I wrote an unnecessarily rude article a few days ago about a study of Texas precipitation variability. Here is the response from the author. I’m going to take her suggestion and check out the daily data she based the study on.
Hi,
Just thought I’d drop in to clarify a few issues.
I do have a BSc in physics and a PhD in atmospheric science, if anyone is wondering where my credentials come from.
Regarding the information quoted above, I analyzed changes in the variance of observed *daily* data from NOAA/NCDC stations, no modelling of any kind involved. You are welcome to do the same and I would be happy to compare our results. Please note that the figure copied above is based on annual averages, not daily data, while my statement refers to changes in daily data for long-term stations with no more than 5% missing data over the period of record.
I appreciate any honest and civil critiques. Anonymous slurs are more insulting to the person making them than to the person on the receiving end.
Yours sincerely,
Katharine Hayhoe
———————————
The data I used is from the Global Historical Climatology Network. It is available here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-daily/
There isn’t any contradiction between having more variability at the day-to-day level but not seeing it at the annual level. For example: the average of (2,2,2) is 2, but the average of (0,0,6) is also 2. So if you have more dry days and more wet days, they can still average out to the same number over the year, but with very different consequences for farmers, homeowners, and even surface water supply, in the meantime.
Did she link the data or have you found it?
I added that info to the article
Sigh, have you found it yet? Is it the .gz files where the data is? I hate these egg hunts.
NVM….
Good move, Steven, both for the apology about rudeness as well as checking out the data. Credibility is based on reality but it can be undermined by lack of civility.
Katharine was kind enough to clarify without castigating. This is how dialog develops and it is nice to see even a small one in this most contentious area.
Well done to both of you and please, do keep up the discourse.
My analyst brain exploded over this so I can not comment!
The last paragraph is the profound one and exemplifies my frustration with establishing Global Mean Temperatures then blaming it on CO2
Ok, first, let’s be clear about what is occurring here……….
First, Dr. Hayhoe didn’t clarify anything other than her view of variability.
Secondly, her link isn’t really a pointer to where or how she came about the data. From the page she linked, “The total of 1.4 billion data values includes 250 million values each for maximum and minimum temperatures, 500 million precipitation totals, and 200 million observations each for snowfall and snow depth.”
Yes, thank you for narrowing that down for us Dr. Hayhoe. Why it ought to obvious where to go from there to find the data you used. :-|.
Thirdly, her response to me that gave the link…… it may be that I’m a bit thin skinned, but I was asking, what I thought some legitimate questions and left questions unstated I felt would be understood. The response I got was a remedial 3rd grade explanation of algebra. Thanks again Dr. Hayhoe, you complain that Steve’s posting didn’t do you justice, then you insult my intelligence. I will give as good as I get. What part of the word “seemingly” do you not understand, I’d be happy to explain it to you next time you pop by with more of your “clarifications”.
This is nothing more than a drive-by pretense of righteous indignation followed by an appeal to her own authority, obfuscating the data sources and methods, buoyed by her own bluster. She showed nothing, …… the one thing that has no variability in climatology.
James Sexton
James:
When I see anything based on NCDC records my brain shuts down as it is responding to the quality of the product that organization offers. Just Micro Climate effects can distort the results way beyond reliable and that does not include the way the data is processed before some unsuspecting researcher gets a hold of the suspect data expecting some level of quality when none exists.
Agreed. Sadly, for a minute, I thought the good Dr. would have been interested in an honest discourse and different perspectives of climate variability. And maybe an opportunity to improve her findings and our understanding of her views.
Apparently, I was a bit optimistic.
(0,0,6) does average out to two but unless you have sustained zeros you do not have drought.
I would like to understand how Katharine Hayoe tabulates daily variability. Is daily variability a valid gradient? Precipitation everyday isn’t a good thing. I would think average weekly/monthly or growing season average would be sufficient over a hundred plus years of records.
Does Katharine Hayoe have a paper or a press release?
I thought Katherine Hayhoe was some kind of a religious person who is also a climate scientist.
James,
Thanks for the info. Not being a scientist myself, I respect and rely upon your opinions and documentation. Keep up the good work!
Andy, thanks for the compliment, but I’d like to make it clear that I’m not a “scientist”, in the terms of credentialing like Dr. Hayhoe.
It’s just that I’ve been at this game so long that I can see a hand wave from miles away. OTOH, it also lends me to be overly suspicious and caustic.
That said, Dr. Curry once did a segment on knowledge levels vs. credentialing etc. I would say, that the typical engaged skeptic is generally more knowledgeable about the general science of the multi-facet disciplines of CAGW/CC than many of the specialized scientists. For instance, many of us can give details about dendrochronology that an atmospheric scientist would not know. The same could also be stated that many of us skeptics could speak details about various oceanic escalations while many scientists involved in dendro couldn’t tell AMO from PDO. (Though, as witnessed here, there isn’t always an agreement on what they mean themselves.)
It seems that prior to the formation of the IPCC and the Global Warming Industry some dendro scientists actually did science to aid in regional planing. They didn’t blame CO2 – Global Warming, or spout non-sense.
“Texas Drought History Reconstructed and Analyzed from 1698 to 1980”
The mean and variance of June PDSI during the 50-yr period of meteorological observation (1931-80) appear to be representative of the last 283 yr, but significant changes in average June PDSI for Texas appear to have occurred over both 30 and 90-yr time intervals. Moderate or more severe June droughts (PDSI 2.0) have an estimated recurrence probability of over 90% each decade, and the risk of extreme June drought (PDSI 4.0) is estimated at over 50% every 15 yr in north Texas and every 10 yr in south Texas. The reconstructions faithfully reproduce the frequency domain properties of the actual June PDSI, and marginally significant spectral peaks are present at 2.3 yr and between 14 and 18.67 yr in both reconstructions. Significant interannual persistence of June moisture extremes apparent in the statewide June temperature, precipitation, and PDSI data from 1888 to 1982 is also present in both regional reconstructions from 1698 to 1980. The reconstructions indicate that the risk for below average June moisture conditions increases to at least 65% in north and south Texas in the summer following a June drought (PDSI 2.0). Interannual persistence is also indicated for June wetness anomalies and may have some modest value in statistical forecasts of growing season moisture conditions in Texas.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442(1988)001%3C0059%3ATDHRAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
This is a purely empirical analysis of the data so of course it wouldn’t include anything else.
Yes, they analyzed the data, empirically. They were doing science. Now they do political science. You can almost determine the year of publication by reading the conclusions. If it ends with something like…..”We must reduce GHG emissions or…….you know if was probably published after the formation of the IPCC.
Empiricism is a thing of the past
Dear all,
Thank you for the kind remarks from Steve and PJB. I appreciate your interest and willingness to dialogue.
For those of you who are still deeply suspicious of me — please take a minute to view my profile below before writing again, so you know more about me and who I am before you make any unjustified assumptions. (justified ones are fine 🙂 I am a real human being, and despite being a scientist I am still hurt when people deliberately make assumptions regarding my motives. I also had a house in the direct line of the Texas fires, so I have a great deal personally at stake here.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/secretlife/scientists/katharine-hayhoe/
Regarding the specific questions, I will do my best to respond but my brevity is simply due to lack of time, not curtness, for the thin-skinned.
1. The article in the Hamilton Spectator was re-titled by the paper from the original title the author had given it. I felt the title completely misrepresented what I and my colleagues had said in the article, so I actually wrote to the editor of the HS the day it came out and asked him to change the title to something more accurate, which he did.
http://www.thespec.com/news/world/article/521512–texas-fires-push-climate-change-hot-buttons
2. In the article, I was clear that I was talking about west Texas. I also gave the selection criteria above on how we chose the stations we used for our analysis.
3. Here is the latest scientific paper to study trends in daily precipitation variability and its possible relation to global change, as well as some previous papers that simply documented observed changes. As you can see from these papers, there are some standard metrics that we use to assess variability.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/abs/nature09763.html
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/~dmarta/publications.dir/Frich2002.pdf
https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/1477/1/Stephenson.pdf
4. I am well aware that there are many questions regarding the reality of climate change, the degree to which it can be attributed to humans, and the magnitude and importance of future change. Rather than getting into any specifics or debating any of those questions here, I would recommend http://www.skepticalscience.com as an outstanding resource that summarizes all the relevant science on these issues, including the issues of changing variability and extremes.
Yours sincerely,
Katharine Hayhoe
Katharine,
My interest/curiosity comes from:
TheSpec – Texas fires push climate change hot buttons
Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, a research associate professor at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, said Texas trends are already emerging — especially a tendency toward more extreme rainfall events.
“Here in West Texas, our rainfall’s getting more variable,” said Hayhoe, a specialist in modelling climate change across regions. “It’s either feast or famine. It’s either really dry or it’s really wet. We’re not getting a lot in the middle.”
Rainfall in a few heavy bursts rather than throughout a growing season might not help crops very much. Higher temperatures might boost irrigation demands, further depleting West Texas’ already declining Ogallala Aquifer, Hayhoe said.
Although no one drought or flood can be blamed on climate change, she said, the chances for such events might increase, like rolling dice loaded with an extra six.
“You never know if the six you roll is the natural one or the climate-change one,” Hayhoe said. “But you do know you’re getting them twice as much as you used to.”
-http://www.thespec.com/news/world/article/521512–texas-fires-push-climate-change-hot-buttons
In the Stphenson paper figures(6-7) I am not seeing much of a difference in West Texas from the rest of Texas or most of the rest of the country. Where should I be looking?
-https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/1477/1/Stephenson.pdf
Sorry Katherine. It was working up until the last line. If you would like to present yourself as objective on this issue, you would be well served to either provide two ‘opposing’ sources – fair and balanced and all that – or at least choose on that is not so obviously an advocacy site.
Surely as a scientist you first choice for information is not advocacy sites, is it?
But thanks for commenting here. Hope you do again.
I am sure to Dr KH and countless others, SS does not appear like an “advocacy site” but “an easy-to-use place where apparently knowledgeable people speak scientific lingo”.
A nice and comfy place to visit indeed. As it happens, that’s exactly the thinking of the victims of Lophius Piscatorius.
One other question.
How severe would those Texas fires be if there were not severe fuel buildups due to past fire suppression?
Remember Al, We are focusing on West Texas, so that would be West Texas fires. I would also like to know the percentage of fires caused by lightning and those caused by human interference.
I am also puzzled about the fires but Katherine’s statement regarding West Texas precipitation:
“It’s either feast or famine. It’s either really dry or it’s really wet. We’re not getting a lot in the middle.
If West Texas were “getting a lot in the middle” would that not be a dramatic climate change to a region which way back into the paleo record has always consisted of arid, semi-arid and desert land?
Paul… re “in the middle”
Oh, oh. Its a new problem. It is tooooooo normal!!!
So, AGW causes absolutely everything. Or nothing. What’s the difference?
Directed to Skepticalscience.com as a source of unbiased information on climate change? That’s all I need to see.
No; I shall not accept the inappropriately named Skeptical Science as “an outstanding resource”. I took one look at the site and one item immediately caught the eye: “How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website”. Any site that calumniates sceptics as deniers is hardly trying to be fair.
From the front page:
I should immediately question the good faith of any “scientist” who promotes that site.
Sounds like they are making a distinction between being a skeptic and being a denier. Seems like a useful distinction.
Skeptical Science defines sceptics as deniers. That is not making a distinction; that is the very opposite of making a distinction.
You have to assess what someone does, not what they say, to figure out what you are dealing with.
Yes, Dr Hayhoe, if you are reading this,
Please do appreciate that Skeptical Science, is not what you might be impressed with them to be.
The communication gap is staggering. Mentioning SS here (where at least half of the commenters could tear apart that site’s arguments, eg by showing how often papers’ conclusions are distorted for a single, maniacal purpose) is such a naive faux-pas, one can only forgive Dr Hayhoe for committing it.
The problem is that the “professionals” are so specialized, they paradoxically know and understand other, even related scientific areas only and just as much as the milkman (with all due respect to milkmen). So they’ll revert to type, and trust “other scientists” more on the basis of camaraderie than logic.
People that follow the whole of “climate change” for a hobby have no such problems, can navigate the available information without relying on absurdist web sites whose very existence means the IPCC has been a failure, and will have to have tough stomachs and infinite patience in order to exchange meaningful information with the “professionals”, whose words are bound to sound more often than not, like a collection of naive faux-pas’s.
Perhaps that’s why sites like RC have to be heavily moderated. Some people cannot tolerate the fact that the world is full of know-all passionate smart-asses that can sustain a conversation with “the experts” despite not having had to study the field for years and years and years.
Time will tell if Dr Hayoe is made of a different, more open-minded and less lese-majeste mould than the Team.
Katharine,
Looking at some weather progs, it looks like there might be some pretty good rain in west Texas by early next week. It may be too late, but I only wish you the best.
hi, Paul in Sweden – the increasing trends in heavy rainfall events are occurring in many places around the world, indicative of a global trend. West Texas is just one place where this has been observed. I specifically spoke to this location in the article as I have done my own analysis of the weather stations from this location, and it is where I live. But similar trends are occurring in many other places.
thanks Andy! I hope so also.
I realized that I forgot to address an earlier question about why we can see changes in daily variability but not changes in interannual variability. Aside from the obvious fact that the variance of a distribution (here, that would be the daily values of precipitation) can change independently from the mean (here, the annual average), there is a physical reason that it would happen as well. Day-to-day variability in precipitation is primarily caused by short-term weather patterns, while longer term shifts, trends, and other changes are primarily related to changes in the relative and absolute heat content of the ocean and atmosphere.
I appreciate the civil dialogue I have had with some of you, and wish you all the best in the future.
Yours,
Katharine
Katherine, it is my sincere hope that when you stated, “wish you all the best in the future.” this would not be the end of your dialogue with the people here. While I cannot speak for anyone else here, I can state that your expressed thoughts are valued.
I admit to being “thin skinned”…..it is my nature, and to my detriment. I pray that it doesn’t reflect upon the general group of people that frequent here. My thoughts and expressions are mine and mine alone. They do not reflect the thoughts of anyone else here. The people here are bright and engaging. I simply tag along because they tolerate me.
I should also mention, while I understand I can be abrasive……. often, it isn’t my wish to offend. I’m one that believes people can disagree and still be congenial…… but the definition of congenial is subjective. My bluntness is proportional to the amount of liquefied hops consumed.
You have, in a very nice manner, addressed many of the people here. You have alluded, without speaking specifically, to some of the statements I’ve made. Let me be clear.
First, I have opened every link you provided. VN!!!!!
Secondly, I haven’t read all that you have provided, yet. But, I will.
Thirdly,……. I simply asked for the data, and you gave me …….what? Really? Did you describe you methodology? The answers are plain enough for anyone to see that wishes. The onus isn’t upon anyone other than yourself to make sure your posits are correct or that people accept your posits. If you cannot or will not provide such, then regardless of your humanity, it cannot be regarded as correct.
Katherine, yes, I’m a “nay sayer”, but I believe in truths. All I’m asking for is an ability to discern for myself the truths of the assertions people give me. But, that’s all anyone asks…….
“the increasing trends in heavy rainfall events are occurring in many places around the world, indicative of a global trend. West Texas is just one place where this has been observed.”
K, as I stated your referenced peer-reviewed paper: -https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/1477/1/Stephenson.pdf
indicates that West Texas has identical Wet events & Dry events(Wet/Dry) to all other areas of Texas and almost the entirety of the United States. There is nothing evident to myself in your peer-reviewed paper to support the statements that you have made in your:
-http://www.thespec.com/news/world/article/521512–texas-fires-push-climate-change-hot-buttons
article. West Texas appears in your peer-review paper to be just like everywhere else. In a prior post Steve Goddard provided annual precipitation information(you made a point of stating that you are looking at daily) showing that Texas has not become increasingly variable but appears to have become more stable when compared with periods in the past.
Like others on this site, I have opened all of the links that you have provided(except for your Skeptical Science link). I am in the process of reading them and making an attempt to understand them.
Prior to you providing your own peer-reviewed papers I randomly opened four separate peer-reviewed papers on Texas drought. The very first paper I reviewed “Texas Drought History Reconstructed and Analyzed from 1698 to 1980″. In that paper, utilizing the PDSI(drought/flood) event scale 30, 90, 15, 10, 14, 18.67 and 2.3 year cycles have been evidenced throughout the 283 year Texas paleo record for the period between 1698-1980. In a concise manner that paper takes us through the wet/dry events through a considerable portion of the recent Texas climate history. So far from my reading of that paper and your own peer-reviewed paper, I can see no indication of any increased variability with regards to Texas or West Texas specifically.
Your statement “the increasing trends in heavy rainfall events are occurring in many places around the world, indicative of a global trend” stands alone, absent any apparent supporting data(this is what I am looking for and trying to understand). West Texas, Texas and almost the whole of the United states are indicated as +1? in your measurements for Wet/Dry for the later half of the 20th century in your paper’s comparison to the first half of the 20th century.
The paper “Texas Drought History Reconstructed and Analyzed from 1698 to 1980″ utilizes PDSI(The Palmer Drought Severity Index) which I have come across in the past and is fairly easy to understand. Can you help me to understand your criteria for a Wet/Dry event and the scale that you have adopted in your peer-reviewed paper? After gaining an understanding of your definition of a Wet/Dry event I might possibly be in a position to identify West Texas stations(maybe/hopefully with your assistance) in the ghcn-daily database which contains records back to 1832 as you have recommended.
Without comprehending your distinction of Wet/Dry events I seem to be left with colored maps in your peer-reviewed paper showing almost the entirety of the United States and the whole rest of the world has had the smallest(according to your scaling) changes in Wet/Dry in the later half of the 20th century in comparison with the first half of the 20th century — and for some reason you believe this is due to Global Warming.
I look forward to your input Katherine,
Paul
Did you describe you methodology?……….. Well, beer has that effect…..”your methodology.”
Wasn’t expecting to find a confirmation so soon. Dr Hayoe doesn’t seem ready for a down-to-earth exchange. Well, no wonder. I am sure we look to her like a pack of dogs, and I doubt she entered Academia to be hounded by canines.
Dr Hayoe is used to the cloistered world of TTU, with her colleagues agreeing and supporting the idea that the climate is changing and {whatever changes} is a sign that the climate is changing. Even talking to journalists is a cozy enterprise and no difficult question is ever asked.
If you google her pictures, Dr Hayoe doesn’t seem like your average Greenpeace activist with socialist dreams. Why would she risk sleepless nights responding to inquisitive strangers? Perhaps she or some of her colleagues are wondering why they can’t talk without being questioned, and why dieticians or cosmologists can tell the world about the silliest pet theories without any Steven Goddard posting “rude” remarks about those.
Katherine
I notice on your website your profile highlights :-
Her Science:Climate Scientist
What she does: Create models showing what climate change will mean for everyone on Earth
Why she cares about it: It’s going to impact all of us, especially those with the least resources.
When she wants us to act on it: NOW
Can you understand that this sort of advocacy could put a big question mark against your scientific objectivity?
Katherine
It is not clear how far back your analysis goes ( excuse me if I have missed it!).
How does the current pattern of Texas rainfall compare with the 1920’s + 1930’s when temperatures were consistently higher than now?
Something just occurred to me wrt this increased variability business. During extremes of high or low rainfall, there would necessarily be less variability (otherwise there would be no excess or drought). Hence, a milder, less variable climate should show more day-to-day variability. Not a particularly surprising result, and probably not something to wring one’s hands over rhetorically or otherwise.