Slashdot Mirror
Report: Science Can Now Link Climate Change To (Some) Extreme Weather (phys.org)
mdsolar writes: Extreme weather events like floods, heat waves and droughts can devastate communities and populations worldwide. Recent scientific advances have enabled researchers to confidently say that the increased intensity and frequency of some, but not all, of these extreme weather events is influenced by human-induced climate change, according to an international National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report released March 11. "In the past, many scientists have been cautious of attributing specific extreme weather events to climate change. People frequently ask questions such as, 'Did climate change cause Hurricane Sandy?' Science can't answer that because there are so many relevant factors for hurricanes. What this report is saying is that we can attribute an increased magnitude or frequency of some extreme weather events to climate change,' said David Titley, professor of practice in Penn State's Department of Meteorology and founding director of Penn State's Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk, who chaired the committee that wrote the report.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/218...
it was invented by the devil too tempt us to not use oil -- GOD'S HOLY GIFT TO MANKIND.
Would that be the same Penn State that gave us Michael E. Mann and his fraudulent Hockey Stick graph? If so, then no thanks.
... which translates to a flatter and wider average daily temperature curve for most any place on earth (i.e., less goldilocks like, less habitable).
It's fascinating that the omniscient "science" can't link one or two events to global warming directly
But MANY!
Why that's PROOF!
So 0 + 0 + 0 = 1...
No matter what caused it, the water is rising. Kinda weird to hear about 'drought'.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Superstorm Sandy gets some discussion in the report, but the phenomenon that gets most discussion regarding an extended season is wildfire. But it seems like out-of-season weather would be among the easiest to attribute to warming.
Why is it that climate change discussions always ends up in the same place: the government needs to take my money and give it to poor people in my own country, or Africa. It's almost as if the whole thing is about wealth redistribution, not climate.
When I'm president, we're only gonna have elegant, classy science. Science Americans can be proud of, alright?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yeah, well, if you hadn't heard....Snowden just linked climatic change to the CIA. I'm betting his evidence is more persuasive.
Obviously everything can influence events, this is what chaos theory show us very clearly, but it is another matter to say that we can predict what any given action will ultimately cause nor can we say what the polarity of the influence will be as the number of relevant interactions are so great that we cannot account for them all.
The magnitude of events is a different matter, sure a patterned system with more energy in it can see more extreme gradients, it is like boosting the contrast on a photo, but what is the true magnitude of the influence? Who knows, the report uses terms such as "may" and "could" often enough to indicate clearly that the authors really can't be sure enough to quantify it accurately yet. It is also possible that the mixing of atmosphere and ocean thermoclines may only rise significantly in a localised manner, making some events more energetic, while actually moderating the energy fluxes across the entire globe better than they are now.
With attribution comes liability. One party which had foreknowledge of the consequences of carbon pollution and attempted to hide it was Exxon. http://insideclimatenews.org/n... Their liability may extend to triple damages.
The Oracle has spoken. You do not gainsay The Oracle.
obscure establishment institution, "international national(sic) academies of science, engineering, and medicine", releases a report, which is not a peer reviewed results of any study, based on some alleged modeling data in controllable climate models, and that is proof that "enables" "researchers to confidently say that the increased intensity and frequency of some, but not all, of these extreme weather events is influenced by human-induced climate change"
oh how science has "advanced"!
we are no longer in dark stone age where we had to use scientific method, real world experiments/data, and our results have to pass rigorous scrutiny of our skeptical peers.
WHICH ONES, good question. Let's investigate extreme weather listed in the report (all quotes here come from the report itself) by type (which is the structure chosen by the report itself):
1) Heat Waves: "The 1930s remains the decade with the most heat waves......natural variability can dominate over anthropogenic warming to date.....few studies include an evaluation of the model's ability to simulate the important statistical properties of the event in interest."
2) Cold Waves: "There is no indication of increased variability of daily or monthly winter temperatures over the United States......more comprehensive assssments are needed of the models' ability to simulate cold temperatures for the right reasons"
3) Droughts: "Drought is caused by multiple factors at different scales and contexts, an area that needs further work is understanding the dominant factors"
4) Wildfires: "Large fires are almost always smaller than the grid cells of today's earth system models, so subgrid-cell variability will need to be represented in land-surface models that are either run offline or coupled to coarser-resolution atmospheric models." (Note: despite lamenting the low quality of computer models, this section is the one that comes closest to supporting the headline: it makes a reasonable case that each degree increase of temperature increases the risk of wildfire. Attribution is still difficult because of the difficulty of predicting rainfall (which decreases risk) and the uncertainty surrounded the anthropogenic component of the temperature anomaly.
5) Extreme Rainfall: "It will be critical that future studies better understand and resolve the multiple meteorological causes of heavy precipitation in order to better grasp causality and attribution. This statement will be relevant to any future attribution studies on extreme rainfall events."
6) Extratropical Cyclones: "There is no consensus on attributed trends in observations"
7) Extreme Snow and Ice Storms: "The databases underlying assessments of heavy snow and icing events have major deficiencies that hinder trend detection as well as attribution studies."
8) Tropical Cyclones: "many studies look for trends in tropical cyclone statistics, but these for the most part have been inconclusive even on regional or global scales.....attribution studies of single tropical cyclones using large ensemble simulations....have not been performed."
9) Severe Convective Storms: "In much of the world, good long-term report data do not exist.....there is no broad agreement on the detection of long-term trends."
So that's it. Nowhere in the paper does it attribute a single event to AGW. But that's ok, because the headline also lies: that was not the paper's intention or purpose. The paper was merely an attempt to survey the field, and understand where we are in terms of being able to attribute extreme weather to AGW (or any other factor, for that matter).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
FFS Timothy, whoever you are, enough with this $H!T.
Your ilk is the reason I return to Slashdot day after day.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
At some point someone has to call it and I'm calling it. I thought climate wasn't weather? Everyone ignored that fact when Gore implied Katrina was AGW related, but whatever, it was veiled. If the alarmists are now going full out climate-is-weather, I say fuckin' eh! Bring it on and show that you were full of shit from the very beginning. Slashdot has been a bastion of liberal shilldom for a long time now with morons like Timothy the most useful of idiots so let's just get it all out in the open please.
Sandy was modeled for conditions occurring 100 years ago and 100 years in the future. Landfall shifted north and intensity increased with time. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
What's your baseline? Water's been rising for 11,700 years since the current interglacial period started.
Lemme know when you started counting.
So that's it. Nowhere in the paper does it attribute a single event to AGW. But that's ok, because the headline also lies: that was not the paper's intention or purpose. The paper was merely an attempt to survey the field, and understand where we are in terms of being able to attribute extreme weather to AGW (or any other factor, for that matter).
In likely 40 years they won't be able to attribute extreme weather either. And still won't be able to tell you if it's going to rain at 5pm tomorrow, because of a sudden rise in high pressure from the northern arctic that they forgot to include in their models because it seemed "too unlikely to cause any change."
Weather and climate can be best described as chaos theory in action. Our study of it? Trying to put it in a bottle to make sure, the problem is we've only managed to trap some argon and nitrogen in the bottle, but look at the power of our rain dancer! The medicine man agrees with tomorrows calls for rain.
Om, nomnomnom...
What's your baseline?
How 'bout my basement? But hey, no rush.. It's insured
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The Heat Is On (1997) - book by Ross Gelbspan outlined in detail what will happen - not that it just gets warmer, hardly much of that, but that the dynamic of weather will increase by the addes input of energy (warmth) put into the system. ... and propaganda against it happening.
This was 20 years ago and still there are deniers, interest groups, individuals bribed by
What are those guys/gals on the strings to change anything smoking or drinking?
Oh, I forgot the god's people - anything goes, it's gods will, no problem, just pray enough.
I don't give one fuck about anything that mddollar (intended) posts here. Scientific consensus must be built on testing, not politics.
You can't handle the truth.
It's a thing, and it can link to other things.
For a couple decades now, the scientists directly linked Global Warming (er...Climate Change) to government grant money (i.e. taxpayer dollars). All they had left was to link it to actual events that people could see on the evening news (storms, floods, tornadoes, etc.) instead of to just stuff that might happen within the next few hundred years (e.g. Sea Levels might rise 3 inches by the year 2500).
umm really? we can't conclusively prove that climate change is man made but we can conclusively prove the effects of something we can't scientifically prove have occurred? seriously this isn't an anti climate change rant. Pretty sure climate change is real and is probably man induced but we don't have fucking proof of that so we definitely don't have proof of mans effect.
"The Committee on Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change Attribution" writes the report "Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change"...
Without claiming their findings are invalid, it appears that they put the cart in front of the horse. They create a committee to find something and that committee finds it. It is really hard not to immediately start looking for confirmation bias.
Are you trying to say "man-made catastrophic global warming"? If so, why didn't you use that phrase?
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
Are you sick of 'Climatedot' posting a global warming alarmist article every single day?
People frequently ask questions such as, 'Did climate change cause Hurricane Sandy?' Science can't answer that because there are so many relevant factors for hurricanes.
I think it is the wrong kind of question to ask, really; climate is the average of weather events over large, geographic areas and long time periods, so if anything, we would say that weather causes climate, and changes in wearther events cause climate change, mathematically speaking. We have known for a long time that the increase in extreme weather events is compatible with what we would expect from the climate changes we have seen; I think perhaps what we can now say is that the increase in extreme events would not have occurred, if the climate had not changed. That is not quite the same as saying "Climate change caused Hurricane Sandy", although it is close.
breed bacteria and foot injury, and infection nike tn 2015 are accordingly beriberi. 2011, the PLA logistics equipment Research Institute of sports shoes design concept of the successful introduction of military equipment, and strive to make the new style shoes more in line with the needs of human movement. police supplies minister Zheng Jianchun introduced, the new type of training shoes before production, has a full range of fitting test through training exercises and operations, respectively in Beijing, Guangdong and other places troops on the Internet for nearly double, nearly 180 thousand officers opinions and suggestions. At present, in accordance with the first base after authorities under the troops, is expected at the end of 7, every 1 pairs of new police officers training shoes will be allotted place. The new large training shoe production costs and other factors, in the next few years, will be the introduction of new and old, and gradually out of the way, then the old "liberation shoes" will be fully retired. It is reported that
April Fool's Day is 18 days away.
Thankfully we now know the real data supports man's influence on climate is a fraction of the cause.
Keep the data mined numbers, the altered AMOS data and skewed urban data out of this. It is bad science and is nothing more than politics which is diluting the science.
Another fail article.
"...influenced by human-induced climate change" Is there really any proof of "human induced"? And why isn't the cause any longer called -- more correctly, I might point out -- "global warming"? I won't say anything about "influenced by", although I think there is some question there, also. I will still ask why we are looking to the same government which encouraged all the things we are now blaming for a "solution" and why, in particular, the government (and Goldman Sachs) are supposed to be enriched (enlarged) by the solution? And why are we still importing from China (and other countries which continue to pump bilge into the air instead of adopting our environmental standards). I mean, if the problem is GLOBAL warming than isn't the government (which is supposedly SO concerned now about doing something) doing the obvious and most direct and least government/goldman enriching things first? Instead of the opposite, of course. There appears to be an incredible amount of corruption and propaganda behind pushing a particular message and a particular solution. Just sayin'.
Shouldn't it be, "Some extreme weather linked to climate change?"
The title implies that extreme weather causes climate change, no?
The day that a link is proven between good weather and climate change, for it cannot possibly always be for the worse, since we still get to enjoy pleasant days, then I'll give it some credence.
What's your baseline? Water's been rising for 11,700 years since the current interglacial period started.
Yeah, and the "hiatus" during the last couple of millennia can be easily explained by?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Thanks, it was a lot of reading to write that comment so I'm glad someone appreciated it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You know the weather outside? It's caused partly by global warming.
Weather is chaotic, and therefore depends very heavily on initial conditions. The lower atmosphere is significantly warmer than it would be without global warming, and that's enough to count as changing initial conditions. If it weren't for global warming, our weather would be very different from what it is now.
There's pretty much no weather that couldn't happen with the pre-1850 atmosphere, so there's either nothing or everything you can point to and claim it's from global warming. The only perceptible effects on weather are statistical in nature.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
While "global warming" is still a valid term, and often used, "climate change" is the more important thing. If the atmosphere got 2K warmer, with no further effects, nobody would really care. However, this isn't going to happen, hence the term "climate change" is used for the changes in climate caused by global warming.
As far as "human induced", yes, it is. We've known for a long time that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm it up, and the increase in carbon dioxide is due to burning fossil fuels (the isotopic concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is a dead giveaway).
The political problems are largely caused by the incredible amount of corruption and propaganda pushing the particular message that human-influenced global warming and climate change aren't happening.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What is your point?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"Was this weather caused by global warming?" is not a useful question for any weather. The answer is either "yes" or "no" to all weather events and lack of events. You can't point to two individual weather reports and say one was caused by global warming and one wasn't. The only way to tell how weather is affected is statistically.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The goal is to look at an extreme weather event, and say, "this was 20% more likely because of AGW." The reasoning in the paper shows that is not yet possible.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."