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
Jai mitchell, you are a breath of fresh air blowing away the fog of obfuscation. Good on you for trying, anyway!
george e. smith says:
July 3, 2013 at 10:51 am
““””””….. “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 ?”
We don’t know who and how many but it’s 97% of them. If you doubt it we can have someone make a paper that proves it.
SAMURAI says:
July 3, 2013 at 10:51 am
….
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..
I rather doubt that any party can really either claim or be specifically accused of being responsible for this. George W. just chimed in on the NSA eaves dropping issue claiming that PRISM was HIS baby.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/02/dubya_i_introduced_prism_and_i_like_it/
The original was apparently on CNN. I’m not sure just what the intent was, but it sure looked as if he were volunteering to take pressure off the sitting president. And we should carefully recall that the full name of Obamacare is Obama/Romneycare. O didn’t create it; he just borrowed it.
I suspect that if you were to dig deep enough – and didn’t come down with a dose of polonium poisoning – that the unelected, bureaucratic watch standers who are there over multiple administrations are the real explanation for a lot of what we like to criticize. Especially where the eroding bill of rights is concerned.
dbsteal,
Which of these temperature graphs are not like the others? which one is almost exclusively cited here?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/mean:13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:13/plot/gistemp/from:1999/mean:13/plot/rss/from:1999/mean:13/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend
The facts are clear. The science is unequivocal. The efforts of the “donor’s trust” to fund climate skepticism is simply a PR stunt.
we aren’t there yet. We still have alot of work to do to mitigate the threat of runaway global clmiate warming and the global dieoff that it will produce. We can still do this. If we don’t then our grandchildren will live in starvation and societal collapse.
it begins here: http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg
Sure climate was more extreme during that period, we just saw the highest ever recorded Sun Spot solar cycles. Lag time is over now, slip and slide time started last year..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
For the hard-of-reading alarmists, from the report:
I scanned the report and was unable to find a mention that the deaths during the 2003 European heatwave were caused by serious flaws in the European healthcare systems, in which virtually all of the senior healthcare professionals take the month of August off on holiday. July 2006 was even hotter than August 2003, but resulted in fewer deaths due to the timing; the French government changed their healthcare holiday rules as a direct result.
Also, the Russian heatwave is a once-in-thirty-year event, so comparing decade to decade in that regard is a little peculiar. Were there fewer or more deaths than the last comparable heatwave (which I think was in the 1970s)? The report is strangely unhelpful in that regard.
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”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well by golly gee, I think you hit the nail on the head. After saying they can NOT tie any specific event to global warming, they proceed to provide a list of those events as if they CAN be tied to global warming. When a list of things that someone just said can’t be proven to be a result of global warming is used as evidence of the thing that can’t be proven, then yes, that fits the very definition of an alternate reality.
I notice a few things missing from that list of yours though. Like records in Canada being post 1948 when the documented evidence is substantial that the dirty 30’s were considerably warmer, so let’s just leave them out of the reality, right? Of course the record lows last winter in Asia aren’t mentioned, it was so cold in Siberia that natural gas froze solid in the pipelines, but hey, that doesn’t fit the narrative, so skip it. Ice extent in the Antarctic setting an all time record high doesn’t fit the narrative either, so let’s skip it as well. We need not even mention that it is on track to hit an even bigger record this year:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
Nor should we have in the list that temps in the arctic circle this year are barely above freezing 25 days later than usual, remarkable when one considers that the summer melt season there is only 60 days long in the first place, but it doesn’t fit the storyline, so skip it.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Now I could make a lot longer list of such events and claim they are signs of an impending ice age, but that would make no more sense than your list and your claims.
As for your alternative “b”, I think it is a subset of your alternative “a”. You live in an alternate reality where you ignore your own income from the global warming gravy train while accusing those not on it, without evidence of same, as being the ones on it. Alternate reality indeed.
“more than 370,000 people died as a result of extreme weather and climate conditions, including heat waves, cold spells, drought, storms and floods,
CO2 it didn’t invent weather, it just makes weather weathier; cold colder, warm warmer, storms stormier, rain rainier, droughts droughtier, etc. etc.
If it can’t be falsified it’s not scientific.
jai mitchell,
Your cherry-picking ignores the fact that 16 – 17 years is the time necessary to determine if there is global warming. Your short time frame disregards that requirement.
And your incessant cherry-picking, this time in your link selecting Canada, is no different than if I selected only the U.S.
Your constant, selective cherry-picking extends to polar ice cover, where you select only the Arctic — while disregarding the Antarctic, which more than makes up for Arctic ice loss [the red line is global ice].
Note that Arctic temperatures are below their 50-year average. That cooling is why Arctic ice is recovering.
davidmhoffer says: As for your alternative “b”, I think it is a subset of your alternative “a”. You live in an alternate reality where you ignore your own income from the global warming gravy train while accusing those not on it, without evidence of same, as being the ones on it. Alternate reality indeed.
That is my problem with jai mitchell. He is financially self-serving, promoting his scare with baseless comments such as: We still have alot of work to do to mitigate the threat of runaway global clmiate warming and the global dieoff that it will produce. We can still do this. If we don’t then our grandchildren will live in starvation and societal collapse.
That kind of scientifically baseless climate alarmism is tantamount to falsely shouting “Fire!!” in a crowded theater. In mitchell’s case, the result he wants is more financial income for himself. Sadly, that is not any different motivation than many other climate false alarmists.
‘The WMO now joins Nature magazine and IPCC SREX…….extreme weather can’t YET be reliably linked to climate change’, notice the word YET! Well it its not far away before they can!
“[jai Mitchell’s] scientifically baseless climate alarmism is tantamount to falsely shouting ‘Fire!!’ in a crowded theater.” [D. B. Stealey, a.k.a. “Smokey” -PERFECT analogy :)]
Nice refutation of jaimitchell (and use of David Hoffer’s observation) above.
LOL, fortunately, since our histrionic actor, jai, leapt onto the stage yelling, “Fire!” while wearing his Duke of Wellington costume and brandishing his fake sword, all the audience will do is laugh.
@jai mitchell
“””””…..“The 2001–2010 decade was also the
warmest on record for both land-only and
ocean-only surface temperatures.” — pg 4……”””””
Seems to me that the decades of the 60s, 70s, and 80s had high sunspot count cycles: 1957/8 highest ever. Also was an interval where warming seems to have occurred; maybe getting back to the high temps of the 1930s.
But that all stopped in 1995 (1997/8 el nino was anomalous), and it has been basically flat since (17 years).
Ergo, the decade of 2001-2010 can reasonably be described as akin to the summit of a mountain.
It has been observed, that some of the highest altitudes on earth seem to occur near the summit of mountains.
It would be a surprise if the 2001-2010 decade DID NOT contain many of the highest year Temperatures on record.
Incidently, reliable ” ocean only surface temperatures”, only go back to around 1980.
In 2001 jan Geophysical research letters (I believe), John Christie (sp) showed from simultaneous ocean surface water Temperatures (-1 metre) and ocean near surface air temperatures (+3 metres) from ocean buoys, that ocean surface water temperatures for about 20 years increased about 40% more than near surface ocean air temperatures; and furthermore, the two are not correlated.
So all of the previous oceanic temperature data ( from buckets of water from unknown depth, or ship cooling intakes at various depths), which covers 70% of the global surface are bogus, as proxies for lower troposphere air temps, to couple with land tropo temperatures. And the lack of correlation means all that water data is not correctible to recover global tropo temps for 70% of the global surface prior to about 1980.
If “we” doesn’t include Asia and other developing countries–and it won’t–then what “we” do is futile feel-goodery.
Well, OTOH, maybe “we” could have funded cold fusion research when the AGW scare got started and maybe we’d have developed Rossi’s E Cat gadget long ago. That would have been embraced worldwide.
But that would have been a verboten attempt to cure the ills of technology with more technology, according to supposedly “deep” ecologists. (It would have been like handing an idiot child a machine gun, according to one of them.) So no wonder we didn’t fund such an un-PC thing then,
“Your constant, selective cherry-picking extends to polar ice cover, where you select only the Arctic — while disregarding the Antarctic, which more than makes up for Arctic ice loss [the red line is global ice].”
Actually, I don’t think that graph supports your claim that the Antarctic makes up for it. The global sea ice anomaly appears to me to trend down too, just not as much as the Arctic. I can’t seem to find the actual data that go into this graph, so I am only eyeballing. Can anyone provide a link so I can do my own analysis?
“All over the press now in Europe, radio, television, MSM: … They never give up.” [R. de Haan 10:07AM]
But, their volume betrays them; they are getting desperate.
“When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have neither, holler.” Al Gore*
Sounds familiar.
*Note: Algore was paraphrasing an old trial lawyers’ saw, “When you have the law… law. … facts… facts. … When you have neither … pound the table.” — Al Gore never invented ANYTHING, not even that saying!
Craig;
Can anyone provide a link so I can do my own analysis?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right on the WUWT mast head, click “Reference Pages” and then “Sea Ice”.
All the, uhm, cold hard data, you could ask for.
Craig says:
” I can’t seem to find the actual data that go into this graph, so I am only eyeballing. Can anyone provide a link so I can do my own analysis?”
Be glad to help. Check out these links:
Since you did not appear to click on the link I provided above, here it is again.
And here is another Antarctic ice chart.
Here is another one.
Here is a chart showing the past few decades.
And here we see that Antarctic ice cover is well above average.
Here we see the Arctic/Antarctic divergence; what the North loses the South gains.
This chart shows the same divergence.
Here is another chart showing the rapid rise in Antarctic ice cover.
Another view of the rise in Antarctic ice.
Here is more data showing the rise in Southern Hemisphere ice cover.
Ask yourself: why would someone show only the Arctic? Do you think they might have an agenda? They are hiding the Antarctic for a reason. They are trying to convince you that the planet is losing ice. But that is not true, as you can see in the first link above. Global ice extent remains right at it’s long term average. There is nothing unusual happening.
Polar ice cover is largely determined by ocean currents, and precipitation on land, not by temperature. Ice loss is not caused by warming of the Arctic, as we see here. Note that the Arctic’s temperature has remained unchanged for many decades. Thus, the implication that the Arctic is “warming” is an alarmist canard.
I am glad you want to see these facts, and to do your own analysis to decide for yourself. I have more charts and peer reviewed papers if you’re interested; just ask.
Jai Michell says:
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.
=====================================
Wow,
You are gone. I think only the left hires people to post/troll at websites/blogs/forums.
The rest of us have real jobs to do, so can’t be arsed.
Goodbye, Jai!
Craig,
Steve Goddard provides plenty of historical documentation showing that the current situation in the Arctic is nothing unusual. It has all happened before, repeatedly, and not very long ago. We are simply observing the ebb and flow of polar ice cycles.
Unfortunately, some in the climate alarmist crowd like to cherry-pick this particular instant in time, and then extrapolate the current temporary changes in order to frighten people. They do this in their own self-serving way, because they lack the actual scientific evidence necessary to be convincing. It is effective, if someone simply looks at, for example, a chart of the Arctic. That would be scary — IF the same thing was happening in the Antarctic.
But as we see, total global ice is unchanged, and nothing unusual is happening historically. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, which means that current climate parameters have happened before, and to a greater degree [and when CO2 was much lower].
So take the scare stories with a real big grain of salt. Because when you investigate, you will find that nothing either unusual or unprecedented is happening with polar ice, or with the climate in general.
The decade 2000-2010 was clearly a transition year when a warming planet switched to a cooling planet.When there is more global cooling , there will be a greater incidence of warm and cold fronts clashing at the jet stream inter face regions bringing a higher probability of bigger and more frequent storms. There will be more severe and sometime extreme weather with the cooling globe. The best example of this is the increase in tornado size during a colder than normal spring like in 2013 in United States where cold and warm fronts clash more often due to the existence of cold fronts from the west or Canada and warm fronts coming from the Gulf of Mexico. It has nothing to do with global warming. I think we are seeing more extreme weather due to global cooling rather than due to global warming because there has been no additional warming for 16 years .In United States, during the last 16 years , the winters and autumns are getting cooler and the spring and summers are getting warmer so when these seasons transition from one to the other,, there is a greater temperature difference or zones that clash..
dbstealey,
Thanks. But I’ve seen all the graphs, with the exception of this one: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg. That is the only one I have seen that quantifies the divergence in km2 rather than in percentage from the mean. From that graph I draw the same conclusion — Arctic sea ice cover has decreased significantly more than Antarctic sea ice has increased over the same time period. Based on the graph alone, I conclude that global sea ice coverage has shown a net decrease over the time period shown. But basing that conclusion on a graph alone is dangerous.
So what I was hoping to get were the the DATA so I can graph it and analyse it myself, not more graphs. It’s the data that goes into the graphs that I can’t find. Can you or anybody point me to the data that went into that divergence graph?
For all the hew and cry from the skeptic side that it is GLOBAL sea ice we should be looking at, not just Arctic sea ice (which I wholeheartedly agree with), I find it odd that I can’t find a single graph that Global sea ice cover. Why is that? Why is there not, even on this site, a plot that shows global sea ice coverage?
If there is and I have missed it, a thousand apologies in advance.
Disclosure: I’m a climate skeptic. But I seem to find almost as much disinformation from climate skeptic sources as I do CAGW sources. For me at least, data rules, regardless of what it points to.
Craig
I actually heard Rajendra Pachauri (Chairman IPCC) say, not ten, not 20 but 40 years before they would consider that there was no warming! One needed bother to say that in 40 years many who proposed this hair brain scheme will not reside in the boundaries of this planet. They would probably be burnt out anyway!
“Ask yourself: why would someone show only the Arctic? Do you think they might have an agenda? They are hiding the Antarctic for a reason. They are trying to convince you that the planet is losing ice. But that is not true, as you can see in the first link above. Global ice extent remains right at it’s long term average. There is nothing unusual happening.”
Both sides have an agenda. At least some people on both sides do. The CAGR crowd is not unique in that respect. To me at least, it SEEMS like the “look at the Global sea ice cover” side of the argument is engaging in their own obfuscation. For instance, I ask for data and I get a whole bunch of graphs, none of which tell the whole story. And yet it would be so simple. Why?
At any rate,
1) The graph at the first link above http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/screenhunter_146-mar-12-07-52.jpg only shows the Antarctic. But from the trendline I conclude that Antarctic ice cover has increased by about 500,000 km2 since 1979. Reasonable or no?
2) I just googled around and found this: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/07/Figure3.png. From the trendline of THAT graph I conclude that Arctic sea ice cover has decreased by about 1,500,000 km2 over the same time frame. Reasonable or no?
3) 1,500,000/500,000 = 3. Reasonable or no?
4) In area, Antarctic ice cover has increased by 1/3 the amount that Arctic ice cover has decreased over the period 1979 – present. Reasonable or no?
5) GLOBAL ice cover shows a net decrease of about 1,000,000 km2 over the period 1979-2013. Reasonable or no?
6) From this figure, http://www.climate4you.com/images/SeaIceNHandSHlastMonthSince1979.gif, the global mean over that time period is about 22,300,000 km2. Reasonable or no?
7) Therefore, global ice cover has decreased by about 4.5% over the period 1979-2013. Reasonable or no?
“Right on the WUWT mast head, click “Reference Pages” and then “Sea Ice”.
All the, uhm, cold hard data, you could ask for.”
No need to be a smartass. I looked there, but I did not see what I was looking for, which is global sea ice coverage over time. If it’s there and I missed it, I apologize.
Somebody please get this memo sent over to the leftist NBC owned and operated “The Weather Channel” because they are clearly working off an older release. Naturally if this UN report trumpeted a link between the two, it would find its way on the air immediately. Congratulations to you leftist kooks who have brazenly turned some TV shows into Pravda like propaganda outlets.
Anyway, I had the Weather Channel on today just to see how they missed the clear and sunny day we had that completely obliterated their forecast of more endless rain. Couldn’t really determine what happened though because they were way too busy fretting over sea level rise, summertime in the desert southwest and pending tropical formations.
“Extreme weather” events does seem to be regularly scheduled programming on there. It’s pathetic really. Out of all the hundreds of channels on cable, somehow NBC has turned The Weather Channel into the most consistent AGW kook propaganda outlet on the air.