From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
The BBC continues to push the “extreme weather” myth:
Heatwaves, deadly floods and wildfires all mean people are experiencing the link between extreme weather and climate change.
Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have been trapping heat in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial era. As a consequence, average temperatures have risen by 1.1C.
This additional energy is unevenly distributed and bursts out in extremes like those we’ve been seeing. Without reductions in global emissions, this cycle will keep going.
Here are four ways climate change is contributing to extreme weather.
These are the four:
For some reason they fail to mention the reduced incidence of extreme cold! As the curve shows however, the new weather is not more extreme, when both hot and cold are taken into account.
The chart might just as well have been the temperature curves for Newcastle and London. Is London’s climate more extreme than Newcastle’s? Obviously not.
They then go on to discuss heat domes, but there is no evidence that these are on the increase, or connected to global warming.
This ignores basic meteorology!
Dry weather is not caused by “heat”, it results from anti-cyclonic weather, which also happens to bring hot, sunny weather in summer. But just because average temperatures are higher does not mean that a location is getting more of this type of weather.
As for droughts, even the IPCC could find no evidence that they were getting worse worldwide. According to AR6, while some regions such as the Mediterranean may be getting drier, others show the reverse, such as India. We certainly know that vast swathes of Africa, the Middle East and Asia suffered catastrophic droughts during the 1970s, as a direct consequence of global cooling.
In any event, it is widely accepted that a warmer world is also a wetter one.
Except there is no evidence that wildfires are getting worse:
Again, the IPCC looked at extreme rainfall in AR6 and little evidence to support this claim. The only region where there was “high confidence” of increasing and intensity of extreme rainfall is the central US, where it simply served to put an end to the crippling droughts of the 1930s and 50s. Similarly increasing monsoon rainfall has benefitted India and other parts of Asia.
There is a assumption that extreme rainfall is “bad”. In reality it often makes the difference between drought and plenty.
More relevant is the question of whether floods are getting worse. The IPCC looked at this too, and could find no global trends, only the inevitable regional variations:
The BBC know that the public are not scared by a slightly warmer climate – on the contrary, most people would welcome it.
Hence the increasingly desperate and fraudulent attempts to spread lies about extreme weather.
So how many floods are a case of houses & roads being built in areas clearly marked as Flood Plains.
Then we hear the usual cry of it being a once in a hundred year event.
Unless a town or city is built at sea level, most floods can be fixed by engineering.
But that costs money.
The usual answer is to creat a river course, lower than the flood prone area.
Of course despite the Green lies, there is no connection with a CO2 climate problem ?
Or a change in land use – Indonesian floods caused major mudslides only after extensive illegal logging and deforestation.
Jakarta floods regularly, mainly due to land subsidence and upstream land clearing (Puncak) for holiday housing, to satisfy the well-to-do weekenders in escaping the Jakarta madness.
I’ve run out of things to say where the propaganda service is concerned. It’s all been said so many times.
It is fulfilling its mission to patronise, indoctrinate and infantilise people
“Huw Edwards has said a colleague told him the BBC “doesn’t want people to think there’s a nutter reading the 10 O’Clock news” after he told them he has depression.”
They’re all bonkers at the BBC And they have influence
I go through bbc craptacular every morning, the distortions and outright lies on every subject are too long to list. You are far better served to consider all “reporting” from bbc to be completely politically driven crap. That is sad, for so very long you could actually get real journalism from bbc International Shortwave broadcasts. That is dead.
The BBC reports on feelings not facts
And even the feelings they post are lies.
I have a feeling they’re lying.
The BBC stopped reporting news quite some years ago, I’m afraid – what they’re pushing is opinion, not fact at all.
It is strange that a state broadcaster is always spouting left-wing propaganda, rather than pro-government propaganda.
It’s because they hate Boris. Simples.
The idea that a small rise in the mean temperature would increase the frequency of major heatwaves is anti-science. An increase in the frequency of discretely solar driven heatwaves would raise the mean temperature.
“The idea that a small rise in the mean temperature would increase the frequency of major heatwaves is anti-science.”
But that is exactly what people think. They think “climate” causes weather. They don’t get that climate is the accumulated action of weather not the other way round. It’s like we’re constantly—and relentlessly—asked to think crowds cause people.
“They think “climate” causes weather.”
Because they think that weather is chaotic internal variability, and that altering the mean temperature will then alter the chaos. What they don’t get is weather being discretely solar driven, by daily to weekly changes in the solar wind strength driving North Atlantic & Arctic Oscillation anomalies. Translating that into global temperature is complicated though, as ENSO and the AMO change inversely to changes in the solar wind strength. But if we can predict NAO/AO, ENSO, and AMO anomalies, that’s all we need to know for prediction of regional weather and climate, the global mean temperature can’t determine any of it.
“It’s like we’re constantly—and relentlessly—asked to think crowds cause people.”
An excellent metaphor.
“They think “climate” causes weather.”
I could be wrong, but that sounds right to me: climate is the conditions, and weather the outcome of it. So, in that way, weather gets created by climate. The first conditions as climate parameter i think of would be the phases and modes in oceans oscillations. The weather averaged over 30 years is not the same as climate, but as i understand it can give an indication of what the climate has been for that period. Of course, the (warming) weather over a period of 30 years can set a climate itself – not for meteorological purpose but for the grape industry in Great Britain for example.
You can reference to weather events without referencing to climate. You can’t reference to climate without referencing to weather events. Long term weather metrics cause climate, not the reverse.
According to NOAA, Climate is defined as 30 years of weather in a given area. The weather over time IS the climate. Reversing this idea is nonsense. Climate change is weather change, period.
Exactly right, Doonman.
Definitely wrong, climate is the sum of weather over time. Climate cannot be creating those solar driven major heatwaves, and the atmospheric teleconnections will be influencing the ocean modes not the other way round. Positive NAO/AO conditions driving the heatwave would cool ENSO and the AMO.
It lies, damn lies and statistics.
If you define a heat wave as a number of consecutive temperatures above some threshold, then you can get a 50% increase in heatwaves when you get the weather patterns that always happened and just as often, but half a degree warmer than in the 70s. Three days of 39.8°C then, and not a heatwave, might be 40.3°C now and a stinker. They can then pretend that the weather would have been a balmy 30 if you hadn’t bought a puppy.
That could slightly increase the duration of heatwaves above a given threshold, but could not increase their frequency.
This game was over for me by the 1990s, when it became clear that anything would be used as “evidence” of CAGW, and the question should have immediately turned to: What -isn’t- evidence of climate change?
In 1988, under La Niña conditions, severe drought and heat hit the middle of the US. James Hansen said, it’s an obvious sign of global warming.
Five years later, in 1993, opposite pattern: dramatic flooding, cooler temperatures (although maybe Pinatubo contributed to that). James Hansen from Iowa apparently forgot that Midwestern floodplains are called “floodplains” for a reason. Again, climate change is blamed.
In the early 1990s, a spate of mild winters lead the magazine “Weatherwise” to ask, “Where have all the winters gone?”. Then 1996 happened. Again, Hansen had the ready made excuse in the bullpen: warmer air means more moisture for snowfall and bigger blizzards! (John Kerry would also use this line a few years later) No one bothered asking how warm it should theoretically get before it was just plain rain…
Then came the cherry on top, the 1997-98 El Niño. New stories about the record high global temperatures in 1998. I got tired of this garbage before we made it into the 21st century…
Their comraids in OZ, the taxpayer funded ABC are just as bad. Every day we get a climate change weather event from somewhere in the world. Not as much as usual as they are running an election campaign for the left wing Labor Party.
MY advice regarding the BBC remains unchanged.
Do not listen or watch anything the BBC broadcasts. They declared themselves unscientific when they said man made Climate Change was settled science.
They went further and declared themselves anti democratic too, when they said they would refuse to have anyone on their broadcasts who did not accept their settled science position regarding man made climate change.
Just to round out their insignificance and their partisan position. They allowed their chief climate change voice over presenter David Attenborough, ( a none scientist) to claim walrus being herded over a cliff by Polar bears was due to man made climate change.
At that point, the BBC became an expensive national embarrassment and irrelevant to the debate.
If you avoid their propaganda, your blood pressure will benefit, it worked for me.
As an unbeliever in “consensus science” I really don’t care that:
“it is widely accepted that a warmer world is also a wetter one”
Garbage from the very outset..
Quote:”As a consequence, average temperatures have risen by 1.1C.This additional energy…blah blah blah
Sorry peeps and this goes the The Very Heart of this Junk Science;
…..Temperature Is Not Energy…..
Worse to come and our very own oracle Willis pointed out just yesterday..
Basically Willis pointed out that, contrary to what ‘Trapped Heat and the GHGE says, energy always flows down a thermal gradient and works that warm places try to ‘fill in’ cold places and so neither warm places or cold places stay that way for long ##
Via the process of Convection (NOT Radiation) – sometimes referred to as ‘Weather’ and not Climate.
So this statement:
Quote:is unevenly distributed and bursts out in extremes
…falls flat on its face also, not least as this is supposed to be “Global Warming Changing Change Weirding Whatevering Whateva…
## As was pointed out by Willis.
If someone somewhere makes a desert (a place of high temp and low energy), what high temp energy there is there will disperse, latitudinally, longitudinally and vertically.
Exactly the phenomenon of El Nino = bubbles of warm water/air erupt from the ocean and have a global effect.
Exactly what the Romans, Minoans and many others did by chopping their forest at latitudes where Earth absorbs more solar energy than it radiates,
But also the Little Ice Age = effectively a La Nina event – triggered by de-forestation of North West Europe = a place where Earth loses more energy than it gets from the sun.
The disappearance of all the stored water from under those forests left the area with no thermal inertia, it got colder in winter and warmer in summer.
On rare occasions (blocking highs), energy could not flow into the void – the rivers froze and people painted pictures of the unusual event. If it wasn’t ‘unusual’, they wouldn’t have bothered would they?
And due to the joys of weather/convection and NOT climate/radiation, The Whole World felt the chill as energy poured in from all around to try fill the void created by the warmongering Henry. The Little Ice Age went global just as El Nino does and also La Nina.
That’s is the message to get across:
i.e. Water in the ground controls weather and not Carbon Dioxide in the sky
Ha ha ha! The EPA “bell curve” illustration only illustrates how ignorant they are. This gem:
A small shift in the centre means more of the curve touches the extremes
Extremely violent weather is caused by large temperature differences. The larger the temperature difference between air masses and the more moisture, the more violent the weather. If the planet uniformly warms by 1.1° C it doesn’t change the temperature difference between cool and warm air masses, it raises them both and the temperature difference remains the same. Simply adding heat to the planet has zero impact on extreme weather. Venus is the hottest planet in our solar system but its slow rotation, thick atmosphere of CO2, and small axial tilt causes the temperature to be much more uniform than Earth with little seasonal variation, so it doesn’t have the violent storms we do. Look at any map of pressure and temperature and you’ll see that violent weather occurs where there is a rapid change in one or the other or both.
Climate change causes more drought and more rain.
Is there anything it can’t do?
Other than make sense, that is.
Lies, damned lies, and BBC.
We know they are lying.
They know they are lying.
They know that we know they are lying.
We know that they know that we know they are lying… and still they continue to lie.
“… and still they continue to lie.”
Because the truth matters less than who controls the narrative.
“This additional energy is unevenly distributed and bursts out in extremes like those we’ve been seeing.”
What? So the “old energy” was evenly distributed, and no extremes ever happened, ever.
That statement contradicts their “evenly distributed atmospheric CO2” where CO2 provides the additional energy.
It’s not just the BBC anymore, Sky news UK now has The Daily Climate Show that, quote, “looks at the stories that are impacting our changing climate”. Sounds like they have got the cart before the horse with that description, but I guess that makes logical sense in a way.
If we sprayed what BBC puts in their reports onto farms we would all enjoy bumper crops.
It is quite easy to test the idea that a warmer average temperature at a place will add onto the heat of a heatwave. You simply collect the historic temperature data for the place, pick out the heatwaves over the years and examine if the heatwaves are indeed getting hotter.
You all should do this for your own localities to satisfy yourselves. It takes a couple of hours for the average muddler like me to do a location. Needs just a computer and a spreadsheet program like Excel.
First, define a heatwave. I use a range, based in how many consecutive days were abnormally hot. I use 1-day, 3-day, 5-day and 10-day lengths to try to cover the field. Then you import the daily maximum temperature data with its date for the many years you are examining. (I’ll use 3-day here for a demo). You have a column with dates, oldest to newest. You have a column with Tmax. Copy the Tmax into 2 more columns alongside, then lift them up in one column by one cell then two in the next column on the spreadsheet, so on any line you have zero shift, one day later, two days later. You select these 3 adjacent values at the top, and use the “Average” facility in the toolbar. You take this highlighted averaged cell, click and draw down on the little square at bottom right of the selection box and drag all the way down to the bottom. Thus, you have all of the daily numbers for 3-day heatwaves. Recopy date and these 3-day averages to a blank space and use the Custom Sort facility. Highlight both date and average columns, top to bottom, then sort by the average temperature column to give highest to lowest. Next, select the whole data set and hit “Delete Duplicates” on the toolbar, so you are left with the hottest 3-day each year. Sort again, this time by date from smallest to largest to get what you wanted, a chronologic listing of 3-day heatwaves from oldest times to latest. Graph them, if you like.
Now, I have done this for the 6 State capital cities of Australia. They have some of the longest records, back to the 1860s for some; they together have about 70% of Australia’s population and they are where social response to heatwaves, like planning future hospital needs, will be concentrated. So, you cannot label this as cherry picking. Optionally, I have also calculated raw Tmax numbers and the BOM adjusted ACORN-SAT numbers (that mostly commence at a BOM cutoff of year 1910). To make it easier to understand by viewing, I have also made graphs of the Top 40 hottest heatwaves each year, as well as the full record length.
So, that is 6 cities X 2 datasets, one adjusted X 4 daylengths of heatwaves X 2 displays, Top 40 and all. That gives 96 graphs that can be seen here.
Why 96, when only one will do? Because it lets nitpicking trolls discover there is no point in looking for data gaps to criticise.
On any graph of your choice, you can estimate the warming of the hottest annual heatwaves over the years. Compare it to the average warming of ordinary daily data. The Australian official line at the moment seems to be that 1.44 deg C of ordinary warming has happened since 1910. (My colleagues and I say we can find 0.5 C at most). Look at your chosen graph of heatwaves to see if it has warmed at the official rate for the chosen place. Q.E.D.
The 96 graphs here have such a mix of outcomes that it is hard to draw any conclusions. Some heatwaves are getting hotter with time, some are cooling. Some have times when it cooled then warmed then cooled. It is all so inconclusive.
It is simply irresponsible, certainly not good science, to make armwaving claims about heatwaves getting hotter if you cannot derive this from the data. Black mark, BBC.
But, to challenge this BBC waffle, citizen scientists, calculate you own data and for good effect, publicise it on sites like WUWT.
Importantly, heatwaves in cities like Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney start in central Australia, 1,500 km (1,000 miles) away, and get blown in under prevailing weather. So the historic temperature records in those cities are largely irrelevant for heatwave forecasting work. See also that the hottest heatwaves here are in Melbourne, then Sydney, then Brisbane, which is highly counterintuitive because in that order, you are moving closer to the Equator at 600 km a jump. Geoff S
Why is there more heat from the sun as shown in the last panel? I was told the TSI was essentialy constant and only albedo changes or increasing aerosols could affect received solar energy on earth.
Could it be that the clean air laws imposed in industrial nations over the last 60 years reduced albedo and aerosols to let more energy into the system?
From the article: “Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have been trapping heat in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial era. As a consequence, average temperatures have risen by 1.1C.”
That’s old news. Today we are currently about 0.4C cooler than that 1.1C.
More CO2 is going into the air and the temperatures are cooling. How do the alarmists explain this?
You’re correct but I’d like to respond to you epistle as an excuse for my own. It makes me mad, this countinued assertion that is all due to anthropogenic ghg emmision, land use changes, human sourced Maxwell demons, is trapping heat on earth. All heat on earth has always been entirely trapped, period, because. vacuum (read space) has no heat capacity and therefore cannnot transmit heat, as such. Heat energy must convert (allowed) to photonic energy before it can escape earth, Human activities do have and effect on the transparency of the atmosphere to IR photons. Our ghg fetish is just wrong.