Extreme Heat Becoming More Likely Under Climate Change

[full_frontal_occlusion]

Climate (like quantum mechanics) is a stochastic process, it cannot be understood purely in terms of patterns or attributing specific events to a definitive cause. But like quantum mechanics it can be made sense of on a probabalistic level.

Everyone has an opinion on the subject and the problems occur when those opinions are shared as if they were definitive scientific authority. As well as the lay-person, those opinions also come from very highly respected individuals from Nobel-Prize winning physicists to senior politicians, QC's and other respected statesmen. But even these individuals are no more qualified to speak authoritively than Joe Bloggs on the matter.

Media has earned itself a bad reputation for sensationalism and over-extrapolation. Together with the unstoppable deluge of conflicting information and mis-information it's easy to 'cherry-pick' articles to back up one's own personal viewpoint and completely trash everything else.

Many take the view that the Earth's climate has always changed and that our very existence means we are not the cause of climate change and even if we were, the Earth will recover - eventually.

There is one glaring fact overlooked: That never in all of biological history has 7 billion humans existed and whose entire future depends on the state of the Earth.

We do not have a clear picture of what will happen tomorrow or in 30 years to the planets shifting climates. What we do know is that CO₂ is inextricably linked with the Earths average global temperature and that continuing to strip the planet clean of it's non-renewable resources and unabated anthropogenic dumping of by products into the atmosphere and oceans is an uncontrolled experiment on a global scale.

But increasing scientific literacy will not win over hardened sceptics even though the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on which direction global-warming is headed and why.

I believe the world is divided into two climate change camps (believers and sceptics), each following the path not necessarily of true science, but governed by their own individual personality. Those of a hierarchical, individualitic world view are more likely to be sceptical, whilst those of a more egalitarian, communitarian worldview are more likely to side with the scientific majority. The old self interest vs altruistic individual divide. Increasing scientific literacy only hardens the divide.

And therein is the issue, that whichever view one takes, the opposite camp is perceived as threatening their individual values and freedoms and no ammount of evidence will convince otherwise. Political policy fears drive each camps empirical viewpoint not the science.

Action which is perceived to negatively affects those within the opposing camp will always be rejected. The more comfortable route for these people is to question the science and delay action.

The argument will not be won at the scientific level.

ffO.

Edited July 11, 2012 by full_frontal_occlusion

[knocker]

Assuming that the climate is in a constant state of flux (AGW? Natural variation? Both?) I find it hard to believe that man-made CC is not having any effect on world-wide weather?

Can we have it both ways? On the one hand AGW is all poppycock (to be dismissed at all costs) and on the other, weather-variability is eagerly-attributed to Solar Cycles, lunar cycles, volcanoes, cosmic rays, black carbon etc., etc. ad infinitum. You can pick-and-mix to your heart's content, it seems - so long as CO₂ is left out of the equation?

Does anyone know why that is?

Slipped their memory. perhaps. A bit odd when you consider Paleo ice core records from Antarctica have revealed that current levels CO² are unprecedented over the last 800kyr. And this isn't going play some role in the current scenario? Then I'm as good a singer as Mario Lanza.

Edited July 11, 2012 by knocker

[jethro]

Who actually has said that? I ask because I must I must have missed it. The whole point of the discussion is to attempt to separate the AGW signal from the normal variability and this has been the subject of numerous peer reviewed papers over the last few years. On balance from what I have read there appears to be a distinct probablity that human intervention is affecting normal variability.

What is pathetic is that those who disagree with this (which they are perfectly entitled to do) almost always fail to support their dismissive comments with any form of serious scientific argument. As Devonian points out above there seem to be a number of experts on here who are self-appointed.

You can turn that the other way around and ask on the basis of our own individual training and qualifications, how do any of us read a paper and actually check and verify the information? None of us do, none of us can.

What's pathetic is that this is a discussion forum, a paper or study gets posted for discussion, a few people join in and anyone who disagrees or questions the science is dismissed out of hand. An appeal made to some random level of authority, citing the experts know more than us so they must be right and we cannot criticise. Where's the discussion in that?

[jethro]

Climate (like quantum mechanics) is a stochastic process, it cannot be understood purely in terms of patterns or attributing specific events to a definitive cause. But like quantum mechanics it can be made sense of on a probabalistic level.

Everyone has an opinion on the subject and the problems occur when those opinions are shared as if they were definitive scientific authority. As well as the lay-person, those opinions also come from very highly respected individuals from Nobel-Prize winning physicists to senior politicians, QC's and other respected statesmen. But even these individuals are no more qualified to speak authoritively than Joe Bloggs on the matter.

Media has earned itself a bad reputation for sensationalism and over-extrapolation. Together with the unstoppable deluge of conflicting information and mis-information it's easy to 'cherry-pick' articles to back up one's own personal viewpoint and completely trash everything else.

Many take the view that the Earth's climate has always changed and that our very existence means we are not the cause of climate change and even if we were, the Earth will recover - eventually.

There is one glaring fact overlooked: That never in all of biological history has 7 billion humans existed and whose entire future depends on the state of the Earth.

We do not have a clear picture of what will happen tomorrow or in 30 years to the planets shifting climates. What we do know is that CO₂ is inextricably linked with the Earths average global temperature and that continuing to strip the planet clean of it's non-renewable resources and unabated anthropogenic dumping of by products into the atmosphere and oceans is an uncontrolled experiment on a global scale.

But increasing scientific literacy will not win over hardened sceptics even though the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on which direction global-warming is headed and why.

I believe the world is divided into two climate change camps (believers and sceptics), each following the path not necessarily of true science, but governed by their own individual personality. Those of a hierarchical, individualitic world view are more likely to be sceptical, whilst those of a more egalitarian, communitarian worldview are more likely to side with the scientific majority. The old self interest vs altruistic individual divide. Increasing scientific literacy only hardens the divide.

And therein is the issue, that whichever view one takes, the opposite camp is perceived as threatening their individual values and freedoms and no ammount of evidence will convince otherwise. Political policy fears drive each camps empirical viewpoint not the science.

Action which is perceived to negatively affects those within the opposing camp will always be rejected. The more comfortable route for these people is to question the science and delay action.

The argument will not be won at the scientific level.

ffO.

And that for me sums up one of the fundamental problems with this debate. If you can't convince people with the science, you can dismiss them with philosophy.

To have a curious, critical mind is an imperative in science; up to the point that you question something and then your curiosity is apparently a demonstration of your own personal fears.

How bizarre.

[Buzzit]

For the heralds of climate change, the worst thing that happened was allowing climate change to be referred to as global warming... It will take decades to win back the publics trust if ever because of it.

At the same time using climate change does not work either as most people think the weather changes all the time so what's new and is simply a throw away term to enable carbon taxes and the like (money grabbing governments) once global warming didn't work

If we knew with certainty what the weather would be in two weeks time then I think people would listen more and I don't think it's a individualistic vs communitarian issue

[Methuselah]

Slipped their memory. perhaps. A bit odd when you consider Paleo ice core records from Antarctica have revealed that current levels CO² are unprecedented over the last 800kyr. And this isn't going play some role in the current scenario? Then I'm as good a singer as Mario Lanza.

So, I thought I'd use a wee bit of humour in order to defuse the situation, Mario??

But, humour aside, I guess I'm part 'believer' (How can one dismiss, out-of-hand, CO₂?) and part 'sceptic' (How can we attribute each-and-every meteorological vagary on CO₂?)...

To be honest, I don't think that we can, justifiably, do either? Sadly, the media and politicians appear to think otherwise...

And that for me sums up one of the fundamental problems with this debate. If you can't convince people with the science, you can dismiss them with philosophy.

To have a curious, critical mind is an imperative in science; up to the point that you question something and then your curiosity is apparently a demonstration of your own personal fears.

How bizarre.

Which cuts both ways, J...

[full_frontal_occlusion]

And that for me sums up one of the fundamental problems with this debate. If you can't convince people with the science, you can dismiss them with philosophy.

To have a curious, critical mind is an imperative in science; up to the point that you question something and then your curiosity is apparently a demonstration of your own personal fears.

How bizarre.

I think you may have missed my point. I'm not talking about people who are climate scientists who can speak with authority be they from either camp. Nor do I state that scientific arguments can be dismissed from a philosophical viewpoint.

My point is that scientific argument at the majority of lay-persons level is not where the debate can be argued and won.

But your outburst does prove my point that climate science is a very emotive subject.

ffO.

Edited July 11, 2012 by full_frontal_occlusion

[jethro]

So, I thought I'd use a wee bit of humour in order to defuse the situation, Mario??

But, humour aside, I guess I'm part 'believer' (How can one dismiss, out-of-hand, CO₂?) and part 'sceptic' (How can we attribute each-and-every meteorological vagary on CO₂?)...

To be honest, I don't think that we can, justifiably, do either? Sadly, the media and politicians appear to think otherwise...

Which cuts both ways, J...

Agreed. But when did philosophy and morals become an acceptable substitute for empirical data?

At best, all the science combined can tell us with a degree of authority is that CO2 has the potential to warm the climate. Anything more than that, and we're into speculation territory. If those who adhere to the idea that we've already had a dramatic impact upon our climate were a little less adamant in their conclusions, and a little more open to the idea that we still only have vague ideas then perhaps there would be a little less dismissal of their conclusions.

At the end of the day this is science we're talking about, not faith or religion. Empirical data trumps all in science.

[Radiating Dendrite]

I tell you what try this. Go home, switch off all your computers, TVs and radios. Don't buy newspapers and make sure you get NO access to any weather forecast/data - just that which you can see, observe.

Then, make a weather forecast.

Climate. If you bring long periods of time into argument you can wave away any level of unemployment, any level of crime, any level of poverty, any level of anything. It's a non argument.

Fact is it's easy to rubbish.

I am confused?

So they are making climate predictions blind with no information? Then why bother?

This argument has been doing the rounds for decades! Were we not all going to freeze in a new ice age in the 1970s? Frazzle in the 1990s?

People are so sceptical because of the amount of crap that has been spouted by both sides in the climate argument. Nobody really knows what the hell is going on with any certainty.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Polar Attack

[jethro]

I think you may have missed my point. I'm not talking about people who are climate scientists who can speak with authority be they from either camp. Nor do I state that scientific arguments can be dismissed from a philosophical viewpoint.

My point is that scientific argument at the majority of lay-persons level is not where the debate can be argued and won.

But your outburst does prove my point that climate science is a very emotive subject.

ffO.

And your last sentence sums it up nicely. You attribute criticism to emotion, that is your interpretation and a reflection of your reaction, not mine. I've got a logical mind, I reserve emotional outbursts to personal issues and even then, it takes a bomb going off to shake me out of my laissez faire attitude to life.

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't know whether it's just 'today' or whether I've been moving toward this conclusion for some years but I now see that we will never move this discussion forward.

I did hope that we could in that I believe that in moving forward we could begin to work toward saving the countless species and people that climate change will impact over the coming decades.

I laboured under the belief that study and mounting evidence would be enough to bring consensus that we need adapt to the changes we are seeing ,and will see, across our planet.

When TAR4 came out I thought that a 90% plus confidence that humanity was altering the global climate would be enough for us all to see it wise to take steps to mitigate against the changes we were told to expect. I was dismayed to see the number of ,what I considered 'reasonable posters' ,who said they needed more 'proof' (even knowing that there are no 'absolutes' in science)? I should have abandoned all hope that they could be 'helped' to witness things the way I was and that their unwillingness to accept the report was not an 'error' in their understanding but a 'sign' of their understanding?

For the years since we've been asked to bring forward 'proof' that our climate was changing due to mans activities and so I was heartened to see the interim reports on the ongoing studies the showed an increasing statistical likelihood that without human forcing many of the extreme events (worldwide) would not be occurring.

With the publication of this paper I thought that the evidence would prove acceptable but again it prove not to be so.

The studies are ongoing and this years wealth of weather extremes will certainly prove valuable to those engaged in the study but it will still not be enough 'proof' will it?

The impact of low ice conditions on N. Hemisphere atmospheric circulation is another year further on in it's studies (and data collection) but the same group of posters will refuse to accept the findings/conclusions that science draws here.

I will continue to study these changes to 'weather extremes' and Arctic sea ice loss but I will abandon any notion that by bringing these changes to folks attention I will change the minds of those folk now questioning this latest report. That is a 'no win' situation. I still believe though that the many 'lurkers' find the information valuable and will have it add to their understanding of the changing climate/planet we live on.

[Methuselah]

Agreed. But when did philosophy and morals become an acceptable substitute for empirical data?

At best, all the science combined can tell us with a degree of authority is that CO2 has the potential to warm the climate. Anything more than that, and we're into speculation territory. If those who adhere to the idea that we've already had a dramatic impact upon our climate were a little less adamant in their conclusions, and a little more open to the idea that we still only have vague ideas then perhaps there would be a little less dismissal of their conclusions.

At the end of the day this is science we're talking about, not faith or religion. Empirical data trumps all in science.

In many respects I agree, J...But the thermochemical/quantum mechanical attributes of CO₂ have, without a shadow of doubt, been empirically proven; it's the 'what ifs' that both sides of the debate routinely utilize in their respective quests for the moral high-ground, that muddy the waters...

[jethro]

I don't know whether it's just 'today' or whether I've been moving toward this conclusion for some years but I now see that we will never move this discussion forward.

I did hope that we could in that I believe that in moving forward we could begin to work toward saving the countless species and people that climate change will impact over the coming decades.

I laboured under the belief that study and mounting evidence would be enough to bring consensus that we need adapt to the changes we are seeing ,and will see, across our planet.

When TAR4 came out I thought that a 90% plus confidence that humanity was altering the global climate would be enough for us all to see it wise to take steps to mitigate against the changes we were told to expect. I was dismayed to see the number of ,what I considered 'reasonable posters' ,who said they needed more 'proof' (even knowing that there are no 'absolutes' in science)? I should have abandoned all hope that they could be 'helped' to witness things the way I was and that their unwillingness to accept the report was not an 'error' in their understanding but a 'sign' of their understanding?

For the years since we've been asked to bring forward 'proof' that our climate was changing due to mans activities and so I was heartened to see the interim reports on the ongoing studies the showed an increasing statistical likelihood that without human forcing many of the extreme events (worldwide) would not be occurring.

With the publication of this paper I thought that the evidence would prove acceptable but again it prove not to be so.

The studies are ongoing and this years wealth of weather extremes will certainly prove valuable to those engaged in the study but it will still not be enough 'proof' will it?

The impact of low ice conditions on N. Hemisphere atmospheric circulation is another year further on in it's studies (and data collection) but the same group of posters will refuse to accept the findings/conclusions that science draws here.

I will continue to study these changes to 'weather extremes' and Arctic sea ice loss but I will abandon any notion that by bringing these changes to folks attention I will change the minds of those folk now questioning this latest report. That is a 'no win' situation. I still believe though that the many 'lurkers' find the information valuable and will have it add to their understanding of the changing climate/planet we live on.

Why seek to change people's opinions on a subject where you admit there are no absolutes? If there are no definitive answers then by definition, your opinion and the science you base it upon is also open to question. Why not be happy with just expressing your opinion and leaving others to make up their own minds? This isn't a competition.

Going on the above post and the many others you have made over the years, much of what you say is based upon your concern for the planet and the creatures which inhabit it. That attitude to life and lifestyle isn't the preserve of those who wholeheartedly support AGW. It is a fallacy that those who don't subscribe to AGW live a life of consumerist ignorance.

[jethro]

In many respects I agree, J...But the thermochemical/quantum mechanical attributes of CO₂ have, without a shadow of doubt, been empirically proven; it's the 'what ifs' that both sides of the debate routinely utilize in their respective quests for the moral high-ground, that muddy the waters...

But we're not talking about whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of warming the planet, we're questioning whether it has and if so, by how much. For which, despite the endless studies and some of the best minds in the world working on this question, we do not have the answer. When the fundamental question of positive/negative feedbacks has been unravelled, we may be closer to having an accurate picture; until then, all studies, from all sides should be viewed as one possible answer. Not THE answer.

[Methuselah]

Going on the above post and the many others you have made over the years, much of what you say is based upon your concern for the planet and the creatures which inhabit it. That attitude to life and lifestyle isn't the preserve of those who wholeheartedly support AGW. It is a fallacy that those who don't subscribe to AGW live a life of consumerist ignorance.

Agreed, J. But it is true that many of those who financially back 'sceptical' mouthpieces have their snouts firmly entrenched in the fossil-fuel-dependent way of life. The same is also true with many of those peddling 'renewable' energy sources vis-a-vis the 'pros'...

[Methuselah]

But we're not talking about whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of warming the planet, we're questioning whether it has and if so, by how much. For which, despite the endless studies and some of the best minds in the world working on this question, we do not have the answer. When the fundamental question of positive/negative feedbacks has been unravelled, we may be closer to having an accurate picture; until then, all studies, from all sides should be viewed as one possible answer. Not THE answer.

But the question is: do we continue to do nothing until each-and-every feedback mechanism is finally unravelled, or do we adopt a precautionary principle? And, are the feedbacks not, by virtue of their very existence, empirical proof that warming is indeed occurring? No warming --> no feedback?

Where you and I agree unequivocally, I believe, is that we both abhor the tendency to blame every little piece of meteorological variation on Anthropogenic Global Warming; because, however much the media/politicians love them, such conflations are, IMO, nonsense!

[Buzzit]

But the question is: do we continue to do nothing until each-and-every feedback mechanism is finally unravelled, or do we adopt a precautionary principle? And, are the feedbacks not, by virtue of their very existence, empirical proof that warming is indeed occurring? No warming --> no feedback?

I would suggest we have been in a relatively precautionary state for some time (at least since the banning of CFCs) I would ask at what point does precautionary become conservative / laissez faire / or reactionary... By determining these threshold points as a society or global village we will be able to move the debate forward (or be stuck in a roadblock)

[Gray-Wolf]

Why seek to change people's opinions on a subject where you admit there are no absolutes? If there are no definitive answers then by definition, your opinion and the science you base it upon is also open to question. Why not be happy with just expressing your opinion and leaving others to make up their own minds? This isn't a competition.

Going on the above post and the many others you have made over the years, much of what you say is based upon your concern for the planet and the creatures which inhabit it. That attitude to life and lifestyle isn't the preserve of those who wholeheartedly support AGW. It is a fallacy that those who don't subscribe to AGW live a life of consumerist ignorance.

i was worried that I had somehow 'understood' the peril better than they had and that I might be able to paraphrase in a way that helped the penny drop for them?

As the years wore on the frustration at my 'failure' to help folk understand the peril the way I had must have become more apparent. As ever, I'm sorry for any upset I managed to cause.

I now understand/accept that I have been wrong.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Can I ask, anyone here, what is wrong with the actual methodology of the study in question. What is it that can make folk simply dismiss it out of hand, other than they don't like the results?

We're adding huge amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere which is a proven greenhouse gas.

This is increasing the global temperature. Some areas are warming faster than others. Thermal, pressure, thickness gradients are being altered because of this, which is altering the dynamics of many atmospheric processes. The extra warmth means the air can hold more water vapour, causing further warming and meaning there is an increase in precipitable water in the atmosphere.

All this and much more are altering the weather, but not controlling it. Natural variability will always play the lead role.

Moving onto what I think is the essence of the debate, why is climate change so unique with the ferocity of debates?

Why isn't evolution treated the same way? Or seismology? Or medicine?

Why is it then that people can be so vehemently against those that believe AGW/ACC, be so against the organisations that fund the research, be so against the scientists conducting the research (to the point that they receive hate mail and death threats!).

Could it be the hydrocarbon and other industry funded propaganda? These organisations run mainly by journalists, religious zealouts and Friedman free-market nuts? They can't win the debate with science so they don't bother to fund that, instead, they turn to emotive techniques, stirring up hatred in so many minds. They use billboards to compare AGW believers to serial killers, claim that every little change in data they don't understand is a conspiracy and cover-up (NSIDC ice extent in April), keep circulating the same debunked myths over and over (it's the sun, it's the oceans, cosmic rays, volcanoes, urbanisation, any and every unfounded thing but CO2), deride top climate scientists incessantly, claim it's all a big conspircay to control people, make money off carbon tax, one world order, bla bla bla, then fund documentaries where they put this nonesense into a neat little package for distribution. Then anyone who happens to be taken in by much of this, quickly finds a forum where they can spout all this and demonstrate how smart they are, that they figured out the conspiracy while all these idiots still think there's actually a problem!

From then on it doesn't become a case of debating the actual science, it only debating the results. Any rare paper that seems to supports the denier/sceptic view is paraded around the usual circle, as though divine. Anything else is attacked.

This seems to be exactly what's happening here. So many people are just dismissing the study because they don't agree with the results, using excuses like

it's just about getting more grant money,

they said an ice age was coming in the 70s,

it's just weather,

it's been hot before,

climate is always changing so it doesn't matter,

As well as interpreting the media scare stories and being the scientific consensus.

Of course, the above doesn't explain the nuances of every sceptic/denier position but what can you do? It's a 5h1tty situation and so far the propaganda is working. Consensus around published climate scientists is 97-98%, but I'd say the sceptics have the upper hand with the general public. Quite an odd disparity methinks.

Genuine sceptical attitudes and critical thinking across the board in necessary for the advancement of any science, but I see little of that here from those who'd probably consider themselves sceptics.

And now to await the onslaught...

[laserguy]

So, I thought I'd use a wee bit of humour in order to defuse the situation, Mario??

Who was that bunch that got busted over dodgy e-mails a coupla years back, y'know - the Climategate thing? I bet if you asked 'em to come up with anagrams of 'Mario Lanza', 'climate change' would be in the list but they'd never tell you how they came up with it.

[Buzzit]

And now to await the onslaught...

Ha Ha... But seriously, I still refer back to my point that if we cannot say for certainty what the weather will be two weeks in advance then I will treat the data and conclusions drawn with a degree of scepticism...

That does not mean for one second that I think human activities such as deforrestation, or oil shale mining are acceptable. But niether do I think regulation based on cow farts is acceptable either.

[Buzzit]

i was worried that I had somehow 'understood' the peril better than they had and that I might be able to paraphrase in a way that helped the penny drop for them?

As the years wore on the frustration at my 'failure' to help folk understand the peril the way I had must have become more apparent. As ever, I'm sorry for any upset I managed to cause.

I now understand/accept that I have been wrong.

GW : There is nothing wrong with acknowledging your convictions and informing others of such. You are not hurting anyone by doing so.. honour yourself by honouring your convictions in a constructive way. Start a website, collect information, distribute, no harm in that but you need to have a thick skin, as anyone does when they put themselves above the parapet

[Devonian]

Ha Ha... But seriously, I still refer back to my point that if we cannot say for certainty what the weather will be two weeks in advance then I will treat the data and conclusions drawn with a degree of scepticism...

There is a distinction between weather forecasts and climate projections - the two are very different. I can't forecast what number the next dice roll will bring, but I can predict on average how may sixes to expect over time. Load the dice and things change.

That does not mean for one second that I think human activities such as deforrestation, or oil shale mining are acceptable. But niether do I think regulation based on cow farts is acceptable either.

And what proposed regulation is based on cows farts? Not one....

[Devonian]

Who was that bunch that got busted over dodgy e-mails a coupla years back, y'know - the Climategate thing? I bet if you asked 'em to come up with anagrams of 'Mario Lanza', 'climate change' would be in the list but they'd never tell you how they came up with it.

Since you wish to draw our attention to emails, for addition information people should look at (warning!! they contain foul abuse directed at a climate scientist) these emails as well....

[4wd]

Since you wish to draw our attention to emails, for addition information people should look at (warning!! they contain foul abuse directed at a climate scientist) these emails as well....

Entirely irrelevant, should be deleted - and there are plenty of interesting attacks on sceptics I could point too.