CLIMATE sceptics have been consistently pointing to data rather than superstition, politics and emotion in order to examine the contentious relationship between human CO2 emissions and
global warming climate change.
Climate alarmists will frequently default to the “extreme weather” narrative in order to deceptively promote the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) narrative by instilling fear, doom and gloom directly into the human psyche.
However, by most metrics, the data shows us that extreme weather events are becoming ‘less’ extreme as CO2 increases.
Professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado Boulder: “The world is presently in an era of unusually low weather disasters. This holds for the weather phenomena that have historically caused the most damage: tropical cyclones, floods, tornadoes and drought. Given how weather events have become politicized in debates over climate change, some find this hard to believe…
The US has seen a decrease of about 20% in both hurricane frequency and intensity at landfall since 1900…
Data on floods, drought and tornadoes are similar in that they show little to no indication of becoming more severe or frequent…
Thus, it is fair to conclude that the costs of disasters worldwide is depressed because, as the global economy has grown, disaster costs have not grown at the same rate. Thus, disaster costs as a proportion of GDP have decreased. One important reason for this is a lack of increase in the weather events that cause disasters, most notably, tropical cyclones worldwide and especially hurricanes in the United States.”
Why has this occurred? Is it good luck, climate change or something else?
A good place to start is with tropical cyclones, given that they are often the most costly weather events to occur each year. The figure below shows global tropical cyclone landfalls from 1990 through 2016. These are the storms that cause the overwhelming majority of property damage. Since 1990 there has been a reduction of about 3 landfalling storms per year (from ~17 to ~14), which certainly helps to explain why disaster losses are somewhat depressed.
Even more striking is the extended period in the United States, which has the most exposure to tropical cyclone damage, without the landfall of an intense hurricane. The figure below shows the number of days between each landfall of a Category 3+ hurricane in the US, starting in 1900. As of this writing the tally is approaching 4500 days, which is a streak of good fortune not seen in the historical record.
See Also :
- The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con | Climatism
- Despite NOAA denial, growing number of new studies confirm global warming hiatus | Climatism
Paul Homewood of NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT recently posted a blog listing ten reasons countering climate “scientist” Katharine Hayhoe’s assertion that some of us don’t believe in global warming because we don’t care!
I don’t know a single person who doesn’t “care” about the planet or their environment. So, it would appear Katharine is using more of that divisive and marginalising language favoured by the totalitarian Left, in preference to facts and reason, in a deliberate effort to force you into a narrow set of beliefs that align with the alarmist orthodoxy.
By extension, these ten points lay out fundamental reasoning as to why increasingly, more and more climate truth-seekers are forming a sceptical view of the hayhoe-hysterical “climate change” debate.
And, they happen to make an excellent resource for your next friendly climate debate!
1) We don’t trust climate scientists.
The Climategate emails revealed just how untrustworthy the climate establishment has become.
We know that literally billions in grants are being shovelled their way, and that these grants would quickly dry up if they dropped their alarmism.
2) We don’t like being misled.
You, Katharine, have form in this respect, as you know.
It was you who claimed, in a magazine article in 2011, that increasing winter temperatures in Texas were a sign of climate change.
You came to this conclusion by starting your analysis in 1965, right at the start of a cold period.
You, of course, must have known that warming since then was just part of a cycle, and that temperatures have actually changed little since the 1920s.
Texas Winter Mean Temperatures
3) It was hotter in the 1930s
We are aware that temperatures across the US were considerable higher in the 1930s than in recent years.
Is it surprising that people are not in the least concerned about current climate?
4) It was warmer in the Middle Ages
Despite various attempts to disappear the MWP, evidence worldwide indicates that the climate was just as warm then as now, and that previous warm periods, such as the Roman and Minoan, were warmer still.
There is nothing unprecedented about current climate, so why should we be concerned?
5) The 19thC was the coldest period since the ice age
Ice cores show that the Little Ice Age was an exceptionally cold time. Why should we be surprised or concerned that there has been a small amount of warming since?
6) Cold kills
There can be no question at all that our current climate is beneficial compared with the cold of the Little Ice Age.
Or maybe you would prefer to return to that age of famine, cold, storms, floods and drought?
7) Extreme weather is not increasing
Despite climate scientists attempts to blame every bit of bad weather on climate change, there is no evidence that extreme weather is getting worse.
Droughts in the US, that were severe and widespread in the 1930s and 50s, have become much less of a problem since.
The US has now gone 11 years without a major hurricane, the longest such period on record.
The USGS can find no evidence that flooding has got worse.
And tornado activity has also diminished significantly since the cold years of the 1970s.
8) We don’t trust your data
Global temperature data has continually been adjusted to show more warming.
Yet the satellite data continues to diverge from surface data, and still shows temperatures have not increased since 1998.
9) Apocalypse never comes
For many years, we have been fed scare stories of apocalypse round the corner. These, of course, never materialise.
If climate scientists were to treat us with a bit of respect, honestly admitted that they have little idea of what is to come, and stopped trying to intimidate us with silly scares, you might find that we returned that respect.
10) Redistribution of wealth
Your attempts to treat us like children and trust the nice scientists ignore the issue.
Regardless of the science, the whole issue of climate change has been hijacked by politicians, the UN and a veritable army of vested interests.
People are not stupid, and know that developed countries have committed to transferring $100bn a year to developing ones, as part of the Paris Agreement.
Christina Figueres herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.
- 15 Questions Why Climate Change Is A Complete Hoax | Climatism
- 7 REASONS Why Activist Orgs Like NatGeo (Sadly) Cannot Be Trusted On Anything “Climate Change” | Climatism
- 22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths On Global Warming | Climatism
- Twelve Reasons Why The Paris Climate Talks Are A Total Waste | Climatism
MORE on the shock, global warming “pause” paper from warmists Santer, Mann et al !
via PA Pundits…
UPDATE via Climatism:
MAKE NO MISTAKE. This paper is massive. It basically reaffirms what climate sceptics (“Deniers”) have been stating for years – that despite record CO2 emissions over the past 20 years, there has been NO statistically significant global warming over this period.
There is a catastrophic problem with the UN’s billion dollar CMIP5 climate models that essentially drive the $trillion global warming industry. They are grossly overheated, leading to the panic, hysteria and fake news seen daily on the topic.
Something other than CO2 must be driving the climate. And The Godfather’s of global warming doom and gloom – Ben Santer and Mikey (hockey stick) Mann et al have released this *scientific* paper supporting the sceptical notion of a lower CO2 sensitivity than perceived by the “97%”.
It is being touted in the sceptic community as “Black Monday” owing to the release day.
Surely, this paper spells the beginning of the end for the greatest and most costly scientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind.
By Andrew Bolt ~
Even leading alarmist Ben Santer, lead author of a paper in Nature Geoscience, now admits the world isn’t warming as predicted by global warming models. Even Michael Mann, who produced the infamous hockey stick, has put his name to this paper.
From the abstract:
In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble.
The problem is the models on which the global warming scare is based were simply wrong:
We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
James Delingpole describes Santer’s colorful history in the climate wars since he was outed in the Climategate scandal.
John Christy, who collects satellite temperature data…
View original post 93 more words
“[Since] the late 1970s. The vast majority of the globe’s vegetated area is greening, with 25-50% of that area showing a statistically significant change, while only 4% of the vegetated area is significantly browning…”
“Carbon Pollution” (aka Carbon Dioxide) not so “dirty” after all!
Guest essay by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels
It’s hard to say how many punny posts we came up with using those words when Carol Browner was Bill Clinton’s EPA Administrator, but here we use it in the context of a recent Science paper by J-F. Busteri and 30 named coauthors assisted by 239 volunteers. It found, looking at global drylands (about 40% of land areas fall into this category), that we had undercounted global forest cover by a whopping “at least 9%”.
239 people were required to examine over 210,000 0.5 hectare (1.2 acre) sample plots in GoogleEarth, and classify the cover as open or forested. Thing of being condemned to looking at that many satellite views of real estate. Anyway, Here’s the resultant cool map:
This has been the subject of a jillion recent stories, blog posts, tweets and whatever concerning Bastin et al. So let’s add a bit…
View original post 299 more words
Study suggests increased atmospheric CO2 created a 30% growth in plant photosynthesis during last two centuriesPosted: April 6, 2017
“Photosynthesis is the process through which plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbohydrates to fuel their growth and other activities”
Carbon dioxide – the essential gas of life on earth, without which we’d all be dead.
It is the very same gas that “Save The Planet” eco-zealots and sycophant climate-obsessed mainstream media refer to as “carbon pollution”.
It is the same essential gas of life that Barack Obama had written in law, via the EPA, as a “Pollutant”!
The demonisation of colourless, odourless, essential trace gas and plant food “CO2/Carbon Dioxide” – one of the great deceptions of the Climate Change scandal.
Composite image showing the global distribution of photosynthesis, including both oceanic phytoplankton and terrestrial vegetation. Dark red and blue-green indicate regions of high photosynthetic activity in the ocean and on land, respectively. Image: NASA SEAWIFS
Research shows global photosynthesis on the rise
“Virtually all life on our planet depends on photosynthesis,” said UC Merced Professor Elliott Campbell, who led the research. “Keeping tabs on global plant growth should be a central goal for the human race.”
Photosynthesis is the process through which plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbohydrates to fuel their growth and other activities.
Yet, researchers lack…
View original post 916 more words
“Polar bear science got some long overdue scrutiny by a large number of people at this meeting. Not unexpectedly, a good many folks were surprised and outraged to learn how the polar bear/sea ice situation has actually unfolded compared to the predicted outcome and on-going media hype.”
The same can be said for all state-sponsored climate “science” with its litany of alarmist, false, fake and dud-predictions.
Congrats Susan Crockford and thanks for having the guts to tell the scientific truth about Polar Bears while risking personal and professional attacks, smears and slander from the “Climate Industrial Complex.”
I’ve just returned from a few days in Washington DC, where I presented the details on the global warming icon that refused to die as modeled (see my slide #12 below) to an enthusiastic and influential audience at The Heartland Institute‘s 12th International Climate Change Conference (ICCC-12).
Polar bear science got some long overdue scrutiny by a large number of people at this meeting. Not unexpectedly, a good many folks were surprised and outraged to learn how the polar bear/sea ice situation has actually unfolded compared to the predicted outcome and on-going media hype.
I spent more time than I expected giving interviews (several that were video taped) – with the first request coming 2 minutes after I walked into my hotel room after check-in!
I also spent as much time as I’d hoped signing copies of my polar bear science books (see sidebar) and talking…
View original post 137 more words
Good to see Trump following through with his election promises “No more money for politicized science!”
And as for radical eco-activist groups like “The Sierra Club”, whose income stream relies on peddling eco-hysteria and climate alarm (supported by the activist EPA), they took fossil fuel money. Lots of it…
From E&E Legal:
“We are delighted with President-elect Trump’s selection of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr. Pruitt has led the charge in recent years to confront head on the enormous federal regulatory overreach proposed by the EPA as epitomized by the Clean Power Plan and Waters of the U.S. rule. As a litigator, he also understands how environmental fringe groups like the Sierra Club and the NRDC – who are bankrolled by renewable energy tycoons like Tom Steyer and George Soros – use the state and federal court systems to essentially create new laws through such schemes as ‘sue & settle.’
It is also reassuring that President-Elect Trump has chosen someone from the state ranks, particularly a state so important to energy production, since it’s the states and their citizens who are suffering the most by this Administration’s out-of-control EPA.
View original post 333 more words