Discussion on:

Studies prove link between human activity and extreme weather events

The "politicking, paranoia, personal attacks, and cheap shots against scientists" will end when the obfuscation, manipulation, peer coercion, and falsifying of data ends. Until then, computer modeling and these so-called conclusive studies are open to investigation and debate. The science is far from settled, even if eco-faith is not.

I imagine that the "researchers" at Edinburgh University stopped using the rings on trees and are now using ducks to predict the weather. They sound like a bunch of Quacks not scientists.

I have greater faith in the ground hog. The ground hog didn't see it's shadow so we will have an early spring.

"the politicking, paranoia, personal attacks, and cheap shots" will never end because they lead to big profits for some companies & they feed the anti-scientific bias of parts of the population.

While these studies are of value to those who conducted them, they are not put forward in a manner that will convince the ultra-religious and conservative members of society who see science as invalid.
More needs to be done with the results of the research done in science to "humanize" it so that acceptance will be increased in the general population.
In case you have missed my point, science, in general, needs a publicist.

We need to shift the conversation from climate change (since many appear to believe that scientific outcomes are something to be debated) to something we all agree we deserve: clean air, clean water, clean food.

Meaning, there is at least one place in every city where the air smells so bad you need to shut your air vents just to drive past, let alone if you are unlucky enough to love or work nearby. No one wants to be sickened by chemicals in the air or water, or poisoned by eating fish.

In the end, I would much rather find a common ground and move forward, than to continue this futile exercise in trying to bring skeptics over to our "side." I would prefer clean air and water over the privilege of being able to tell people "I told you so."

"While these studies are of value to those who conducted them, they are not put forward in a manner that will convince the ultra-religious and conservative members of society who see science as invalid."

I say WHO CARES WHAT THOSE CRETINS THINK? Acquiescing to those types of Faux News Flat Earthers is SUICIDE. Wake up and sweep them out of the way of the oncoming REALITY BASED WORLD!

This should be only the first of many studies that will verify the link. As models become more finely tuned they will be able to point to new areas to investigate.

As we move forward we should also see the effect of DST (Dynamical Systems Theory) sometimes referred to as ?Chaos Theory?. Remember ?a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause a tornado in Kansas??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

DST says that for any complex and highly disorganized system we will see a set of two or more nodal points that the system will move between. This ? the nodal shift - should occur with increasing frequency as the system moves closer and closer to a permanent state change. DST also informs us that adding energy to any highly disorganized system will cause it to seek a new equilibrium if only for a short period of time.

Increasing the amount of energy in the atmosphere by even one degree globally represents a huge increase in the energy in the system. This causes instability and change. I believe this is what we are seeing by the increasing hot/cold/dry/wet sequences in Europe and globally.

When a chaotic system has had the right amount of extra energy injected into it it will likely jump to one of its new islands of stability. This does not happen slowly. It is like an overinflated balloon when it breaks. The balloon goes through a catastrophic state change. This is what will happen with our climate when the temperature reaches about the temperature we have now. Soon ? within 10 years ? we will see what our climate looks like when it goes through a catastrophic (from our view) state change.

None of us can possibly predict what will happen but from a scientific perspective it will be very interesting and informative. The scientific amusement will be tempered by the actual impact of the change on human lives.

This headline is completely misleading - the studies do nothing to connect "human activity" with the rise in temperature and thus extreme weather events. The models only look at the effect of "warming temperatures" on extreme weather events. I would think that if they start factoring in "cooling temperatures" such as we are having now, the models would look quite different.

@Margaretl

i) one of the studies is titled, "Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes..." Am I missing something?

ii) Who says there are "cooling temperatures?"

Because this study compared actual data with climate models
(that are by definition incomplete, and may be flawed), I think a
better title would have been "Studies demonstrate link ..." or
"Studies confirm link ...".

I am among those who believe that humans have changed the
climate, and that the only real debate should be by how much (vs.
how much might be caused by natural processes). But I can
understand why some people remain skeptical when headlines
proclaiming "proof" and "truth" are really describing probabilities
and "best current model". Add to that the fact that many of the
climate change doubters are religious conservatives who have a
very specific conception of "truth". So we should all make an
effort to use scientific terms to define our results and avoid
absolutisms and any overlap with common religious terminology.

"...it?s high time for the politicking, paranoia, personal attacks, and cheap shots against scientists to end.

It's not going to end any time soon. The opposition is political in nature. They have no way of attacking the science so they have to attack the character of the scientists who are doing the science. Sooner or later the reality of the situation will catch up with enough people that the opponents will fade away and those who continue to cling to their notions will be considered crackpots. I just hope it's not too late for all of us.

David, the "cooling temperatures" meme is one of the mantra's on the denier side. Because 1998, with its exceptional El Nino, is still the hottest year in the HadCRU record (the same CRU of the infamous "climategate" emails) they think it's been cooling since then. Of course the NASA/GISS and NOAA records show 2005 and 2010 are tied for the hottest year on record and based on all of the factors that are coming together 2012 (or possibly 2013) will likely set a new record for global temperature.

Thought I ended the italics but must have missed it.

How about now?

Comments 8 and 10 are right. The title is greatly misleading. There is a big difference between offering proof and proving. We absolutely need more of these kinds of studies, and we absolutely need to be aware that we face greater likelihood of unusual and even catastrophic weather events. The only thing these studies prove is that there is more proving and discovery to do, and compelling urgency to keep at it.

David is too young. The last two winters in the northeast US remind me of my youth and young adult hood. Just reverting back to the mean from the easy winters of the past couple decades.

There is not a doubt that we are affecting the planet in a way that will be our undoing with life as we know it...
But, there are extremes in both directions, or we would not have statistics which change over thousands of years....
The Politics change??? The slandering stop??? Not as long as somebody is making money from trashing the earth and the crooked politicians are still in office.....

The title of the piece Studies prove link between human activity and extreme weather events is irresponsible and inappropriate.

Before we take studies like these seriously we need to see DATA that shows that there really has been a rise in precipitation over a reasonably long period, say the last 100 years. I know of no such data that supports this position.

If such DATA does not exist, no amount of trendy computer modelling will help one way or the other to resolve this issue. Dont forget that computer models simply reflect scientific hypotheses that await verification - by matching them against real world DATA - which, I claim, we do not have.

The study examines how human activity is influencing how heavy rainfall becomes in Northern Hemisphere. Researchers showed the correlation by comparing rainfall totals over the past fifty years to multiple climate models.

#16, looks like they did look at precipitation totals in that study. What makes you think they don't have precipitation data? That's a standard measurement at a weather station.

They are looking for a source of heat and unfortunately climate science is blind as can be. Building and energy professionals use calculators in science, we couldn't see temperature.

Solar radiation burns skin and it is burning buildings. On January 23, 2011 it was 39 deg. F and solar exposed sides of buildings were 158 without producing emissions. http://thermoguy.com/urbanheat.html

From the paper's abstract, this prediction simply relies on the fact that as the earth's atmosphere heats up, it stores more water. It assumes that the cause of this heating is due to man's influence and says it is proven simply because they can come up with computer models of man-caused global warming fit the precipitation patterns of the last 50 years or so.

There apparently is no consideration or refutation of the hypothesis that natural warming of the earth could have caused the same effect (of course, I don't know this for sure since even though this paper was largely funded by taxpayers, its contents are not freely available to the public).

Thermoguy, #18

Of course the Sun is the source of all of the heat/energy that matters regarding the climate system. But you could take all of the 158 deg. F building sides or roofs in the world and they don't amount to a hill of beans regarding global warming. They just don't cover enough of the Earth's surface to matter that much. Remember, over 70% of the Earths' surface is covered by water where there are no urban heat islands.

zackers, #19

You think the claim that "man caused global warming" is an assumption but there is plenty of evidence to back it up.

If there were no greenhouse gases (natural or human produced) in the atmosphere the average temperature on the surface of the Earth would about 0 degrees Fahrenheit instead of about 58 F. This is well established science. The most important GHG's are water vapor, CO2 and methane. Clouds are also a major factor.

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from about 280 ppmv in 1830 to about 390 ppmv in 2010, a nearly 40% increase, after being about 280 ppmv for the last 10,000 years. The year to year rise of atmospheric CO2 is 40-50% of the total amount of CO2 released by human activities. That is powerful evidence that the rise in CO2 is due to humans. There is other evidence such as the ratio of C12/C13 that point to human burning of fossil fuels for the CO2 increase.

In the absence of changes in other known factors that affect climate those two things are powerful evidence that most of the global warming is due to human activities or feedbacks from those activities. The evidence is strong enough now and has been studied for long enough that you need to present some actual science that refutes it. Just saying we don't know enough to say is not good enough.

The papers weren't addressing whether the warming came from humans or not but how temperature changes have affected precipitation patterns.

If you want to read the paper your nearest university library should be able to get a copy of the Journal it was published in for you. Sometimes it takes a little effort to find a paper published in a Journal but it's doable if you want it.

I have had it with climate-change skeptics. They are either too greedy or too ignorant to see the writing on the wall. Virtually every reputable scientist in the world with any decent climatological experience, as well as a growing number of energy and oil companies, recognizes that mankind is seriously affecting the planet's climate. No amount of data or study is going to convince the bull-headed.

I believe all remaining skeptics should have their names recorded, and they should be shipped off to concentration camps, preferably on islands in Micronesia that are disappearing beneath rising oceans or to the melting ice shelf in the Arctic.

If you think that's harsh, I'm sorry, but anyone who obstinately stands in the way of taking steps to reduce man's harm to the planet, in the face of mountains of evidence, deserves nothing less.

I believe all remaining skeptics should have their names recorded, and they should be shipped off to concentration camps ...

Nah, just put them in stocks in front of the courthouse so we can ridicule them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATTknP8t7JU

Submit to his political agenda, or he'll start pushing little red buttons.

Unfortunately, there are lots of totalitarianistic people who agree
with hum. Thank God his opinion doesn't matter.

Sorry John.

The difference is I would hope the naysayers would perish by their own hands (or lack of action).

I just don't appreciate you taking the rest of us with you.