Attributing extreme events to climate change - the debate

[Jeff Duda]

For all those who are wondering a little bit about attribution of climate change to some extreme events, or for those who think they are convinced the truth is one way or another, I invite you to read this short news article: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...st-ties-severity-colorados-2013-flood-climate.

Towards the end there is a short debate between two respected, experienced, and knowledgeable researchers about how much attribution towards an extreme event can be applied to anthropogenic climate change. This is the actual scientific debate that EVERYONE should focus on. I want people to get a look at it, because it differs strongly from the highly politicized debates most of you are probably familiar with. Don't listen to politicians on matters of science; rather, listen to those who are actually conducting the research.

 

[rdale]

If anyone finds a copy for less than $32 I'll take a look

 

[Jeff Duda]

Damn, sorry. I didn't have any issues viewing it, but perhaps the SoM paid for media access. Oh well.

 

[Michael Gavan]

Anthropogenic climate change really is undeniable and pretty simple to follow. Change the atmosphere in any way and you will change the weather. Burning a campfire in your backyard, running a massive coal plant, or lighting up the night sky with gigawatts of stray heat and light 365 days each year....or change forest into blacktop or grassland into irrigated corn. However I am very critical and skeptical of the political debate and especially attribution of specific events and the general hype regarding climate change. When you tell me., "We are gradually warming the planet with increased CO2 and this might lead to variability in the climate, and we should make adjustments to protect the planet" That just makes sense. However, when you say "New York city will be underwater by 2050, every event is because you threw away that water bottle, and if we don't Tax and spend everyone is gonna die" I'm pretty much going to tell someone to $%^& off. The more climate change "enthusiasts" of this type scream this garbage, the more climate change "deniers" will shout back with garbage.

I especially don't trust a government to solve an energy problem 40 years after that same government effectively made nuclear fission illegal and now subsidizes oil exploration for the wealthiest corporations in history---while its largest division by $, the DOD, is the single biggest polluter on Earth.

We are going to have rainy days that are rainier, and some not as rainy. We are going to have sunny days that are sunnier and some that aren't. We are going to have to deal a few broken records and a couple "Wow" days. Outside of that, a few percentage points of CO2, a rather lousy inefficient greenhouse gas isn't by itself going to bring about the end of days.

We can't figure our the climate for the next three months. http://woodtv.com/2015/06/19/recent-rain-changes-cpc-drought-outlook-for-michigan/ Let alone 300 years. Lets each do things to decrease our impact by reducing our demand on the environment; Not demand the whole world jerk it's knees, spend everyone else's money solving a supply problem by force, fines and fear.

I recycle more than I throw away.
I pasture raise my own livestock and food as much as possible.
I use fuel efficient vehicles because it saves money
I use energy efficient bulbs and appliances because it saves money.

And I've never voted for a democrat OR a replublican in my entire life. I don't need them! and neither do you.

 

[rdale]

Michael - comparing a 3month outlook to a 30 year outlook makes as much sense as saying that apples and oranges should taste the same because they both are round and grow on trees. You also confused "politics" with "science." Saying you don't believe climate change scientists who say NYC will flood more often in 2050 because Al Gore made a movie doesn't make sense either. Don't let your political persuasion sway your scientific knowledge. Not liking proposed climate change cures is one thing - reject the science of climate change because you don't like the proposed climate change cures is another.

 

[Michael Gavan]

• Rob last I checked Science is a process, not a series of facts. And also, thank you for explaining the applies and oranges comparison. For philosophical reference, there's well over 1 million possible genetic varieties of apples and apples don't even have to taste like each other. So even if you are "team apple" there's millions of possibilities that are all valid but just a handful of popular strains occupying store shelves. Is our "knowledge" of any subject based on the supermarket shelf or the vastness and diversity of a complex system we can only beg to have just a few data points on? The diversity of thought and the expansiveness of the science on just something as "simple" as an apple should give us all pause when talking about something complicated like climate science. Science is a process first. Not a fact sheet that you can rub in some a-hole's face and call them an idiot for not listening to you. Just look at what a couple decades can do in science! i.e. The universe is static | expanding | crunching | accelerating. The climate is cooling | warming | changing. Eggs are healthy | unhealthy | a superfood. If you are over 60 in this country and have been paying attention you are probably suffering from whip lash. And I think it is a completely valid argument that if we can't predict the weather more than a few days out, nor climate variability more than a few weeks out, then any specifics in long range climate would likely suffer from huge logical problems. As for politics, I try to be a-political. I can cite lots of examples where destruction of the environment is or is virtually mandatory. Why don't we solve those problems. I'm pretty sure the letter assignment next to your congressmen isn't going to make a lick of difference.

 

[rdale]

And I think it is a completely valid argument that if we can't predict the weather more than a few days out, nor climate variability more than a few weeks out, then any specifics in long range climate would likely suffer from huge logical problems.

Correct - specifics would not be valid. To say that NYC will be at 95F on this date in 2050 would not be a scientifically valid call for the reasons you note (and the reason AccuWeather's 45-day forecast is useless.) But it would not be a valid argument to say that we can't predict an increase of 95F days in NYC in 2050 versus 2020. I'd suggest reading the literature but based on your points already (there never was consensus on global cooling) I doubt that's an effective suggestion.

 

[NealRasmussen]

I myself don't think Global Warming is an issue. I don't see how larger, nastier, storms is a problem. I live in an apartment with not many worldly goods. No valuable paintings. No fine China. Fact is, I really think everyone should buy a Tahoe or Dodge Ram (the one with a Hemi!) to take their kids to school and do shopping. First of all, it supports Exxon, and this is really important. Ever wonder if the CEO and top brass at GM make more in Swiss Accounts from Exxon, than they get from GM? Would sure seem so. Second, it gives one a false sense of security, which is very important today. Whole TV News channels designate 33% of their time to this.

Also I don't vote for either Dems or Reps, cause I'm going to have SO much fun when Anarchy breaks out. Piano wire for the motorcycles moving Meth on Alameda street. Shaped charges for the loud car stereos. etc etc. Yes sir, who needs laws. For an example, Oklahoma does quite well ignoring most of the traffic laws, so..... ?!? In Norman, so many people cut the corner when making left turns, they'd activate the left turn signal for the left turn lane. Solution? They moved the Stop Bar back about 10 yards on the left turn lane, to give folks in their Tahoes more room to do the sweeping NASCAR turn. So funny. It's like a metaphor for stupidity.

Amazing...

 

[rdale]

To wrap things back to the OP - Nature has made this article free for public viewing.

 

[Robert Forry]

Great article. I love listening to and reading articles on this debate. I think they all bring valid points in one aspect or the other, and I think what Jeff eludes to about the politics of this is very valid (I think people misunderstood my post a few weeks ago thinking I was making this all about the politics), however, the science of this must be absolutley proven, just like an aritmatic problem. If this, then this. This isn't all about our carbon footprint and the greenhouse gasses we emit as mankind. It's my belief that the earth has been warming for probably longer than man could ever come up with data for.

For what it's worth, it would be cool to see how those ocean temps looked, say, 150 - 250 years ago, and their effects on the weather in North America, the Carribean and the GOM. Maybe they were or weren't as severe, but I bet there were some real killers of storms back before we started documenting them in our history books.

 

[Jeff Duda]

I can see my attempts to shed light on the intended aspect of this debate has been completely missed. That's what I get for trying to post anything about the science regarding climate.

Carry on. This will be the last of my participation in this thread.

 

[joel ewing]

I can see my attempts to shed light on the intended aspect of this debate has been completely missed. That's what I get for trying to post anything about the science regarding climate.

Carry on. This will be the last of my participation in this thread.

For all those who are wondering a little bit about attribution of climate change to some extreme events, or for those who think they are convinced the truth is one way or another, I invite you to read this short news article: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...st-ties-severity-colorados-2013-flood-climate.

Towards the end there is a short debate between two respected, experienced, and knowledgeable researchers about how much attribution towards an extreme event can be applied to anthropogenic climate change. This is the actual scientific debate that EVERYONE should focus on. I want people to get a look at it, because it differs strongly from the highly politicized debates most of you are probably familiar with. Don't listen to politicians on matters of science; rather, listen to those who are actually conducting the research.

Frankly, I put many scientists on par with journalists and politicians anymore....whores with an agenda. When there is little honor in the world regarding our dealings with each other, we get the cesspool we're in now.

 

[joel ewing]

Anthropogenic climate change really is undeniable and pretty simple to follow. Change the atmosphere in any way and you will change the weather. Burning a campfire in your backyard, running a massive coal plant, or lighting up the night sky with gigawatts of stray heat and light 365 days each year....or change forest into blacktop or grassland into irrigated corn. However I am very critical and skeptical of the political debate and especially attribution of specific events and the general hype regarding climate change. When you tell me., "We are gradually warming the planet with increased CO2 and this might lead to variability in the climate, and we should make adjustments to protect the planet" That just makes sense. However, when you say "New York city will be underwater by 2050, every event is because you threw away that water bottle, and if we don't Tax and spend everyone is gonna die" I'm pretty much going to tell someone to $%^& off. The more climate change "enthusiasts" of this type scream this garbage, the more climate change "deniers" will shout back with garbage.

I especially don't trust a government to solve an energy problem 40 years after that same government effectively made nuclear fission illegal and now subsidizes oil exploration for the wealthiest corporations in history---while its largest division by $, the DOD, is the single biggest polluter on Earth.

We are going to have rainy days that are rainier, and some not as rainy. We are going to have sunny days that are sunnier and some that aren't. We are going to have to deal a few broken records and a couple "Wow" days. Outside of that, a few percentage points of CO2, a rather lousy inefficient greenhouse gas isn't by itself going to bring about the end of days.

We can't figure our the climate for the next three months. http://woodtv.com/2015/06/19/recent-rain-changes-cpc-drought-outlook-for-michigan/ Let alone 300 years. Lets each do things to decrease our impact by reducing our demand on the environment; Not demand the whole world jerk it's knees, spend everyone else's money solving a supply problem by force, fines and fear.

I recycle more than I throw away.
I pasture raise my own livestock and food as much as possible.
I use fuel efficient vehicles because it saves money
I use energy efficient bulbs and appliances because it saves money.

And I've never voted for a democrat OR a replublican in my entire life. I don't need them! and neither do you.

So, are you saying you do not vote?

 

[rdale]

Frankly, I put many scientists on par with journalists and politicians anymore....whores with an agenda. When there is little honor in the world regarding our dealings with each other, we get the cesspool we're in now.

Not having met many whores, but having met people like Rich Thompson, Greg Carbin, Chuck Doswell, Howie Bluestein, etc. I guess I have to ask what makes them similar to whores?

 

[Dan Robinson]

I'm in favor of listening to a consensus of *scientists* (not politicians or journalists) who study in that specific, relevant field and know what they're talking about. I am apprehensive of accepting the conclusions of one scientist and one paper. It doesn't mean he is wrong, I just believe that conclusions that lead to costly actions must be very well substantiated. If it's true, its true - the rational person has no choice but to accept it.

By default, I tend to dismiss almost anything asserted in any form of journalism/media. As we've seen many times, the media's job is to stoke controversy in any way possible, even if it means stretching or bending the truth. (Think Wichita chaser articles) Usually that means finding the most controversial figure on a topic and giving them a platform when they might not be so deserving of it. Again, I'm not saying that's what is happening here, but I'd place my bets on this news article having more to do with its capacity to fan the flames of existing controversy than it does convey a scientific truth. I'll wait until I read the blog posts of what some respected scientists in the field have to say about the paper. I'm really not qualified to have an opinion on it, as I'd venture to say none of us really are either. All we can do is defer to the people that are.

 

[rdale]

Dan - this news article is simply their interpretation of the actual paper. If you click the link now, you can get free access to the paper (so no worries about who interpreted it ) [Strangely enough I'm at work so I cannot access it here, but when I was at home it said this was open-access. Maybe they noticed my IP address so I can't get it? YMMV.)

 

[Jason Harris]

I can see my attempts to shed light on the intended aspect of this debate has been completely missed. That's what I get for trying to post anything about the science regarding climate.

Carry on. This will be the last of my participation in this thread.

I hope you reconsider. I always very much appreciate the sharing and discussion from people who are up on the latest studies in atmospheric sciences.

 

[Michael Gavan]

So, are you saying you do not vote?

When necessary I do not vote, correct. My presidential candidate of choice in 2012, for instance, was litigated off of the ballot in Michigan by Mitt Romney's legal team over a technicality, So I did not vote. Otherwise, I have voted for all independent or libertarian candidates. I have voted for one Republican once, but she's more of an infiltrator. There are several republicans and democrats that I like, but because I'm not in their districts, I can't vote for them. to be clear.

 

[rdale]

It would be nice if threads about science topics were made "off-limits" from political discussions, at least on this forum. I know it's not possible in the real world

 

[Jeff Duda]

STAFF NOTE:
This is a quick reminder for all participants of this thread to stay on-topic. If the conversation steers heavily towards political issues unrelated to this thread, post deletions and a thread lockdown will quickly follow.

To those who are staying on topic, thank you. Please continue to do so.

 

[Jason Harris]

In terms of larger patterns starting to be supported by statistics, it's interesting to consider some of these points situating Tropical Storm Bill in context with the fact of higher-volume rainfall events increasing in the Northeast and Midwest:
__
Bill developed from a low-pressure system over the Gulf of Mexico, becoming a named system on Monday night, when it met the official criteria for a tropical storm. Because it formed over warm Gulf waters, the system is plenty ripe for dumping serious amounts of rain over the eastern portions Texas and Oklahoma, as well as parts of Arkansas and Missouri. Such balmy waters provide ample energy for developing storms, and the warm air in the region means more water in the atmosphere available to turn into rains.

The relationship between warmer air and the greater amounts of moisture it contains is one of the most well-accepted tenets of climate science, and underpins one of the more solid projections, that warming will lead to more heavy downpours in general across the globe.

This trend has already been observed across the U.S., with some regions showing more of an increase than others. The biggest rises have come in the Northeast, which has seen a 71 percent increase in heavy precipitation events since 1958, and the Midwest, which has seen a 37 percent increase, according to the National Climate Assessment.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/bill-downpours-texas-future-19116

 

[Kevin Rimcoski]

So we're going to see another 'noah's arc' situation sounds like

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[rdale]

So we're going to see another 'noah's arc' situation sounds like

I'm not sure I understand what you say is coming?

 

[John Farley]

I'm in favor of listening to a consensus of *scientists* (not politicians or journalists) who study in that specific, relevant field and know what they're talking about. I am apprehensive of accepting the conclusions of one scientist and one paper. It doesn't mean he is wrong, I just believe that conclusions that lead to costly actions must be very well substantiated.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that there are also costs - and potentially greater costs - of NOT acting. A newly released, peer-reviewed study by the EPA notes that the economic and other costs of NOT acting are likely to be very high. In the spirit of suggestions by Dan and others, here is a link to the study (as opposed to the many journalistic reports about the study that are out there):

http://www2.epa.gov/cira

 

[Kevin Rimcoski]

I'm not sure I understand what you say is coming?

I think if the trend follows (as in warmer temps, more water vapor, more moisture etc) we'll see a lot more flooding events, much more HP storms, more widespread rain, maybe more brown ocean effect cyclones...things around that.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk