If you can’t measure a detectable difference in either hurricane frequency or intensity, what possible leap of illogic makes you think you can detect a frequency gradient or intensity gradient. Fact-free pseudo science!
Hey Roger, since you asked Grok to participate in this discussion and given accuracy issues I have been having in multiple AI platforms recently, I asked your ChatGPT to explain why a policy of Net Zero makes sense in today's world. I would be interested in what you think about the response.
What do you think about THB bot's answers to my query? Would you have answered this way? Is the discussion on climate change and extreme weather consistent with the views you express here? How about the argument on energy security and Independence?
Please explain why a policy of Net Zero makes sense in today's world, particularly when you look at the problems appearing in Spain, Germany and other parts of Europe.
This is the reply:
Great question. Let’s unpack this in a structured way. A Net Zero policy means reducing greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, and then balancing any remaining emissions by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere. The aim is to stop adding to the accumulation of CO₂ and other gases that drive global warming.
Here’s why it makes sense in today’s world, especially when viewed through the lens of Europe’s current challenges:
1. Climate Change Impacts Are Already Evident
Spain has faced record-breaking heatwaves, persistent drought, and water scarcity. Agriculture and tourism—two cornerstones of its economy—are under pressure.
Germany has experienced devastating floods (like the 2021 Ahr Valley disaster) and recurring droughts affecting rivers such as the Rhine, a major trade artery.
Across Europe, extreme weather is stressing energy systems, health systems, and infrastructure.
Net Zero is seen as a way to limit further climate damages by reducing the pace and severity of global warming.
2. Energy Security and Independence
Europe has long relied on imported fossil fuels, especially natural gas from Russia. The war in Ukraine exposed the vulnerability of this dependence.
By shifting toward renewables and efficiency, Net Zero policies reduce reliance on volatile global fossil fuel markets.
This makes energy supply more stable and predictable, insulating economies from sudden price spikes.
3. Economic Competitiveness and Innovation
Clean energy industries (solar, wind, hydrogen, batteries, electric vehicles) are growing sectors where Europe wants to remain competitive.
Germany and Spain, despite struggles, are leaders in renewable energy deployment. Continuing toward Net Zero helps maintain technological leadership.
Transition industries create jobs in engineering, construction, and manufacturing, potentially offsetting losses in fossil-fuel-based sectors.
4. Public Health and Social Benefits
Fossil fuel combustion contributes to air pollution, which causes respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
A Net Zero trajectory reduces these health burdens, lowering healthcare costs and improving quality of life in urban areas especially.
The economic case for Net Zero is often framed as: spend more upfront on clean infrastructure now, avoid far greater damages later.
For example, drought in Spain reduces agricultural output, which then requires more government subsidies or raises food prices.
6. Global Leadership and Obligations
Europe has positioned itself as a leader in climate policy. This strengthens its influence in international negotiations.
Meeting Net Zero targets helps maintain credibility, which is important if Europe wants China, India, and others to strengthen their own commitments.
The Tensions and Challenges
At the same time, it’s important to acknowledge why Net Zero remains contested:
High short-term costs: Energy prices and living costs have risen, and people worry about affordability.
Industrial competitiveness: Some industries fear relocation if European energy costs stay higher than in the U.S. or Asia.
Unequal impacts: Rural areas, heavy industry regions, and lower-income households often feel they bear more of the costs.
This is why the debate in Spain, Germany, and elsewhere often isn’t about whether Net Zero is desirable, but how to do it fairly and affordably.
✅ In short: Net Zero makes sense as a strategy to reduce climate risks, enhance energy security, and future-proof economies. But the real-world challenge—seen in Spain, Germany, and across Europe—is managing the social and economic transitions so that costs and benefits are distributed fairly.
There is a second part to the "conversation" in which the bot provided the arguments against Net Zero. I can include that as well if you are interested.
Thank you Roger for once again applying your specific area of published expertise to recent weather events and the attempts to attribute human CO2 emissions to their cause. In the run up to AR7 I fear that the veneer will come off and the globalist apocalyptic climate change lobby will simply say, “OK enough! We’re done with this ‘science’ bullshit”. Then they will simply attempt to implement the ideas of Zinn, Marcuse and Angela Davis outright to, “just get it over with”. I guess one could say that at least then the fight will be out in the open. Power grabs are one of the least pleasant traits of the human species….
Is it a stretch to refer to Michael Lowry as a hurricane expert given his CV? A Masters in Meterology, some experience in disaster planning, and mostly experience as a TV weatherman. The phrase that best describes last season is "well below expectations" yet his Substack was all terms like "unprecedented" and "disastrous" so I gave up on him as a reliable source of information. I kept asking about the SAL last year and he finally started mentioning it this year. Could you talk someone into starting a credible scientific substack on tropical systems?
Here we go again. If Erin misses, it’s climate change. If it hits, it’s climate change. And credibility goes down the drain.
As for AI, it seems suited only for synthesizing existing information, often in the direction the question is posed. But not for synthesis of new insight.
Stronger tropospheric temperature gradient results in what we called “baroclinic instability”. More popularly known as extratropical cyclones.
There is a stronger gradient in winter, as high latitudes cool, which is why we have more large scale north-south movement of the tropospheric jet. This is the winter storms in mid- and high- latitudes are stronger at that time of year.
Claims of a wavier jet from global warming are counter to our understanding of weather dynamics.
thank you, sir. an interesting statement. as I read your words, i interpret that warming temps causes more north-south movement of the jet stream. because emissions = warming, could we then conclude that warming = climate change? the concept of baroclinic instability makes intuitive sense, from a perspective of atmospheric energy balance and unequal content.
that seems to be the conclusion of your statement. BUT - I ask this question: do we see parallel results in the southern hemisphere? if so, that would be strong evidence favoring ACC. If not, wouldn't it be equally strong evidence that ACC is a myth?
Wan, N., X. Lin, and R.A. Pielke Sr.: 2022: Assessment of trends in an integrated climate metric - Analysis of 200 mbar zonal wind for the period 1958–2021. Theor. Appl. Climatol., https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-022-04225-y
On tropospheric temperatures, it’s colder mid- and high-latitude temperatures that produce stronger baroclinic instability (i.e. more waviness).
As to global warming, it’s just one type of climate change. See the executive findings in
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/
A very eloquent and efficient exposure of the fallacies and bias in the way extreme weather events are portrayed in the legacy media. Reminds me of the implications of variations in Atlantic hurricanes frequency, legacy media - style: if the frequency has increased, it’s clear evidence of climate apocalypse; if it has not or has decreased, it proves nothing at all.
I am not clear exactly why Roger's objectis to extreme event attribution studies. We can use a variety of pre-industrial simulations of typical Atlantic weather to initialize simulations of the future course of Erin and thereby conclude that climate change made it more or less likely that Erin would have severely damaged the East Coast.
To put it in my own words, is the real problem that no significant change in global hurricanes has been detected, so it is nonsense to say GHGs played any role in making this event more likely?
And how much has the planet warmed over recent years such that hurricanes and other natural disasters are more prevalent and more dangerous? Last I checked, the July 2025 global average temperature was slightly more than one-third of a degree Celsius above the average of the past thirty years. Seems like there might be an exaggerated concern.
Again this year (as of September 10), yet another hurricane season where "above normal" hurricanes were forecast is underperforming. So, yes, stronger/more frequent hurricanes is an exaggerated concern.
The failing of WWA is that it applies its modelling only to a specific catastrophic event. But if increased emissions lead to climate change then this should be detectable in day to day weather going back to 1850. In observational measurements with which I am most familiar (in New Zealand), there have been no changes of significance. In fact table 12.12 of AR6 says the same globally for most climate impact drivers.
On positive outcomes, recent heavy flood events resulted in bumper produce harvests in the following years.
1. The claim that the polar jet has become wavier due to global warming is flawed. First strength and location of the jet is determined by the horizontal gradient of tropospheric temperatures. Larger gradient=stronger jet. Stronger jet provides the energy for a break down into large meanders (waviness) in the jet. Pielke Sr 2013 chapter 14 in https://books.google.com/books/about/Mesoscale_Meteorological_Modeling.html?id=ExlFulltapcC
Yet there is evidence that the interhemispheric temperature asymmetry has been increasing since about 1980 (Friedman et al., 2013. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00525.1). So is it not plausible that changes to the jet stream strength could already be underway and expected to increase?
We checked this another way. Using 500 mb temperatures which is a good metric to assess tropospheric temperatures and thus jet stream trends.
We reported in several papers of which our most recent is
Brunke, M., R.A. Pielke Sr., and X. Zeng, 2023: Possible self-regulation of Northern Hemisphere mid-tropospheric temperatures and its connection to upper-level winds in reanalyses and Earth system models. Theoretical and Appl. Climatol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-023-04635-6
We did find small trends. In terms of jet stream winds
“There are very small trends in the yearly maximum in the highest 200-hPa zonal wind speeds in the Northern Hemisphere and a slight poleward movement in the latitude of the highest winds in the reanalyses.”
The CMIP models generally produce larger trends than in the reanalyses.
Are you suggesting that we apply the same logic for benefits as well as costs for extreme weather events from climate change? How dare you! /s
All kidding aside, per your Part VII article, this is exactly why AR7 is shaping up to be a disaster, no pun intended. The end result of the attribution game is going to be a decrease in the credibility of the IPCC and climate science.
As a total cynic on the media I think they will just eat up whatever hyperventilated BS the politicians that control the dialog through at them. If AR7 appears to support it so much the better.
The corporate media already does that, so that won't be a change. But what's happened to corporate media is going to happen to the IPCC: a loss of credibility as more and more people realize that they are being misled. Gallup has tracked US trust in media over time, and it's hit record lows over the past few years. It was ~70% fifty years ago, and it's now 31%. Packing AR7 with fans of climate catastrophism who view climate attribution as a tool to advance their narrative is going to lead to the same result for the IPCC.
Very clever, Roger.
If you can’t measure a detectable difference in either hurricane frequency or intensity, what possible leap of illogic makes you think you can detect a frequency gradient or intensity gradient. Fact-free pseudo science!
Erin was a Cat 5 briefly, several hours, but calmed to a Cat2-3 and then dissipated.
Hey Roger, since you asked Grok to participate in this discussion and given accuracy issues I have been having in multiple AI platforms recently, I asked your ChatGPT to explain why a policy of Net Zero makes sense in today's world. I would be interested in what you think about the response.
https://chatgpt.com/share/68af1588-b0d0-800d-a16f-7949ad1115b7
Did not load for me
https://chatgpt.com/g/g-DbPUNS8nj-the-honest-broker-gpt
Did this work?
It did not
What do you think about THB bot's answers to my query? Would you have answered this way? Is the discussion on climate change and extreme weather consistent with the views you express here? How about the argument on energy security and Independence?
Does not read like a THB bot 🤷♂️
This is what I asked:
Please explain why a policy of Net Zero makes sense in today's world, particularly when you look at the problems appearing in Spain, Germany and other parts of Europe.
This is the reply:
Great question. Let’s unpack this in a structured way. A Net Zero policy means reducing greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, and then balancing any remaining emissions by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere. The aim is to stop adding to the accumulation of CO₂ and other gases that drive global warming.
Here’s why it makes sense in today’s world, especially when viewed through the lens of Europe’s current challenges:
1. Climate Change Impacts Are Already Evident
Spain has faced record-breaking heatwaves, persistent drought, and water scarcity. Agriculture and tourism—two cornerstones of its economy—are under pressure.
Germany has experienced devastating floods (like the 2021 Ahr Valley disaster) and recurring droughts affecting rivers such as the Rhine, a major trade artery.
Across Europe, extreme weather is stressing energy systems, health systems, and infrastructure.
Net Zero is seen as a way to limit further climate damages by reducing the pace and severity of global warming.
2. Energy Security and Independence
Europe has long relied on imported fossil fuels, especially natural gas from Russia. The war in Ukraine exposed the vulnerability of this dependence.
By shifting toward renewables and efficiency, Net Zero policies reduce reliance on volatile global fossil fuel markets.
This makes energy supply more stable and predictable, insulating economies from sudden price spikes.
3. Economic Competitiveness and Innovation
Clean energy industries (solar, wind, hydrogen, batteries, electric vehicles) are growing sectors where Europe wants to remain competitive.
Germany and Spain, despite struggles, are leaders in renewable energy deployment. Continuing toward Net Zero helps maintain technological leadership.
Transition industries create jobs in engineering, construction, and manufacturing, potentially offsetting losses in fossil-fuel-based sectors.
4. Public Health and Social Benefits
Fossil fuel combustion contributes to air pollution, which causes respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
A Net Zero trajectory reduces these health burdens, lowering healthcare costs and improving quality of life in urban areas especially.
5. Avoiding Higher Long-Term Costs
Climate damages (from floods, droughts, heat stress, crop losses) already cost billions each year.
The economic case for Net Zero is often framed as: spend more upfront on clean infrastructure now, avoid far greater damages later.
For example, drought in Spain reduces agricultural output, which then requires more government subsidies or raises food prices.
6. Global Leadership and Obligations
Europe has positioned itself as a leader in climate policy. This strengthens its influence in international negotiations.
Meeting Net Zero targets helps maintain credibility, which is important if Europe wants China, India, and others to strengthen their own commitments.
The Tensions and Challenges
At the same time, it’s important to acknowledge why Net Zero remains contested:
High short-term costs: Energy prices and living costs have risen, and people worry about affordability.
Industrial competitiveness: Some industries fear relocation if European energy costs stay higher than in the U.S. or Asia.
Unequal impacts: Rural areas, heavy industry regions, and lower-income households often feel they bear more of the costs.
This is why the debate in Spain, Germany, and elsewhere often isn’t about whether Net Zero is desirable, but how to do it fairly and affordably.
✅ In short: Net Zero makes sense as a strategy to reduce climate risks, enhance energy security, and future-proof economies. But the real-world challenge—seen in Spain, Germany, and across Europe—is managing the social and economic transitions so that costs and benefits are distributed fairly.
There is a second part to the "conversation" in which the bot provided the arguments against Net Zero. I can include that as well if you are interested.
Note 2
In published projections of future hurriance behavior you can find pretty much every outcome possible — more, less, stronger, weaker — you name it.
This is the essence of climate emergency “science”.
Every possible outcome has been predicted, so it’s not science.
It’s so easy.
Thank you Roger for once again applying your specific area of published expertise to recent weather events and the attempts to attribute human CO2 emissions to their cause. In the run up to AR7 I fear that the veneer will come off and the globalist apocalyptic climate change lobby will simply say, “OK enough! We’re done with this ‘science’ bullshit”. Then they will simply attempt to implement the ideas of Zinn, Marcuse and Angela Davis outright to, “just get it over with”. I guess one could say that at least then the fight will be out in the open. Power grabs are one of the least pleasant traits of the human species….
Is it a stretch to refer to Michael Lowry as a hurricane expert given his CV? A Masters in Meterology, some experience in disaster planning, and mostly experience as a TV weatherman. The phrase that best describes last season is "well below expectations" yet his Substack was all terms like "unprecedented" and "disastrous" so I gave up on him as a reliable source of information. I kept asking about the SAL last year and he finally started mentioning it this year. Could you talk someone into starting a credible scientific substack on tropical systems?
Ryan Maue
Weather Trader
Fantastic; thank you very much!
I think he is a buddy of Roger, not sure why Roger didn't reply himself
But glad to help
You beat me to it!
Go Brentford!!
As an environmentalist I support Bees
😂
Here we go again. If Erin misses, it’s climate change. If it hits, it’s climate change. And credibility goes down the drain.
As for AI, it seems suited only for synthesizing existing information, often in the direction the question is posed. But not for synthesis of new insight.
To see what actually makes the jet stream wavier see Figure 3.20 in
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/nr-77.pdf
Stronger tropospheric temperature gradient results in what we called “baroclinic instability”. More popularly known as extratropical cyclones.
There is a stronger gradient in winter, as high latitudes cool, which is why we have more large scale north-south movement of the tropospheric jet. This is the winter storms in mid- and high- latitudes are stronger at that time of year.
Claims of a wavier jet from global warming are counter to our understanding of weather dynamics.
thank you, sir. an interesting statement. as I read your words, i interpret that warming temps causes more north-south movement of the jet stream. because emissions = warming, could we then conclude that warming = climate change? the concept of baroclinic instability makes intuitive sense, from a perspective of atmospheric energy balance and unequal content.
that seems to be the conclusion of your statement. BUT - I ask this question: do we see parallel results in the southern hemisphere? if so, that would be strong evidence favoring ACC. If not, wouldn't it be equally strong evidence that ACC is a myth?
This paper looked at both hemispheres.
Wan, N., X. Lin, and R.A. Pielke Sr.: 2022: Assessment of trends in an integrated climate metric - Analysis of 200 mbar zonal wind for the period 1958–2021. Theor. Appl. Climatol., https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-022-04225-y
On tropospheric temperatures, it’s colder mid- and high-latitude temperatures that produce stronger baroclinic instability (i.e. more waviness).
As to global warming, it’s just one type of climate change. See the executive findings in
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/
thank you, sir
A very eloquent and efficient exposure of the fallacies and bias in the way extreme weather events are portrayed in the legacy media. Reminds me of the implications of variations in Atlantic hurricanes frequency, legacy media - style: if the frequency has increased, it’s clear evidence of climate apocalypse; if it has not or has decreased, it proves nothing at all.
I would change the Subtitle to: How Pielke Saved Major Media Trillion of Dollars from Misinformation Law Suits.
I am not clear exactly why Roger's objectis to extreme event attribution studies. We can use a variety of pre-industrial simulations of typical Atlantic weather to initialize simulations of the future course of Erin and thereby conclude that climate change made it more or less likely that Erin would have severely damaged the East Coast.
To put it in my own words, is the real problem that no significant change in global hurricanes has been detected, so it is nonsense to say GHGs played any role in making this event more likely?
(Edited to improve clarity.)
That is a sensitivity analysis, not an attribution study
In a world where there were no humans burning fossil fuels, weather would be different (see Lorenz)
There would be no Erin
agree, maybe, with two caveats: (1) who would know, and (2) who would care?
And how much has the planet warmed over recent years such that hurricanes and other natural disasters are more prevalent and more dangerous? Last I checked, the July 2025 global average temperature was slightly more than one-third of a degree Celsius above the average of the past thirty years. Seems like there might be an exaggerated concern.
Again this year (as of September 10), yet another hurricane season where "above normal" hurricanes were forecast is underperforming. So, yes, stronger/more frequent hurricanes is an exaggerated concern.
The failing of WWA is that it applies its modelling only to a specific catastrophic event. But if increased emissions lead to climate change then this should be detectable in day to day weather going back to 1850. In observational measurements with which I am most familiar (in New Zealand), there have been no changes of significance. In fact table 12.12 of AR6 says the same globally for most climate impact drivers.
On positive outcomes, recent heavy flood events resulted in bumper produce harvests in the following years.
1. The claim that the polar jet has become wavier due to global warming is flawed. First strength and location of the jet is determined by the horizontal gradient of tropospheric temperatures. Larger gradient=stronger jet. Stronger jet provides the energy for a break down into large meanders (waviness) in the jet. Pielke Sr 2013 chapter 14 in https://books.google.com/books/about/Mesoscale_Meteorological_Modeling.html?id=ExlFulltapcC
2. Polar jet strength has changed little between 1958-2021 - Wan et al https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-022-04225-y
Yet there is evidence that the interhemispheric temperature asymmetry has been increasing since about 1980 (Friedman et al., 2013. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00525.1). So is it not plausible that changes to the jet stream strength could already be underway and expected to increase?
We checked this another way. Using 500 mb temperatures which is a good metric to assess tropospheric temperatures and thus jet stream trends.
We reported in several papers of which our most recent is
Brunke, M., R.A. Pielke Sr., and X. Zeng, 2023: Possible self-regulation of Northern Hemisphere mid-tropospheric temperatures and its connection to upper-level winds in reanalyses and Earth system models. Theoretical and Appl. Climatol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-023-04635-6
We did find small trends. In terms of jet stream winds
“There are very small trends in the yearly maximum in the highest 200-hPa zonal wind speeds in the Northern Hemisphere and a slight poleward movement in the latitude of the highest winds in the reanalyses.”
The CMIP models generally produce larger trends than in the reanalyses.
Are you suggesting that we apply the same logic for benefits as well as costs for extreme weather events from climate change? How dare you! /s
All kidding aside, per your Part VII article, this is exactly why AR7 is shaping up to be a disaster, no pun intended. The end result of the attribution game is going to be a decrease in the credibility of the IPCC and climate science.
As a total cynic on the media I think they will just eat up whatever hyperventilated BS the politicians that control the dialog through at them. If AR7 appears to support it so much the better.
The corporate media already does that, so that won't be a change. But what's happened to corporate media is going to happen to the IPCC: a loss of credibility as more and more people realize that they are being misled. Gallup has tracked US trust in media over time, and it's hit record lows over the past few years. It was ~70% fifty years ago, and it's now 31%. Packing AR7 with fans of climate catastrophism who view climate attribution as a tool to advance their narrative is going to lead to the same result for the IPCC.