Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; According to the National Academy of Sciences, if the weather is severe it is partly our own fault. “Global warming can contribute to the intensity of heat waves, drought, and wildfires. It also increases water vapor in the atmosphere, which can lead to more frequent heavy rain and snowstorms. #BasedOnScience”. But they forgot to explain their position appears to differ from the IPCC position.
Global warming is contributing to extreme weather events
CLAIM
Extreme weather can be linked to global warming.FACT
In some cases. Some types of extreme weather events are happening more often or are becoming more intense because of global warming.Global warming is making some extreme weather events worse.
As Earth’s climate has warmed, a new pattern of more frequent and more intense weather events has unfolded around the world. Scientists identify these extreme weather events based on the historical record of weather in a particular region. They consider extreme weather events to be those that produce unusually high or low levels of rain or snow, temperature, wind, or other effects. Typically, these events are considered extreme if they are unlike 90% or 95% of similar weather events that happened before in that same area.
Global warming can contribute to the intensity of heat waves by increasing the chances of very hot days and nights. Warming air also boosts evaporation, which can worsen drought. More drought creates dry fields and forests that are prone to catching fire, and increasing temperatures mean a longer wildfire season. Global warming also increases water vapor in the atmosphere, which can lead to more frequent heavy rain and snowstorms.
A warmer and more moist atmosphere over the oceans makes it likely that the strongest hurricanes will be more intense, produce more rainfall, and possibly be larger. In addition, global warming causes sea level to rise, which increases the amount of seawater, along with more rainfall, that is pushed on to shore during coastal storms. That seawater, along with more rainfall, can result in destructive flooding. While global warming is likely making hurricanes more intense, scientists don’t know yet if global warming is increasing the number of hurricanes each year. The effect of global warming on the frequency, intensity, size, and speed of hurricanes remains a subject of scientific research.
…
Read more: https://sites.nationalacademies.org/BasedOnScience/climate-change-global-warming-is-contributing-to-extreme-weather-events/index.htm
The IPCC, which is supposed to be the gold standard of climate science, takes a less confident view.
There is evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes. It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights, and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights, at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likely that these changes have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is medium confidence of a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in daily temperature extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from low to medium depending on the region. Globally, in many (but not all) regions with sufficient data there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heat waves has increased since the middle of the 20th century. It is likely that there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends. There is low confidence that any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems. There is medium confidence that since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced a trend to more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes. It is likely that there has been an increase in extreme coastal high water related to increases in mean sea level in the late 20th century. [3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3; Tables 3-1, 3-2]
There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging. [3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.4, 3.5.3; Table 3-1]
Read more: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf
(see IPCC – Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) for more information)
Mostly low confidence to medium confidence.
Everyone knows what low confidence means, but what does medium confidence mean?
| Terminology | Degree of confidence in being correct |
|---|---|
| Very high confidence | At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct |
| High confidence | About 8 out of 10 chance |
| Medium confidence | About 5 out of 10 chance |
| Low confidence | About 2 out of 10 chance |
| Very low confidence | Less than 1 out of 10 chance |
(source: Interacademy Council)
The answer is Medium Confidence = 50/50. Before climate newspeak, scientists would have used the word “uncertain” or “inconclusive“.
So how did this in my opinion misleading term “medium confidence” come to replace the word “inconclusive” in climate science literature? This is the subject of one of my favourite Climategate emails.
From: Stephen H Schneider <redacted>
To: <redacted>
Subject: Re: THC collapse
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: <redacted>Great Tom, I think we are converging to much clearer meanings across various cultures here. Please get the inconclusive out! By the way, “possible” still has some logical issues as it is true for very large or very small probabilities in principle, but if you define it clearly it is probably OK–but “quite possible” conveys medium confidence better–but then why not use medium confidence, as the 3 rounds of review over the guidance paper concluded after going through exactly the kinds of disucssions were having now. Thanks, Steve
…
Climategate Email 0967041809.txt
Schneider and pals apparently didn’t want people seeing the word “inconclusive” all over their climate science papers, so they adjusted their language towards using the phrase “medium confidence”.
Translating medium confidence climate newspeak into normal English, the IPCC position appears to be that most claims of climate related extreme weather are inconclusive or unlikely.
Despite their subtle caveats, in my opinion the National Academy of Sciences statement on extreme weather is misleading, unless the academy’s position is substantially different to the IPCC position. For example the IPCC says “low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences.”, but the Academy statement said global warming is likely making hurricanes more intense.
If the National Academy of Sciences does not agree with the IPCC position, if their view of climate related extreme weather is more alarmist than the IPCC, they should have explicitly explained this difference of opinion in their statement, instead of presuming to speak on behalf of climate science.
”Based on science”…..
Meaning?
Is that like a movie based on actual events but with plenty of bullshit thrown in for dramatic effect?
Or is it more like plastic decking made to look like wood but not actually wood?
Is that it?
At least that plastic decking doesn’t CLAIM to be real wood.
Most of the assumptions and observations are “Inconclusive”, there is not even an agreement between the Academy of Sciences and the IPCC, and even within the IPCC itself :
“low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes”.
And we are supposed to drink the “science is settled” kool-aid ?
” It also increases water vapour in the atmosphere” In theory, but not in practice. Over the oceans TPW follows temperature, but over the land there is no correlation. RSS, ISCCP, NVAP-M all show no consistent global increase in WV.
Also with GH gasses warming the cold times and places, the reduction in equator to pole temperature gradient means less in tense storms according to many meteorologists and scientists.
A theory that explains everything explains nothing. Clearly the NA has been taken over by the woke and will have to be disbanded when this whole sordid episode is behind us.
How far back did they compare post 1950 to? Unless they went back 10,000 years, I wouldn’t waste any time deigning this ‘analysis’ with an answer. Just because extremes became more prevalent the past 70 years vs the previous 70 years: so what? There will always be periods of greater climatic tranquility and periods of greater volatility. Geologists identified times when temperature change rates of 15C/century were identified, which makes 1.5C/century seriously small beans.
I really get tired of ‘experts’ who are trying to be ‘political experts’ looking like political nincompoops.
The science is settled, so stand down all the scientists. Retrain as engineers. Or computer programmers. Or whatever…
Science fiction is “based on science”, but doesn’t pretend to portray reality. What the NAS and the somewhat less alarmist IPCC do is called lying. They have many ways of lying, and many tricks of their trade up their lying sleeves, including pretending to tell the truth. They use weasel words, and make up their own phrases with both stated, and hidden meanings. They are a disgrace to themselves, to their country and to science itself, which they degrade and debase by pretending to be scientists.
It is “likely” the use of “medium confidence” is worth tens of billions more in research funding compared to “inconclusive” IPCC wording. That obviously follows from the higher research spending track record in the U.S. compared to other nations. Never let a good money pipeline go to waste, even when its flow rate is driven by carbon-intensive taxpayers being tapped.
Biden has already incentivized this word play with “likely” funding pledges for “research” on word choice.
I love the whole, “science based” proclamation. What science? Based how?
Does global warming actually do all that they proclaim? It is posited that in certain regions it may become more arid, in others more green. You can find examples of hypothesis for any of those scenarios to global warming, but what does it say about the whole? Don’t know. Then stop saying it’s “science based” like that solves everything, every question, every iteration of truth, everything.
Cherry picked partial truths are not science based. The minute you only take what you want and ignore the rest you have left the science realm for good and entered into politics.
Regional changes in flood and drought since1995 have been completely dominated by low solar driving warmer ocean phases, and which increase lower troposphere water vapour, reduce low cloud cover, and intensify Atlantic hurricanes, and even reduce CO2 uptake. The warm AMO phase drives Greenland melt and continental glacier retreat, and so raises the sea level.
All these changes which are normal during a centennial solar minimum, the National Academy of Sciences is blaming on a few whiffs of CO2. That is a tragicomedy of epic proportions, greatly compounded by the fact that major heatwaves and cold-waves are discretely solar driven and cause climate change.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/major-heat-cold-waves-driven-key-heliocentric-alignments-ulric-lyons/
This is not even a “theory”! It is mere conjecture about some inconclusive observation. A conjecture must be followed by a hypothesis for science to even begin. The hypothesis must have a basis (model, mathematics, system analysis, etc.) that predicts occurrences that can be measured and verified.
Most of this is mere prognostication with no basis in fact. “Let me see your palm sir!”
I am disappointed that science has been perverted so far in the U.S. as to most resemble the social “studies” who also don’t have predictions that can be tested and verified.
I would venture that palm reading is more accurate than this mess.
One of the books in my personal library is “Climate Change in Prehistory” by Burroughs. It appears that the climate changes in Posthistory, too!
This whole argument is based on the fallacy that the Earth’s temperatures are rising continuously.
The fact is temperatures around the world are cooling. It is cooler now than it was in the Early Twentieth Century, all over the world.
This “warming” the alarmists focus on has only taken place since about 1980, starting from a very cold period, and this particular warming from 1980 has NOT exceeded the warming of the Early Twentieth Century, which means this warming that the alarmists talk about is a distortion of reality.
Here is the U.S. surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999).
The U.S. surface temperature chart is the TRUE temperature profile of the Earth. It shows the Early Twentieth Century warmins was just as warm as it is today. And suface temperature chart that does not show this feature is a chart that does not represent reality.
And here are Tmax surface temperature charts from around the world that show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
Tmax charts
US chart:
China chart:
India chart:
Norway chart:
Australia chart:
AMO Detrended, Shows similar profile to Hansen 1999:
So what we have is all this focus on the period from 1980 to the present. Yes, it has warmed during this period. But put into context, which it never is, this period only shows a temporary warming, which never got any warmer than it was in the Early Twentieth Century, and now appears to be running out of gas.
Include the Early Twentieth Century in this conversation and Human-Caused Climate Change goes away, because not only is there no evidence of human-caused warming, there is no evidence of warming at all, other than a short period of time from 1980 to the present, which never exceeded the warmth of the Early Twentieth Century.
The only place you can find Human-caused Global Warming in in the bogus, bastardized, Modern-era Hockey Stick charts. The Hockey Stick charts changed the temperature readings to make the Early Twentieth Century appear to be insignificant. They had to do this in order to sell the Human-caused climate change scam.
Below is a comparison of Hansen 1999, the US surface temperature chart and the REAL temperature profile of the Earth (on the left) with the Bogus, Bastardized Hockey Stick chart (on the right).
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
As you can see the Data Manipulators took the Hansen 1999 chart, showing the warmth of the Early Twentieth Century and changed it and turned the Early Twentieth Century into insignificance.
As a result, the bogus, bastardized Modern-era Hockey Stick chart makes it appear as though the temperatures have been getting hotter and hotter, decade after decade, and today is the warmest period in human history. And they attribute all that unprecedented warmth to humans burning fossil fuels.
But there is no unprecedented warmth! As can plainly be seen by the actual temperature readings of the past. No unprecedented warmth means CO2 is at best a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Unfortunately, many people have been fooled by the Bogus, Bastardized Modern-era Hockey Stick Chart. It’s all made up out of whole cloth. It’s all a Big Lie.
Our science community has bought into the Big Lie. And their only evidence is the Bogus, Bastardized Modern-era Hockey Stick chart. Science Fiction has become reality in their minds. Look at the chart!, they say. Well, I have looked at the chart and found it wanting. What I don’t understand is why all these honest smart people don’t see this blatantly obvious lie themselves.
There are the charts for you to examine. The actual temperature readings do not correspond with the computer-generated Hockey Stick. So which temperature profile is wrong? The numerous charts that show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, or the sole, computer-generated Hockey Stick chart that claims we are living in the hottest times in human history? It looks pretty obvious to me which is wrong. The Climategate Charlatans couldn’t erase all the charts in the world. They left behind too many clues which show they have manipulated the temperature record in order to sell their Human-caused Climate Change scam.
+100
They said global warming could produce a new ice age something like 17 years ago, so this is nothing new
https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/will-global-warming-trigger-new-ice-age
A theory (AGW) that purports can explain any outcome, too hot, too cold, to severe, not severe, etc. in reality explains nothing. It is not science.
Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence 50/50 chance of being incorrect
Low confidence 8 out of 10 chance of being incorrect
Very low confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance of being incorrect
It can be shown the it is the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect that causes the surface of the Earth to be on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the warming derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. Additional warming caused by a hypothetical radiant greenhouse effect is zero. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere in the solar system for that mater. The convective greenhouse effect is caused by the heat capacity of the atmosphere and gravity. There is no way that we can eliminate the Earth’s gravity so what we are left with is decreasing the amount of atmosphere covering the Earth. Of the individual molecules that make up the Earth’s atmosphere it is not CO2 but rather N2 that is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect as well as variations in weather. The only way to get rid of Earth’s weather variability is to get rid of the atmosphere entirely. Sure the difference between day and night surfaces would be extreme but the average would remain the same and there would be no extreme weather events without the atmosphere. The moon is an example where there are no extreme weather events because there is no atmosphere.
Global Warming has been a total of 1 degree C of warming over the last century. Since the high temperature of the day typically warms from winter to summer by more than 30 degrees C, all that 1 degree C warming has done is make that natural seasonal warming occur a few days earlier in the spring and stay warm a few days later in the fall. Most of the one degree of warming occurs during the winter and overnight temperatures, too, so the slight warming we’ve seen has had very little effect on high temperatures. At most, climate change can result in a one degree C hotter all-time record heat wave ONLY during the very hottest part of the summer, that’s it. Outside the dog days of summer, global warming is clearly NOT responsible for record breaking heat waves. Unfortunately, climate fear mongers and other assorted idiots will claim that any all-time record breaking heat wave at any time of the year is caused by global warming but they’re almost always wrong.