By: Marc Morano
Climate Depot Reality Check:
Extreme Weather expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. comments on new study: ‘New empirical study: Are floods increasing in North America and Europe? No (and consistent with IPCC.)’
#
Study published in the Journal of Hydrology, Volume 552, September 2017, Pages 704-717. The study found:
‘The number of significant trends was about the number expected due to chance alone.’
‘Changes in the frequency of major floods are dominated by multidecadal variability.’
‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded (Hartmann et al., 2013) that globally there is no clear and widespread evidence of changes in flood magnitude or frequency in observed flood records.’
‘The results of this study, for North America and Europe, provide a firmer foundation and support the conclusion of the IPCC (Hartmann et al., 2013) that compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.’
#
Journal of Hydrology
Volume 552, September 2017, Pages 704-717
#
Related Links:
2018 US climate assessment: Bjorn Lomborg: The report found: On flooding, the assessment accepts the IPCC’s finding, which “did not attribute changes in flooding to anthropogenic [human] influence nor report detectable changes in flooding magnitude, duration or frequency.”
2017 Study on floods finds ‘approximately the number expected due to chance alone’ – No ‘global warming’ signal – A study published in the Journal of Hydrology found “the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone.”
Via Chapter excerpt of Green Fraud:
Not-So-Extreme Weather Events
In 2017 Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado testified to Congress there was simply “‘no evidence’ that hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes are increasing.”
A 2020 study by Pielke published in the journal Environmental Hazards found that the “evidence signal of human-caused climate change in the form of increased global economic losses from more frequent or more intense weather extremes has not yet been detected.”
On nearly every metric, extreme weather is on either no trend or a declining trend on climate timescales. Even the UN IPCC admitted in a 2018 special report that extreme weather events have not increased. The IPCC’s special report found that “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.” The IPCC report also concluded “low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale.”
Pielke testified to Congress on the current state of weather extremes, “It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.”
Floods
A 2017 study on floods found “approximately the number expected due to chance alone.”
Another 2017 study in the Journal of Hydrology found no increase in global floods: “Compelling evidence for increased flooding at a global scale is lacking.”59
A 2019 study found that the world is the safest from climate-related disasters that it has ever been: “A decreasing trend in both human and economic vulnerability is evident. Global average mortality and loss rates have dropped by 6.5 and nearly 5 times, respectively, from 1980 to 1989 to 2007–2016. Results also show a clear negative relation between vulnerability and wealth.”
Climatologist John Christy has explained why the extreme weather claims are unscientific: “The non-falsifiable hypotheses can be stated this way, ‘whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.’ In other words, there is no event that would ‘falsify’ the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in any way informative since the hypothesis’ fundamental prediction is ‘anything may happen.’ In the example above if winters become milder or they become snowier, the non-falsifiable hypothesis stands. This is not science.”
‘Floods are not increasing’: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. slams ‘global warming’ link to floods & extreme weather – How does media ‘get away with this?’ – Pielke Jr. on how extreme weather is NOT getting worse: ‘Flood disasters are sharply down. U.S. floods not increasing either.’ “Floods suck when they occur. The good news is U.S. flood damage is sharply down over 70 years,” Pielke explained.
Study Finds No Evidence Of Global Warming Increasing Extreme Rainfall
1000 year rainfall study suggests droughts and floods used to be longer, worse
Study: No Difference Between 20th-century Rainfall Patterns and Those in the Pre-Industrial Era
Analysis: Record Rainfalls A Thing Of The Past:Note from Paul Homewood: “The rainfall from Harvey was the greatest from a single storm. However, this was just in one spot, as Harvey was stuck over Houston for a week. Other storms have dumped more rain, but spread over a wider area.” ‘We keep being told by climate alarmists that global warming is responsible for more intensive rainfall, the theory being that a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. Funny then that when we look at rainfall records across the US for all sorts of different timescales, we find none at all since 1981.’
Warmist Blames India Monsoon On ‘Climate Change’ But Annual rainfall trends debunk –India’s monsoon rainfall has been running just above average this year, but within the normal range (regarded as 10% +/-)
Reality Check: Global Cooling Led To More Extremes Of Rainfall – ‘Rainfall actually increased sharply during the period of global cooling in the 1960s and 70s’
Scientist: ‘There Is No Such Thing As A 1000-Year Flood’ – Climate Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs: Phrases like “100 year rainfalls” or floods or whatever for whatever period of time are awful. They convey an improper idea of uncertainty. The phrase “X year event” is based on inverting the probability of the event; call that probability p. Thus “X year event” is equal to “1/p year event”, where p is the probability the event happens per year. That means a “100 year event” has a probability of 1%, and so on. A “1000 year event” sounds stupendous, and, to most ears, rarer than a 0.1% chance. Anyway, these are all wrong…It’s perfectly correct to make the statements like this: “The last time a flood this size occurred was in 1945.” That statement is not, however, equivalent to (in 2015) “That was a 70 year flood.”
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: South Carolina Flooding is NOT a 1 in 1,000 Year Event – But a once on 1,000 year event? Sorry, but there is no way to determine that…there are simply not enough rainfall statistics over a long enough period of time to establish such a claim…Unfortunately, there seems to be an trend toward classifying events as “1 in 1,000 years”, when there is no way of knowing such things…For some areas the current flood is no doubt a 1 in 100 year event, or even worse. But remember, it is perfectly normal to have a 1 in 100 year event every year…as long as they occur in different locations. That’s how weather records work.
Meteorologist Topper Shutt – WUSA 9 TV: ‘A 500 year flood does not mean that an area will see a flood of that magnitude once in 500 years. It means that in any given year there is a .2% chance of a 500 year flood and likewise a 1% chance every year for a 100 year flood. Think of it like this. If I flip a coin and it lands heads 5 times in a row the 6th time I flip the coin the odds are still 50/50. The odds are always 50/50. There have been ‘100 year’ floods in Houston in 1929, 1935, Allison in 2001 and Ike in 2008. Folks are probably scratching their heads wondering what in the world is going on. There are several explanations. Firstly, the maps drawn to depict these floods were educated guesses. Remember, we are talking about billions of years of climate and usually just a hundred years of actual, observational data. Secondly, urban development reduces the surface of the ground that allows the rain to permeate into the ground. Adding parking lots, more roads and driveways create more runoff. Thirdly, at least in the case of Houston 1000s of homes have been built close to streams, creeks and bayous that should have never been built in the first place. Houston is the fourth largest city in the U.S.’
Climate Depot Note: The media and climate activists love to hype so-called 1 in 100/1000 year extreme weather events. What they do not not explain is that your chance of the winning the lottery is very low, but the chance of someone, somewhere winning the lottery are very high. So the activists essentially hype “lottery winners” of extreme weather events and try to imply these events are increasing and happening everywhere. Lottery and casino ads do the same by showing all the winners and implying you are just one ticket or spin away from joining the lucky winners. Climate activists are trying to scare the public into believing that they are one bad weather event away from doom and only EPA and the UN Paris climate pact can save them!
Feds declare no climate link to floods in 2015 – South Carolina’s ‘1000 year flood’ only a 10 year flood! U.S. Geological Survey: ‘No linkage between flooding & increase in GHGs’ – Dr. Robert Holmes, USGS National Flood Hazard Coordinator: ‘The data shows no systematic increases in flooding through time’ – ‘USGS research has shown no linkage between flooding (either increases or decreases) and the increase in greenhouse gases. Essentially, from USGS long-term streamgage data for sites across the country with no regulation or other changes to the watershed that could influence the streamflow, the data shows no systematic increases in flooding through time.’ 1000 year flood? ‘The majority of USGS streamgages had flood peaks that were less than 10-year floods.’ – ‘Analysis show NO indication that a 1000-year flood discharge occurred at any USGS streamgages’
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. slams NOAA study as ‘manipulation of science for political reasons.’ ‘NOAA should be embarrassed.’
Pielke Sr.: ‘From under reviewed paper to NOAA PR to USA Today. A dismaying example of manipulation of science for political reasons.’
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano on new NOAA study: “No matter how hard federally funded climate activist scientists at NOAA try to bend and twist models and data to make it appear the invisible hand of ‘global warming’ has a role in almost every weather event, the facts refute their claims.”
Reality Check: The ‘1000 year Colorado flood’ is actually a 25-50 year flood
Pielke Jr. On ‘unsupportable quotes’ from Mann, Francis & Masters: ‘Of course, there are scientists willing to go beyond what can be supported empirically to make claims at odds with the overwhelming scientific consensus on this subject — e.g., [Michael] Mann, [Jennifer] Francis, [Jeff] Masters are always good for inscrutable and unsupportable quotes.’
STUDY: Covid lockdown’s rapid emissions drop linked to record rainfall in China – ‘Scientists say’ drop in emissions & aerosols ’caused atmospheric changes’– Study in journal, Nature Communications: “The chain of events that connects the pandemic shutdown to the floods is quite complex. There was heating over land due to aerosol reductions but also cooling over the ocean due to a decrease in greenhouse gases, which intensified the land/sea temperature difference in the summer,” explained lead author Prof Yang Yang from Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, in China. “This in turn, increased sea level pressure over the South China/Philippines sea and intensified the winds bringing moist air to eastern China which then saw intense precipitation.”
“Because emissions were reduced dramatically in early 2020 when the Covid-19 pandemic emerged, it caused an immediate and abrupt change in various components of the climate system.” “Such sudden change of the climate system would be very different from changes in response to continuous but gradual policy-driven emissions reductions.”
Hourly Extreme Rainfall Claims Not Supported By Data
Warmist Blames India Monsoon On ‘Climate Change’ But Annual rainfall trends debunk– India’s monsoon rainfall has been running just above average this year, but within the normal range (regarded as 10% +/-)
Claim: Climate change made Harvey rainfall 15 percent more intense
Analysis: Record Rainfalls A Thing Of The Past– Note from Paul Homewood: “The rainfall from Harvey was the greatest from a single storm. However, this was just in one spot, as Harvey was stuck over Houston for a week. Other storms have dumped more rain, but spread over a wider area.”
‘We keep being told by climate alarmists that global warming is responsible for more intensive rainfall, the theory being that a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. Funny then that when we look at rainfall records across the US for all sorts of different timescales, we find none at all since 1981.’
“Take particular note of the four records in Texas:
- Galveston 1871 – 3.95” in 15 minutes
- Woodward Ranch 1935 – 15.0” in 2 hours
- Thrall 1921 – 36.4” in 18 hours
- Alvin 1979 – 43” in 24 hours
Storm Harvey never got anywhere near these sort of totals. And we find a very similar picture when we review global records, with the most recent record being as long ago as 1980.”
The Atlantic Mag: Warmist Kevin Trenberth claim: ‘The human contribution can be up to 30 percent or so up to the total rainfall coming out of the storm.’
Media claim: ‘Harvey is unprecedented—just the kind of weird weather that scientists expect to see more of as the planet warms’
New Study Finds No Evidence Of Global Warming Increasing Extreme Rainfall
The Thousand Year Rainfall Fallacy: ‘Conflating odds of one individual station getting a 20 inch rain, with odds of any station getting a 20 inch rain.’– ‘Your odds of winning the lottery are very small, but the odds of someone winning the lottery are quite high. What these geniuses are doing is conflating the odds of one individual station getting a 20 inch rain, with the odds of any station getting a 20 inch rain.’
Reality Check on Salon Mag.: “Extreme Rainfall Records In The States” Most are pre-1950, none since 1996:
No new records have been set since 1996 and most are pre-1950. Not much sign of global warming having any effect there.
Industrial pollution has allegedly ‘held back’ rainfall increases
Settled science: New paper challenges climate science consensus on winds & rainfall — Published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics– Study ‘finds that condensation and evaporation merit attention as major, if previously overlooked, factors in driving atmospheric dynamics, including winds and rainfall. ‘This paper is really trying to bring the physics to formal attention of the climate scientists,” according to co-author Douglas Sheil. “We are asking them to disprove this theory and so far no one has been able to do that’
NOAA Establishes That CO2 & Hot Climates Do Not Cause Extreme Rainfall Events
‘A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds that sunspot numbers and the assumption of natural climate cycles ‘accurately reproduces’ the patterns of rainfall in Fortaleza, Brasil ‘over the entire 160 years of observations.’
‘AGW theory proposes that increased CO2 levels lead to increased water vapor in atmosphere (despite empirical data which shows the opposite). A paper published in Nature Climate Change February 2012 studied rainfall over Indian subcontinent 1813-2006 & finds rainfall has decreased since 1930s as CO2 emissions markedly increased. The data instead shows a natural, cyclical variability in mean annual rainfall that peaked in 1870s and 1930s with absolutely no correlation to levels of CO2’
Why climate change is causing upset stomachs in Europe: ‘Scientists are now suggesting that greater quantities of rainfall and bigger storms could be responsible for more unsettled stomachs in parts of Europe’– ‘Sweden, Spain, Hungary, Greece and Brazil. These countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change, being susceptible to heavy rainfall. Tests included analysing exposure levels to estimate the risk of disease associated with climate changes such as heavy rainfall’
Ignoring history, or falsifying history, is rampant.
In the modern woke world, everyone is entitled to their own reality.
Who are you to say that in their reality, there were never any floods until the evil gas was released into the atmosphere?
Woke history began with Trump.
woke history begins where ever is most convenient for the position being taken today.
Brandon needs to be moved to a retirement home.
WTF are you talking about? He’s already in one!
another ‘1 in 1,000 year’ rain event – well off the scale of previous Kentucky floods.
Of course this is climate change.
We are getting multiple new record 1 in 1,000 year floods across the globe every year now…
Have you read the above? If so, your comprehension skills could do with a great deal of work.
Another “4 in 1000 years” event: the election of a senile dementia suffering president…
(Beware, Americans, of the year 2268!)
So maybe floods should be re-termed –
1-every-year-floods
?
You can get them anywhere every year, many times a year around the world.
It isn’t climate change until it starts happening in the same place year after year
It isn’t usually climate change at all Pat.
Natural and engineered changes to run-off geographies and river courses over time are undoubtedly responsible for most of the “unprecedented” flooding seen all around the world these past couple of decades.
Building approvals for ancient flood plains areas are a give-away that someone in local government planning thought –
“Hmm, imagine all the extra property taxes we could levy if we had another 500 houses on this piece of dirt.
And we can thrown in a public park right on the river bank.
This site hasn’t flooded since records began here, way back in oh,1880 or so”
Wait griffy: Weren’t you just caterwauling about droughts last week?
Yeah, but they were wet droughts.
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the estimates of “what is a 1000 year event” are just plain wrong?
Serious people realize there is no force in nature called “climate change.” It doesn’t cause things to happen. Climate change is a RESULT of a long-term change in weather, usually recorded over a period of 30 years.
“Climate change” can’t cause hurricanes to increase, in frequency or power. It can’t cause droughts or floods. It can’t cause blizzards or dust storms — that’s putting the cart before the horse. If hurricanes measurably increased in frequency and power, if droughts and floods became more prevalent in the record, if blizzards became so prevalent that snow stayed in places for years, never melting away. of if dust storms because so huge they buried the Pyramids and the Sphinx (Ozymandias, anyone?) — then you might say the climate is changing.
But there’s no force to cause it, because “Climate change” doesn’t exist except as the sum of many weather events over decades.
Of course. The Earth has changing weather and the climate is average weather over time in a given area.
To say that climate causes weather is idiocy. It violates the fundamental premise of cause and effect.
Such is the state of thinking and reason in the world today.
No, the climate in Kentucky is the same as it was in 1940 it is your cultish idiocy that makes you say such nonsense.
Meanwhile from the post you didn’t read:
The IPCC and many published studies show NO increase in major floods which means you have nothing as usual, why continue to promote lies that will destroy your credibility as a climate cultist?
Desist pest, you are an affront to the cause of humanity.
If you didn’t have sh!t for brains you would have no brains at all.
Read the article, not that I expect you to understand it, my earlier sentence prevails.
Take your pick which one.
Griff, mate
“1 in 1000 year” doesn’t mean a rain event that happens on 4th April every 1000 years. It means a one-in-a-thousand-year rain event would have a 0.1% chance (1 divided by 1,000) of occurring in any given year
Educate yourself, Griff
griff actually believes that the world is only permitted 1 once in a thousand year event every 1000 years.
What he refuses to understand is that this statistic is only relevant to the place being measured. If you are measuring 1000 distinct places, there is a good chance that one of them will experience a 1 in a 1000 year event, every year.
There are millions of distinct places being measured around the world.
He doesn’t refuse to understand it, he’s incapable of understanding it.
With millions of places in the world, one would expect thousands of once in a thousand year events somewhere in the world, every year.
Only someone with absolutely no clue in how reality works would be surprised at this.
I seem to recall a thousand different occasions you have explained this to griff.
At least I didn’t start out by saying “as always”, though I could have.
1937 when CO² was at 310ppm Kentucky still had big floods. Water, and lot’s of it has been sculpting and fertilizing this part of the world for millions of years.
Their climate is not changing.
Speaking of 1937 …
https://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=ILN&gage=ccno1
Note the historic high crest.
Also explore the upstream and downstream gauges.
Yes, difficult to suggest things are getting worse when clearly statistically they’re not.
Going forward, I think we should all promise to just ignore Griff. It will save a lot of time. I’ve decided to never reply to him in future.
NB Note that I didn’t ask the mods to ban him. He should be free to type as much guff as he wants. Griff should note that at sceptic sites such as WUWT people are free to comment as they wish. Sceptics aren’t censorious despots like they are over at sites such as SkS and The Conversation.
Yes don’t ban him.
But maybe instead of relying with comments that correct Griff’s arrant nonsense, we just post up this introduction to “Bullshit Man” –
https://youtu.be/XC21-NJ7cdw
I used to think the same, but then I considered that perhaps a first-time visitor might believe his posts if nobody countered them. Better, then, to refute his garbage and link to evidence that exposes his
grauniad
reader’s
initiative
for
fearmongering
for the lies that it is.
I’ve proposed setting up a rotation, instead of everybody dumping on griff, every day a different two or three posters are assigned to griff refuting duty.
The 24-hour record rainfall in Kentucky is 10.48 inches in Louisville in 1997.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/08/09/were-kentuckys-floods-caused-by-climate-change/
So on which planet can “8 to 10 inches” be a 1000 year event?
Yes, but rain is 6% wetter now.
Griff, how long is your record?
That is because as per Griff claims ™ they are drier floods except when they are wetter floods.
giffie provides proof, again, that it doesn’t read the articles or comments posted here.
Typical giffie frantic whines that there is eternal drought or extreme flooding and it is all caused by carbon or CO₂.
Because giffie considers a couple of dry days/years as definitive proof that CO₂ causes severe drought.
Or, that when a little rain falls and it gets wet, it is proof of carbon caused cataclysmic floods.
Yawn!
Man’s recorded history proves giffie’s whines false. Modern rainfall events are proven to be transient relatively mild occurrences.
The article above is rife with evidence that rainfall is unchanged over man’s historical record.
Illegitimate pseudo-president Joe Biden lied? Must be a day ending in -day.
Joey lives in Joey World….where Joey believes he is intelligent…..is fooling most of the people most of the time…and lying is preferred to the truth.
Kentucky Senator Dr. Paul Ryan says that the EPA did not allow rivers to be dredged.
That was the cause of recent floods in England that griff is still trying to use as evidence.
Beyond that you also have to examine land use changes in the watershed for those rivers.
In Australia recent floods happened when managers refused to permit up river dams to be drained prior to heavy rain events because they were convinced by the alarmists that floods were a thing of the past and that permanent drought was their new reality.
Yes, and with no accountability, penalties or recriminations for their denial of historical evidence of the probabilities of natural ‘outlier’ weather / rainfall events in any future years.
Every year in the UK Local Authorities give planning permission for new housing estates on flood plains across the country, even when the Environment Agency opposes them.
Mind you the Environment Agency have their own problems and their name is often a misnomer
” Biden falsely links Kentucky floods to ‘climate change’ – ignores peer-reviewed studies & IPCC & data ”
Understandable.
Senility.
Joe Biden isn’t senile or demented. Never fall into the trap the narrative spins, even the opposition.
Joe’s always been as dumb as a box of rocks.
You mean that it was a very precocious onset of dementia?
He’s an old man. I hope when/if I’m his age I can give a speech, no matter how bad.
Brand him as demented and you give him an out for all his crimes. When it comes to him facing a court of law his lawyers will just say “the republicans were right, poor ole’ Joe is demented, we just didn’t see it” and he’s off the hook.
I really wish people could anticipate putting one foot in front of the other instead of just expecting it to happen.
His missus is a piece of work for going along with the elder abuse by the Democrats who tapped old Joe because they couldn’t agree any other “consensus” candidates for 2020 POTUS.
Smart? Seems to a a problem in the US for their leaders…
Both Biden and Harris declared during the campaign that they would never trust a vaccine developed under the Trump administration.
That was of course before they started taking credit for the vaccine that was developed under the Trump administration.
BTW, weren’t you saying a few weeks ago that Trump would be in jail by now?
MarkW (Make it up Mark), is there an honest bone in your body? This old bullshite selectively edited misinformation clip
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/23/tiktok-posts/biden-harris-doubted-trump-covid-19-vaccines-not-v/
Re Trump in jail…. I don’t recall giving a time…. but it is getting closer by the day. Can’t wait for the release of the docs that show why they raided his property. My guess is he stole offical docs which would be a crime.
IF he is ever arrested for anything, it won’t happen until it can be used to discredit his running in 2024. The raid on his property is just another rung on the ladder in this attempt. The Dems are really $hi77ing themselves as Biden proves himself to be a useless idiot incapable of being re-elected and Harris is a Literal Laughing Loon. Neither are electable to the second term and Dems know this…so…they need to discredit Trump or he WILL be re-elected for a split term.
The only election Trump is going to win from here is for laundry boy at the state jail.
You’re delusional, but that’s nothing new.
As always, Simon rejects anything that doesn’t fit into his narrow ideological world as being just a lie.
It’s easier than thinking for yourself.
As always Mark resorts to “as always” when he has no argument….
That’s funny, coming from Simon who never has any arguments.
And by the way Mark. What the hell is in that search warrant? And will Trump allow it to be released? If not there is some serious stuff happening here.
They were looking for papers containing Potential Nuclear Secrets (but won’t find any that don’t get planted). Not sure why though, the Biden Family and Presidency has already sold out the U.S. to China and Russia
So you believe if they find something, it will have been planted? And you believe this because?
For one thing, there was the FBI’s effort to push the obviously false Russia documents.
Democrat lawyers’ testimony has proven that the FBI and CIA knew the “Russia collusion” documents were ginned up for H. Clinton’s campaign smears.
Hillary stole top security documents, gifts from other countries, silverware and she illegally destroyed 30,000 top security emails.
If Hillary had been properly investigated by an honest DOJ employee, instead of protected by corrupt agents, she’d still be in jail for her first offenses.
And the “Uranium One” deal would never have happened.
The FBI also refused to look into any of the charges against Joe and Hunter Biden. Even when others brought them proof.
“They” are the Democrat Machine and are vastly afraid of not only losing the next POTUS election but losing it to President Trump. So they NEED to discredit him by any means necessary
It was a search warrant for classified documents. As president, he’s allowed to handle them.
As for mishandling classified documents, when is Hillary going to be indicted for her illegal use of a private e-mail server while Secretary of State.
“It was a search warrant for classified documents. As president, he’s allowed to handle them.”
Ummm duh…. He’s no longer the president. Did I really need to remind you of that?
He is still referred to as President Trump.
As is President Barack Obama
And President Bill Clinton
And President George W Bush
And President Jimmy Carter
Once President, always titled so and to a certain point Entitled
But he is not “the” president. You know the one who gets to see and be involved with highly restricted documents. And even then he would have no grounds to take copies to his home. Makes Clintons email server issue look somewhat trivial don’t you think? Especially when Trump used to bleat so much about it and how corrupt it was. Funny old world.
Just think about this for a moment Simon.
During their terms, Presidents get to see, read and be briefed on all the top secret classified materials. They are the sworn custodians of such secrets for life thereafter. They will carry these details in their heads to their graves.
Further, all these documents aren’t hand-written – they’re produced on secure computers, and digital files retained on secure servers accordingly.
Sooo, what would be the most sensitive aspect of post-office security risk about an ex-president’s knowledge –
being captured to be tortured to reveal all the info he has retained in his head by virtue of intimate examination & discussion with security-cleared officials of such info;
or
leaking of stored digital files from servers;
or
having some papers in his possession that allude to everything that is in his head, and also stored on digital files in the Pentagon or somewhere.
?
I mean, it’s not as if should an ex-president lose or destroy a paper copy of a document, that document is lost altogether to the government. They’d just print another copy from the stored digital file on the server if they needed it.
I think you might be missing the point…. It is not whether or not the information might be lost, it’s that it might find it’s way into the wrong hands. And there is no way in hell Trump(or anyone) could keep all this info in his head.
So the risk of fugitive secrets is uncontained?
What then do we make of H. Clinton’s unvetted personal assistants seeing State Dept communications as they fetched them / forwarded them off H’s unvetted private server in her house basement?
That situation and the pathetic attempt by H. to hide / destroy the dishonesty only warranted an “unwise” finding by the FBI.
And you think that H’s mishandling of state secrets was on the up & up, but Trump’s hoped-for mishandling of state secrets warrants jail time?
C’mom man (to quote Joe Biden).
You don’t understand, in Simon’s world good and evil are determined solely by whether a person supports taking money from those who work, and giving it to people like Simon.
Not relevant.
Poor poor Simon, his hatred of all things non-communist has caused him to be unable to see anything that doesn’t fit into his narrow ideology.
Understandable.
Democrat.
Do a Google search on: “The Flood of 1900”, “The Flood of 1901”, “The Flood of 1902”, “The Flood of 1903”, “The Flood of 1904” and so on, all the way to “The Flood of 2022” and you will get hits for every year.
On edit, Wikipedia has a page on Floods in the United States (1900–1999)
And they don’t mention the Galveston hurricane & flood of 1900 and it’s not because the decade doesn’t start until 1901 because they entered:
7 Decade of the 1960s
7.1 Michigan flood – April/May 1960
The evidence is everywhere and massively abundant that this administration and the progressive, socialist wing-nuts who support them don’t care about facts. Their entire agenda is based on what they want people to believe, not what is true. This is why it will all come crashing down. If you build your house on myths and dreams it will crumble when the truth rides into town.
“The evidence is everywhere and massively abundant that this administration and the progressive, socialist wing-nuts who support them don’t care about facts.”
And Trump was all for facts right? Sharpie on the weather map would say otherwise…
Trump has been right more often then you have been. By several orders of magnitude.
Disagreeing with a socialist is not the definition of wrong.
You seem to be deluded. Trump was often accused of being wrong but in most cases proven eventually to be right. You may not like that but doesn’t change the evidence. You are providing evidence in support of the claims that progressive want facts to be different than they are.
“Trump was often accused of being wrong but in most cases proven eventually to be right.”
Really? BS. Here’s just a few times he has been wrong or lying.
He was wrong when he said covid would be gone by Easter. He was wrong when he said Biden wouldn’t beat him. He was wrong (lied) when he said it didn’t rain on his inauguration. He was wrong when he said Alabama was under threat from the hurricane (but nothing a sharpie couldn’t fix). He was wrong (lied) when he said he didn’t pay Stormy (mushroom head) Daniels. He was wrong (lied) when he said he was named Michigan’s “man of the year.” And then the big one. He said he won the 2020 election. He didn’t. He made it all up. He is the pure definition of a pathological lier. Get the picture…
Your turn. When was he proved right after being accused of being wrong?
Yep and Bill Clinton lied when he said “I did not have sex with that woman”
50 bucks if you can name a President since 1866 that hasn’t lied on numerous occasions while in office
So the score is. Trump 24567453 lies… other presidents 24. Seems fair.
Speaking of being utterly delusional, here comes make it up Simon.
Haha that is rich coming from you. But ok what did I make up here?
If you can’t see it, you are the only one.
Sorry Simon but Clinton’s nose is far longer
Just saying it doesn’t make it so…. sadly for you.
Ditto
Saying so doesn’t make it so…Sadly for.You
Just saying so doesn’t make it so…sadly for You
I would not say that Trump consciously said things that were not true, but he was misinformed and ill served by the beltway insiders he kept as advisors. But Trump had a history of eventually being right about a lot of things.
Reports said that parts of Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia got up to 10.5 in. of rain over a 48-hour period. That works out to about two-tenths of an inch per hour. Hardly unprecedented.
Everyone seems to have forgotten Hurricane Agnes back in 1972. I was 16 at the time and lived two blocks from the Ohio River at Wheeling, WV, and remember sitting on an embankment that was normally about 40 feet about normal stage and looking at the water just a few feet below me.
We’ve got the same blight over here in the UK – every single episode of bad weather is now routinely attributed to man-made global warming in the MSM. People are being brainwashed on an industrial scale. }:o(
I thought the UK ended last week for the 33rd time. It’s something to think about before making travel plans. Not sure why it’s still listed by airlines.
The nice thing about we Brits is, we have a peculiar attraction to savings. When government raids them to fund its failed policies, we get quietly resentful.
It’s not obvious, it’s not flag waving or jingoistic, it’s quietly malevolent.
If Liz Truss is to reverse the national vandalism of Cameron, May and Johnson she will have to do something substantial. And let’s face it, if Sunak were concerned at all about the UK he would withdraw from the ridiculous farce to appoint a new PM and let Truss get on with the job he was complicit in failing to do.
If Truss pulls the trigger on fracking right now, whilst legislating that, for the next 5 years Cuadrilla supplies the country on an exclusive basis at, say, cost plus 10% (pick a figure financial guru’s) whilst licensing them, and their competition, to exploit reserves thereafter at international rates, the country might drag itself out this mess much faster than many others.
Let’s call that what it is, nationalism light, or government price control, but for a moment in time until the country is back on its feet.
It’s a business deal. Cuadrilla get’s to frack gas and secure its future and profits and the British public get cheap gas. Meanwhile, the government pays to keep fuel prices down to an affordable level (like only 18 months ago) until our domestic gas production is flowing.
By all means, pay for it by a small, open and honest government tax on future domestic gas provision until the ‘debt’ is paid off. There is, at the very least, 50 years of shale gas in middle England. That’s going to be pennies on the average energy bill.
That tax could be represented on energy bills as “Taxing you to pay for government energy incompetence” with a countdown to the date we finally pay off the debt successive governments imposed on the public with ludicrous energy policies.
If the UK government does not do something before this winter, tens of thousands of people will die from starvation and/or hypothermia. It will of course be blamed on covid, but we all know the truth.
You might catch covid, you might not, but the country stood still for two years.
We will all catch fuel poverty, 100% guaranteed, every single one of us. Sure, the wealthy will ride it out, but two thirds of the country will suffer unimaginably badly.
“..two thirds of the country will suffer unimaginably badly.”
I’m starting to think this has been the intention all along..
Pilotless Drone…..In Chief
The Pilot(s) are behind the scenes.
Had a little wander around the Wunderground stations in that part of the world – interesting sort of weather innit?
I’m seeing a prevailing wind from the SSE – would that make it ‘Florida’ where the weather comes from
Looking at the weekly temps, a max to min variation through July of between 15°C up to 35°C – quite a big range = there ain’t as lot of moisture in the ground so, from my schooling of 50 yrs ago and if pushed for an answer:
Closer to Desert than Temperate or Maritime
And the rainfall, across numerous stations across the last couple of years is no different one year to the next.
The rain comes in intense bursts of 24 to 36 max hours duration, interspersed by anything up to 10 days between ‘storms’
Temperature drops considerably while its raining but recovers the following day.
These are just ‘Weather Grenades’, lobbed out of the Gulf.
For proof, go visit the lightning maps dot org right now to see the thunderstorm activity over Florida – so what hits Kentucky are old Floridian T-storms swept north by the prevailing wind.
Whether, in Kentucky, you get hit or not is purely Luck-of-the-Draw
So it is with the rules/laws/whatever of Chance or Lotteries – someone has to win.
And you stand a better chance of winning by buying a ticket and in this case, living near a city is Just The Ticket.
The UHI will be creating an epic updraught at this time of year and those remnant storms from the gulf will be sucked into that draught.
And that sets of the Weather Grenade.
Not that its guaranteed to make any more actual rain, its what the rain lands upon that defines ‘Flood’ or ‘No Flood’ so back to where we came in: a Desert Landscape defined by large diurnal temperature swing.
Cities are deserts
The floods were caused by inadequate infrastructure (maintenance of same) of the very places that are magnetic to heavy rainstorms.
And The Bureaucracy that should have planned, built and properly maintained that infrastructure is The Loudest Voice blaming everybody else via Climate Change
pathetic
Not to worry, Kentucky is getting a battery plant. That will fix it. /sarc
If it’s bad, CO2 caused it. Actual data is not needed nor appreciated.
Actual data is catching up rapidly and will bite them on the arse badly.
The IPCC is nowhere near hardline enough. This is largely why it’s ignored between COPs The next one in Egypt may be more about the political weather…
“ Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben and the Green party MP Caroline Lucas are among those who have signed a letter detailing their concerns about holding Cop27 in Egypt, and demanding that the Egyptian authorities free thousands of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/29/fears-egypt-cop27-summit-human-rights-abuses
Down with gravity!
Remind us what “low confidence” means in IPCC speak? IIRC it would fail to reject the null in normal science.
That’s the beauty of the scam, nothing is entirely off the table – everything can be climate change in the delusional world of climate ‘science’.
I realise this was “probably” (?) written in “tongue in cheek” mode, but I think it’s actually worth highlighting what the IPCC said in AR6 on how people should interpret phrases like “low / high confidence”.
Box 1.1, “Treatment of uncertainty and calibrated uncertainty language in AR6”, page 169 (replacing italics in the original with underlining, bold added by me) :
The vast majority of media articles with headlines starting “(Climate) Scientists say …” fail to include an explanation that is (at least) similar to the above of the various “confidence / likelihood” terms used.
– – – – –
The WG-I report, once you get past the SPM, is actually reasonably “fair and balanced” (IMNSHO).
The perversion of The Scientific Method (TSM) comes when you get to the WG-II (Adaptation) and WG-III (Mitigation) reports and their proposed “solutions”.
From WG-II section 1.1.4, “What is New in the History of Interdisciplinary Climate Change Assessment” (on page 1-14 of the “FINAL DRAFT / Accepted version, subject to final edits” PDF file I downloaded at the beginning of March) :
Lower down the same page :
I repeat, the main WG-I report is actually a fairly good “scientific” report (to my mind, at least).
It’s the other two that spiral into “virtue signalling” and “one-world government” lunacy, while desperately trying to keep the “science / scientific / expert” veneer and loudly (and repeatedly) claiming they adhere to TSM.
The claim is that “8 to 10 inches of rain in a day is a 1-in-1000 year event in Kentucky”
Yet the Kentucky record is 10.48 inches, set in 1997.
Plainly the 1000 year claim is fraudulent.
Furthermore, NOAA themselves admit that there is no upward trend in extreme rainfall in Kentucky:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/08/09/were-kentuckys-floods-caused-by-climate-change/
Good point Paul, it is only taken for granted that a claimed 1 in a thousand year event is true, when in fact it is more than likely a 1 in a hundred.
Right on cue the National Park Service (NPS) has called the recent flooding in Death Valley a 1000 year flood. Apparently the NPS has been observing the weather there much, much longer than we ever thought.
The superintendent of the park summed it all up in this statement:
“Death Valley is an incredible place of extremes.” “It is the hottest place in the world, and the driest place in North America. This week’s 1,000 year flood is another example of this extreme environment. With climate change models predicting more frequent and more intense storms, this is a place where you can see climate change in action!”
I guess they took time off of removing the “all the glaciers will be gone by 2020” signs in Glacier National Park to issue this garbage.
CO2 reflecting infrared back towards the earths surface can not cause flooding.
Because infrared can not penetrate “the thermal skin layer” of the oceans. Infrared radiation only penetrates 2 thousands of 1 mm into the ocean. The Thermal skin layer is 0.1 of a mm deep.
Energy can only move out of the thermal skin layer into the atmosphere through evaporation.
Only sunlight can penetrate the thermal skin layer.
Only sunlight causes flooding.
And only sunlight has warms the ocean.
Good thing nobody is claiming that infra-red is directly heating the oceans.
When the air gets warmer, the heat that the sun is putting into the oceans has to work harder in order to get out.
Refer to Noah on floods. Rain terrain and gravity. Take away any one and there will be no flood.
Climate changes naturally and they should not mess with it.
Still a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest-
Recent Australian droughts may be the worst in 800 years | Climate and Energy College (unimelb.edu.au)
Said Hanrahan by John O Brien – Famous poems, famous poets. – All Poetry
But a 15 year old schoolgirl saw it differently to the Hanrahans and their Gretaheads-
My Country – Dorothea Mackellar
Weather in general is a product of when two or more different temperatures and atmospheric water contents collide. The colder the polar regions are to the equator warmth the more intense the weather will become, just as the less polar ice there is makes the weather less intense because the temperature difference with that of the equator is less.
One way to gauge increased flood risk due to intense rainfall events exacerbated by climate change is to compare the historic frequency of extreme percentile daily rainfall within historic observations.
In Australia’s New South Wales/Queensland flood zone of February/March this year, 20 weather stations have been identified and the average frequency per year of their 99th percentile rainfall days (the wettest 1% of all days on record) is …
1900-1999 : 1.77 days per year
2000-2021 : 1.58 days per year
i.e the floods were a tragic but isolated event due to slow moving weather systems, but long-term data shows they were not a climate change trend.
In its Special Climate Statement 76 on the floods, the BoM effectively concedes climate change wasn’t the cause but nevertheless claims “the intensity of short-duration (hourly) extreme rainfall events has increased by around 10 per cent or more in some regions in recent decades”.
Not daily extreme rainfall events wherein data is publicly available, but hourly events. It would be interesting to see the hourly rain gauge measurements dating back to the 1800s. Obviously they don’t exist and I’m dubious that prior to the 1990s installation of automatic weather stations you’d find observers trudging out to rain gauges 24 times a day.
A few weeks before the 21 May federal election, Australia’s Climate Council grabbed national TV and newspaper headlines with a report claiming that one in 25 Australian homes will be uninsurable by 2030 because of climate change.
The Climate Council report nominates 27 locations that are the most vulnerable in Australia to an increasing frequency and volume of flood events.
Analysis of those 27 locations counts the historic frequency of 90th percentile rainfall days (10% wettest ever), the 95th percentile (5% wettest ever) and the 99th percentile (1% wettest ever). The results show …
Wettest 10% rainfall days
1915-1999 average pa frequency = 9.55
2000-2021 average pa frequency = 8.58
Wettest 5% rainfall days
1915-1999 average pa frequency = 4.82
2000-2021 average pa frequency = 4.29
Wettest 1% rainfall days
1915-1999 average pa frequency = 0.98
2000-2021 average pa frequency = 0.91
i.e. the reduced frequency of extreme rainfall days shows climate change isn’t increasing the flood risk, and it’s a pity that many voters believed otherwise when they decided it was time to create a green parliament.
Across Australia the voters had fresh TV memories of the flood disaster and there was a consequent flood of Greens and teal MPs.
Anybody interested in the illusion that reshaped Australia’s parliament can see details at http://www.waclimate.net/rainfall-insurance/index.html
Remember the serious flooding in the Ahr valley in Germany last year? This year there is a serious problem with the low level of the river Rhine.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/low-rhine-water-levels-another-drain-germanys-economy-2022-08-10/
No doubt the low level of the Rhine is also caused by climate change.
One year climate change leads to extremely high levels of precipitation. The next year, climate change leads to extremely low levels of precipitation. Heads I win…………
Wow, nice piece of information! I’m looking forward to get some time to read some of these papers.