Attributing extreme events to climate change - the debate

[Stan Rose]

I've looked at some of the data regarding climate change, not an in-depth analysis but just an overview of the situation.

I'd recommend a deeper analysis.

The climate has changed on it's own throughout history, and these changes occurred before industrialization and the impact of mankind on the environment. Remember the most recent Ice Age? I can't recall with certainty, but I believe that was about 10,000 years ago. The climate goes through cycles. Record-keeping, at least on a detailed scale, didn't begin until the late 1800's. So, there are no historical data with which to compare today's climate change.

You should read up on how ice cores, trees etc help piece together the history before that. What sets this period apart is the dramatic change, and the fact that it is over decades or years rather than centuries.

The real question comes down to this: How much of this current climate change is mankind actually responsible for? My personal opinion is that man plays a much smaller role than many suggest. I believe we are going through a natural climate change cycle.

According to the IPCC it's extremely likely the human influence is dominant. Other sources put it at 75% or more.

One thing that gets me is that when this climate issue began a few decades ago, it started as "global warming". Then, as data changed to indicate that the Earth was actually cooling in more locations than it was warming, it was renamed "climate change", to cover any change in average temperature, whether it be warmer or cooler. I agree the climate has changed slightly, but how much is attributable to mankind? And Jeff, I strongly agree that people not listen to politicians on this subject, because, as usual, they have their own ulterior motives.

Source? Cause I wasn't aware that "more locations" are cooling. Some have argued that we ARE in a "natural" cooling cycle" (coinciding with the solar minimum) which just means that all the anthropogenic warming would have a far worse effect if that 'natural' cooling wasn't in place.

 

[Boris Konon]

One thing that we all need to keep in mind is that extremes in wx happen regardless
of any change in climate. They always have and always will. Somehow I think a mindset
has cropped up these days that the very existence of even typical stormy wx is somehow
"unusual" or "not supposed to happen", which is simply not true! And once in awhile,
everything comes together for high end, extreme event. Also, *impact* of any storm to
society and its meteorological intensity are two different things, but often I see the
two conflated. So when it is touted that billion dollar disasters are becoming more
common, this is primarily due to inflation and increase in population/infrastructure
with time, so of course they will become more common! 50 years ago, a Cat 1 hurricane
coming up the Eastern Seaboard like we had with Irene in August 2011 would have far
less impact than today.

The above doesn't deny that climate change is occurring and has deleterious effects,
but the overwhelming force driving wx events, high and low, is still from merely the
natural order of the atmosphere/Earth.

 

[Mike Benefield]

One thing that we all need to keep in mind is that extremes in wx happen regardless
of any change in climate. They always have and always will. Somehow I think a mindset
has cropped up these days that the very existence of even typical stormy wx is somehow
"unusual" or "not supposed to happen", which is simply not true! And once in awhile,
everything comes together for high end, extreme event. Also, *impact* of any storm to
society and its meteorological intensity are two different things, but often I see the
two conflated. So when it is touted that billion dollar disasters are becoming more
common, this is primarily due to inflation and increase in population/infrastructure
with time, so of course they will become more common! 50 years ago, a Cat 1 hurricane
coming up the Eastern Seaboard like we had with Irene in August 2011 would have far
less impact than today.

The above doesn't deny that climate change is occurring and has deleterious effects,
but the overwhelming force driving wx events, high and low, is still from merely the
natural order of the atmosphere/Earth.

I totally agree.

 

[rdale]

Mike - did you see Stan's post?

 

[Mike Benefield]

Mike - did you see Stan's post?

The link from the Denver Post? Yes. I may re-read it in case I missed something. Oh, scratch that. Wrong post. Yes I did read Stan's post.

 

[Mike Benefield]

One thing that makes me wary of all these reports about climate change is the influence of politics on the results. I wonder which scientists are telling it exactly like it is and which ones are being pushed in a certain direction. I pay close attention to politics (I'm neither Democrat nor Republican), and I clearly see motives other than what's best for Planet Earth at play in both parties. That's all I want to say about the political aspect of this debate, because I try to separate science from politics. So, my faith in the results of these studies is a little shaky.

Which studies would you recommend I take a look at? Which ones appear to be purely scientific (no political connections)?

 

[Leigh Orf]

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” -- John Adams

Any meteorologist worth his/her salt should be able to follow the thermodynamic argument without going through any mental contortions whatsoever.

I think the lunacy surrounding anthropogenic climate change is related to the same psychology that makes people uncomfortable with evolution. Think harder, people.

 

[Mike Benefield]

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” -- John Adams

Any meteorologist worth his/her salt should be able to follow the thermodynamic argument without going through any mental contortions whatsoever.

I think the lunacy surrounding anthropogenic climate change is related to the same psychology that makes people uncomfortable with evolution. Think harder, people.

Number one, I'm not a meteorologist. Number two, in a previous post I believe I mentioned that I was going to examine the subject more closely in order to have a better understanding of the matter. However, until I do know more about it I will refrain from commenting on the obviously heated debate and spend my time working on other things.

 

[Leigh Orf]

Number one, I'm not a meteorologist. Number two, in a previous post I believe I mentioned that I was going to examine the subject more closely in order to have a better understanding of the matter. However, until I do know more about it I will refrain from commenting on the obviously heated debate and spend my time working on other things.

I wasn't responding to you in person, but I'm glad to hear that anyone anywhere is willing to learn more about the fascinating topics of weather and climate. Any introductory college level textbook will do. It's usually chapter 3 or 4. Planck, Stefan, Boltzmann, Wien, and Kirchoff are all names to look out for. Only once you have grappled with these fundamental physical laws will you be able to quantitatively approach the much more complex problem of anthropogenic climate change. But there's more to grapple with, including basic statistics, which is often misused and maligned. Once you are comfortable with the idea that a single weather event cannot be attributed to climate change, and yet an increase in the number of extreme events CAN be at least partly attributed to climate change, you will be in good shape. Don't worry about models at this point. That's for later. Just aim to understand the basics. You have to start somewhere, and a solid foundation is critical to achieving a deeper understanding of any topic, scientific or otherwise. You can't jump straight to desert before you eat your lima beans

 

[Mike Benefield]

I wasn't responding to you in person, but I'm glad to hear that anyone anywhere is willing to learn more about the fascinating topics of weather and climate. Any introductory college level textbook will do. It's usually chapter 3 or 4. Planck, Stefan, Boltzmann, Wien, and Kirchoff are all names to look out for. Only once you have grappled with these fundamental physical laws will you be able to quantitatively approach the much more complex problem of anthropogenic climate change. But there's more to grapple with, including basic statistics, which is often misused and maligned. Once you are comfortable with the idea that a single weather event cannot be attributed to climate change, and yet an increase in the number of extreme events CAN be at least partly attributed to climate change, you will be in good shape. Don't worry about models at this point. That's for later. Just aim to understand the basics. You have to start somewhere, and a solid foundation is critical to achieving a deeper understanding of any topic, scientific or otherwise. You can't jump straight to desert before you eat your lima beans

I agree. Thanks.

 

[TJKLECKNER]

One thing that makes me wary of all these reports about climate change is the influence of politics on the results. I wonder which scientists are telling it exactly like politics is and which ones are being pushed in a certain direction. I pay close attention to politics (I'm neither Democrat nor Republican), and I clearly see motives other than what's best for Planet Earth at play in both parties. That's all I want to say about the political aspect of this debate, because I try to separate science from politics. So, my faith in the results of these studies is a little shaky.

Which studies would you recommend I take a look at? Which ones appear to be purely scientific (no political connections)?

I agree. I don't like how politics has become involved in this issue. Sometimes I believe that money has swayed the truth a bit...right or wrong has been blurred. I hate to say it, but we need to follow the money.

 

[rdale]

Dr. Doswell wrote an excellent blog a few years ago on this "money" that seems to be floating around

http://cadiiitalk.blogspot.com/2011/07/announcement-and-one-more-thing-about.html

 

[Mike Benefield]

Dr. Doswell wrote an excellent blog a few years ago on this "money" that seems to be floating around

http://cadiiitalk.blogspot.com/2011/07/announcement-and-one-more-thing-about.html

Perhaps a better way of describing the relationship between science and politics is that when scientists report something that is true, many politicians can and do use that information to help push their own agendas. Some of those political agendas have nothing to do with saving Planet Earth. I think that is a more accurate assessment of the relationship between science and politics. I would believe what a good, honest scientist has to say much more than any politician.

 

[rdale]

Agreed. I would never take any science information from someone who is not a scientist (or at least has a science background.)

 

[Mike Benefield]

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.

I agree.