More

Scientists Connect Global Warming To Extreme Rain

SETH BORENSTEIN   02/16/11 03:24 PM ET   AP

Global Warming Extreme Rain

WASHINGTON — Extreme rainstorms and snowfalls have grown substantially stronger, two studies suggest, with scientists for the first time finding the telltale fingerprints of man-made global warming on downpours that often cause deadly flooding.

Two studies in Wednesday's issue of the journal Nature link heavy rains to increases in greenhouse gases more than ever before.

One group of researchers looked at the strongest rain and snow events of each year from 1951 to 1999 in the Northern Hemisphere and found that the more recent storms were 7 percent wetter. That may not sound like much, but it adds up to be a substantial increase, said the report from a team of researchers from Canada and Scotland.

The study didn't single out specific storms but examined worst-of-each-year events all over the Northern Hemisphere. While the study ended in 1999, the close of the decade when scientists say climate change kicked into a higher gear, the events examined were similar to more recent disasters: deluges that triggered last year's deadly floods in Pakistan and in Nashville, Tenn., and this winter's paralyzing blizzards in parts of the United States.

The change in severity was most apparent in North America, but that could be because that's where the most rain gauges are, scientists said.

Both studies should weaken the argument that climate change is a "victimless crime," said Myles Allen of the University of Oxford. He co-authored the second study, which connected flooding and climate change in the United Kingdom. "Extreme weather is what actually hurts people."

Jonathan Overpeck, a University of Arizona climate scientist, who didn't take part in either study, praised them as sensible and "particularly relevant given the array of extreme weather that we've seen this winter and stretching back over the last few years."

Not all the extreme rain and snow events the scientists studied cause flooding. But since 1950, flooding has killed more than 2.3 million people, according to the World Health Organization's disaster database.

The British study focused on flooding in England and Wales in the fall of 2000. The disaster cost more than $1.7 billion in insured damages and was the wettest autumn for the region in more than 230 years of record-keeping.

Researchers found that global warming more than doubled the likelihood of that flood occurring. Similar studies are now under way to examine whether last year's deadly Russian heat wave and Pakistan floods – which were part of the same weather event – can be scientifically attributed to global warming.

For years scientists, relying on basic physics and climate knowledge, have said global warming would likely cause extremes in temperatures and rainfall. But this is the first time researchers have been able to point to a demonstrable cause-and-effect by using the rigorous and scientifically accepted method of looking for the "fingerprints" of human-caused climate change.

The scientists took all the information that shows an increase in extreme rain and snow events from the 1950s through the 1990s and ran dozens of computer models numerous times. They put in the effects of greenhouse gases – which come from the burning of fossil fuels – and then ran numerous models without those factors. Only when the greenhouse gases are factored in do the models show a similar increase to what actually happened. All other natural effects alone don't produce the jump in extreme rainfall. Essentially, the computer runs show climate change is the only way to explain what's happening.

In fact, the computer models underestimated the increase in extreme rain and snow. That is puzzling and could be even more troubling for our future, said Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, who wasn't part of the study.

Similar fingerprinting studies have found human-caused greenhouse gas emissions triggered changes in more than a dozen other ecological ways: temperatures on land, the ocean's surface, heat content in the depths of the oceans, temperature extremes, sea level pressure, humidity at ground level and higher in the air, general rainfall amounts, the extent of Arctic sea ice, snowpack levels and timing of runoff in the western United States, Atlantic Ocean salinity, wildfire damage, and the height of the lower atmosphere.

All those signs say global warming is here, said Xuebin Zhang, a research scientist for the Canadian government and co-author of the Northern Hemisphere study. "It is affecting us in multiple directions."

Most of the 10 outside climate experts who reviewed the papers for The Associated Press called the research sound and strong.

However, climate scientist Jerry North of Texas A&M University, while praising the work, said he worried that the studies were making too firm a connection based on weather data that could be poor in some locations. But Francis Zwiers of the University of Victoria, a lead author of the study with Zhang, said the data was from National Weather Service gauges and is reliable.

"Put the two papers together and we start to see an emerging pattern," said Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, who wasn't part of either study. "We should continue to expect increased flooding associated with increased extreme precipitation because of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas. And we have no one to blame but ourselves."

___

Online:

Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — Extreme rainstorms and snowfalls have grown substantially stronger, two studies suggest, with scientists for the first time finding the telltale fingerprints of man-made global warm...
WASHINGTON — Extreme rainstorms and snowfalls have grown substantially stronger, two studies suggest, with scientists for the first time finding the telltale fingerprints of man-made global warm...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,906
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (21 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
03:37 PM on 02/21/2011
This analysis from NOAA’s Climate Scene Investigators (CSI) shows that there’s no historical signature which would implicate a human fingerprint, or as they say:

Specifically, they wanted to know if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall.

from wuwt
JoeMar
My Pet Goat
10:22 PM on 02/21/2011
And smoking does not cause lung cancer.

www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm

I'm sure I can find one about the Easter Bunny too.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:35 PM on 02/19/2011
Much of the Globe Threatened with Drought

http://planetsave.com/2010/10/20/much-of-the-globe-threatened-with-drought/
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
02:04 PM on 02/20/2011
quoting from the article:

"The study also finds that drought risk can be expected to decrease this century across much of Northern Europe, Russia, Canada, and Alaska, as well as some areas in the Southern Hemisphere."

Sounds to me that it tends to average out overall . The one consistent thing is that the globe slowly warms.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
Lawless markets lead ill-gotten gains.
11:51 AM on 02/21/2011
Drought risk may go down...Farmers in the Prairies, however, had to deal with rain rotting their crops through this past summer. This happened in areas prone to drought--one area, in fact, a desert without irrigation.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
05:59 PM on 02/20/2011
"Climate change is intensifying the circulation of water on, above and below the surface of the Earth — causing drought and floods to be more frequent, severe and widespread."

"Higher temperatures increase the amount of moisture that evaporates from land and water, leading to drought in many areas. Lands affected by drought are more vulnerable to flooding once rain falls."

http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/issues/art19624.html
04:49 PM on 02/19/2011
This is extremely good news. Because it was expected, because the prime victim appears to be the main contributor to global warming and because the pain caused is non-discriminatory among the American people.

Perhaps after a few more decades of water and ice deluges American voters will see sense and do away with climate skeptics in time to rescue mankind.
07:07 AM on 02/19/2011
There has been much talk about extremes lately. It seem that weather cycles in the southeast have become more stagnant with longer durations of both wet and dry weather . Thehttp://www.nicholas.duke.edu/news/increasingly-variable-summer-rainfall-in-southeast-linked-to-climate-change

However, looking at the graphics on this page indicates that erratic weather is not unprecedented. Tables 5 and 6 make that clear. That being said I wonder If increased CO2 will enhance negative aspects of natural variability or are lower latitudes somewhat impervious to the effects of AGW.
http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climate/climate_change
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RunningBecky
Runner, nurse, chess player
01:11 PM on 02/19/2011
That's a very good question. Right now, they know the North Pole is feeling the affects more anywhere else. One guess I have, without scientific facts is that since all weather is caused basically by a redistribution of energy from the equator which has a constant excess towards the poles, instead of affecting the equatorial regions so much, it's causing a higher level of redistribution so the further north (or south) you go from the equator, the greater the effect, percentage wise would be. Energy (heat) is reaching the north pole for example for more then it ever reached it before. My guess then is the northern latitudes will experience more effect. huggs Becky
05:17 PM on 02/19/2011
A few decades ago the Scientific American ran an interesting article about the climate in dinosaur times. Since this article was drafted by paleontologists its conclusions would not have reached those interested in climate and climate change.

The most interesting conclusion of the article was that the increase in worldwide temperatures was not evenly distributed. Temperatures around the (then) equator were around 2 degrees higher then at present. Temperate areas however enjoyed average temperatures 8 degrees higher than today. In case people wonder what that means; at present average temperatures in temperate areas are typically 11 or so degrees. So an increase of 8 degrees is major.

The reason for the difference in the distribution of higher temperatures between equator and temperate areas must be a redistribution of heat content of the atmosphere between these areas. Three mechanisms come to mind. Ocean currents, storms and cyclones and large systems of high pressure which transport cold air on their western flanks and warm air on their eastern flanks (in the northern hemisphere). Heat waves in Europe have been clear examples of the latter mechanism.

Maybe some climate scientists would care to read up on that article. ;-)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
midnight toker
11:26 PM on 02/18/2011
(PhysOrg.com) -- Research led by Dr Amelia Shevenell (UCL Geography), published in Nature (9 February), shows that the Antarctic Peninsula is one of the fastest-warming places on Earth, experiencing dramatic regional climate change in recent decades, especially during La Nina years.
The long-term variability of the peninsula’s climate, however, has remained unclear, limiting researchers’ ability to evaluate ongoing changes in a historical context and to understand what part underlying forcing mechanisms might play.
The authors presented data from a marine sediment core, having reconstructed sea surface temperatures over the past 12,000 years. The data showed that long-term cooling of 3 to 4 degrees Celsius occurred in waters near the tip of the peninsula and was related to changes in local insolation, but that short-term variability was strongly influenced by westerly winds.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-antarctic-cooling-global.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dhhh
08:39 PM on 02/18/2011
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/02/16/biggest-solar-flare-in-years-headed-for-earth/
What happens now....?? The earths magnetic protection has weakened...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
08:31 PM on 02/18/2011
Scientists are not the only ones to link Global Warming to extreme weather.

Munich Re Insurance company has reached the same conclusion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-17/munich-re-says-natural-disasters-tripled-in-germany-since-1970-on-climate.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dhhh
01:59 PM on 02/18/2011
ClimateHawk..........,

Just curious.......

How do you feel about peak oil......

I consider it a bigger, more immediate problem............
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
08:29 PM on 02/18/2011
I think we can adapt to and manage peak oil better than climate change. Every time the prices go up at the pump, people start buying more efficient cars.

I think for the most part, market forces will drive us in the right direction on peak oil.

But with climate change, we need to act wisely, and that's much more difficult. It's a "tragedy of the commons" situation.

Just my 2 cents worth.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
12:53 AM on 02/19/2011
I agree. Peak oil may change how we live, more public transportation, less cars, but it doesn't have the destructive impact on the planetary ecosystems of global climate disruption. If anything, even though peak oil may cause terrible economic short term dislocation. it will reduce the impact of global warming.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Soma99
06:47 PM on 02/19/2011
Methinks waiting for price points to tell us what to do is pretty much idiotic - not to mention the monumental scope limitations in the mechanism itself
01:54 PM on 02/18/2011
This is insane..............

It's like evolution.........

The debate only exists outside the scientific community............
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ted Bouklos
U can have ur own opinions but not ur own facts
04:17 PM on 02/18/2011
don't forget about the 1% of the scientific community that deniers always seem to quote, you know, the ones that work for Big Energy...cuz THEY don't have a conflict of interests....pshtt
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
Lawless markets lead ill-gotten gains.
12:31 PM on 02/21/2011
To the tune of Frere Jacques:

"Climate warming, climate warming
Just ain't true, just ain't true
We all know better, we all know better
Than scientists do, than scientists do"

Climate change, climate change,
Is never true, is never true
That's because scientists, that's because scientists,
Lie to you, lie to you.

In the Bible, in the Bible
Literally true, literally true,
Rainbows are a promise, Rainbows are a promise
To me and you, to me and you.

....and so forth.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:49 AM on 02/18/2011
This article is from Seth Borenstein, who has a habit of being totally one sided. Take this line from the article: "Most of the 10 outside climate experts who reviewed the papers for The Associated Press called the research sound and strong." And then goes on to tell us of Jerry North's very mild criticism. Ok. Seth is flat out withholding information in this article. Because Seth spoke to Judith Curry about it. You'd never know if she didn't say something:
"Hi Seth, limited time at the moment, but i did do a blog post on this general topic.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/15/attribution-of-extreme-events/
I find this kind of analysis totally unconvincing, and it does not recognize the role of natural internal variability such as the Arctic Oscillation, La Nina, etc in producing floods. None of the recent floods are extreme in historical context."

Seth has a duty to reveal both sides if he goes so far as to seek both sides. Instead, he withheld pertinent information. More of the same.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:17 AM on 02/18/2011
By the way, I found this information on the New York Times. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/on-storms-warming-caveats-and-the-front-page/?partner=rss&emc=rss
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
12:44 PM on 02/18/2011
It sounds a lot like Judith Curry did not read the articles. So why would anybody want to include her opinion about "this kind of analysis"?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:33 PM on 02/18/2011
That was a broader post.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/16/attribution-of-extreme-events-part-ii/

"I was one of the 10 outside experts interviewed by Seth Borenstein"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ted Bouklos
U can have ur own opinions but not ur own facts
04:30 PM on 02/18/2011
an ex-colleag­ue of hers wrote last year along with reference link:

My one-time lecture-ci­rcuit companion, Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheri­c Sciences at Georgia Tech, has now taken the crown as the most debunked person on the science blogospher­e, which is quite a feat considerin­g the competitio­n. But she invites debunking by her tendency to make scientific­-sounding pronouncem­ents without having actually read the relevant literature­, and then backing down the minute she is challenged by someone who has or who has actually contribute­d to that literature­.

http://cli­mateprogre­ss.org/201­0/11/11/ju­dith-curry­-climate-s­cience/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
07:03 AM on 02/18/2011
Is 30 years statistically significant?

If you want to understand the entire history of our climate, no. That's why scientists use ice cores to go far back in time. The methods for interpreting the ice core samples are amazing, and there are many subtleties.

Let's just suppose we trust the ability of researchers to tease out climate information from these ice cores. (Ice core drilling and interpretation is really not something you can repeat at home, is it? If you don't accept the science, skip to next post.)

Some of the results of analyzing the paleoclimatology are here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 (and download PDF file from upper right)

There's a lot in there for the curious.

What struck me was that as CO2 dropped below 450 ppm, the Antarctic froze. So what do you suppose will happen as we push CO2 back up over 450 ppm?

"Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago,
the planet being nearly ice-free until CO2 fell to 450 ± 100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes,
that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades. If humanity wishes to
preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is
adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be
reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
07:11 AM on 02/18/2011
Is 30 years statistically significant?

If we want to know when we are going to push the CO2 levels above 450 ppm, yes.

If we want to know how much longer the Arctic will have ice in the summer, yes. (along with some other information, like the shape of earth's orbit for the next hundred years)

These are not only significant in the statistical sense (meaning there is enough data to know something accurately) but also significant in the usual sense, i.e. important.

You can follow these important and statistically significant trends here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sam Bark
It's a MAD world after all...
02:07 AM on 02/18/2011
There are 2 distinct phenomena ONE is recent slight increase in atmospheric temperature and TWO is the cause for this increase….
One – a 30 years period of the world life of 4.5 billion years is hardly a long term trend. Statically it is NOT significant by any means….. So to all those little chickens that scream the sky is falling, relax any serious statistician and climatologist will tell you: Hold your horses it is meaningless, and if they don’t their degree is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Two – Let even accept the notion that the atmospheric temperature is rising…. The probability that it is caused by human activity is miniscule, since the prime factor in the world’s climate is the SUN activity and flare-ups which release energy way beyond any human activity can even approach…
So to all those claiming the end of the world is coming, just a reminder of two infamous predictions that prove to be hoaxes as well: One – 1965 Rome club announced that by year 1996 the world will exhaust all petroleum reserves. Two – 1975 Climatologists predicted a new ICE AGE coming within 10 years to the Northern hemisphere……
When climatology and ecology become a precise science base on proven theorem rather then guesswork, let’s talk then…. Till then Hasta la Vista
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
04:33 AM on 02/18/2011
Sam Bark: "a 30 years period of the world life of 4.5 billion years is hardly a long term trend. Statically it is NOT significan­t by any means….. "

With respect to determining what has caused global warming over recent decades that statistic is scientifically irrelevant. That the globe has warmed over recent decades is both statistically significant and scientifically relevant.

Sam Bark: "the prime factor in the world’s climate is the SUN activity"

Over recent decades the sun's linear radiative output trend has remained essentially flat while the globe has continued to warm.

Sam Bark: "1975 Climatolog­ists predicted a new ICE AGE coming within 10 years"

Science denier talking points never d!e, no matter how many times a stake has been driven through their hearts.

"In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M

Sam Bark: "When climatolog­y and ecology become a precise science base on proven theorem..."

In math and science a "theorem" is a mathematical term. Perhaps you meant a "theory" instead? If so you should understand that scientific theories are never "proven".

Sam Bark: "rather then guesswork"

Characterizing the scientific theory that predicted global warming over recent decades and is the only scientific theory that explains global warming over recent decades that has survived scientific scrutiny as mere "guesswork" is science denial.

Hasta la Vista.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sam Bark
It's a MAD world after all...
04:00 AM on 02/19/2011
publicola -- you wrote many words but said nothing.....LoL
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
07:03 AM on 02/18/2011
" Two – 1975 Climatolog­ists predicted a new ICE AGE coming within 10 years to the Northern hemisphere­"

As Publicola accurately notes, essentially everything in your comment is factually inaccurate, but et's look at that one.

Who were the climatologists who predicted this, and where is the prediction? (If you plan to provide links to the infamous Time and Newsweek articles, please quote any ice age predictions you can find in them.)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sam Bark
It's a MAD world after all...
02:36 AM on 02/19/2011
chrisd3 - you believe in your fairytale and I don't....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rainkitty
Lively up yourself.
01:32 AM on 02/18/2011
Why don't Americans believe in global warming?
"A somewhat constructivist approach to building public concern would be to build up the issue-linkage between climate change and the search for renewable-energy sources. This would help mitigate the economic and psychological concerns (the latter because it's easier to accept a problem exists if you have a way of addressing it.) And renewable energy doesn't have the political or epistemological baggage of climate change. As my colleague said yesterday, "The idea that sustainable-resource use and renewable energy is some kind of socialist hippy hobby is incredibly naive and frivolous, and extremely damaging to the American economy." "
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/climate_change
Americans and global warming, continued
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/climate_change_0
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
10:26 PM on 02/17/2011
Correction:

Roger Pielke's quote in the WSJ: “There’s no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather….”

Sounded ok to me, but ...

Zhang et al. (2007): Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends. (Nature)
“We show that anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on observed changes in average precipitation within latitudinal bands, and that these changes cannot be explained by internal climate variability or natural forcing....may have already had significant effects on ecosystems, agriculture and human health in regions that are sensitive to changes in precipitation, such as the Sahel.”

Christidis et al. (2011): The role of human activity in the recent warming of extremely warm daytime temperatures. (J. Climate).
“ Regional distributions of the trend in the parameter are computed with and without human influence using constraints from the global optimal fingerprinting analysis. Anthropogenic forcings alter the regional distributions, indicating that extremely warm days have become hotter.”

Zwiers et al. (2010): Anthropogenic Influence on Long Return Period Daily Temperature Extremes at Regional Scales. (J. Climate).
“We therefore conclude that the influence of anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on extreme temperatures that have impacts on human society and natural systems at global and regional scales. "

See: http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/16/two-nature-paper-join-growing-body-of-evidence-that-human-emissions-fuel-extreme-weather-flooding-that-harm-humans-and-the-environment/