Extreme events of 2011: climate change a major factor in some, but not all
The science of quantifying how climate change changes the odds of extreme weather events like droughts and floods took a major step forward Tuesday with the publication of NOAA's annual summary of the past year's weather. The 2011 State of the Climate report contains a separate peer-reviewed article published in the July issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled, Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 From a Climate Perspective. In the paper, a group of scientists led by Peter Stott of the Met Office Centre in the United Kingdom looked at how climate change may have changed the odds of occurrence of some of 2011's notable weather extremes. These kinds of attribution studies require huge amounts of computer time and take many months to do, but the scientists plan to start making this a regular part of the annual NOAA State of the Climate report. Some of their findings for 2011:
- Determining the causes of extreme events remains difficult. While scientists cannot trace specific events to climate change with absolute certainty, new and continued research help scientists understand how the probability of extreme events change in response to global warming.
- La Niña-related heat waves, like that experienced in Texas in 2011, are now 20 times more likely to occur during La Niña years today than La Niña years fifty years ago.
- The UK experienced a very warm November 2011 and a very cold December 2010. In analyzing these two very different events, UK scientists uncovered interesting changes in the odds. Cold Decembers are now half as likely to occur now versus fifty years ago, whereas warm Novembers are now 62 times more likely.
- The devastating 2011 floods in Thailand caused an estimated $45 billion in damage, making it the world's most expensive river flooding disaster in history. The study found, however, that the amount of rain that fell in the catchment area was not very unusual, and that other factors such as human-caused changes to the flood plain and the movement of more people into flood-prone areas were more important in causing the disaster. "Climate change cannot be shown to have played any role in this event," the study concluded, but warned that climate models predict an increase in the probability of extreme precipitation events in the future in the region.
- The deadly drought in East Africa, which killed tens of thousands of people in 2011, was made more likely by warming waters in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific. While the scientists did not specifically tie the warming of these waters to human-caused global warming, they noted that climate models predict continued warming of these waters in the coming decades, and this will likely "contribute to more frequent East African droughts during the spring and summer."
Figure 1. An SH-60F Sea Hawk helicopter assigned to Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (HS) 14, flies around the Bangkok area with members of the humanitarian assessment survey team and the Royal Thai Armed Forces to assess the damage caused by the 2011 floods. Image credit: Petty Officer 1st Class Jennifer Villalovos.
Weather on steroids
One interesting aspect of the paper was the scientists' use of the baseball player-steroids analogy to help explain how climate change can increase the odds of extreme weather: "One analogy of the effects of climate change on extreme weather is with a baseball player (or to choose another sport, a cricketer) who starts taking steroids and afterwards hits on average 20% more home runs (or sixes) in a season than he did before (Meehl 2012). For any one of his home runs (sixes) during the years the player was taking steroids, you would not know for sure whether it was caused by steroids or not. But you might be able to attribute his increased number to the steroids. And given that steroids have resulted in a 20% increased chance that any particular swing of the player’s bat results in a home run (or a six), you would be able to make an attribution statement that, all other things being equal, steroid use had increased the probability of that particular occurrence by 20%. The job of the attribution assessment is to distinguish the effects of anthropogenic climate change or some other external factor (steroids in the sporting analogy) from natural variability (e.g., in the baseball analogy, the player’s natural ability to hit home runs or the configuration of a particular stadium)."
Video 1. National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist Dr. Jerry Meehl explains how climate change's impact on extreme weather is like how steroids affect a baseball player.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 — Blog Index
Thats what ya call a right turn!
Your assuming though, that both sides are using logic and facts to establish their point of view, which is not the case with global warming. One side (the scientists) have tons of data and research including physical observations to back up their case. The other side (deniers), have nothing but mindless faith and willful ignorance.
And when your opponet use mindless faith and willful ignorance to support their point of view, it is useless to continue the "debate" as no amount of facts, data, etc. will convince them that they are wrong.
The same thing has happened multiple times in the past whenever some scientific discovery threatened monied interests.
She looking very healthy!
I know exactly what the word means. My point, which you fail to understand, is that companies and citizens are going to spend money to support thier interests. That is normal, you do and I do it. Most money spent by groups like Koch and Exxon Mobile are spend in the defense of legislation that is harmful to thier business. They have that right and though you may think the don't and you may think they don't use good science or good judgement that have that right. Exxon Mobile, Koch and even Bain Capital spend much more on alternative companies, research and development that you care to even acknowledge you only want to call those companies evil and the reason the planet is where it is. That is why the pro-side has so much trouble.
generally neapolitins definiton of troll
A troll is A) someone who disagrees about your analysis that a tropical wave will hit your locoation as a category five or B) a person who spams the blog and will undoubtedly become the topic of the blog for the next 100 comments
Jeez. If you guys think that the anti crowd spends more money than the pro crowd and if you think that funding (from any source) for the anti crowd outweights that of the pro crowd than I don't know what to tell you. You have your head in the sand.
That's the WRF, not the HWRF.
He may or may not be a troll but as im seeing it, yall are disagreeing therefore you thinkhes a troll.
I disagree with you, I am not a troll.
There are many grey areas in politics, as there are in life. But some things are just flat out wrong, and no amount of spin or mewling about protecting the "job creators" will ever make it otherwise.
Well, you asked for some shred of evidience. I gave it to you. You don't like the source but It was the same source used by the pro-side a few days ago. I am not spreading any lies. I am giving you facts as I know them to be. If you or Dr. Masters wants to dive into the question and produce something tells a different story I will gladly accept it.
You are still missing the point completely, which, proves my point to begin with. The rabid pro crowd and rabid con crowd needs to get out of the discussion or we as a planet are never going to have any meaningful discussions or meaningful change before it will be to late.
Bovine Excrement.
The entire climate science budget for NASA?NOAA/etc. was $2 billion dollars a couple of years ago, and most of that went to building satellites to replace our aging and dying ones currently in orbit.
Exxon makes 16 times that in a single quarter. And that's just one company.
So unless you got some numbers to back up your outrageous claim, this is nothing more than an outright lie.
I wrote a new blog
Emilia, daniel, 98e and the AOI over florida
Please any feedback is appreciated!
Link
Thank you all who readit!
That is some rich soil you just layed on the table. I wish I could discuss with you but I have a 20th Anniversay dinner with my wife and if I am late gloabal warming will be the least of my problems.
all you have to do is type, no breath wasted
Noble but like throwing sand at a Tornado.
Wait. You are saying Exxon makes 16 times more than Nasa's climate budjet so that makes my info wrong? Ok. How has Exxon spent on anti-GW? 2 billion? Jeez, you guys are so quick to defend you don't make any sense.
Surprised?
395.77ppm
Atmospheric CO2 for June 2012
co2now.org
Or as some say" Why do you get so excited over blobs?"..........lollol
Emilia re-strengthens; 98E nearly a tropical depression; Daniel weakening
Above-normal temperatures will continue today for much of the western U.S., with forecast highs in the 90s for many locations. Heat Advisories are in effect for several locations, while Excessive Heat Warnings are in effect for the lower elevations of the Desert Southwest, where highs in the 110 to 120 degree range are expected. Link
Btw, blog will be up later tonight.
Its like the off season with a TD an invest and a Annular hurricane!
No one is "backing" climate change, are they?
WOW!
LOL!
I'm sure there will be argument over this, but should I be concerned about this? Is the rising CO2 a HUGE concern? Just wondering... I don't really like the thoughts of dying planet :\
ack!
of smug eminating from the uptown area.
I shot this nice little cell going South on the 48 from Clarksville this afternoon
INDEED!!!!!!!!!!!!
classified info
A skeleton remains,,
EP052012 - Major Hurricane EMILIA
22:00 UTC Viz
Viewing: 751 - 801
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 — Blog Index