To use the WAPO link, you have to subscribe. I’m not subscribed, nor planning to, so you bringing this summary is much appreciated. Nice article.
So is the “Harris, duh” comment an assumption of the WAPO readers, or your insertion? It wasn’t clear.
Also, implying disagreement with some of the facets of climate change assertions is associated with “MAGA” detracts from the message of the article. It implies a unanimity of thought (other than support for a candidate) that just isn’t there.
There were 600+ comments on the WaPo article at the time I read it. I would say 95%+ pour scorn on it. They think it's a climate denialist scam. Yes, they accept that increased population density and infrastructure increase damage losses. But obviously the underlying climate signal must still be there because "everyone knows" that storm frequency and intensity is increasing. It is literally inconceivable to them that economic factors can account for ALL the changes. The most common refrain is that it doesn't have to be either/or, it can be both. Not one person stops to ask, well, which is it? I guess this is hardly surprising. They have been fed such a diet of news that exaggerates or even contradicts the IPCC findings that anything insufficiently doom-laden is now deemed to be right wing propaganda.
Do you plan to update your hurricane frequency charts? I find them brilliant arguments, as factual based upon real data from NOAA, for countering the false narratives put out by the media. Thanks again for your good, trustworthy work.
One of the key reasons for correcting the record on this issue, I think it’s worth emphasizing, is not to own the libs or otherwise issue gochas. It’s to stop letting policymakers, engineers and planners off the hook for inadequate hazards design and preparedness and other poor policy decisions around insurance, hazards mapping, etc.
Roger, I note that the article links to NOAA claims that climate change is making wildfire conditions worse. Yet Table 12.12 in Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC's AR6 report, to which you have several times guided us, appears to make no such claim. Under "fire weather", the table indicates that trends in fire weather have not yet emerged in the historical period and are not expected to emerge by 2050 or 2100, even under RCP8.5/SSPS-8.5. Which do you believe is correct, NOAA or the UN IPCC?
Thank you for the explanation. Pretty subtle stuff, this detection and attribution. As I understand it, a 50% confidence is like saying "maybe yes, maybe no" or "I have a 50% confidence of this coin toss coming up heads". Am I being too cynical here?
How quickly "they" got us all talking about "attribution" as if it was the same as cause and effect, root cause, proven input/output, etc. I recently predicted that "attribution" would be everywhere, and, in two short months of newspeak effort, so many are using the term as if it was a scientific result of a controlled experiment. Note how many times it appears in the new statements in this WPO article and government comments.
attributed; attributing
transitive verb
1
: to explain (something) by indicating a cause
He attributed his success to hard work.
2
a
: to regard as a characteristic of a person or thing
should not attribute adult reasoning to children
b
: to reckon as made or originated in an indicated fashion
In 35 years designing and installing music systems, I watched basements go from housing a laundry tub, machines, the lawn mower all worth a few hundred dollars to "Home Theatre Systems" costing $20,000+. You should have had your basement flood back in the day when it hardly mattered.
This is a very good article and makes the valid points about trying to blame "climate change" (aka CO2 increases) for the rise in disasters. The question now becomes, will the biased and partisan press, like NBC, CBS, and ABC stop blaming any disaster and damage on "climate change"? They do it in almost every national newscast where a weather event is reported on.
I love the concept laundering that happens with the claim that the burden of proof should require proving that there is no human impact
This implicitly acknowledges quite clearly that the warming component is not very large in any case, yet the justification would be that we should assume it exists so that people can continue to report that we live in the end times
To use the WAPO link, you have to subscribe. I’m not subscribed, nor planning to, so you bringing this summary is much appreciated. Nice article.
So is the “Harris, duh” comment an assumption of the WAPO readers, or your insertion? It wasn’t clear.
Also, implying disagreement with some of the facets of climate change assertions is associated with “MAGA” detracts from the message of the article. It implies a unanimity of thought (other than support for a candidate) that just isn’t there.
This short YouTube video by Mallen Baker following up the Wash Post article is really well done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLOg1vOzcA4
This is an encouraging sign that sanity might be returning somewhat to climate reporting.
It’s got me wondering if Jeff Bezos is an Honest Broker reader.😁
Andre, I think what you are looking for is here:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/billion-dollar-disasters-are-a-national
Let me know!
Thanks Roger, exactly what I was getting at. Sorry, my post was a bit sloppy, so I removed it, but you were quicker!
There were 600+ comments on the WaPo article at the time I read it. I would say 95%+ pour scorn on it. They think it's a climate denialist scam. Yes, they accept that increased population density and infrastructure increase damage losses. But obviously the underlying climate signal must still be there because "everyone knows" that storm frequency and intensity is increasing. It is literally inconceivable to them that economic factors can account for ALL the changes. The most common refrain is that it doesn't have to be either/or, it can be both. Not one person stops to ask, well, which is it? I guess this is hardly surprising. They have been fed such a diet of news that exaggerates or even contradicts the IPCC findings that anything insufficiently doom-laden is now deemed to be right wing propaganda.
Roger, what is a "MAGA" Republican and how can tell if I am one?
Not sure if they’ve developed a blood test yet, but I’m pretty sure if you have to ask you might not be 🤣😎
Do you plan to update your hurricane frequency charts? I find them brilliant arguments, as factual based upon real data from NOAA, for countering the false narratives put out by the media. Thanks again for your good, trustworthy work.
Yes, I’ll have an end of season summary around Dec 1 👍
One of the key reasons for correcting the record on this issue, I think it’s worth emphasizing, is not to own the libs or otherwise issue gochas. It’s to stop letting policymakers, engineers and planners off the hook for inadequate hazards design and preparedness and other poor policy decisions around insurance, hazards mapping, etc.
A sad example https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/27/world/africa/nigeria-dam-disaster-flood.html?unlocked_article_code=1.VU4.G4iT.uLtXU5QerMGr&smid=url-share
Amen
Roger, I note that the article links to NOAA claims that climate change is making wildfire conditions worse. Yet Table 12.12 in Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC's AR6 report, to which you have several times guided us, appears to make no such claim. Under "fire weather", the table indicates that trends in fire weather have not yet emerged in the historical period and are not expected to emerge by 2050 or 2100, even under RCP8.5/SSPS-8.5. Which do you believe is correct, NOAA or the UN IPCC?
The IPCC AR6 is nuanced on fire weather
Ch. 11 concludes that detection and attribution of changes has been achieved with medium confidence (50%)
Ch. 12 concludes that detection of changes in fire weather with high confidence (90%) has not occurred and is not expected to before 2100
So both are correct but reflect different levels of confidence
Does that make sense?
Thank you for the explanation. Pretty subtle stuff, this detection and attribution. As I understand it, a 50% confidence is like saying "maybe yes, maybe no" or "I have a 50% confidence of this coin toss coming up heads". Am I being too cynical here?
How quickly "they" got us all talking about "attribution" as if it was the same as cause and effect, root cause, proven input/output, etc. I recently predicted that "attribution" would be everywhere, and, in two short months of newspeak effort, so many are using the term as if it was a scientific result of a controlled experiment. Note how many times it appears in the new statements in this WPO article and government comments.
attributed; attributing
transitive verb
1
: to explain (something) by indicating a cause
He attributed his success to hard work.
2
a
: to regard as a characteristic of a person or thing
should not attribute adult reasoning to children
b
: to reckon as made or originated in an indicated fashion
attributed the invention to a Russian
In 35 years designing and installing music systems, I watched basements go from housing a laundry tub, machines, the lawn mower all worth a few hundred dollars to "Home Theatre Systems" costing $20,000+. You should have had your basement flood back in the day when it hardly mattered.
Thank you for fighting the good fight Roger and trying to keep science honest!
This is a very good article and makes the valid points about trying to blame "climate change" (aka CO2 increases) for the rise in disasters. The question now becomes, will the biased and partisan press, like NBC, CBS, and ABC stop blaming any disaster and damage on "climate change"? They do it in almost every national newscast where a weather event is reported on.
I love the concept laundering that happens with the claim that the burden of proof should require proving that there is no human impact
This implicitly acknowledges quite clearly that the warming component is not very large in any case, yet the justification would be that we should assume it exists so that people can continue to report that we live in the end times
Congratulations, and keep up the good work!