Wouldn't Libya be Mediterranean? Not that the IPCC notes a increase in flooding there either. The summary image shows "no agreement in direction of change" of heavy precipitation.
Only semi-related comment but, Roger, I wish you would be clearer in all of your pieces that getting from a weather event to climate requires calculations that in turn require choices:
1. which weather 'phenomenon"; e.g., wind, rain, temperature etc.
2. how to measure the phenomenon: over what geographic area and what time, in what units
3. over what period of time to average such measurements, including what to do if the choices made under 2 above are not consistent over time!
4. over what geographic area to perform the averaging.
To my knowledge, there is no 'science' behind the weather forecasters' decision to use 30 years for the averaging time (in most cases) and I rarely see anything specific about the geographic area chosen for the averaging, including why the boundaries chosen were chosen. You are good about linking to your data and I am certain both that you routinely make these choices and have some basis for why you choose what you do and that if I dug into the data, I would find out what hose choices and your calculations were. I don't often/ever do that, which is my bad. But, because many readers are lazy like me, it would help if you could maybe highlight some of this when you use data and begin making some impression on people that weather is NOT climate and regardless how low human get their fossil fuel use, the weather will likely still be the weather.
I am not sure whether Roger appreciates the attention he got on "Real Clear Investigations"? They kinda lumped him in with CO2 deniers, which he is adamantly not.
I personally dislike anyone responding to concerns and criticisms with name calling! It strikes me as such a lazy way out and possibly evidence that the responder HAS NO SCIENTIFIC WORK SUPPORTING THEIR BELIEF AND CAN 'ARGUE' WITH SOMEONE ONLY BY CALLING THEM NAMES. I perceive Roget Pielke as an honest scientist trying his best to sort through the 'mess' of incomplete and contradictory science out there on the effects of humanity on CO2 and of CO2 on the weather and then the very messy and fraught topic of what any of it means for the future. So, boo on Real Clear Investigations for perpetuating this response tactic. I suspect Roger Pielke does NOT and should not) take it personally.
What is a CO2 Denier? Kind of a stupid characterization if you ask me.
If you get past the author’s dumb characterization I think he was effective in citing Roger’s work. Many of the points made in the essay were spot on. I think it’s clear that the author reads THB and understands it reasonably well.
"When I read such studies I cannot help but think that the importance of climate variability has been diminished but the totalizing emphasis on climate change. In the short-term, climate variability matters much more than climate change (human-caused or otherwise) for the climate impacts that people actually experience."
It looks like the first sentence in this paragraph is incomplete. I know something is wrong, but I have no idea how to fix it. Did you mean to finish the sentence with something like "...but the totalizing emphasis on climate change has increased"?
I am so conditioned by the media's instant attribution of extreme events to Climate Change that it is the first thing which comes to mind when something like the Libya flood occurs. It's very good to quickly receive facts at times like these. Thanks!
Thanks for the great information. One typo, I think: Should the second "but" in this sentence be "by"?
"When I read such studies I cannot help but think that the importance of climate variability has been diminished but the totalizing emphasis on climate change."
Wouldn't Libya be Mediterranean? Not that the IPCC notes a increase in flooding there either. The summary image shows "no agreement in direction of change" of heavy precipitation.
Only semi-related comment but, Roger, I wish you would be clearer in all of your pieces that getting from a weather event to climate requires calculations that in turn require choices:
1. which weather 'phenomenon"; e.g., wind, rain, temperature etc.
2. how to measure the phenomenon: over what geographic area and what time, in what units
3. over what period of time to average such measurements, including what to do if the choices made under 2 above are not consistent over time!
4. over what geographic area to perform the averaging.
To my knowledge, there is no 'science' behind the weather forecasters' decision to use 30 years for the averaging time (in most cases) and I rarely see anything specific about the geographic area chosen for the averaging, including why the boundaries chosen were chosen. You are good about linking to your data and I am certain both that you routinely make these choices and have some basis for why you choose what you do and that if I dug into the data, I would find out what hose choices and your calculations were. I don't often/ever do that, which is my bad. But, because many readers are lazy like me, it would help if you could maybe highlight some of this when you use data and begin making some impression on people that weather is NOT climate and regardless how low human get their fossil fuel use, the weather will likely still be the weather.
I am not sure whether Roger appreciates the attention he got on "Real Clear Investigations"? They kinda lumped him in with CO2 deniers, which he is adamantly not.
I personally dislike anyone responding to concerns and criticisms with name calling! It strikes me as such a lazy way out and possibly evidence that the responder HAS NO SCIENTIFIC WORK SUPPORTING THEIR BELIEF AND CAN 'ARGUE' WITH SOMEONE ONLY BY CALLING THEM NAMES. I perceive Roget Pielke as an honest scientist trying his best to sort through the 'mess' of incomplete and contradictory science out there on the effects of humanity on CO2 and of CO2 on the weather and then the very messy and fraught topic of what any of it means for the future. So, boo on Real Clear Investigations for perpetuating this response tactic. I suspect Roger Pielke does NOT and should not) take it personally.
I emailed the reporter and told him as much, c'est la vie
What is a CO2 Denier? Kind of a stupid characterization if you ask me.
If you get past the author’s dumb characterization I think he was effective in citing Roger’s work. Many of the points made in the essay were spot on. I think it’s clear that the author reads THB and understands it reasonably well.
I agree.
Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but this article showed up in Real Clear Investigations today with extensive quoting and citing of one R. Pielke Jr.:
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2023/09/13/heres_the_climate_dissent_youre_not_hearing_about_because_its_muffled_by_societys_top_institutions_978511.html
"When I read such studies I cannot help but think that the importance of climate variability has been diminished but the totalizing emphasis on climate change. In the short-term, climate variability matters much more than climate change (human-caused or otherwise) for the climate impacts that people actually experience."
It looks like the first sentence in this paragraph is incomplete. I know something is wrong, but I have no idea how to fix it. Did you mean to finish the sentence with something like "...but the totalizing emphasis on climate change has increased"?
but-->by
Caught and fixed ... Thanks!
I am so conditioned by the media's instant attribution of extreme events to Climate Change that it is the first thing which comes to mind when something like the Libya flood occurs. It's very good to quickly receive facts at times like these. Thanks!
Thanks for the great information. One typo, I think: Should the second "but" in this sentence be "by"?
"When I read such studies I cannot help but think that the importance of climate variability has been diminished but the totalizing emphasis on climate change."
Thanks for the eagle eyes!
Substack must require at least one typo 🤣