Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says wild weather will worsen

O'k I looked at the data on AMO you provide, and it is inconclusive. For example while the max temps do not look extraordinary higher, the orange portion the graph is bigger, so the mean avg in 2010 was larger?

BTW one could also argue that the AMO data itself show the impact of GW.

This is not a criticism of you; just when you have 2 trends combine it is hard to delineate the impact. No arguing pro or con, it is simply the situation where you have 2 people delivering deadly blow to victim. Which one was the killer?

AG, you are very much in similar situation. How could you prove you are not a rapist? How could you rule out the impact of GW on russian heat wave? All the references you submit only show that there was a strong natural phenomenon. Nothing proves their impact would have been identical, not smaller, if there weren't for GW.


IMHO it is pretty pointless to look at individual events and try to link them to GW. It would be much more productive to look at frequencies of extreme events and find the correlations.

 

Realclimate has a new posting up going a little deeper into (e.g.) why the shape of the trend matters. They posted their code, which I then translated to what I know (and already own), SAS, and performed the sensitivity test I was looking for. I'll copy in my posting (minus the SAS code) below.

I'm not backing away from my statement that AMO by itself is probably not a sufficient explanation. (Because the new peak is so much above the prior one, for one thing). I'm just saying that the statistical analysis was done in terms of warming, and the increased likelihood that was estimated in the published paper really shouldn't be interpreted as the effects of global warming.

Here's what I posted:


Thank you for the code. I’m a SAS programmer, and at my age, the thought of learning a new language is unappealing, so I translated this to SAS (below).

My point in this posting is to follow up on my comments at the end of the Moscow warming thread.

You have made it clear that you are looking at warming from all causes. My issue is that this is being widely interpreted as showing the effect of global warming (loosely defined), while the actual observed warming in this region may have other significant components. My main concern was AMO, under the assumption that the AMO might account for a significant fraction of the recent temperature trend observed in Moscow.

I wanted a simple sensitivity analysis: What would the results have looked like if we had merely experienced the temperature trend of the 1930s again. Obviously this is crude, yet I think it has some natural appeal for determining how different the present situation (reflecting global warming) is from the past.

Obviously, the actual observed 1930s data is a poor proxy for the AMO signal, so I’ll also test for a peak that’s half-a-degree below the 1930′s peak.
In short, I’ll compare the data as presented, a peak matched to the 1930s (trend ends at 0.5C below then 2009 value), and a further test case (trend ends at 1C below the 2009 value).

The results are 81% (replicating your main result), 72% (replaying the 1930s peak) and 54% (for 0.5C below the 1930s peak).

My conclusion is that any temperature trend for this geographic region that looked similar to the 1930s — here, plus or minus half a degree C — would generate a substantially increased likelihood of new high temperature records. In particular, if there is a strong cyclical component due to AMO (impossible to determine empirically, but useful at least as a straw man), then it is proper to attribute the increased odds to warming, but possibly not proper to attribute them to global warming.

SAS code follows. Vastly wordier than Matlab, but this is not was SAS was designed to do.

 

Absolutely correct. Rahmstorf and Coumou are only looking at local warming not global warming when analysing moscow.

The total case in real climate from this article for gw causing the heat record rests on local warming disputing studies that do analyze global warming. NOAA looked at these studies again with the criticism from the pnas paper.

Scientific Assessment of 2010 Western Russian Heatwave - Additional Information

It should be heavily noted that these comments rejecting the attribution assignments are in draft form and not final.



+

NOAA looked into this and agrees

conclusion, real climate is wrong if you look at the region, there is under analysis a warming hole exactly as previously said, even when you re do the data adjustments and remove any for urban heat island effect. If you look at the last 30 years though there is warming.

 

AG, it is very interesting how you pick on comments which support your believes, whilst completely ignoring ones which don't. Perhaps you missed the comment? Let me re-iterate:

disclosure: this will be re-iterated until answered. :focus:

 

Well if there was the accusation I would hope there would be a witness and/or evidence before someone would jump to that conclusion. I don't think the real climate article brought forth either.

Most of my comments have been on this matter have been to correct the evidence.

I actually haven't submitted anything of my own about the natural phenomenon, I only supported credence to the previous studies that looked at the Russian heat wave and brought forth their evidence.

There are two different things, the russian heat wave and a record temperature in moscow. The NOAA research can not find attribution to gw and therefore predicts that gw does not make it likely to happen again soon (severe heat wave in western russia of long duration) but if it does happen warming may make it worse. The pnas paper said using their methods the probablility of a record high (note not heat wave) is about 5% per year because of local warming versus 1% without warming. Using that technique and the 2010 data it is now 9% to be higher than the pre 2010 (that is the effect of including 2010 in the trend line). They are therefore predicting a similar high in moscow soon.

If you think real climate is right that the russian region has had substatial warming in the last 130 years please look again at the data. NOAA's response included 5 sources of temperature records and showed all the regional adjusted and unadjusted temperatures. Please read the entire pnas article and noaa response to new ideas before you accuse me of cherry picking evidence. The climate change impacts to probabilities are in Cole and Barriopedro. Rahmstorf and Coumou may find more traction talking about regional warming weighted toward the last 30 years being given more weight in statistical models than ghg based climate change. If you then can tie these regional temperatures to ghg you can find your attribution.

 

..but the problem is that you come from preconceived notion that there isn't any warming, thus anything happening is attributed to some other phenomena. Science isn't the law, and unfortunately for you you are not in court protected by US constitution, so when you are making scientific claim <ABC is not related to GW>, the burden of proof is yours. It is not for others to prove that it is related, it is for you to prove it isn't. Same for chogan2, if he is making a claim that it is related to GW, it is his burden to prove that it is. This is how scientific method works.

So far none provided by either of you met the criteria. The inherit issue with indirect influences that first they are extremely difficult to prove or disprove; second in case of climatic events /and any complex systems in general/ there is something else going on at the same time.

BTW if you have any doubts that russian region has had experienced substantial warming, look at permafrost data.

 

Where do you get that from? I trust the global warming temperature records of NCDC and GISS. I also trust the NOAA site that compares local warming temperture records for the area of the grid that the russian heat wave happened. If you look at the 130 year record there is high variability but NCDC, GISS, cru unadjusted, cru adjusted have cooling, with GHCN having slight warming. Individual sites will vary with sign and magnitude. Evidence based science, not a preconcieved idea.

I am not quite sure why you want to make a baseless acusation of rape. Is there a reason you are so angry? Or is there some point you are trying to make but have missed the mark? To me you are saying if you believe something, you can just say it, and it doesn't matter if there is evidence or it is true.

I would prefer if science stuck to the scientific method. I'm not sure what this has to do with the constitution.

Just trying to get the facts out. Science gets supported by evidence. Theories don't get proved they get supported or disproved. If the theory fails with the data it can be modified or rejected. The data is evidence that Dole et al. and Barriopedro et al. papers are not changed by the ideas expressed by Rahmstorf and Coumou. These assume global warming and use IPCC climate models, but could not increase the chance of the russian heat wave by increasing the global warming. The models did not show global warming increased the climatic conditions to create the atmospheric blocking. The data supports that this individual weather event can not be attributed to global warming using existing models.

This is the first point you have made that makes any sense in this thread. The question addressed is did global warming make the russian heat wave happen. Dole et al. looked at models to see if global warming made the climatic conditions more likely to happen and examined sst and ice as well as other climatic conditions influenced by warming. They did not find that these models created the condition.

Rahmstorf and Coumou did not examine any of this in their paper. They have come up with a method of predicting new high temperatures from local warming in the pnas paper. This method mainly uses the old record, the last 30 year trend and variance. This does not contradict the other research, and the other model does not contradict this. Moscow has been warming in the last 30 years and this has nothing to do with UHI or adjustments for it, the region for the heat wave has also been warming during the period from a cool start. NOAA isn't disputing the paper, it is disputing the thrust of the real climate article though. Perhaps Rahmstorf and Coumoucan get their statisical model of local warming into some of the IPCC models and see if it makes predictions more accurate. If it does they can then see what happens to extreme heat waves if higher global warming is assumed in these models.

You can look at the data yourself. It was in my link. The region is 50-60N, 30-55E. Permafrost is a poor proxy for July temperatures, and I would prefer to look at the thermometers since they are available. Do you have a problem with GISS, NCDC, and hadcrut that you dispute their july temperatures? Unadjusted have a greater cooling than adjusted.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/events/2010/russianheatwave/images/wrussia.july_tmp.stntrend_sm.jpg

 

RealClimate: On record-breaking extremes
They seem to be replying to NOAA's page. Interesting public debate via website. They are now emphasizing the part that NOAA agrees, that Moscow has been warming the last 30 years, and their results are not impacted by if it was warming or cooling prior to that.

They also are clarifng -

This seems like progress.

You are just about right on with this. The variability in Moscow and the west russian grid is much greater than global warming or AMO. Meteorologists know that the lack of clouds and precipitation occurred with the atmospheric blocking, but it is difficult attribute causation to AMO or GW for this event and the arctic oscillation should be looked at for both 2003 and 2010.
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/AO_NAO.htm

 

I have been keeping out of this because y'all are exploring the matter more closely than I can do at the moment. But I hope you will not mind if I say something about permafrost.

I agree that because of its thermal inertia, it is unfit to consider in relation to short-term events (like july temperatures for example). But in all places (that I know) that have been examined, north circumpolar, it is melting at some rate. This is actually one of the several non-thermometer lines of evidence that corroborate that instrumental record.

People are concerned about permafrost because it does contain very large stores of organic carbon. In fact, the more extensively it is measured, the more C is found. I may have mentioned Tarnocai et al 2009 previously in that regard.

Balance that with the permafrost manipulations. Warming by buried heating cables or transparent plastic film 'greenhouses'. In those as I have read, the CO2 and methane release is less than predicted because the warming is accompanied by drying and that slows the microbes down.

It certainly bears further study, but we might take some solace in the current evidence that permafrost may not massively exhale methane and CO2.

OK, back to the heat waves...

 

AG; I re-read my post at least 3 times and there were nowhere mentioning of July in there. As the matter of fact there aren't any June, August, September or any other month mentioned there either.. so it is a little bit puzzling where you made the link btw July temperatures and permafrost. July wasn't even mentioned in your question which is quoted below:

and the answer to your question is: yes, there is evidence from long-term indicators (permafrost, arctic ice melt, etc) that region had experienced substantial warming. We know that stuff which survived through MWP and stayed frozen at least 10,000 years is melting now; any way you look at it. And as you mentioned permafrost is a poor proxy for short-term, but it is a pretty good long-term indicator.

And it would be hard to argue with chogan2 and real climate that if you take the uptrend from actual long term warming [from long term proxies] which exceeds previous ones and combine it with AMO-linked anomaly the maximums would be more likely. It is a compelling hypothesis.. however the heat wave does not prove the GW, it is other way around: GW helps to explain why the excessive temperatures were more probable.

It is simply a question of applying logic and looking at cause-effect chain instead effect-cause. Since it will be likely twisted let me illustrate it in more formal way:

GW + anomaly => bigger effect

what deniers (not singling you out specifically) are doing is this:

effect = anomaly => there isn't GW

and BTW since we on subject the logic used by some tree huggers:

bigger effect => GW

is equally faulty.


Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas

 

You jumped on a discussion about two papers and a real climate article that used western russian july temperatures. If you are not discussing these thing, I am not sure what you are discussing? If you catch up on the references in NOAA, pnas, or real climate my comments will make a lot more sense. Without that background I think you are a bit lost, so my comments may not make any sense to you. All of the links to temperature charts and discussion of the charts were for july, this included the parts I quoted.

 

If you read the links, all of them assume GW. The papers that I referenced used IPCC warming models to decide on the probability of the event. If you do not trust the science please try to read the papers. There has not been a peer reviewed paper that has attributed the Russian heat wave to global warming and the authors of the real climate piece clearly state they have not done the reserch. There have been two that tried to find a link that failed. Please read them and criticize them on their merits and not this I have a feeling its hot so it must be global warming.

The main paper about the event did say in the future with more warming these heat waves will be more likely, but this is not in Russia the next decade. Trying to invoke denier on these peer reviewed scientists is not good form, especially since you have shown you have not even tried to read the research.

If you will note my location, you may notice that this summer I experienced a hotter dryer heat wave than is described. I am in a hotter place, and since people dealt with a decade without rain in the 50s they were better prepared for this and less deaths, but awful fires. This one is related to ENSO, and I try to read all literature related to heat waves since I have some influence in regional mitigation. That is skin in the game. I'm sure in about 6 months we will see some papers on the record cold in Oklahoma in the winter and record heat in Texas. My guess is that GW did not cause the texas heat wave but it did make it worse, but I'll wait for scholarly publications. We did from experience and looking at ENSO in June think that this weather event was likely to happen in August.

 

chogan, greatly appreciate you doing this.. was wondering if the population growth could have accounted for some of that +1C. Table below is from Moscow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows ~x2.8 increase since 1939.. with all that black top and concrete.

Also which stations had been taking into consideration? at least some of them weren't there back in 1930s VDNKh was build later in decade, and VKO wasn't even there. If the location/stations were changed, were the adjustments made?

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4	Column 5	Column 6	Column 7	Column 8	Column 9	Column 10	Column 11	Column 12	Column 13	Column 14	Column 15	Column 16	Column 17	Column 18	Column 19
0	Year Pop. ±% 1897 1	038	625 — 1926 2	019	500 +94.4% 1939 4	137	000 +104.9% 1959 5	032	000 +21.6% 1970 6	941	961 +38.0% 1979 7	830	509 +12.8% 1989 8	769	117 +12.0% 2002 10	382	754 +18.4% 2010 11	514	330 +10.9

 

Your bias makes you blind.
His forecast said "heavy snow".The forecast map correctly shows the area hit.Then predicted to move east, as did occur.

 

oh total BS!!!...anyway did you hear about the Storm that is hitting the Alaska Coast as we type? supposed to be the worst in several decades...

http://www.arh.noaa.gov/wmofcst.php?wmo=WWAK82PAFG&type=public

...ALASKA WEST COAST TO BE HIT BY ONE OF THE MOST SEVERE BERING
SEA STORMS ON RECORD...

A POWERFUL AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS STORM OF NEAR RECORD OR
RECORD MAGNITUDE IS BEARING DOWN ON THE WEST COAST OF ALASKA.....

....AGAIN...THIS WILL BE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND LIFE THREATENING
STORM OF AN EPIC MAGNITUDE RARELY EXPERIENCED. ALL PEOPLE
IN THE AREA SHOULD TAKE PRECAUTIONS TO SAFEGUARD THEIR LIVES
AND PROPERTY.

ah then again, it doesnt "sound" that serious

 

If you are referring to my post as total BullShit then kindly explain how.Or else kindly shut the f^ck up.

 

LOL oh man you are too much!!

hey!! is it a twin or am i staring into a mirror??