UN Climate Panel To Examine Extreme Weather Events' Link To Climate Change

UNITED NATIONS -- The chairman of a top U.N. climate panel says it will release a new report in November examining the link between climate change and extreme events like floods and drought that are taking place around the world.

Rajendar Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told reporters Tuesday that the panel has already reported that extreme events are increasing.

He said he didn't know whether recent Russia fires and floods in the U.S., Pakistan, and Queensland, Australia, would be included "but we certainly will be able to provide a substantial body of knowledge which will tell you what the patterns and trends are, and what are the kinds of adaptation measures that should be adopted to take care of these impacts."

Comments

[eaarth2]

06:58 AM on 07/21/2011

Correction on my last post- carbon emissions must peak by 2015- C02 will likely keep rising long after that.

[eaarth2]

06:44 AM on 07/21/2011

The report is due out in November by the IPCC on the link between extreme weather events and climate change.

Dr. Pachauri, chairperson of the IPCC- also has said that by 2015 emissions must peak for C02- in order to keep warming at 2 degrees Celsius and prevent costly measures thereafter to reduce those emissions.

That 2 degree rise C- is above the pre industrial levels. we have already warmed around 1 degree C. Dr. Hansen has said 2 degrees C will be a 'prescription for disaster'.

It seems that at 1 degree- already rapid changes are occurring- arctic ice is in a death spiral, and extreme weather events are increasing. An additional 0.5 degrees will add to these growing dangers.

right now we are on a pace to see 3 degrees warming, if not 4.

[Counterintuitive]

09:46 AM on 07/17/2011

The Climate Deniers are promoting a high risk lifestyle - oil wars, tornadoes, and a totally fracked up water supply. This whole idea of altering the atmosphere by releasing more and more CO2 is typical of adolescent behavior. But mature adults are recognized by their insight and wisdom and restraint.

What we really need is a Safe Atmosphere so that we can all start to prosper again.

[ReedYoung]

05:10 PM on 07/13/2011

Of course, one month does not prove a trend, but a month like April should have gotten everybody's attention, and any real skeptic would be consider that a datum that doesn't fit the "everything's fine" line that climate "skeptics" fling about.

Here's what NOAA has to say about last month alone:
April 2011 set a new record with a total of 875 tornadoes.
The previous April record was set in 1974 with 267 tornadoes.
The average number of tornadoes for the month of April during the past decade was 161.
The previous record number of tornadoes duringany month was 542 tornadoes set in May 2003.

That is simply not normal. There is no way around it. With further study, the number of tornadoes this April could still turn out to be "normal," as in something that happens every 600, or 700, or every several thousand years (any interval such that the last one occurred before any written records of any western Europeans), and maybe all the very complicated factors just happened to line up again this year.

But such an assumtion is not the scientific way to deal with an outlier that more than doubles the previous maximum! The scientific approach is to look for plausible hypotheses, and the best one out there is that more energy being trapped on Earth is the cause of the extremely energetic April tornado season.

We know that spring's a bad season for tornadoes. We know that La Niña years fuel stormy Aprils. But 2011 is redefining even those parameters.

One month doesn't prove it, but the tornado pattern this year is certainly consistent with a shift to a new, stormier and more dangerous climate regime. And it's certainly not consistent with any pattern in the historical record.

[Moose Luck 99]

12:49 PM on 07/07/2011

No climate change in Russia!
:)

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message685956/pg1

[jimboy71]

11:13 PM on 07/08/2011

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/16/us-climate-russia-idUSTRE5AF1SU20091116

"(Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned on Monday that climate change posed a "catastrophic" threat in some of the sharpest comments yet on a subject the Kremlin has often seemed reluctant to confront".

[gallon]

11:33 AM on 07/09/2011

False again, moose. Why are you stirring things up so?

[Moose Luck 99]

12:36 PM on 07/07/2011

CLIMATE CHANGE VICTIMS IN IRAN!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OIeL_199Ig

[gallon]

01:16 AM on 07/09/2011

That's a lot of drama for one moose.

[El Justiciero]

11:21 AM on 07/14/2011

SPAM

[bleedingheartlibertarian]

07:17 PM on 07/04/2011

Can't believe this dummy still has a job as frontman for AGW. This is a major reason people don't believe a word of it. Looking at who the salesmen are,what they are trying to sell, and what the solution is, communism on a global scale, it invites total rejection.

[Javani]

10:31 PM on 07/07/2011

It is smart move money wise. They cannot examine the actual temps because the thermometers counter their financial interests, and playing with temp data is more difficult every year with NASA satellites (not GISS/Hansen) making it hard to be tricky. Even average people are familiar that the tree-mometers and other -ometers are distractions from the thermometers. Even the climate gray train scientists know they cannot stand on GISS, so they make up new stories about why the satelliltes show no warming--it is China!

[DocSkull]

11:13 PM on 07/08/2011

"playing with temp data is more difficult every year with NASA satellites (not GISS/Hanse­n) making it hard to be tricky"

It is all NASA.

"so they make up new stories about why the satellilte­s show no warming--i­t is China! "

China isn't burning coal and there is no haze in the sky?

[DocSkull]

11:10 PM on 07/08/2011

"communism on a global scale"

How does concern with the human contribution to global warming create communism?

[Bzakey3]

09:41 AM on 07/04/2011

Who is this Dickensian-looking, snake-oil salesman-like character? Wait, it's ex-railway engineer and discredited IPCC trough-snouter, Rajenda Pachauri.

He's going against the grain again, claiming that wild and severe weather is on the up, and that it's caused by us breathing. We know that wild weather is at a 40-year low, so why the repeated dead horse flogging? Could it be another pitch at nest-feathering, perchance?

The next chapter of Climategate is due in the next few weeks, when the skirt will finally be pulled up on Michael Mann's shenanigans - so at least we can look forward to further push-back against the CAGW hoax in time for Pachauri's next agit-prop press release in November.

[jimboy71]

11:14 PM on 07/08/2011

Absolute and utter rubbish.

[DocSkull]

11:16 PM on 07/08/2011

"The next chapter of Climategat­e is due in the next few weeks, when the skirt will finally be pulled up on Michael Mann's shenanigan­s..."

If you are merely predicting that a conspiracy will be exposed, why do you think there is a conspiracy at all?

[Orkneygal]

06:44 AM on 07/02/2011

So sad the environmental movement has been hijacked by the CAGW alarmists. Many world problems are being ignored as a result of the true believers religious like belief that essential plant food is somehow a pollutant. So many other of the world's problems are being left behind while the world governments throw good money after bad on the IPCC crowd and their junk science.

Over-fishing.
Destruction of native habitats.
Slash&burn agriculture.
Pollution of riverways by agricultural and industrial run-off.
Ocean pollution.
Poaching endangered animals.
Lack of clean water the third world.
Preventable diseases, especially among children.
Under-education of girls.
Enslavement of children.
Human trafficking.
The selling of virginity.
Poverty.
Killing of innocent civilians in war.

These problems suffer because the environmentally minded have been tricked into believing that global warming is due to human activity, is bad thing and more important than all of these other problems are less important. Shame on them for embracing this drivel.

In a hundred years people will recall CAGW and shake their heads that people were tricked by the scoundrels. CAGW will be in the same category as Geocentrics, Cold Fusion, Piltdown Man and The Fountain of Youth. In future, the parallels between the IPCC the Yakuza will be studied by PhD candidates in the Humanities. Carbon emission reduction schemes will be likened to Medieval bleeding, Papal indulgences and witch burning.

Meanwhile, the real problems of the real world fester on. The truly environmentally minded find it all so sickening.

[Tony Dickey]

02:06 PM on 07/02/2011

Your statements are pure conjecture. You cannot prove that any of the issues have been neglected because of attention to AGW. Plus, many that you mention will likely be exacerbated by AGW. If you really cared about the environment, you would realize this.

[realpolitic]

03:14 AM on 07/03/2011

You are speculating and misleading.  When scientists have a vast consensus that man-made greenhouse gases cause warming, how do you know better than they?  Did you even take a science class in college?

[Orkneygal]

06:49 AM on 07/03/2011

I am truthful and on target.

I study real science at University.

Tens of thousands of scientists around the world agree that the case for CAGW, claimed by the non-Scientific IPCC, has not been proven.

[Orkneygal]

07:52 AM on 07/03/2011

A warmer Gaia is a happier Gaia. Warming is good for Gaia.

Cold is bad for Gaia and her inhabitants, especially for the poor, the impoverished and especially vulnerable children.

Why do you despise children? Why do you want to keep them cold?

[Orkneygal]

07:17 AM on 07/01/2011

IPCC Climate models can't quite seem to hindcast very well. Why should they be expected to forecast very well?

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/full/ngeo1200.html

[hogtown]

03:22 PM on 07/01/2011

This article raises concern of accurately predicting critical thresholds and abrupt changes in the climate system and if anything, proves the opposite of what you are trying to insinuate. It clearly describes the models as being built for stability and erring on the side of less, not more. In the author's words...

"If anything, the models are underestimating change, compared with the geological record. According to the evidence from the past, the Earth’s climate is sensitive to small changes, whereas the climate models seem to require a much bigger disturbance to produce abrupt change. Simulations of the coming century with the current generation of complex models may be giving us a false sense of security."

[Orkneygal]

05:51 PM on 07/01/2011

I insinuate nothing, but rather ask a reasonable question which you have not answered.

Based upon this analysis, Gaia could be on the verge of another Ice Age, and the IPCC models would not be able to forecast that.

[ReedYoung]

10:29 AM on 07/14/2011

Ork's unreasonable question is predicated on the falsehood that "IPCC Climate models can't quite seem to hindcast very well" which is a lie, and Ork knows it.

[realpolitic]

03:25 AM on 07/03/2011

It is very fitting that your link has an advertisement for Shell Oil at the top of the page.

Your article talks about the difficulty of forecasting abrupt change and mentions a 5 °C temperature change in the tropics and by up to 20 °C at high latitudes, within a few thousand years, about 56 million years ago.  As another example, the editorial talks of a complete collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.  Scientists do not even predict these drastic events with the present warming, which would produce chaos.

The editorial says "Overall, the modelling of past abrupt events does not give us confidence in the ability of complex models to simulate critical threshold behaviour that we know has occurred in the past."   No one is saying that we are confident of predicting "critical threshold behavior", but that is a far cry from predicting the temperature increase we are seeing in the environment and a probable rise we will see of 3 degrees F by the turn of the century.

[Orkneygal]

06:44 AM on 07/03/2011

My link has no Shell Oil advertisement on it. Advertisements displayed are chosen by your ISP in conjunction with your browser.

You are clearly do not understand how the internet works.

[ReedYoung]

10:36 AM on 07/14/2011

No advertisement selection is "chosen by your ISP" nor "in conjunction with your browser."

https://www.google.com/adsense/www/en_US/tour/howitworks.html

Ork clearly does not understand how the Internet works. Ads are targeted to your usage patterns as recorded by Google, or whatever other ad server the advertiser uses. (other than simple, static ads that are just displayed on a particular page regardless of your previous usage) The variables are the page you're viewing, and some metadata about your browsing history. It has absolutely nothing to do with your browser. Ork has yet to demonstrate any knowledge of any subject she mouths off about.

[TVTemptress]

06:18 PM on 06/30/2011

hey climate lovers, want to see the best of the elements hindering master chefs as they cook? watch extreme chef tonight at 10 :D

[Chris 1]

09:45 AM on 06/30/2011

Junk science is a daily process, the IPCC is sinking to new lows.

Next, take the temp record "private";

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate-data-top-secret/

[Jim Milks]

03:57 PM on 06/30/2011

Anyone can get climate data from NOAA–as long as you're willing to pay for it. As for the website itself, well, there are a few technical flaws in their analysis that I don't have time (or space) to get into here. What I'd like to point out is this: The evidence for climate change is far more than temperature records. We ecologists notice changes due to warming in the natural systems we study. Here's a decent list of those changes compiled from many studies and made available by NPR: http://www.sciencefriday.com/blog/2011/04/2031/

[Jim Milks]

08:02 PM on 06/30/2011

Did some digging. Since that blog to which you linked primarily discusses the adjustments made to temperature series, I thought you'd like to know what those adjustments are and why they're made-that is, if you really care to investigate: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL

[lbsaltzman]

11:29 PM on 06/29/2011

I am not interested in the ranting of the television weatherman who runs wattsupwiththat.com. He is not a scientists is simply repeats the usual denial myths about the profound and deadly change to climate our planet is undergoing. Weather isn't climate and you can't use cherry picked weather events to show that global warming isn't happening. But meteorologists are seeing the footprint of global warming in the extreme weather events around the planet. The scientific evidence is getting stronger every day.

[fumes]

08:39 PM on 06/29/2011

fun poll:

how many alarmists still visit your local gas station?

and heat with fossil fuel?

[StephenBP]

09:43 AM on 06/30/2011

OK. So you have a different point of view. Resorting to mockery does what to advance your point exactly?

[Living ECO]

12:59 PM on 06/30/2011

Dear Pollutionist,
What mode of transportation would you suggest, if not fossil one that uses fossil fuels? If I want to go from Los Angeles to NYC, you seem to be suggesting that I can go some other way. You seem to be accusing people of using fossil fuels as if they have a choice? Do you blame the slave for being a slave as well?

Here's another fun poll for you:

How many ways can I get to NYC from Los Angeles, other than walking or riding my bike that does not consume fossil fuels?

Don't blame the person who has no choice because the oil energy tyranny (Big Oil pushing this country into oil wars, propping up dictators in and around oil, buying off politicians all in the name of national security)

As soon as there is a choice, people go for it. Given the choice between a car that runs on gasoline (which then forces me to go the gas station, forces me to change the oil, oil filters, and the list goes on) and an electric car which is at least 3 times as efficient as a gasoline burner and where a $100k car out its gas guzzling $500k counterpart (both well documented facts), I'll go for the smart choice every time.

Don't blame people for not having a choice. Only a moron would blame the slave for being a slave.

[jimboy71]

11:21 PM on 07/08/2011

Quod Erat Demonstratum! :)

[gallon]

12:03 PM on 07/09/2011

That is excellent, ECO. We are a captive market for Big Energy.

[fumes]

08:33 PM on 06/29/2011

this is hilarious!

so catastrophic global warming you guys still fall for..

while catastrophic cooling can't happen.

yet in the history of the earth..

catastrophic cooling has indeed occurred..

while catastrophic warming has never happened.

you guys are the most fun!

[alteredstory]

12:49 AM on 06/30/2011

You like playing with straw men, don't you?

[alteredstory]

12:50 AM on 06/30/2011

Oh, and FYI, catastrophic warming has occurred in the past many times, and has always been associated with mass extinctions.