Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

from IPCC.... not some random writer who spins the rhetoric to...

First 49 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Scott th Ratbag

49,027 Posts.

652

12/10/24

13:42

Post #: 76092687
Share

Originally posted by walbrook: ↑

Climate Activists Frustrated by IPCC’s Refusal to Link Extreme Weather with Carbon Emissions
Last June, the state-reliant BBC reported that human-caused climate change had made U.S. and Mexico heatwaves “”. Nothing out of the ordinary here in mainstream media with everyone from climate comedy turn ‘Jim’ Dale to UN chief Antonio ‘Boiling’ Guterres making these types of bizarre attributions. But for those who closely follow climate science and the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “such headlines can be difficult to make sense of”, observes the distinguished science writer Roger Pielke. In aon the pseudo-scientific industry of weather attribution, he states: “neither the IPCC nor the underlying scientific literature comes anywhere close to making such strong and certain claims of attribution”.
Pielke argues that the extreme position of attributing individual bad weather events is “roughly aligned” with the far Left. “Climate science is not, or at least should not serve as a proxy for political tribes,” he cautions. But of course it is. The Net Zero fantasy is a collectivist national and supra-national agenda that increasingly relies on demonising bad weather. With global temperatures rising at most only 0.1°C a decade, laughter can only be general and side-splitting when IPCC boss Jim Skea claims that British summers will be 6°C hotter. Two extended temperature pauses since 2000 have not helped the cause of global boiling. In addition there are increasing doubts about the reliability of temperature recordings by many meteorological organisations that seem unable to properly account for massive urban heat corruptions.
The big problem for ‘far Left’ climate extremists is that event attribution is a form, in Pielke’s words, of “tactical science”. Such science serves legal and political ends and is not always subject to peer review. As the BBC and other media outlets can attest, the work is “generally promoted via press release”. It has been developed in response to the failure of the IPCC to detect and attribute most types of extreme weather including drought, flooding, storms and wildfires to human involvement, notes Pielke. Worse, the IPCC can find little sign of human involvement going forward to 2100.
Scientists cannot answer directly whether particular events are caused by climate change since extremes occur naturally. Meanwhile the IPCC is somewhat dismissive about weather attribution, or as Pielke terms it, “weather attribution alchemy”. It notes: “The usefulness or applicability of available extreme event attribution methods for assessing climate-related risks remains subject to debate.” The IPCC is a biased body full of climate alarmists, but its inability to attribute single events to humans is obviously highly irritating and somewhat inconvenient for activists and their media counterparts.
Dr. Friederike Otto runs World Weather Attribution (WWA) out of Imperial College London and is a frequent presence on the BBC. WWA is behind many of the immediate attributions of bad weather to human causes and its motives are clear. As Dr. Otto has noted: “Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind.” Otto is clear that the main function of such studies, part-funded by Net Zero-supporting billionaires and heavily pushed by aligned mainstream media, is to support lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. She explains this strategy in detail in the interview, ‘‘.
The inability of the IPCC to attribute bad weather to humans has been viewed by climate advocates as “politically problematic”, continues Pielke. He notes the work of climate activists Elizabeth Lloyd and Naomi Oreskes who are worried that the lack of attribution “conveys the impression that we just do not know, which feeds into uncertainty, doubt or incompleteness, and the general tendency of humans to discount threats that are not imminent”.
Perish the thought that there should be uncertainty, doubt or incompleteness in the settled world of climate science. It is of course different from all other branches of science in that all its opinions are right and consequently there is no need for the unhelpful process of constant inquiry and experiment. It need hardly be added that no doubt exists at the BBC, where former Radio 4TodayEditor Sarah Sandsto a WWA guide for journalists. Recalling when the late Nigel Lawson suggested there had been no increase in extreme weather, Sands noted: “I wish we had this guide for journalists to help us mount a more effective challenge to his claim.” These days, Sands enthused, attribution studies have given us “significant insight into the horsemen of the climate apocalypse”.
For her part, Otto is keen to crack down on the heretics. She was at the forefront of the recentof a paper in a Springer Nature journal that stated there was no evidence that the climate was breaking down. Written by four Italian scientists and led by Professor Gianluca Alimonti, they argued that a climate emergency was not supported by the data. Otto, who had previously worked in the Oxford School of Geography for 10 years, claimed the scientists were not writing in good faith. “If the journal cares about science they should withdraw it loudly and publicly saying it should never have been published,” she demanded.

Expand

from IPCC.... not some random writer who spins the rhetoric to paint a bleak picture.

Anthropogenic climate change has increased observed precipitation (medium confidence), winds (low confidence), and extreme sea level events (high confidence) associated with some tropical cyclones, which has increased intensity of multiple extreme events and associated cascading impacts (high confidence). Anthropogenic climate change may have contributed to a poleward migration of maximum tropical cyclone intensity in the western North Pacific in recent decades related to anthropogenically-forced tropical expansion (low confidence). There is emerging evidence for an increase in annual global proportion of Category 4 or 5 tropical cyclones in recent decades (low confidence). {6.3, Table 6.2, Figure 6.2, Box 6.1}.
https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapter-6/

"low confidence" relates to direct evidence found to the subject. direct evidence in the development of hurricanes etc is very difficult due to the fact that hurricanes have always developed when sea temperatures exceed 28.5deg.

each degree makes a significant difference to the intensity and force of the storms. the sea temperature measured at the starting point of the hurricanes was 30deg. the warmer the seas get the more intense will be the storms. now that sea temperature is up around 30deg mark in wider regions we'll now see increased numbers of such severe systems.

https://www.seatemperature.org
1 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

EEG

NT Gov't delivers environmental approval for Empire Energy's Beetaloo Carpentaria pilot gas play

GDM

Banshee's historic trenches prove rich in antimony and gold for GDM

BNL

Blue Star Helium sees approval for five more wells at 'Galactica/Pegasus' project in Colorado

CUF

CuFe sells its Crossroads gold royalty to Northern Star for $4M cash; says better than waiting for mine launch

CLE

Cyclone signs MOU with Vale for development of Iron Bear play

Week 46 Wrap: Copper hits 2mth low as Trump threatens net zero pace; US rally fades; HotCopper’s picks

IRX

InhaleRX gains approval for clinical trial to test non-opioid therapy for cancer pain

3DA

To make modern missiles, you need 3D Printing. And in that gold rush, Amaero is selling shovels

HotCopper Highlights: Your most watched stocks for Week 46, 2024

BTH

Bigtincan's Board backs Investcorp offer: Why a NASDAQ listing could be game-changing

First 49 Last

SPONSORED BY