Climate Extremes: Observations, Modeling, and Impacts

[Ivan Seeking]

One of the major concerns with a potential change in climate is that an increase in extreme events will occur. Results of observational studies suggest that in many areas that have been analyzed, changes in total precipitation are ampliÞed at the tails, and changes in some temperature extremes have been observed. Model output has been analyzed that shows changes in extreme events for future climates, such as increases in extreme high temperatures, decreases in extreme low temperatures, and increases in intense precipitation events. In addition, the societal infrastructure is becoming more sensitive to weather and climate extremes, which would be exacerbated by climate change. In wild plants and animals, climate-induced extinctions, distributional and phenological changes, and speciesÕ range shifts are being documented at an increasing rate. Several apparently gradual biological changes are linked to responses to extreme weather and climate events. [continued]

http://www.biosci.utexas.edu/IB/faculty/parmesan/classes/Eastl_Ntr_00.pdf

 

[Ivan Seeking]

'We've Got Climate Change'

Last June, the Bush administration finally saw the light on global warming -- sort of. The Environmental Protection Agency released a report that, at long last, acknowledged that global warming is real and caused by human activity, especially the production of "greenhouse gases" like carbon dioxide. It is hardly a visionary document -- rather than attempt to stop rising temperatures, the EPA says, communities should simply find ways adapt to the havoc they will wreak.

But even that tepid green-ness was too much for the White House -- after only one day of getting hammered on right-wing talk radio, President Bush distanced himself from the document, sneering, "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy."

It was a typical moment for the Bush administration: repeating the mantra that global warming is unconfirmed and requires more "sound science" -- while the actual scientific evidence mounts that global warming is both real and an increasingly serious problem.

A bombshell of such evidence arrived in January from the biology department of the University of Texas. In a study reported in the scientific journal Nature, UT biologist Camille Parmesan and Wesleyan University economics professor Gary Yohe documented that hundreds of species of plants and animals are shifting their habitat range toward the poles (or higher in elevation), or are experiencing spring reproductive events earlier -- in response to decades of atmospheric warming.

The study covers its bases powerfully -- in examining the work of other biologists, Parmesan and Yohe intentionally excluded studies that might be biased toward the global warming conventional wisdom, seeking multi-species analyses -- some showing nature reacting to warming, some not. Yet, even using this conservative procedure, Parmesan and Yohe found a clear pattern: Over the past century, hundreds of species experienced range shifts averaging about four miles per decade poleward (or 20 feet per decade higher in elevation), or spring events occurring 2.3 days earlier per decade.

In January, Camille Parmesan talked with the Chronicle and discussed at length what her research means for the natural world and humanity, and the impact she hopes the study will have on political discourse.

The following is the full version of that interview, excerpted in the March 7, 2003, print edition of the Chronicle. -- L.N.[continued]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2003-03-07/pols_feature.html

 

[Andre]

The world is full of chicken littles. Apparantly it is time for some more propaganda and hype building like http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,252084,00.html

Now who said?

It may be because of my sheltered existence, but I almost never hear any of this hype. I find I hear much more hype about the hype than actual hype.

Let's go and find the fallacies in those articles.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The world is full of chicken littles. Apparantly it is time for some more propaganda and hype building like http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,252084,00.html

Now who said?


Let's go and find the fallacies in those articles.

Not to say that you have your mind made up before you even look...or anything like that.

 

[Andre]

Well, it took about four years to have that mind made up. Retrieving everything that has been investigated about paleo climate. After such a period you loose your sensitivity to those chicken little stories. Note that the climate upheaval of 5-8 degrees in the next few decades has been reduced to about a degree or so.

It's just a long string of fallacies based on a oversimplified perception.

I have stated elsewhere, which elements could be far more likely causes for a possible human influence on AGW. CO2 is only a very limited factor with little influence.

 

[Njorl]

The world is full of chicken littles. Apparantly it is time for some more propaganda and hype building like http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,252084,00.html

Now who said?


Let's go and find the fallacies in those articles.

That was me.

You are proving my point in microcosm you know. Someone posts rational analysis of scientific studies, and you respond with "chicken little". There was no hype, but you respond with counter-hype anyway.

Njorl

 

[Andre]

Someone posts rational analysis of scientific studies

There is a lot of proof of short term warming in the past ten years. The overall trend of the last century is a slight warming with distinct cooling periods in between.

We know that carbon dioxide is a relative weak (actually the weakest) greenhouse gas. We know from clean clinical calculations that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere is only giving a 0,67 degree response in the temperature.

However, From the ice ages we percieve a huge temperature rise accompagnied by a slight increase in CO2 at the end of alledged glacial and stadial periods. And of course Venus is the clear example of a lot of Carbon dioxide combined with warming.

So the fallacy here is post hoc ergo propter hoc. Notice that all the warming reports invariable point to CO2 as the cause. There is not a single doubt about it yet it is wrong. Venus is not a story of Greenhouse gas. The signals of the ice age have a different cause, carbon dioxide increrase is only a result and not a cause.

There are numerous possible antropogenic causes if we insist on being capable on influencing the climate (repeating myself: haze, soot, aircraft contrails, reforestation, urbanisation -with a definite decrease of albedo). Now we are going to spend billions on something harmless, whilst the real cause remains uncertain. Moreover as of 1940 the sun has been most active since 1000 years and the el ninas are rather strong as well.

Yet al we read is the equvalent of: the sky is falling down, we must stop eating eggs or whatever. The relation is about the same.

 

[Njorl]

You seem to think that any study about climate change must incorporate the entirety of a climatological model, and cover the entire geological record. Some papers just look at part of the puzzle, and add a part to our knowledge base. The conclusion that species have a poleward or increasing altitude migration is just another piece of a puzzle. It does not claim to be evidence of falling sky. While people are saying they have a small piece of evidence concerning global climate mechanisms, you are hearing "The sky is falling!". You seem to have chicken little in your ears.

Njorl

 

[Andre]

I guess we finally have our discussion.

Yes, for sure a constant bombardement of global warming hype for about ten years or so is really not good for objective considerations. Believe me, it's not stronger anywhere but here in Holland. There have been times it was totally inpossible to tune in on a radio or television and not being confronted with CL talk within the hour. It's still delicate. Kyoto is a Dutch invention So the Dutch will make sure it is true.

But it isn't. Plenty of proof. And that's objective, not a reaction on the CL hype.

 

[Andre]

One more thing.

You are proving my point in microcosm you know.

A hidden ad hominem. Too bad. It seems to be the main line of defense of the AGW propaganda , ad hominems , And it is very saddening: "So you are skeptic of AGW, so you are against the environment, So you're an opulent minimalist or microcosmolist. You're a crook".

You think I'm exagarating? Check out this http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2004/Jan%2024.htm :

Dear Prof. Schneider,
I read your book review in NATURE (15.1.04) and found your side remarks on [IPCC] sceptics most interesting. It is news to me that scepticism can be "ideological"; in fact it is more a proof of intelligence and common sense. Ideological are people who are obsessed by a specific idea and ignore the facts that do not support their beliefs ( ... the facts must be wrong!)

"Pointing to uncertainties" has nothing to do with polemics. Polemics come from people who do not have scientific arguments (facts, data) but must resort instead to ad hominem attacks on people with different views.

I have been observing the climatology scene formore than 20 years (independent from any related industry) and I am impressed of the poor style which has been introduced by key IPCC representatives against "sceptics" of the anthropogenic warming theory. "Mainstream science" or "majority decisions" are no means for defining the real truth in science.

There are many open issues: One is Mann's Hockeystick chart which is in contrast to all other historic temperature reconstructions that show clearly the MWP and LIA temperature extremes. Those have been proven in meantime by numerous proxy data also in South America, China and Australia.

The other example are the global temperature ground data and the difference with the satellite measurements. The latter are in agreement with the sounding balloon data and have been audited, not so the ground data which have a more or less large upward trend by urbanization effects and environmental changes over time.

I would have expected you to exhibit a more objective style in the climate debate instead of supporting ideology and discrimination of your colleagues who
have different views.

 

[Andre]

Back to some real science about Global Warming:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14871

Global Warming Fears Melting

New Studies Appearing in Respected Scientific Journals Suggest Time is Running out For the Biggest Eco-Scare of the Twentieth Century

Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: May 1, 2004
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and studies appearing in two respected scientific journals raise serious questions about the science underlying alarmist predictions of global warming.
(...)
NASA: Predictions "Exaggerated"
According to Environment & Energy Daily, the new data show "predictions about global warming have exaggerated its potential effects."

Computer Models Fail Test
(...) Such errors argue for extreme caution in applying simulation results to future climate-change assessment activities and to attribution studies and call into question the predictive ability of recent generation model simulations."

New Studies Further Debunk Kilimanjaro
A new study in the March issue of International Journal of Climatology further debunked alarmist claims that global warming is causing a retreat of the famous alpine glacier atop Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro.

I wonder in what category AGW will fall:

a: Science? OK, we had an hypothesis about global warming. We made predictions and the tests failed repeatedly. Hence the hypothesis is not valid, we need another hypothesis.

b: Politics? Never mind about the tests. It's irrelevant. We need global warming for the industries to switch to other forms of energy especially nuclear power, for the nations to unite, for the third world to help them along etc, etc. Nice and nobel prospects but using a wrong cause.

c: Religion? And yet, nothing can change my believe in Global warming. No-one will ever refute it. Beware if you attack my believe.

 

[Njorl]

A hidden ad hominem. Too bad. It seems to be the main line of defense of the AGW propaganda , ad hominems , And it is very saddening: "So you are skeptic of AGW, so you are against the environment, So you're an opulent minimalist or microcosmolist. You're a crook".

I think you completely misinterpreted my comment. By, "You are proving my point in microcosm..." I was simply stating that in this small case, you are demonstrating over-reation to reports of possible evidence relating to global warming. I have no idea what a "microcosmolist" is. You saw the word "microcosm" and became irrational. You didn't bother to comprehend the sentence it was in. Your knee-jerk reaction to this comment again shows that, whichever side is right, there are many on the "no-AGW" side who have become emotional to the point of ignoring the debate. It is their ranting I hear, their hype that pervades, not that of the proponents of the existence of AGW. Ten years ago it was the opposite. Now though, one is much more likely to here unfounded anti-AGW hype than pro.

Njorl

 

[Andre]

Microcosm:
A little world; a miniature universe. Hence, man, as a supposed epitome of the exterior universe or great world

Each population believes that it is the best in the world. With few exceptions, people love the microcosm into which they are born and don't want to leave it.
--Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, Peoples, and Languages

Interpretation: You, Andre, just love your own small world and can't understand that global warming is something huge, that calls for a marcocosmic vision, that you lack.

Yes I like to invent words, the one I'm most proud of is "geologossip".

 

[Andre]

This is how the ad hominem department (a.k.a ministery of thruth - George Orwell 1984) works:

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1998/326/326p28bx.htm

Expertise'
The following were some of the main on-camera “experts” in Against Nature:


Professor Wilfred Beckerman, identified as “a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution” (in 1970-73).
Nowhere was it indicated that Beckerman's professorial expertise is in national accounting economics, not the physical sciences. (“What exactly is the value of all this biodiversity?”, Beckerman asked rhetorically: it seems there's no entry for biodiversity in the national accounts.)


Fred Singer was identified as “former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program”. There is no government body by that name in the United States, and a search by the US Information Service Library in Sydney failed to turn up any private body by that name.
Singer is better known as the executive director of a US think-tank called Science and Environment Policy Project, which was originally funded by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. Singer's academic career was distinguished by lots of funding from energy companies; he hasn't published original research on climate change in more than two decades.


Piers Corbyn was identified as a “meteorologist” from South Bank University. Corbyn's university degree is in astrophysics. In the 1980s, he publicly claimed to have discovered a way of making long-term weather forecasts by observing sun spots. Instead of presenting his discovery in a scientific journal, Corbyn started placing bets on the weather with a bookmaker, and claimed to be successful.
Last November, he floated on the London stock exchange a company, Weather Action, which provides weather forecasting to business for a fee. Although the company had a turnover of only £144,000 in the year to March 1997 and had lost £68,000 in the period immediately before the float (London Daily Telegraph, November 15), the market capitalised Weather Action at £5.3 million.


Steven Hayward was identified as director of the “Pacific Research Centre”. The body Hayward really heads, the Pacific Research Institute, is a well-known Californian right-wing “think-tank” that sponsors “an annual competition on privatising local and state government services”. Its “research” is conducted in accordance with it self-described “mission of applying market solutions to public policy problems”. It is a prominent opponent of affirmative action for African-Americans.

Senator Larry Craig was brought into testify to environmentalists' great political influence. “It's said they control the Clinton administration”, he said with a straight face. Craig is prominent in the ultra-right anti-environmental “Wise Use” movement and its Alliance for America, whose funders include the Moonies, the American Mining Congress, American Petroleum Institute and National Rifle Association.

Gregg Easterbrook, a former journalist, is the author of A Moment on the Earth, a book of environmental pollyanna-ism, including such statements as: dioxin is nothing to worry about because it's in the same chemical family as table salt; there is no ozone hole over the North Pole; a radioactive waste dump in New Mexico will cease to be dangerous in 300 years (it contains 900 kilograms of plutonium-239, which has a half-life of 24,400 years).
Jack C. Schultz, professor of entomology at Pennsylvania State University, wrote in Natural History magazine that A Moment on the Earth “contains some of the most egregious cases of misunderstood, misstated, misinterpreted, and plainly incorrect `science' writing I've ever encountered”.

Now where are the tar and the feathers. Let's lynch these guys.

 

[Nereid]

So tell us about paleo climates Andre, and how they are relevant to the Holocene!

As I think I said elsewhere, the economics of many a global warming article can be questionable (personal view), but let's have a discussion on the science shall we? Why not propose a protocol for such a discussion, one that avoids the ad homs (IMHO Njorl is just about the last PF member to engage in such) and allows the data and the science to be presented concisely, the key points identified, and a decent debate to occur?

*Separately* perhaps we could discuss risk mitigation, when dealing with barely understood, (possibly) smouldering risks that have (potentially) horrendous impacts (I might propose a protocol for that).

 

[Andre]

Tell about palaeo climates? Sure. I have done that before. If you google (when will this verb make it to the Webster?) with combinations of obvious terms as "ice age", "Pleistocene", "not understood", "mystery" you get lots of hits, surprisingly enough, many of my futile attemps on the first page.

Anyway, it's a long and complicated macrocosmic story in which it is becoming clear that the Earth has just started to enter into a chaotic behaviour phase, whereas Venus has ended that phase about half a billion years ago. This phase is concealed mainly as rapid and erratic climate changes in the past million years, the second half of the Pleistocene. Obviously the hypothesis is highly "counter intuitive" but if endorsed once, it renders the CO2- AGW hype a futile microcosmic notion.

This is the phase that I was referring to:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/RPTW-system.jpg

Now, where to begin? At the left hand, about how the system may work or at the right hand, where the pieces of the puzzle are falling nicely into place? And bottom up? emphasising how the current theories cannot explain numerous anomalies in the Pleistocene or top down? with a multiple phased rapid true polar wanders filling in the blanks?

Risk mitigation is a good idea. The RTPW story may even have some useful suggestions, albeit totally different from cutting back on fossile fuels and building windmills.

Solving Palaeo climate problems is simply the act of finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw (into the concrete).

(free interpretation of Brezikar's law about computer technology.)