Climate change and consequences on the ground

Extreme events are a natural part of the climate system, and a climate change means that their frequencies and intensities may change. Detecting the changes in probabilities in rare events is statistically challenging. However, counting the recurrence of record-breaking extremes can provide an indication of whether the extreme values are changing (Benestad, 2008).

The consequences of a climate change involves some known aspects as well as some which we cannot predict. Extreme phenomena take place in certain environmental conditions, favourable for forming e.g. tornadoes, storms, or droughts. We also know that our models have their limitations, and that the range of possible outcomes can be fairly wide.

The incomplete knowledge is no different to any other field, as the future always seems to involve some surprises. Societies have traditionally tackled the absence of complete certainties by adopting various forms for risk analyses, e.g. fire brigades, police, defence, hospitals, and so on.

Better safe than sorry. Here, there are some known connections of concern. The bottom line is that we need pragmatic ways of dealing with issues that may have devastating effects for people or societies – and this is the red thread in ‘Extreme Realities‘.

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

References

  1. R.E. Benestad, "A Simple Test for Changes in Statistical Distributions", Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, vol. 89, pp. 389, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008EO410002

118 comments on this post.
  1. Hank Roberts:

    Wait — is there evidence that food chains haven’t accumulated any more mercury than they did before coal-burning started?

    Where can I read about this, and what else have they lied to me about?

  2. Hank Roberts:

    Also for Chuck Hughes, this climate blogger writes well about how to learn:
    http://angusferraro.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/new-chapters-and-foreign-lands/

    “… In order to interpret my model results I had to learn to thinking differently. Intuitions learned from midlatitude dynamics don’t apply this close to the Equator.

    “Learning new theory can be pretty intimidating. It’s difficult to know which paper to read first. Sometimes I find myself feeling paralysed. I have a pile of things to read but keep having to refer to different sources to understand terminology, or to get to the bottom of some ‘obvious’ physical understanding not fully explained in one piece of research….”

  3. Jim Larsen:

    100 Russell, you HAVE to start giving some sort of evidence. NOTHING posted here shows natural sources are more than a minor component totalling the least harmful 1/3 of Hg emissions. To REFUSE to provide ANY evidence yet bleat that “it’s all natural”, well, it gets frustrating for the rest of us, and we tend to slot “Russell” into the “Fool” bin. (sorry, tis just human nature). Much better would be to actually provide some data or logic, eh? Show us why our initial response was wrong. I’m rooting for ya, kid.

  4. Jim Larsen:

    and Russell, by ANY evidence, I mean just that. So far you’ve shown ZERO. So, to buttress your case, ANY thoughts by ANYBODY would suffice. So, troll the web, find ANYBODY who would benefit financially or mentally, and share.

    My guess is you’ll waste a week finding bubkis.

  5. Hank Roberts:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mercury_fremont_ice_core.png

  6. Susan Anderson:

    Thanks Hank. Very accessible visual, and fascinating. Hope that stops the yelling and shows that life is complex. We already knew that, but somehow the anti-science contingent always wants to fasten on absolutes (and no, I’m not talking to you, if you think this was addressed to you, most likely).

  7. Russell:

    103, 104

    The evidence Jim Larsen demanded on 29 March is contained in the very link he provided , but evidently has not troubled to read in full, which gives the range of estimates for both natural and anthropogenic Hg fluxes. If he finds that data hard to deconvolute, he may be in for a shock when he encounters the primary geochemical literature.

    He appears to be comparing the lower outliers instead of the average figures, let alone the higher ones- He will find the ice core record useful in comparing the continuous threat posed by volcanic and hot spring emissions with such intensive but sporadic local fluxes as those associated with the California gold rush and silver mining in Mexico and Bolivia, but the op-ed unfriendly fact remains that the average estimate of the annual natural flux is 1,230 tonnes larger than the average of the antropogenic flux estimates : geochemistry happens.

  8. Steve Fish:

    Re- Comment by Russell — 1 Apr 2013 @ 2:55 PM

    I am compelled to inform you that Jim Larsen is also in denial of Easter bunny abuse.

    Steve

  9. Jim Larsen:

    107 Russell,

    Thanks for the hint, but I’m a tad old to hunt for Easter eggs. I tried to get you to post a direct link and easy instructions or maybe even a quote, but you still hide behind words without backing. So, yep, I’d love to engage you in your wild claim, but you STILL refuse to provide any information.

    As to my looking at the charts and whatnot, I abide by an absolute no-cherry-picking rule. Either I accept the “opponent’s” data, or I look at data not chosen for values. Thus, I posted the FIRST column and perused the others to see if it was an outlier. Since you’re saying that data is flawed even though it matches every other source I found, well, go for it kid. Show us the REAL data, including links and quotes. After all, if I ain’t smart enough to find this Cherry in a haystack, surely others will fail as well. Enlighten us.

    At least some information, please. Thanks.

    Hopefully my next post will begin with, “Well, lookie there!”

  10. Jim Larsen:

    108 Steve Fish, I plead the 5th, and to insinuate that has anything to do with my denial, well, that’s unconstitutional.

  11. Russell:

    109:

    There is hope if you can get the level of your cherry-finding up to the level of your cherry picking.

  12. Steve Fish:

    Re- Comment by Jim Larsen — 2 Apr 2013 @ 1:11 PM

    I presume you have checked out Russell’s web site. If not, you can learn the truth about who ate the Easter bunny by clicking his name.

    Steve

  13. AIC:

    Getting back to the original topic, L. A. Times article
    “Climate change will increase extreme precipitation levels”
    http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-extreme-precipitation-20130404,0,125887.story

    One of the commenters points out the U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI) pages
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/4/01-12 and wonders whether somebody has tried to determine correlations between extreme precipitation for example and temperature. Any takers?

  14. sidd:

    Re: precip-T relations

    Mueller and Seneviratne,PNAS,2012
    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1204330109

    sidd

  15. AIC:

    Thanks, sidd.

    I was especially looking for the correlation (and presumably causation) relationship of increased temperatures causing extreme precipitation, but that may well need some very detailed looking at what was happening just before/upwind of each particular extreme precipitation event.

  16. Brian Dodge:

    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L17707, doi:10.1029/2012GL052762, 2012, How much do precipitation extremes change in a warming climate?
    Chein-Jung Shiu, Shaw Chen Liu, Congbin Fu, Aiguo Dai, and Ying Sun
    “Daily data from reanalyses of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) are analyzed to study changes in precipitation intensity with respect to global mean temperature. The results are in good agreement with those derived from the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) data by Liu et al. (2009), providing an independent verification for large changes in the precipitation extremes: about 100% increase for the annual top 10% heavy precipitation and about 20% decrease for the light and moderate precipitation for one degree warming in the global temperature.”

  17. Chris Colose:

    Re Comments above on Precipitation

    I think it’s actually a lot easier to understand changes in the extreme precipitation events than it mean changes (contrast this to the robustness of global temperature predictions for the mean vs. extreme events).

    For extreme precipitation events, the upper bound on atmospheric water vapor in regions of convergence plays a significant role (I believe Issac Held has a post on this). This is all well-defined by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. In contrast, Clausius-Clapeyron doesn’t tell you much about mean changes in rainfall because precipitation is generally energetically limited rather than moisture limited. That makes it critical to understand the energy budgets of the surface or troposphere, including the temperature differential between the surface and boundary layer.

    In fact, there’s very little use in speaking of a precipitation-temperature slope, dP/dT, without a detailed consideration of the forcing agents involved, etc. Precipitation can very well decline in a warming climate, in contrast to the column water vapor amount, which is virtually always monotonically increasing. The latter, I believe, will be more relevant when thinking about the (extreme) tail end of a PDF of precipitation events.

  18. sidd:

    Re:precip-T relation

    there are gridded data for temp and precip but i think only down to 1 or 2.5 degree lat/long, and quikscat or somesuch will give you the winds

    talk to these guys, they probly have ideas

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22473

    sidd