PDA

View Full Version : Russian heat wave of 2010 due to natural causes: NOAA study



Gingersnap
03-10-2011, 02:44 PM
Russian heat wave of 2010 due to natural causes: NOAA study

Posted by: JeffMasters, 2:11 PM GMT on March 10, 2011

The deadliest heat wave in human history--the 2010 Russian heat wave, which killed approximately 56,000 people last summer--was due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon often associated with weather extremes, according to a new NOAA study. The study, titled "Was There a Basis for Anticipating the 2010 Russian Heat Wave?" was accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, and used observations and computer climate models to evaluate the possible roles of natural and human-caused climate influences on the severity of the heat wave.

Here's the body of the NOAA Press Release on the study:


"Knowledge of prior regional climate trends and current levels of greenhouse gas concentrations would not have helped us anticipate the 2010 summer heat wave in Russia," said lead author Randall Dole, deputy director of research at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Science Division and a fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). "Nor did ocean temperatures or sea ice status in early summer of 2010 suggest what was to come in Russia."

Temperatures in the upper 90s to above 100F scorched western Russia and surrounding areas from July through mid-August, 2010. In Moscow, the long-term daily average temperatures for July range from 65-67F; in 2010, daily average July temperatures soared up to 87. Daily average temperatures include the night. The exceptional heat over such a long duration, combined with poor air quality from wildfires increased deaths by at least 56,000 in Moscow and other parts of western Russia, according to Munich Reinsurance, and led to massive crop failures in the region.

While a contribution to the heat wave from climate change could not be entirely ruled out, if it was present, it played a much smaller role than naturally occurring meteorological processes in explaining this heat wave's intensity.

Wunderground (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1760)

The Night Owl
03-10-2011, 05:14 PM
Wunderground (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1760)

So, if you agree with NOAA's position on the Russian heatwave of 2010, can I assume you agree with NOAA's position on climate change?

Starbuck
03-10-2011, 08:17 PM
So, if you agree with NOAA's position on the Russian heatwave of 2010, can I assume you agree with NOAA's position on climate change?
What is their position?

Starbuck
03-10-2011, 08:20 PM
Never mind. I found it:

What does The Milankovitch Theory say about future climate change?
Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982). Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 - 100,000 years
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

fettpett
03-10-2011, 09:22 PM
So, if you agree with NOAA's position on the Russian heatwave of 2010, can I assume you agree with NOAA's position on climate change?

I didn't see any agreement with it...just posting a story

Gingersnap
03-10-2011, 09:27 PM
So, if you agree with NOAA's position on the Russian heatwave of 2010, can I assume you agree with NOAA's position on climate change?

Why would you assume that? Seriously - why? :confused:

The Night Owl
03-11-2011, 09:31 AM
Why would you assume that? Seriously - why? :confused:

Because I can't think of a reason why you would trust NOAA's on one matter but distrust NOAA's position on another matter. Is it that you agree only with findings that sit well with you? Please, explain.

The Night Owl
03-11-2011, 09:50 AM
Never mind. I found it:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

Great. Now that we know NOAA's position on the explanation for seasons we can move on to learning about NOAA's position on climate change:


1. What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?

The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18C) instead of its present 57F (14C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.

2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1




How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?
[ Return to FAQs ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These estimates are often obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) which provide a natural archive of climate variations. These indicators show that the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years. The third line of evidence is based on comparisons of actual climate with computer models of how we expect climate to behave under certain human influences. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content, a rise in global sea level, and general retreat of sea ice and snow cover. These and other aspects of modeled climate change are in agreement with observations.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/climfaq15.html

FBIGuy
03-11-2011, 09:52 AM
Because I can't think of a reason why you would trust NOAA's on one matter but distrust NOAA's position on another matter. Is it that you agree only with findings that sit well with you?

Does a single source have to be right about everything on which it reports? That reeks of a lack of independent thinking.

The Night Owl
03-11-2011, 09:58 AM
Does a single source have to be right about everything on which it reports? That reeks of a lack of independent thinking.

So, what leads you to believe NOAA is right about the Russian heatwave of 2010 but wrong about climate change?

FBIGuy
03-11-2011, 10:01 AM
So, what leads you to believe NOAA is right about the Russian heatwave but wrong about climate change?

Other sources of information that confirm the not only invalidity of man-made global warming but man's inability to construct accurate predictive models of long term weather events.

The bible has many historical accuracies in it. Do you accept it as an accurate and truthful document? Making the same apparent assumptions that you are concerning NOAA then you would have to acknowledge and accept that the bible is a historical document.

Gingersnap
03-11-2011, 10:20 AM
Because I can't think of a reason why you would trust NOAA's on one matter but distrust NOAA's position on another matter. Is it that you agree only with findings that sit well with you? Please, explain.

I work very closely with NOAA data sets on a daily basis. I'm acutely aware of the organization's strengths and weaknesses. I have a good understanding of the meteorology that went into this analysis.

Just because the policy wonks in NOAA have imposed a top-down organizational vision that veers between absurd and tragically wistful, doesn't mean that all the work of the agency is corrupted. It does mean that any statement issued by the agency needs a careful reading, a peek at their quality assurance methodology, and some verification.

Surely you don't believe that any governmental or private agency is wholly beyond reproach, do you? Most of science is picking up the verifiable nuggets of knowledge and discarding the unverifiable wishful thinking. Every group doing data collection and research is subject to various types of bias, even my own. We work hard to eliminate it every day.

The Night Owl
03-11-2011, 10:28 AM
I work very closely with NOAA data sets on a daily basis. I'm acutely aware of the organization's strengths and weaknesses. I have a good understanding of the meteorology that went into this analysis.

Just because the policy wonks in NOAA have imposed a top-down organizational vision that veers between absurd and tragically wistful, doesn't mean that all the work of the agency is corrupted. It does mean that any statement issued by the agency needs a careful reading, a peek at their quality assurance methodology, and some verification.

Surely you don't believe that any governmental or private agency is wholly beyond reproach, do you? Most of science is picking up the verifiable nuggets of knowledge and discarding the unverifiable wishful thinking. Every group doing data collection and research is subject to various types of bias, even my own. We work hard to eliminate it every day.

Okay. So, what leads you to believe that NOAA is right about the Russian heatwave of 2010 but wrong about climate change?

FBIGuy
03-11-2011, 11:06 AM
Okay. So, what leads you to believe that NOAA is right about the Russian heatwave of 2010 but wrong about climate change?

What leads you to believe that they are right about both?

The Night Owl
03-11-2011, 12:27 PM
What leads you to believe that they are right about both?

NOAA is a prestigious scientific agency and its information products are subject to extensive peer review. That doesn't mean I think NOAA is infallible. It means I have no reason to distrust information NOAA puts out.