
CREDIT
Patrick Mansell, Penn State
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Alarmism in action.
Extreme global weather is ‘the face of climate change’ says leading scientist
Exclusive: Prof Michael Mann declares the impacts of global warming are now ‘playing out in real-time’
The extreme heatwaves and wildfires wreaking havoc around the globe are “the face of climate change”, one of the world’s leading climate scientists has declared, with the impacts of global warming now “playing out in real time”.
…
Extreme weather has struck across Europe, from the Arctic Circle to Greece, and across the world, from North America to Japan. “This is the face of climate change,” said Prof Michael Mann, at Penn State University, and one the world’s most eminent climate scientists. “We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change.”
“The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle,” he told the Guardian. “We are seeing them play out in real time and what is happening this summer is a perfect example of that.”
“We are seeing our predictions come true,” he said. “As a scientist that is reassuring, but as a citizen of planet Earth, it is very distressing to see that as it means we have not taken the necessary action.”
…
Where I live months of high humidity weather in the 90s or above is what we call “Summer”. But I understand such conditions are distressing for people who are not used to them.
Mann’s comments are not helpful. In his apparent eagerness to take advantage of the heatwave to promote his climate message, he’s gone too far. How can you scientifically state we “would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change?” on the basis of a claim that the probability of such events has doubled? A doubling of probability still leaves a substantial possibility that such events could occur naturally, without human help.
The assertion is that “climate change” is bad and abnormal, ergo climate is normally static. Obviously climate has never been, and never will be, static. Most people are smart enough to grasp that intuitively, thank God.
Here in the UK today’s high ( on Furnace Friday) was 35.1 C ( 95 F) per the Met Office website. Those promoting AGW climate change must be so disappointed.
My forecast for the next UK summer in 2019 is grey cloudy skies, warm rain and intermittent spells of sunshine.
And being the UK we missed the lunar eclipse due to cloud.
I’m looking at cloud cover here in Virginia, too.
Sad, as yesterday’s moon was spectacular in preamble and Mars has been bright and red and beautiful for weeks.
bouts of sunshine must be causing a panic in London?
Here in Norfolk we got a fantastic lightning display as compensation.
“Extreme weather has struck across Europe, from the Arctic Circle to Greece, and across the world, from North America to Japan. “This is the face of climate change,” said Prof Michael Mann, at Penn State University, and one the world’s most eminent climate scientists. “We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change.”
The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle,” he told the Guardian. “We are seeing them play out in real time and what is happening this summer is a perfect example of that.”
First decent summer in Europe for ages, especially UK and this nonsense is delivered.
We haven’t seen blocking patterns in summer before in the NH?
Climate change apparently causes blocking patterns and without it, the usual zonal jet stream would had occurred?
These blocking patterns occurring especially in the Northern Hemisphere always had occurred at times in past history and given extreme weather around the world. So numerous that every decade can be included since recorded instrumental data began. The oldest data in the world being the CET, highlights these extremes throughout from the 17th century.
Blocks in meteorology are large-scale patterns in the atmospheric pressure field that are nearly stationary, effectively “blocking” or redirecting migratory cyclones. They are also known as blocking highs or blocking anticyclones.[1] These blocks can remain in place for several days or even weeks, causing the areas affected by them to have the same kind of weather for an extended period of time (e.g. precipitation for some areas, clear skies for others).[2] In the Northern Hemisphere, extended blocking occurs most frequently in the spring over the eastern Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.[1]
Polar cyclones are climatological features which hover near the poles year-round. They are weaker during summer and strongest during winter. When the polar vortex is strong, the Westerlies increase in strength. When the polar cyclone is weak, the general flow pattern across mid-latitudes buckles and significant cold outbreaks occur. Extratropical cyclones which occlude and migrate into higher latitudes create cold-core lows within the polar vortex.[3] Volcanic eruptions in the tropics lead to a stronger polar vortex during the winter for as long as two years afterwards.[4] The strength and position of the cyclone shapes the flow pattern across the hemisphere of its influence. An index which is used in the northern hemisphere to gage its magnitude is the Arctic oscillation.[5]
Omega blocks are so-named because the height fields with which they are associated in the Northern Hemisphere resemble an Ω, the uppercase Greek letter omega. They typically have a low-high-low pattern, arranged in the west–east direction.[2]
An example of a rex block off the West coast of North America in January 2007
Rex blocks (or dipole blocks) consist of a high situated poleward (north in the Northern Hemisphere; south in the Southern Hemisphere) of a low. Very often both the high and the low are closed, meaning that the isobars (or constant geopotential height lines) defining the high–low close to form a circle.[6] Rex blocks are named after the meteorologist who first identified them.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_(meteorology)
Won’t hurt being wrong one more time when wrong so often before.
There is zero indication that humans have had any affect on blocks in the NH or SH and without this evidence, impossible to claim any extreme weather has been caused by any human climate change whatsoever.
Poor Michael. He really is a sad little person.
So the “change” in the average of the “whole” of global weather, as created in the collective mind of humans, is now creating extremes in local weather…. WOW! So does that mean if WE just stop averaging the weather the “extremes” will stop? Or do we just stop/ignore the “change”?? Oh, and is that “change” + or -?? Oh #2, can someone please define what constitutes “change”?
Mannical’s use of “literal” means strictly fiction.
Manniacal is just trying to boost his alarmist profile so, he can become a beauty queen judge. With a lot of help, he might even be able to judge eco-looney gibberish.
Language inflation.
I seem to remember a few years ago these very same experts stating you cannot use one bad winter as justification to rubbish global warming…. Surely the inverse applies when we get a hot summer?
It’s not even a whole summer. The “heatwave” lasts a week or two and then it moves on and milder temperatures follow.
Rainfall presents natural variability. Temperature extremes follow the rainfall extremes of the natural variability.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
I’m just waiting for Mann to release a version of the Billy Joel song – We DID Start the Fire
…they predicted more arsonists?
Of course they did. There have been a number of post recently that have to do with the psychological effects of “Climate Change”.
(Though I’ve never a study that linked it to “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, there does seem to be a connection. 8- )
I found the link: people are getting crazy from too much heat. They know about Science, and Science says that too little dust in the air makes the sun worse.
So, they lit stuff up to have more dust in the air.
Increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere causes more arsonists.
What an ass. Extremes? Not. Thoroughly debunked here and elsewhere.
Sheesh!
What a huckster. What a dork. (Not) sorry to call names – Mann is a con man. Is there anything that Gullible Warming can’t do? Is there anything that would falsify the “theory” that Mankind is causing catastrophic climate change?
No. No, there is literally nothing, no way to disprove the assertions. Not even the truth is enough!
Show us the raw data so we can find fault with it Prof.
Just as with the hockey stick, it seems Mann is not really influenced by the data, but rather is selling a pre-ordained conclusion.
Weather isn’t climate … if you’re a ‘denier’. However, every warm day is PROOF of of climate change. The American people aren’t that ignorant, even if they lack the ‘scientific’ training to balance a molecular equation.
Mann (and a few of his pals) are becoming delusional. Some part of them knows that the planet is not warming as they predicted. As a result they are jumping on anything to maintain their belief system. They are literally in denial.
Their extreme weather just isn’t happening. Sure, you get a year like 2011 with more tornadoes and a year like 2017 with extra hurricanes and now a year like 2018 with extra heat waves. But overall when these are averaged with other years the numbers simply are not going up. It’s nothing but the same basic weather we’ve been seeing for many decades.
I predict a few of these pseudo-scientists are going to have serious mental breakdowns. It is inevitable.
The old farmers I knew called this stretch of weather the Dog Days of Summer.
But unsurprisingly the Canis Major of Climate Science finds the heat to be extreme.
Let us try to imagine what sort of evidence would be sufficient for Dr. M. E Mann to admit and publicly announce that we was wrong and the CAGW theory has been falsified. (thinking… thinking… OK I’ve got nothing.)
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/analyses/attribution-of-the-2018-heat-in-northern-europe/
Michael Mann was referring to the above study for the purposes of this article.
“This method assumes that global warming is the main factor affecting local temperatures since about 1900, and that virtually all global warming is attributable to anthropogenic factors. ”
That one sentence alone invalidates the whole study as it makes the study subject to circular reasoning.
Therefore since Mann was referring to the study; Mann was referring to garbage.
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/analyses/attribution-of-the-2018-heat-in-northern-europe/
In the same study we find this nugget.
“We can then assess the probability of occurrence of the observed event in the present climate, p1, and past climate, p0. These probabilities are communicated as return periods of the event in the present and past: 1/p1 and 1/p0 respectively. The risk ratio is evaluated as the ratio of p1 to p0. If the 95% confidence interval for risk ratio does not encompass unity, we say that the risk ratio is significantly larger (or smaller) than one and there is a detectable positive (or negative) trend in the observational data. ”
As usual climate scientists don’t understand the meaning of the p value in statistics. However they are not alone. The biological,medical, and many other sciences all screw up the true meaning of the p value. It is a hard concept in statistics to understand.
The best explanation is probably
Imagine, that you have a temperature change that you suspect is caused by CO2. (Your null hypothesis is then that CO2 is not the cause. You take 100 temperature readings over a period of 100 months and you get higher readings(than your previous average) more times than lower readings. The p-value won’t tell you whether CO2 causes warming or not, but it will tell you the probability that you’d get at least as many higher temperature days if CO2 did not cause the warming. That’s it — nothing more.
Close to a textbook example of the logical fallacy of “begging the question”!
It must be time for the grant givers to start deciding who gets the checks.
This is what Climate Hustle looks like.
Or this:
“we would not have seen these extremes…” Absolutely true as stated. We would have seen other extremes, not these. The other extremes would certainly have been higher or lower but, since they are extremes, they would not have been the same. We may also see these other extremes in the future – in fact I predict we will – that is why we call it climate change. It has probably been around since long before man moved out of the caves.
Why is he Distinguished? Has he had more papers retracted than others?
Not related to Mann, but I am currently watching “C dans l’air” aka “CDA” on France 5 channel: “Canicule : faut-il s’y habituer?” = Do we need to get used to extreme heat?
https://www.france.tv/france-5/c-dans-l-air/
“CDA” is usually full on propaganda.
[France 5 is part of France Televisions, one of the groups of state controlled TV channels: France 2, France 3, France 4, France 5, France O (for Outre-mer). State controlled info channel “France TV Info” is another, independent set of TV/radio channels. State controlled Arte is another, independent set of French-German channels. State controlled info channel “France 24” is another, independent set of worldwide info channels available multiple languages. “TV5 Monde” is another worldwide state controlled channel, known mostly for the “Cyber Caliphate” hack.]
One invited “expert” just explained how ozone is created from the transformation of primary pollutants by UV. He said that more heated causes more sun light and more UV. At first I thought he misspoke and meant there is more heat in summer when there is more UV. But the host doubled down on the UV thing and he confirmed that more heat causes more UV so warming causes UV. He really plainly said it. Twice. It’s clear. He didn’t tried to say something else. I heard it.
Possibly he doesn’t mean to say heat creates UV, just that warm weather brings on a period of greater UV exposure due to less clouds present during atmospheric conditions accompanying a “heat wave”.
However, anyone who chooses words so clumsily should never have been called on to speak on television. Probably chosen because anyone conscientious about being careful NOT to mislead would never appear on their program.
SR
Yeah, the benefit of the doubt…
Except it was not a single statement by one person. If was discussed for about 2 min by different persons and they insisted that global warming was contributing factor of ozone production.
We have a true scientist here:
https://www.lsce.ipsl.fr/Phocea/Pisp/index.php?id=81
She got many prizes. She must be very bright.
https://www.france.tv/france-5/c-dans-l-air/574675-canicule-vers-un-changement-de-nos-habitudes.html
@ur momisugly 17:23
“La Chine l’Inde et le Brésil ce sont des pays vraiment émergents. Ce sont les premiers products de gaz à effet de serre, mais ils ont une conscience de ça.”
=>
China, India, Brasil are emergent countries. They produce most glasshouse gases, but they understand that.
@ur momisugly 17:55
– On nous dit à cause des pic de chaleur, il y a des pollutions à l’ozone.
– L’ozone est un polluant secondaire… Et donc plus il fait chaud et plus l’ensoleillement est important, et donc plus cette réaction [de production d’ozone] est active. …
– Avec le réchauffement climatique on a un problème de pollution.
=>
– We are told, we have record heat, there is ozone pollution.
– Ozone is a secondary pollutant. … So the warmer is it and the sunnier it is, the most the [ozone producing] reaction happens.
– Global warming also causes the pollution problem.
If Michael Mann is not the stupidest (and undeservedly arrogant) man in the world he is definitely in the running. It is so apparent that he has not read any history and his head is swollen into government grants – one simple example there – was an Arctic melt in 1817 – please investigate, explain and comment professor. If I have it wrong please let me know.