Extreme weather and climate change: a new IPCC report
Extreme weather events are already being affected by human-caused climate change, and will increase in destructive power during the coming decades as huge cost, reported the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today. The IPCC issues reports on the state of the scientific knowledge of climate change every six years, with the next full report due out in 2013. However, concern over the possible impact climate change may already be having on extreme weather events like heat waves, floods, and droughts prompted the IPCC to release their first-ever Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). The SREX report was divided into two sections: how human-caused climate change has already affected extreme weather events, and predictions on how these events will change during the rest of the century. Here are some highlights on how the climate has already changed, according to the SREX report:
- Globally, cold days and nights have decreased, and warm days and nights have increased (90 - 100% chance).
- In many but not all regions of the globe, the length or number of heat waves has increased.
- Some areas have seen more intense and longer droughts, in particular, southern Europe and West Africa. However, droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter in some areas, such as central North America and northwestern Australia.
- Heavy precipitation events have changed in some regions. There is at least a 2-in-3 probability that more regions have seen increases than decreases in heavy precipitation events.
- The historical data base on hurricanes and tropical cyclones is not good enough to tell if they have changed.
- The jet stream has shifted towards the poles, meaning that the tracks of rain-bearing low pressure systems have also shifted towards the poles.
- Rising sea levels have led to an increase in extreme coastal flooding events (66 - 100% chance).
- Damage from extreme weather events has increased. Increases in population and wealth, and the fact more people are living in vulnerable areas, is a major cause of this increase in damage. It is uncertain if climate change is partially responsible for the increase in damage.
Figure 1. Predicted return periods for 1-day extreme precipitation events that occurred, on average, only once every 20 years between 1981-2000. A decrease in return period implies more frequent extreme precipitation events (i.e., less time between events on average). For Eastern North America, a 1-in-20 year heavy rain event is predicted to become a 1-in-7 to 1-in-9 year event by the end of the century, according to these climate model predictions. The box plots show results for regionally averaged projections for two time horizons, 2046 to 2065 and 2081 to 2100, as compared to the late-20th-century, and for three different emissions scenarios--a scenario where humans emit relatively little CO2 and other heat-trapping gasses (B1, blue bars), and two higher-emission scenarios (A1B and A2, green and red bars). Humanity is currently on a pace to emit more CO2 than the highest emission scenario shown here. Results are based on 14 climate models that contributed to the 2007 IPCC report. The level of agreement among the models is indicated by the size of the colored boxes (in which 50% of the model projections are contained), and the length of the whiskers (indicating the maximum and minimum projections from all models). Values are computed for land points only. The “Globe” inset box displays the values computed using all land grid points. Averaged over all areas of the globe, a 1-in-20 year heavy rain event is predicted to become a 1-in-8 to 1-in-12 year event by the end of the century. Image credit: The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters (SREX), 2011.
Here are some highlights of the forecasts for the future from the 2011 SREX report:
- A 1-in-20 year hottest day is at least 66% likely to become a 1-in-2 year event by the end of the 21st century in most regions, except in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, where it is likely to become a 1-in-5 year event.
- For Eastern North America, a 1-in-20 year heavy rain event is predicted to become a 1-in-7 to 1-in-9 year event by the end of the century.
- For Eastern North America, a maximum high temperature that occurred only once every 20 years during 1980 - 2000 is predicted to occur between once every three years and once per year by 2100.
- Extreme high temperature readings that occur once every 20 years will increase by 1°C to 3°C (1.8°F - 5.4°F) by mid-21st century and by about 2°C to 5°C (3.6°F - 9°F) by late-21st century.
- It is at least 66% likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe. This is particularly the case in the high latitudes and tropical regions, and in winter in the northern mid-latitudes. There is medium confidence that, in some regions, increases in heavy precipitation will occur despite projected decreases of total precipitation in those regions.
- Heavy rainfalls associated with tropical cyclones are at least 66% likely to increase with continued warming, and the maximum winds will increase. The total number of these storms is likely to remain about the same or decrease.
- There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century in some seasons and areas. Southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, Central North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil, and southern Africa are at particular risk.
- In some regions, the main driver for increased damages from extreme weather events will not be climate change, but increases in population and wealth and vulnerability.
Intoducing climatecommunication.org
For those of you seeking detailed information on the research linking extreme weather events to climate change, I recommend a new website dedicated to improving communication of climate change information to the public, media, and policy makers, climatecommunication.org. The group is led by Susan Joy Hassol, a veteran climate change communicator, analyst, and author known for her ability to translate science into English, making complex issues accessible to policymakers and the public. Climatecommunication.org has put together an overview of extreme weather and climate change that I find a helpful resource when I am looking for the latest research results on the subject. I serve on their advisory board, along with a number of leading climate scientists.
Figure 2. Still image of the Bangkok, Thailand floods of October - November, 2011, as seen on the inaugural episode our new bi-monthly Extreme Weather video series.
Wunderground launches new Extreme Weather video series
Wunderground now features a new, twice-monthly Extreme Weather video series from GREEN.TV, with the latest reports and analysis on extreme weather around the world. From droughts to hurricanes to blizzards to flooding, Extreme Weather will cover the story and the science behind the events to try to understand their causes and consequences. The Extreme Weather series is sponsored by Vestas, the world's leading wind turbine manufacturer. The inaugural episode, launched yesterday, features video of the great Thailand flood, destructive floods in Italy, the $3 billion Northeast U.S. snowstorm of October 29 - 30, the massive Bering Sea, Alaska blizzard of November 9, the Texas drought, and the launch of a new polar-orbiting weather satellite. Look for a new video every two weeks on our Climate Change Videos page.
Resources
For those of you who haven't seen it, my top "must-read" post of 2011 is called, 2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?. Back in June, I went through the ridiculous barrage of extreme weather events the planet saw in 2010 and early 2011, and concluded: But it is highly improbable that the remarkable extreme weather events of 2010 and 2011 could have all happened in such a short period of time without some powerful climate-altering force at work. The best science we have right now maintains that human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like CO2 are the most likely cause of such a climate-altering force.
Wunderground's climate change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood, has some thoughtful observations on the communication of the extreme weather/climate change link published in earthzine magazine titled, Changing the Media Discussion on Climate Change and Extreme Weather.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index
.CLIMATE...
ON THIS DATE IN KEYS WEATHER HISTORY...IN 1941...2.03 INCHES OF RAIN
FELL IN KEY WEST. THIS SET THE DAILY RECORD FOR MAXIMUM RAINFALL
MEASURED IN KEY WEST ON NOVEMBER 18TH...A RECORD WHICH STILL STANDS
70 YEARS LATER. RAINFALL RECORDS IN KEY WEST DATE BACK TO 1871.
Never trust a scientist who thinks they have it all figured out, especially on a new theory. More fail than do not. Although fail is a bit harsh. Many of those "failures" have components that are valid and advance science.
And, never trust anyone that says "I am from the government and I am here to help." Run the other way.
Credit to Reagan for the quote.
Goodnight.
here it is again
Hey, jazzie! Haven't seen you in a while either.
Call it extreme, call it normal, call it what you want, that's your personal interpretation. One thing that remains a fact is that all of our scientific evidence shows that the globe is warming and that we are responsible to some extent.
Let me know if you ever find a lick of evidence showing that humans aren't in fact partially responsible or that the globe isn't warming. Until that time you'll just have to put up with science, or as you call it, "GW bull."
Funny. What is the trend since the 2000 predictions?
Trot out your "post-diction" vs. prediction all you want. Means zilch.
Average weather conditions/observations over a 30 year or longer period. Never knew we had decided to make it 11 years.
Regardless, the Earth is still warming and man is still partially responsible. Shouldn't that be enough to realize that we probably should do something now?
BTW, thanks for validating that graph NEA posted, lmao. You did literally exactly what the graph said skeptics do.
Yeah, and?
Let's see if the theory holds. Good luck.
If temps are flat for the next 30-40 years, would you still believe it?
And, for your "do something," what is that?
Would you be happy if all power were wind and solar?
For your BTW, yes, that is in the propaganda playbook.
Amazing that people actually accept a theory as fact without observational verification. Truly boggles my mind, but hey, it is the educational system we live in.
(not my kids)
Would you be happy if all power were wind and solar?
Speaking for myself, I would be extremely elated!
I would be more than satisfied to learn that CO2 is not actually a greenhouse gas and we can dump all we want into the atmosphere. We still have a problem though. Once atmospheric CO2 hits 800 ppm, we will have great difficulty breathing. Perhaps this too will magically become a non issue?
Ironic.
You're not serious, are you?
I drink it every day in my soda.
50,000ppm (impossible) is toxic. Takes 10,000ppm for even the slightest effect (drowsiness, not breathing issues).
And, that all depends on the amount of O2 present.
The point is we are currently warming and we are partially responsible. You can speculate about the future all you want, but it's your word vs hundreds of climate scientists and sophisticated computer models. You have zero qualifications so I have no idea what makes you think you can outsmart them...I understand there is some reason to hold doubt, but I can not fathom why one would think they have it right over the entire scientific community.
I'm the one who has evidence on my side, not you. Don't forget that. If you'd like to post some evidence, go ahead, but you have none so far. If you'd like to see my evidence, then by all means ask me, you'll be sure to get the same evidence that has been posted hundreds of times before.
No we are not. Not since the predictions start in 2000.
That is precisely the point.
And, yes, I am monitoring those models and they aren't panning out. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Qualifications are irrelevant. Logic is all that it takes. Science is not a vote, which exactly what you are inferring.
Wind and Solar?
Nope. Nor you or Climate Science.
Evidence means nothing if it doesn't verify.
Goodnight.
Think about the wind and solar. No rush. Figure it out.
That example doesn't have much to do with climate modeling. Climate models are physical simulations, not statistical extrapolations.
The IPCC provides several scenarios in their reports, and there are multiple research papers that show other scenarios. Regardless, the main issue is that the carbon cycle for additional CO2 is very long. So even if we halted all our CO2 emissions now, we would still get additional warming over the next century. A 50% cut in emissions by 2100 will only alter the amount of warming, not abate it.
Also, if you're really interested in seeing how different scenarios play out, have a decent level of technical knowledge, and have a fairly good idea about climate parameters, you can download, compile, and run a climate model with different setups. The easiest one is probably ModelE provided by NASA GISS.
1. I never said I wanted all wind and solar, so I have no idea where you are pulling that from.
2. Where are you finding model predictions for 2010 from 2000? All IPCC model predictions I have seen are for the end of the 21st century or the year 2100.
OK, so what is the evidence that the models are verifying so far?
They start in 2000.
1) That is the agenda. Or are you Nuclear? If so, then I apologize.
2) Yes, they are 2100 vs. 2000. That is where the 2000 comes from. 2000-2010... nothing yet.
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
100 AM EST SAT NOV 19 2011
FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC...CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE GULF OF MEXICO...
1. A LARGE AND ELONGATED AREA OF CLOUDINESS AND SHOWERS CONTINUES OVER
THE CENTRAL ATLANTIC OCEAN APPROXIMATELY 800 TO 9000 MILES EAST AND
NORTHEAST OF THE LEEWARD ISLANDS. THIS ACTIVITY IS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN A SURFACE TROUGH...A TROPICAL WAVE...AND AN
UPPER-LEVEL LOW. SLOW DEVELOPMENT IS POSSIBLE AS THIS SYSTEM DRIFTS
GENERALLY NORTHWARD OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS...AND IT HAS A LOW
CHANCE...20 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A SUBTROPICAL OR TROPICAL CYCLONE
DURING THE NEXT 48 HOURS.
ELSEWHERE...TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED DURING THE
NEXT 48 HOURS.
$$
FORECASTER BEVEN
thats my line lol
On that, I am definitely off to bed.
Love ya, Taz.
TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK
NWS NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
1000 PM PST FRI NOV 18 2011
FOR THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC...EAST OF 140 DEGREES WEST LONGITUDE..
1. SHOWERS ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH A LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM LOCATED ABOUT
450 MILES SOUTH-SOUTHWEST OF THE GULF OF TEHUANTEPEC CONTINUES TO
BECOME BETTER ORGANIZED. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS APPEAR CONDUCIVE
FOR CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT...AND A TROPICAL DEPRESSION COULD FORM
DURING THE NEXT DAY OR TWO AS THE SYSTEM MOVES WEST TO WEST-
NORTHWESTWARD AT ABOUT 10 MPH. THIS SYSTEM HAS A HIGH CHANCE...
60 PERCENT...OF BECOMING A TROPICAL CYCLONE DURING THE NEXT
48 HOURS.
ELSEWHERE...TROPICAL CYCLONE FORMATION IS NOT EXPECTED DURING THE
NEXT 48 HOURS.
$$
FORECASTER BEVEN
Models are just that, models, they are not intended to predict exactly what will occur, they are designed to help a forecaster forecast what will occur in the future should current trends continue.
How much faith do you put in the GFS or ECMWF model? I know I don't put very much faith in them, I just try and get the general idea and move on. I can't imagine putting much more faith in a model that is trying to predict the climate in 100 years from now. It's going to be inaccurate. The point scientists are trying to make is that if current trends continue this is what models believe will happen. Whether or not it will actually happen, nobody knows. However, to bet that we won't warm or not do anything when we have all our models pointing in one direction is not very smart, is it?
It's like predicting it will snow over the weekend when all the models are saying it will be sunny and in the 80s. Sure there's a chance you could be wrong, but it's incredibly small and it would be unintelligent to hold on to that idea given the strong evidence pointing in the opposite direction.
Sorry Taz! didnt see ya around, but the job needed to be done ;)
2. So I'm not sure what your point is if models weren't forecasting 10 years out. How can you say evidence isn't following the models if the models never said anything about 2010?
Perhaps you may wish to rethink your statement? Your statement is not exactly correct.
"The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure."
Link
and
Link
and
Link
I agree that the amount of O2 present is a factor. Since carbon molecules combine with O2 molecules to form both CO and CO2, then O2 is being consumed to form the CO and CO2 molecules. Thus lowering the amount of O2, in the atmosphere.
There is nothing prohibiting faster than light travel. The problem is getting past the speed of light itself. It is an asymptotic limit.
Hypothetically, if you are already traveling faster than light then it is just as hard to slow down to below light speed as it is for something traveling below light speed to travel faster than light. Hypothetically a massless particle, something appearing as massless, or something with negative mass (not the same as anti-matter), or a particle with enough energy to "tunnel" would also have no problems exceeding the light barrier.
Muon neutrinos (what they're measuring) have almost no mass and barely interact with any sort of matter. One possibility is that they are actually traveling at the "real" speed of light, since they react with almost nothing in their path (as opposed to just about everything else, including light). Another possibility is that they are "tunneling" through the light barrier. But there could also be some systemic error they haven't found yet or other issue.
It's still early on, but it is exciting nonetheless.
The Earth is clearly warming and has been doing so for around the last 40 years. All evidence supports this. The greenhouse gas theory also supports the idea that humans are partially responsible for this warming. To what extent is unknown. What will happen in the future is also unknown. However, computer models forecast that if current CO2 emission trends continue, warming will follow. This should be enough reason for all of us to recognize the need to attempt to reduce our emissions. Furthermore, actions which would reduce CO2 emissions would help the environment, reduce our dependence on foreign nations, and advance our nation as a whole.
thats ok i for give you
How are you doing tonight, Taz? How is the weather doing in your neck of the woods?
Did everyone go to bed? ....... Hey! Who took the remote????
P.S More CO2=more air for plants.
doing vary vary well
Glad to hear that. What is your take on this season? Weird, I would say.
P.S. More CO2 = many complications, some understood, some yet to be discovered.
P.S.S. It's not like plants are suffocating lol
it was good can say the same for NC and up the E cost they had got in hit vary hard this year it olny takes one too make it a bad season MX has got in hit a few times has well
good night
Rookie, where are you from? I'm from San Diego, California, same state as Taz
U.N. panel's report predicts more extreme weather Link
Edit: it really isn't an in-depth article at all... the writer could do some good by actually stopping by this blog entry.
I don't think there is a big enough island to fit them all on, I live on the biggest and it's full of them.
Viewing: 201 - 251
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 — Blog Index