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
bw,
Thanks, you explained it better than I did.
=============================
Bernard J. wrote:
“In the past WUWT has censored whole threads by removing them when they have been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect, and by failing to post promised followings-up of previous threads where the content has been demonstrated to be egregiously scientifically and/or analytically incorrect.”
So I challenged Bernard J. to show us which threads have been “censored whole”. But rather than accepting the challenge, Bernard has apparently skedaddled.
It’s easy to make accusations. Backing them up with chapter and verse is the hard part.
“Chapter and verse”?
Try this:
http://www.webcitation.org/6H83F9g4X
For the second part of my point 4, perhaps you could explain when the promised following-up post will be published on how the urban heat island effect is raising remote rural Chinese temperature. Also, isn’t “Watts et al 2012″ a little overdue?
For those who can’t work it out, the WUWT post linked to in my previous post now displays only this:
http://www.webcitation.org/6HyMgStma
The reason the original post was removed? According to Anthony Watts himself – “serious [scientific] errors”, just as I observed on 3 July 2013 at 8:37 pm.
And dbstealey, I am still waiting for a considered response to my question of 4 July 2013 at 12:14 am regarding the validity of comparing Arctic and Antarctic sea ice and their ætiologies.
http://postimg.org/image/az0v0o0u1/
Bernard J., the more you post the less sense you make. Maybe that is why I disregard your demands. You write:
“I am still waiting for a considered response…”
Keep waiting. Your question was from back on July 4th. If you didn’t get an answer by now, sorry about that; but it doesn’t mean you’re right. Also, your webcite link does not prove what you were alleging, which was specifically “censorship”. Anthony has closed out articles and threads before, and they have nothing to do with your belief system, or with “censorship”. It really has nothing whatever to do with you, as far as I can see.
I have also been busy in this thread responding to other commentators, as can be seen in my comments above. Like many folks, I prioritize my comments, sorry you didn’t make the cut. If you get off your high horse and quit demanding, you might get some results. In your case, try the hat-in-hand approach. Also, your link above goes nowhere. Suggest you give it another try. And forget webcite, it is full of malware.
dbstealey.
I originally said:
You asked for me to back up my comment that threads are “censored whole”. I gave you an example of a thread that was removed on the basis of egregious scientific errors, just as I said in my original comment. This might not be censorship in your semantic world, but most people would regard the removal of material as censorship. When such occurs on other blogs it is certainly regarded as such by the regulars here.
Further, you said on 4 July 2013 at 2:44 pm:
The example I gave was not a simple closing of comments to which you referred, but a removal for the reason I gave and which you claimed to be unaware of.
I am not sure why this appears so difficult for you to acknowledge.
On the matter of my basic question regarding your confabulation of the different contexts/ætiologies of Arctic versus Antarctic sea ice, you are of course quite entitled to avoid answering the matter. Your home-blog, your prerogative. It’s curious though, and telling, that you don’t answer what are very fundamental points. The regulars here might not understand the significance of your dodging, but the rest of the world knows why you don’t answer – to do so would negate your entire argument on sea ice dynamics.
And with respect to my “demanding” nature, why are my questions “demanding” where the well-documented ‘sceptic’ requests for data and correspondence from climatologists are not?
Bernard J.,
I originally said: “If you didn’t get an answer by now, sorry about that; but it doesn’t mean you’re right.”
Global ice cover is right at its 30-year average. Most folks accept the fact that CO2 is not the cause of Arctic ice decline. You can believe what you want, but like all the predictions of runaway global warming due to “carbon”, your belief is wrong.