I wrote the day after IPCC AR5 SPM was released in Thoughts on IPCC AR5 SPM – discussion thread:
==============================
On the plus side, contrary to ongoing claims from that alarmist media mill side there are no mentions of tornadoes and hurricanes in the extreme weather events section. They give low confidence to tropical storm activity being connected to climate change, and don’t mention mesoscale events like tornadoes and thunderstorms at all. Similarly, they give low confidence to drought and flood attribution.
They’ve only talked about heat waves and precipitation events and being connected. From Page 4 of the SPM:
This is consistent with what was reported last year in the IPCC SREX report ( IPCC Special Report on Extremes PDF)
From Chapter 4 of the SREX:
- “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
- “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
- “The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”
Let’s hope this lack of attribution of severe storms to “man made climate change” in AR5 finally nails the lid shut on the claims of Hurricane Sandy, tornado outbreaks, and other favorite “lets not let a good crisis go to waste” media bleatings about climate change.
Now with two IPCC reports making no connection, and with Nature’s editorial last year dashing alarmist hopes of linking extreme weather events to global warming saying:
Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
…we can finally call it a dead issue.
There’s simply no connection between droughts, hurricanes, thunderstorms, flash floods, tornadoes and “climate change”.
===============================================================
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr adds in blog post today some points from the IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2 on extremes.
- “Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability”
- “There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
- “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
- “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
- “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
- “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
- “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
And says:
Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change — Zombie science — but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence.
Related articles
- IPCC Backpedals on Extreme Weather Claims (pjmedia.com)
- IPCC Report Blames Extreme Weather on Climate Change…But Should It? (theblaze.com)
- IPCC SPM: Bye to Extreme Weather (informthepundits.wordpress.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Unfortunately, “diplomat”, John Ashton was there at the Royal Society meeting today on the IPCC AR5 to tell us all that “the science is settled” (again).
And after two days of many presentations going through a plethora of uncertainties, he had the gall to claim that:
“There is a systematic attempt to manufacture disputes and uncertainty because then it isn’t settled.”
No one called him out.
‘Let’s hope this lack of attribution of severe storms to “man made climate change” in AR5 finally nails the lid shut on the claims of Hurricane Sandy, tornado outbreaks, and other favorite “lets not let a good crisis go to waste” media bleatings about climate change.’
See, the weather’s completely normal and it’s a nice day out – another sign of global warming!
P.S. I wish I could take credit for the above line but I can’t. I read it a couple years ago. I don’t remember the source though.
Dr. Pielke should consider that the AGW movement has never relied on actual evidence. Why should a movement as successful as the AGW hype movement change a thing?
This is why I have to believe in God, that there will be an ultimate reckoning for those that have intentionally and with knowledge hurt others. Al Gore has made tens or hundreds of millions of dollars pushing the nonsense that we are all going to die from hurricanes, tornados, droughts and whatever else. I believe that he has made that money with total knowledge that it was all false. I have to believe there is a god that will deliver justice to these false prophets otherwise I just have to give up and stop caring.
When do I get my money back? When do my kids get their economic future back? When do the thieves have to pay back their theft?
That did not stop last night’s NOVA program on PBS from hyping the conjecture that climate change might lead to “fewer but stronger” Atlantic storms made worse by sea level rise that might accelerate.
Let me say it if no one else will. Global warming will lead to less extreme weather. Some of the worst storms we have seen in the last 1,000 years was during the Little Ice Age. [temperature gradient thingy]. Desertification was greater during ice ages. We have never had it so good.
Jimbo says:
October 3, 2013 at 3:59 pm
We have never had it so good.
==
Isn’t that the truth….
We just happen to be here at the most perfect time…
…and these neurotic bozos are doing everything in their power to wreck it
well, the Flannery/Steffen & co Climate Commission may have been disbanded by the new Govt in Australia, but in their new, “rebadged” form, they are already making what seems to me to be EXTREME claims. it’s been cool in south-east queensland, that i do know. hoping someone can check their claims:
3 Oct: Age: Bridie Smith: Climate Council reports warmest September on record
Australians have just lived through the warmest September since records began, according to the rebadged Climate Council.
The latest record also makes the past 12 months the warmest documented, while 2013 is set to go down as the hottest calendar year in Australia, surpassing 2005.
”We’ve got high sea surface temperatures around Australia and that usually leads to warmer than average weather conditions, so if I was a betting man I would say that we are going to get the calendar record this year,” climate scientist Will Steffen said. September temperatures were almost three degrees above the long-term average, according to a Climate Council report released on Thursday…
Professor Steffen, the report’s author, said the frequency and severity of hot days and heatwaves in Australia were increasing as average global temperatures rose. This exacerbated the risk of bushfires, particularly in south-east Australia.
Advertisement ”Although Australia has always had heatwaves, hot days and bushfires, climate change is increasing the risk of more frequent and longer heatwaves and more extreme hot days, as well as exacerbating bushfire conditions,” he said.
Last summer more than 120 extreme weather-related records were broken, including the hottest January and the hottest day ever recorded in Australia since reliable record keeping began in 1910.
”Temperature records are broken from time to time in Australia, but it is the sheer number of records being broken that is really unusual,” Professor Steffen said. The persistent heat has been recorded continent-wide over the past 18 months. The oceans surrounding Australia have also registered record warmth…
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/climate-council-reports-warmest-september-on-record-20131003-2uv76.html
“Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence.”
That leaves nothing to fill the till. No recent warming, no accelerating sea level, heat sucked into the abyss where it does nothing, no change in extreme weather, no vector disease crisis, no global crop failures, global sea ice doing nothing special, Arctic sea ice not irreversible, ocean acidification admittedly unmeasured, climate tipping points remaining ethereal.
The true ‘climate change crisis’ is revealed- what is going to bring in the donations and membership dues at Greenpeace, WWF, UCS, 350.org, etc?
Their models will always fail as long as they are stuck on CO2 and AGW/ACC. They are operating under the assumption they already know what drives climate change, and it is obvious to anyone with at least a double digit IQ, they don’t. When their results are by consensus, we know it is politics – not science.
While AR5 might be less alarmist in regard to extreme weather, I note that the following statement was made in the leaked Second Order Draft:
Two recent reports, the SREX (IPCC, 2012; particularly Seneviratne et al., 2012) assessment and a WMO Expert Team report on tropical cyclones and climate change (Knutson et al., 2010) indicate the response of global tropical cyclone frequency to projected radiative forcing changes is likely to be either no change or a decrease of up to a third by the end of the 21st century.
I can find no similar reference in the current version. It seems to have disappeared in much the same fashion as references to the halt in warming. It seems to me they have discarded factual information that would otherwise be good news. This is only a single instance, I can only wonder if a detailed reading of the science would reveal more cases of discarding good news in favour of the new wording, which is so ambiguous as to be meaningless:
Modes of climate variability that in the past have led to variations in the intensity, frequency and structure of
tropical cyclones across the globe—such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (e.g., (Zhang and Delworth,
2006; Wang et al., 2007; Callaghan and Power, 2011); Chapter 14)—are very likely to continue influencing
TC activity through the mid-21st century. Therefore, it is very likely that over the next few decades tropical
cyclone frequency, intensity and spatial distribution globally, and in individual basins, will vary from yearto-
year and decade-to-decade
@UnfrozenCavemanMD
Yes Superstorm Sandy is just a hint of what’s to come with man’s production of large amounts of CO2. Huh? Look at the actual evidence.
What is really interesting about this odd proposal is that NOVA actually did a good job of showing clear evidence of natural events coming together to produce this very unusual but natural outcome. A tropical storm following the warm Gulf stream north using the warmer water to stay alive, rather than traveling over cooler water to the north and heading out to sea as is the normal result of off shore jet stream and pressure systems. NOVA showed that Sandy was actually blocked to the NE by high pressure system and then a meandering west flowing jet stream pushed her ashore. As she moved up the coast she merged with a large overland storm heading to the east right into the tropical storm adding to the size if not the intensity of the growing storm. At the very instant in time that Sandy comes ashore, the tidal forces affecting the ocean were at their maximum. And all this occurred at a geographical point that took all the build up in water volume and funneled it up the Hudson. What an incredible series of events to occur at the same time and what an incredible jump to conclusions that blamed it on climate change or man’s use of fossil fuels. It was a major natural disaster and we all better start getting ready for these in the future. Especially the politicians along the eastern seaboard. They should start preparing for these events and stop wasting money on these other prophets of man-made doom.
Bernie
There Are extreme weather events. One I note was the increase in hurricane activity since 1895. We had one storm in 1913 or 1914 and Niagara Falls froze over in 1911.
The hurricane seasons peaked around 2006. For me was 2004. I live in the hurricane triangle of Florida that year with three major Hurricanes cutting across Florida.
Now they are in decline and the science world knows it Why? As we know global temperature has leveled off or even dropped. The cause is our solar minimum. Sunspot Activity has been in decline since 1965. The last three cycles of The 20th century were in decline but warm enough to keep global warming going or should I say maintained.
Now for proof. My work is at sunspothurricanesglaciers.com look at the two conference sites on Hurricanes for details. Is it possible by 2025 to have. Zero tropical storm season, glacier growth and. Robust Arctic in the same sunspot cycle?
Talk about extremes.
Most Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
A bankrupt meme increasingly evident.
Yet pal reviewed catastrophe papers keep on coming, perhaps because that is how they generate further grant funding. Takes a train wreck to stop. Let the train wreck begin. Well, it has without any help at all…
pat says:
“Flannery/Steffen & co … EXTREME claims … ”
Yep. Talking Heads Syndrome goes on, but at least we don’t have to pay for it.
Record temperatures has been thoroughly debunked.
Steffen: “The oceans surrounding Australia have also registered record warmth…”
In the models, but in reality, nothing.
I am heartened by climate-related comments in my local rag the Townsville Bulletin. There are now comments other than mine countering the usual alarmist stuff.
Regards bogus claims about extreme weather, I just requested an update on my request for a retraction of Parmesan’ paper that made bogus claim extreme weather caused the extinction of a butterfly population in a logged area but omitted the fact that neighboring populations in natural habitat had their most productive year Read http://landscapesandcycles.net/fabricating-climate-doom—part-3–extreme-weather.html
The editor said it is under review and takes about 90 days, so we can expect a decision within 60 days. Stay tuned
With CO2 ever increasing, but extreme weather falling off a cliff, I guess they had to cut their losses in that area. But notice that their sycophants have yet to get the message.
Katabasis says:
October 3, 2013 at 3:40 pm
Katabasis.
You are an excellent journalist. Some of us learned that today at Bishop Hill’s website:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/10/2/a-report-from-the-royal.html
Please submit your work to some non-hostile MSM outlet such as the Wall Street Journal. Maybe submit your work here. Your work is accessible to a broad range of interested people and to all skeptics and lukewarmers. Your work might do to John Ashton and such people just what you want to do to them.
Katabasis says: @ur momisugly October 3, 2013 at 3:40 pm
Unfortunately, “diplomat”, John Ashton was there at the Royal Society meeting today on the IPCC AR5 to tell us all that “the science is settled” (again)….
No one called him out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sounds like the Royal Society needs to be disbanded along with the IPCC. And no there is no sarc tag. They have disgraced themselves and smeared the name of science.
Aren’t we overstating the “dead issue” declaration where Nature is concerned?
Final Nature paragraph: “These caveats do not mean that event attribution is a lost cause.”
@ur momisugly Jim Steele (re: Parmesan at 5:33pm) — thanks for the update. I wondered about that. I heard NOTHING back. Better write yourself a note to ask them about it at the 91st day mark, and every 5 days thereafter until you exhaust their pitiful excuses. Good for you to try — hope (and I’m praying!) it is a success.
************************
Gail, I thought The Society HAD been disbanded…. years ago:
To wit:
Let’s hear it for Staffordshire!
#(:))
Kat A. Basis, I’m sure Theo Goodwin is right and you are an excellent journalist (and, thus, DO follow his advice), but, (ahem), I think — that — perhaps…. unbeknownst to you, you were at a meeting of the (whispering, now): “Royal Society” wink-wink-nod-nod (a.k.a. an adult daycare facility where families can drop off at “the office” their dementia-affected family members in order to get a break from caregiving for a few hours. Mm, hm.) No, nooo! I do not think YOU were dropped off there by YOUR family!
Janice Moore says: @ur momisugly October 3, 2013 at 6:20 pm
….“Royal Society” wink-wink-nod-nod (a.k.a. an adult daycare facility….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OH, that is great!
I am laughing so hard the tears are rolling and I can barely type.
We’re in the midst of some extremely nice fall weather here in New England. I’m glad the IPCC folks aren’t here to enjoy it. Then again, perhaps they could add “Increased risk of nice weather” to their warnings.
When “peak foliage” and “peak weather” coincide here, there is no better place on the planet. It makes up for the inhuman perversity of the New England weather the rest of the year.
For origins of the reality construction, we can refer to the book: ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity’ (Hulme 2009). As a former director of the Tyndall Center, currently Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences in the University of East Anglia, Mike Hulme collaborated on influential reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). His well-written book demonstrates how the political realm overwhelms other realities held in science and journalism, especially if these alternative realities convey facts disapproved by the dominant culture. A famous quote from his book, illustrates how journalism and academic inquiry failed to notice and give analysis of coordinated efforts to construct public belief in anthropogenic global warming and the inevitable catastrophe to follow.
The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.
. . . Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs. (Hulme 2009 p. 326)
Despite many journalists being well endowed with an education that is humanities based, postmodernism with plastic realities as central, few have seen how this reality has been socially constructed.
“Directly observed experience can, we argue, have a powerful influence upon belief, but always requires some explanatory frame of reference provided by, inter alia, science, the media, conversation with friends and acquaintances” (cf. Kempton et al. 1995).
“. . . floods and extremely hot and dry weather were directly, intersubjectively, experienced by large numbers of people. In effect, we bring the social construction of reality down to the social construction of daily reality and experience for the average member of a society and its compounding effects on belief.” (Bray and Shackley, 2004)
Bray and Shackley of the Tyndall Center are widely published. Their paper of 2004 (a Tyndall work in progress) cites Berger and Luckmann’s book of 1966, which outlined the use of public relations to create theatrical “fronts” for “Dramatic Realization”. This technique produces public discourse for generating pre determined social, political and economic outcomes. “We need to understand and simulate the point at which related perspectives and beliefs concerning the issue coalesce” (Bray and Shackley p. 3). The result of this is that student journalists and junior reporters are left in little doubt on what they can easily get away with when writing news about climate change. They soon learn that required attribution and source triangulation is unnecessary when news is written in keeping with this dominant narrative.
The reasons you state are some of the reasons I do NOT believe there is a god.