Is climate change to blame?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- After an extreme weather event, people often ask: is climate change to blame? On June 12, 2024, the Yale Center for Environmental Communication hosted an insightful discussion on attribution science - a field focused on determining the influence of human-induced climate change on extreme weather events.
This discussion was moderated by Dr. Jennifer Marlon, Senior Research Scientist at the Yale School of the Environment. It featured a panel of expert climate scientists and communicators including Dr. Friederike Otto, Dr. Andrew Pershing, and Dr. Laura Thomas-Walters. They covered how scientists establish these connections and effective ways to communicate the impact of human-caused climate change on extreme weather events, drawing on message testing research from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
we don't have an economy if we can't grow food. There's a lot more issues that get ignored - the 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane in the world's largest ocean shelf is one. The 500 zettajoules of extra heat in the oceans is another one. even the doomosphere is missing some big issues - like the 30 million people starving right now around Sudan and 310 million people needing food assistance this year. WION, as Sandy says, is a good source - they have a "Climate Tracker" playlist - out of India. So they don't have a U.S. bias or eurocentric bias. I check up on Nature Bats Last - Guy McPherson - and arctic-news blogspot - also Counterpunch publishes a great journalist - let's see if he has a new one. July 26, 2024, China’s Lightning-Fast Renewable Triumphs, by Robert Hunziker. Yeah I actually was just thinking about that article yesterday.
The Aerosol Masking Effect is twice as bad as previously though - so a 40% reduction of burning coal with sulfur pollution actually heats up Earth another 1 degree C. oops.
"As regards disease, the Lancet's Countdown on Health and Climate Change (2019) shows Climate-related deaths are a small proportion of all-cause fatalities (1990-2017). That is based on data per IHME (2019), and between 1990 and 2017, the cumulative age-standardized death rate (ASDRs) from climate-sensitive diseases and events (CSDEs) dropped from 8.1% of the all-cause ASDR to 5.5%, while the age-standardized burden of disease, measured by disability-adjusted life years lost (DALYs) declined from 12.0% to 8.0% of all-cause age-standardized DALYs. Thus, the burdens of death and disease from CSDEs are small, and getting smaller.
However, the declines in death and disease rates from CSDEs since 1990 are only a small proportion of longer-term declines across the globe. In the USA, one of the few places with good long-term data, death rates from dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid, other gastrointestinal diseases, and malaria - all water-related diseases and therefore, almost by definition, climate-sensitive declined 99-100% between 1900 and 1970.
We are solving our problems with CSDEs faster than we are solving our other health problems."
Indur M. Goklany
"A lot of this green agenda is being pushed because someone somewhere is making a lot of money from it. Just like in COVID, when of course there was a great redistribution of wealth to the most richest people in the world and the biggest corporations. As well as power being taken away from the likes of you and I." ~Robert Oulds
And only 1,200,000 US citizens died of COVID, so nothing to see.
Yes when Joseph Fourier published two hundred years ago that "the effects of human industry" would heat up EArth Fourier clearly was just pushing a "green agenda" in 1824.
It's a good thing that no one makes money from oil and gas then, and in keeping the status quo as is.
Climate change impact can be seen by the melting of ice sheets at Earth’s poles.
Since neither is showing significant spring and summer melt, then there is no issue
@@johnbatson8779 😂the tipping point will happen in the summer, somewhere in the future. The mathematical models are still not determined, but this summer melt was ominous.
The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change:
Increased Flooding: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Meteorological Drought: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Hydrological Drought: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Tropical Cyclones: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Winter Storms: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Thunderstorms: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Hail: not detected, no attribution.
increased lightning: not detected, no attribution.
Increased Extreme Winds: not detected, no attribution.
There is no climate crisis.
The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that certain severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change:
Pages 1761 - 1765, Table 11.A.2 Synthesis table summarising assessments
Heavy Precipitation: 24 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (12 medium confidence), 43 out of 45 low confidence in human attribution.
Agricultural Drought: 31 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend
(14 medium confidence. No high confidence assessment). 42 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (3 medium, no high confidence).
Ecological Drought as above.
Hydrological Drought: 38 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend.
43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (2 medium confidence, no high confidence).
So the IPCC are saying we didn't cause droughts and we didn't make it rain. How surprising!
There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis.
The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed:
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions),
Aridity,
Avalanche (snow),
Average precipitation,
Average Wind Speed,
Coastal Flood,
Agricultural drought,
Hydrological drought,
Erosion of Coastlines,
Fire Weather (hot and windy),
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods),
Frost,
Hail,
Heavy Rain,
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms,
Landslides,
Marine Heatwaves,
Ocean Acidity,
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface,
River/Lake Floods,
Sand and Dust Storms,
Sea Level,
Severe Wind Storms,
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets,
Tropical Cyclones.
How about some quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6?
"There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions."
"There is low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations, for any type of drought, in all regions."
"Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas, but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remains of low confidence due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is not established. . . The same limitation also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms)."
There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.
"Heat-attributable mortality fractions have declined over time in most countries owing to general improvements in health care systems, increasing prevalence of residential air conditioning, and behavioural changes. These factors, which determine the susceptibility of the population to heat, have predominated over the influence of temperature change." IPCC
Well funded propaganda.
your persistent schtick is so old and ignorant.
you flat-earthers are in for a helluva shock
@ptegsotica5895 Objective scientific data not your thing?
That flood photo she showed is from Porto Alegre, Brazil. Tens of thousands are homeless because of the flood. Hundreds died. The Portuguese have been sailing the south Atlantic since 1500 BCE and the first hurricane recorded was in 2004 and hit Santa Catarina - just north of Rio Grande do Sul. It snowed in Passadena and people froze to death in Texas ...
Now, weather it's human caused or natural ... I really hope it's human caused because otherwise we are doomed. Forgive my harsh words on the previous paragraph but here in Brazil things are changing and have changed during my 50 years of life. I understand you believing it's propaganda but I would like to understand how stronger measures against climate change would hurt your life. Thanks!
@maxheadrom3088
A series of unfortunate weather anecdotes is not evidence of human induced climate change.
There has been a 10% decline in natural disasters since 2000 (CRED). Normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920, so you're 50 times less likely to die from a climate-related disaster in a world that's 1°C warmer than 100 years ago (EM-DAT, CRED/UC). Deaths from drought have declined by 99%!
Globally the ACE index (accumulated cyclone energy) 1980-2021 shows no increasing trend. Global Hurricane Landfalls 1970-2021 (updated from Weinkle et al, 2012) shows no trend. Satellite data since 1980 shows a slight downward global trend for total hurricaine numbers with 2021 being a record low year. From the NOAA GFDL website 'Global Warming and Hurricanes, An Overview of Current Research' (dated Feb. 9, 2023). And I quote "We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes." Multidecadal variability in Atlantic hurricaines is most probably related to the AMO (Vecchi et al, 2021). NOAA data 1851-2021 shows no trend in number of hurricaine landfalls with the record high being 1886. There is also no trend in the frequency of major hurricanes (Cat 3 +) for the same period, although the trend for the last 20 years is downwards. It makes no difference if you look at the Pacific. Using data from the JMA 1951-2022 we see typhoon activity trending downwards for over 7 decades.
There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. None.
@@maxheadrom3088
A series of unfortunate weather anecdotes is not evidence of human induced climate change.
There has been a 10% decline in natural disasters since 2000 (CRED). Normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920, so you're 50 times less likely to die from a climate-related disaster in a world that's 1°C warmer than 100 years ago (EM-DAT, CRED/UC).
The number and length of heatwaves has increased globally (1951-2017) as you would expect in a slowly warming world, but there is no trend for average intensity (Perkins-Kirkpatrick and Lewis, 2020, also ref. by IPCC).
Heat waves have not been increasing in intensity or frequency in the United States, which has by far the best meteorological data both spatially and temporally. Data from NOAA's Climate Reference Network shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since 2005 when that network began. In recent decades in the United States, heat waves have been far less severe than they were in the 1930s. At that time Heatwaves were more than 6 times worse with greater frequency and covering a larger area than the last decade (EPA). The most severe heatwave year was 1936, and was about 13 times worse than current. In 2023 only 4 US states have achieved higher temperatures than 1936. Many states in 1936 achieved temperatures 15° hotter than the present. The all-time high temperature records set in most states occurred in the first half of the twentieth century. The percentage of US Historical Climatology Network Stations reaching or exceeding 95°F (35°C) was at a record low (1895-2023) of 51% in 2023. The record high was 1931 at 93%. The trend has been consistently downwards since the thirties. The climate crisis was 90 years ago. You missed it.
Only if you use data from 2020. Good luck with your fantasy.
@@rapauli What do you mean "from 2020"?
Globally Resolved Surface Temperatures Since The Last Glacial Maximum" Matthew B. Osman, Jessica E. Tierney, Jiang Zhu, Robert Tardif, Gregory J. Hakim, Jonathan King & Christopher J. Poulsen published November 10, 2021 Nature volume 599, pages 239-244 (2021) -----------
Analysis of global mean surface temperature (GMST) the last 24,000 years by combining several hundred previous published paleo analysis from all over Earth, took 7 scientists 7 years to do the work of combining hundreds of previous published paleo analysis and filling in the areas of Earth between the analyses using advanced statistical methods, and calculating the uncertainty in those statistical methods for the infill. "Climate changes across the last 24,000 years provide key insights into Earth system responses to external forcing. Climate model simulations and proxy data have independently allowed for study of this crucial interval; however, they have at times yielded disparate conclusions. Here, we leverage both types of information using paleoclimate data assimilation to produce the first observationally constrained, full-field reanalysis of surface temperature change spanning the Last Glacial Maximum to present. We demonstrate that temperature variability across the last 24 kyr was linked to two modes: radiative forcing from ice sheets and greenhouse gases; and a superposition of changes in thermohaline circulation and seasonal insolation. In contrast with previous proxy-based reconstructions our reanalysis results show that global mean temperatures warmed between the early and middle Holocene and were stable thereafter. When compared with recent temperature changes, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern observed warming are unprecedented relative to the changes of the last 24 kyr".
Time to grow up people - industrial CO2 induced abrupt global warming was first analyzed in detail in 1890 by Svante Arrhenius! Current CO2 levels are already well above anything in the past 3 million years! There's already over 400 Zettajoules of EXTRA heat in the oceans accumulated since 1995. The Arctic will soon be ice-free with 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane hydrates being released as an "abrupt eruption" - just a 5 gigaton release will double global warming temperatures on Earth.
Since 1900 the global temperature has increased by 1.3°C. Despite that humanity has flourished. Life expectancy has more than doubled from 32 to 73 years. Literacy has quadrupled from 21% to 86%. Humans are seven times more productive ($2,241 to $15,212 GDP per capita, per annum). People are better fed, having ⅓ more calories every day (2,192kcal to 2,928kcal). Global extreme poverty rates have tumbled from 70% to less than 10% (
Just one observation about life expectancy: vaccines, antibiotics and blood transfusion are 20th century technologies and they have contributed enormously to increasing the life expectancy. Events are not mutually excludents, thopugh - it doesn't mean they are the only explanations for the increase in life expectancy.
GDP is just an average and thus a joke. There's 310 million people this year having food shortage - needing assistance. 30 million people are currently starving in Africa. Try again.
@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Those problems are not the result of man-made climate change. In fact, quite the opposite.
Between 1961 and 2021 global cereal production increased 250% and cereal yield increased over 200%. Land used for cereal hardly increased (Data from World Bank, FAO/UN). This is the only time in human history that you are more likely to be overfed rather than underfed. We should be thankful we were borne into an age of such abundance. A US DoE study (Taylor & Schlenker, 2021) estimated that a 1 ppm increase in CO2 led to an increase of 0.4%, 0.6% and 1% in yield for corn, soybeans and wheat, respectively, and that CO2 increase was the main driver of the 500% yield growth in corn since 1940. Global tomato production has set a record each year for the past 10 years. Banana production has doubled in 20 years. All 10 of the largest sugar crops in global history occurred during the past 10 years. All 10 of the 10 largest rice crop years occurred during the past 10 years (UNFAO). 2023 was another record cereal crop. 2024-2025 will see another record high production of wheat, soybeans and rice. Compared with a decade ago, the world will harvest in 2024-25 about 10% more wheat, about 15% more corn, nearly 30% more soybeans, and about 10% more rice.
How do you like them apples?
@@OldScientist I'm happy to answer questions, though you should keep in mind that my 26-year-old Greenland work has
been superseded by more-recent studies, especially for the Holocene (the last 11,000 years), and in particular by
the studies that combine records from a half-dozen ice cores in central and northern Greenland. These studies were
lead by the Copenhagen glaciology group, and you can find them on Google Scholar. Bo Vinther was one of the
main authors.
I read quickly through the "carbonbrief" article to which you linked, and it seems accurate to me. If you read that
carefully, it should answer the main questions you have.
Having said that, my direct responses RE my study published in 1997 (and its predecessor in 1995):
1. Those studies were primarily designed to examine the glacial to Holocene transition (20--10 kyr ago),
and they are *not* the best way to address the issue of recent warming and its millennial context.
They captured the start of the current warming but were not designed or capable of resolving it well.
And even if they did, it's just for one location in central Greenland. Using one location is a valid approach if examining
very long-timescale changes (e.g., the 20--10 kyr transition) but not at all a good idea for decadal-scale changes.
The noise at the short timescale requires that you average a group of sites spanning a region. "Noise" means both
failures of the proxy record to record climatic temperature accurately, and real climatological / meteorological
variability that arises strongly from atmospheric dynamical patterns.
2. In the context of (1), the questions you raise about how accumulation and isotope calibrations are treated in
different studies is irrelevant to your concern. Those are minor issues.
3. The entire approach of comparing recent observed warming to past variability *for the purpose of inferring
mechanism* is fundamentally a weak argument because the timescale is too short to reconstruct past variability
well or, more importantly, to reconstruct the climate forcings well. This argument will become stronger as
warming proceeds.
4. Following from (3), the reason we know the recent warming is due to changes of the atmospheric greenhouse
is that we can measure the effects on the radiative balance of the planet and compare it to uptake of energy
by the planet (primarily manifest as ocean warming) and to other forcings such as solar intensity.
Here's an analogy: you are sitting in your house on a cold evening. You pull a thick blanket over yourself
and start to feel warmer. Why do you feel warmer? Was it the blanket trapping heat (yes, at least in part, it
must be)? Was it your furnace working harder? Was it a sunbeam coming through a window? There are only
a limited number of options, and you can know about the role of all of them. In this case, greenhouse gases
are the blanket. The sun is your furnace, etc.
5. Following from (4), the evidence is overwhelming that most of the warming of Earth since 1980
has been caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases and the feedbacks associated with warming.
The warming from 1850 to 1950, however, contains a "natural variability" signal in addition to an anthropogenic
signal, and this natural component can be regarded as the "end of the Little Ice Age," and it was partly solar
and partly volcanic. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to give a confident and fairly precise statement
about how much of this earlier warming was anthropogenic vs. natural (most of the warming occurred
between 1910 and 1950, as I recall), but there are strong arguments that it was at least half anthropogenic.
The problem is we will never be able to head backward in time and launch some satellites to get the measurements needed.
Best wishes,
Kurt Cuffey
..................................................................................................................
Kurt M. Cuffey
Professor, Department of Geography, University of California