Slashdot Mirror
'Half' of 2012's Extreme Weather Impacted By Climate Change
sciencehabit writes "2012 was a year of extreme weather: Superstorm Sandy, drought and heat waves in the United States; record rainfall in the United Kingdom; unusually heavy rains in Kenya, Somalia, Japan, and Australia; drought in Spain; floods in China. One of the first questions asked in the wake of such extreme weather is: 'Could this due to climate change?' In a report (huge PDF) published online today, NOAA scientists tackled this question head-on. The overall message of the report: It varies. 'About half of the events reveal compelling evidence that human-caused change was a [contributing] factor,' said NOAA National Climatic Data Center Director Thomas Karl. In addition, climate scientist Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office noted that these studies show that in many cases, human influence on climate has increased the risks associated with extreme events."
Godfearing Christians are smitten by God and not by Climate Change.
What do you call a "climatologist"? A scientist who don't actually understand science.
Human-caused changes often cause extreme events...
Of course humans affect the environment, how is that disputable? It's the degree and duration of the affect that is not clear. Whether, or is it weather, these human changes are a significant factor is the debate..
Wow, is that really a shock to anybody? That is your evidence of extreme weather???
This is ridiculous.
I have noticed only people in NY call it a superstorm, anyone else would call it a cat 1 hurricane or TS. I feel this planet goes through cycles of extremes, pointing at humans without proof is just another way to tax people.
The question should not be is warming/climate change aided by manmade endeavors. It should be, now that we realize we have the power to alter the climate, what do we want to do? Let it go as is? Change it for the better? Try to change it back?
Now I will go get my popcorn.. I need to have snacks for the ensuing battle.
Silence is a state of mime.
Climate Change?
Fuck off. I want GW back, I'm sick of the cold.
Burn more shit.
Socialist dickwads.
Wasn't it a category 1 when it hit? The damage being from landing durning high-tide.
So AWG is responsible when tiny hurricanes hit during high-tide? THIS is why people don't listen to AWG people, they just make stuff up.
Can we agree in future not to post news items having to do with climate "science" unless we are at the same time including links to debunkers of said news?
It's obvious to everyone that the wheels have come off this particular scam. Obvious to everyone, that is, except to those whose livelihood depends on them continuing to find new ways of makinjg hockey sticks.
NOAA is not a science organization. It is a political mouthpiece of the administration.
Can you say s-c-i-e-n-t-i-f-i-c m-i-s-c-o-n-d-u-c-t.
Was our weather this year worse than last years weather, or the year before? We have always had extreme weather events every single year around the world and just because they can point out some events this year doesn't mean its all human caused.
Also worth noting, worldwide average temperature has remained the same for the last decade.
Obama:
Let me be clear. I'm not gonna sit idly by while Iran talks shit about all you white trash, trailer park, redneck, inbred, gun-freak retards. So I'm gonna bomb Syria. You're welcome, you vile, disgusting peasants.
"2012 was a year of extreme weather..."
Despite humans outputting more carbon than ever, nasa data shows the earth has been cooling for the past decade. Humans being a small part of the climate change equation is an understatement.
All I can say about global warming is that when I was a kidd these same people where saying we where headed to and Ice Age. You have alot of people who belive it and don't belive it. As to the scientist, well they follow the money, even a cursory look would tell you that.
I rather giggle at "Man-Made Global Warming". Primarily, because the planet has been in an Ice Age for the past 2-3 million years: we are merely between continental glacial advances.
The HISTORIC climate for most of the US was hot and swampy for the past several hundred million years. Since genus homo has only been around for the last 2 million years or so, you can't even blame us for human-induced global COOLING. . .
...human influence is *always* a contributing factor to weather. Heck, the influence of butterflies is *always* a contributing factor.
The question is, "how big is that factor"?
The answer? So small as to be immeasurable.
http://www.nature.com/news/extreme-weather-1.11428
"Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming."
With those hard numbers the remaining thing to see in this discussion is how many people is paid for Koch industries and similar ones, and how many got fooled by them into denying that human activity are causing changes in global climate strong enough to be responsible for the consequences of some of the extreme weather we suffered in recent years.
OMFG! Al Gore was right! The sky is falling.!!!!!!!!!
The trick is knowing WHICH half
---- Please be nice in case my Slashdot karma ~= my real life karma.
Show me the detailed worldwide climate model including the future cycles of the Sun before I will consider believing 1 year worth of change is due to any particular cause.
Come on now. Rational, scientific work doesn't confuse Correlation with Causation!
We have no idea, but picking the number int he middle hedges our bets the most.
that is all
How does that figure? And don't say instability... I could believe Extreme Reporting on weather rather than extreme weather....global warning is real, but it connection to last year's storms seem tenuous....
Is that considered extreme weather? If so, which half is it in?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/30/a-head-scratcher-no-atlantic-hurricane-by-august-in-first-time-in-11-years/#more-92771
And these scientists are money grabbing barons, we should listen to the oil industry. They know what they are doing.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/noaa-goes-full-alarmist-with-new-publication-seeing-agw-in-extreme-weather-events/
All I can say about global warming is that when I was a kidd these same people where saying we where headed to and Ice Age.
No, they weren't. Nobody was ever seriously predicting we were heading into an ice age. That "next ice age" played well in the media-- it made Time and Newsweek--but it was never a scientific consensus. Check out "The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus" in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, or the discussion and links here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/09/18/now-out-in-bams-the-myth-of-th/
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
100 percent of weather is effected by all changes in the climate.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
That report is as accurate as an old tymey Alminac that says that the last 4 years it did not rain today, so it wont rain today.
I want to see the raw data and all the peer reviews of the same study. Too many of you people JUMP on the OMG sky is falling / OMG Sky is not falling bandwagons too fast.
US scientists want to see the real meat and what a LOT of others scientists think.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I wish the "scientists" would stop crying about it and offer a real solution like cheap solar energy I can put on my house or car. Offer me something that is cheaper than my gas engine so I can replace it and have a clean emissions vehicle.
Let's just say it's all true.
Then what? In order to have ANY appreciable effect GLOBAL GDP would have to be rolled back.
that simply aint going to happen.
Part of the problem may be that our overall population of plus 6 billion and rising is bringing change that our political processes are built to deal with in a timely manner. Change is happening faster than our political processes have been shaped to consider and react. Yet our turn around time on embracing the evidence is pretty good. If you consider how long it took for the theory of Evolution to be widely embraced, or, even more recently the theory of Plate Tectonics our research and reaction to the findings on climate change has been fast in historical terms.
is on its way to Syria right now...
...Now, Weather = Climate??
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You are mixing up different things.
Our planet has gone through intense weather and drastic climate change long before we were here and will do so long after were gone..
Right. Human-induced climate change is not instead of other factors that change the climate; it is in addition to other factors that change the climate.
The most significant effect humans have is blaming it on shit (carbon, pagans, magnets, aliens, too much violence, not enough violence, foreskin, etc.).
This is not merely silly, but deliberately stupid. Or, more accurately, straw man. Nobody is "blaming pagans, magnets, aliens, too much violence, not enough violence, foreskin."
I have no patience with deliberate stupidity.
and then hocking horseshit to morons to fix it (carbon credits,
Now, you are really mixing different things. Understanding the causes of climate variation, and realizing that the human effect on climate pretty much matches what would be expected from the greenhouse effect models, is completely independent of what, if any, response should be taken to mitigate that effect.
regulations that don't affect the gross emitters of the world, divining rods, sacrifices, crusades, circumcision, rain dances, etc.)
Ah, back to sarcasm and deliberate stupidity.
without any actual evidence that the problem is due to their claimed cause,
Last time I checked, nineteen different global climate models are being run by groups on four continents. They pretty much all agree on the overall effect of carbon dioxide on climate, although the details vary somewhat. Which should be pretty non-controversial, since the basic physics is well understood. There are no climate models being run by any groups on any continent that don't show the effect.
that the problem is fixable by us, or that their proposed solution will fix the problem.
Again: a completely different question. You don't have to deny the basic physics of climate in order to ask whether proposed solutions will work. The argument "I don't like the solutions proposed, so therefore the problem does not exist" is not a good argument.
In fact, the opposite seem to be true-- there has been so much useless debate spent on arguing against idiots who want to deny the science that any debate about the cost, benefit, and efficacy of solutions has been completely short circuited. If you think that it is a valuable debate to ask what proposed solutions would cost, and whether they would work at all, it would be useful to actually do that debate, instead of the "none of the actual scientists knows anything, they're all in on a global hoax."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
But which half?
Half of my coin flips are influenced by some mysterious force causing them to come up heads. Or is it tails?
Have gnu, will travel.
Here is that NASA data you're referring to:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
or here, comparing various data sets:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/0/h/compare_datasets_new.jpg
I would not seriously characterize this as "the earth has been cooling for the past decade." Most notably, the increase in temperature observed from the 1960s has not reversed.
Here, from the BEST project, is the comparison of theory and data:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/annual-with-forcing-small.png
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Yes, the planet has gone through many, many periods of extreme warming and cooling over the millenniums however there is no previous warming trend spanning 110 years like we have since the 1900's. Data suggests the start of the industrialized age has contributed heavily heavily to the climate change issue. We've never seen warming before over 20 year periods like we see since 1900 [1] and the only best guess at this point is industrialization and anthropogenic activity impact the climate negatively.
So, depending who is making what claim, it's very easy to misrepresent the facts or misinterpret the data and the public quickly becomes confused or frustrated by it and declares "Nobody knows what's going on and I'm not letting you waste my time anymore". If you're an oil or energy magnate, this is precisely what you want as it keeps anyone from talking about curbing emissions or looking at alternative energy sources.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/climate_change/describing_climatic_trends_rev1.shtml
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
"Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming." Nature
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
The moon is affected by the CO2 levels.
Go Figure.
1) "compelling" - well, maybe, probably 2) "evidence" - not proof or anything 3) "contributing" - might be some part of it 4) "factor" - however small Don't discount me as a denier... I just don't like seeing "compelling evidence of a contributing factor". You can say that about anything and not be wrong....
isn't climate change something you can watch over hunderds of years? these "scientists" try to say watch climate change over years? i would say its just fluctuation and their wishful thinking, finding patterns. beautiful minds for sure those scientists.
Really? so half (as in 50%) was related to climate change (impacted) and the other half wasn't.
Isn't this a canceling out effect? Could we determine if climate change made the 50 percent better or worse?
We once had the local police come around a put up safe parking tip notices at work. /BOLD "50% of stolen cars we unlocked" /End Bold
One of the sections was on vehicle theft.
Lock your doors when you leave your car unattended.
Isn't this clearly evidence that it doesn't matter whether you lock your doors or not?
another poor science by climate change fanatics? but there is probably good money in this kind of science
So here I am, posting as AC because I should be working, but what I am really doing is studying any glimmer of hope that some sort of tropical storm might emerge from the Atlantic and give us surfers in New England some god damned waves! This season has been terribly flat, all we have are nice sunny 75 degree days. Sooo..... do we attribute this to climate change too? We were given predictions of above normal activity, and we haven't had one effing storm yet and we are basically at the peak of the season. We all wondered what people would do when jobs were taken over by robots, and now we know, then become armchai--I mean PhD Climatologists!!
Climate scientist Peter Stott of the U.K. Met Office should have commented that these studies show that in many cases, excess human presence in areas where they have no business permanently living, has increased the risks associated with extreme events that randomly occur. Humans need to learn that life on Earth has not always been pleasant and the building of and living in flimsy structures in Earthquake fault zones, flood zones, and areas where tsunamis, hurricanes and tornadoes frequent will lead to unpleasant experiences.
"Endeavour to persevere"
..get to the back of the line
I read the header and thought, "Okay, 1006's Extreme Weather Impacted By Climate Change"
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Do we get to blame half of that on Global Warming as well? Just checking.
Keep cheery picking...
...thinking this may just be confirmation bias?
I mean, when the Weather Service can't accurately predict the weather for tomorrow, let alone later today, how can I realistically expect them to accurately discern the cause of a year of weather patterns?
I'm not a climate change denier, but how can you take these people seriously when they can't make localized predictions and are making statistical conclusions on world-wide processes that occur over millions of years by looking at less than a hundred years of data?
is constantly sighted as evidence of global warming? NASA's data shows that average global temperatures have been flat for 15 years now.
But somehow all sorts of critters and specific weather events are triggered by some event that NASA's sensors can't detect.
How does that work?
Nothing is all benefit, or all cost. Nothing is all good or all bad. Everything has tradeoffs, everything has a cost. The trick then is weighing the costs and benefits to decide if something is good or bad overall, and what course of action to take.
Any time something is presented as completely one-sided, someone is pushing an agenda. You can see this with advertising all the time. They talk up how awesome whatever their product is, all the cool shit it does for you. They never talk about any limitations, downsides, etc, unless it is legally required (like the drug advertising). The reason is, of course, they are trying to sell you on it. They want you to think it is awesome so it is all benefits, all the time.
You are correct, it is something to watch for. When people present a very one-sided stance it is often because they are pushing a given point, not because there is no counter-point.
It's as if they are saying that climate change (if true) would be a bad thing...
It was stolen from "Science", but it's still hype. Four weather events were studied. Climate change was a primary cause in zero of them.
They did not conclude the global warming causes half of extreme weather events. They did not conclude that global warming has caused any extreme weather.
If you're going to try to make those kind of connections, how about giving man-made emissions credit for zero hurricanes all year long? All these Al Gore types trying to claim the evidence is beyond dispute, but I would still give good odds that scientists had it right back in the 70s when the big scare was the big chill of another ice age. It's all just a scam, the more hysterical your conclusions, the more you stand to gain in funding.
It's called a summary article. Feel free to look up the source data and analysis if you want something more.
Heavens no, wouldn't want another "zomg you're comparing 'skeptics' to Holocaust deniers" that seems to pop up in every article on climate change.
This just in: Stephen Hawking's ALS caused by a butterfly in Santiago. Sober minds everywhere weep with shame.
Yawn ... bullshit ... yawn ... care to show the justifying factor analysis .... bullshit ... yawn ...
More FUD from the climate change crowd trying to gin up grants for bogus research.
They want to blame you
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/#more-92998
[quote]'Could this due to climate change?'[/quote]
Could this due to what the shit is grammer?
These 10-20-30 year studies on global warming (ooppppssss...climate change) are a bunch of hog wash anyway. What's 30 years, compared to the age of the earth? A few seconds? Also, with this recent batch of "climate change" an abandoned mine, was discovered in the Greenland area. Now, if it was WARMER hundreds of years ago, before the industrial revolution, what caused the "warming" that allowed for a mining camp?? What the anticapitalist/industrialist don't say, is the earth is a living breathing thing, and the OUTPUT OF THE SUN changes in cycles. We are in the middle of a cycle now! I remember as a teenager in the 70's, when it was cool in the summer and bitterly cold in the winter, of how we were entering a new ice age, and then 30 years later, the planet was going to melt all the ice and it was going to broil in the summer and we wouldn't have any winters. With the low information voters, and the poor quality of legitimate education in today's schools (USA), it's no wonder so many youth of today, and those in their 20's to 30's believe all of this so called global warming (I'm sorry, "climate change") garbage.
My personal calculations said it was more like 52.733% man made.
I've yet to see convincing evidence that it matters. The dinosaurs did pretty well during warmer temperatures and CO2 levels. Sure seas may rise etc, but the world didn't end. Humans are the most adaptable mammal on the planet we'll adjust or fix it. I don't understand all the freaking out.
So what are YOU going to do about it? Tax me? be liberal...
What evidence is there of this ice? The ice no longer exists.
So you see a valley. Well there are valleys near the equator where no ice ever went. The Grand Canyon was caused by the river running through it, not ice.
So you have no actual visited evidence of this ice age.
Other than by inference and measurement of consequential effects of the hypothesis "There was a Global Ice Age". Just like AGW.
One you accept without qualm the other you fight tooth and nail because your politics is jilted by it.
Really, so a paper that doesn't try to attribute human cause to the warming trend is IN YOUR MIND ALONE "think[s] we don't know whether AGW is happening."?
I grant you the special rank of ULTRA-MORON.
Well done. Have a bikkit.
(PS as a follow up, count up the ones who actually say we don't know or that we do and it's not us. It's about 0.003%.)
This hypothesis of yours that it is the sun as the major factor, this means the earth should have been cooling dramatically for the last 30 years.
Observations show otherwise.
Your hypothesis is ruled out by observation.
Please try again.
<STAMPSFEET>Be afraid! Damn you.</STAMPSFEET>
... how come it happens after there has been a pause in air temperature increase for 15-20 years (depending on figures)
ALL scientists agree that there has been an air temperature pause. The supporters of Global Warming say that the heat has gone to the bottom of the sea (where it can't affect the climate), but they agree that the air temperatures are static.
So how come?
The heat got swallowed by the Bermuda Triangle. It was a travesty said Trenberth.
Film at 11.
Ah yea, just because the temperatures in May in the south broke all cold records and it actually snowed in May is no reason to believe that the heat their Atari said was coming now for decades is not on its way.
Correct. A single cold month in the south of England is not indicative of global climate either way.
Repeat this to yourself until you understand it: Weather is not climate. Weather is not climate. Weather is not climate.
One cold May in the south of X, one warm winter on the plains of Y, one cold winter in the mountains of Z, one rainier-than-average monsoon in central W: none of these have statistical significance. It is the long-term sum of all of these that is significant.
I am equally annoyed by the people who declaim that every hot summer means global warming must be true as I am by the people who shout that every cold summer means that global warming must be a hoax. They are both equally wrong.
Anecdote is not data. Your backyard is not the global average. Local weather is not global climate.
Look at the data, not your backyard.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Look if 99% of the smartest people on earth say burning carbon is warming the planet WE NEED TO LISTEN!!!
Really?? 99%??
Do you have any proof whatsoever of this statistic-made-up-on-spot?? The real consensus is 0.3%. What is that? Only the looney fringe seems ot think Global Warming is indeed happening and caused my humans...
2012 was a year of extreme weather: Superstorm Sandy, drought and heat waves in the United States; record rainfall in the United Kingdom; unusually heavy rains in Kenya, Somalia, Japan, and Australia;
According to the RFS (Rural Firefighting Service), Australia is looking forward to an extreme fire season in the coming weeks as we are in the middle of a drought. So which is right? Unusually heavy rains and drought would seem to be opposite ends of the spectrum to some people.