Get PJ Media on your Apple

IPCC Backpedals on Extreme Weather Claims

They backed off warming to focus on extreme weather. Now, they retreat from those claims as well.

by
S. T. Karnick

Bio

October 2, 2013 - 12:08 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

Embarrassed by the current decade-and-a-half period without any global warming, those calling for worldwide action to halt climate change have shifted focus to worries about extreme weather events. It makes sense, of course, for alarmists to direct attention away from something that isn’t happening — global warming — towards frightening stories about something that could conceivably be occurring. Unfortunately for the alarmists — but fortunately for the rest of us — both independent scientific observations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own latest report (released on Monday) make it clear that a warming of the Earth is not leading to an increase in extreme weather. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case.

As the newly released “Summary for Policymakers” of the upcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report indicates, the UN panel seems to be walking back many of its claims, reducing both their estimated effects of global warming and their claims of certainty regarding their predictions.

IPCC’s findings regarding extreme weather, for example, are both mundane and admittedly uncertain. For example, the summary notes:

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950.

It would be astonishing if such changes had not occurred. The climate always changes, which no one disputes, and incidences of various types of extreme weather continually rise and fall over time. Thus the use of the ominous 1950 date — signifying the significant rise in global CO2 levels — is at best irrelevant, and in fact is quite deceptive.

The summary continues:

It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia. (Emphasis in original)

That’s three out of seven continents; apparently the other four are just fine. Next:

There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased. The frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation events has likely increased in North America and Europe. In other continents, confidence in changes in heavy precipitation events is at most medium. (Emphasis in original)

In Table SPM.1, the summary states that the probability of further increases in warm spells/heat waves in terms of “(f)requency and/or duration increases over most land areas” in the early 21st century (the period when we will be able to observe whether the IPCC’s predictions are true) is:

Not formally assessed.

The expectation of an “(i)ncrease in the frequency, intensity, and/or amount of heavy precipitation” is declared to be “(l)ikely over many land areas.” It doesn’t specify how many such areas, indicating that they cannot claim this to be a global problem.

The summary further acknowledges “(l)ow confidence” regarding “(i)ncreases in intensity and/or duration of drought” and “(i)ncreases in intense tropical cyclone activity.”

Even this decidedly muted confidence appears to be misplaced. As Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James M. Taylor observed at Forbes.com:

Just about every type of extreme weather event is becoming less frequent and less severe in recent years as our planet continues its modest warming in the wake of the Little Ice Age.

Taylor notes that data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed the period of May 2012 to May 2013 had the fewest tornadoes ever recorded, and 2012 had the fewest violent tornados (EF3+) ever observed. The low incidence of violent tornadoes is particularly notable as tornadoes constitute extreme weather that does real damage. The May 2012-13 period also had the second-fewest tornado fatalities since 1875 despite a huge increase in the nation’s population since then, and the longest streak ever of days without a tornado-related death: 220 days. In July 2012, we had the fewest tornadoes since modern records began.

The same is true of hurricanes. Although the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ominously predicted an “active or extremely active” hurricane season for 2013, hurricane activity has been virtually nonexistent this year, and not a single hurricane has struck the United States.

The United States is enjoying its longest-recorded streak without a major hurricane strike: almost 2,900 days. The previous record was only 2,300 days. Similarly, droughts have become shorter and less frequent, soil moisture is increasing, flooding is decreasing, and the number of wildfires is less than a third of what it was during its late-1970s/early 1980s peak. (The amount of acres burned has increased, though undoubtedly due to poor forest management by the government.)

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
These charlatans will always answer, "the science is settled" or "the consensus of scientists is that MMGW is occurring." Michael Crichton made a great speech about the falsity of MMGW at Harvard before he died: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
And yet if you challenge them to produce evidence to support their claims, they label you "anti-science". Doublespeak.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
The false precision coupled with the manipulated data and logic of their model is corrupt to its core. This is ever more obvious.

What is far more troubling is that US policymakers continue to base law and regulation as though it is "settled science". The disconnect between verifiable evidence and policy is breathtaking. Yet we poor masses pay the price in countless ways every day of our lives due to all the regulatory burdens currently in place based on this corrupt modeling over the years. Sickening...
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (16)
All Comments   (16)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
my co-worker's step-mother makes $80 every hour on the computer. She has been fired for 5 months but last month her payment was $14571 just working on the computer for a few hours. browse around this website... WWW.Rush64.COM
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ho hum... nothing to see here... wake me up in ????
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
my Aunty Isabelle recently got an almost new yellow Mercedes-Benz E-Class Sedan just by some part-time working online from home... . .......:> w­w­w.j­o­b­s­6­0.c­o­m
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Is this schadenfreude I am experiencing? God, it feels wonderful!
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
my neighbor's ex-wife makes $74 every hour on the computer. She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her pay was $21344 just working on the computer for a few hours. view website>>>>>>>
http://www.max61.com
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Next they'll tell us that AGW poses a new danger: a LACK of extreme weather events.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
We had a pretty rough storm (for September) up here in the Seattle area last weekend. In perusing a local popular weather blog Monday morning, I only had to count two comments before some genius labeled this "extreme weather" caused by "global climate change".

Science -- of climates, or anything else -- is hard to *do* properly and not made the least bit easier by those with a political agenda. Reason, facts, even debate cut no ice (pun intended) with anyone who sees this issue in terms of "winners" and "losers".

All this climate change nonsense appears particularly susceptible; its proponents will simply never admit it's a political issue ("It's science! We're scientists! Our opponents are anti-science 'deniers'!"). They never can, of course -- right up until they grab the political reins and foist its rules on the rest of us.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Climatology barely qualifies as science, IMHO. Reproducibility of results and peer review of methodology are key to the scientific method. No matter how many times you say the science is settled, it most emphatically is not until the hypothesis is proven with experimentation and verified via reproduction. Computer models are garbage when used on a system so unimaginably complex as the earth's climate, and don't qualify as proof of anything - they are too easily manipulated with false data, selective data, and code manipulation.

Charles Mann, Jim Hansen, and Al Gore are frauds and swindlers, and should be treated as such. We used to tar and feather snake oil salesmen so they never came back.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Charles Mann..." ? You mean Michael Mann?
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Isn't Climatology that discipline that tries to turn base metals into gold?
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Maybe this pause in warming is actually an inflection point and the previously feared global cooling is about to hit us. :-)
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
The false precision coupled with the manipulated data and logic of their model is corrupt to its core. This is ever more obvious.

What is far more troubling is that US policymakers continue to base law and regulation as though it is "settled science". The disconnect between verifiable evidence and policy is breathtaking. Yet we poor masses pay the price in countless ways every day of our lives due to all the regulatory burdens currently in place based on this corrupt modeling over the years. Sickening...
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
These charlatans will always answer, "the science is settled" or "the consensus of scientists is that MMGW is occurring." Michael Crichton made a great speech about the falsity of MMGW at Harvard before he died: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thanks for the link, hm. That was really interesting.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
And yet if you challenge them to produce evidence to support their claims, they label you "anti-science". Doublespeak.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
But all the members of the IPPC and the "scientists" on whose judgements their assessments were made Still have their jobs. Jobs with privileges tnat ordinary common people can only dream of. Paid for by those ordinary,common people, the new serfdom to international political agencies. With support and underwriting from American politicians.

One cozy club of the royalty to the "Internationsal Empire" created post WW II by the chief protagonist, FD Roosevelt to clone his predecessor Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations which failoed because the world was not yet ready.

The American treasury the inducement to the "Allies" for reconstruction of their destroyed infrastructures, Another of those schemes designed by the cions of extreme wealth and their courtiers in the best and brightest who KNEW what the underlings, the commoners, needed "for their own good".

The members of this IPPC, consistent with political culture of "old - or new - boy networks, STILL have their jobs and indexed linked pension.
41 weeks ago
41 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All