Links tagged “ipcc”
- New Study Crushes IPCC Alarm: Hails A 22% Global Decline In Natural Disaster Death Risk Since 1990s
- New Study: 100-Year Flood Events Are Globally Decreasing In Frequency & Probability Since 1970
"The probability of a 100-year flood event is now so rare it has only been occurring once every 358 years on average since 1970." ...
"In present-day conditions, 100-year flood events have globally become so rare that they now (since 1970) only occur once every 358 years on average. And 50-year floods only occur once every 152 years on average.
With the cooler climate conditions of the 1970s, there was a 45% probability that a 50-year flood would occur. In today’s conditions, however, there is only an 18% chance that a 50-year flood will occur."
- Bingo: Warmist Ben Santer’s former friend described Santer perfectly: Bingo! “[My friend] argued that my politics had infected my science’
- ‘Climate has no internal variability,’ Michael Mann & Co. claim – Dr. Judith Curry is unimpressed: ‘Wow. In one fell swoop…debates over attribution of 20th century warming…all go away. Brilliant! Almost as ‘brilliant’ as Hockey Stick’
- Despite Media Claims, Climate Change Isn’t Increasing the Threat of Flooding in the Ohio Valley
- Andrew Montford: The good news on climate: ‘It is not the impending catastrophe that some might make it out to be’
- New Study Finds 25-45% Of The Instrumental Warming Since The 1950s Is Due To Urbanization — NOT CO2
- Study rips ‘unrealistic, extreme scenario’ climate models – ‘Distorting the view of our climate future: The misuse and abuse of climate pathways and scenarios’
"Attempts to address scenario misuse within the community have thus far not worked. The result has been the widespread production of myopic or misleading perspectives on future climate change and climate policy."
- Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘The climate is going to change independent of what we do with emissions’ – ‘Thinking that we can control the climate is misguided hubris’
Dr. Curry: "The climate is going to change independent of what we do with emissions. People think climate change equals the CO2 control knob. With that kind of thinking, we’re bound to be surprised by what happens with the 21st-century climate. I won’t even hazard a guess as to whether something really crazy will happen, or whether it could be relatively benign. A lot of people are talking about a solar minimum in the mid to late 21st century that could very well happen and have a significant impact. We just don’t know. Thinking that we can control the climate is misguided hubris. ...
Politicians say 'I believe in science' and they don’t understand anything about it. They say they believe in it. It’s like they’re believing in Santa Claus. it’s really a political and cultural signifier rather than any real understanding."
"All of these targets and promises about energy are just so much hot air, if you will, sound and fury. We don’t have solutions and nobody’s meeting their targets. I mean, all they do is go to these meetings, make more and more stringent commitments that everyone knows aren’t going to be met."
- STUDY: Reducing CO2 would require COVID-like lockdowns for decades – Global CO2 emissions dropped 8% in 2020 – But CO2 did NOT decrease in the atmosphere
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “cumulative reductions of about this magnitude would be required every year to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement by 2030,” stated researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology (KIT) in Germany. “Recent measurements by researchers of KIT revealed that concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has not yet changed due to the estimated emission reductions.”
"In spite of the reduced emissions, our measurements show that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has not yet decreased," said Dr. Sussmann in a press release. "To reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the long run, restrictions imposed during the corona pandemic would have to be continued for decades. But even this would be far from being sufficient."
-
New Study Crushes IPCC Alarm: Hails A 22% Global Decline In Natural Disaster Death Risk Since 1990s
-
Geologist’s skeptical global warming book is driving Norwegian climate alarmists nuts
-
‘Sink into your grief’: How a ‘sustainability’ scientist confronts her ‘feelings of sadness’ over ‘climate change’
Sustainability scientist Kimberly Nicholas new book, Under the Sky We Make: How to Be Human in a Warming World: "She has struggled to address her feelings of sadness." ... Q: You write that your own approach has included learning to “sink into your grief.”
A: There are things that are changing beyond recognition right now from climate change, and that makes me really sad. And to me, grieving is an important part of the process of acknowledging that. It does draw from my experience of losing a dear friend to cancer, who died at 37. ... it shouldn’t take a terminal diagnosis for life on Earth to wake us up to the urgency of working for climate stability." ...
“My dispassionate training,” the Lund University researcher writes, has “not prepared me for the increasingly frequent emotional crises of climate change,” or how to respond to students who come to her to share their own grief. ... I have pretty much stopped flying for work. It hasn’t meant I can’t be a productive researcher. I have collaborations and projects, but I try to focus on work that doesn’t require so much travel or is easier to reach by train. The only flight I haven’t yet given up is going back to the U.S. to see my family."
#
-
The Climate Blame Game: New paper debunks claims that humans are causing more extreme weather
Dr. Matt Briggs points out that most attribution claims are based around comparing simulations of the climate today to simulations of the climate as it might have been without human activity. But as he explains, this approach has a fundamental problem: “We simply have little or no idea what the climate would have been without human activity. Moreover, we can’t ever know what it was like.” ...
“In order to attribute individual weather events to humankind, scientists need a perfect model of the climate. They do not have this. Therefore, claims that we are responsible for any particular weather event are at best overconfident, if not plain wrong.”
