Disaster

[weather eater]

w.e., Hi!

Suppose AGW were real. how would you recognise it's impacts?

We are told that we are to expect more 'extreme weather events' (Cold,Hot,Floods,Droughts) so how will we measure this occurring?

To me , and this is just me speaking you understand, I'd expect more frequent record breaking weather events around the globe. I'd expect 1 in a hundred year events to become more like 1 in a decade event.

Again, just me here, I'd rather think that through the 80's/90's and noughties we have seen just such a change starting to happen. If you look back through news archives you'll find plenty of instances of "once in a lifetime" events cropping up only to repeat within this 30yr period. Of course this could be statistical were it just one event (i.e. just cause the odds are once every hundred years doesn't mean that it can't happen the day after) but when it's across all event types and across all nations surely you have to suspect that this is beyond 'coincidence' and something else is driving their frequency?

GW I have no doubt AGW is real, the question is, how many, if any freak weather events are linked to it. I really don’t think they are a good measure, as we really have no way of knowing if any single event is linked to AGW or not.

The phrase 1 in a hundred year events is largely a media creation, has anybody tried to scientifically quantify the frequency of these events. How often did these events happen in the 1400s for instance, we have no real way of knowing. The chroniclers of the time frequently speak of storms for instance, as the worse in living memory, but what does that mean. In the 1400s that would just mean over the last 60 years, maybe. and in their area, or just over hyped. We hear of great inundations by the sea, but was that because the storm was really powerful or because the sea defences were poor, we don‘t know that either.

I would have thought that the evidence of Artic melt or the upward curve in global temperatures would be a far greater indicator of the possible danger, than unquantifiable freak weather events. My suspicion is that freak events are being talked up to drive home the AGW message, and I don’t think its working. What the answer is to making people understand the dangers I don’t know, but I feel we must be more selective about exactly how relevant freak weather stories are.

Weather experiences are often hard to pin down, for instance I was just saying to my wife that I cannot remember the last time I encountered one of those gales where you had to lean into the wind just to stay upright. I do however I seem to remember them happening regularly in the 70s/early 80s, yet we are told that extreme wind events will happen more frequently. Now of course it may be that they are happening with greater frequency, just not in my locale, but that’s how people gage things. They see how bad the floods are in Pakistan for instance, but they have no real connection as to how unusual they are in the minds of the locals, or how frequently they occur. People are so used to TV hyperbole that statements such as a 1 in a 100 years events become meaningless.

[Devonian]

GW I have no doubt AGW is real, the question is, how many, if any freak weather events are linked to it. I really don’t think they are a good measure, as we really have no way of knowing if any single event is linked to AGW or not.

The phrase 1 in a hundred year events is largely a media creation, has anybody tried to scientifically quantify the frequency of these events. How often did these events happen in the 1400s for instance, we have no real way of knowing. The chroniclers of the time frequently speak of storms for instance, as the worse in living memory, but what does that mean. In the 1400s that would just mean over the last 60 years, maybe. and in their area, or just over hyped. We hear of great inundations by the sea, but was that because the storm was really powerful or because the sea defences were poor, we don‘t know that either.

I would have thought that the evidence of Artic melt or the upward curve in global temperatures would be a far greater indicator of the possible danger, than unquantifiable freak weather events. My suspicion is that freak events are being talked up to drive home the AGW message, and I don’t think its working. What the answer is to making people understand the dangers I don’t know, but I feel we must be more selective about exactly how relevant freak weather stories are.

Weather experiences are often hard to pin down, for instance I was just saying to my wife that I cannot remember the last time I encountered one of those gales where you had to lean into the wind just to stay upright. I do however I seem to remember them happening regularly in the 70s/early 80s, yet we are told that extreme wind events will happen more frequently. Now of course it may be that they are happening with greater frequency, just not in my locale, but that’s how people gage things. They see how bad the floods are in Pakistan for instance, but they have no real connection as to how unusual they are in the minds of the locals, or how frequently they occur. People are so used to TV hyperbole that statements such as a 1 in a 100 years events become meaningless.

I agree with some of the gist, about how the facts and evidence are presented, of your posts but I don't think you can say (as you have) "the planet has never had a constant climatic state", "while the Russian heat and the Pakistan floods are rare events they are not unprecedented" and then say "How often did these events happen in the 1400s for instance, we have no real way of knowing." because I don't think that is consistent, the first two imply we know what the climate is like the other that we don't. Which is it?

Edit: according to the Russians the heat wave is the worst for at least thousand years. Can they be sure? I don't think so. But is it likely they're right? I think so.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Devonian

[weather eater]

I agree with some of the gist, about how the facts and evidence are presented, of your posts but I don't think you can say (as you have) "the planet has never had a constant climatic state", "while the Russian heat and the Pakistan floods are rare events they are not unprecedented" and then say "How often did these events happen in the 1400s for instance, we have no real way of knowing." because I don't think that is consistent, the first two imply we know what the climate is like the other that we don't. Which is it?

Edit: according to the Russians the heat wave is the worst for at least thousand years. Can they be sure? I don't think so. But is it likely they're right? I think so.

Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. We do know what climate is like now and we can even make a good guess at past climate, but these tell us nothing about the frequency or strength of weather events in the 1400s for example, I was not trying make any point about whether climate is more or less constant, only that extreme weather events are no new thing. Also that without a means to quantify weather events before regularly kept records, we simple cannot know if we are seeing something unusual.

Here’s a case from 1236 (I know not the 1400s).

A great tide pounded up the east coast accompanied by a storm of unabated fury. It washed up the ocean in such tremendous waves that the banks gave way and the whole country lay completely exposed to its awful fury. Shipping was damaged, trees uprooted, entire flocks of sheep and herds of cattle were drowned, houses destroyed and entire beaches swept away, in one village alone 100 corpses were buried in one day.

A nasty event, but is it possible to quantify against lets say the storm of 87. In terms of ferocity. It was followed by a similar storm in 1287, so not 1 in a 100 year event either, and were there other similar storms around that period, we know not.

Actually, the storm report above sounds very like the floods of 53 (another supposedly 1 in a 100 year event). That storm to the best of my knowledge was caused by a deep low in the North sea combined with a very high tide, and had nothing to do with AGW. Given the way today’s media report freak weather events, you can guarantee that if those floods were to happen again, they would be linked by the media to AGW. Which is why that I say we need reporting to be much clearer as to the real reasons behind weather events, the public would then be better placed to make a clear judgement.

Just seen you're last edit DEV and that may well be the case, however they have no means to quantify that statement, so whether you or I think it likely to be true, is neither here nor there, it cannot be scientifically proven.

Edited August 9, 2010 by weather eater

[mesocyclone]

What about some other reasons other than the co2 story.

Radiative spills, bombs etc. Tons of heat generating particles released.

Solar cycles, flares and sunspots. A lot of support connecting the huge life giving fireball to our climate and tremor charts.

Gravitational effects from comets, planets etc.

Weather modification for 60+ years.

Massive reduction in tress to help balance the atmosphere.

Toxic Weapons testing in sea and land.

I've been fascinated with all things to do with weather, earthquakes and volcanoes. I've watched them all my life and you have to admit to the frequency of these events is heating up to say the least. Only a blink in world time but our history is dotted with stories of global floods and extinctions. Then there is the huge percentage of earth years spent in ice ages.

If you look at what governments around the world are doing, there is a lot of underground bunkers, seed banks, underground libraries etc being built.

I think we will be getting used to seeing extreme events.

Paranoia or wise observation?

[sunny starry skies]

Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. We do know what climate is like now and we can even make a good guess at past climate, but these tell us nothing about the frequency or strength of weather events in the 1400s for example, I was not trying make any point about whether climate is more or less constant, only that extreme weather events are no new thing. Also that without a means to quantify weather events before regularly kept records, we simple cannot know if we are seeing something unusual.

Here’s a case from 1236 (I know not the 1400s).

A great tide pounded up the east coast accompanied by a storm of unabated fury. It washed up the ocean in such tremendous waves that the banks gave way and the whole country lay completely exposed to its awful fury. Shipping was damaged, trees uprooted, entire flocks of sheep and herds of cattle were drowned, houses destroyed and entire beaches swept away, in one village alone 100 corpses were buried in one day.

A nasty event, but is it possible to quantify against lets say the storm of 87. In terms of ferocity. It was followed by a similar storm in 1287, so not 1 in a 100 year event either, and were there other similar storms around that period, we know not.

Actually, the storm report above sounds very like the floods of 53 (another supposedly 1 in a 100 year event). That storm to the best of my knowledge was caused by a deep low in the North sea combined with a very high tide, and had nothing to do with AGW. Given the way today’s media report freak weather events, you can guarantee that if those floods were to happen again, they would be linked by the media to AGW. Which is why that I say we need reporting to be much clearer as to the real reasons behind weather events, the public would then be better placed to make a clear judgement.

Just seen you're last edit DEV and that may well be the case, however they have no means to quantify that statement, so whether you or I think it likely to be true, is neither here nor there, it cannot be scientifically proven.

Return periods are a reasonable tool for analysis, but they are merely an extension of a proper statistical analysis of the data. It's not hearsay to understand that many more high temperature records are being broken than low temperature records - it's a matter of record. Your '1-in-a-100 year flood' examples above provide another point: Imagine the 1236, 1287 and 1953 events were the only events of their kind on record (I agree that the 13th Century events sound far more like 1953 than 1987). That would be 3 events in 800 years, or 1-in-266 years [before anyone jumps on me I'm not suggesting these are the only events of this kind, it's just an example!]. So even though two of the events occurred inside a century, the average return period is actually much longer than a century.

More generally, I agree that 1953-like events are not due to AGW and are the right combination of low pressure track, intensity and high tide, though in the medium term higher sea level will eventually make 1953-like events more likely to cause damage. Events such as Russia's heatwave or exceptional floods such as in Pakistan, or Tennessee earlier this year, are expected as a direct consequence of higher temperatures and more water vapour in the atmosphere now. To test this, we should observe a reduction in the return periods for various measures of high temperature or precipitation in susceptible regions, namely high temperatures vs low, and moderate as well as extreme flood events.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/09/russia-heat-wave-one-thousand-years-global-warming/

http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/26/nashville-katrina-tennessee-superstorm-1000-year-flood/

Easterling's 2000 paper is of good use, though the data and references are now quite old:

http://www.nersc.no/~dagjs/rcourse_nzu/Papers/easterling_etal_climateextremes_science_2000.pdf

UK increases in extreme precipitation, 1961-2000:

http://www.staff.newcastle.ac.uk/h.j.fowler/2003IJC_regfreqanalysis.pdf

Papers such as this might be of use (Switzerland precipitation), though I've not read past the abstract:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6C-4X6MT39-4&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F05%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1426311223&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3ce708a090f674470a09ed8f3700cac3

The point is that we can get hung up on the "it could just be unusual weather", but there are ways of empirically identifying and quantifying the trends. Attribution is a different question, NCDC's "State of the Climate 2009" released last month is not a bad place to start for that.

sss

[Gray-Wolf]

http://news.yahoo.co...9/wl_csm/318660

Seems the scale of the Russian fires tripled last week! It also appears that Moscows daily 'death rate' has doubled since the smog came in so folk are now taking them more serious with an apparent 'greening' of the population as they turn to AGW as a reason for the extended drought.

As we've always suspected when bad things happen climate questions appear more like climate answers to the folk involved be they Inuit, Muscovich or chinese?

EDIT: And the russians saying that their fires and the Asian floods are 'in line' with what to expect from climate shift.....

http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0808-hance_russia_asia.html

Edited August 10, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

Hi mate,

I agree that any 'greening' of the World's population must be seen as a good thing...But I'm dubious of attributing single events with AGW. In the same way that I'm dubious of attributing a cold winter to perceived positions of, or imaginary 'fields' emanating from, the moon and the stars...

Call me a sceptic???

[jethro]

Attributing the Russian fires and drought to AGW is one step away from the age old blame the eclipse/comet for crop failure. Isn't it about time we moved away from such superstitions?

[Devonian]

Attributing the Russian fires and drought to AGW is one step away from the age old blame the eclipse/comet for crop failure. Isn't it about time we moved away from such superstitions?

Jethro, I think it's better to address the reasoning, the evidence, the science presented by people who think there is at least a possible linkage between AGW and extreme weather events rather than using words to discredit them (them, not what they say) like 'superstitious'?

Your use of 'superstitious' make me feel like I'm going to get called superstitious for daring to post anything other that a outright dismissal of any possible link between AGW and extreme weather - though it wont stop me so doing if that what I think (and that there may well be a link is what I think ).

[Gray-Wolf]

I hope AGW won't be linked to superstition.......touch wood......

[jethro]

Mind that ladder....should we shut the forum on Friday just in case??

All joking apart (and I was joking / joshing before anyone takes offence) I'm just trying to establish some form of unity, baseline here. Either we use one off events as evidence for or against AGW or we don't. Either last years cold winter was evidence for cooling or it wasn't, was it climate or weather? Either the Russian heat is proof for or it isn't, is it weather or is it climate? Weren't those same posters last year saying the record cold in Russia wasn't climate or as a result of climate change, it was simply weather. You cannot have it both ways.

All respectable, scientific establishments take a minimum of a 30 year period to demonstrate climate.

We used to have separate threads for both record cold and record heat periods, they were universally decried by both sides as not being evidential either for or against AGW.

In theory, it should be possible to calculate whether or not record events of one kind or another are on the increase, those figures could theoretically be used to demonstrate climate change but unless that evaluation includes evidence of a + b =c we're still no further forward with showing that AGW is directly responsible.

[Gray-Wolf]

It's another one of those 'awkward places' J'

If we are seeing the initial circulation changes from the slow impacts of the past 150yrs then, at some point, we will need to ascribe some of these 'extra' weather events to AGW.

For those who accept the broad remit of AGW we would expect to see precipitation events increase in severity (more evaporation and a warmer atmosphere holding more moisture and an increase in height of 'storms' like we saw at Boscastle) and an increase in 'drought', and an increase in the temps records being broken (as temps push ever upwards) so we would ,eventually, say "this or that would not have occurred 50yrs ago in the old workings of our climate"

EDIT: As an aside the number of storms pushing through the tropopause may well give us a mechanism for the increase in Noctilunimescent clouds as more and more water vapour makes it into the Stratosphere?

Edited August 10, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

So Ian, if we have a winter even colder than last (even if it's a one off, week long, deep snow event) will you accept that as evidence against AGW, evidence for cooling due to (for arguments sake) the PDO or Solar input?

[Gray-Wolf]

Quite the contraryJ!

I'd see the widespread displacement of polar air into temperate regions (and temperate air flooding into the Arctic) in a way the 'old circulation patterns' didn't allow. The N/S movement that the Bi-lobal polar setup allows transports polar air south with little 'modification' on it's journey to our green and pleasant land......

Similary ,if the Arctic Amplification is indeed 'augmenting -ve AO events (by having warmer less dense air above the arctic instead of the cold dense air) then we'd expect the type of weather a -ve AO generally brings us. If this is now going to become the norm ,as the Arctic ocean exposes more and more 'dark water' each year, (to the point of a seasonal pack) then maybe we are looking at a 'colder'' setup for NW Europe over winter and a much warmer Arctic with a much thinner pack (in turn leading to faster summer melt out and more open water etc)

If we had a similar winter to last year and a 'normal' Arctic winter then I may sit up and take notice but another cold winter with a sweltering pole? Well that's just not good is it?

[jethro]

Lol.

So in essence, if we have a warm winter it's AGW, if we have a cold one, that's also AGW.

So how do we possible distinguish normal weather if all kinds of weather events are ascribed as a product of AGW? Is there no normal weather any more?

[Devonian]

Lol.

So in essence, if we have a warm winter it's AGW, if we have a cold one, that's also AGW.

So how do we possible distinguish normal weather if all kinds of weather events are ascribed as a product of AGW? Is there no normal weather any more?

If the climate was cooling would that mean we'd nerver have a warm day or a warm summer?

Edited August 10, 2010 by Devonian

[jethro]

I doubt it, which is why I think using weather to demonstrate climate is fraught with danger and that citing such events as proof for or against AGW is little more than superstition. It's a lazy argument IMO.

How many folk sighed with a "for goodness sake" sense of resignation when winter last year was shown to have had a marked impact upon the public perception of climate change? I know I did, I know others on here did.

People cannot have their cake and eat.

[Gray-Wolf]

But you need to be mindful that if AGW is proven to be real and present then we WILL see more and more extreme (hot ,cold ,dry,wet) events across the globe and ,eventually, will have to accept that they are a direct result of a warming world?

[Devonian]

I doubt it, which is why I think using weather to demonstrate climate is fraught with danger and that citing such events as proof for or against AGW is little more than superstition. It's a lazy argument IMO.

Well, I'm sorry to be both lazy and superstitious. Otoh you're being somewhat something or other for using the word proof when no one has uttered the word.

Moving on, so in a cooling climate you'd still expect the odd warm day and or season? I think that's right. And in a cooling climte we'd expect LESS warm events then cold? I think so.

And what do we see atm? More warming events (and warmth of greater magnitute) than cool ones. Proof? Nope, such a word would not cross my lips but I think it's evidence.

How many folk sighed with a "for goodness sake" sense of resignation when winter last year was shown to have had a marked impact upon the public perception of climate change? I know I did, I know others on here did.

People cannot have their cake and eat.

it's a pity neither of us was around as the NW Europe LIA started because we could have dismissed the LIA, and those saying it was happening as superstitious, on the basis of the odd hot summer or warm day...

[jethro]

Well, I'm sorry to be both lazy and superstitious. Otoh you're being somewhat something or other for using the word proof when no one has uttered the word.

Moving on, so in a cooling climate you'd still expect the odd warm day and or season? I think that's right. And in a cooling climte we'd expect LESS warm events then cold? I think so.

And what do we see atm? More warming events (and warmth of greater magnitute) than cool ones. Proof? Nope, such a word would not cross my lips but I think it's evidence.

it's a pity neither of us was around as the NW Europe LIA started because we could have dismissed the LIA, and those saying it was happening as superstitious, on the basis of the odd hot summer or warm day...

Oh for goodness sake, proof, evidence, suggestion....what does it matter what word is used, last post I said proof, the one before I said evidence. And at no point have I directed lazy or superstitious as a direct personal insult to you, stop taking it as such when I've even gone to the lengths of explaining I was being light hearted.

At the time when all individual weather events are collated we'll be able to say whether or not there are less or more cooling or warming events. At the current time, we cannot because the information isn't there to scrutinise.

If anyone here can show me the research and proof/evidence/suggestion that the current drought situation in Russia is directly attributable to AGW, together with the reasons of how and why, I'll gladly retract and grovel. Until then, it's weather in my eyes unless I'm free to say last years cold winter shouldn't have happened in an AGW world and thus AGW isn't happening.

Do we stick to the IPCC standard of 30 years or not? Can't have it both ways.

Greywolf - there's a world of difference between 'will see' and 'are seeing' - we need the benefit of hindsight to first measure and then the dissection of all interactions to attribute.

[Gray-Wolf]

But wouldn't we risk throwing the baby out with the water if we dally and dilly about waiting for evidence? This seems to be the point where we differ J, the magnitude of future impacts depends up on our behaviours now and to give it the 'suck it and see' approach will lead to B.A.U. levels of oil/coal/gas being used. Either we risk millions of lives or we waste money........which would you choose?

[jethro]

But wouldn't we risk throwing the baby out with the water if we dally and dilly about waiting for evidence? This seems to be the point where we differ J, the magnitude of future impacts depends up on our behaviours now and to give it the 'suck it and see' approach will lead to B.A.U. levels of oil/coal/gas being used. Either we risk millions of lives or we waste money........which would you choose?

Not at all.

I haven't made any mention of how we manage to live sustainably, nor how we can mitigate climate change. As you can see from the thread about our own personal carbon footprint, I've done more than many whilst renovating my house and live a daily existence of minimum impact as far as is possible.

Arguing for distinguishing between weather and climate, indeed debating the extent of climate change due to AGW or even whether or not AGW is real is a totally separate issue to living sustainably - one does not exclude the other.

[Gray-Wolf]

I was not wishing to narrow this down to 'personal issues' but more the global approach to the problem. We see after Bonn that nations are quite happy to remain 'luke warm' to the risks involved in climate shift and so no targets are adhered to regarding efforts to reduce our pollution.

The Govt's of this world are supposed to reflect the wishes of the people and if the people remain ,as yourself, undecided as to whether or not to be worried about future climate shifts then we signal a green light to those who wish to maintain the current status quo (and so B.A,U, continues, or worse, emissions outstrip B.A.U. predictions as we see currently).

As we saw , through the 80's and 90's, the greening of politics was on the back of the greening of society (and so a vote winner and no more) any move towards the scale of change required to tackle climate shift will make political parties unpopular and so as long as we signal that no change is necessary then they can continue to make grand speeches and make false pledges whilst growth in global emissions continues unfettered.

[sunny starry skies]

Jethro - did you look at some of the links I posted earlier? - that was the point of that earlier post: we don't have to wait for new evidence, as we already have substantial meteorological datasets for many countries round the world. These datasets show the increasing tendency towards warm temperature records over cold ones (in 2010, for national records the ratio is 17:1), and the datasets already cover many decades. There's a similar tendency towards large precipitation events, to be expected if there's more water vapour in the atmosphere.

Is there more water vapour in the atmosphere? Here's an interesting post from Tamino on that one (data from NCDC State of the Climate):

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/urban-wet-island/

Specific humidity is rising in line with rising temperature, exactly as expected. This not only confirms the temperature rise and the presence of the powerful water vapour positive feedback, it also provides the extra moisture for an increased frequency of extreme precipitation events.

Can you directly attribute a single weather event to AGW? Maybe not, but events like those in Russia would be rather less likely without AGW, and are just what was forecast as a consequence of AGW. Every year it is statistically much more likely that hot temperature records will be broken than cold, and this is borne out by the data. Events like those in Russia, Pakistan and elsewhere are entirely consistent with a warming world. Significant snow events in winter are also entirely consistent with a warming world... until the warming in a particular place takes the temperature above freezing. It is intriguing how few cold temperature records were set last winter, yet there were plenty exceptional snowfalls. In what way is this inconsistent with a warming world?

What would I consider as events consistent with a cooling world? Worldwide, for high temperature records to be broken less often, and an increased frequency of breaking of low temperature records. A reduction in the intensity of extreme precipitation events, be they of rain or snow. A persistent reduction in global mean temperatures, both in individual months and in the 12-month running mean. A significant increase in the volume of Arctic sea ice.

sss

[jethro]

Greywolf and SSS - sorry but I'll have to get back to you later, all the work I should have been doing today has caught up with me and bitten my nether regions.

Later, or possibly tomorrow.