers also emphasize why clearer understanding of how human-caused climate change impacts extreme events is an important area of research. Retrospective analysis of previous extreme events may yield new insights into the history of human-caused climate change impacts, and we can expect to see insights into the extent and timing of the changes in the future
Granted ... but so is understanding of natural variation - how bout throwing a few more bucks just so we can pretend this is climate research
and the other shoe never drops --Retrospective analysis of alternative explanations used to be called doing science.
-------------------
Explaination of The 2015 Report in the series
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u ... blame-game
What is extreme event attribution?
Attribution is the process of giving credit for something, like crediting all the people who were involved in making a movie. Like a movie, any extreme event has lots of contributors; extreme event attribution is the science of deciding whether manmade global warming was one of them. Extreme event attribution tells us how much of the credit or risk for an event (or type of events) should go to global warming and how much should go to natural weather patterns or random climate variability.

Why do extreme event attribution studies?
Knowing whether global warming influenced the probability or intensity of an extreme weather event can help people in affected communities develop recovery and resilience plans that match their future risk. Research has already connected global warming to changes in the frequency of certain extreme events, including heat waves and extremely heavy rain, on a global scale. The goal of extreme event attribution is to provide a local-scale perspective that people, communities, and businesses can use to better anticipate future changes in extremes at their specific location.
  • Important terms: Detection and Attribution.
  • Detection is when research into weather records of actual measurements of past weather detects changes in the frequency of certain extreme events, including heat waves and extremely heavy rain, on a global scale.
  • As with the IPCC AR5 SPM, just those two extreme weather events are named but not others. That is intentional.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:37 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Working Notes - Yale Climate Connections

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:36 pm

DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME reading this unless you want to see someone else's notes about possible posts in progress.
IF this information doesn't make sense to you Then please ignore this posting.

I offer this in part as a service to other writers -- It's often helpful and interesting when some else has tracked down various sources and URLs and made notes on the interesting bits.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/ ... n-warming/
For the first time, an annual report issued by the American Meteorological Society has found that the extreme magnitudes of three weather events in 2016 “was not possible without the influence of human-caused climate change.”

... None of the 104 papers published in the earlier AMS annual extreme weather annual reports since 2010 had made that claim – although scientists had already known that climate change could alter the risk of some extremes in weather, said Jeff Rosenfeld, editor-in-chief of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, at a press conference at the AGU meeting.

“In the six years scientists have been producing this annual report,” AMS said in a press statement, “this is the first time they have found that extreme events could not have happened without human-caused warming of the climate through increases in greenhouse gases.”
  • Maybe my memory was wrong -- but I recall previous detection/attribution studies that seemed to come to similar conclusions.
  • Does that mean that "For the first time, an annual report issued by the American Meteorological Society has found that" or
    "For the first time, publish research in any journal has found that ..." - a plain reading strongly supports the latter
  • Aside: Normal caveats for press releases - Press offices releases rarely reviewed or signed off by scientists.
    A great system of 'plausible deniability'. Don't know BAMS policy, if they have one. Welcome to the sometimes shocking real world of science as a human activity. I still remember one incident discovering this as a youth.
advancing rapidly wrote:Scientific research on attribution of severe weather events to the changing climate has advanced rapidly in recent years. Many scientists continue to emphasize that the research to date is by no means definitive when it comes to specific weather events and all types of events. They often emphasize too that the changing climate may worsen, rather than “cause,” a particular severe event. Attribution research has been among the most closely-watched areas of climate science, as many see research pointing to a stronger link between climate change and severe weather having policy implications involving regulation and/or pricing of carbon emissions.
  • The research to date is by no means definitive. That could be the end of the sentence.
  • I understand that attribution research is a surprisingly small field of expertise -- many more people working on the models themselves- models and model comparison projects such as CMIP5 being considerable intellectual achievements in itself. Inside the network everyone knows and probably has published papers with everyone. Neutral peer review is impossible. In such cases government regulators bring in experts from related fields -- often paying a fee to familiarize themselves/come up-to-date with the relevant research.
  • Meaning - no one free of the influence of political bias
  • Aside: - this applies equally to climate scientists as it does to Exon/Mobil or "deniers". Many financial, grant funding, social acceptance and professional achievement pressures. Buddhists should especially appreciate that the non-material attractions can be very powerful.
RUN DOWN of Standout Papers -----------------------------------------------------
Here’s a quick run-down of the report’s three standout papers:
  • Tom Knutson of NOAA and colleagues found that record warmth globally in 2016 “would not have been possible under climate conditions of the early 1900s—anthropogenic forcing was a necessary condition … for the event.” Knutson’s paper, CMIP5 Model-Based Assessment of Anthropogenic Influence on Record Global Warmth During 2016, is in Chapter 3 of the report.
  • John Walsh of the University of Alaska and colleagues found that a large and persistent area of warm seawater off the coast of Alaska – often referenced as “the Blob” – was unprecedented in the historical record. “Both anthropogenic forcing and internal variability were necessary for the extreme warmth of the subarctic seas,” they wrote. Their paper, The High Latitude Marine Heat Wave of 2016 and its Impacts on Alaska, is in Chapter 8 of the AMS report.
  • Yukiko Imada of the Japanese Meteorological Agency and colleagues examined extreme, record-breaking warmth across Asia in 2016. “All of the risk of the extremely high temperatures over Asia in 2016 can be attributed to anthropogenic warming,” the authors concluded. The paper, Climate Change Increased the Likelihood of the 2016 Heat Extremes in Asia, is in Chapter 19 of the report.
very sure wrote:At the AGU press conference, climate scientist Andrew King of the University of Melbourne in Australia said he understood that attributing any extreme weather event to climate change is a bold assertion. “In general we’re being pretty conservative,” King said. “For scientists to say that an event would be virtually impossible without climate change, they’re very sure.”
  • Strange brand of conservatism when "very sure" is spoken of as "impossible" to be otherwise -- which is the language used by BAMS.
  • Virtually impossible - contrast with impossible, not possible. Kings words, intentionally or not, wisely backs off and distances himself from the wording in the abstract. King was not an co-author of the Abstract.
    Virtually impossible = very sure. Of course.
  • I what other fields of human activity where persons en devour to gain appropriate views, avoid slothfulness and to embrace right speech is maintaining the distinction between very sure and certain (it's impossible) not appreciated and applauded? That is a key point here IMO for Buddhists. It's like the difference between sort of practicing and practicing, single-minded or sorta single minded.
  • One makes you credible the other leaves you, with good reason!, open to the criticism that you are a unreliable teacher or spiritual friend on that topic and possibly have privileged your own politics over the dharma. We need each other (and I need you) to watch out for each other on this.
Stephanie Herring makes it clear wrote:Stephanie Herring, of the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information in Boulder, Colo., said the new AMS report stands out because of the strong statements the studies make about the influence that climate change has on extreme weather events. She acknowledged that many of the studies did not make as strong a connection as the three papers highlighted, but added nevertheless that the connection “should be part of the conversation.”
Regional Climate Studies wrote:“This is actually a big tool to make effective policy decisions about how to use these resources,” Rosenfeld said. “I think there’s a very good chance this is going to help policymakers, especially at the regional level.”
  • Regional, not global, information in many case is much more useful for planners.
  • The reports also included papers of the impacts of warming. For that it doesn't make any difference about the sources and it's a rich area of common ground.
  • Investigations on the impacts of warming should not confused with attribution of warming to anthropocentric forcing or future projects. It's easy to do. Too often writers will mix the two which is very misleading. Intentional or not it is a "cheap" tactic that I suspect many sense without being fully aware of it. The expectation that we will be scammed by clever rhetoric is a realistic exception. Some skepticism is richly deserved. It makes it too easy to throw the baby out with the BS/bathwater.
=============================================
https://science2017.globalchange.gov
Climate Science Special Report
Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I
This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the first of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:49 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4734
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:24 pm

Hi, chownah and Leeuwenhoek2 :hello:

Feel free to thrash out the details between yourselves, but I am not going to take any further part in discussion of this particular issue.
As I said in my last past here, I believe that all we need to know is that the most recent research is confirming and extending the IPCC's 2013 assessment report and, for that matter, Hansen's "Climate Dice" paper. That knowledge should encourage us to continue to do what we can to avert climate change, which is the real challenge and is what I will get back to doing.

:namaste:
Kim

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests