Meanwhile, in this morning's Financial Times "First FT" daily newsletter:
"Millions of homeowners worldwide are on the front line of an insurance affordability crisis. Global warming is making extreme weather events such as storms, floods and wildfires more frequent and severe, and therefore increasingly difficult for the sector to cover."
Some fish species do change sex. I don't think carp are one of them though.
And for decades it was believed that swordtails could change sex, but I think that turned out to be a misinterpretation of the data, complicated by the fact that female swordtails can store sperm across several broods.
Folks had an apparent female swordtail that seemed to change into male. Then the other females in the tank give birth (swordtails have live young) so the sex changer must be fertile, right? Except, while it was the only male in the tank at the time, the females had been exposed to other (real) males earlier and stored the sperm.
I think that's how it went. I may have the details wrong.
I'm perplexed. I thought you've stated in previous posts that it is difficult to ascribe or attribute "nature related disasters" to "human-caused climate change". So why do you make the following statement?
"Heat waves have large human impacts in Europe and are increasing in frequency due to human-caused climate change."
While my graduate degree in engineering is not in climate science, it has given me the ability to think critically. As a result, I disagree with the theory, conjecture, speculation, that CO2 and methane have an appreciable or even miniscule impact on the climate. My reading and studying on the subject matter has led me to consider that it is possible and may indeed be plausible that the rise in global temperature (~1C) may be the cause for the increase in CO2.
Yes, I know that humans are putting more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere but isn't also true that CO2 fluctuates regionally and seasonally?
While I agree with you on most (90%) of your positions and respect your wealth of knowledge and research, I remain unconvinced that CO2 and methane have any substantive impact on our climate.
Dear Roger, thanks for the link to the UN IPCC AR6 report. As Len Flint noted, Figure 12. 7 deals with Australasia. It is Figure 12.9, on page 1821 that deals with Europe. I found that figure rather hard to read but the overall message is, as you say, no clear trend detected.
Well, that's certainly disappointing! Let's make sure that data doesn't circulate widely. It could give the false impression that 100s of millions of people are not in immanent danger of being killed by weather. 😆
Roger, How much of the hydrological events damage has been caused by "development" altering and changing the watercourses of Europe? Channelizing rivers, blocking water access to natural flood plains? Building on flood plains?
In other words, how much of those loses are our fault, and not the fault of weather?
Dear Mr. Reid, I was in Sicily in late July and early August of 2023. They had suffered some very nasty wildfires between Catania and Siracusa. The locals told us most of these fires were arson, while most of the remainder were human folly (trash burning got out of control, that sort of thing). Virtually none were of "natural" origin, from lightning or something similar.
Same in Western canada. We had a dry warm year, but here in Alberta before May 15 we had something north of 90 fires burning, almost all started by people, and that was that, game over. Simply no resources to get in front of that many fires at once so most just ran out of control.
No idea how many were arson, i think there were a couple arrests but lets face it, Alberta is large and only 4.6million people, not as though there are lots of eyes around.
Hopefully god will sort out the arsonists, everyone else use your bloody heads
How many were started by people flicking cigarette butts out the window? Smoking dulls the brain, i know because i used to smoke and i would never throw lit matches into grass or leave a camp fire burning, but there i was flicking cig butts out the window 25 years ago.
This just isn't true, not even remotely: 'Heat waves have large human impacts in Europe and are increasing in frequency due to human-caused climate change'. You're pushing more climate hysteria and you know damn well that 'studying' climate from 1980 is just ridiculous.
You're attacking the wrong guy! Roger is not "pushing" anything if you go thru and read all his past postings. He's as anti-pushing as they come. Btw, what the Observer wrote in 1800something isn't science.
Any climate 'survey' from 1979 to 2023 isn't science either. The newspaper reports from 1852 are more sincere and scientific than the GARBAGE we see on BBC, CNN, Sky, CNBC, Bloomberg or anywhere else these days. Over 100,000 people flew into Dubai for the COP28 conference, what a joke, beyond parody. 'Global Warming' is the biggest hysterical hoax of our time, it warrants a large chapter in an updated edition of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. The nonsense we see about 'rising sea levels' is probably the most laughable and the 'facts' I hear from otherwise intelligent people on sea levels is staggering, and the most easily disproven part of this whole hoax.
I agree with you on almost everything. But again, Roger is not that guy. He is one of the sane voices who focuses on what science can and does show, the challenges of data collection, methodology...all of it.
The excessive heat which prevails at present (says a Paris paper) gives some interest to the following account of remarkably hot summers:-"In 1132 the earth opened, and the rivers and springs disappeared in Alsace. The Rhine was dried up. In 1152 the heat was so great that eggs were cooked in the sand. In 1160, at the battle of Bela, a great number of soldiers died from the heat. In 1276 and 1277, in France, there was an absolute failure of the crops of grass and oats. In 1303 and 1304, the Seine, the Loire, the Rhine, and the Danube, were passed over dry-footed. In 1393 and 1394, great numbers of animals foll dead, and the crops were scorched up. In 1440 the heat was excessive. In 1538, 1539, 1540, 1541, the rivers were almost entirely dried up. In 1556 there was a great drought over all Europe. In 1615 and 1616, the heat was overwhelming in France, Italy, and the Netherlands. In 1646 there were fifty-eight consecutive days of excessive heat. In 1678 excessive heat. The same was the case in the first three years of the 18th century. In 1718 it did not rain once from the month of April to the month of October. The crops were burnt up; the rivers were dried up, and the theatres were closed by decree of the Lieutenant of Police. The thermometer marked 36 degrees Réaumur (113 of Fahrenheit). In gardens which were watered, fruit trees flowered twice. In 1723 and 1734, the heat was extreme. In 1746, summer very hot and very dry, which absolutely calcined the crops. During several months no rain fell. In 1748, 1754, 1760, 1767, 1778, and 1788, the heat was excessive. In 1811, the year of the celebrated comet, the summer was very warm and the wine delicious, even at Suresnes. In 1818 the theatres remained closed for nearly a month, owing to the heat. The maximum heat was 35 degrees (110.75 Fahrenheit.) In 1830, whilst fighting was going on on the 27th, 28th, and 29th July, the thermometer marked 36 degrees cen- tigrade (97-75 Fahrenheit). In 1832, in the insurrection of the 5th and 6th of June, the thermometer marked 35 degrees centigrade. In 1835 the Seine was almost dried up. In 1850, in the month of June, on the second appearance of the cholera, the thermometer marked 34 degrees centigrade. The highest temperature which man can support for a certain time varies from 40 to 15 degrees (104 to 113 of Fahrenheit.) Frequent accidents, however, occur at a less elevated temperature.
Agreed, in the UK it's just as bad if not worse. We have some people demanding truly impossible goals (Just Stop Oil for example demand the end of fossil fuels by 2030, which is simply unworkable), but at the same time we have other people saying we shouldn't invest in air conditioning because it uses energy, and we should instead funnel that effort into stopping the climate from changing. They need to bear in mind that the UK only emits less than 1% of the world's carbon, we could decarbonise tomorrow and there would be no observable difference. That's not an argument not to try and decarbonise at all obviously, because if everyone said that nothing would ever happen, but being allergic to any sort of increased energy use is quite frankly ridiculous. You can't run around in a panic about projected deaths from extreme heat events (one such study which was reported recently in the UK media assumed RCP8.5 and no adaptation, shock), and then decide we don't want to invest in aircon and other measures which would dramatically societal harms from it.
Last June i took a drive from Vienna to Zurich with lots of side to side, valley's to above the tree line.
Despite hearing how climate change is stressing trees i saw no stressed trees, everything looked beautiful and green to me everywhere i went.
Still looking for "emergency".
The emergency is in the higher prices we're all paying for everything because of their insane "climate" policies...
Quite the dismantling of West Ham in the Hammers barn, that jig getting larger
European Central Band? If on purpose it is funny and more appropriate than Bank
Good catch! Now fixed 🙏
Meanwhile, in this morning's Financial Times "First FT" daily newsletter:
"Millions of homeowners worldwide are on the front line of an insurance affordability crisis. Global warming is making extreme weather events such as storms, floods and wildfires more frequent and severe, and therefore increasingly difficult for the sector to cover."
They lost me years ago with a story on how goldfish are changing sex, Trans-gold fish.
Was an actual story.
Some fish species do change sex. I don't think carp are one of them though.
And for decades it was believed that swordtails could change sex, but I think that turned out to be a misinterpretation of the data, complicated by the fact that female swordtails can store sperm across several broods.
Folks had an apparent female swordtail that seemed to change into male. Then the other females in the tank give birth (swordtails have live young) so the sex changer must be fertile, right? Except, while it was the only male in the tank at the time, the females had been exposed to other (real) males earlier and stored the sperm.
I think that's how it went. I may have the details wrong.
Yes
But we were discussing “climate change dun it”.
True, but I never have opportunities to pontificate about aquarium fish. :-)
Fair
My point on that would be the study that shows goldfish have an attention span of 9 seconds, making them a proxy for the average progressive voter.
I'm perplexed. I thought you've stated in previous posts that it is difficult to ascribe or attribute "nature related disasters" to "human-caused climate change". So why do you make the following statement?
"Heat waves have large human impacts in Europe and are increasing in frequency due to human-caused climate change."
While my graduate degree in engineering is not in climate science, it has given me the ability to think critically. As a result, I disagree with the theory, conjecture, speculation, that CO2 and methane have an appreciable or even miniscule impact on the climate. My reading and studying on the subject matter has led me to consider that it is possible and may indeed be plausible that the rise in global temperature (~1C) may be the cause for the increase in CO2.
Yes, I know that humans are putting more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere but isn't also true that CO2 fluctuates regionally and seasonally?
While I agree with you on most (90%) of your positions and respect your wealth of knowledge and research, I remain unconvinced that CO2 and methane have any substantive impact on our climate.
Tom, Thanks ... there is indeed a post here at THB for that discussion, and I point folks there if they'd like to discuss CO2 and climate:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-carbon-dioxide-emissions-change
Dear Roger, thanks for the link to the UN IPCC AR6 report. As Len Flint noted, Figure 12. 7 deals with Australasia. It is Figure 12.9, on page 1821 that deals with Europe. I found that figure rather hard to read but the overall message is, as you say, no clear trend detected.
It is actually Table 12.7, sorry about that! Now fixed.
Well, that's certainly disappointing! Let's make sure that data doesn't circulate widely. It could give the false impression that 100s of millions of people are not in immanent danger of being killed by weather. 😆
Is the reference in your note 4 (Europe.....) correct? Figure 12.7 deals with Australasia.
Great catch! It is Table 12.7 (not Figure), oops, sorry! Thanks
Roger, How much of the hydrological events damage has been caused by "development" altering and changing the watercourses of Europe? Channelizing rivers, blocking water access to natural flood plains? Building on flood plains?
In other words, how much of those loses are our fault, and not the fault of weather?
Data on EU wildfires and costs did not make this post, for the future, but I did just post this on Twitter:
https://x.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1757029448556118022?s=20
The discussion regarding wildfires frequently ignores the issue of arson, which was a major factor in Greece.
Dear Mr. Reid, I was in Sicily in late July and early August of 2023. They had suffered some very nasty wildfires between Catania and Siracusa. The locals told us most of these fires were arson, while most of the remainder were human folly (trash burning got out of control, that sort of thing). Virtually none were of "natural" origin, from lightning or something similar.
Same story in Eastern Canada last year. Wacky activists can't start hurricanes, tornadoes or floods, but they can start fires.
Same in Western canada. We had a dry warm year, but here in Alberta before May 15 we had something north of 90 fires burning, almost all started by people, and that was that, game over. Simply no resources to get in front of that many fires at once so most just ran out of control.
No idea how many were arson, i think there were a couple arrests but lets face it, Alberta is large and only 4.6million people, not as though there are lots of eyes around.
Hopefully god will sort out the arsonists, everyone else use your bloody heads
How many were started by people flicking cigarette butts out the window? Smoking dulls the brain, i know because i used to smoke and i would never throw lit matches into grass or leave a camp fire burning, but there i was flicking cig butts out the window 25 years ago.
Duh.
Think.
And currently in Chile. They think the rest of the world is as stupid as they are.
The 'more intense storms' nonsense pushed by the BBC caught out by a Freedom of Information Request. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/02/12/met-office-cannot-provide-evidence-for-more-intense-storms-claim/#more-71772
This just isn't true, not even remotely: 'Heat waves have large human impacts in Europe and are increasing in frequency due to human-caused climate change'. You're pushing more climate hysteria and you know damn well that 'studying' climate from 1980 is just ridiculous.
You're attacking the wrong guy! Roger is not "pushing" anything if you go thru and read all his past postings. He's as anti-pushing as they come. Btw, what the Observer wrote in 1800something isn't science.
Any climate 'survey' from 1979 to 2023 isn't science either. The newspaper reports from 1852 are more sincere and scientific than the GARBAGE we see on BBC, CNN, Sky, CNBC, Bloomberg or anywhere else these days. Over 100,000 people flew into Dubai for the COP28 conference, what a joke, beyond parody. 'Global Warming' is the biggest hysterical hoax of our time, it warrants a large chapter in an updated edition of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. The nonsense we see about 'rising sea levels' is probably the most laughable and the 'facts' I hear from otherwise intelligent people on sea levels is staggering, and the most easily disproven part of this whole hoax.
I agree with you on almost everything. But again, Roger is not that guy. He is one of the sane voices who focuses on what science can and does show, the challenges of data collection, methodology...all of it.
THE OBSERVER, JULY 18, 1852.
STATISTICS OF HOT SUMMERS.
The excessive heat which prevails at present (says a Paris paper) gives some interest to the following account of remarkably hot summers:-"In 1132 the earth opened, and the rivers and springs disappeared in Alsace. The Rhine was dried up. In 1152 the heat was so great that eggs were cooked in the sand. In 1160, at the battle of Bela, a great number of soldiers died from the heat. In 1276 and 1277, in France, there was an absolute failure of the crops of grass and oats. In 1303 and 1304, the Seine, the Loire, the Rhine, and the Danube, were passed over dry-footed. In 1393 and 1394, great numbers of animals foll dead, and the crops were scorched up. In 1440 the heat was excessive. In 1538, 1539, 1540, 1541, the rivers were almost entirely dried up. In 1556 there was a great drought over all Europe. In 1615 and 1616, the heat was overwhelming in France, Italy, and the Netherlands. In 1646 there were fifty-eight consecutive days of excessive heat. In 1678 excessive heat. The same was the case in the first three years of the 18th century. In 1718 it did not rain once from the month of April to the month of October. The crops were burnt up; the rivers were dried up, and the theatres were closed by decree of the Lieutenant of Police. The thermometer marked 36 degrees Réaumur (113 of Fahrenheit). In gardens which were watered, fruit trees flowered twice. In 1723 and 1734, the heat was extreme. In 1746, summer very hot and very dry, which absolutely calcined the crops. During several months no rain fell. In 1748, 1754, 1760, 1767, 1778, and 1788, the heat was excessive. In 1811, the year of the celebrated comet, the summer was very warm and the wine delicious, even at Suresnes. In 1818 the theatres remained closed for nearly a month, owing to the heat. The maximum heat was 35 degrees (110.75 Fahrenheit.) In 1830, whilst fighting was going on on the 27th, 28th, and 29th July, the thermometer marked 36 degrees cen- tigrade (97-75 Fahrenheit). In 1832, in the insurrection of the 5th and 6th of June, the thermometer marked 35 degrees centigrade. In 1835 the Seine was almost dried up. In 1850, in the month of June, on the second appearance of the cholera, the thermometer marked 34 degrees centigrade. The highest temperature which man can support for a certain time varies from 40 to 15 degrees (104 to 113 of Fahrenheit.) Frequent accidents, however, occur at a less elevated temperature.
Agreed, in the UK it's just as bad if not worse. We have some people demanding truly impossible goals (Just Stop Oil for example demand the end of fossil fuels by 2030, which is simply unworkable), but at the same time we have other people saying we shouldn't invest in air conditioning because it uses energy, and we should instead funnel that effort into stopping the climate from changing. They need to bear in mind that the UK only emits less than 1% of the world's carbon, we could decarbonise tomorrow and there would be no observable difference. That's not an argument not to try and decarbonise at all obviously, because if everyone said that nothing would ever happen, but being allergic to any sort of increased energy use is quite frankly ridiculous. You can't run around in a panic about projected deaths from extreme heat events (one such study which was reported recently in the UK media assumed RCP8.5 and no adaptation, shock), and then decide we don't want to invest in aircon and other measures which would dramatically societal harms from it.