New Study: ‘On the basis of observational data, the climate crisis…is not evident yet’ – Published in The European Physical Journal Plus
Published in The European Physical Journal Plus – January 13, 2022: “The analysis is then extended to some global response indicators of extreme meteorological events, namely natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of the four main crops (maize, rice, soybean and wheat). None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”
By: Admin – Climate Depot February 10, 2022 12:57 PM
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9
A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming
The European Physical Journal Plus volume 137, Article number: 112 (2022)
A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming
Excerpts:
Abstract
This article reviews recent bibliography on time series of some extreme weather events and related response indicators in order to understand whether an increase in intensity and/or frequency is detectable. The most robust global changes in climate extremes are found in yearly values of heatwaves (number of days, maximum duration and cumulated heat), while global trends in heatwave intensity are not significant. Daily precipitation intensity and extreme precipitation frequency are stationary in the main part of the weather stations. Trend analysis of the time series of tropical cyclones show a substantial temporal invariance and the same is true for tornadoes in the USA. At the same time, the impact of warming on surface wind speed remains unclear. The analysis is then extended to some global response indicators of extreme meteorological events, namely natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of the four main crops (maize, rice, soybean and wheat). None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet. It would be nevertheless extremely important to define mitigation and adaptation strategies that take into account current trends.
…
To date, global observations do not show any significant trends in both the number and the energy accumulated by hurricanes, as shown in Fig. 1 and as claimed in several specific papers [13] for the USA, which
Fig. 1 Long-term trends in disaster losses, normalized to account for rising wealth and population, have not so far been attributed to climate change, but it has not so far been ruled out that climate change may have played a role.
Historical trend of the Tropical Cyclone frequency (above) and accumulated energy ([16]; updated data from http://climatlas.com/tropical/)Full size image
…
Particular attention should be paid to the IPCC statement which reports strong increase in the frequency and activity of tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic. To get more information on this issue, NOAA [17] analysed much longer time series (> 100 years) of Atlantic hurricane activity.
Existing records of past Atlantic tropical storms or hurricane numbers (from 1878 to present) indeed show a pronounced upward trend; however, the density of Atlantic shipping reports was relatively low during the first decades of this period: if the storms of the modern era (after 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those decades, a considerable number of storms probably would not have been observed by the naval observation network.
Therefore, after adjusting the time series to take into account the smaller observational capacities of the past, there remains only a small nominally positive upward trend of the tropical storms from 1878 to 2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero.
…
Furthermore, Landsea et al. [18] noted that the rising trend in Atlantic tropical storm counts is almost entirely due to the increase in only short-lived storms (< 2 days), which were most likely overlooked in the early parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for casual encounters with ship traffic.
If we look at hurricanes in the Atlantic basin, rather than all tropical storms, the result is similar: the reported number of hurricanes during the 1860s and 1880s was similar to nowadays and again there is no significant positive trend since that time. Evidence of an upward trend is even weaker for hurricanes hitting the coast of the USA, which show a slightly negative trend starting in the 1900s or late 1800s.
…
,
With increased Doppler radar coverage, population growth and increased attention to tornado reports, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports in recent decades. This can create the misleading appearance of a growing frequency of tornadoes.
However, by consulting the time series shown in Fig. 3 [24], we realize that the increase in the number of tornadoes since 1950 is almost entirely due to weak events (EF0-EF1 in the advanced Fujita scale), those that in the past in many cases escaped the observation and which today are more easily identified thanks to a wide range of systems ranging from cell phone cameras to satellites and Doppler radars. In contrast, strong to violent tornadoes (categories EF-3 to EF-5 on the advanced Fujita scale), likely reported also before the Doppler radar era, show no increase over time.
While the increase in the frequency and persistence of heat waves can easily be explained by increasing global temperatures, the observed increase in tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic, as well as having unclear reasons as claimed by the IPCC [6], seems to be a local phenomenon and substantially due to better reporting as supported by NOAA and as we will better see in the paragraph dedicated to this type of phenomena. In other areas of the planet, a decrease in the same phenomena is observed and in still others no trend is observed, essentially bringing the global evaluations to a substantial temporal invariance.
…
Fearing a climate emergency without this being supported by data, means altering the framework of priorities with negative effects that could prove deleterious to our ability to face the challenges of the future, squandering natural and human resources in an economically difficult context, even more negative following the COVID emergency.
I wonder if the heatwave data is based on IPCC’s truncation of data by excluding pre 1950 information, thus eliminating Dust Bowl droughts and about 75% of US states high temperature records. Also eliminates much of Australia’s drought trends from the first half of 20th C.
Still it’s good to see some European scientists reporting against the political winds.
Here is a heatwave analysis that goes back to 1900, again from Cornell University’s upstate New York experimental farm.
Everywhere you look, the Early Twentieth Century shows to be just as warm or warmer than today.
It should be warmer today, than then, because there is more CO2 in the air today, according to CO2 alarmists, but it’s not warmer today. Something is wrong with their assumptions.
” Something is wrong with their assumptions.”
….And their minds….
Alarmist porn! Just follow the money trail!
Narcissists don’t typically question their own assumptions; nor their medications.
Here is a heatwave analysis that goes back to 1900 for Central Park in NYC:
Rural area vs. highly urbanised area? So, in the absence of any other data, an indication that heatwaves can be an artefact of urban development?
Number of heatwaves per decade for NYC’s Central Park:
Number of heatwaves per decade for Cornell University’s experimental farm in upstate NY:
Surprise!
The surprise will be their lack of funding, induced by the climate “Mafia”. Four more candidates to Galileo Galilei moment “And yet it moves”. I appreciate a lot their courage thought.
Both weak hurricanes and tornadoes increases are likely to be enhanced observation artifacts.
Anyone who has ever watched local weather reporting in areas with thunderstorms leading to tornadoes will know how commonly the doppler radar will report a weak tornado that causes no damage on the ground. With better coverage for the doppler radar, such artifacts should be common.
Prior to the satellite era, short lived hurricanes that never crossed any shipping lanes would have gone unreported as well.
And they’re practically naming Clouds now
They’re using models fed with satellite observations/measurements to “name” tropical disturbances.
Many of which do not last 24 hours.
That alone boosts the numbers of modern tropical storms.
Now they know a new tornado formed even before it has hit the ground.30 years ago there was still plenty of guessing whether a tornado had struck even after a few days.
Yep, the 24-hour news cycle has to be filled with something, disaster porn is a big money maker for them.
Candace sums up the climate crisis in 2 minutes … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RelsNOgktG0
I’d like to see her and Michael Mann debate.
I’m still hoping Candace gets to pick out the Oval Office desk at some point.
Candace Owen. Not white, not male, no grey hair. Appears to be a product of the school of hard knocks.
Will be interesting watching her progress.
Fantastic! I hope she is a future president of the United States. I’ve seen her before and was impressed but I didn’t know she appears to be a climate realist.
Trump as president 2024 with Candace as vice president could be a fantastic combination.
Meanwhile I do wonder if Trump and Candace actually know that the science and the data strongly support their climate beliefs. Showing them this paper that disproves the fake climate crisis would be a good start….
Chris
Is that a crack I see in the dike?
I sincerely hope it is, DrEd, and I support your inquiry to the fullest extent of Frog and Squirrel Laws. There’s also Crow Court Laws. I could look into that.
Doesn’t matter. If it were just a matter of science, CAGW would already be a dim disturbing memory.
I will believe that CAGW is over when some of the perpetrators go to jail.
when some of the perpetrators go to jail.
That’ll never happen, the perps will just invent a new way to save the world
The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars: the men they detest the most are those who try to tell them the truth.
– H.L. Menken
The European Physical Journal reports no evidence of global warming at the same time that the EU economy is being devastated by energy price inflation. Apparently those losing money due to “climate change mitigation strategies” have begun to be exceed those profiting from “renewable” subsidies.
The CAGW sc@m was always entirely dependent on vast quantities of OPM (Other People’s Money). With the current global economic conditions OPM is becoming harder and harder to obtain.
It seem to have been that way from the beginning of the scam, just not as widely apparent as now.
What say you, Griff?
.
Seems familiar. Is that Boris’s hair?
😂 😂
Sage Coach
Griff seems adrift…but com’on man…look at the latest on Antarctica…new reports say the place is gonna melt…people are tired of it just sitting there unchanged…the warmists want it melted and melted it shall be.
Yes, and the Space Alien Crisis is also not evident yet.
Are you joking? No Space Alien Crisis?
What about this?
https://babylonbee.com/news/facebook-stock-plunges-after-zuckerberg-removes-human-skin-suit-during-zoom-call-with-shareholders
Yeah, 50% of the earth’s inhabitants “may” be aliens or descendants of aliens. Put “may” before any statement no matter how preposterous and your covered.
It was doing ok until I came upon the usual mealy mouthed caveat.
“it has not so far been ruled out that climate change may have played a role.”
On the basis of observational data, sitting on that fence has got to hurt.
Fretslider, the real issue is the burden of proof. If you want to make a case that other people should change their ways, the burden of proof is on you to show that they are causing damage. To quantify that damage. And to identify those to whom they are causing damage, too (in order that the compensation can be allocated to the right people).
Unfortunately, the climate alarmists have contrived to invert the burden of proof on this issue. But this paper seems to indicate a start on the way back towards reality and justice.
The authors should be asked if they still beat their spouses.
No balls.
I have seen reports that 2021 had the fewest hurricanes globally since the start of the satellite era. However, that is NOT what is shown on the included chart.
Did I get taken by some fake news from our anti-alarmist side, or is there that much legitimate variance in the data series used for hurricanes?
If so, can anyone explain the cause of the variance?
Can you link to the source of your data?
I tracked down the original article that I had read.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2022/01/16/u-2021-had-the-fewest-global-hurricanes-in-the-satellite-era-2nd-fewest-strong-hurricanes-since-1980/
I believe Lomborg relied on the Colorado State data.
Good catch.
From a quick look, they can not both be right.
Curious, because i have trusted both Lomborg and Maue to be trustworthy data guys.
Possible explaination: The Maue ACE plot was updated July, 2021. So it misses the latter portion of the year. When you are plotting annual data that is going to be a big deal.
Thanks for the partial clarification.
I try to have all of my ducks in a row to debate the legion of alarmists that like to state their unqualified assertions. They seemed shocked to have someone speak up in rebuttal – much less debate using actual facts in place of mere assertions.
This is great but the problem with this, like most of what we see, is that it starts in 1970. That isn’t long enough to see any real trends or cycles. Admittedly this is only one location, but here are the temperature trends for the daily high temperature for each day of the year from 1900 to 2020, at Cornell University’s experimental farm in upstate New York.
Before you post articles and comments like this, you need to have a meeting on a shingled roof wearing summer clothes with no shoes. Have an ambulance on standby because you will need it.
Would the 70-90 degree Celsius roof be warmer than the 30 deg. C atmospheric temperature?
Hot excited atoms and molecules always transfer that energy to cold. Is that warming the atmosphere? The answer is undeniably yes.
Air conditioning is in fact refrigeration, why would we have a heating system and refrigeration in the same application.
Here is solar impact in the winter superheating the atmosphere. It is a heat emission, not GHG emission. In the summer the AC unit will use 1000s of watts per hour per building responding to symptoms.
Just a point, but please identify a modern office building that DOESN”T have heating and cooling operating essentially year round. It’s built into the HVAC systems to run that way.
“It is a heat emission, not GHG emission.”
That’s very misleading, Professor Curtis, if you are in fact a professor. The amount of heat released by human beings by burning their cubic mile of oil per year is not significant compared to the heat absorbed from the Sun by the CO2 emitted by burning that cubic mile of oil during the lifetime of the CO2. Telling students falsehoods is one of the reasons we are where we are now.
I’m pretty sure he’s a self-appointed ‘professor’ and seller of something called “energy medicine”, I believe.
You are a lying troll. In your pictures the sun is shining onto the dark wall in front. Just around the corner the same dark surface is cold even though both walls are of the same room inside.
I think it’s time to flip the script on this claim that citizens that disagree with CAGW are seditious. Realists should form a class action suit to sue the global warming/climate change supporters with sedition. Vet everything out in a court of law in front of a jury. I think it will be the trial of the century and the truth will prevail because the whole CAGW hypothesis is founded on junk science. CO2 is not an evil pollutant but rather a giver of life to our carbon based existence.
Things are no different today than 2,421 years ago when Socrates got his “justice”, Ranchhand.
The question before the court would not be whether the public religion is wrong (the Athenian pantheon or today’s Climastrology). The question would be whether you (and Socrates) are heretics.
How do you take your hemlock tea?
Life is the problem to worshipers of death.
Love this headline! There are professional comedy writers that can’t come up with stuff this good. 😉
This does not mean the world isn’t warming and that problematic sea level rise is not a threat. It only means that climate activists have been mostly wrong with their claims of worsening extreme weather. In the past few years many climate activists stopped making claims of tornadoes getting worse, although they’re still claiming (incorrectly) that the jet stream is getting less stable, temperature variance is getting greater, and that global warming caused the extreme winter weather in Texas in February 2021.
In my lifetime and most likely yours, if you’re over the age of 7, there has indeed been a slight warming which has likely contributed to increasing agricultural output. A global milding, with somewhat higher low temperature readings at night and in winter.
Sea level rise is essentially unchanged in its very slow and steady rate since the end of the Little Ice Age. That this ~2mm/yr rise can reasonably be described as “problematic” or even “potentially problematic” is not obvious to me. (An incredibly gradual change that has been successfully adapted to for going on two centuries, is likely not suddenly going to become a crisis).
The study discussed here does not address these topics, though. Is that what you meant Donald?
anyone thinking that “problematic sea level rise” of a few millimeters/year is a “threat” hasn’t experienced much crisis in their lives
If sea level rise were really a problem luxury beachfront properties in places like Palm Beach and the Bahamas would be worthless and unsellable. Strangely enough, this isn’t the case. It’s almost as though those with the most money know the whole scare is a crock.
Land level declining is a real problem in more than a few sea side cities.
So he thinks some stuff by climate scientists was hype but ridiculously slow sea level increase is a massive problem … most of us will be dead to laugh at the fool 🙂
Hmm, just a couple months ago Mann proclaimed this sort of tornado analysis is false and the absolute count in the Doppler era is all that counts.
Mann is most definitely a climate scientologist/activist
Without the extreme weather event’s there is no climate emergency, no global warming crisis, no looming thermageddon and, above all, no more money.
No, there is still the slow boiling of frogs.
Love slow boiled frogs, with mikes red hot
I put that shit on everything
Well this is disappointing news.
I’ve been peering anxiously out my window for about 35 years now waiting for the sky to spontaneously combust as per the daily media warnings of dangerous AGW.
Turns out it’s all a fizzer 😫
Looking out my window, I’ve decided to go snowshoeing for a little while. It’s sunny and warming up, so I can get some good and pleasant exercise in before the snow melts away and becomes a thing of the past.
Same here.
Except my arthritis has been turned up to 11 at the moment, and my knee is not up to capering of any sorts in the snow ):
I stare forlornly at my seasons lift pass as the days slip away to expiry.
Try some CBD, even topically to see if it helps. It does work for many.
The snow is still melting away here in the front range of Colorado. My back yard still has quite a bit left in within the shade. I haven’t checked the numbers, but it seems like the snow totals must be catching up to the typical average.
But the crisis of institutions and a land war in Europe are evident even if not covered by the MSM. It’s the early 30s all over again and the celebrities like Lindbergh are oblivious to the tyrants.
The report seems like a step toward sensibility.
The writers had to include the caveat that climate extremes are not evident yet, in an apparent attempt to not get strung up by the leftist climate apparatchiks.
If I were them, I’d lay low for a while.
A little chilly in the northern and eastern US.
In the abstract, I find these two phrases in conflict:
1: None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. And . . .
2: It would be nevertheless extremely important to define mitigation and adaptation strategies that take into account current trends.
Should we assume they mean the most extreme scenarios by models of “climate” 80 years from now? The interesting word in the 2nd statement is “define”. Defining may be useful, but as for doing, I think not.
I can get behind proposals to not build high-rise condos and hotels on barrier islands and other common-sense ideas.
Do “define” a “strategy” one needs detailed and complete cost/benefit analyses. In the complete absence of any idea of realistic cost/benefit data on climate change, one would do well to simply develop “strategies” for coping with past weather events.
“To,” not “Do.”
Maybe they mean “save a great deal of treasure” by only pursuing mitigation and adaption to real problems.
Observational data = SURFRAD
Attached is a slide for SURFRAD data at Table Mountain, Boulder, CO 6/18/21. There are 1,440 1-minute data points.
Column 13 is downwelling solar insolation, “dw_solar real” or the 160 on the K-T diagram.
Column 14 is upwelling insolation, “uw_solar real” or the 63 on the K-T diagram.
Column 25 is the difference between the two or what I have demonstrated is the non-radiation, kinetic energy, heat transfer processes and NOT “back” radiation.
Column 17 is the downwelling IR, dw_ir or the 333 on the K-T diagram.
It’s not real.
Column 20 is the upwelling IR, uw_ir, or the 396 in the K-T diagram. This is the theoretical, S-B BB result for the GROUND temperature not the 10 m “surface” air temperature. In this case, Column 14/column 20 is the emissivity. Just as with the K-T et. al. balances applying this emissivity to the raw uw_ir measurement makes the uw/dw_ir loop disappear while the balance remains.
It, too, is not real.
A plot of the ground versus 10 m air temps is revealing.
During the night the 10 m temp is slightly higher than the actual ground temperature.
As day breaks the ground temperature rises much faster than the 10 m temp and during much of the day is much higher than the 10 m temp.
The ground is a heat sink that absorbs energy during the day and releases during the night.
When the emissivity is applied correctly there is no GHG energy loop, no RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW.
Nick, please quit Thread-bombing WUWT with your crank theories. If people won’t read your blog its because they know it is nonsense.
Got any actual rebuttal?
Any reputable atmospheric physicist. WUWT has a new open Thread you can go rant on.
Here’s a typical SURFRAD table.
Email this to the Pentagon. Also, examine Professor Valentina Zharkova’s solar cycle research.
And it must be remembered that they claim none of this “Climate Change” would have happened if Man didn’t release CO2, mainly via fossil fuels. That’s their “justification” for controlling Man.
Yet they’ve never, never proven that any weather events or “Climate Change” observed are outside Natural Variability.
The Doom and Gloom comes from politized “science”, not science.
Here in NZ some climate experts declared that a recent flooding event was 15% worse due to human caused climate change.
They seemed pretty convinced. I don’t think they even used any of the ‘will’, ‘could’ etc. weasel words.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/127210511/climate-change-made-the-may-flooding-in-canterbury-more-severe–researchers
You can say whatever you choose, arm waving isn’t proof
Arm-waving isn’t even evidence.
”flooding event was 15% worse due to human caused climate change.”
I think what we can say for certain is that these climate experts’ rationality is 15% worse due to human caused climate change.
The personal behavior of 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 times that of the average of the other 99%. Were this small group to only emit 25 times the CO2 of everyone else, overall U. S. CO2 emissions would immediately, not over years or decades, decline 17%. Oddly, the people are not informed of this. Maybe because so many of this small group are AGW scammers?
” ‘On the Basis of Observational Data, the Climate Crisis…is Not Evident Yet’ ”
Preoccupant!…
Are there any model outputs to confirm these observational data?
Yes.
Just taking “hurricanes / tropical cyclones” as an example, when it comes to how the Earth’s climate system “will” react to increased atmospheric CO2 levels by the end of the century the models fall into 3 sub-groups :
1) Those that “project” an increase in frequency and/or intensity (of future hurricanes)
2) Those that “project” no statistically significant change in frequency and/or intensity
3) Those that “project” an decrease in frequency and/or intensity
There will always be “model outputs” that end up “confirming” any and all “observational data” …
When considering if on balance there is evidence for the ‘climate crisis’, has anyone considered the effect of multiple hypothesis testing?
I would expect this is necessary for both the number of categories of impact considered but also the spatial aspect.
If I look at enough categories of impact eventually one or more of them will be statistically significant on it’s own by simple chance (i.e. 95% equates to 1 in 20 being by chance).
Similarly for the spatial aspect, if I divide the world into enough regions and locations, some of those will show a change in the direction I’ve declared as a climate change signal by simple chance.
Add in the interaction of both the number of categories of change, and the number of places I’m looking for those changes, and it would seem the bar for statistically significant change should be much higher than is typically presented in an attribution study.
Even the “yet” at the end of the title truckles to the assumption that there will inevitably be a “climate crisis” – if not now, then soon.
With everyday reporting of every climate crisis scenario that “may” happen or that is ‘predicted’ to happen; most people don’t need evidence that, ” it hasn’t happened yet”. The mirage of crisis has been before the eyes for decades with ever increasing veracity and frequency. They just won’t believe reality.