Climate change (Photo credit: jeancliclac)
This Sott.net post, by Seth Borenstein, The Associated Press, shows how the AGW warmist propaganda is so readily published, so easily accepted by the public, yet it is clearly absolute rubbish!
I do not need to prove this point directly but will refer you to another post, by ‘WattsupWithThat” where Anthony Watts clearly provides evidence of natural weather patterns and past examples of similarly serious weather extremes proving that the so-called “Climate Change” falsely linked to CO2 levels doesn’t even exist, let alone have the claimed relationship.
Firstly, the Sott article: Propaganda Alert! Scientists Warn of Unprecedented Onslaught of Disasters Due to Global Warming (Click to read it all yourself).
US, Washington – Global warming is leading to such severe storms, droughts and heat waves that countries should prepare for an unprecedented onslaught of deadly and costly weather disasters, an international panel of climate scientists says in a report issued Wednesday.
The greatest danger from extreme weather is in highly populated, poor regions of the world, the report warns, but no corner of the globe – from Mumbai to Miami – is immune. The document by a Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists forecasts stronger tropical cyclones and more frequent heat waves, deluges and droughts.
The 594-page report blames the scale of recent and future disasters on a combination of man-made climate change, population shifts and poverty.
In the past, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, founded in 1988 by the United Nations, has focused on the slow inexorable rise of temperatures and oceans as part of global warming. This report by the panel is the first to look at the less common but far more noticeable extreme weather changes, which recently have been costing on average about $80 billion a year in damage.
“We mostly experience weather and climate through the extreme,” said Stanford University climate scientist Chris Field, who is one of the report’s top editors. “That’s where we have the losses. That’s where we have the insurance payments. That’s where things have the potential to fall apart.
“There are lots of places that are already marginal for one reason or another,” Field said. But it’s not just poor areas: “There is disaster risk almost everywhere.”
The scientists say that some places, particularly parts of Mumbai in India, could become uninhabitable from floods, storms and rising seas. In 2005, over 24 hours nearly 900 millimetres of rain fell on the city, killing more than 1,000 people and causing massive damage. Roughly 2.7 million people live in areas at risk of flooding.
Other cities at lesser risk include Miami, Shanghai, Bangkok, China’s Guangzhou, Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh City, Myanmar’s Yangon (formerly known as Rangoon) and India’s Kolkata (formerly known as Calcutta). The people of small island nations, such as the Maldives, may also need to abandon their homes because of rising seas and fierce storms.
“The decision about whether or not to move is achingly difficult and I think it’s one that the world community will have to face with increasing frequency in the future,” Field said in a telephone news conference Wednesday.
This report – the summary of which was issued in November – is unique because it emphasizes managing risks and how taking precautions can work, Field said. In fact, the panel’s report uses the word “risk” 4,387 times.
Field pointed to storm-and-flood-prone Bangladesh, an impoverished country that has learned from its past disasters. In 1970, a Category 3 tropical cyclone named Bhola killed more than 300,000 people. In 2007, a stronger cyclone killed only 4,200 people. Despite the loss of life, the country is considered a success story because it was better prepared and invested in warning and disaster prevention, Field said.
A country that was not as prepared, Myanmar, was hit with a similar sized storm in 2008, which killed 138,000 people.
The study says forecasts that some tropical cyclones – which includes hurricanes in the United States – will be stronger because of global warming, but the number of storms should not increase and may drop slightly.
Some other specific changes in severe weather that the scientists said they had the most confidence in predicting include more heat waves and record hot temperatures worldwide, increased downpours in Alaska, Canada, northern and central Europe, East Africa and north Asia,
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told The Associated Press that while all countries are getting hurt by increased climate extremes, the overwhelming majority of deaths are happening in poorer less developed places. That, combined with the fact that richer countries are generating more greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels, makes the issue of weather extremes one of fairness.
However, extremes aren’t always deadly. Sometimes, they are just strange.
Study co-author David Easterling of the National Climatic Data Center says this month’s heat wave, while not deadly, fits the pattern of worsening extremes. The U.S. has set nearly 6,800 high temperature records in March. Last year, the United States set a record for billion-dollar weather disasters, though many were tornadoes, which can’t be linked to global warming.
“When you start putting all these events together, the insurance claims, it’s just amazing,” Easterling said. “It’s pretty hard to deny the fact that there’s got to be some climate signal.”
Northeastern University engineering and environment professor Auroop Ganguly, who didn’t take part in writing the IPCC report, praised it and said the extreme weather it highlights “is one of the major and important types of what we would call ‘global weirding.’ ” It’s a phrase that some experts have been starting to use more to describe climate extremes.
Source: The Canadian Press
Now the ‘WUWT’ post, “Another blow to warmist hysteria over weather is not climate unless we say it is: “2011 damage is qualitatively indistinguishable from 1974″. (Click to read it).
Until the April 26/27th 2011 tornado outbreak, The April 3rd 1974 was the biggest outbreak of tornadoes in US history. Last year, the usual suspects railed about how the outbreak was a clear consequence of global warming> climate change> climate disruption, even going so far as saying such linkage was “required by ethics” (insert facepalm here). I called them all “Hucksters“. The wailing was sort of like when 1934 was the warmest year in the USA until James Hansen came along and “adjusted” 1998 to be warmer.
I and many others said it connecting AGW to the 2011 outbreak was rubbish- there’s no connection in the data, and that it was what you expect to get when you have La Niña conditions like we did in the spring 0f 2011. WeatherBell’s Joe D’Aleo even predicted the likelihood of severe weather ahead of time based on La Niña conditions and snow cover. (Update: Here’s two reports from him before the outbreaks:)
La Ninas are often far more costly than El Ninos (PDF)
La Nina of 2010 2nd strongest (PDF)
During El Niño the jet stream is oriented from west to east across the southern portion of the United States. Thus, this region becomes more susceptible to severe weather outbreaks. During La Niña the jet stream and severe weather is likely to be farther north.
Note the collision zone in the US southeast during La Niña patterns. 1974 was a La Niña year too.
Then the wailing shifted to monetary damage claims, about how much more damage there was than in 1974 in terms of cost, not just in tornadoes, but well, everything weather related. While I can’t comment on everything, I can say with certainty the tornado claims are rubbish thanks to a new paper just published by Kevin Simmons, Daniel Sutter and Dr. Roger Pielke Jr..
Simmons, K., D. Sutter, R.A. Pielke, Jr. (2012), Blown away: monetary and human impacts of the 2011 U.S. tornadoes.Extreme events and insurance: 2011 annus horribilis (Edited by C. Courbage and W.R. Stahel)The Geneva Reports: Risk and Insurance Research , Published March 2012.
Pielke Jr. writes on his blog:
1. When using our dataset, it is best to use the damage numbers as tabulated by the US NWS as they are consistent over time
2. That said, 2011 damage is qualitatively indistinguishable from 1974 and
19541953 at >;$20B3. That would give a simple baseline expectation of 1 in 20 for 2011, but half or twice that would not be implausible given the uncertainties, so between 1 in 10 and 1 in 40
4. For 2012 and looking ahead there are two big question marks, one more certain than the other. Urbanization is increasing, which means that the chance of large losses increases (somewhat at the expense of smaller and medium losses of course). And there has been a notable and significant decline in the incidence of strong tornadoes in recent decades
Continued here:
Please comment if you find this difficult to agree with. Please first think about the fact that global warming, supposedly the cause of all these extremes, has not been evident for at least 10 years. Please also ask yourself what is the current significance of the IPCC hockey stick temperature graph that was intended to predict global warming in step with the still increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, a graph which is clearly wrong.
So they keep changing the ‘goal posts’ to correct or offset their mistakes. (‘Global Warming’ – ‘Climate Change’ – ‘global weirding.’ )
A ‘panel of Nobel Prize Winners’ – If the public cannot see the farce here, Nobel Prizes are given out like ‘McDonalds” special kid’s toys. Just join the ’cause’ and hold out your hand.
- Mumbai, Miami on list for big weather disasters (mercurynews.com)
- How Global Warming Sharply Increases The Likelihood Of ‘Outlandish’ Heat Waves (thinkprogress.org)
- Scientists: Global Warming ‘Very Likely’ Caused Recent Extreme Weather Disasters (thinkprogress.org)
