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?
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'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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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