From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
I covered this story the other day, and inevitably it is making headlines across the media (as it was intended to):
The claim is not based on any actual data, but on weather attribution models.
But what does the actual data tell us?
Much of the world lacks long term, high quality data. But one country that does have it in abundance is the US, and it tells us a completely different story to the one presented in the latest report.
Heatwaves, for instance, used to be much worse than now, and not only during the dustbowl years of the 1930s. Climate fraudsters love to begin their trends from the 1960s, when the world was cooling. But as the graph below shows, there is nothing out of the ordinary about recent heatwaves:
Then we can turn to drought. The record exhibits large swings, but plainly droughts are not getting worse – on the contrary, the 1920s, 30s and 50s were much worse than now:
Floods? I’m afraid not. The data provided by the EPA is the inevitable mixed bag; after all nature does not do straight lines. Some places, such as the North East show a worsening trend, whilst others have been decreasing. Such regional changes may well be associated with oceanic cyclical changes, such as the AMO and PDO, which are known to affect US rainfall patterns. But if the weather attribution models are right, we would expect to see worsening flood trends everywhere.
There are no trends in the frequency of hurricanes or major ones:
And violent tornadoes are much less frequent now:
The US is of course only one country, albeit a large one. And maybe other parts of the world are experiencing more extreme weather. But if the weather attribution models are right, all of the world, including the US, should be seeing the same effects.
The fact that the US, and for that matter the UK, is not seeing such effects fundamentally undermines their credibility.
All heat engines – which includes weather – are driven by a temperature difference. Not by absolute temperature.
A car engine, a steam engine, a hurricane, a tornado. They rely on energy flowing from a hot area to a cold area. Sort of like a waterwheel needs water flowing from a high point to a low point.
Simply heating the world will not make storms more extreme because global warming is warming the cold places more than it is warming the warm places. As a result weather will become less extreme.
No, the warmer it gets, the more often extreme events WILL occur, somewhere around the world. For example, The MWP was characterized by extreme droughts, flooding, etc.
The book “El Nino in History” by Cesar N.Caviedes (2001) describes the many disasters associated with warmer temperatures, such as droughts, floods, famines, and sunken ships, due to the wild weather.
Your comment doesn’t match reality – the wildest weather that happens is during fall (hurricanes) and winter (blizzards). Summers here in southern Ontario and most places are warm and quiet with the occasional thunderstorm, that isn’t as windy as one in the fall.
I was not speaking of normal weather, only of periods where there are El Ninos
What’s that got to do with global warming? I suggest you re-read and try to understand fredberple’s comment.
Fredberple stated that as global warming increases, the weather will become less extreme.
Historically, this incorrect. If the warming is enough to form an El Nino, extreme weather is the norm.
Professor Caviedes in his book “The El Nino in History” listed observed Climatic effects of El Ninos: excessive rain, floods, land erosion, drought, crop failures, famines, severe winters, cold waves, heavy snowfalls, increased price of heating oil, institutional instability. fall of governments
All weather everywhere all the time is subject to extreme droughts, flooding, etc.
It’s called “weather”.
Not true: They occur only during El Nino or La Nina conditions
Snark snark snark
“According to any textbook on dynamic meteorology, one may reasonably conclude that in a warmer world, extratropical storminess and weather variability will actually decrease.”
— Richard Lindzen
AGW is Not Science:
Historical records prove that the textbooks and Lindzen are both wrong. See Professor Caviedes’ book, descriptions of what the weather was like during the MWP, and “Net-Zero Catastrophe Beginning?”, for examples.
Again, ENSOs increase temperature differentials – which drives big weather. It has nothing to do with global warming. Generally a warmer planet (from GLOBAL warming) overall may not decrease extremes but it certainly won’t increase them unless the warming is not uniform.
Fortunately for us, El Ninos over the past 170+ years have all been temporary events, which I must agree do not contribute to global warming.
However, all El Ninos coincide with decreased levels of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, meaning that the cleaner the air becomes, the warmer it will get.
So, the actual cause of our warming planet is the result of global Clean Air efforts to reduce industrial SO2 aerosol pollution, and now, Net Zero, which bans the burning of fossil fuels and their attendant SO2 aerosol emissions.
See my paper referenced earlier, above.
The same exact claims about the weather getting more extreme were made in the “ice age cometh” global COOLING scare in the 70s.
So apparently what we’re supposed to believe is that some “climate nirvana” existed in about 1945, any departure from which in any direction (a) is our fault; (b) is caused by our fossil fuel use; and (c) is going to make the weather “more extreme.” 🙄
AGW is Not Science
NOT a good summation!
Departures from the “1945 Nirvana” due to volcanic eruptions and their cooling SO2 aerosol emissions are certainly not our fault, although increased fossil fuel use and their SO2 aerosol emissions have the same cooling effect.(our fault)
In the opposite direction, volcanic-induced El Ninos can cause warming after their SO2 aerosols have settled out of the atmosphere, due to the cleaner, less-polluted air, and global Clean Air efforts to reduce industrial SO2 aerosol levels also cause warming, for the same reason (our fault).
And if the cleansing is carried too far, in the absence of large volcanic eruptions (as now), more extreme weather will occur, as during the MWP, when there were very few volcanic eruptions (~10 /century). .
Anyone with a smattering of meteorology knows that warmer temps would beget less extreme weather. Weather events are caused by temperature/pressure differentials, not uniformly warmer temps. Global implies uniform, does it not?
Why are you true believers obsessed with catastrophism?
“Why are you true believers obsessed with catastrophism?”
Because of the Historical record!.
However, CO2 does NOT cause any warming, It is all caused by decreased levels of reflective (dimming) SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere.
Global implies uniform, does it not?
”relating to the whole world; worldwide.”
”relating to or encompassing the whole of something, or of a group of things.”
Guess what the Little Ice Age was characterized by? Extreme droughts, flooding, storms, etc. It seems that the cooler it gets, the more often extreme events will occur somewhere around the world.
The book “Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century,” by Geoffrey Parker gives a detailed account of cold related climate disasters all over the world and their effects on world history. These include droughts, floods, famines, and storms that sunk ships aplenty. It is very illuminating.
Yes indeed, and the IPCC tells us:
IPCC AR4 Chapter 10 page 750
“Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are projected
to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures, leading to
a decrease in diurnal temperature range.”
Add to that water vapor the warming in the Arctic also caused by more water vapor and you get less contrast in temperatures and pressures between air masses and thus a decrease in extreme weather events.
Absolutely correct. I remember learning this principal from doing a research project for a college class back in 1986, several years before “global warming” became a major issue. For whatever reason (ignorance? malfeasance?), the purveyors of the concept that the Earth’s weather events are becoming more extreme as warming occurs completely ignore the concept.
Perhaps the apparent increase in wild weather is due to more efficient coverage by national reporting systems. Certainly, television stations seem to be staffed by ever-younger “reporters” who thrive on alarmism. And we in remote New Zealand seem to be peppered with extreme reports from worldwide sources.
Yes. As I’ve said many times. The only thing getting getting g worse about the weather is the HYPE about the weather.
COMING CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS PROPAGANDA IS SO EFFECTIVE THAT IT PREVENTS MOST PEOPLE FROM ENJOYING TODAY’S WONDERFUL CLIMATE.
U.S. HURRICANES MAKING LANDFALL HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE LATE 1800s.
MAJOR US TORNADOES HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE 1950s.
US HEAT WAVES, DROUGHTS AND FOREST FIRE ACRES BURNED PEAKED IN THE 1930s.
THE 1930s STILL HAVE THE MOST US STATE MAXIMUM HEAT RECORDS OF ANY DECADE, BY FAR.
I realise you’re trying to get your message across, Richard, but there’s NO NEED TO SHOUT
Sorry, I originally typed this many years ago, in all caps, and am much too lazy to re-write it. I didn’t realize it was in a bold font too.
SO WHAT? THE UNITED STATES IS NOT THE WORLD
I don’t keep track of e weather for the entire world
Typhoons making landfall in Japan are also down since the 1950s.
And SO2 emissions is a minor climate change variable often NOT moving in the direction YOU claim it should move in … such as when temperature is rising from 1975 to 1980 (with SO2 emissions going up) and when the temperature is constant from 2015 to 2013 (with SO2 emissions going down).
As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, the period between 1975 and 1980 was NOT a period of rising temperatures, as you insist.
This was a period where there were fears of a return to an ice age, because of the cold temperatures (caused by increasing levels of industrial SO2 aerosol levels.in the atmosphere)
What is the temperature source for your stupid claim? It certainly is not HadCrut or NASA/GISS.
Simply put, for all of us “laymen” not of science persuasion types, is that the climate cult is desperately trying to convince the sheeple that the fantasy of “globull warming” is bad is actually destroying the planet. So, its the usual BS from the leftists in an attempt to control the folks with propaganda. And it is being shown to be just that…BS. Nothing scientific about it, just more scare tactics for the folks from the usual suspects, the morons running things lately.
Ain’t buying it. The ranks of the skeptics are growing, and the climatunistas know it, and they are getting desperate. Wait and see what comes out of Davos. It should be a whopper.
You’re onto something, there, guidvce4, in that government agencies are saying things to scare people and maintain control. For instance, California, right now (see California Drought.gov) is showing all of California under moderate to severe drought, while the reality is floods at lower elevations (see weather expert Ellen DeGeneres) and 226% above normal snowpack in the Sierras. How stupid must the majority of the Kalifornia population be to tolerate this behavior (Willis exempted, of course).
“the climate cult is desperately trying to convince the sheeple that the fantasy of “globull warming” is bad is actually destroying the planet:
The sad fact is almost 8 billion humans have first hand experience with some or all of the global warming from 1975 to 2015, which harmed no one, and made some colder climates more tolerable, yet they can still be conned about predictions of climate doom from global warming … predictions which have been wrong since the 1979 Charney Report.
They push extreme weather so hard, because the greenhouse warming wasn’t enough to scare people. Once you realize this, you understand that climate science died a long time ago.
“climate science” was still-born, it’s Frankenseancers that keep shouting “It’s alive, alive…”
For hurricane numbers, some people get thrown by the spike in the mid 2000’s. Showing the numbers by decade gives a better perspective of both the cyclical pattern and how quiet the last few decades have been compared to previous times.
Of course, people forget that after the spike in 2004-2005, it flatlined for the next decade plus .
Not a single US hurricane landfall for some 11 years followed that “spike.”
The longest such period on record. Of course, you didn’t hear a PEEP about THAT in the “news.”
caused by “climate change”
I think the spikes are fine and informative – tells people not to freak out just because of one bad year.
Computer models are designed to drive a political agenda, not to show anything about climate, environment or weather. Period. Full stop.
It got extreme enough for the frostbitten ‘todger’ of Montecito climate warrior.
Who after revealing his mother was in the room is now down there with the likes of Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris.
Rolf’s still playing with his didgeridoo
“weather attribution models.”
One name, no two names, stand out there
The Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment at Imperial College
Fast Freddie’s favourite game is a digital form of rolling the bones. And she has has ‘tailored’ her bone-rolling to beat back any doubts about the link between extreme weather events and climate change.
GIGO, nothing more.
Here’s a LINK to The Wisconsin Climatology Office showing a chart of highest temperatures by year for Milwaukee since 1870.
You don’t need to be a genius to see the up & down trend in temperature over the last 150 years. My personal experience here in Milwaukee for the last 20 – 30 years is the winters have been warmer. Nasty -20°F cold snaps don’t happen anymore, and some summers don’t even get above 90°F.
I started to fish through the site BUT I don’t want to spend and hour trying to find the chart for LOWEST PER YEAR. Since you stated that Milwaukee COLD was less severe than in the past could you, who apparently are familiar with the site, provide the link to Lowest temperatures by year.
Here ya go:
Lowest Temperature by Year Milwaukee since 1870 LINK
Thanks, so 2020 you appeared to have a cold snap like the good old days.
I must agree it also appears you had a good 20 stretch of NO frigid spells.
All that winter warmth must have really been a b!tch to live through.
How has it been this year?
Besides the very short cold snap in December, it’s been rather warm. A while ago I sat outside and enjoyed some Brandy at around 39°F and a nice breeze out of the South, nippy to be sure, but compared to the ’60s & ’70s it was quite balmy for January 15th.
Lows increase much more than the mean & highs increase much less. Activists mislead by looking a fixed threshold. A more honest measure is deviation from mean. https://twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1611141654853079043
Arctic Blasts are becoming less intense & less frequent, smaller in area, and shorter in duration. Global warming does not cause extreme cold outbreaks. The expectation is for arctic blasts to decrease in frequency, intensity, area, and duration. That is also what is observed. https://twitter.com/kristianstromm2/status/1603327248144154625
Swings get smaller.
Arctic Blasts are becoming less intense & less frequent…
Pretty much what it looks like in Milwaukee.
For Christmas I got a flip up, tear off Calander from the History Channel.
Here is what the entry was for yesterday.
“Jan 12, 1888: Blizzard brings tragedy to Northwest Plains
On January 12th, 1888 the so called Schoolchildren’s Blizzard killed an estimated 230 people, many of whom were children on their way home from school, across the Northwest Plains region of the United States.
The storm came with no warning, and the temperature fell 55 degrees in just twenty-four hours. It was Thursday afternoon, and there had been unseasonably warm weather the previous day from Montana east to the Dakotas and south to Texas.
Suddenly, within a matter of hours, Arctic air from Canada rapidly pushed south. Temperatures dropped to 40 below zero in much of North Dakota. Along with the cold air, the storm brought high winds and heavy snows. The combination created blinding conditions. The storm is still considered one of the worst blizzards in the history of the area. “
Homewood ==> The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), from 1895 to date, shows that the U.S. is actually experiencing LESS drought, overall, trending towards more moisture a tiny bit.
Satellite measures only estimate the soil moisture of the top 2”. Soil moisture is much more complex. Increasing IR might dry the top as soil moisture is actually increasing. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL092856
Gravimetric data is showing increased water retention on land. 77km^3/yr globally.
You failed to cite the marked increase in the storms raging between the ears of the ignorati!
The “ouragan mental” has been increasing at an exponential rate, and has been proven to be entirely attributable to climate weirding! The low pressure at the eye of these cyclones actually pulls wax, dirt behind the ears, and other substances into the intercranial space; which is then left in a completely destroyed jumble of garbage and trash! The clean up from these disasters could take years; many will never recover, and should be left in a nice, padded safe space!
Neither hotter nor catastrophic, net zero anthropogenic climate effect. All’s normal on the western, and, in fact, the global front. Go green, emit, breathe.
Everything caused by the climate crisis
Even extreme cold is caused by global warming!
Mislabeled graph. Should read “WEATHER Related” in all captions. NONE of what they refer to is due to “climate.”
“Floods? I’m afraid not. The data provided by the EPA is the inevitable mixed bag; after all nature does not do straight lines. Some places, such as the North East show a worsening trend”
I’m in Wokeachusetts and have lived here my entire life- now 73 and I don’t see any increase in flooding. Most flooding that has occured was due to failed old dams built in the early days of industrialization (which started in the North East) or poorly engineered roads and other development that never should have been built on the flood plains. Back several decades ago, after some major floods- the army corps of engineers developed a plan to build hundreds of dams along all the branches of the major rivers, especially the Connecticut River in western Mass. They would have created lakes for recreation, wildlife and public water supply, offered power and of course flood protection. Some were built but it didn’t take long before the environmental fanatics put a stop to it. The same fanatics who now want to stop every form of energy production- including wind on land and solar farms that would be built on farm and forest land. Their solution is to put solar on every building- they really think that will get us to nut zero nirvana.
Here in Kansas (and surrounding states) numerous reservoirs were built on major rivers to act as buffers to runoff after the floods we saw in the 50’s. We’ve never seen flooding like that since then (fingers crossed).
California should learn a lesson from that. Not only would more reservoirs offer increased buffers to California drought periods they would offer some buffering against the flooding they are seeing today.
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Idiots. I guess they just figure we all should just go to bed when the Sun goes down like it’s the 1700s.
Lol – “UNDERMINES their credibility?!”
You’re too generous; that suggests they had ANY credibility to begin with.
Temperature extremes are also decreasing, both high and low. Arctic Blasts are becoming less frequent, less intense, shorter in duration, and smaller in area. Temperature swings are getting smaller.
From the article: “Climate change makes heat waves, storms and droughts worse–Say weather attribution models”
Weather attribution = Unsubstantiated, speculation, assumptions and assertions about the connection between CO2 and the Earth’s weather.
Your guess is just as good as any guess by a weather attribution specialist.
The report covers climatic events in specified locations globally; in response the author points to historical records covering the US.
This is the same guy who uses Central England Temperature data to dispute UK-wide records.
Wake up people.
The author clearly states why he is using the US records. It is the best long time comprehensive record for such a large area. And if such a large area has shown no increase in extreme weather events, then there needs to be an explanation for this opposite trend from the doomsday predictions. And if it can’t be explained, their whole theory falls apart
Which is exactly why it’s an inappropriate record to use. Read the report he’s referring to. It’s about specific events in specific locations.
THERE ARE NO “climatic events.”
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
The USA hurricane landfalling data tracks with the WORLD hurricane data, flat or declining so for at least that data point your argument is garbage.
The best records in the world don’t show your emergency so your solution is to gas light it.
And you can’t understand why you lose every argument.
My own non-climate surgeon observations are that two decades ago it was non-controversial to suggest “global warming” would lead to less extreme weather as the poles warmed more than the equator. The co2 people said the poles would warm more.
Seems like the north has but not the south?
Available data seems to support what RickWill postulates on here about progression leading to warming in the north which leads to more moisture transport and the eventual regrowth of ice sheets on our way to the only existential crisis we face?.
but, but, but, climate change is causing cancer and other health issues!!!
Pull the other one main stream media!!!