Couldn't agree more, but why aren't the public out in the streets with torches and pitchforks? Once upon a time not that long ago the public expected energy to available, reliable and economic. Now we appear to have lost all three of these attributes. Down here (NYC) my wife continues to admonish me to keep my thoughts on climate change to myself lest we be socially ostracized.
Roger, give us your take on this new paper claiming the likelihood of extreme weather events have been underestimated (actually just precipitation events):
Extreme Weather Events Underestimated By Climate Models, New Study Finds, Sabine Hossenfelder:
"...Floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, storm surges. Extreme weather events receive a lot of media coverage. In recent years, these events have frequently been attributed to climate change. This “extreme event attribution” how it’s called is a way to quantify how climate change supposedly increased the likelihood of a specific weather event by so and so much. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that these numbers are underestimates. Yep, that’s right, reality is worse than they told us it would be. A new paper confirmed this problem for extreme rainfall events..."
“Below is the same data, but starting from 1970, and you can clearly see that major hurricane landfalls increase over this shorter period, in contrast to beginning the analysis in 1950, when data for these two basins is first available.” Unless I’m mistaken, this doesn’t describe the data correctly. The plot following this sentence shows major hurricanes declining and minor hurricanes increasing.
Truly dumb to try to find something about 'climate change' in data only going back to 1970. Just more climate hysteria, follow the trails back via various Leftist organisations and you get to...China, laughing its head off at Western gullibility and its weather superstitions.
I have a question I’m always curious about… whenever I see data/figures like these.
For me, the debate isn’t really about “climate change,” as the climate has always changed and will always change. The debate is around anthropogenic climate change (i.e., human induced through fossil fuels).
Here’s my question: if the scientific theory is that it’s anthropogenic, what criteria (data, facts, results) would make it falsifiable as a theory? In most other science experiments that I’m aware of, there’s a set of procedures for accepting and/or rejecting a null hypothesis.
But it seems to me, no matter what happens, it’s attributed to climate change (it’s getting warmer, getting colder, more drought, less drought, more rain, less rain, more flooding, less flooding). It’s all compounded by the negative narrative (everything’s getting worse) when the data seem to show otherwise.
I just internet-searched "have hurricanes increased due to climate change" and got a long list of references. Many of them were surprisingly balanced in terms of the historical record but the majority predicted that warmer temperatures would lead to greater frequency and intensity based on the standard hurricane "recipe" which includes warmer ocean temperatures. But what really caught my attention was a USA Today article that referenced the 7 to 8-inch rise in sea levels without offering a timeframe but which implied the rise was recent.
Are there figures specifically on rainfall amounts associated with landfalling cyclones? Could the IPCC claim that rainfall totals (one of the most damaging aspects of cyclone activity) are increasing even if the number of events is not? Does the rainfall amount correlate with accumulated cyclone energy ... in which case we wouldn't expect a trend since there is none in ACE ?
Limiting the analysis to "landfalling" hurricanes is a rhetorical weakness, if not a scientific one. Bill Nye et al have made hay with it as cherry-picking. What is your strongest response to this line of criticism?
Hi Roger, thanks for sharing this analysis. I've seen some conflicting reports on this topic. For example:
Steve Koonin's book quotes CSSR's Section 9.2: "... there is still low confidence that increases in TC [Tropital Cyclone] activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities [...] The trend signal has not yet had the time to rise above the background variability of natural processes"
"Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since AR5"
(and further down) "Event attribution studies and physical understanding indicate that human-caused climate change increases heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones (high confidence)."
'high confidence' has a very specific meaning in the AR6 report. How does one reconcile that with the data you've shared?
Couldn't agree more, but why aren't the public out in the streets with torches and pitchforks? Once upon a time not that long ago the public expected energy to available, reliable and economic. Now we appear to have lost all three of these attributes. Down here (NYC) my wife continues to admonish me to keep my thoughts on climate change to myself lest we be socially ostracized.
More data.
Not sure how you can sleep at night, giving people facts.
Piltdown does NOT approve.
Roger, give us your take on this new paper claiming the likelihood of extreme weather events have been underestimated (actually just precipitation events):
Extreme Weather Events Underestimated By Climate Models, New Study Finds, Sabine Hossenfelder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n69omzUFvM
"...Floods, droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, storm surges. Extreme weather events receive a lot of media coverage. In recent years, these events have frequently been attributed to climate change. This “extreme event attribution” how it’s called is a way to quantify how climate change supposedly increased the likelihood of a specific weather event by so and so much. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that these numbers are underestimates. Yep, that’s right, reality is worse than they told us it would be. A new paper confirmed this problem for extreme rainfall events..."
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/37/1/JCLI-D-23-0492.1.xml
Dear Roger, Thanks very much for these data. Most useful. Best Regards,
“Below is the same data, but starting from 1970, and you can clearly see that major hurricane landfalls increase over this shorter period, in contrast to beginning the analysis in 1950, when data for these two basins is first available.” Unless I’m mistaken, this doesn’t describe the data correctly. The plot following this sentence shows major hurricanes declining and minor hurricanes increasing.
Truly dumb to try to find something about 'climate change' in data only going back to 1970. Just more climate hysteria, follow the trails back via various Leftist organisations and you get to...China, laughing its head off at Western gullibility and its weather superstitions.
I have a question I’m always curious about… whenever I see data/figures like these.
For me, the debate isn’t really about “climate change,” as the climate has always changed and will always change. The debate is around anthropogenic climate change (i.e., human induced through fossil fuels).
Here’s my question: if the scientific theory is that it’s anthropogenic, what criteria (data, facts, results) would make it falsifiable as a theory? In most other science experiments that I’m aware of, there’s a set of procedures for accepting and/or rejecting a null hypothesis.
But it seems to me, no matter what happens, it’s attributed to climate change (it’s getting warmer, getting colder, more drought, less drought, more rain, less rain, more flooding, less flooding). It’s all compounded by the negative narrative (everything’s getting worse) when the data seem to show otherwise.
Data defeats narrative. Thank you for this post.
I just internet-searched "have hurricanes increased due to climate change" and got a long list of references. Many of them were surprisingly balanced in terms of the historical record but the majority predicted that warmer temperatures would lead to greater frequency and intensity based on the standard hurricane "recipe" which includes warmer ocean temperatures. But what really caught my attention was a USA Today article that referenced the 7 to 8-inch rise in sea levels without offering a timeframe but which implied the rise was recent.
RE: The graph showing the 3 year running totals of major hurricanes.
What produces the cyclicality?
Are there figures specifically on rainfall amounts associated with landfalling cyclones? Could the IPCC claim that rainfall totals (one of the most damaging aspects of cyclone activity) are increasing even if the number of events is not? Does the rainfall amount correlate with accumulated cyclone energy ... in which case we wouldn't expect a trend since there is none in ACE ?
Limiting the analysis to "landfalling" hurricanes is a rhetorical weakness, if not a scientific one. Bill Nye et al have made hay with it as cherry-picking. What is your strongest response to this line of criticism?
Hi Roger, thanks for sharing this analysis. I've seen some conflicting reports on this topic. For example:
Steve Koonin's book quotes CSSR's Section 9.2: "... there is still low confidence that increases in TC [Tropital Cyclone] activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities [...] The trend signal has not yet had the time to rise above the background variability of natural processes"
However, I looked up the latest AR6 'Longer Report' (https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf) and I find this:
"Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since AR5"
(and further down) "Event attribution studies and physical understanding indicate that human-caused climate change increases heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones (high confidence)."
'high confidence' has a very specific meaning in the AR6 report. How does one reconcile that with the data you've shared?