Or at least some evidence…
Guest rebuttal by David Middleton
From the Hartford Courant:
Climate change was behind this summer’s extreme weather
By Michael E. Mann
November 3, 2018
Summer 2018 saw an unprecedented spate of extreme floods, droughts, heat waves and wildfires break out across North America, Europe and Asia. The scenes played out on our television screens and in our social media feeds. This is, as I stated at the time, the face of climate change. It’s not rocket science.
[…]
Climate scientists have become increasingly comfortable talking about these connections.
[…]
Our study shows that climate change is making that behavior more common, giving us the disastrous European heat wave of 2003 (during which more than 30,000 people perished)…
[…]
Manntastic Claim: 2003 European Heat Wave Killed 30,000 People Because: Climate Change!
The worst impacts of the 2003 heat waver were in France… Where we should find some Manntastic evidence.
If you’re going to exaggerate, go ahead and exaggerate! Wikipedia puts the death toll at 70,000, with nearly 15,000 in France!
The 2003 European heat wave led to the hottest summer on record in Europe since at least 1540.[1] France was hit especially hard. The heat wave led to health crises in several countries and combined with drought to create a crop shortfall in parts of Southern Europe. Peer-reviewed analysis places the European death toll at more than 70,000.[2]
[…]
In France, 14,802 heat-related deaths (mostly among the elderly) occurred during the heat wave, according to the French National Institute of Health.[4][5]
[…]
At the time, NASA put the death toll in France at about 3,000…
July 1 – 31, 2003
Europe was experiencing a historic heat wave that had been responsible for at least 3,000 deaths in France alone in the summer of 2003. Compared to July 2001, temperatures in July 2003 were sizzling. This image shows the differences in day time land surface temperatures collected in the two years by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite. A blanket of deep red across southern and eastern France (left of image center) shows where temperatures were 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter in 2003 than in 2001. White areas show where temperatures were similar, and blue shows where temperatures were cooler in 2003 than 2001.
Even the Alps, which arc across southeastern France, Switzerland, Austria, and northern Italy (just below image center), were very warm. Glaciers were melting rapidly and swelling rivers and lakes to dangerously high levels. Climbers had to be evacuated from Switzerland’s famous Matterhorn after melting triggered the collapse of a rock face. The popular climbing destination was closed while geologists assessed the possibility of further collapses.
The heat wave stretched northward all the way to the United Kingdom, particularly southern England (bottom of island) and Scotland (top of island). In London, trains were shut down over fears that tracks would buckle in the heat, while in Scotland the high temperatures combined with falling water levels in rivers and streams threatened the spawning and survival of salmon. Throughout France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy, the intense heat and dry conditions sparked devastating forest fires that killed at least 15 people.
[…]
About 15,000 of the “more than 30,000” alleged heat-related deaths occurred in France. Apparently, climate change killed at least 12,000 more people than the heat wave.
You would think that might “leave a mark.”
I went to the WHO Mortality Database to look for that mark. I didn’t find it.
I did find a very interesting correlation:
Manntastic Claim: 2011 Texas Drought Devastating Because: Climate Change!
[T]he devastating 2011 Texas drought (during which ranchers ranchers in Oklahoma and Texas lost 24 percent and 17 percent of their cattle, respectively)…
I have lived in Texas since 1981. The 2011-2012 drought was really bad… Almost as bad as The Last Picture Show drought. I downloaded the historical Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) for Texas from NOAA/NCDC. I also plotted the expected frequency of expected record events in a random time series…
While 2011-2012 was bad, it wasn’t as bad as 1957. Nor was it part of a decade-long mega-drought.
The record only goes back to 1895. Does anyone know how often record highs and record lows should be broken in such a short time series?
The probability, pn(1), that the nth observation of a series xm= x1, x2, … xn has a higher value than the previous observations [pn(1) = Pr(xn > xi |i < n)] can be expressed as:
pn(1)= 1/n (1)
provided the values in series are iid random variables.
The cumulative probability says that 5 records should have been set between 1895 and 2011. In reality, PDSI drought records were established or broken in:
- 1895, on schedule
- 1897, on schedule
- 1902, three years earlier than expected
- 1911, thirteen years earlier than expected
- 1918, fifty-four years earlier than expected
- 1957, seventy-four years earlier than expected
In a random time series, the 6th record-breaking drought could be expected in the 137th year of the time series, 2031. Since each year’s odds are independent, there’s no genuine expectation that nature will deliver on schedule. However Texas’ PDSI history is very consistent with a random time series.
Hubris Unchained
Just as climate models almost certainly underestimate the impact climate change has already had on such weather extremes, projections from these models also likely underestimate future increases in these types of events. Our study indicates that we can expect many more summers like 2018 — or worse.
Climate-change deniers love to point to scientific uncertainty as justification for inaction on climate. But uncertainty is a reason for even more concerted action. We already know that projections historically have been too optimistic about the rates of ice sheet collapse and sea-level rise. Now it appears they are also underestimating the odds of extreme weather as well. The consequences of doing nothing grow by the day. The time to act is now.
Michael E. Mann is distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center. He wrote this for The Washington Post, where it first appeared.
- An entirely baseless claim: “climate models almost certainly underestimate the impact climate change has already had on such weather extremes.”
- Is cited as the evidence for a baseless prediction: “projections from these models also likely underestimate future increases in these types of events.”
It just doesn’t get any more Manntastic than this! Oh wait… It does get more Manntastic…
Climate-change deniers love to point to scientific uncertainty as justification for inaction on climate. But uncertainty is a reason for even more concerted action.
Who denies climate change? At least he didn’t use the phrase “climate deniers.”
Mann is essentially invoking tht Precautionary Principle: “uncertainty is a reason for even more concerted action.”
When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
Wikipedia
Here in Texas, rather than destroying our economy just in case droughts get worse in the future, we build dams and expand water infrastructure.
Texas responded to the Manntastic Drought in much the same manner, by building more water infrastructure, including 26 new major surface reservoirs…
In the 2012 State Water Plan, 26 new major reservoirs are recommended to meet water needs in several regions (Figure 7.1). A major reservoir is defined as one having 5,000 or more acre-feet of conservation storage. These new reservoirs would produce 1.5 million acre-feet per year in 2060 if all are built, representing 16.7 percent of the total volume of all recommended strategies for 2060 combined (Figure 7.2). Not surprisingly, the majority of these projects would be located east of the Interstate Highway-35 corridor where rainfall and resulting runoff are more plentiful than in the western portion of the state.
Reference
Benestad, R. E. (2003). How often can we expect a record event? Climate Research , 25: 3-13
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mann misquotes and misrepresents the Precautionary Principle. You don’t spend more on avoiding the cost, than the cost will be.
And if there is uncertainty about the future cost, you DISCOUNT it – in technical terms use a higher discount rate to allow for the uncertainty. You can be pretty certain about the costs today of taking action but future costs are very uncertain, thus they need to be much higher to to anything about them.
I know the heat wave actually happened… but it’s strange, I was in Paris for a week in July 2003, and remember the weather was warm but generally quite nice. Nights were beautiful.
Clay dunes (cohesive granules of clay), unusual in requiring very dry conditions were reported as the base soils of Port Isabel and surrounding areas in the Rio Grande delta. “The annual precipitation at Brownsville has varied from 8.8 inches in 1870 to 60.6 inches in 1886.”
From
Coffey, G. N. 1909. Clay dunes. Journal of Geology. 17:754-755. Open access on JSTOR
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30058593?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents
They were rejuvenated during the 50s drought, even one on the central coast. Don’t know if anybody has tried to date them. Armstrong Price and Gordon Gunter (1943. Certain recent geological and biological changes in south Texas, with consideration of probable causes. Transactions Texas Academy Science. 26:138-156) suggested droughts in the 1880s-90s were a signal of change in climate after 1870, but confounded by overgrazing.
There are lots of old stories in Texas history about drought. I was told a more recent one from a rancher in the Hill Country losing cattle in the 1950s. Settling in a wet period there was tempting. Right now its very wet.
If anything is different than last year, CO2 whut dun it.
And even if there’s nothing different.
When it comes to hot dry summers in the UK its 1976 which sets the marker to judge them by not 2003.
Although l expect the summer of 2018 will become the new marker to judge future summer by. As there are a greater number of people alive to remember it.
yet in 76 there where stand-pipes and water shortages but not n 2018 despite the higher demand for water .
What l think made the difference between the summer of 1976 and that of 2018.
Was the fact that in the summer of 1976 the month of August was very hot and dry. Where in the summer of 2018 it was not.
Heads you lose , tails I win , any ‘extreme’ event can be used as proof and nothing can disprove , meanwhile there some classic tricks for example the ‘on record ‘ never says how long or how good .
these are . And of the course the ability to now measure events which would have be harder or impossible in the past , does not mean these events did not happen merely that the ‘proxies ‘ used to measure them because of the lack of direct measurement are missing or of poor quality so cannot be trusted , ironic considering how Mann git his ‘fame’ in the first place.
In all you can say ‘this is not science’ in action, but then it never was
1st Man -‘Say, what business are you in ?’
2nd Mann – ‘Im in the fear business’
1st Man – ‘and how is business doing?’
2nd Mann – ‘Business is doing great’
From Mann’s photo, he may be doomed anyway. Looks like he has been on the banquet circuit a little too long and at his age, is setting himself up for the big one.
The rhetoric has ramped up considerably from the left side. But if the upcoming predicted very cold winter comes to the populated areas of the US east of the Rockies (along with snows in the Southeast), even if they continue on blaming cold on hot, they will get more and more tuned out. You can only cry wolf so long before you just don’t listen anymore.
Someone needs to tell Mann that weather is not climate. I mean, it’s not rocket science.
How wrong can it get…
It is NOT the job of The Scientist to put HIS or HER personal twist on what they have found.
It is not their job to sensationalise their work with words like unprecedented and extreme
The Scientist is an educator, a teacher.
As such, The Scientist should communicate in a measured & level-headed fashion what they have found.
ACTUALLY found and not what they THINK they have found especially what they think lurks inside computers.
Thence, The Students (that’s = us, our politicians & leaders and everybody else) decide what to do about it.
It is NOT their job to determine policy, behaviour incentives, legislation and tax.
Not in the very least because their income (are there actually ANY ‘Private Sector climate scientists?) comes out of tax revenue, or via Government mandated fees such as Student Loans and Tuition Fees.
They are Cronies and are *wildly* overstepping their marks.
Has anyone got the guts to reign them in or, are they all busily celebrating ever rising yields of wheat, barley, cannabis and indirectly, opium.
Mind-bending substances all
Was it exactly the creation of huge numbers of ‘Patriarchs’, tax collectors & spenders plus legions of lawyers to back them up plus endless rent-seekers and other cronified hangers-on that brought down Rome – and how many more ‘civilisations’?
Eventually what was left of the Plebians either died-out or walked away
(And Rome was powered by what at the end, 3 ship loads per day of imported (because they’d destroyed *their* dirt) wheat and how much alcohol?
That was handy as grapevines (and olives) don’t seem to mind living in deserts. Barley also it seems.
Mediterranean Diet anyone?
Not good for modern Mediterranean kids, 25% of under 5s are now obese.
Just *who* is doing the denying?
No.
The Climate Scientists will tell us it was Climate Change wot did it
Peta of Newark
“The Scientist is an educator, a teacher.
My opinion is that a scientist is an advocate for all those who don’t understand science.
Their job is to convey science in understandable terms to those who’s shoulders they stand upon, the common people who don’t have the benefit of a higher education.
They are leaders, and as such should lead by advocating for those people, including me.
I see more advocacy on sceptic blogs than I see elsewhere in climate science.
Some accept education as their gift to society. Humility is their reward.
“Not good for modern Mediterranean kids, 25% of under 5s are now obese.”
You always go there, don’t you, no matter what the subject. You need to get a life.
You can often spot the pretend wannabe-scientist by their excessive or unjustified use of language.
And so it is with climate scientists. Every location, everywhere on the planet, has “extreme” temperatures every year. The lowest annual temperature and the highest annual temperature represent the two “extremes”. The charlatans who call themselves climate scientists will then bandy these words about, often in a quite correct technical sense, but knowing full well that the man, woman, or child, on the street will interpret the word extreme as something more alarming than it really is.
Their aim is to deceive and frighten the uninformed, not educate or inform them. Frankly, I find it disgusting.
What I find objectionable is the use of words like “extreme” being used to describe October temperatures in a place like Canberra. Yes, October was a bit warmer than normal this year. But, at 35 Centigrade, it was far from extreme. I have lived through Decembers that reached 43 Centigrade (jogged around Lake Burley Griffin at the time), but I wouldn’t even call them extreme. Very hot, yes. But not extreme, in fact common in the historical record.
David, using probability statistics to estimate records broken (floods, snowfall, droughts, etc), requires that you treat your first randomized position data point as a record. The probable number of new records we should expect in 100 yrs is Ln100= ~5 (calculated is 4.6) if droughts are random, which your finding supports. I’ve done this for snowfall in New Hampshire and floods on the Red River of the North and similarly found support for a random process. The fact that specific humidity globally for some reason hasnt increased with the little warming we’ve had over a century suggests that minor warming, at least, hasnt yet overwhelmed a random process.
Gary
I really could use any analysis you have available on periodicity of floods on the Red. Richard in Brandon.
Like the Mann donkey the Flannery donkey here in Australia doesn’t worry about how much BS and nonsense he throws about. His clueless nonsense included dire warnings about drought, SLRise, temps etc.
And he was ably assisted by the dopey MSM and a number of gutless/ stupid so called scientists. The MDB is our largest irrigation area and since 1895 to 2017 the data shows that OZ is a much wetter place than it was for the first 75 years of the data or 1895 to 1970. Here’s the data from the BOM for OZ , up to 2017.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=8
And here’s the rainfall for NSW 1895 to 2017. Note that Mill drought was a problem because the Indian ocean dip[ole (IOD) was in the positive or neutral phase from 1992 to 2009.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=nsw&season=0112&ave_yr=8
Note that the big Fed drought started in 1895 to about end 1902 and that’s why I’ve started at 1895 although not shown in the BOM graph. But terrible rainfall in NSW from 1895 to about 1949. Just look at the BOM data.
When will these donkeys stop preaching their BS and when will the media grow some balls and tell the public the truth?
MDB = Murray-Darling Basin, for those not living in Australia.
So if 15,000 people died in France due to the heat wave, did anyone examine what the other 67 million people did to survive?
These days, Michael Mann looks like an inflatable plastic replica of himself. Mann is putting on weight. This leads me to conclude that he has been consuming more than his fair share of our resources. What this has done to his CO2 emissions is best left to the reader’s vivid imagination.
I’m sick of it , SICK OF IT, I tell you, SICK OF IT !
to think that a PhD can be sooooo stoopid. The King’s new clothes….. I think he ( ie Mr M Mann) should be de-vested of his degree.
When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”
What happens if the climate cools?
Wind and solar are unreliable. Cold weather is much more dangerous that hot weather. Perhaps the precautionary principle need to be applied to this possible outcome as well.
We know that mitigation of their so called CAGW is just BS and fra-d. See Dr Hansen’s comment about Paris COP 21.
Since then non OECD emissions have soared and OECD have leveled off,so why doesn’t Mann etc protest in China, India etc and praise the USA for having the greatest reduction in emissions? Can’t he understand simple first grade sums?
Oh and today the world generates just 0.8% of TOTAL emissions from the S&Wind idiocy. Oh and China generates 66.7% of their TOTAL energy from KING COAL and the USA just 17.1%. See Lomborg’s articles using the EU based IEA data.
Sorry above should read the “world generates just 0.8% of TOTAL energy from S&Wind”.
Mann, et al don’t protest against China’s behaviour inside China because you can get in real trouble for doing that. Only in the West, can you treat being arrested for pointless protests as a positive. In China, a prison term is a real punishment.
More Mann-splaining.
1540?
I’m confused. “Yamal 06”, the magic tree that did away with The Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age, didn’t grow in France.
Are they now accepting the historical evidence that Mann dismissed?
“Here in Texas, rather than destroying our economy just in case droughts get worse in the future, we build dams and expand water infrastructure.”
Wow. I wish they did that in Kalifornia. When I lived there, we passed a bond to finance new dams. But few read the actual proposition. Very little went to new dams. Some went to pay for tearing down dams that Buffet didn’t want to pay for after he bought them. Some went to disadvantaged communities. Most of the rest went to studies.
So I left.
Used to have much stuff to add, technical or otherwise. Seldom any longer, as here, since already said at least once before here over the years.
The only way we can get under the skin of these people, (Mann etc) is to take the word ”denier” out of their usable vocab and the only way to do that is start calling them deniers at every opportunity. They are denying just as much if not more than anyone else. They should NOT own the word. If instead they start using the word ”skeptic” to distance themselves, then we should call them skeptics as well. We are skeptical that co2 drives climate warming and they are sceptical of evidence to the contrary. What gives them the exclusive right to those words?
I say throw the cat amongst the pigeons. Force a change in the narrative. Give them back what they give!
No way are people like Mann skeptics. It comes from the Greek word for thinker. Mann & co are gnostics, which means believer. They truly believe that what they say is true. If not actually true, it should be true.
No amount of evidence will ever sway them.
MikeMike,
You get it. They don’t like it up ’em.
A few years back, before I was blocked at SkS, I criticized Lewandowsky’s dodgy survey there. I thoroughly span their little Regan-like heads around by remarking that he’d contacted “the pro-science blogs” first, then “the anti-science blogs”—but naturally, I was using those labels in the honest sense, contrary to Lewandowsky’s misuse of them. Boy did that confuse them. Nobody (on the dumb side) could tell if I was agreeing with Lew’s narrative or objecting to it. Fun times.
Anyway,
+ 137
Everyone else: MikeMike is right.
What Mann needs is a court room battle, to settle the issue once and for all. Then he could eloquently demonstrate his climate knowledge, and put his academic papers to a jury where they would surely find his work irrefutable. But where do you find a convenient court case when you need one?
From the article: “The 2003 European heat wave led to the hottest summer on record in Europe since at least 1540.[1] France was hit especially hard.”
Let me guess: The center of the high-pressure system that caused this heatwave was sitting on top of France.
The severity of a heatwave is determined by how long the high-pressure system spends over a specific geographic area. The longer it sits in one place, the hotter it gets underneath.
I guess Mann is claiming CO2 is the control knob for how high-pressure systems move or don’t move.
It was not too long ago that all these dire predictions of doom and weather changes because of CO2 were supposed to happen in the future. But then we started getting more and more alarmists claiming CO2 is already affecting the way the climate behaves and changing it, and now we have Mann making the same claim. With no evidence whatsoever, I might add. The fact is all the statistics show that extreme weather events are getting less extreme and fewer in number as compared to the past. Mann should address that.