Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change

 

Somewhere along the line, it became fashionable to attribute weather you don’t like to Climate Change.  The regretful weather could be heat (of course), but also cold.  It could be too much rain, or not enough rain.  Too much wind, or not enough wind.  Hurricanes are popular.  Last year, my Governor, Gavin Newsom explained the state’s wildfires by tweeting “Climate. Change. Is. Real.”.  (I think the excessive and ungrammatical use of periods is how a 3rd grader emphasizes things these days.) NPR and the local anchor babes seem unable to report on anything unpleasant without solemnly invoking Climate Change.  It has become a sign-off, like “Life is Good” on an email.  It’s really starting to bug me!

But back to Extreme Weather Events: there is such a thing, and they do happen, and I was informed that 97% of scientists say they are increasing because of climate change, or so I was informed by a progressive lawyer friend of mine.  “Science!” always talks in numbers.  Things are measured or counted, models are made, which always produce likelihoods, ranges… in other words, numbers.  It seems to me that even if you are a scientist and you claim something is getting “worse” without any numbers or even any mechanism, you are just bluffing.

So my question to you all is: Have you seen any predictive models relating to extreme weather events?  Are there more or less of them happening than were actually forecast?  What are the forecasts going forward?  Saying “worse” without numbers means there are no numbers, am I right?  Saying “worse” without an explanatory mechanism means there is no explanatory mechanism.  Maybe I just missed the models and forecasts concerning Extreme Weather.  I have not actually read the latest IPCC Report.  This is a sincere question.

In the meantime, I’m attributing any perfect day to Climate Change.  Sunday was one in Northern California and Southern Oregon, where I was.  First rain, beautiful skies, wet earth, and rich smells.

Published in Journalism
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 23 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    So much of “climate change damage” seems to be less the result of the weather/climate itself, than of what we have put in the path of it to be destroyed.

    With so much of coastal Florida built up with luxury resorts and such, even a rather modest storm can cause millions in “damage.”

    But a few hundred years ago, the same level of storm, or perhaps even much worse, would have done $0 “damage.”  Because we measure “damage” by how much of what WE BUILT is destroyed.  If there were no luxury resorts to be destroyed, then there is no “damage.”

    So, “damage” can increase even if the actual measurable severity of “weather” stays the same, or perhaps actually decreases.

    • #1
  2. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    I’m old enough to remember when the scare words were Global Warming Crisis. I guess the folks got tired of trying to explain the many exceptions to warming, so they switched to the more inclusive Climate Change Crisis.

    • #2
  3. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    I’m old enough to remember when the scare words were Global Warming Crisis. I guess the folks got tired of trying to explain the many exceptions to warming, so they switched to the more inclusive Climate Change Crisis.

    Don’t forget “The Coming Ice Age” in the 70s.

    • #3
  4. navyjag Coolidge
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    RL, check out the Watt’sUpWithThat website by James Watt.  All science, all the time, re: climate change, models, extreme weather events and the rest.  Scores of real scientists contributing and I understand maybe a quarter of it.  But gives you a good perspective on how misleading  the climate models are.

    • #4
  5. DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) Coolidge
    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!)
    @DonG

    Retail Lawyer: So my question to you all is, have you seen any predictive models relating to extreme weather events?  Are there more or less of them happening than were actually forecast?  What are the forecasts going forward?  Saying “Worse” without numbers means there are no numbers, am I right?  Saying “Worse” without an explanatory mechanism means there is no explanatory mechanism.  Maybe I just missed the models and forecasts concerning Extreme Weather.  I have not actually read the latest IPCC Report.  This is a sincere question.

    I have seen many doomsday predictions.  They are all wrong.   The best pure measure is accumulated (total) cyclonic energy which is a measure of the strength of all storms.  The trend has been flat.   Another important measure is total lives lost to natural disasters.  That trend is way down.  Wealthy people are more resilient.   There are lots of studies showing bad things, but they cherry pick data or look at measures that inconsistent (storms not making landfall) or damages in dollars. 

    I recommend reading the not getting caught up in the debate over data and trends.  It is best to focus on how cheap energy is the greatest way to increase prosperity for all the peoples of the world.  Literally millions of poor people die every year because they don’t have cheap energy.  The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels is an important read.

    • #5
  6. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    Climate changes on the hour in Oklahoma.

    • #6
  7. Douglas Pratt Coolidge
    Douglas Pratt
    @DouglasPratt

    Climate change is perfect for the never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste crowd, because it will take a century to prove that they’re wrong.

    I hate the way the left uses fine distinctions to get their way. There is a difference between pride and arrogance, but to the left you can’t be proud (of your country, especially) without being arrogant. There is a difference between conservation and ecological fanaticism, but once again it’s all or nothing; if you’re not a fanatic, you hate nature. I have caused a couple of heads to explode by pointing out that even though I’m a (gasp!) conservative Republican, I live on a nature preserve.

    • #7
  8. GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms Reagan
    GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms
    @GLDIII

    Retail Lawyer: It seems to me that even if you are a scientist (These are SWAG’s) and you claim something is getting “worse” without any numbers or even any mechanism, you are just pulling it out of your butt. (These are WAG’s)

    SWAG= “Scientific Wild A$$ Guess”

    WAG= just a “Wild A$$ Guess”

     

    • #8
  9. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Retail Lawyer:

    But back to Extreme Weather Events – there is such a thing, and they do happen, and I was informed that 97% of scientists say they are increasing because of climate change.  Informed by a progressive lawyer friend of mine.  Science! always talks in numbers.  Things are measured or counted . . . models are made, which always produce . . . likelihoods, ranges . . .  numbers.  It seems to me that even if you are a scientist and you claim something is getting “worse” without any numbers or even any mechanism, you are just pulling it out of your butt.

    So my question to you all is, have you seen any predictive models relating to extreme weather events?  Are there more or less of them happening than were actually forecast?

    Within the last few weeks I’ve seen charts about “Extreme Weather Events,” . . . and the charts suggested they’re getting rarer.

    Or maybe it was that deaths from extreme weather events have lessened greatly, because today we have so many more ways to predict and adapt. It’s not just “OMG! The tornado siren is going off! Head for the basement!” but instead they can detect rotation long before tornadoes form and/or touch down and don’t depend on weather spotters to see the things. 

    That’s just one example.

    Furthermore, in zones known for earthquakes, we build with those things in mind so that we don’t have massive buildings falling over in Sensurround. Ditto hurricanes.

    So, . . . the impact on people has certainly lessened. But I swear the events themselves have lessened as well.

     

    • #9
  10. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):

    The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels is an important read.

    From that link:

    https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fspecials-images.forbesimg.com%2Fimageserve%2F5f4740a5af34cb0936e2bed8%2FGraph-showing-that-there-has-been-92--decline-in-the-decadal-death-toll-from%2F960x0.jpg%3Ffit%3Dscale

    • #10
  11. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    This assessment of “more extreme weather events” reminds me of Rush’s old question about what the “correct” temperature of the climate is.

    What is “extreme” weather?  Even if warmer temperatures affect the number of and severity of “weather events”, isn’t that part of natural science?  When the sun goes down the wind generally picks up a little out on the lake – should I be concerned?

    Who says the number and severity of storms, etc., that one person is used to or has noticed in his short time on earth is the optimum, which must remain unchanged or something is broken? 

    The earth has been warming for 11,000 years, when there was a mile of ice covering the spot where I am typing.  Don’t know what the “weather events” were back then, but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they were different from what I notice today when I look at my weather app. 

    As things warm up, weather changes. Some of it is good, some not so good. So what? 

     

     

    • #11
  12. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    The dirty little not-so-secret is that if we really don’t want civilization to collapse, we kinda want things to remain warm with higher levels of CO2. Civilizational collapse, mass starvation, . . . these are things historically associated with cooling periods. Civilizational advance, crop production, and a greening of the planet are associated with warming periods.

    The “lets find ways to reduce CO2 and cool the earth” people are going to kill us if they get their way.

    • #12
  13. GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms Reagan
    GLDIII Purveyor of Splendid Malpropisms
    @GLDIII

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    The dirty little not-so-secret is that if we really don’t want civilization to collapse, we kinda want things to remain warm with higher levels of CO2. Civilizational collapse, mass starvation, . . . these are things historically associated with cooling periods. Civilizational advance, crop production, and a greening of the planet are associated with warming periods.

    The “lets find ways to reduce CO2 and cool the earth” people are going to kill us if they get their way.

    If we burn them, we at least get back their caloric value in heat. It’s start, but it puts both them and us out of our respective miseries.

    • #13
  14. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    The dirty little not-so-secret is that if we really don’t want civilization to collapse, we kinda want things to remain warm with higher levels of CO2. Civilizational collapse, mass starvation, . . . these are things historically associated with cooling periods. Civilizational advance, crop production, and a greening of the planet are associated with warming periods.

    The “lets find ways to reduce CO2 and cool the earth” people are going to kill us if they get their way.

    I have read a number of times that Bill Gates wants to infuse aluminum microparticles into the world’s atmosphere to increase the reflectivity and cool the planet.  This is a BIG deal.  If the modelling is wrong, and the reflectivity is functionally increased this can lead to disaster.  And Bill may be a lot of things but smart is certainly one of them.  He should know not to mess with the world’s ecology unless the results are absolutely proven to be known.

    • #14
  15. J Ro Member
    J Ro
    @JRo

    There. Are. No. Numbers.

    Thus, the historic ideal global temperature, usually defined as something like “pre-industrial age global temperature” is represented on most charts and graphs as ‘zero’ (0). That is the goal of our numerous models—some unknown and unknowable historic ideal.

    • #15
  16. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I have read a number of times that Bill Gates wants to infuse aluminum microparticles into the world’s atmosphere to increase the reflectivity and cool the planet.  This is a BIG deal.  If the modelling is wrong, and the reflectivity is functionally increased this can lead to disaster.  And Bill may be a lot of things but smart is certainly one of them.  He should know not to mess with the world’s ecology unless the results are absolutely proven to be known.

    And since they cannot be known, he should just bugger off.

    But yes, these crazy mad-scientist plans to cool the planet are probably going to work out as well as Bill Gates’ leaky vaccines.

    • #16
  17. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Retail Lawyer: Things are measured or counted, models are made, which always produce likelihoods, ranges… in other words, numbers.  It seems to me that even if you are a scientist and you claim something is getting “worse” without any numbers or even any mechanism, you are just bluffing.

    Sometimes the numbers are just a marketing gimmick.

    I used to print out the NOAA storm summary map at the end of each Hurricane Season. (They moved it around on their site all of the time so this was much harder than you would imagine.) Anyway, there for a while the “marketing” pushed that the number of named storms was growing “exponentially”…or something like that.  A review of these summaries showed how they started naming not only hurricanes but tropical storms, sub-tropical storms, tropical depressions, sub-tropical depressions, etc., etc., etc.   (I think I saw a NOAA infomercial late one night where you could call in and have a cloud named after you or a loved one for only $19.99…it came with a picture and a certificate; what a wonderful way to support science.)

    • #17
  18. KCVolunteer Lincoln
    KCVolunteer
    @KCVolunteer

    philo (View Comment):

    (I think I saw a NOAA infomercial late one night where you could call in and have a cloud named after you or a loved one for only $19.99…it came with a picture and a certificate; what a wonderful way to support science.)

    LOL

    I think when you imagined that you were sleep deprived. Or maybe, you made it up.

    If it was real, anyone who would pay $20 to name a cloud deserves to have their money taken.

    • #18
  19. milkchaser Member
    milkchaser
    @milkchaser

    I just read that the Arctic ice minimum as last measured is up substantially. Did you read that in the MSM? I doubt it. It doesn’t fit the narrative.

    https://spectator.org/arctic-ice-coverage-is-up-substantially/

     

    • #19
  20. CurtWilson Lincoln
    CurtWilson
    @CurtWilson

    A couple of times in the last decade, the IPCC has issued reports on extreme weather, notably the SREX (special report on extreme weather). It’s a big of a slog to read, but ultimately it could not find significant trends in most “extreme” weather events.

    One statement I particularly liked (no time to track it down now) was a statement of “low confidence” in the “sign” of some trend. In other words, we don’t know if it’s increasing or decreasing.

    And this from the ultimate in “establishment science”!

    • #20
  21. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Retail Lawyer: my Governor, Gavin Newsom

    Well, that’s your problem.  There are other places where Newsom isn’t governor.

    • #21
  22. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Retail Lawyer: In the meantime, I’m attributing any perfect day to Climate Change.  Sunday was one in Northern California and Southern Oregon, where I was.  First rain, beautiful skies, wet earth, and rich smells.

    We’ve had three perfect days in a row.  Not a cloud in the sky, 60 in the morning and 75 in the afternoon.  If this is climate change, give me more of it.

    • #22
  23. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    milkchaser (View Comment):

    I just read that the Arctic ice minimum as last measured is up substantially. Did you read that in the MSM? I doubt it. It doesn’t fit the narrative.

    https://spectator.org/arctic-ice-coverage-is-up-substantially/

    As with so much “climate” stuff, it goes in cycles. There was a treasure-trove of Arctic ice data uncovered within the last decade from some Scandinavian source that had data on the extend of Arctic ice going back to the late 1800s. It was pretty cool. There’s some website that had all these maps and data. (I suspect it was highlighted at “WattsUpWithThat.” That’s probably where I found it.) The only years for which data was missing was during WWII. Otherwise, there was a clear cycle of expanding and contracting. The alarming contraction of arctic ice in recent years was almost exactly as it was about the turn of the century, and then again in the 30s. In between it expanded quite a bit.

    • #23