Extreme events and catastrophes

In recent  years the media has been full of hyped-up stories about increasing extreme events, such as storms, floods and droughts, and keen to attribute them to climate change, along with claims of imminent catastrophe.  To what extent is this supported by the IPCC, and has there been a climb-down in IPCC claims about this?  Roger Pielke Jr suggested (see point 5 of his post) that there has been a ‘walking back’ of claims regarding extreme events, and says ‘kudos to the IPCC’ for this.  In a follow-up post he gives a number of direct quotes from AR5 chapter 2, all of which use phrases like “limited evidence”, “no significant trend”, “low confidence”, but he laments that this is unlikely to slay the storm-caused-by-global-warming zombie.

There are two relevant tables in the AR5 report.  Regarding the chance of some catastrophic event (such as the collapse of the Gulf Stream) there is Table 12.4 in Chapter 12 of the main report.   At  Bishop Hill, Katabasis has already discussed Table 12.4, pointing out that almost all of the catastrophes listed in Table 12.4 are either described as “very unlikely” or assessed with “low confidence”.  Judith Curry has also discussed this, “Did the AR5 take the ‘dangerous’ out of AGW?

Possible increases in events such as storms and floods are described in Table SPM.1, page 23 in the SPM.   It is interesting to compare Table SPM.1 with the corresponding one from AR4. Fortunately we don’t have to compare two tables side by side because this comparison is included in the table. The text in black is the AR5 assessment, the text below in blue is from the 2012 SREX report, and the last line in red (orange) is from the 2007 AR4 (irritatingly, although Table SPM.1 is on page 23, its caption is on page 4!)

The table shows that for tropical cyclones (which includes hurricanes) there has been a reduction in confidence (for example from ‘likely’ to ‘more likely than not’ in some regions). And similarly for droughts, where the phrase ‘low confidence’ appears three times.  On the other hand, risk of extreme high sea levels in the future seems to have gone up, from ‘likely’ to ‘very likely’. Similarly, likelihood of human contribution to heat waves has gone up.

So overall, is it a climbdown or a ratcheting up of  extreme event risk?


3 thoughts on “Extreme events and catastrophes

  1. Perhaps I’m not looking in the right places, but just where is the hard science to support claims of “extreme high sea levels in future” and “human contribution to heat waves”?

  2. Table 12.4 is being cited throughout the Deny-o-sphere because it downplays the probability of all near-term catastrophes. Therefore, thanks to government-appointed reviewers, the IPCC remains overly-optimistic. However, if so, this falsifies the notion that environmental alarmism is a scientific conspiracy; and renders the Heartland Institute’s NIPCC completely redundant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s