Extreme Weather, Climate, and Responsibility

[William Monfredo]

It hard to avoid the "hot potato" issue here when wx even remotely comes up, let alone a a forum dedicated to storm chasing! I wish it could be separate, but it has infested literally everything, and now AGW is the scapegoat for all that bad happens, no matter what. That in itself is a major problem, so the fact it seeps into our discussion in the forum is no surprise.

I think it should be discussed civilly b/c just ignoring it has a plethora of downsides. Lack of discourse/communication has an insidious effect on a social level.

I've noticed some changes over the last 15 years. At first weather was not climate, because a singular event had not accumulated to months, years, decades and more. But later, bad weather was somehow climate, thanks to the AMS and some politicians. It's now an odd & divisive brew. (I thought the various sorts of ideas we saw in "Legislation for a NDRB" might be more appropriate here.)

 

[John Farley]

A singular weather event is not climate. However, when the frequency of extreme weather events such as 30-50" rain events or intense wildfires that rapidly burn through entire towns increases, that IS climate. And I think that is what drives some of the increased association of weather events with changes in climate. I think the fact that what should be a scientific question has become so tied to politics is what makes it an odd and divisive brew.

 

[gdlewen]

A singular weather event is not climate. However, when the frequency of extreme weather events such as 30-50" rain events or intense wildfires that rapidly burn through entire towns increases, that IS climate. And I think that is what drives some of the increased association of weather events with changes in climate. I think the fact that what should be a scientific question has become so tied to politics is what makes it an odd and divisive brew.

Honestly, I don't even think those examples are "climate". I don't think the historical record is there to judge the frequency as anomalously high or low. There are just too many confounding variables. Even the IPCC doesn't see a pattern in heavy precipitation events worldwide. But it FEELS anomalous.

Human perception of stochastic--random--events is notoriously unreliable. We tend to see patterns in chaos--a good example is getting lost in the woods by following "false paths". And it gets worse: if something happens to us, it "feels" like the probability is 1 no matter how unlikely the event may be; conversely, if something never happens to us, it "feels" like the probability is 0.

And we haven't even talked about time scales, yet. Humans are even worse at judging things on long time scales.

Here's an interesting example. It's an anecdote, of course, but coincidences and anecdotes have been known accumulate to the weight of empirical proof. I worked in a lab in which we studied the response of blowfly visual neurons. We used wild-type flies and in the early-mid '90's we could catch them year-round in NJ. Blowflies are active at temperatures above about 50F. They are actually the first pollinators of spring, coming out while bees ares still in their hives keeping warm. (Sorry--can't resist a biology lesson here.) That says something about the local climate in central NJ: we could always count on warm spells that would bring out the blowflies to catch.

As the 90's waned, it became increasingly difficult to catch them in the winter--no significant warm spells. Eventually we had to breed them to get subjects to study. Blowflies breed in carrion, and we used calves liver, so you can imagine we had to go to great lengths to keep from being thrown out of the building....

Here's the point: the local climate had shifted to colder and stayed that way into the next millenium. But we didn't notice it right away.

And we haven't even talked about the politicization of climate science yet. (Not gonna.)

 

[JamesCaruso]

Agree with Geoff on people seeing patterns where there are none; I just happened to see that exact point in a book I am reading about AI, and the dependence upon predictive analytics, despite their pitfalls, because people just don’t like uncertainty. This is something we all know from the whole probabilities vs deterministic public weather forecasting issue.

I remember reading Nassim Taleb’s “Black Swan,” in which he showed a line chart where the trend appeared to be steadily moving up and to the right. But then the next picture zoomed out, showing that the first picture was only a small portion of the total trend line in the second picture, which had multiple ups and downs to its left. Considering that daily weather observations go back less than 200 years, I often reflect on Taleb’s point when I hear people talk about what’s “normal” or “unprecedented” etc. If we say for example “this is the strongest hurricane ever,” is it really? And even if it is, it’s easy to forget that there was a previous “strongest” that likely seemed equally anomalous to people at that time.

Ultimately I just think it’s about intellectual humility, and not taking extreme actions based on things that we really can’t be certain about. There are countless things we thought we knew that have been proven wrong. We used to use leeches for medical treatment for goodness sake. By definition we cannot say what it is that we think we know today that will be proven wrong tomorrow. If we could, we would already know it’s wrong. Just like we can’t say for sure what will be invented tomorrow, because if we knew then we would have already invented it.

 

[gdlewen]

I remember reading Nassim Taleb’s “Black Swan,” in which he showed a line chart where the trend appeared to be steadily moving up and to the right. But then the next picture zoomed out, showing that the first picture was only a small portion of the total trend line in the second picture, which had multiple ups and downs to its left.

This is such a good point. I always--always--cautioned students about the hazards of extrapolating beyond the range of their data. "It implies you have more perfect knowledge about the system you're studying than you could possibly have," I would tell them.

Is Hooke's Law really a law and are springs really linear? Answer: Hooke's Law is not a law and only perfect springs are linear over the entire range of extension. Real springs are only linear in a small range of extensions and that range depends on their elastic properties.

The further out beyond your known data that you extrapolate, the less certain you should be about the result.

 

[JamesCaruso]

The further out beyond your known data that you extrapolate, the less certain you should be about the result.

A concept we all know well from using model forecasts. Why would long-range climate models be any more reliable? That's a serious question, not necessarily a challenge - because someone told me once that there actually IS a difference that makes long-range climate models more reliable, but I don't know what it is...

 

[William Monfredo]

While forecasts up to 60 hours from the present have gained predictive skill and certainly possess some usefulness, such predictions provide diminishing returns the further out in time out they go, so end users should maintain appropriate wariness, a scientific skepticism, regarding longer-range forecasts. Stop and consider how far off a day six and seven weekend forecast ends up many times. A chance exists that it will be right; even a pig without a sense of smell sometimes stumbles on a truffle. Some argue that errors simply average out when running climate models for the long haul, and suggest running a multitude of models and taking the averages of the lot of them. Little matter, as experience has shown that the predictive outcomes land far from perfect; forecasts generally do not match with reality. A whole lot of wrong averaged up still works out wrong. Of particular concern, you can’t prohibit Mother Nature from introducing intervening variables, those new changes and events created at various times in between that alter the end game. A man-made computer and those that write the software simply can’t foresee them. Long-term forecasts often don’t verify, disappointing the staunchest believers, no matter how much one wants to "clean up" the environment.

Science does not advance through popularity contests, consensus, or taking a vote. The scientific method uses statistics and hypothesis testing, long the gold standard in science. Oppositely, researchers can personally devise, develop, and utilize computer models instead as an academic exercise to guess the future. By their very nature, the modeling represent a simplification of an incompletely-understood earth, subject to increasingly large errors as computer runtimes increase. Chaos and ruination develop when minute errors at the beginning of the model run, called initialization errors, grow to absurd and unusable proportions on their way toward the end time, the forecast. Meteorologists understand the limited validity, the poor predictive power, and overall questionable capability of computer models attempting to predict reality beyond two weeks. Often stated, “Live by the model, die by the model.” Researchers also die before long-range predictions have an opportunity to verify or fail, so many never have to face the consequences of their prognostications and actions like day-to-day meteorologists do that go out on a limb a handful of days rather than a handful of decades.

 

[gdlewen]

A singular weather event is not climate. However, when the frequency of extreme weather events such as 30-50" rain events or intense wildfires that rapidly burn through entire towns increases, that IS climate. And I think that is what drives some of the increased association of weather events with changes in climate. I think the fact that what should be a scientific question has become so tied to politics is what makes it an odd and divisive brew.

Here's an interesting point of view, over which I stumbled while looking for something non-weather related. Pitched at the public policy community, it may lack scientific rigor but includes references, so without further ado:

Seasonal Weather Predictions Are Elusive in California

California urgently needs to improve its precipitation forecasting: this could help the state better manage its water supply and prepare for disasters, among other things. But that’s not as easy as it sounds, says Dr. Xianan Jiang, a UCLA researcher. We asked him to tell us more.

www.ppic.org

 

[John Farley]

The poor record of seasonal predictions is well-known. Any forecast beyond 2 weeks is pretty much a guess, and as others noted above, even 6 or 7 days out is pretty unreliable. That said, the wild swings in California (and elsewhere) between hot/dry and abnormally wet are consistent with what we know about climate change, i.e. more extremes. I also happen to agree with those of you who point out the limited explanatory value of any one predictor. I taught social research methods and statistics for years, and always warned my students about one-factor explanations. However, the fact that something is not the ONLY cause does not mean that it is not a cause. The trend in temperatures over the past 125 years is very clear. And it is not a long-range prediction or a model, but historical reality. Yes, that does not go back forever, and yes, there are probably multiple reasons for the trend. But given what we know about the effects of greenhouse gasses, along with what we know about the trend, I am amazed at the extent to which people bend over backwards to question both the trend and the human contribution to it. And as to the argument that we should wait longer to take action to reduce these greenhouse gasses until we are more sure than we are now, that is an incredibly costly thing to do if we end up waiting too long. (Some scientists think we already have.) Again, in this thread and others. there has been a lot of talk about the cost of taking actions to reduce our contributions to climate change, but way too little talk about the cost of NOT taking action.

 

[William Monfredo]

Here's a way to (re)consider and reframe many articles we see.
Consider that many states no longer adequately fund colleges and universities; rather they aid them. This leaves money gathering up to professors. They’ve taken on the task of sales representatives, largely peddling their research guesses about climate to government agencies that dole out grants for ideas, such as the millions of dollars of funding from the the National Science Foundation.
And the request for money usually needs to appear similar to the previously requested & funded projects in order to get the green light for more greenbacks. It’s simply a matter of survival in academic departments, and it helps with infrastructural expenses as the institutions take their cut. But, this entire process engenders studies with striking similarities and often a minimum of innovation, though. You’ll hear something like, “Cats going extinct today, dogs tomorrow.” And it endangers funding to other perhaps more pressing concerns.
In a system of tenure-seeking that includes publishing over the course of half a dozen years or ultimately losing jobs, studies with non-results, where nothing major happens, do not get published and don’t pave the way for new grants. You’re not going to hear and see, “This just in, no big problems found, nothing to see here, folks.”
In other words, it’s usually possible and crucial to find a specific method to get a result of note, submit the write-up to an academic journal or the media, and in turn bolster the possibility of getting another grant and attracting further attention. Forget or push aside the fact that choosing a different method or data set yields the opposite or no result. The battle cry from the towers, “Hot off the press, this looks bad, and it requires more study, much more.” In this way, a cycle develops where the government asks, “Houston, do we have a problem?” And it’s in the obvious financial interest of the educational institutions to say “Yes, and it’s going to cost a lot more to get to the bottom of this.” By the way, nobody can ever see to the bottom.

 

[John Farley]

Here's a way to (re)consider and reframe many articles we see.
Consider that many states no longer adequately fund colleges and universities; rather they aid them. This leaves money gathering up to professors. They’ve taken on the task of sales representatives, largely peddling their research guesses about climate to government agencies that dole out grants for ideas, such as the millions of dollars of funding from the the National Science Foundation.
And the request for money usually needs to appear similar to the previously requested & funded projects in order to get the green light for more greenbacks. It’s simply a matter of survival in academic departments, and it helps with infrastructural expenses as the institutions take their cut. But, this entire process engenders studies with striking similarities and often a minimum of innovation, though. You’ll hear something like, “Cats going extinct today, dogs tomorrow.” And it endangers funding to other perhaps more pressing concerns.
In a system of tenure-seeking that includes publishing over the course of half a dozen years or ultimately losing jobs, studies with non-results, where nothing major happens, do not get published and don’t pave the way for new grants. You’re not going to hear and see, “This just in, no big problems found, nothing to see here, folks.”
In other words, it’s usually possible and crucial to find a specific method to get a result of note, submit the write-up to an academic journal or the media, and in turn bolster the possibility of getting another grant and attracting further attention. Forget or push aside the fact that choosing a different method or data set yields the opposite or no result. The battle cry from the towers, “Hot off the press, this looks bad, and it requires more study, much more.” In this way, a cycle develops where the government asks, “Houston, do we have a problem?” And it’s in the obvious financial interest of the educational institutions to say “Yes, and it’s going to cost a lot more to get to the bottom of this.” By the way, nobody can ever see to the bottom.

As someone who spent 30 years in academia, I can say that much of what is said here is true. Most of all the part about states inadequately funding colleges and universities. If you look at the trend in per-student funding from the states over the course of the last 40 years or so, it is nothing short of shocking. And it certainly is true that studies that show no relationship between the key variables are harder to get published than ones that show strong relationships. However, I think the argument goes off track on a few points. The notion that NSF and other funding agencies have a political agenda, which is unspoken but seems to be assumed in the above argument, is mostly not true. Sure there have been some political influences at times, like when the Reagan administration banned NIMH from funding studies of things that influence mental health, like unemployment, as opposed to direct studies of mental health. But aside from these occasional direct interventions, agencies like NSF and NIH have operated largely independently. (That could change with the incoming administration, but if it does, it will likely be in the form of banning or restricting funding of research on climate change.) And the notion that a study showing no trend toward a warmer climate or no human influence on climate would be a "non-finding" does not hold up very well - if a well-designed study obtained such findings in this day and age, that would be big news. And one other thing - the emphasis on grants and publications, at least in major research universities, predates the funding decline. That has always been the goal in such universities. But in many others - the majority of universities, really - the effect of declining funding has been the opposite. As funding has fallen, teaching loads have increased, more classes are taught by non-tenure track and temporary faculty, and research funding has declined. Sure these universities like it when faculty get grants, but fewer faculty have time to even put grant proposals together, and there is no real penalty for faculty who don't, as long as they are good at teaching and present a few papers at professional conferences.

 

[Jamie H]

I've noticed some changes over the last 15 years. At first weather was not climate, because a singular event had not accumulated to months, years, decades and more. But later, bad weather was somehow climate, thanks to the AMS and some politicians. It's now an odd & divisive brew. (I thought the various sorts of ideas we saw in "Legislation for a NDRB" might be more appropriate here.)

Climate - the general weather conditions usually found in a particular place.

That's a definition I found.

Here in the UK, our climate is largely driven by the position of the polar jet and the maritime polar air mass. Due to variations from the mean, our climate is becoming warmer and wetter. This has caused serious problems with flooding, and for the weather fans, also a reduction in big summer 'thundery breakdowns' when we draw up warm and humid air, which clashes with cold northerlies.

 

[William Monfredo]

Thanks James, John, Jamie and gdlewen -- you have all brought up a lot of good food for thought. I like the information about the blowflies!
I, too, am disappointed politics has almost taken over these fields. I cringe when I see politicians talking about things they know little about.
California -- From all that I've seen and read regarding centuries of records, that state's weather extremes are as I would expect.
The article posted by gdlewen reminded me of how responsive CA is to El Niño, La Niña, and neutral conditions: It's a poster-child, IMO.

I am amazed at the extent to which people bend over backwards to question both the trend and the human contribution to it.

A lot of people are "luke-warmers" that know averages do go up, but they don't know what the perfect number / temperature should be.
I'd like to dial in the Bahamas in the winter, just kidding...no seriously! They don't feel that they can control the temp to change the weather.

 

[gdlewen]

It's fair now to ask, "What is the proper role of public policy in the climate debate? Do we know enough to direct global human activity towards a goal of eliminating anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?"

In a 2020 EconomiA paper, Mueller asserts, “policy fails when complex problems are addressed using standard linear and reductionist approaches that presuppose more knowledge and control than is ever possible in such situations.” I think this sums up the current state of Climate Politics. (Not a pejorative, by the way, but a term meant to describe the melding of Climate science and Politics.)

Climate variability is a very dynamic problem (no pun intended): with time, the nature of the “problem to be solved” has adapted to the climate variability itself. The progression from “global cooling-->”global warming”-->”global climate change” reflects changes in the knowledge of what is changing as more and more climate research is performed.

For policy-makers, the evolution of the nature of the problem (Cooling? Warming? Changing?) makes it difficult to identify exactly what a climate policy should accomplish.

Next: it’s fair to say that public policy in this area (Climate Politics) assumes the primary cause of climate variability is anthropogenic—specifically greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. I can’t think of a climate policy prescription, whether it be eliminating fossil fuels or bovine flatulence, that is not directed at anthropogenic GHG.

Now, for policy-makers this “fixed cause” creates further difficulties, because it restricts the kinds of solutions that can be offered to solve the problem.

So: we have a problem, the nature of which has greatly evolved since the 1970’s, and the cause of which has not changed since the 1970’s. How can this be? How can the nature of the problem be changing so dramatically but the cause remain immutable? Mueller might say, “The policies of Climate Politics assume more knowledge about the cause—and therefore the solution—of climate variability than is possible.”

I think it’s about control. I think there is an environmental policy agenda in the background which has its roots in the 1960’s Counterculture Movement. Unable to persuade their neighbors to embrace environmentalist principles by the power of their arguments, the activists learned to harness the power of government to force their values on others.

Don't get me wrong--as a Christian I believe we have a pastoral duty of care for the world in which we live. I'll go further. I believe that duty is part of a covenant (as the ancient Hebrews might describe it) established between God and man in the Garden of Eden. So, you don't need to coerce me to buy EV's or recycle. (Been right there with you since the 70's.)

I'm just not convinced we know enough to utilize public policies in the way climate politicians have been trying to use them for the past 50 years. That probably explains the level of our resistance to it--people inherently feel it is wrong.

---

(1) Bernardo Mueller, Why public policies fail: Policymaking under complexity, EconomiA, Volume 21, Issue 2, 2020, Pages 311-323.

 

[John Farley]

Don't get me wrong--as a Christian I believe we have a pastoral duty of care for the world in which we live. I'll go further. I believe that duty is part of a covenant (as the ancient Hebrews might describe it) established between God and man in the Garden of Eden. So, you don't need to coerce me to buy EV's or recycle. (Been right there with you since the 70's.)

---

(1) Bernardo Mueller, Why public policies fail: Policymaking under complexity, EconomiA, Volume 21, Issue 2, 2020, Pages 311-323.

Well, if everyone was where you are, maybe we would not need government intervention. Or maybe we still would. The problem you leave out is that a great deal of money is being made in the fossil fuel industries, and they carry a great deal of both public influence and political power. And that shapes a lot of what we would like to think of as individual choices, but all such choices are made within a social and economic environment. Could be the only way to make a difference in such a situation is some kind of government action.