They say more complete datasets are needed. They also fail to mention “the pause” of global temperature during the decade of study, using only bar graphs to illustrate temperatures instead of trend lines, while at the same time state that “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes.” They also mention “it is not yet possible to attribute individual extremes to climate change,” and they hint that “some may have occurred in a different way – or would not have occurred at all”, which is just political lip service, and no evidence is cited.
They also cite that expansion of socio-economic assets and infrastructure expanded in such a way to increase risk to lives and property.
The WMO now joins Nature magazine and IPCC SREX in saying extreme weather can’t yet be reliably linked to climate change. Links to the report follow. – Anthony
Press release:
GENEVA 3 July 2013 – The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming. More national temperature records were reported broken than in any previous decade, according to a new report by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
The report, The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes, analysed global and regional temperatures and precipitation, as well as extreme events such as the heat waves in Europe and Russia, Hurricane Katrina in the United States of America, Tropical Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, droughts in the Amazon Basin, Australia and East Africa and floods in Pakistan.
…
Impacts: During the decade 2001-2010, more than 370,000 people died as a result of extreme weather and climate conditions, including heat waves, cold spells, drought, storms and floods, according to the data provided by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). This was 20% higher than 1991-2000. This increase is due mainly to the 2003 heat wave in Europe and the 2010 in Russia which contributed to an increase of more than 2000% in the global death toll from heat waves (from less than 6000 in 1991-2000 to 136 000 in 2001-2010).
On the other hand, there was a 16% decline in deaths due to storms and 43% decline in deaths from floods, thanks mainly to better early warning systems and increased preparedness and despite an increase in populations in disaster-prone areas.
According to the 2011 Global Assessment Report, the average population exposed to flooding every year increased by 114% globally between 1970 and 2010, a period in which the world’s population increased by 87% from 3.7 billion to 6.9 billion. The number of people exposed to severe storms almost tripled in cyclone-prone areas, increasing by 192%, in the same period.
Much research is being conducted into whether it is possible to attribute individual extreme events to climate change rather than natural variability. Scientists increasingly conclude that the likelihood of an event such as the 2003 European heat wave was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures. It is therefore important to develop this research to strengthen climate science and to use it to improve climate services to help society adapt to climate change.
###
Full press release here: http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html
Excerpts from the report:
…the data do not demonstrate that the increase in observed
losses is caused by an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme events. Other factors come into play, notably the
increased exposure of people and property to climate extremes and the improved and increased reporting of disasters.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting the very large increase (more than 2 000 per cent) in the loss of life from heatwaves, particularly during the unprecedented extreme heat events that affected Europe in the summer of 2003 and the Russian Federation in the summer of 2010. On the other hand, there
were fewer deaths due to storms and floods in 2001–2010 compared to 1991–2000, with decreases of 16 per cent and 43 per cent, respectively, thanks, in good part, to better early warning systems and increased preparedness.
There were fewer deaths, even while exposure to extreme events increased as populations grew and more people were living in disaster-prone areas. According to the 2011 Global Assessment Report, the average population exposed to flooding every year increased by 114 per cent globally between 1970 and 2010, a period in which the world’s population increased by 87 per cent from 3.7 billion to 6.9 billion. The number of people exposed to severe storms almost tripled in cyclone-prone areas, increasing by 192 per cent, in the same period.
While the risk of death and injury from storms and floods declined, the vulnerability of property increased. This is because
the expansion of socio-economic and infrastructural assets led to an increase in the amount and value of property exposed
to weather and climate extremes.
…
No clear trend has been found in tropical cyclones and extra-tropical storms at the global level. More complete datasets will be needed in order to perform robust analyses of trends in the frequency and intensity of these hazards. Distinguishing between natural climate variability and human-induced climate change will also require datasets that are more complete and long-term. A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes.
The report is available here: http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15110
Backup PDF here: wmo_1119_en
I’d be curious as to their data set, aren’t most data sets showing a steady or declining temps during the same decade?
Perhaps unusual and extreme weather turns out to be ‘normal weather’, when averaged over thirty years (one normal period). It is very likely that ‘Extreme weather’ only occurs about every thirty years or less per location on earth.
It was the climate changing, not variation in the climate wot dun it !!
The BBC’s ‘environment analyst’‘, comrade Roger Hampstead’ Harrabin, is at it again, this time bigging-up a new doom-laden report from his common purpose chums over at the World Meteorological Association (yes, the WMO is a UN joint – funded, of course, by taxpayers).
Climate extremes are ‘unprecedented’ screams the headline.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23154073
Are ‘climate extremes’ the same as ‘extreme weather events’ or is that possibly ‘global weirding’..? These days, it gets to so hard to spot the difference (if there is any).
Nice to know Roger is at least consistent in his ‘impartiality’.
Sounds like a Wet Office type statement after an unpleasant weather event occurs ………………..”No one extreme weather event can be attributed to Climate Change, but yes, this is the sort of even we expect o see more of in the future!” i.e. no it isn’t but yes it is!! Very scientific I must say.
I think skeptics often misunderstand the language of the Alarmists. The purpose of this report is to identify a gap in the literature that needs to be closed. They are blowing the dog whistle to get the climate scientologist to focus on manufacturing papers that say that AGW causes extreme weather. The treemometer hoax didn’t work, the computer models failed, so they need a new strategy.
Extreme weather is the perfect strategy for the alarmists. Everyday we have an extreme weather event somewhere in the world. A skill propagandist can convince people that these events are now somehow unusual. But they need some folks to manufacture some papers to give it the air of scientific legitimacy.
But I was told the weather is getting kinda crazy maaaan. People were being ripped apart by man’s eeeevil carbon dioxide. I will let the ultra Warmists at the IPCC and Nature do the talking.
Extreme weather and deaths and danger my arse.
Extreme weather and extreme climate. I see that after coming out of the ‘hottest decade on the record we really are doomed. The evidence is overwhelming and we must act right now. The climate and weather is crazy maaaan.
Well…
At least they are not linking severe weather to “Anthropogenic Global Warmimg”
That was sarcasm. My “sarc” addition didn’t appear.
What a Lame Statement from these people. A long and smokescreen-laden way of saying “we don’t know, but we should still be funded and make policy recommendations nonetheless’
Sure, guys, whatever floats yer boat.
All over the press now in Europe, radio, television, MSM: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23154073
They never give up.
Yet they state: “Scientists increasingly conclude that the likelihood of an event such as the 2003 European heat wave was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures. “
The WMO says, “A decade is the minimum possible timeframe for detecting temperature changes.”
Great quote during a discussion.
The global climate has not changed the last 17 years, but the Death in this aera is due to climate change?
?
Maybe they are right. Maybe they are blowing in the wind. The world ‘probably’ is probably problematical. I prefer to see trends of heat waves from the scientists otherwise I will ‘probably’ not listen to the problem.
The “there is No clear trend has been found in tropical cyclones and extra-tropical storms at the global level.” is falsi. There is a significant trend of zero slope in the cyclone energy plots.
The data (evidence) are plotted over time. The plotted data have a slope of zero.
The inference is that the claims of the UN/WMO/IPCC that cyclones will increase is rejected.
Yet 15 years is still not enough. What about 20, do I have any bidders for 20? How about 25, going once, going twice……..
Coming from Michel Jarraud, anything goes as long as it is alarmist and fits the green business agenda.
As for the 2003 heat wave more likely in a warming world, only those with an agenda or complete ignorance of the synoptic reality would keep accrediting this fantasy.
“””””….. “Scientists increasingly conclude that the likelihood of an event such as the 2003 European heat wave was probably substantially increased by rising global temperatures. “…..”””””
Which “scientists” and how many ?
“Increasingly”; by how much, and what error bars ?
“likelihood of an event such as the 2003 European heat wave”, well we already know that; is was 100% likelihood; it actually happened.
“Probably substantially increased”; 102% , or 120% , or 200% ; just how substantially ?
” increased by rising global temperatures” ; izzat a probably substantially increased likelihood; than it was caused by just local rising European Temperatures ?
“””””…..It is therefore important to develop this research to strengthen climate science and to use it to improve climate services to help society adapt to climate change…….”””””
Now there’s a rocket science suggestion we can all learn to love.
You can’t change the climate; so how about adapting to it.
Surely if tourists will still visit Death Valley, when it is +134 deg. F in the shade ” right over there”, then most people can tolerate the global mean Temperature going from 288 K up to 289 K over the next 150 years.
“Last decade at highest levels since 1850” is just Newspeak for no statistically significant warming trend into the 18th year…
I also love it when the MET ranks years. If they want to rank something, one could say that the last 18 yrs rank 1 through 18 over the last 4.5 billion years for the most amount of manmade CO2 emissions with the LEAST amount of warming. 0.98+-0.112C/decade.
What a joke….
This whole CAGW scam is starting to implode, hence the haste in which BHO is pushing his Global Warming initiatives through (without Congressional approval) prior to the entire scam becoming yet another scandal under his watch….
I may be wrong, but the only explanation for all this spending (immigration bill/climate change initiatives/Obamacare/Prism, etc) is that he’s implementing the Cloward & Piven strategy to overwhelm the system and replace it with an EU-styled Big Government socio-economic system.
I.e.. “Fundamentally change America” as he promised he would do..
When they say,
“While climate scientists believe that it is not
yet possible to attribute individual extremes
to climate change, they increasingly conclude
that many recent events would have occurred
in a different way – or would not have occurred
at all – in the absence of climate change.”
and then say,
“Assessing trends in extreme weather and
climate events requires an even longer
timeframe because, by definition, these
events do not occur frequently.”
This is not “panning”. It is stating that, “while we cannot use statistical analyses to prove the significant effect of climate change, (due to high variability and low frequency of events), it is becoming increasingly clear that climate change is exacerbating the extremes.
Which makes sence since they say,
“Nine of the decade’s years were among
the 10 warmest on record. The warmest
year ever recorded was 2010” — Pg 3.
“The 2001–2010 decade was also the
warmest on record for both land-only and
ocean-only surface temperatures.” — pg 4.
“The largest country in South America, Brazil,
recorded the continent’s highest temperature
anomaly value of + 0.74 °C, making the decade
the warmest on record there.” — pg 5.
“As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the decade 2001–
2010 continued the upward trend in global
temperatures, despite the cooling effects of
multiple La Niña episodes and other natural
year-to-year variability.” — pg. 5
“Canada
Central Canada experienced its
warmest and most humid summer on
record in 2005. 2010 was the warmest
year on record for the nation as a whole
since records began in 1948.” — pg 8
“South America
As part of a persistent atmospheric blocking pattern,
an exceptionally hot February affected southern
Argentina and Chile in 2008. Daily maximum
temperatures reached between 35°C and 40°C,
well above the average, which ranges
between 20°C and 28°C.” — pg 8.
“intense and long-lasting heatwave that struck
the Russian Federation in July/ August 2010,
causing over 55 000 deaths. The WMO
survey identifies many other abnormally
high-temperature conditions, heatwaves and
temperature records around the world.” — pg 8.
“China and Japan
The months of August and September 2007 were extremely
warm in Japan, setting a new national record of absolute
maximum temperature of 40.9°C. In 2010, Japan and China had
their hottest summer on record.” — pg 9.
“Pakistan
In 2010, a pre-monsoon heatwave
brought a record temperature of 53.5°C
to Mohenjo Daro on 26 May making a
national record for Pakistan and the highest
temperature in Asia since at least 1942.” — pg 9.
“Australia
Several heatwaves affected Australia during
this decade, with disastrous bush fires as well
as record temperatures. During summer
2009, Victoria reached its highest temperature
with 48.8°C at Hopetown, the highest temperature
ever recorded so far south anywhere in the world.” — pg 9.
and finally, (I’m done here)
“As a result of this widespread melting (and the
thermal expansion of sea water), global mean
sea levels continued to rise over the decade
2001–2010. The observed rate of increase
was some 3 mm per year, about double the
observed 20th century trend of 1.6 mm/yr.” — pg 13.
———–
If all of this is somehow, “panning” the effects of climate change, then you either,
a. live in an alternate reality where up is down and “panning” means, “asserts”
or
b. are on some kind of payroll to provide biased disinformation about a complex subject so that you can perpetuate the status quo and ensure that, regardless of the actual scientific evidence that you,
1. ensure that the truly devistating effects of climate change decimates future generations
and
2. you continue to make pretty good money until the gravy train runs out.
jai mitchell says:
“2. you continue to make pretty good money until the gravy train runs out.”
You self-serving hypocrite. You are in business milking tax money based on the completely bogus manmade global warming scare.
Your post is simply a regurgitation of cherry-picked nonsense that does nothing to falsify the climate Null Hypothesis.
Could you be any less credible?
At least with “global warming” there was a putative mechanism. With “global weirding” there is no feasible mechanism. It’s 100% hand-waving and fear-mongering.
I give up……you can’t tell squat from a decade
Look at all the hundred year periods, going one way (up), when the overall trend is going the other (down)
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
and who in their right mind would claim anything is the warmest…..since the little ice age