I thought I would drop you a note on the Belgian centre that produces the climate event fatality data that you often use.-i.e the 98% fall. It appears that someone has got to them. They are now producing a series where they have taken out the top 50 events. The big fall disappears. It is fair enough to produce an additional series which is upward trending probably due to more intense reporting and population growth. as long as you draw attention to these factors. What was not acceptable is that they included data for the statistical measure of excess deaths due to excess heat. This is a different measure to the event related deaths in the rest of the series.. Further they omitt deads from excess cold which far outweigh heat deaths and which will improve as temperatures increase. - worth a post?
Ian. PS if you want to see some comprehensive climate change fact checking from a New Zealand perspective go to tailrisk.co.nz
“Identifying the signal of human caused climate change according to the IPCC, refers to detecting and attributing a change in the statistics of a particular climate or weather variable.”.
The money word here is “attributing”, the latest big thing in climatism.
The problem I see is the table lists all the factors assumed to be affected by AGW.
Yet most of them show no identifiable trend.
If 70-80% of the factors show no trend, when AGW is theorized to affect all, why the automatic assumption the 20-30% are caused by us?
Is the theory 20-30% correct and that therefor is good enough to destroy the economy?
Attributing those few changes to humans is simply confirmation bias.
When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
You are basically saying there is no emergency, but agree that the few trends detected show human influence.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but how is the melting of massive glaciers and our polar ice caps not a sufficient signal of climate change?
I’m not taking you to say that it’s not one at all (and I appreciate your objective, level-headed approach to this issue—hence my subscription), but do we really need any further evidence? Or is this just something that might have eventually happened anyway in the minds of some?
There is no trend in polar ice caps melting, the arctic ice pulled back due to ocean cycles but is growing.
Antarctic is fuzzier, looks like this year was lower than average, but the continent of Antarctica is in a long term cooling trend as it tips away from the sun.
Glaciers have been receding for a couple hundred years as you’d expect coming out of the little ice age.
Some are not shrinking and some are growing but yes majority in NH are shrinking, that’s where the monotonous average 2.1mm per year sea rise comes from.
I'm interested in any data that is available and accessible. Judging by your assumptions of my interest and/or intent, I'm beginning to doubt whether these are sources that are merely presenting data and supporting documentation on how the data was gathered (or trying to offer any objective insight or information). I would be very happy to be proven wrong with regard to the melting ice in our oceans, so if this "denier" website presents such data, please provide links here.
I would very much like to see the evidence the IPCC uses to claim it has found a climate change signal in extreme heat and extreme cold. US data goes back to 1900 and doesn't show any trend in heat waves. I doubt if the world wide data shows anything else. And I really haven't seen any evidence one way or another on cold snaps, though my (obviously anecdotal) memory is very little trend in cold snaps.
I think this is the same nonsense Koonin debunked in his book, that the ratio of heat records to cold is increasing. OMG
of course when he looked at the data he saw that hot records were actually decreasing but cold records were decreasing faster. That’s it.
Then climatism’s Hausfather had the nerve in his “fact check” to say Koonin had erected a straw man when all he did was reference something widely reported in the media to counter it.
Decision based evidence making at its finest.
Reference the joke when the statistician is asked “what is 2+2?”
Answer; “what do you want it to be?”
Lying with statistics 101.
Should anyone really be concerned with nights and winters being slightly less cold?
I guarantee if you are in Yellowknife and the average winter low temp rises from -20 to -18c you are never going to notice, you are still one power outage from death.
Although freezing is supposed to be easy, just drift off to sleep in a nice warm bed.
I've recently been asked to review a couple of mapping exercises that are thought to show various things about future climates. E.g. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/87744e6b06c74e82916b9b11da218d28?item=2 This Climate Risk Viewer by the Forest Service. I've got a bit of a philosophical problem and maybe some people here can help.
1. Maps.. if we look at plain data, it shows confidence intervals.. but maps can't actually show those.. or can they?
2. If something's a climate model output, or derived from model outputs or downscaled models, does it have such a thing as a confidence interval?
Someone sent me this which is helpful about maps.. but I still have the climate model output question -are there confidence intervals? https://www.directionsmag.com/article/1205
In particular the reference to David Archibald “that the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on world temperatures is minuscule, and what has caused the slight warming of the temperature in the last decade of the 20th century was the sun.”
Also, the significance of the finding that Greenland was 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today Modern temperatures in central–north Greenland warmest in past millennium | Nature
I think we need to make very clear to people like Gates that if they do something like this based on incredibly shaky knowledge and incomplete data we will find them. I envision what the English did to William Wallace would be a suitable lesson for all.
Yes, despite hoax hockey sticks, Greenland was much warmer during the MWP than it is now, the Norse farmed there and graves have been found with tree roots growing through the skeleton, something kind of far fetched if it’s permafrost.
The Climatism folk will say it was just Europe but of course that is nonsense.
Every retreating glacier reveal old forests and villages obliterated by advancing ice and we know tree lines were further north than today.
From the point of view of climate policy, it would seem that equipping ourselves with air conditioners to withstand periods of extreme heat and building houses on higher ground away from the coasts should be sufficient, since even scenario 8.5 does not augur other situations that would be critical for human life on earth.
This would cost much less than urgent mitigation measures, the deployment and effectiveness of which remain doubtful for many decades, if not centuries.
Good Q. 12.8 shows for different regions in North America expected directions of change under RCP4.5 (or equivalent) along with timeframe for emergence (the dots). So similar to 12.12 but with additional information. I am sure that for folks looking closely there will be some surprises found in the regional tables - like extreme heat extreme not expected to emerge beyond natural variability with high confidence in Central and Eastern US until 2050.
Great work. Unfortunately, the media is not listening.
The Sun is the prime driver of climate change. In 1904, Willis Carrier invented the psychrometric chart. It is a mathematical model of the Earth’s atmosphere. The basis is the science developed over the previous 500 years by people like Boyle, Charles/Gay Lussac and Newton. It does not include warming by CO2 because it is too small to measure. This was confirmed by Lightfoot and Ratzer in a paper in 2023: Laws of Physics define the insignificant warming of Earth by CO2. Available at: https://setpublisher.com/pms/index.php/jbas/issue/view/89.
Recent research seems to show earth heating and cooling following the Sun’s magnetic cycles, solar wind variability determines how many cosmic rays reach earth affecting cloud cover.
Supposedly Ceres data shows reduction in cloud cover in recent decades that would explain all of any temp changes?
First of all Roger, I find it amazing how you remain so positive in your communication. Many people in your position would be frustrated and bitter.
I wonder about the signal of natural climate variability. The IPCC states that some of the early 20 th century warming was not due to greenhouse gasses. Is there a satisfactory explanation for this natural warming? It appears to me that a lot of the current science is looking at climate change only form a ‘human induced’ angle and aren’t studying the various forms of natural climate variability
I'm lucky - I have a huge platform and a lot of impact/influence via my analyses in many business and policy settings around the world. It is a dream come true really. So if there are some who are jealous or angry, and strike out, that is on them. I expect to be doing this for a while and the support of all y'all is what makes it possible. So, really, Thanks!
And yes, nowadays climate variability gets short shrift, even within climate science. I'll have more to say on that before long.
Dr. Pielke, thank you once again for your reasoned and measured look at this topic.
But don't you see how the "science" is purposely bastardized for the sake of alarmists? You mention that someday in the future dissertations will be written about the gap between the science and the alarmist predictions in the press. As the saying goes history is written by the victors. Do you have any sense the alarmists are NOT GOING TO WIN. Jesus H Christ, after decades of obfuscation and hysteria do you really think the reasonable people have the upper hand in this debate? Of all people I am genuinely surprised at your pollyannish view of how "truth" will prevail.
Roger continues to be a little bit pregnant, something that will end when they try to bury him.
Meanwhile I will continue to try to drive subscribers to his Substack in the theory that the more people that are watching the harder it will be for them to destroy him.
The old Python bit was “no one ever expects the Inquisition”, but unfortunately I do expect it.
Global warming is one of the most serious challenges currently facing civilization. Every year, it results in severe floods, extreme heat, wildfires, melting glaciers, intense storms, and many other natural phenomena and disasters that threaten humanity.
Why can’t we just state the the IPCC Synthesis/Summary reports are clear cases of scientific, political and economic fraud and everyone involved in writing them shall one day face criminal charges if they are not publicly retracted?
These summaries are used to justify massive wasteful spending and policies that if followed through to conclusion will be responsible for more human misery and death than all human policies up to now?
I really appreciate the information and perspective you provide but I am afraid the points you are making are lost on most folks because of the impenetrable jargon associated with climate change in general. “ Emergence of a climate signal “ is just not going to mean anything to most folks including those trying hard to understand
It's hard to change the narrative every day people like our weather men say - "and the heat today can be attributed to climate change"...... there for everyone to hear or at least take in subliminally .... we certainly have lost touch with reality.
Hello Roger
I thought I would drop you a note on the Belgian centre that produces the climate event fatality data that you often use.-i.e the 98% fall. It appears that someone has got to them. They are now producing a series where they have taken out the top 50 events. The big fall disappears. It is fair enough to produce an additional series which is upward trending probably due to more intense reporting and population growth. as long as you draw attention to these factors. What was not acceptable is that they included data for the statistical measure of excess deaths due to excess heat. This is a different measure to the event related deaths in the rest of the series.. Further they omitt deads from excess cold which far outweigh heat deaths and which will improve as temperatures increase. - worth a post?
Ian. PS if you want to see some comprehensive climate change fact checking from a New Zealand perspective go to tailrisk.co.nz
Been contemplating this post and especially;
“Identifying the signal of human caused climate change according to the IPCC, refers to detecting and attributing a change in the statistics of a particular climate or weather variable.”.
The money word here is “attributing”, the latest big thing in climatism.
The problem I see is the table lists all the factors assumed to be affected by AGW.
Yet most of them show no identifiable trend.
If 70-80% of the factors show no trend, when AGW is theorized to affect all, why the automatic assumption the 20-30% are caused by us?
Is the theory 20-30% correct and that therefor is good enough to destroy the economy?
Attributing those few changes to humans is simply confirmation bias.
When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
You are basically saying there is no emergency, but agree that the few trends detected show human influence.
Not buying.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but how is the melting of massive glaciers and our polar ice caps not a sufficient signal of climate change?
I’m not taking you to say that it’s not one at all (and I appreciate your objective, level-headed approach to this issue—hence my subscription), but do we really need any further evidence? Or is this just something that might have eventually happened anyway in the minds of some?
Thanks
There is no trend in polar ice caps melting, the arctic ice pulled back due to ocean cycles but is growing.
Antarctic is fuzzier, looks like this year was lower than average, but the continent of Antarctica is in a long term cooling trend as it tips away from the sun.
Glaciers have been receding for a couple hundred years as you’d expect coming out of the little ice age.
Some are not shrinking and some are growing but yes majority in NH are shrinking, that’s where the monotonous average 2.1mm per year sea rise comes from.
Interesting...Sources for that?
All "denier" websites so its very likely you aren't actually interested?
I'm interested in any data that is available and accessible. Judging by your assumptions of my interest and/or intent, I'm beginning to doubt whether these are sources that are merely presenting data and supporting documentation on how the data was gathered (or trying to offer any objective insight or information). I would be very happy to be proven wrong with regard to the melting ice in our oceans, so if this "denier" website presents such data, please provide links here.
https://everythingclimate.com/greenland-ice-loss-is-a-serious-problem/
Bunch of stories associated with the arctic at this link
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/tag/arctic/
And of course, my favorite “everything” post.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
As per Roger’s site here, there is no emergency, not even detected trends in most indicators
Fair enough. I’m used to a lot of climate trolls online, happy to proceed with you as a person.
Here is one link with lots of references
https://everythingclimate.com/topics/antarctic-ice-melt/
Hey Roger, have a look into this Gaslighting group, https://sciencemoms.com/extreme-weather/?utm_source=extremeweather&utm_medium=series&utm_campaign=email3&utm_term=header&emci=4223f27a-2a2a-ee11-a9bb-00224832e1ba&emdi=6cae8f03-b02c-ee11-b8f0-00224832eb73&ceid=12790889
I would very much like to see the evidence the IPCC uses to claim it has found a climate change signal in extreme heat and extreme cold. US data goes back to 1900 and doesn't show any trend in heat waves. I doubt if the world wide data shows anything else. And I really haven't seen any evidence one way or another on cold snaps, though my (obviously anecdotal) memory is very little trend in cold snaps.
USA data does show a trend
Down.
I think this is the same nonsense Koonin debunked in his book, that the ratio of heat records to cold is increasing. OMG
of course when he looked at the data he saw that hot records were actually decreasing but cold records were decreasing faster. That’s it.
Then climatism’s Hausfather had the nerve in his “fact check” to say Koonin had erected a straw man when all he did was reference something widely reported in the media to counter it.
Decision based evidence making at its finest.
Reference the joke when the statistician is asked “what is 2+2?”
Answer; “what do you want it to be?”
Lying with statistics 101.
Should anyone really be concerned with nights and winters being slightly less cold?
I guarantee if you are in Yellowknife and the average winter low temp rises from -20 to -18c you are never going to notice, you are still one power outage from death.
Although freezing is supposed to be easy, just drift off to sleep in a nice warm bed.
Roger (and others)
I've recently been asked to review a couple of mapping exercises that are thought to show various things about future climates. E.g. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/87744e6b06c74e82916b9b11da218d28?item=2 This Climate Risk Viewer by the Forest Service. I've got a bit of a philosophical problem and maybe some people here can help.
1. Maps.. if we look at plain data, it shows confidence intervals.. but maps can't actually show those.. or can they?
2. If something's a climate model output, or derived from model outputs or downscaled models, does it have such a thing as a confidence interval?
Thanks to all!
The outputs of models aren’t data and cannot be treated as such.
They reflect the bias of the programmer and nothing more.
Someone sent me this which is helpful about maps.. but I still have the climate model output question -are there confidence intervals? https://www.directionsmag.com/article/1205
What are your thoughts on "Climate Engineering to Fight Global Warming? What Could Go Wrong!" https://www.theepochtimes.com/climate-engineering-to-fight-global-warming-what-could-go-wrong_5411032.html
In particular the reference to David Archibald “that the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on world temperatures is minuscule, and what has caused the slight warming of the temperature in the last decade of the 20th century was the sun.”
Also, the significance of the finding that Greenland was 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today Modern temperatures in central–north Greenland warmest in past millennium | Nature
I think we need to make very clear to people like Gates that if they do something like this based on incredibly shaky knowledge and incomplete data we will find them. I envision what the English did to William Wallace would be a suitable lesson for all.
Yes, despite hoax hockey sticks, Greenland was much warmer during the MWP than it is now, the Norse farmed there and graves have been found with tree roots growing through the skeleton, something kind of far fetched if it’s permafrost.
The Climatism folk will say it was just Europe but of course that is nonsense.
Every retreating glacier reveal old forests and villages obliterated by advancing ice and we know tree lines were further north than today.
A deliberately simplistic comment:
From the point of view of climate policy, it would seem that equipping ourselves with air conditioners to withstand periods of extreme heat and building houses on higher ground away from the coasts should be sufficient, since even scenario 8.5 does not augur other situations that would be critical for human life on earth.
This would cost much less than urgent mitigation measures, the deployment and effectiveness of which remain doubtful for many decades, if not centuries.
Why do I know more about global warming than every journalist on earth?
Because you can read and you are not being paid not to know.
Dr Pielke,
Thank you for this information.
How does Table 12.12 relate to Table 12.8 (North America). Table 12.8 indicates more correlated impacts for RCP 4.5 or greater?
Good Q. 12.8 shows for different regions in North America expected directions of change under RCP4.5 (or equivalent) along with timeframe for emergence (the dots). So similar to 12.12 but with additional information. I am sure that for folks looking closely there will be some surprises found in the regional tables - like extreme heat extreme not expected to emerge beyond natural variability with high confidence in Central and Eastern US until 2050.
Roger:
Great work. Unfortunately, the media is not listening.
The Sun is the prime driver of climate change. In 1904, Willis Carrier invented the psychrometric chart. It is a mathematical model of the Earth’s atmosphere. The basis is the science developed over the previous 500 years by people like Boyle, Charles/Gay Lussac and Newton. It does not include warming by CO2 because it is too small to measure. This was confirmed by Lightfoot and Ratzer in a paper in 2023: Laws of Physics define the insignificant warming of Earth by CO2. Available at: https://setpublisher.com/pms/index.php/jbas/issue/view/89.
Recent research seems to show earth heating and cooling following the Sun’s magnetic cycles, solar wind variability determines how many cosmic rays reach earth affecting cloud cover.
Supposedly Ceres data shows reduction in cloud cover in recent decades that would explain all of any temp changes?
Maybe that is a post for Roger
First of all Roger, I find it amazing how you remain so positive in your communication. Many people in your position would be frustrated and bitter.
I wonder about the signal of natural climate variability. The IPCC states that some of the early 20 th century warming was not due to greenhouse gasses. Is there a satisfactory explanation for this natural warming? It appears to me that a lot of the current science is looking at climate change only form a ‘human induced’ angle and aren’t studying the various forms of natural climate variability
Well thank you!
I'm lucky - I have a huge platform and a lot of impact/influence via my analyses in many business and policy settings around the world. It is a dream come true really. So if there are some who are jealous or angry, and strike out, that is on them. I expect to be doing this for a while and the support of all y'all is what makes it possible. So, really, Thanks!
And yes, nowadays climate variability gets short shrift, even within climate science. I'll have more to say on that before long.
Dr. Pielke, thank you once again for your reasoned and measured look at this topic.
But don't you see how the "science" is purposely bastardized for the sake of alarmists? You mention that someday in the future dissertations will be written about the gap between the science and the alarmist predictions in the press. As the saying goes history is written by the victors. Do you have any sense the alarmists are NOT GOING TO WIN. Jesus H Christ, after decades of obfuscation and hysteria do you really think the reasonable people have the upper hand in this debate? Of all people I am genuinely surprised at your pollyannish view of how "truth" will prevail.
Roger continues to be a little bit pregnant, something that will end when they try to bury him.
Meanwhile I will continue to try to drive subscribers to his Substack in the theory that the more people that are watching the harder it will be for them to destroy him.
The old Python bit was “no one ever expects the Inquisition”, but unfortunately I do expect it.
The "increase in floods" etc. boilerplate is everywhere. For example this PR about a really cool (literally) new coating for buildings (https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/new-material-is-a-game-changer-in-radiative-cooling/ ) starts with
Global warming is one of the most serious challenges currently facing civilization. Every year, it results in severe floods, extreme heat, wildfires, melting glaciers, intense storms, and many other natural phenomena and disasters that threaten humanity.
Why can’t we just state the the IPCC Synthesis/Summary reports are clear cases of scientific, political and economic fraud and everyone involved in writing them shall one day face criminal charges if they are not publicly retracted?
These summaries are used to justify massive wasteful spending and policies that if followed through to conclusion will be responsible for more human misery and death than all human policies up to now?
Why do we have to be nice?
Need to start telling it like it is.
I really appreciate the information and perspective you provide but I am afraid the points you are making are lost on most folks because of the impenetrable jargon associated with climate change in general. “ Emergence of a climate signal “ is just not going to mean anything to most folks including those trying hard to understand
It's hard to change the narrative every day people like our weather men say - "and the heat today can be attributed to climate change"...... there for everyone to hear or at least take in subliminally .... we certainly have lost touch with reality.
Yes
How about, “everything is just fine at this time, at some point it may not be alright but we have not detected a real problem just yet”.
Carry on and enjoy your life, don’t let the doom merchants ruin it like they ruined Greta’s.
Agreed!