Climate and Weather

[espola]

<cont>
Of course, consistency with the IPCC (or not) says little about policy preferences. Democrats remain the party championing action on climate policy and Republicans remain much less supportive. Of course, the key question here is, What action? I have long argued that there are unexplored opportunities for greater bipartisan support for pragmatic energy and adaptation polies that would accelerate decarbonization and reduce vulnerabilities — but that’s a topic for another day.

Policy aside, with respect to the IPCC and climate science, Democrats are currently the party of RCP8.5 and “billion dollar disasters,” while many Republicans express views much more in line with the findings of the IPCC.⁵

One consequence of this shift in perspective is that some climate activists have sought to delegitimize the IPCC. For instance, Naomi Oreskes has called for the IPCC Working Group 1 to be shut down:

One step that could help that happen would be for the IPCC to declare the job of WG1 to be done and close it down.

After all, if human-made warming is as unequivocal as these scientists insist, then why do we need more reports to tell us the same thing?

Others argue that the IPCC has been corrupted by “contrarians”:

. . . contrarian views against anthropogenic climate disruption can lobby the scientific community, and the IPCC in particular, to be conservative and so reinforce contrarian views in a vicious, self-reinforcing circle

The battle for the soul of the IPCC has really only just begun — just wait for the coming battle over letting go of extreme, implausible scenarios.

The science of detection and attribution of extreme events under the IPCC’s longstanding framework can only change very slowly, as the additions to the observational record accumulate slowly as time passes, even under the seemingly glacial pace of IPCC assessments.⁶ In other words, five years more data on hurricanes, floods, drought, and so on will not alter the fundamental conclusions of the IPCC Working Group 1 on its assessment of long-term trends. At the same time, understandings that the extreme scenario once characterized as “business as usual” is now implausible means that projections of future trends will necessarily be less extreme.

Give these realities, I expect to see more attacks on the IPCC and mainstream climate science by climate activists, including those within the scientific community.

Consider the case of the U.S. National Climate Assessment, which I have argued has been fully taken over by climate activists. In 2014, the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment highlighted the importance of the IPCC’s framework for detection and attribution. The figure below comes from that report.

View attachment 21186

US NCA 2014
Similarly, in 2017, the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA) included a chapter on the detection and attribution of trends in extreme events, following the framework of the IPCC, explaining:

Detection and attribution studies are important for a number of reasons. For example, such studies can help determine whether a human influence on climate variables (for example, temperature) can be distinguished from natural variability. Detection and attribution studies can help evaluate whether model simulations are consistent with observed trends or other changes in the climate system. Results from detection and attribution studies can inform decision making on climate policy and adaptation.

However, in 2023, the authors of the Fifth U.S. NCA decided — amazingly — to eliminate its chapter on the detection and attribution of trends in extreme events and the IPCC framework, and instead to emphasize billion dollar disasters as an indicator of changes in extreme events.⁷

The number and cost of weather-related disasters have increased dramatically over the past four decades, in part due to the increasing frequency and severity of extreme events and in part due to increases in exposure and vulnerability. In 2022 alone, the United States experienced 18 weather and climate disasters with damages exceeding $1 billion (Figures 2.6, A4.5). There is increasing confidence that changes in some extreme events are driven by human-caused climate change (KM 3.5).

Though it hasn’t been much discussed (probably due to its poor quality), the Fifth U.S. NCA rejected the scientific framework of the IPCC. This should not be a surprise — I’ve long argued that the placement of the U.S. NCA in the Executive Office of the President makes it a tempting target for political meddling, by Republican and Democratic administrations. Thus, the 2023 U.S. NCA represents the current Democratic view of climate science that disfavors the IPCC.

Over recent decades, both Democrats and Republicans have shifted in their views of the IPCC. Given this shifting landscape, leaders of the IPCC and the broader scientific community should prioritize steps to ensure the institutional integrity of it Working Group 1, so that it can continue to effectively assess the science of climate change, regardless which elected officials cite their work.

Does this suggest that Roger Pielke Jr. agrees with the latest (2023) IPCC report?

Its Summary for Policy Makers can be found here --

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf

 

[watfly]

How Democrats Left the IPCC Behind
Partisan realignment on the science of climate change
ROGER PIELKE JR.
MAY 20

On Wednesday, I’ll be testifying before the Senate Committee on the Budget in a hearing titled, “Droughts, Dollars, and Decisions: Water Scarcity in a Changing Climate.” My testimony is embargoed until then, but after the hearing, I will post my oral and written testimony here and I will be happy to engage questions and comments.

I have been invited by the minority (Republicans) and asked to summarize for the committee the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on drought. The first time I testified before the Senate, in 2002, I was invited by Democrats and I was similarly asked to summarize the findings of the IPCC on extreme events.

That has me thinking about how the views of the IPCC, Democrats, and Republicans¹ (and my own views as well) may have changed over the past several decades on the science of climate change — and on extreme weather and climate events specifically.

As I will relate in my testimony on Wednesday, the IPCC (Working Group 1) has been remarkably consistent in its periodic assessment reports in its findings on the detection and attribution of trends in extreme events. My research with many colleagues over decades has often been cited in those assessments, and — looking back at my past peer-reviewed studies, commentaries, and testimonies — my views have developed over time but also stayed highly consistent and also consistent with the findings of the IPCC.

Thus, the fact that Democrats used to invite me to testify about the IPCC and now Republicans do cannot be explained by a change in the findings of the IPCC or a rethinking of my own perspectives.

Instead, it’s my observation and experience that the views of the political parties on the assessments of the IPCC has shifted dramatically over the past several decades.² The schematic below shows my impression of how things looked in 2002, when I first testified before Congress. At that time, Democrats, for the most part, had views on climate change and extreme events largely in line with the findings of the IPCC. I’d venture that this is why I was invited by Democrats at the time to testify.³

View attachment 21184
Flash forward to 2024. Much more research has been published and three further IPCC assessments have been produced. Over this time, the IPCC’s bottom-line findings on climate and extreme events have become better supported with evidence and research.

In 2024, here is how I see views of the assessments of the IPCC in the current U.S. Congress.
View attachment 21185


Democrats — not all, but many — have left the IPCC behind in favor of an extreme view of climate and extreme events. Republicans — not all, but many — find themselves much more in line with the findings of the IPCC on climate and extreme events. Similarly, I’d guess that explains why in recent years I’ve been invited to testify by Republicans.⁴

I have a problem with blaming all extreme weather events on global climate change. It just seems all too convenient for the fear mongers. The strongest evidence to me is the shrinking glaciers like in Chamonix, maybe because I'm a visual learner.

Disappearing glaciers: Before and after views of Mont Blanc

A century ago, pioneering Swiss pilot Walter Mittelholzer took aerial photos of Europe's highest mountain and its glaciers in his biplane. Two scientists retraced his steps today, shooting from the same positions. The side-by-side comparisons of ice loss? Stunning.

thebulletin.org

 

[espola]

I have a problem with blaming all extreme weather events on global climate change. It just seems all too convenient for the fear mongers. The strongest evidence to me is the shrinking glaciers like in Chamonix, maybe because I'm a visual learner.

Disappearing glaciers: Before and after views of Mont Blanc

A century ago, pioneering Swiss pilot Walter Mittelholzer took aerial photos of Europe's highest mountain and its glaciers in his biplane. Two scientists retraced his steps today, shooting from the same positions. The side-by-side comparisons of ice loss? Stunning.

thebulletin.org

I believe the scientifically correct position is to blame the increasing frequency of extreme events on climate change. As the oceans heat up and the cooling masses of ice in the glaciers and icecaps decline, it's not a problem to conjecture that that is to blame.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

I have a problem with blaming all extreme weather events on global climate change. It just seems all too convenient for the fear mongers. The strongest evidence to me is the shrinking glaciers like in Chamonix, maybe because I'm a visual learner.

Disappearing glaciers: Before and after views of Mont Blanc

A century ago, pioneering Swiss pilot Walter Mittelholzer took aerial photos of Europe's highest mountain and its glaciers in his biplane. Two scientists retraced his steps today, shooting from the same positions. The side-by-side comparisons of ice loss? Stunning.

thebulletin.org

You have fallen into the trap. It's not whether or not humans are causing climate change and/or responsible for extreme events. It's whether or not humans can do anything about it and most importantly, how governments directs and pays to do things that will "solve" the problem. Leftists see this as an opportunity to grab power and money. It's why there's an incessant drumbeat of doom from their propagandists in the mainstream media. I have little doubt they'll be as "successful" in efforts as the Bolsheviks in Russia where 5 million are estimated to have died of starvation and in China during 1960-1962 where 30 million died of starvation.

 

[watfly]

You have fallen into the trap. It's not whether or not humans are causing climate change and/or responsible for extreme events. It's whether or not humans can do anything about it and most importantly, how governments directs and pays to do things that will "solve" the problem. Leftists see this as an opportunity to grab power and money. It's why there's an incessant drumbeat of doom from their propagandists in the mainstream media. I have little doubt they'll be as "successful" in efforts as the Bolsheviks in Russia where 5 million are estimated to have died of starvation and in China during 1960-1962 where 30 million died of starvation.

No, I've already stated that trying to change the climate is a fool's errand and I'm skeptical how much impact humans have on the climate. Clean air and water yes, but climate I don't think significantly. Even if one was to believe the climate hysteria, the green proposals are akin to "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". In reality, the green proposals just make life more costly and difficult for citizens while providing little to no value to the climate.

 

[watfly]

I believe the scientifically correct position is to blame the increasing frequency of extreme events on climate change. As the oceans heat up and the cooling masses of ice in the glaciers and icecaps decline, it's not a problem to conjecture that that is to blame.

I was speaking of the fear mongers that get the air time, press time and soap box (like Gore). I understand the scientific opinion, but to have an increase you have to have a baseline. What is the baseline for extreme weather events? What year, or period of year, corresponds to baseline for weather and temperature?

 

[espola]

I was speaking of the fear mongers that get the air time, press time and soap box (like Gore). I understand the scientific opinion, but to have an increase you have to have a baseline. What is the baseline for extreme weather events? What year, or period of year, corresponds to baseline for weather and temperature?

"but to have an increase you have to have a baseline"

That's not true.

 

[watfly]

"but to have an increase you have to have a baseline"

That's not true.

True. You have to have some starting point to measure an increase. That's just common sense.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

"but to have an increase you have to have a baseline"

That's not true.

Here's a nice baseline for the costs of disasters - and a bit more perspective on the state of the science community.

Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change
From the archives, a look back and an update
ROGER PIELKE JR.
MAR 26

Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change

From the archives, a look back and an update

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

 

[espola]

True. You have to have some starting point to measure an increase. That's just common sense.

No, you don't. To measure an increase, all you need is two numbers. That's just common algebra.

 

[espola]

Here's a nice baseline for the costs of disasters - and a bit more perspective on the state of the science community.

Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change
From the archives, a look back and an update
ROGER PIELKE JR.
MAR 26

Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change

From the archives, a look back and an update

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

Pielke's argument is based on the increased cost of disasters (such things more expensive development in disaster-prone areas, etc), not their frequency.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

Here's a nice baseline for the costs of disasters - and a bit more perspective on the state of the science community.

Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change
From the archives, a look back and an update
ROGER PIELKE JR.
MAR 26

Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change

From the archives, a look back and an update

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

Here's some more "common algebra"

What the IPCC Actually Says About Extreme Weather
I promise, you'll be utterly shocked
ROGER PIELKE JR.
JUL 19

What the IPCC Actually Says About Extreme Weather

I promise, you'll be utterly shocked

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

 

[kickingandscreaming]

Pielke's argument is based on the increased cost of disasters (such things more expensive development in disaster-prone areas, etc), not their frequency.

Ask and you shall receive

 

[watfly]

No, you don't. To measure an increase, all you need is two numbers. That's just common algebra.

You're playing semantics. So what is the 1st number and where did it come from?

 

[espola]

You're playing semantics. So what is the 1st number and where did it come from?

"You have to have some starting point to measure an increase."

That is semantics, not algebra.

 

[watfly]

"You have to have some starting point to measure an increase."

That is semantics, not algebra.

You're responses are a perfect illustration as to why people have climate change skepticism, and why some climate scientists lack credibility. It's one thing when the previous dire climate predictions didn't come true, it is a whole other thing when they use broad statements like "increase" or "more extreme" but can't explain what they're comparing it to.

But kudos to you for regurgitating the climate hysteric talking points; although, without being able to explain them.

 

[espola]

You're responses are a perfect illustration as to why people have climate change skepticism, and why some climate scientists lack credibility. It's one thing when the previous dire climate predictions didn't come true, it is a whole other thing when they use broad statements like "increase" or "more extreme" but can't explain them.

But kudos to you for regurgitating the climate hysteric talking points; although, without being able to explain them.

For a visual illustration, here is a graph of North Atlantic surface temperatures for a few recent years. Can you see a deviation from a baseline in there?

 

[kickingandscreaming]

For a visual illustration, here is a graph of North Atlantic surface temperatures for a few recent years. Can you see a deviation from a baseline in there?

View attachment 21190

What's your point?

 

[espola]

Here's another visual aid --

 

[kickingandscreaming]

The biggest takeaway from the posts I copied from Pielke is not the research he presented - which is, indeed, signficant and useful. It's the way the powers that be attempted to ostracize him for posting legitimate research. Look at the date of the post (Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change) that precipitated the following action - it was 2014

--- from: Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change

This week marks my final spring break as a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. Ten years ago this week, during spring break while on vacation with my family, I was dealing with the consequences of what appeared to be an online mob seeking to get me fired from Nate Silver’s 538 where I had just been hired as a writer.

My first piece for 538 was a summary of recent IPCC report consensus conclusions on disasters and extreme events. The apparent mobbing worked.1 I soon lost my position as a writer at 538.

Not long after, I was under investigation by a member of Congress.2 I lost the support of my university and my role in the center I had founded, so I moved across campus to work on sports governance.3 I have little doubt that I remained employed only thanks to academic tenure. It was quite an experience.

Two years later, in 2016, courtesy of the Wikileaks publication of John Podesta’s emails, it was revealed that the Center for American Progress, funded by billionaire Tom Steyer and in collaboration with the ever-present Michael Mann, had been engaged in a well-funded campaign to delegitimize my research, hurt my career, and to have me removed as a writer at 538.4

----

Over a decade ago we have evidence of egregious anti-scientific activity at the highest levels of government and our Universities. The elites' war against "mal-information" has been going on for some time - as has the degradation of veritas in our Universities. As we have seen in the ten years that followed, it has only gotten worse. I shudder to wonder how much further behind we'd be in identifying the actions of elite authoritarians had Elon Musk not published the Twitter files and opened up Twitter to more free speech. The revelations of the Twitter files pushed many, myself included, to seek news from outside the mainstream media. Veritas BITCHES!!!

 

[crush]