Last year saw an unusually hot, dry spring in western Europe; record rainfall in Australia, Japan and Korea; and record drought in China's Yangtze Basin.
The United States recorded an all-time-high 14 natural disasters that each caused $1 billion or more in damage -- a roll call of extreme weather that includes wildfires in the Southwest, several tornado outbreaks in the Midwest and Southeast, flooding along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, drought in Texas and other southern Plains states, Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee and a blizzard.
And the new research comes as much of the United States is experiencing unusual warmth, prompting an early start to the blooms and buzzing of spring in many areas.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recorded more than 4,300 record high temperatures from March 9 to 19. The agency's weather forecasters said last week that they expect the unseasonal warmth to continue through June, accompanied by dry conditions in much of the southern half of the country.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
24 Comments
Add CommentHere is the link to the study:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA Decade of Weather Extremes
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1452.html
And here is a link to an earlier study on the same subject by the authors:
Increase of Extreme Events in a Warming World:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/18/1101766108.abstract
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Morebhp,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Daily Mail article you linked to is flawed in multiple ways. The article claims, "At present the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) argues that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe – therefore that the warming we’re experiencing now is a man-made phenomenon."
This is wrong in two different ways:
1.The IPCC makes no such claim that the the Medieval Warm Period was only confided to Europe. Here is a link to the appropriate section of the IPCC report:
The Last 2,000 Years
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html
2. The basis for Anthropogenic Climate Change is not based upon whether the Medieval Warm Period was warm or not. The basis for that claim is the physics and predictions and observations of those predictions in Nature. Disagree? Then please go to the IPCC site and show me where it gives the line of reasoning that is made in the Daily Mail article.
The Physical Science Basis
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
So what I want to know is why did you swallow so willingly these lies as told by a notorious scandal rag as the Daily Fail?
Trent says: "The Daily Mail article you linked to is flawed in multiple ways."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy of course it is. --It draws the wrong conclusion. You've chosen your position. I'm sure you'll stay busy defending it.
@Pokerplayer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see that you have not broken that nasty habit of making bald faced assertions with out a hint of substantiating science. I think you may want to check your assumptions about what nationality I am or what party affiliation I have.
Will everyone please note that the fake skeptics are not addressing the article beyond expressing incredulity and are engaging in blatant attempts at sidetracking the thread topic.
@Morebhp,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you are not going to address the blatant misrepresentations that I pointed out? I provided resources for everyone to see that the IPCC makes no such claim as found in the Daily Fail article.
You are not entitled to your own set of facts.
Trent says: "Will everyone please note that the fake skeptics are not addressing the article beyond expressing incredulity and are engaging in blatant attempts at sidetracking the thread topic."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wouldn't worry too much. Actually, I don't think many people read these articles. Not sure why I do frankly.
Morebhp says: Not sure why I do frankly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Come on now. It is apparent that you do not read it. Why else would you post totally unrelated agitprop for... Oh, wait. Yes, I forgot the other possibility is that you are a propagandist. My bad.
Trent Says: "Come on now. It is apparent that you do not read it. Why else would you post totally unrelated agitprop for... Oh, wait. Yes, I forgot the other possibility is that you are a propagandist. My bad."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDarn. You broke my cover. Yes, I'm a paid propagandist slinking around the SA site posting links. Now I'm going to have to get a real job. (Wow...)
And here we have it folks. Distraction to original story attempt #3. Every effort is being engaged to talk about anything but the topic of the paper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdon't reply to the denier rubbish - it's a waste of space and energy (that SciAm is letting the denier garbage stand and delete this comment is not proof of the deniers' validity)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGee, Pokerplayer, it is like you did not bother to read the article or the links to the peer reviewed literature. It is almost like you have no concern for the science. I wonder why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see that the one actual science cite that you approvingly linked to is a draft to the summary of the science for the IPCC on climate extremes. So I say let us take a look at what it says:
"There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including
increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases."
Page 5
"It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights,3 and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights,3 at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likely that these changes have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is medium confidence in a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in daily
temperature extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from low to medium depending on the region."
page 6
"There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including
increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level.
many (but not all) regions over the globe with sufficient data, there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heat waves has increased. [3.3.1, Table 3-2]"
Page 7
And what do they say about what the future holds?
"Models project substantial warming in temperature extremes by the end of the 21st century. It is virtually
certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold
extremes will occur in the 21st century at the global scale. It is very likely that the length, frequency, and/or intensity of warm spells or heat waves will increase over most land areas."
Page 11
Funny how a draft summary of the science does not at all agree with what you claim it says.
"Funny how a draft summary of the science does not at all agree with what you claim it says."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDude - I think they just pretty much count on nobody READING it. It isn't aimed at anyone who has command of the facts, it is just a tactic to reinforce and shore up the doubt of those who don't know better. "Wow, a link that this guy says proves his point, I can feel good about believing him!" It might as well point to some lorum ipsum, but of course a good URL pointing at something scholarly probably works better, just in case someone happens to click on it.
Ah well. They can keep hiding under rocks, at least until they get flooded out from underneath...
@Tharter,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFake skeptics going to fake it :)
Personally, I think that the climate is, in general, warming as a result of human activities. Here in the U.S., for example, the population has now more than doubled, from ~152k to ~314k, since I was born in 1950. In addition that population has increasingly migrated to urban environments, with the majority of the U.S. population now living in large urban areas rather than being dispersed throughout the country in smaller towns.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe net effect of these changes (that seem readily apparent to me) is that there are now many urban areas acting as enormous localized heat engines, sucking up potable water from surrounding areas and pumping heat extracted from building interiors by air conditioning into the environment.
That all not to mention the increased and more concentrated combustion of fossil fuels and other locally dense environmental changes. As I understand, these general changes have been even more pronounced in China and India, and even in Europe. So, I generally expect that there are serious environmental consequences occurring as a result of these significant changes.
That being said, I'm also generally skeptical of statistical studies based on the quality of historical data that is available about local environments around the world during that period. IMHO, while much better information has been collected in the past 20 years or so, establishing meaningful correlations to preceding environment conditions is likely very difficult. However, I am not an expert and have no intention of becoming one.
I have worked in specific areas in which enormous amounts of unreliable data could be used to produce 'evidence' supporting many conflicting conclusions. When we look at the clouds in the sky, we often imagine many different images from the same complex patterns of visual information. Arguing about what we see in the sky is futile...
I must wonder whether the extreme conditions of the Great Drought in Western North America during the 12th & 13th centuries, for example, have been approached by any recent conditions. I don't think sufficiently detailed data exists to determine how short term erratic changes within that period might have compared with those we are experiencing today.
For these reasons, it's difficult for me to get excited about any specific detailed studies of recent conditions even though I really do think that erratic climatic changes will contribute to conditions making the continuation of recent urban population growth trends and depletion of critical global resources untenable.
To suggest that extreme weather events are not becoming more frequent is as ignorant as saying Scientific American magazine is not publishing real science. The kind of people that make these kinds of claims will never be taken seriously by educated readers. Why bother? You are wasting the time of readers that really do have something of value to contribute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Pokerplayer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy lie and try to derail the thread so blatantly? Can you not just admit that you have been had? It is perfectly obvious that the one scientific source you cited says the exact opposite of what you claimed it said. It is also obvious that you can not bring yourself to read this article or the peer reviewed articles that show a relationship between warming and weather extremes?
Who do you think you are fooling?
You have to wonder at the cognitive processes of someone who claims "-nothing but peer reviewed articles that prove the point that there is no evidence to support the claim or your fear." on an article about weather extremes showing an increase and those results being published in the peer reviewed literature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Pokerplayer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you suffer from reading comprehension problems? I asked because you seem to not have read (again) the only other peer reviewed paper you cited. The paper you just cited dealt only with with hurricanes and frequency. Here is what it what did not address:
1. Temperature extremes.
2. Hurricane strength:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/abs/nature07234.html
3. Droughts
4. Severity of thunderstorms.
And yet here you are claiming that this one paper on Atlantic basin hurricane frequency debunks multiple papers on extremes.
@PokerPlayer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour first link reveals that you are mindlessly copying and pasting from CO2 science. A site notorious known for misrepresenting the science. And if I take the trouble to find the real article here is what the abstract reveals:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL018052.shtml
"The frequencies at the beginning of the 20th Century were nearly as high as during the late 20th Century for some combinations of duration and return period, suggesting that natural variability cannot be discounted as an important contributor to the recent high values."
So no, that article from 2003 that examines extreme precipitation events from 1895 to 200 does not say what you claim it says. But hold it. Has the same researcher done more work in this area since 2003? Why yes, he has:
"Meteorological Causes of the Secular Variations in Observed Extreme Precipitation Events for the Conterminous United States"
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JHM-D-11-0108.1?journalCode=hydr
Abstract:
"On a national scale, there are upward trends in events associated with fronts and tropical cyclones, but no trends for other meteorological causes. On a regional scale, statistically significant upward trends in the frontal category are found in five of the nine regions."
Funny how you and CO2 science did not cite that later work, eh?
But hold it. That researcher did not stop there either:
http://www.mendeley.com/research/how-spatially-coherent-and-statistically-robust-are-temporal-changes-in-extreme-precipitation-in-the-contiguous-usa/
"How spatially coherent and statistically robust are temporal changes in extreme precipitation in the contiguous USA?"
From the abstract:
"The majority of stations that exhibit significant linear trends show evidence of increases in the intensity of events above the 95th percentile."
I am going to guess CO2 science that you copy and pasted from did not cite that work either.
Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate
2.2.2.2.2 United States
http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap3-3/sap3-3-final-all.pdf
"One of the clearest trends in the United States
observational record is an increasing frequency
and intensity of heavy precipitation events. ... The area of the United States affected
by a much above normal contribution from
these heavy precipitation days increased by
a statistically significant amount, from about
9% in the 1910s to about 11% in the 1980s and
1990s."
Can you explain these omissions?
@Poker Player,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is painfully obvious that you are copying and pasting links given out by WUWT and CO2 science. You are regurgitating propaganda. All it takes is for some one to copy and paste your cites into Google and the first sites that pop up are CO2 Science with exactly the same cites. Notice how I went to the original articles and saw what they actually said.
This is why I keep on hammering you. I always go to the original article and take a look at the authors/s subsequent work. This is why citing Kunkel is such a disaster for you. It is painfully clear that you are swallowing propaganda and have no concern for the science.
Disagree? Then you got to explain how Kunkel's work as found in "Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate". From the Executive Summary of the report of which Kunkel is an author.
"Many extremes and their associated impacts are now changing. For example, in recent decades most of North America has been experiencing more unusually hot days and nights, fewer unusually cold days and nights, and fewer frost days. Heavy downpours have become
more frequent and intense."
Page I
How can it become any more clearer for you? That is not an abstract but a summary of the science with Kunkel among other experts reporting the state of the science for weather extremes as it was in 2008.
http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap3-3/sap3-3-final-all.pdf
Why do you ignore this? Do you think that if you scream loud and long enough that it alter the summary of the report?
from swiggipedia:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispokerplyer = An idiot, dolt, carlyle or dullard, either way a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. Archaically the word mome has also been used. The similar terms moron, imbecile, and cretin have all gained specialized meanings in modern times; the term "pokerplyer" is the only one known to mean all of them.
The one thing I think is clear is that we must find a way to stifle human population growth. Our wars aren't killing as many as they used to and globalization has caused those who would have otherwise starved or died disease to be treated by organizations such as the Red Cross and continue to populate. No one wants to discuss population control because they find it dehumanizing to discuss human population the same we we do with animals. Well, guess what? We are animals. We have advanced to the point though were natural selection is no longer taking place and we are passing on weak genes. This is not a good thing for the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sure there will be a nice reduction in population though when resources get truly scarce and massive wars break out destroying most of mankind. I don't know about you, but I'd rather nip the problem in the bud before it gets to that.
@morebhp,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember that piece of propaganda you linked to at post #2?Well, guess who is not happy with the blatant misrepresentation of their research? The researcher himself:
"Syracuse University scientist seeks to set the record straight on climate research"
From the article:
"Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend."
Now I asked you before and you dodged and I am going to ask you again. Why were you so credulous to swallow this story?