UN Claims Record-Breaking Extreme Weather

[Glenn Rivers]

Global Warming and weather extremes

I will state here that I find it a little irksome that some members of this forum complain over and over about the global warming alarmists...one gets the impression that these people are so bothered by believers in Anthropogenic global warming that they feel depressed and feel like these people are literally sucking the life out of them and crushing moral !

What I Believe: I happen to believe that global warming is not just a fad and that the odds are that the planet will continue to warm over the next century or more and that even though there will be some desirable consequences, they will be outweighed by the negative ones.

Now for what I do not believe: I do not believe that individual extreme weather events can be blamed on global warming. In fact, the claims after every extreme event that it must have been caused be global warming are something that bugs me as well.

I also do not believe in blanket statements that there will be much more extreme weather of all kinds. Rather, a more reasonable statement might be that just like the prevailing climate, extreme weather will change as a result of global warming, with some types of extreme weather becoming less common while others become more common. Some examples of extremes may not show any obvious trend, but may change in seasonality or geographic occurrence.

To use just one example: Hurricanes are a believable candidate for an increase under global warming, as it is very likely that SST's will be warmer, but even here there are many ifs and buts. Warm Water is not enough to guaranty stronger hurricanes if problems like dry air ingestion and wind shear also change under Global Warming.

The Tropical North Atlantic seems to be a particularly complicated environment for hurricanes, with some negative factors such as hot dry Saharan air suppressing convection and adverse wind shear sometimes preventing hurricane development even over deep areas of very warm water that could serve as high octane fuel. Recent research suggests that during the latter part of the "little ice age" atlantic hurricanes were very active. Perhaps moister conditions in the Sahel of Africa and or favorable low 900-300 mb wind shear conditions were common, and made up for slightly cooler water. This finding suggests that we can not assume that warmer SST's in the tropical Atlantic will lead to more or stronger hurricanes.

One model simulation of late 21'st century circulation patterns suggested that there would be much more westerly 900-300 mb shear in a big part of the Tropical Atlantic and over the southern half of the Caribbean, with less 900-300mb shear over the northern Caribbean and GOM then in our present climate. If this prediction were to come true, the net result for the U.S. might be fewer Cape Verde Type Hurricanes, but more powerful "home grown" hurricanes developing over the GOM. Of course it is a little early to asses the robustness of these model results. Still this example should serve to illuminate the uncertainties of severe weather in a warmer world, even in systems very sensitive to SST's.

Other forms of severe weather may be even harder to predict in a warmer world and the influences even more convoluted than for Atlantic Hurricanes.

I think that even If our present climate resembled say that of the 1700's, a lot of news would be about how crazy our weather seams to be both at home and abroad.

 

[Kevin Scharfenberg]

Mike Smith wrote:

"The U.S. Historical Climatology Network has been shown to be a scandal (www.surfacestations.org), "

Where on this site does it say anything like this? All I see is some cherry picking of a small handful of sites, in one country, when there are many pieces of evidence of warming attained from multiple types of sources globally. Anyone who implies global warming advocates are relying on NOAA max/min temp records alone is terribly misinformed or dishonest.

"major errors have been shown in the calculation of surface temperatures ( www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880#comments , www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878#comments , et. al.) . "

Not sure exactly what you're talking about here, but you're referring to anonymous comments on a web site run by a guy with a BS in Math and a vested interest in oil and gas exploration companies, and out of hand dismissing numerous volumes of peer-reviewed research. Got anything better, I hope?

"Even though the temperatures have been shown the have a warm bias, they are running below the coldest IPCC predictions. Ocean temperatures are not warming as forecast. "

Reference to a journal article or....anything for that matter?

 

[fplowman]

I think large corporations are the biggest producers of pollutants. Chemical companies and the like are over polluting and have probably already done great harm to our environment. No question in my mind.

The problem I have with the debate is that they are trying to blame me and my car. The end result is riding a bicycle to work or taxing the tar out of me and others.

I would venture further to say that the worst polluters ( large corporations ) in our society are the ones behind this global warming push.

Im always reminded of when I lived in Philadelphia. They wanted us to pay for emmissions test on our vehicles at great expense. Not only did they regulate the automakers to put catalytic converters and the like on their vehicles at great expense, they were going to turn around and hit the consumer. This battle raged on the AM radio every morning on my way to work as I watched the skyline fo smokestacks belching out brown, Yellow, black, and green smoke by the tons into the air.

So Im sorry. I agree that pollution and some degree of warming may be occuring. But, their "agenda" is to attack the little guy and make it into a money generating issue that will greatly effect all of us to the tune of thousands of dollars per year or more.

 

[Mike Smith]

I find it a little irksome that some members of this forum complain over and over about the global warming alarmists...

That's not it at all.

What bothers me, and should bother all of us who consider ourselves to be meteorologists, is that the science is not even close to being "settled." There are serious flaws in the work of the IPCC that even some of its strongest advocates are now acknowledging.

My purpose for posting these cautionary notes can be summed up in one phrase: The credibility of our profession. If, as I suspect, ten years from now it is scientifically proven that AGW has been overblown, what profession will end up with egg on its face? Meteorology.

We have enough credibility problems (often undeserved) as it is without have to bear to burden of some of the ridiculous claims of the pro-global warming crowd (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, don't walk to the store, etc., etc.).

Let me address some of the comments made in response to my post:

where is the harm in polluting less?

I couldn't agree more! We should pollute less, employ nuclear and wind more, etc., etc. Those are meritorious ideas on their own.

However, putting iron filings in the ocean to flight global warming as some have proposed violates a "first, do no harm" principle. What if, as some contend, "global cooling" is the true problem? How do you get the iron out of the ocean?

All I see is some cherry picking of a small handful of sites

"major errors have been shown in the calculation of surface temperatures ( www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880#comments , www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878#comments , et. al.) . "

Not sure exactly what you're talking about here, but you're referring to anonymous comments on a web site run by a guy with a BS in Math and a vested interest in oil and gas exploration companies

Wow, where to start. Cherrypicking? I don't think you have thoroughly reviewed the web site I cited. One would have to cherrypick to find a station that meets WMO standards. The U.S. Historical Climate Network which, according to NOAA, is supposed to be "high quality" and "was designed to assist in the detection of climate change" ( www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html ) is a complete joke.

Since you requested something peer-reviewed, please go to this link: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-274.pdf to a paper in BAMS from April, 2005, on this subject. There's plenty more where that came from. You can find a brief, to-the-point article on this subject at: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007...-climate-network-surface-station-photographs/ .

Yes, it is one country, but there is evidence that this problem extends to many nations. Besides, if the U.S.A. can't create and maintain a quality climate network what evidence is there to believe that third world nations have run quality climate networks for the decades necessary to have meaningful results?

With regard to the temperature calculation errors, since we are talking about statistics I would think a math degree is a pretty handy thing to have.

Getting tired of the all-purpose rebuttal, "ties to the oil industry." Suggest a critique of his science.

As I have said many, many times: I am perfectly willing to believe in catastrophic AGW when the science is there. "Consensus" is not science. Reproduceable results that "cannot be made false" is science. The AGW hypothesis is far from "science" based on what I have seen to date. The burden is on the IPCC and global warming advocates to scientifically prove their hypothesis before spending hundreds of trillions of dollars on climate change mitigation.

ADDITION: 1999 is no longer the hottest year. Urge everyone to read http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/08/08/giss-has-reranked-us-temperature-anomalies/#comments and especially comment #9. The "Y2K" error referenced therein and the mess of the USHCN is going to have significant repercussions on the AGW debate.

 

[Kevin Scharfenberg]

Mike,

I'm not arguing at all that there isn't major problems in MMTS siting at some locations, but again, the web site refers to ~200 out of ~1200 US stations, so that's less than 20% of one data source in one relatively small section of earth, when there are records from numerous disparate sources worldwide (direct and indirect) and virtually all point to recent abnormal warming.

Essentially he's complaining about far less than 1% of the evidence, and he's not doing a very convincing job of it. And once again, comments sections of blogs do not constitute anything remotely resembling "science".

 

[Mikey Gribble]

If some of the U.S. stations aren't up to par, then I have a hard time believeing that the vast majority of other countries would be doing any better. And 20% is a significant number btw. The U.S. budget is beyond massive when compared to the average country. Just to put that in perspective, I know that we spend more on defense than the next 15 countries combined. I have no idea what kind of budget the Department of Commerce alocates to the agencies responsible for maintaining these stations, but just shooting from the hip I would have to think that our budget dwarfs the vast majority of any other countries budgets, even if you break it down to $ per square mile (or however else you want to do it to make it equitable) I am sure we still easily overwhelm them when it comes to funding.

I don't even really care about disputing the 1/2 a degree rise we have had. My problem is with attributing this 1/2 a degree rise to man made greenhouse gas emissions. I don't want to argue with you Kevin, but you are hitting on how Mike only referenced 20% of one countries stations in a world of stations. Well the flip side to that coin is that the global warming advocates are trying to pin the temperature increase down on the single digit % of CO2 that we are responsible for in the atmosphere, when CO2 is only one of an untold number of things that influence the earth's climate. The global warming alarmists make it sound so simple and factual. They say they are sure that our contribution of 3% or whatever it is of CO2 in the atmosphere is what is causing the temperature to rise. Not the other 97% of CO2, not solar flares, not ocean currents, not magnetic fields, not any of the other reflective properties in the atmoshpere, not any of the countless other things that influence climate, but our 3% of CO2 is the problem. Maybe we are responsible for a small fraction of the 1/2 a degree rise in the earth's average temperature, then again maybe it is part of the same natural cycle that has been going on throughout the history of the planet. Anybody who says with any certainty that they know we are responsible for this temperature increase is kidding themselves. What was going on 30 years ago when all the scientists were saying we were going into global cooling and an ice age. They said it was going to be a disaster then and they were assbackwards wrong. I'm not saying anybody is wrong this time. I'm just saying people should be realistic and acknowledge the uncertainties involved with the issue. Those uncertainties are rarely expressed in the media and that is what bothers me.

 

[John Farley]

First of all, thanks to Joe Nield for posting the link to the AMS statement. The points made in the statement seem to make a pretty good case that global warming is real and that it is in sizable part caused by human activity. The doubters should read it.

Second, I find it incredulous that some are trying to argue that data showing rising temperatures are an artifact of faulty instrumentation. Does faulty instrumentation explain why glaciers are retreating all over the world? Why the polar ice cap is shrinking? These kinds of arguments are as ridiculous as any of the "global warming caused this or that storm" kind of argument that first triggered this thread.

As to the notion that the corporations are promoting the global warming argument, I have not heard much of that argument from the oil companies or car companies. What I did hear is objections from these companies to, for example, the U.S. ratifying the Kyoto protocol, with the result that our government objected to it because of the alleged economic impact.

 

[fplowman]

As to the notion that the corporations are promoting the global warming argument, I have not heard much of that argument from the oil companies or car companies. What I did hear is objections from these companies to, for example, the U.S. ratifying the Kyoto protocol, with the result that our government objected to it because of the alleged economic impact.

Im sorry John. I thought "Carbon Credits" were common knowledge among folks.

Heres a Wikepedia link I easily Googled.. im sure there is more information for those interested if you Google it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit

 

[Kevin Scharfenberg]

Michael Gribble wrote:

"Just to put that in perspective, I know that we spend more on defense than the next 15 countries combined. I have no idea what kind of budget the Department of Commerce alocates to the agencies responsible for maintaining these stations, but just shooting from the hip I would have to think that our budget dwarfs the vast majority of any other countries budgets, even if you break it down to $ per square mile (or however else you want to do it to make it equitable) I am sure we still easily overwhelm them when it comes to funding."

Actually the US spends very, very, very little on the cooperative network. Don't have the numbers in front of me unfortunately, but I do know recent efforts to modernize the 1920s-era instrumentation have been recently rejected by NOAA.


"They say they are sure that our contribution of 3% or whatever it is of CO2 in the atmosphere is what is causing the temperature to rise. Not the other 97% of CO2, not solar flares, not ocean currents, not magnetic fields, not any of the other reflective properties in the atmoshpere, not any of the countless other things that influence climate, but our 3% of CO2 is the problem."

Well, CO2 has gone up far more than 3% since the beginning of the industrial age. The best estimates are an increase from 290 ppm to 370 ppm in the last 100 years. As has been shown time and time again, solar flares, ocean currents, etc., have all been considered and rejected as causes. The only thing that can be shown in models to cause the observed warming is the observed increase in CO2. I'm not going to further rehash the science on this since it's readily available, and no one seems to listen since this baseless argument gets brought up every time the discussion starts.

"What was going on 30 years ago when all the scientists were saying we were going into global cooling and an ice age. They said it was going to be a disaster then and they were assbackwards wrong."

Wow, I love this old gem; it never gets old. Rather than type it all out for the umpteenth time, I'll just post the link this time: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

"I'm not saying anybody is wrong this time. I'm just saying people should be realistic and acknowledge the uncertainties involved with the issue. Those uncertainties are rarely expressed in the media and that is what bothers me."

Are you kidding? The US media constantly gives air time to the deniers who trot out the same old ridiculous arguments that have been consistently proven wrong. On the other hand, the legitimate uncertainties ARE discussed in great detail in the IPCC report and in the scientific literature.

BTW, I think it was Mike Smith that mentioned being tired of deniers being linked to big oil/energy. Well just so happens I got forwarded an article to appear in the next edition of Newsweek which addresses this very point, and provides a nice background on the well-funded disinformation campaign some of my fellow meteorlogists seem to be buying hook, line, and sinker:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

 

[Chris Hayes]

I am personally getting tired of hearing about global warming or oooohhh Climate Change. LOL Global warming was attributed to the record breaking tornado season of 2004, and the record breaking hurricane season of 2005. BUT UH OH, 2005 to 2007 tornado seasons are average, and 2006 hurricane season was around avearge, and the 2007 hurricane season is VERY SLOW. I just read an article today that some "scientists" believe global warming is going to slow down, then speed up again. Dont tell Al Gore that, his big ARMAGEDDON IS COMING graph in An Inconvenient Truth will be wrong. Here's a link to the article.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070809_gw_decade.html

 

[Mikey Gribble]

I didn't say CO2 levels had only increased 3%. I said that man made CO2 accounts for only 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Big difference Kevin.

Do you have any information on how much other countries spend on their networks Kevin? We are comparing the US networks to other countries. You stating that we spend little is strictly arbitrary. It needs to be comparative.

Don't even try to tell me that the nay sayers of global warming are just as present in the media as the alarmists. Give me a break. How many celebrities are out there arguing against global warming. How many movies have been made arguing against man made global warming? How many tv shows are there going against global warming. There are numerous tv shows claiming global warming is man made and catastrophic. They are on the Weather Channel, National Geographic, Discovery, and the list goes on and on. Get real and think serious Kevin. This idea that the air time is equal between the two sides is a joke.

It's funny that you are posting an article from Newsweek for a reputable source on oil companies funding disinformation, yet in the paragraph before that you posted a link to a site that was discrediting a Newsweek article on global cooling as not being a reliable source.
This big bad oil companies notion is laughable. They aren't OIL companies. They are energy companies. They will be the ones funding inovation. Do you have any idea how much money there is to be made on new efficient forms of energy? It would be a trillion dollar idea. Energy companies have no reason to retard development and continue our dependance on fossil fuels. That is absurd. There is no reliable and economical form of energy in existence that can compete with fossil fuels right now. The technology doesn't exist, plain and simple. When it does, you can bet that the big oil/energy companies are going to be the ones that make the technological breakthrough. Everybody acts like they are suppressing the truth and holding back inovations. That argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

Kevin said...
"As has been shown time and time again, solar flares, ocean currents, etc., have all been considered and rejected as causes. "

Oh really? You should inform NOAA because they have it wrong.
Quote from NOAA statement on winter temperatures...

"El Niño conditions contributed to the season’s record warmth, but the episode rapidly weakened in February, as ocean temperatures in the central equatorial Pacific cooled more than 0.5 degrees F/0.3 degrees C and were near average for the month."

the full article can be found here http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2819.htm

 

[Kevin Scharfenberg]

Michael Gribble said:

"Oh really? You should inform NOAA because they have it wrong.
Quote from NOAA statement on winter temperatures..."

Well, we're not talking about the same thing then. I'm talking about changes on the order of 100 years, and this article talks about one season's (3 months) weather pattern driven by el nino. The effects of the southern oscillation can be tremendous in one season or one year, but the variations cancel out at the order of 100 years.

"I said that man made CO2 accounts for only 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere."

Perhaps this is so, but there is considerable evidence out there (if you would care to look) that this small percent makes a huge difference. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if your glass of water was actually composed of 97% H2O and 3% arsenic, now would you?

"How many celebrities are out there arguing against global warming. How many movies have been made arguing against man made global warming? How many tv shows are there going against global warming."

Uhm well, Michael Crichton, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, George Will, the WSJ editorial page, just to name a few. All have very large microphones, and have used them to spout disinformation that has been debunked time and again, some of which we're seeing in this thread.

"It's funny that you are posting an article from Newsweek for a reputable source on oil companies funding disinformation, yet in the paragraph before that you posted a link to a site that was discrediting a Newsweek article on global cooling as not being a reliable source."

It's one thing for newsweek of 2007 to track down and investigate who's funding GW deniers (a news story, not a science story), and it's a completely different thing for newsweek of 1970-something to do a fluff/hype story on how a few scientists (not 'all' scientists as you claim) were speculating we might have been entering an ice age. Apples and oranges here.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

The thing that really gets me is that we are coming out of a frickin ice age. It is supposed to be getting warmer. The other funny thing is that this warming period began four centuries ago. Long before the Industrial Revolution.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.html

If man made CO2 is the cause of the current warming, then what was causing the warming from 1600-1800 before the Industrial Revolution? Also, what caused the average temperature to drop from 1940-1980? If you can't answer those questions then I don't quite understand how you can be so damn sure what is causing the warming right now.

 

[Mike Smith]

Let me see if I can parse some of this.

Michael Gribble wrote:
BTW, I think it was Mike Smith that mentioned being tired of deniers being linked to big oil/energy. Well just so happens I got forwarded an article to appear in the next edition of Newsweek which addresses this very point, and provides a nice background on the well-funded disinformation campaign some of my fellow meteorlogists seem to be buying hook, line, and sinker:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

In an earlier post, I suggested it was a good idea to critique a person's science rather than try to divine their motives. In an amazing turn of events, Hansen agrees with the site that was characterized as...

Not sure exactly what you're talking about here, but you're referring to anonymous comments on a web site run by a guy with a BS in Math and a vested interest in oil and gas exploration companies, and out of hand dismissing numerous volumes of peer-reviewed research.

If you go to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ and page down you will see that Tuesday, Aug. 7, Hansen revised his U.S. temperature graph to conform to the numbers I linked to earlier from climateaudit.org (which is currently down). Hansen's enlarged graph is here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif . I want to congratulate Dr. Hansen for his scientific integrity in recognizing McIntyre (climateaudit.org) and Watts' (surfacestations.org) contribution.

The data in Hansen's chart, as I understand it, comes from the USHCN. I do not see a scary upward trend. And, based on the USHCN surveys done so far (www.surfacestations.org, which is also down), it appears obvious that there is a significant warm bias in that data set based on the MMTS siting. So, it is reasonable to conclude the numbers for the last 10 or 15 years may have to be revised downward still.

It can be argued that this is "only" the United States and that is true. But, as I wrote earlier, if our network is this bad, what are the instruments in central Africa (for example) like? The fact that the U.S. graph is so unremarkable, given the warm bias in recent years' measurements, should be a big yellow "caution" sign.

I am not an expert in polar ice. However, research I have read says Antarctic ice is growing and that Greenland's ice, while melting on the edges, is actually getting thicker in the middle and growing in net mass.

When it is contended that solar flares, etc., "cannot" be the cause of the observed warming, those contentions are largely based on the IPCC's models. As I posted earlier, some the IPCC's strongest supporters are now backing away from those models.

The Financial Times of London, certainly no fan of President Bush, a supporter of carbon taxes, etc., wrote a blistering article about the IPCC just last week. It is here: www.ft.com/cms/s/39463a34-40a3-11dc-9d0c-0000779fd2ac.html .


If you Google "scientific method" you will find that it is comprised of:

1. A scientist has an idea and proposes a hypothesis. In the case of global warming, that would be Hansen in 1988.

2. Experiments are conducted to test the hypothesis. This would be the global trend upward trend in temperatures (now discredited in the U.S. for reasons cited above; elsewhere ???), realistic pastcast model results (not achieved), model accurately models current climate (not achieved) and consistent forecast model results (not achieved).

3. Results are shared and must be repeatable. As the "Financial Times' article and numerous others have complained, the pro-AGW side, especially the IPCC, have been less than forthcoming with their computer code, techniques, etc. Criteria #3 has not been met.

4. Once the results are successfully repeated and tested "they must not be able to be made false." Inconsistent computer models, the problems with the data network, the revisions in temperature records, etc., indicate that #4 is not met.

The comment,

spout disinformation that has been debunked time and again, some of which we're seeing in this thread.

has it backwards.

Under the scientific method, the burden of proof is on the is on the person (Hansen and others that believe as he does) who proposes the hypothesis. AWG fails #2, #3 and #4. AGW does not pass scientific muster.

Thank you for reading my comments.

Mike