This site is a reference point for those with a cool head for climate science, arguably the most political science ever. When the government and most of the media concentrate on alarmism, this site is the antidote for those who don't believe the scare stories - YOU ARE NOT ALONE! (blog started on 7/11/07) We have over 1.8 million hits and blog is updated regularly most weeks.
Monday 28 February 2022
GREENLAND ICE MELTING NOT A CAUSE FOR ALARM
Steve Koonin, the Under Secretary for Science under President Obama, has written the following article in the Wall Street Journal. [Prof. Koonin was the author of a best-selling book on climate science called Unsettled.]
Human-induced climate change is causing dangerous and widespread disruption in nature and affecting the lives of billions of people around the world, despite efforts to reduce the risks. People and ecosystems least able to cope are being hardest hit, said scientists in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
Parts of global warming now is deadly for some on earth, or has brought living standards down. In the future this will only increase in all aspects of global warming.
What they are referring to is extreme weather events which are, and always have been, deadly. There is no evidence that they are getting any more frequent or extreme. This is something which has been exaggerated by the activists and the media, as well as those politicians who have staked their reputation on it, along with billions of taxpayers money. We should not be mislead by propaganda, which is what these reports really are.
IPCC Figure SPM.2: Observed global and regional impacts on ecosystems and human systems attributed to climate change. A minus sign indicates increasing adverse impacts to human systems, while a ± sign indicates increasing adverse and positive impacts in a given region. Blue indicates high or very high confidence in attribution to climate change, purple indicates medium confidence, gray indicates low confidence, and white denotes limited or insufficient evidence of climate change attribution. Most of the identified impacts – especially to health, wellbeing, and infrastructure – are negative.
Its hard to match the thoroughness of the IPPC. They certainly do disagree with Derek. My 16 years in the comment sections discussing climate, I have found that the so called science disagreeing with climate conclusions come from fossil fuel funded sources. I learned that right in the beginning. Its held true ever since then.
Roger Pielke Jr is a leading expert into attribution studies and this is what he has to say about the latest IPCC report: The report concludes (TS-31) with high confidence that “Flood risks and societal damages are projected to increase with every increment of global warming.” This is simply not true. And by “not true” I mean that it is not an accurate representation of the literature that WG2 cites to justify this claim. It is also empirically false, as vulnerability to floods has dramatically decreased even as the planet has warmed. He couldn't be clearer. As I said it is not science, it is propaganda, but you are completely sucked in by it, like into a religious cult.
Beware the single paper assertion. I recognize his name as someone who puts out contrary science. So you have a conservative IPPC, of several hundred scientists up against a known contrarian with no evidencce presented.
When it comes to the truth there is only one true set of facts. Pielke has examined the IPCC report and what is said there and it does not accord with the facts. Humans are less vulnerable to floods simply because we are able to forecast them better and we can adapt by having better defenses. That is how we cope with weather extremes. That is unarguable.
Here are the list of climate fibs by Roger Pielke. Since he doesn't stick to the science, how on earth do you know which one of his statements are true or not?
Your link relates to Roger Pielke Sr, whereas my piece referred to Roger Pielke Jr. Besides each statement has to stand on its own merits. You cannot say that because someone has got one thing wrong that this means everything they say is wrong. You must deal with the FACT not the person. On this occasion Roger Pielke Jr has got the facts right, as anyone can see by checking.
There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally.
Junior Pielke hangs out with the denial crowd. Plus I Don't see his work being presented. It is scant evidence of his credentials as to producing profound direction changing science on global warming. You are relying on someone who prefers the company of AGW deniers. Those are the facts of the matter.
Increased rainfall intensity due to climate change can worsen flooding.[110] Sea level rise further increases risks of flooding: if sea levels rise by a further 0.15 m, 20% more people will be exposed to a 1 in a 100 year coastal flood, assuming no population growth and no further adaptation. With an extra 0.75 m, this rises to a doubling of people exposed.[111]
Between 1994 and 2006, satellite observations shows an 18% increase in the flow of freshwater into the world's oceans, partly from melting ice and partly from increased precipitation driven by an increase in global ocean evaporation. Much of the increase is in areas which already experience high rainfall. One effect, as perhaps experienced in the 2010 Pakistan floods, is to overwhelm flood control infrastructure.[112]
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220228131507.htm
ReplyDeleteHuman-induced climate change is causing dangerous and widespread disruption in nature and affecting the lives of billions of people around the world, despite efforts to reduce the risks. People and ecosystems least able to cope are being hardest hit, said scientists in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
Parts of global warming now is deadly for some on earth, or has brought living standards down. In the future this will only increase in all aspects of global warming.
What they are referring to is extreme weather events which are, and always have been, deadly. There is no evidence that they are getting any more frequent or extreme. This is something which has been exaggerated by the activists and the media, as well as those politicians who have staked their reputation on it, along with billions of taxpayers money. We should not be mislead by propaganda, which is what these reports really are.
ReplyDeletehttps://i0.wp.com/yaleclimateconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/0222_IPCC_Fig-SPM2.png?resize=780%2C431&ssl=1
ReplyDeleteIPCC Figure SPM.2: Observed global and regional impacts on ecosystems and human systems attributed to climate change. A minus sign indicates increasing adverse impacts to human systems, while a ± sign indicates increasing adverse and positive impacts in a given region. Blue indicates high or very high confidence in attribution to climate change, purple indicates medium confidence, gray indicates low confidence, and white denotes limited or insufficient evidence of climate change attribution. Most of the identified impacts – especially to health, wellbeing, and infrastructure – are negative.
Its hard to match the thoroughness of the IPPC. They certainly do disagree with Derek. My 16 years in the comment sections discussing climate, I have found that the so called science disagreeing with climate conclusions come from fossil fuel funded sources. I learned that right in the beginning. Its held true ever since then.
Roger Pielke Jr is a leading expert into attribution studies and this is what he has to say about the latest IPCC report:
ReplyDeleteThe report concludes (TS-31) with high confidence that “Flood risks and societal damages are projected to increase with every increment of global warming.” This is simply not true. And by “not true” I mean that it is not an accurate representation of the literature that WG2 cites to justify this claim. It is also empirically false, as vulnerability to floods has dramatically decreased even as the planet has warmed. He couldn't be clearer. As I said it is not science, it is propaganda, but you are completely sucked in by it, like into a religious cult.
Beware the single paper assertion. I recognize his name as someone who puts out contrary science. So you have a conservative IPPC, of several hundred scientists up against a known contrarian with no evidencce presented.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the truth there is only one true set of facts. Pielke has examined the IPCC report and what is said there and it does not accord with the facts. Humans are less vulnerable to floods simply because we are able to forecast them better and we can adapt by having better defenses. That is how we cope with weather extremes. That is unarguable.
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roger_Pielke_Sr.htm
ReplyDeleteHere are the list of climate fibs by Roger Pielke. Since he doesn't stick to the science, how on earth do you know which one of his statements are true or not?
Your link relates to Roger Pielke Sr, whereas my piece referred to Roger Pielke Jr. Besides each statement has to stand on its own merits. You cannot say that because someone has got one thing wrong that this means everything they say is wrong. You must deal with the FACT not the person. On this occasion Roger Pielke Jr has got the facts right, as anyone can see by checking.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.desmog.com/roger-pielke-jr/
ReplyDeleteThere is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally.
Junior Pielke hangs out with the denial crowd. Plus I Don't see his work being presented. It is scant evidence of his credentials as to producing profound direction changing science on global warming. You are relying on someone who prefers the company of AGW deniers. Those are the facts of the matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change#Floods
Increased rainfall intensity due to climate change can worsen flooding.[110] Sea level rise further increases risks of flooding: if sea levels rise by a further 0.15 m, 20% more people will be exposed to a 1 in a 100 year coastal flood, assuming no population growth and no further adaptation. With an extra 0.75 m, this rises to a doubling of people exposed.[111]
Between 1994 and 2006, satellite observations shows an 18% increase in the flow of freshwater into the world's oceans, partly from melting ice and partly from increased precipitation driven by an increase in global ocean evaporation. Much of the increase is in areas which already experience high rainfall. One effect, as perhaps experienced in the 2010 Pakistan floods, is to overwhelm flood control infrastructure.[112]