Search Results for “is climate change man-caused”

‘Science Alert’: Ancient Pyramid in Mexico Collapses Into Pile of Rubble — Destruction ‘driven by human-caused climate change’ or because the gods were ‘displeased’

August 16, 2024

https://www.sciencealert.com/bad-omen-ancient-pyramid-in-mexico-collapses-into-pile-of-rubble By Carly Cassella Exceept: Extreme weather events and rising seas are putting precious heritage sites around the world in harm’s way. A precious stone pyramid in Mexico is the latest to succumb to an increasingly chaotic global climate. On the night of July 29, the 15-meter-high (roughly 50-foot-high) square monument located in the state of Michoacán suddenly slumped under the pressure of incessant rain, its south wall crumbling into a pile of rubble. … Extreme weather and rising seas, driven by human-caused climate change, are proving to be a serious nuisance for important sites of bygone cultures. Recently, archaeologists found that ancient cave paintings in oceania are deteriorating with accelerating climate changes. … Watching them collapse from a climate that has been drastically altered by our own behavior is disgusting to watch, and not just for immortals. … Alvarez said that before the arrival of foreign conquerors in Mexico, something similar happened, and it was because the gods were “displeased”.

Wrong, AP, Human-Caused Climate Change is Not Why Houses on Barrier Islands Are In Danger

July 8, 2024

https://climaterealism.com/2024/06/wrong-ap-rising-seas-are-not-why-houses-on-barrier-islands-are-in-danger/ Guest post by Buck Throckmorton Editor’s Note: The Associated Press, along with other news agencies, are once again blaming climate change and rising sea levels on house destruction on barrier islands. Throckmorton points out that barrier islands are unstable to begin with. Climate Realism has likewise pointed out natural causes of beach instability here, here, and here. It’s hard to keep pace with all the ways the climate cult blames naturally occurring phenomena on “climate change,” be it natural disasters, violent storms, or “record” temperatures. While the weather is not getting “more extreme” as the climatistas claim, their apocalyptic rhetoric certainly is, and it’s also getting more dishonest. The conflation of shifting sands on barrier islands with rising sea levels is another scientifically dishonest claim being made by the climate alarmists. Back in the 1980s, the first generation of global warmists promised that a catastrophic rise in sea levels was likely to submerge the Maldives, among other coastal areas, before 2020. Not only did that never happen, but the Maldives has a greater landmass now than it did when its imminent submersion was a “scientific fact” three decades ago. So, with the oceans not cooperating in rising as prophesied by “climate scientists” 30-plus years ago, the climate hysterics and the credulous media are now blaming the naturally occurring movement of barrier islands on “climate change” and rising seas. Whenever a beach house on a barrier island is lost to shifting sands, it is now being reported as a harbinger of the coastal doom that is being caused by our carbon sinning. Just a few weeks ago, the American media was somberly reporting about yet another house on North Carolina’s Outer Banks being lost to the rising waters of the Atlantic Ocean. From an AP story dated 5/29/2024: Another house has collapsed into the Atlantic Ocean along North Carolina’s coast, the sixth to fall along the Cape Hatteras National Seashore’s beaches in the past four years, according to U.S. National Park Service officials. North Carolina’s coast is almost entirely made up of narrow, low-lying barrier islands that are increasingly vulnerable to storm surges and to being washed over from both the bay and the sea as the planet warms. As sea levels rise, these islands typically move toward the mainland, frustrating efforts to hold properties in place. There is so much that is wrong in just those three sentences. For starters, it describes a barrier island as if it is the crown of an otherwise submerged mountain or coral atoll, and thus vulnerable to being completely submerged as the seas rise up around it. But barrier islands are nothing of the sort. They are impermanent deposits of sand, which reshape, move, merge, appear, and disappear due to tides, winds, and storms. The movement of barrier islands is not due to rising sea levels, it is due to a naturally occurring force called “longshore drift.” Where there are man-made efforts to stabilize barrier islands with jetties and sea walls, this produces other impacts on currents that cause erosion in some waterfront areas and new sand deposits in others. Beach houses in the Outer Banks are not being lost due to rising sea levels, they are being lost due to shifting sands. This short video shows how longshore drift moves a barrier island. Winds blow the tide in at an angle against the island, not perpendicularly, but the backflow of seawater will follow gravity, which is effectively perpendicular to the island. This has the effect of slowly moving the barrier island in the direction that the wind is “pushing” it. From NOAA’s website, “Longshore drift may also create or destroy entire barrier islands along a shoreline. A barrier island is a long offshore deposit of sand situated parallel to the coast. As longshore drifts deposit, remove, and redeposit sand, barrier islands constantly change.” Tucker’s Island, just north of Atlantic City, New Jersey, is an example of a once populated barrier island that completely disappeared. It did not get submerged by rising tides, rather, the island’s sands were shifted by longshore drift until the island no longer existed. The Philadelphia Inquirer published a story about Tucker’s Island in 2015 titled The Mystique of New Jersey’s Atlantis. The small, picturesque island off the southern end of Long Beach Island was once a popular seaside resort. It had a lighthouse, life saving station, two rustic hotels, 20 summer cottages, and a community meetinghouse that served as a church and school. Vacationers from Philadelphia and southern New Jersey relaxed there as long ago as the late 1860s, enjoying its peaceful solitude, cool breezes, fishing, hunting, sailing, swimming and clam bakes. But Tucker’s Island’s days were numbered. Year by year, ocean tides and storms eroded it. The hotels closed in 1910 and later collapsed and were washed away. The lighthouse fell in 1927. This NOAA link shows a series of historical maps of the New Jersey shore dating back to 1856, showing the constantly changing shape, size, and location of Tucker’s Island, until it eventually disappeared, to ultimately be replaced by growth on the southern tip of Long Beach Island. Near Corpus Christi, Texas, the Lydia Ann Lighthouse on the intracoastal waterway is a popular destination for fishing, birding, and kayaking. Its location as a navigational aid makes little sense when looking at current maps, but current maps do not reflect the islands and channels as they existed in 1857 when the lighthouse (then knows as the Aransas Pass Light Station) went into service. The purpose of the lighthouse was to guide ships from the Gulf of Mexico into the Aransas Pass, which lay between San Jose Island to the north, and Mustang Island to the south. At the time, the lighthouse aligned with the channel, but over the years, longshore drift pushed the pass well to the south. The Aransas Pass between the two islands is now about one mile south of where it was when the lighthouse was erected, as both San Jose Island and Mustang Island shifted south. Like so much else related to the phony “climate crisis,” stories of rising seas eating away at barrier islands are dishonest misrepresentations of naturally occurring events. Buck Throckmorton is a writer (“co-blogger”) at the Ace of Spades HQ blog. His career includes many years in banking and commercial lending, as well as a stint with an American auto manufacturer. Buck’s writing often takes a critical look at electric vehicles, “green” energy, and woke capital. Twitter: @BuckThrockmort; email: [email protected] was originally posted at The Pipeline, reposted with permission. ABOUT US© The Heartland Institute

Roger Pielke Jr.: What the media won’t tell you about … Wildfires – Even the UN ‘IPCC has not detected or attributed fire occurrence or area burned to human-caused climate change’

June 25, 2024

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-783 What the media won’t tell you about … Wildfires What the IPCC really says, trend data and the complexities of adaptation By ROGER PIELKE JR. Excerpt: Wildfire, common to many healthy ecosystems, is a particularly challenging problem for society because of its impacts on property and health. It is also challenging because people like to locate themselves in fire-prone places and do things that ignite fires. We have learned through hard experience that complete suppression of wildfire is not the best policy — despite what Smokey Bear says — as it can actually lead to even greater and more harmful wildfire events. These dynamics together make wildfire a challenging issue for policy. This week, wildfire smoke from fires in Canada have drifted south along the eastern seaboard of the United States, affecting New York City and Washington, DC, and correspondingly capturing a lot of media attention. The event should offer a teachable moment on the complexities of climate and the challenges of adapting to a volatile world. With this post I discuss some of the aspects of wildfires that I see as missing in the public discussion. I start with what the Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says about wildfire, discuss readily available data on wildfire trends and conclude with the complexities of policy in the face of interconnected human-environment dynamics. The IPCC has not detected or attributed fire occurrence or area burned to human-caused climate change The IPCC is of course not infallible, but it is essential and always a good first place to start when discussing what is known about extreme events and their impacts. Many people are surprised when they learn that the IPCC does not evaluate trends in or causes of wildfires. Instead, the IPCC focuses on “fire weather” which it defines as (emphasis in original): “Weather conditions conducive to triggering and sustaining wildfires, usually based on a set of indicators and combinations of indicators including temperature, soil moisture, humidity and wind. Fire weather does not include the presence or absence of fuel load. Note: distinct from wildfire occurrence and area burned.” … Globally, emissions from wildfires has decreased globally over recent decades, as well as in many regions Source: Copernicus.eu The figure above shows that wildfire emissions have declined globally since 2003, based on data from the EU. That doesn’t mean that wildfires have decreased everywhere. For instance, wildfires have increased over recent decades in the Western United States, France and Russia. It does mean that claims that wildfire has increased globally in recent decades do not have empirical support, at least by this important and widely accepted metric. Canada — the focus of extensive fire activity this week polluting the air in the eastern U.S. and elsewhere — has not seen an increase in fire activity in recent decades, as you can see in the figure below, showing official data. Forest fires in Canada. Source: NFDP In Quebec specifically, there is also no indication of a long-term increase in fire activity, as you can see below. In fact, recent years have been unusually quiet. Forest fires in Quebec. Source: NFDP Looking at data from the NFDP, we can see that the majority of fires in Quebec and the area that they burn over the past decade are caused by humans, with the balance caused by lightning, as shown in the figure below. Over the much longer term, going back to 1700, research indicates that recent “burn rates” across Canada in recent decades have been much lower than in centuries past, as you can see in the figure below. Source: Chavardès et al. 2022

DEBUNKED: Europe’s claimed ‘worst drought in 500 years’ – Peer-reviewed studies, data & IPCC reveal ‘drought has not increased’ & ‘cannot be attributed to human-caused climate change’

August 18, 2022

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/series-what-the-media-wont-tell-you Dr. Pielke Jr.: Let’s take a look at what the peer-reviewed literature and the IPCC actually say about drought trends in this region and their possible attribution to climate change. One recent study — Vincente-Serrano et al. 2020 — looked at long-term trends in drought in Western Europe from 1851 to 2018, with a focus on precipitation deficits…The figure below shows trends aggregated for the region as a whole. They conclude: “Our study stresses that from the long-term (1851–2018) perspective there are no generally consistent trends in droughts across Western Europe.” Another recent study — Oikonomou et al. 2020 — looked at more recent trends, from 1969 to 2018, and inclusive of all four of the IPCC European sub-regions. They found overall: “Seemingly, one of the central outcomes of this research is that there is little change in drought characteristics for 1969–2018. It also seems, no particular tendencies for more or less frequent droughts in the two major geographical domains of Europe are present. This reinforces the stochastic nature of the drought natural hazard.” … The IPCC AR6 — which summarizes a much broader literature than the two papers cited above — classifies drought into three categories: meteorological, hydrological and agricultural/ecological which emphasize respectively precipitation, streamflow and soil moisture. With respect to hydrological drought in Western and Central Europe the IPCC could not be stronger in its conclusion: “in areas of Western and Central Europe and Northern Europe, there is no evidence of changes in the severity of hydrological droughts since 1950” For hydrological drought the IPCC is also quite strong in its conclusions: “Low confidence: Weak or insignificant trends” In Western and Central Europe — basically Atlantic France all the way to Moscow, north of the Mediterranean region and south of the North Sea region — the IPCC and the underlying peer reviewed research on which it assesses has concluded that drought has not increased and, logically, that increased drought cannot be attributed to human-caused climate change. # Roger Pielke Jr: What the media won’t tell you about drought in Europe Roger Pielke Jr., 15 August 2022[…] Europe is in the midst of what has been called the worst drought in 500 years. According to a drought expert with the European Commission in comments last week: “We haven’t analysed fully the event (this year’s drought), because it is still ongoing, but based on my experience I think that this is perhaps even more extreme than 2018. Just to give you an idea the 2018 drought was so extreme that, looking back at least the last 500 years, there were no other events similar to the drought of 2018, but this year I think it is really worse than 2018.” While a full analysis of the ongoing 2022 European drought remains to be completed, so too the drought itself, it is clearly exceptional if not unprecedented. In this post I take a close look at the state of understanding the possible role of climate change n this year’s drought. Specifically, I report on what the most recent assessment report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and underlying literature and data say about the detection of trends in Western and Central European drought and the attribution of those trends to greenhouse gas emissions. The figure below shows the specific region that is the focus of this post, which includes all of Germany, most of France, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, and western Russia among other nations. In general, for the other three regions in the above map the IPCC expects with varying levels of confidence at at different levels of warming by 2100 drought to decrease in Northern Europe (NEU, which includes the UK), increase in the Mediterranean (MED) and to be highly uncertain in Eastern Europe (EEU). I will be happy to explore these other regions in depth in a future post. (See IPCC AR6 Chapter 11 if you’d like to explore for yourself.) For Western and Central Europe, and especially for Germany and Northern France which are the subject of considerable news coverage right now, accurate representations of the current state of scientific understandings of drought are typically absent. Instead, we see many confident claims by journalists and some scientists of that this year’s drought is a signal of (or, if you prefer — fueled by, linked to, evidence of) human-caused climate change. Let’s take a look at what the peer-reviewed literature and the IPCC actually say about drought trends in this region and their possible attribution to climate change. One recent study — Vincente-Serrano et al. 2020 — looked at long-term trends in drought in Western Europe from 1851 to 2018, with a focus on precipitation deficits. (Note that their geographical definition of Western Europe differs slightly from that of the IPCC). The figure below shows trends aggregated for the region as a whole. They conclude: “Our study stresses that from the long-term (1851–2018) perspective there are no generally consistent trends in droughts across Western Europe.” Source: Vincente-Serrano et al. 2020 The paper goes through a number of different metrics of drought for various subregions across Europe. The authors are careful to note that there are other metrics of drought which may show different results:”We emphasize that our findings should be seen in the context of the drought metric applied. Our assessment of drought characteristics is based on SPI, which is a precipitation-based metric. For a long-term assessment of drought in the region, it is not possible to use metrics that employ other important variables (e.g., streamflow, soil moisture, or AED).” Another recent study — Oikonomou et al. 2020 — looked at more recent trends, from 1969 to 2018, and inclusive of all four of the IPCC European sub-regions. They found overall: “Seemingly, one of the central outcomes of this research is that there is little change in drought characteristics for 1969–2018. It also seems, no particular tendencies for more or less frequent droughts in the two major geographical domains of Europe are present. This reinforces the stochastic nature of the drought natural hazard.” Of course, as the studies above acknowledge, trend analyses can be sensitive to start and end dates. One reason for this sensitivity is the fact that climate varies a great deal even without the presence of human forcings — and this variability is of course one of the challenges facing the detection of long-term trends, especially for rare events. For its part, the IPCC AR6 — which summarizes a much broader literature than the two papers cited above — classifies drought into three categories: meteorological, hydrological and agricultural/ecological which emphasize respectively precipitation, streamflow and soil moisture. With respect to hydrological drought in Western and Central Europe the IPCC could not be stronger in its conclusion: “in areas of Western and Central Europe and Northern Europe, there is no evidence of changes in the severity of hydrological droughts since 1950” For hydrological drought the IPCC is also quite strong in its conclusions: “Low confidence: Weak or insignificant trends” The IPCC lumps WCE in with many other global regions in its conclusion that, “Past increases in agricultural and ecological droughts are found on all continents and several regions” which it expresses with medium confidence, a qualitative judgment which is typically interpreted as about a 50-50 chance of being true. Looking to the future the IPCC is quite clear that we should not expect to be able to attribute trends in drought to climate change today. The IPCC projects only medium confidence for increases in hydrological agricultural/ecological drought at 2 and 4 degrees C increases in temperature and low confidence for increases in meteorological drought at 2C. In short, the IPCC does not expect that either detection or attribution should occur in 2022, when we are still well below 2C and suggests that it may be many decades before detection and attribution claims can be more strongly supported. I have stitched together the summary table from IPCC AR6 Chapter 11 on the various metrics of drought and reproduced that below (alternatively, flip to pp. 1689-90 in Chapter 11 of IPCC AR6). IPCC AR6 summary of it conclusions for various metrics of drought for Western and Central Europe. Source: Chapter 11, 1689-90 The bottom line: In Western and Central Europe — basically Atlantic France all the way to Moscow, north of the Mediterranean region and south of the North Sea region — the IPCC and the underlying peer reviewed research on which it assesses has concluded that drought has not increased and, logically, that increased drought cannot be attributed to human-caused climate change. The only exception here is that the IPCC has medium confidence in an increasing trend of soil moisture deficits in some subregions, however the IPCC has low confidence that this trend can be attributed to human-caused climate change. Looking to future, at temperature changes of 2C and more, at present the IPCC does not expect the current state of scientific understandings to change. But stay tuned — that’s why we do science. # Related Links: Excerpt from Green Fraud: Droughts Aren’t Getting Worse, Either— and Neither Are Wildfires “Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century,” Professor Roger Pielke Jr. observed. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has concluded there is “no trend in global droughts since 1950.” Other studies found “a decline in drought levels in recent decades,” noted the Global Warming Policy Forum in 2020. “The IPCC says it is hard to say (‘low confidence’) whether global drought has become better or worse since 1950,” said the GWPF. A 2015 study found that megadroughts in the past two thousand years were worse and lasted longer than current droughts. There is “less fire today than centuries ago,” as scientists and multiple studies counter the claim that wildfires are due to “climate change.” # Excerpt from Green Fraud: 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.”56 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.” # 1000 year rainfall study suggests droughts and floods used to be longer, worse Biden falsely links Kentucky floods to ‘climate change’ – Reality Check: Floods ‘have not increased in frequency or intensity’ – White House ignores peer-reviewed studies & IPCC & data Debunked: Kentucky’s Floods Were NOT Caused By ‘Climate Change’ – Media/Biden ‘Claims are rubbish & fraudulent’

New Study finds no evidence of a ‘signal of human-caused climate change’ from weather extremes – Published in journal Environmental Hazards

July 7, 2020

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1280576376836206592.html Of these 54 studies:✅53 focus on weather or climate✅39 find no trends after normalization✅8 find decreasing trends✅5 find increasing✅1 finds mixed trends — The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) July 7, 2020 By Roger Pielke Jr. 2 hours ago, 16 tweets, 5 min read Bookmark Save as PDF My Authors 🚨Important New Paper🚨 Pielke, Jr., R. 2021 (in press). Economic “Normalization” of Disaster Losses 1998-2020: A Literature Review and Assessment A few years in the making, a robust peer review process Now accepted 1/2: “This paper reviews 54 normalization studies published 1998 to 2020 and finds little evidence to support claims that any part of the overall increase in global economic losses documented on climate time scales can be attributed to human-caused changes in climate…” “… reinforcing conclusions of recent assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Some excerpts follow… Don’t look for evidence of climate change in economic loss data (normalized or not) — use climate data directly What is a “normalization” anyway? Aggregate disaster losses can increase, yet we could still be doing better That is why the UN Sustainable Development Goals use declining disaster losses as a % of GDP as a metric of success The IPCC has in the past produced literature reviews of normalization studies It is a fast-growing literature, with 54 total studies of which 23 published since 2015 Of these 54 studies: ✅53 focus on weather or climate ✅39 find no trends after normalization ✅8 find decreasing trends ✅5 find increasing ✅1 finds mixed trends The most studied phenomena is US hurricanes ➡️3 find increasing trends ➡️7 find no trendsFortunately, we can use an independent climatological record to evaluate these competing claimsAnd the evidence is pretty overwhelming Everything in this paper is consistent with the assessments of the IPCC, USNCA, WMO and Indian Government Could a consensus be wrong? Sure But this as about as strong a consensus as you will find in climate research Of course, don’t confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence Of course climate change is real & can influence extremes This is robust, hardcore, mainstream, consensus science Don’t be trying to say any different Independent climate research on detection and attribution of trends in phenomena most responsible for economic losses from extremes is perfectly consistent with the broad normalization literature — as we would expect A large literature on vulnerability is also consistent with the normalization literature (also discussed in depth) Conclusions

Pielke Jr: The Inconvenient Facts On Australian Bushfires – Study finds ‘the role of human-caused climate change has not yet been detected’.

January 20, 2020

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/14/the-inconvenient-facts-on-australian-bushfires/#2868b4e84594 By Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. We live in a time where every extreme weather or climate-related event is immediately associated with human-caused climate change. Such associations are often not really about the science of climate, but rather a symbol used to exhort in the political battle over climate change. For instance, on one extreme there is Michael Mann, of Penn State University, who is spending an academic sabbatical in Sydney. He claims that “The brown skies I observed in the Blue Mountains this week are a product of human-caused climate change… it’s not complicated.” Mann frequently uses the climate issue as the basis for electoral politicking – he calls for Australians to remove their Prime Minister: Australians are going “to have to vote out climate change deniers like [Scott] Morrison.” In contrast, the Australian Academy of Science says that the causes of bushfires are actually extremely complicated: “Bushfires, along with other weather and climate challenges, pose complex and wide-ranging problems. Population growth, climate change, temperature extremes, droughts, storms, wind and floods are intersecting in ways that are difficult to untangle and address.” And rather than calling for changing out individual politicians, the Academy calls for improved policies: “Everything, including urban planning; building standards; habitat restoration; biodiversity and species preservation; and land, water and wildlife management will need careful and measured consideration.” The climate issue is so deeply politicized that some will cheerlead the politicization of the issue, some even going so far as to even deny any connection between climate change and fires at all. Nowadays, the politicization of scientific issues is often intense, but it is not uncommon. Climate change of course is an extreme example of science that is variously hyped and denied, making it difficult for non-experts to tell the difference. And using your political preferences to sort what you think is good science from bad is never a good idea. Fortunately, the scientific community has developed some special organizations whose job it is to play things straight. One such group is called @ScienceBrief at the University of East Anglia’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (funded by the United Kingdom and European Commission). @ScienceBrief has produced a summary of what the Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded about the risks of wildfires, and placed those conclusions into the context of more recent peer-reviewed literature. Their summary is not likely to make anyone happy at the political extremes of the climate debate, but it is a fair representation of the current state of the science, as found in leading assessments and the peer-reviewed literature. I encourage you to read it in full, but below are some highlights. First, and crucially, they conclude: “The impact of anthropogenic climate change on fire weather is emerging above natural variability.” Human-caused climate change affects “fire weather” which they define as “periods with a high likelihood of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and often high winds.” However, the emergence of that impact has only been detected in ~22% of the world’s burnable land area, according to a recent study by John Abatzoglou and colleagues. They conclude that, “Detection and attribution of global fire activity to anthropogenic climate change is confounded by influences of other anthropogenic activities such as land‐cover change, population, and fire suppression as well as temporally limited satellite‐based fire records.” In 2011, we contributed an early paper proposing a methodology focused on quantifying the “timescale of emergence” of a signal of human-caused climate change on tropical cyclones (hurricanes) and their impacts. The idea behind this approach is to use climate models, assuming for purposes of analysis that their projections are accurate, and ask when would we expect to detect a signal of human-caused climate change in climate variables or in their impacts. It will always be easier to detect the role of human-caused climate change weather and climate data (like in fire weather) than it will be to detect that role in societal impacts (like in the number of buildings burned). As we explained in an analysis of Australian bushfire losses over time: “bushfire damage is not solely a function of bushfire weather; far from it, in fact. Even given a gradual aggravation of bushfire weather due to anthropogenic climate change or other factors, a bushfire still has to be ignited. Once ignited, a bushfire then has to traverse the landscape and impact a populated area, where outcomes in terms of damage will be a function of the spatial disposition of dwellings with respect to the fire front, and especially distance of properties from the bushland boundary.” In the Abatzoglou study, the 22% of the burnable land area where detection of the role of human-caused climate change has been achieved includes the Amazon, Mediterranean, Scandinavia and Western North America. It does not include Siberia or Australia. That’s right, according to the latest research looking at the issue, the role of human-caused climate change in Australian bushfires has not yet been detected. It remains to be seen if the fires of 2019/2020 will alter that conclusion, but according to the Abatzoglou study, such detection is not expected until the 2040s. And that conclusion depends upon projections based on an extreme (and implausible) scenario for future emissions (RCP8.5), so detection may take a bit longer, assuming the projections are correct. Those who have chosen to wage their political battles over climate change through science – whatever side they are on – will certainly not be happy with the nuanced, somewhat complex, present state of detection and attribution of wildfire to human-caused climate change. For those of us interested in more aggressive mitigation and adaptation policies scientific nuance and complexity is not at all a problem – because it is accurate, and accuracy is important. Playing things straight on climate science may not always support a particular political agenda, and at times might even seem to undercut claims by one side or another. But what playing things straight can do is sustain public and policy maker trust in the scientific community. Playing things straight can be difficult on highly politicized issues, but organizations like the IPCC and @ScienceBrief are absolutely essential to the integrity of science as viewed by politicians and the public, whatever their political predispositions happen to be. So how should the media report on the bushfires? Accurately. That means relying on organizations like the IPCC, and placing the outlier views of individual scientists into that broader context. Here is an example of how the information from @ScienceBrief might be translated into plain English: “The effects of climate change have not yet been detected in Australian fires, but changes underway suggest that those effects will be detectable as early as the 2040s. If so we should expect, more and more intense fires, and respond accordingly.” The science of climate change and extreme events does not always fit readily into political campaigns, no matter how popular or accepted, and certainly not easily into electoral politics. However, as experts it is absolutely essential that some part of our community plays things straight in support of our collective efforts to prepare for and mitigate an uncertain climate future. Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website.

The disastrous fires in Australia are man-caused, but they’re not ‘climate change’

January 8, 2020

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/the_disastrous_fires_in_australia_are_man_caused_but_theyre_not_climate_change.html By Andrea Widburg Leftists around the world are at it again, blaming “anthropogenic” (i.e., man-caused) climate change for the Australian fires. While it’s true that the fires are “man-caused,” they’re not anthropogenic in the way the Left thinks they are. At the Golden Globes, the glitterati focused on the fires raging in Australia. Russell Crowe, the famous climatologist…er, the actor who left school at 16, confirmed that the fire was all about climate change, so reparative action is urgently needed: “Make no mistake, the tragedy unfolding in Australia is climate change-based,” said Crowe in the statement, which was read by Aniston. “We need to act based on science, move our global workforce to renewable energy and respect our planet for the unique and amazing place it is. That way, we all have a future.” Another famous Australian, Cate Blanchett (who “explored her passion for performing arts” at college), agreed: “When one country faces a climate disaster, we all face a climate disaster.” Meanwhile, ABC made a laughingstock out of itself with a map superimposing Australia across the United States, implying that an area equal to 25% of America was on fire, even as ABC acknowledged that the fire was, in fact, only as big as Maryland. Unsurprisingly, Hollywood and the media are wrong. Nothing unusual is happening with Australia’s climate. The only unusual thing is that environmentalists have prevented remediation and arsonists have had fun. Australia has long had hot, dry summers. What’s exceptional about Australian summer heat lately is that, on average, the trend is down from the highs more than 100 years ago: Average rainfall is also up over the same time period: When you have increased rain in a generally dry climate, plant life grows like crazy. Then, during the dry season, that plant life turns to tinder. There’s only one way to deal with that tinder, which is to remove it. Rod Keenan, University of Melbourne forestry professor, explains: Done well, controlled burning limits a bushfire’s spread and makes suppression easier, by reducing the amount of flammable material. Clearing or thinning vegetation on roadsides and other areas also helps maintain fuel breaks, allowing firefighters access to forests in an emergency. As former fire chiefs recently pointed out, of all factors driving a fire’s severity — temperature, wind speed, topography, fuel moisture and fuel load — fuel load is the only one humans can influence. The environmentalists’ influence in Australia, however, prevents sensible approaches. Their impact ranges from the personally foolish: Jo Nova has a damning story about locals in East Gippsland in the state of Victoria who successfully stopped a planned controlled burn at Nowa Nowa. Two of them were pictured holding signs saying, “Spring burns kill baby birds alive” and “Stop burning nesting birds”. …to the politically stupid: “The problems we have got have been created by the Greens,” Mr Joyce told The Australian. “We haven’t had the capacity to easily access (hazard) reduction burns because of all of the paperwork that is part of green policy. “We don’t have access to dams because they have been decommissioned on national parks because of green policy. We have trees that have fallen over vehicles and block roads, so people cannot either get access to fight a fire or to get away from fires. And we can’t knock over the trees because of Greens policy. The Green policies led inexorably to the primary cause behind all the fires: arson. Since November, Australia has arrested 183 people for starting the raging fires. Of those, 127 arrests were for arson, with the rest being the result of carelessness. Moreover, 67 of the arsonists identified have been juveniles. The news reports don’t specify motives, but experience says they range from children intentionally starting fires for fun to psychopaths intent on revenge. Some are also “weird Pete down the road.” In this crazy day and age, we wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some of the arsonists were environmentalists proving a point, much like the many activists who commit race hoaxes when they run out of real evidence showing societal racism. Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/the_disastrous_fires_in_australia_are_man_caused_but_theyre_not_climate_change.html#ixzz6AT6BJzp6 Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

‘Rank climate propaganda’ – ‘Associated Press touts ‘a clear sign of human-caused climate change’ – But scientists dismantle claims

March 20, 2019

https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/03/19/media-touts-clear-sign-of-human-caused-climate-change-here-are-the-facts/ Media Touts ‘Clear Sign of Human-Caused Climate Change.’ Here Are the Facts. By Marc Morano Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has made another attempt to convince the public of global warming, but his latest analysis has climate scientists once again refuting his claims. On Tuesday, Borenstein cited AP analysis that found hot temperature records in the U.S. were being broken twice as often as cold temperature records. He concluded that this is “a clear sign of human-caused climate change.” Borenstein wrote: The AP looked at 424 weather stations throughout the Lower 48 states that had consistent temperature records since 1920 and counted how many times daily hot temperature records were tied or broken and how many daily cold records were set. In a stable climate, the numbers should be roughly equal. Since 1999, the ratio has been two warm records set or broken for every cold one. In 16 of the last 20 years, there have been more daily high-temperature records than low. He went on to cite various climate scientists: The AP shared the data analysis with several climate and data scientists, who all said the conclusion was correct, consistent with scientific peer-reviewed literature and showed a clear sign of human-caused climate change. They pointed out that trends over decades are more robust than over single years. He concluded: The analysis stopped with data through 2018. However, the first two months of 2019 are showing twice as many cold records than hot ones. But the scientists he cited don’t speak for all climate scientists. Some, in fact, are dismissing his “clear sign” analysis. Climatologist John Christy told me that Borenstein framed the data wrongly: The occurrence of both record highs and record lows is declining. Record-low events are simply declining more rapidly than record highs. The drop in record lows is associated with development around the weather stations, which causes low temperatures to increase more than highs for a variety of reasons. Most climate change activists cite the greenhouse gas theory—that man-made gases are causing changes to the Earth’s temperature. Christy noted that this theory predicts an increase in frequency of record-breaking temperatures. Yet the exact opposite is happening in the U.S.—the frequency of those temps is declining. The cause? Christy says it’s likely “urbanization and natural variability.” He added: “I’ve actually done this same analysis for the 682 [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] stations with at least 105 years of record since 1895. It is clear that the occurrence of both record high and record lows has declined since 1895, thanks to many records set from the 1920s to 1954.” He continued: The AP … is spinning the story by only noting that record lows are fewer than highs now—but the real story is that in the U.S., both extremes are falling. This is consistent with the decline in number of days greater than 100 [degrees] Fahrenheit (or 105 Fahrenheit or 95 Fahrenheit, etc.). The differential decline in record temps is inconsistent with [greenhouse gas] theory, which predicts an increase in record highs and higher TMax in general. Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. expressed skepticism of the AP analysis as well: Without assessing the role of increased urbanization and other land-use changes … changes in atmospheric aerosols overhead, microclimate around observing site, changes in heights of observations, and concurrent trends in surface air humidity, it is not robust to attribute any changes in extreme temperatures to just human-added atmospheric CO2. He added: “We have published on each of these subjects but work remains mostly ignored.” Borenstein’s claims are also countered in the peer-review scientific literature. A 2018 analysis found that multiple recent studies and long-term data refuted claims that there had been an increase in heat waves. In addition, a 2013 paper published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology found that U.S. extreme heat waves have decreased since the 1930s. It’s also important to note that recent temperatures are not at all unusual, with 2018 continuing a several-year cooling trend. The media-hyped “hottest year” claims do not hold up to scrutiny. Princeton physicist Will Happer ridiculed such claims and explained that “alleged record warmings are tenths of a degree or less, comparable to the statistical error.” Borenstein, the chief climate reporter for the Associated Press, has a long history of promoting dubious climate claims and essentially lobbying the public to “believe” that man-made climate change is a dire emergency and that government “solutions” are needed. He has repeatedly recycled Antarctic melt fears despite contrary evidence, and unscientifically claimed that “climate change” has made the Earth “weirder” and “downright wilder.” Americans who rely on the Associated Press for climate news and information are being misinformed. The AP is serving up nothing short of rank climate propaganda. # Related Links: See: Flashback: ‘Long sad history of AP reporter Seth Borenstein’s woeful global warming reporting’ AP’s Seth Borenstein at it again hyping Antarctic melt fears – Recycles same claims from 2014, 1990, 1979, 1922 & 1901! – Climate Depot’s Point-By-Point Rebuttal AP’s Seth Borenstein walks back the ‘hottest year’ claim AP’s Seth Borenstein publishes pure propaganda: Climate change has made Earth ‘hotter, weirder…downright wilder’ AP’s Seth Borenstein does his part for UN Peru climate conference propaganda AP Reporter Seth Borenstein Emphasizing Value Of ‘New Catch Phrases; To Hype Up Climate Stories! The media hyped “hottest year” claims do not hold up to scrutiny. See: Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer rips NYT claim of hottest ‘years on record’: ‘Alleged record warmings are tenths of a degree or less, comparable to the statistical error’ Here we go again! Media hypes alleged ‘Hottest year’ declarations as 2018 cools, slips to 4th ‘warmest’ – Book excerpt – Media and scientists hyping temperature changes year-to-year so small as to be within the margin of error. # Pielke Sr. references: Here are just a few examples of mine on each topic:role of increased urbanization and other land use changes/land management, Pielke Sr., R.A., R. Mahmood, and C. McAlpine, 2016: Land’s complex role in climate change. Physics Today, 69(11), 40.https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/r-384.pdfPielke Sr., R.A., A. Pitman, D. Niyogi, R. Mahmood, C. McAlpine, F. Hossain, K. Goldewijk, U. Nair, R. Betts, S. Fall, M. Reichstein, P. Kabat, and N. de Noblet-Ducoudré, 2011: Land use/land cover changes and climate: Modeling analysis and observational evidence. WIREs Clim Change 2011, 2:828–850. doi: 10.1002/wcc.144. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/r-369.pdfchanges in atmospheric aerosols (and CO2 and/or water vapor)) overhead,Matsui, T., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2006: Measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Letts., 33, L11813, doi:10.1029/2006GL025974. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-312.pdfchanges in local vertical mixingMcNider, R.T., G.J. Steeneveld, B. Holtslag, R. Pielke Sr, S. Mackaro, A. Pour Biazar, J.T. Walters, U.S. Nair, and J.R. Christy, 2012: Response and sensitivity of the nocturnal boundary layer over land to added longwave radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res., 117, D14106, doi:10.1029/2012JD017578. Copyright (2012) American Geophysical Union http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/r-371.pdfmicroclimate around observing site [your latest paper is best example of this]Davey, C.A., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2005: Microclimate exposures of surface-based weather stations – implications for the assessment of long-term temperature trends. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., Vol. 86, No. 4, 497–504. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-274.pdfchanges in heights of observations, Lin, X., R.A. Pielke Sr., R. Mahmood, C.A. Fiebrich, and R. Aiken, 2016: Observational evidence of temperature trends at two levels in the surface layer. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16-827-841. https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/r-385.pdfandconcurrent trends in surface air humidity Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, and J. Morgan, 2004: Assessing “global warming” with surface heat content. Eos, 85, No. 21, 210-211.http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-290.pdf

‘Yet another study finds little basis for attribution of extreme weather (drought-flood-storm) to human-caused climate change.’

December 29, 2015

Excerpts: “There can be a tendency in some quarters to want to confidently attribute extremes to anthropogenic climate change in the absence of scientific consensus or to argue that it isn’t possible to link individual extreme events with anthropogenic climate change, neither of which is correct. Given that many extreme weather and climate events have occurred before substantial anthropogenic modification of the climate system has been clearly detected in many regions, an over simplistic attribution to human causes could be costly. For example, based on the occurrence of a particularly damaging extreme event, plans could made to adapt to an increasing frequency of such events in future when in fact this is not what is expected.”

Scientists reject notion that human-caused climate change led to war in Syria

May 21, 2015

Search Results for: is climate change man-caused