Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Windy?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Summer Sun

Extreme Heat Becoming More Likely Under Climate Change

Recommended Posts

The met office has just released this

10 July 2012 - Groundbreaking research has shown how climate change significantly increased the odds of some recent extreme weather events.

This latest science is featured in a companion piece to The State of the Climate in 2011 report, which is led by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US and is published as part of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS).

The new report, Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective, includes contributions from the Met Office and many other research institutions from around the world. For the first time it includes so-called 'climate attribution studies', looking at six key weather events shortly after they have happened.

Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office and one of the editors of the report, said: "The research here pushes the boundaries of attribution science in quantifying, so soon after the weather events in question, how climate change has altered the odds of their occurrence.

"While we didn't find evidence that climate change has affected the odds of all the extreme weather events we looked at, we did see that some events were significantly more likely. Overall we're seeing that human influence is having a marked impact on some types of extreme weather."

Extreme heat more likely, while the odds on unusually cold periods lengthen

Key findings from the attributions supplement include:

  • December 2010 was the second coldest and November 2011 the second warmest in the Central England temperature record dating back to 1659. The extreme warm average temperature in November 2011 is 60 times more likely to have occurred than in the 1960s. The change in odds of the extremely cold December was considerably less, however, being only about half as likely. Even without climate change, unusual circulation patterns can still bring very cold winter months.
  • In 2011, Texas had its hottest and driest summer in records dating back to 1895. While the heat wave was associated with La Nina conditions in the Pacific Ocean, the heat wave was 20 times more likely in such conditions than it would have been only 50 years ago.
  • There were some remarkable temperatures across Western Europe in 2011. Comparisons to the temperatures previously associated with the weather patterns seen in 2011 reveal the year was almost 1.5 deg C warmer than can be attributed to weather patterns alone.

'Interconnectivity' of climate system revealed in unprecedented detail

The BAMS State of the Climate in 2011 Report also looks at a large range of key climate indicators to assess year-to-year changes.

Dr Kate Willett, a Met Office Climate Monitoring and Attribution scientist and lead editor of the Global Climate chapter of the State of the Climate report, said: "We are in the golden age of satellite technology - we can see our planet changing in more detail than ever before.

"As a result, we see evidence far beyond changing temperatures and have observed intricate links in our climate system - these changes can differ radically from region to region, and impact our daily lives in many different ways."

Examples highlighted by the report include how heavy rainfall in Australia during 2011 exacerbated wildfires - we often associate excessive fires with unusually hot and dry periods. In fact, this rainfall boosted vegetation growth, creating a large fuel bed in the dry season which led to widespread and damaging fires.

Polar stratospheric temperatures were particularly cool through 2011, allowing clouds to build up more than normal. These high cold clouds cause chemical depletion of ozone by substances (e.g. CFC's), contributing to record low levels of ozone over the north and south poles. However, there is no evidence to suggest these record low levels will persist as they have recovered in the past.

http://www.metoffice..._medium=twitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The met office has just released this

Well in 2003 the MO said we should expect more record breaking summers temp wise" 1 in every 3 years"

And to expect wetter,milder winters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heatwaves do seem to be becoming more common worldwide, but feel like a thing of the past in NW Europesad.png the world is definitely warming up though, as yearly worldwide average temperature increases have shown in the past 25 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"While we didn't find evidence that climate change has affected the odds of all the extreme weather events we looked at, we did see that some events were significantly more likely. Overall we're seeing that human influence is having a marked impact on some types of extreme weather."

In other words:

"Despite desperate searching we just couldn't see what we wanted to see but managed to convince ourselves that it's definitely in there somewhere.

Can we have a much bigger research grant please?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe the study was successful so far, in that they found climate change doesn't actually cause an increase in every type of extreme weather type, just most of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"While we didn't find evidence that climate change has affected the odds of all the extreme weather events we looked at, we did see that some events were significantly more likely. Overall we're seeing that human influence is having a marked impact on some types of extreme weather."

Which, basically, is what the evidence shows: cold records are decreasing as warm ones are increasing...

Or maybe the study was successful so far, in that they found climate change doesn't actually cause an increase in every type of extreme weather type, just most of them?

Exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob48.

you will be aware of the 'climate extremes' my neck of the woods has suffered recently and no amount of 'name calling' is going to help with the real suffering here?

I watched the Environment Agency today pledge to work quickly to make such events here less likely to occur by implementing works to help deal with " the increase in Monsoonal like rainfall events we are seeing".

I click on here to see this latest research (ongoing) posted but within a few posts we get your unwillingness to accept the evidence you are given?

I really do wonder what it will take for some folk to accept the danger that we ,as a planet, are now facing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just a fad to blame bad weather as somehow connected to AGW

In the 60s they blamed sputniks, in the 70s it was global cooling due to dust dimming sunlight.

There's always been bad weather and it ends to come in runs.

Pennine valleys have always been vulnerable to flash floods, the fact there;s been 2 or 3 together is simply NOT due to CO2 or reduced sea ice blum.gif and to claim it is compelling evidence is incredibly naive - suggests limited knowledge of what constitutes typical weather conditions in that locality.

I imagine the Environment Agency came up with the 1 in 100 year flood story to cover-up the inadequate design of their recent work.

Not

'climate extremes'
but weather extremes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remain sceptical ...maybe it's all part of the natural process and if we are disturbing the planets balance, be it GHG's, Urban build up or whatever it is, go and preach it to those guys sitting up in their ivory towers who have exhausted most of the planets riches and resources.. who then got wealthy by doing so.. to then say, oh no look what you lot have done now help fix it, sorry im not interested anymore...infact i'm relaxed about it all crazy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

suggests limited knowledge of what constitutes typical weather conditions in that locality.

Good job the Valley is so good at raising brilliant reporters (Like Sir Bernard eh?) to staff their local rags and keep records that show the recent 'upswing' in such events then.....or are 'reports of flooding' just not to be taken literally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current heatwave duration in the USA was last seen in the 1930s, with 1936 being the worst year. though the temperature was slightly less the duration was the same. Climate Change was hardcore in the 1930s... dont see any 5 sigma evidence from these worthless reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

July 6th, 2012

I know that many journalists who lived through the recent heat wave in the East think the event somehow validates global warming theory, but I’m sorry: It’s summer. Heat waves happen. Sure, many high temperature records were broken, but records are always being broken.

And the strong thunderstorms that caused widespread power outages? Ditto.

Regarding the “thousands†of broken records, there are not that many high-quality weather observing stations that (1) operated since the record warm years in the 1930s, and (2) have not been influenced by urban heat island effects, so it’s not at all obvious that the heat wave was unprecedented. Even if it was the worst in the last century for the Eastern U.S. (before which we can’t really say anything), there is no way to know if it was mostly human-caused or natural, anyway.

“But, Roy, the heat wave is consistent with climate model predictions!â€. Yeah, well, it’s also consistent with natural weather variability. So, take your pick.

For the whole U.S. in June, average temperatures were not that remarkable. Here are the last 40 years from my population-adjusted surface temperature dataset, and NOAA’s USHCN (v2) dataset (both based upon 5 deg lat/lon grid averages; click for large version):

1791706999.png

Certainly the U.S drought conditions cannot compare to the 1930s.

I really tire of the media frenzy which occurs when disaster strikes…I’ve stopped answering media inquiries. Mother Nature is dangerous, folks. And with the internet and cell phones, now every time there is a severe weather event, everyone in the world knows about it within the hour. In the 1800s, it might be months before one part of the country found out about disaster in another part of the country. Sheesh.

From - http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remain sceptical ...maybe it's all part of the natural process and if we are disturbing the planets balance, be it GHG's, Urban build up or whatever it is, go and preach it to those guys sitting up in their ivory towers who have exhausted most of the planets riches and resources.. who then got wealthy by doing so.. to then say, oh no look what you lot have done now help fix it, sorry im not interested anymore...infact i'm relaxed about it all crazy.gif

Nowt wrong with being sceptical, S; if it weren't for sceptics science, as an intellectual pursuit, would have died centuries ago! A priori dismissiveness, on the other hand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With attributing weather events to climate change, do any of the naysayers want to actually quote what's wrong with the paper and methodologies, or are ye just gonna continue with sweeping statements and pointless rhetoric?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowt wrong with being sceptical, S; if it weren't for sceptics science, as an intellectual pursuit, would have died centuries ago! A priori dismissiveness, on the other hand?

What will be will be RP, IF it is infact mans fault i won't be losing any sleep over it.

With attributing weather events to climate change, do any of the naysayers want to actually quote what's wrong with the paper and methodologies, or are ye just gonna continue with sweeping statements and pointless rhetoric?

Feel free to be concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

s…I’ve stopped answering media inquiries.

Purely as a matter of interest why are the media pestering you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's easy to see what you want to see but that doesn't necessarily make it correct. In modern times it is nigh on impossible to experience or study weather without adding in the extra possibility of climate change, but the trouble is (IMO) the story changes on a regular basis and we all know that statistics can be used to prove anything.

I first got involved with all this quite a number of years ago due to a work related issue - I wanted to inter-plant an avenue of mature Beech trees with young trees which would grow and super-cede the historical avenue. The site was a Grade 11* listed parkland so I had to apply to English Heritage for consent - it was declined on the basis of climate change. The advice gleaned from the IPCC was that we would no longer have the summer climate to sustain Beech trees (they're shallow rooted and prone to suffer in drought conditions). The RHS was issuing advice along similar lines, plant drought tolerant plants, switch to Mediterranean style planting; we were going to regularly fry in the summer. Indeed the summer of 2006 was held up as a prime example, blamed on climate change, heralded as the shape off things to come. Have we had a decent summer since? Now the wet summer weather is also held up as evidence of climate change. A couple of years ago we were all told that cold, snowy winters would become a rarity, someone at the METO announced that children would no longer have the joy of building snowmen, it would become a thing of the past. Lo and behold, we get a couple of winters with more snow than we've seen for years and bitterly cold temps which rival those from years ago.

I wish someone would make up their minds; are hot summers due to climate change or cold wet ones? Are we going to have cold winters or mild ones? A get out clause of any extreme or unusual weather is climate change but mediocre weather is just that, weather doesn't really cut it for me and makes a mockery of all those weather records which show we've always had extremes. A higher proportion or a series of events doesn't hold much sway either, we've always had clusters of particular weather patterns.

Take as an example the flooding in Calderdale, we're supposed to accept that it's a new or more drastic problem than in the past; climate change must be playing a hand in it. But when you look a little deeper it soon becomes clear that Calderdale has always had a flooding problem, including devastating summer floods, there's documented evidence going back to at least 1615 - long, long before AGW. http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~calderdalecompanion/mmf39.html

IMO the science suffers from a bad case of seek and ye shall find. If you're only looking for one thing though, you're kind of blind to everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For weeks on end the lament on here and other weather boards was/is how boring weather has become with no storms, no heatwaves, no record cold.

Then there's a summer flood in a few places and because that particular place is claimed to have not seen the like in living memory it's clear evidence of climate change?

It's pathetic and shows lack of understanding of normal variability on many levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to see how many we have here more expert about weather and climate (and other matters) than experts. Education, further education and academic study - pah, who needs it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there's a summer flood in a few places and because that particular place is claimed to have not seen the like in living memory it's clear evidence of climate change?

It's pathetic and shows lack of understanding of normal variability on many levels.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The climate is constantly changing and has been for the past 5 billion years.

These arguments are all very futile.

The Met Office should stick to trying to get the weather right 24 hours ahead and the Government should make sure that in the future the right precautions are taken should severe weather strike, whether that be hot or cold, dry or wet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not getting involved 'cos I know exactly the road this exchange is going to take,and I'm weary of it! But I'll tell ya this - if by some arcane mechanism this (so far) wonderful summer can be linked conclusively to melting ice,which in turn can be linked by even more occult routes to our CO2,then I say long live AGW. I'll buy that for a dollar... and encourage wholeheartedly the wholesale burning of all the fossil fuels we can lay our grubby mitts on. Ah, I can but dream,just like the people were dreaming of Mediteranean summers and snowless winters not many years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The climate is constantly changing and has been for the past 5 billion years.

These arguments are all very futile.

The Met Office should stick to trying to get the weather right 24 hours ahead and the Government should make sure that in the future the right precautions are taken should severe weather strike, whether that be hot or cold, dry or wet.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to see how many we have here more expert about weather and climate (and other matters) than experts. Education, further education and academic study - pah, who needs it!

You've disagreed with the decisions of scientists with a greater level of education than yourself, other people have that right too.

With the greatest of respect, those experts with all that education cannot agree with one another nor make a decisions and stick with it. We've had endless studies from numerous sources, all experts in their field and none of us are any the wiser. As I said in my earlier post, according to those experts we were going to have baking hot, dry summers and mild, snowless winters.

I know science moves on, I know theories are refined as more information becomes available but this is beginning to look like a farce. IMO the scientists involved are as much to blame as anyone else, they speak with an authority they couldn't possibly have, given the level of knowledge available. If they would admit and accept there is much we don't yet know, make their conclusions either more vague or with a caveat of 'as far as we can tell with the data available but we don't yet know how all the pieces fit together' then they'd be left looking a little less silly if the weather doesn't do what they predicted.

As it is, this latest study seems more like an exercise in grabbing every weather event which is above the level of mediocre and using it as signs of climate change. It's a get out clause of the highest magnitude when weather can no longer be described as weather and all variations are climate. After all, if you say it may be wet, it may be dry, it may be hot, it may be cold etc etc, you've covered all bases and can't be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×