Meanwhile, returning to substance:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/17/opinions/deadly-heat-waves-wet-bulb-climate-change-ki-moon-verkooijen/index.html
The steps by cities to deal with their increasing temperatures and the more frequent and more severe heat waves are worth considering in more than just the largest places and many of them even in places without the most extreme heat - because very few places are not going to be seeing their temperatures increase and well over half will get past that "wet bulb" number in the years to come.
But if you truly follow the science of Climate Change alarmists of your ilk aren’t making much sense.
According to the The International Disaster Database reports
Since 1920, the planet’s temperature has risen by 1.29 degrees Celsius and world population has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion – but the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined by over 80 percent, from almost 550,000 per year to less than 100,000 per year.
The NOAA and the UN IPPC both conclude they lack evidence to show that warming is making storms and flooding worse.”
You don’t need to be a scientist to figure out that if devastating storm casualties are drastically being reduced mankind will continue to adapt to climate.
And then you have the conclusion of 22 scientists writing in the LANCET
They (examined) over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012, “the largest dataset ever collected to assess temperature-health associations”– reported that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent.
But the chicken littles of Climate Alarm will soon have to face reality.
The public isn’t buying the bullshit anymore.
The Climate Change hoopla is way down the list of issues deemed important especially when the price tag for diminishing returns is revealed.
You do a masterful job of mixing irrelevant details with misleading claims. That there are fewer deaths is not a product of better weather, Ward, and you know it. It is a product of better equipment, responses, baseline health, and other factors.
The 1980–2020 annual average is 7.1 events (CPI-adjusted); the annual average for the most recent 5 years (2016–2020) is 16.2 events (CPI-adjusted).
~https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
From 2011:
“The number of reported extreme weather events is increasing, but the number of deaths and the risk of dying from those events have decreased,” said Julian Morris, the study’s project director and vice president of research at Reason Foundation. “Economic development and technological improvements have enabled society to protect against these events and to cope better with them when they do occur.”
~https://reason.org/news-release/extreme-weather-kills-fewer-people/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/yes-climate-change-is-making-severe-weather-worse/https://www.noaa.gov/news/report-climate-change-is-making-specific-weather-events-more-extremehttps://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause Atlantic hurricanes in the coming century have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes, and medium confidence that they will be more intense (higher peak winds and lower central pressures) on average. In our view, it is uncertain how the annual number of Atlantic tropical storms will change over the 21st century. All else equal, coastal inundation levels associated with tropical cyclones should increase with sea level rise as projected for example by IPCC AR5. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by prototype IPCC mid-range warming scenarios, such as A1B or RCP4.5.
The relatively conservative confidence levels attached to our tropical cyclone projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence on tropical cyclones at this time contrasts with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature. In the case of global mean surface temperature, the IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
Understanding their comparative language makes it far easier to understand their perspectives.
They did not in 2017 "conclude
they lack evidence to show that warming is making storms and flooding worse,” no matter how places quoted the WSJ's saying they did.
This report from the IPCC puts the lie to your quote:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdfA few excerpts from the summary:
It is very likely that mean sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels in the future. There is high confidence that locations currently experiencing adverse impacts such as coastal erosion and inundation will continue to do so in the future due to increasing sea levels, all other contributing factors being equal.
...
There is high confidence that changes in heat waves, glacial retreat, and/or permafrost degradation will
affect high-mountain phenomena such as slope instabilities, mass movements, and glacial lake outburst
floods. There is also high confidence that changes in heavy precipitation will affect landslides in some
regions.
...
It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy rainfalls
will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe. This is particularly the case in the high latitudes
and tropical regions, and in winter in the northern mid-latitudes. Heavy rainfalls associated with tropical cyclones are likely to increase with continued warming induced by enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. There is medium confidence that, in some regions, increases in heavy precipitation will occur despite projected decreases in total precipitation.
...
Projected precipitation and temperature changes imply possible changes in floods, although overall there
is low confidence in projections of changes in fluvial floods. Confidence is low due to limited evidence and
because the causes of regional changes are complex, although there are exceptions to this statement. There is medium confidence (based on physical reasoning) that projected increases in heavy rainfall would contribute to increases in local flooding, in some catchments or regions. Earlier spring peak flows in snowmelt and glacier-fed rivers are very likely.
...
There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century in some seasons and areas,
due to reduced precipitation and/or increased evapotranspiration.
I
did find one that your reporter probably leaned on heavily:
Uncertainty in projections of changes in large-scale patterns of natural climate variability remains large. There is low confidence in projections of changes in monsoons (rainfall, circulation), because there is little consensus in climate models regarding the sign of future change in the monsoons. Model projections of changes in El NiñoSouthern Oscillation variability and the frequency of El Niño episodes as a consequence of increased greenhouse gas concentrations are not consistent, and so there is low confidence in projections of changes in the phenomenon. However, most models project an increase in the relative frequency of central equatorial Pacific events (which typically exhibit different patterns of climate variations than do the classical East Pacific events). There is low confidence in the ability to project changes in other natural climate modes including the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, and the Indian Ocean Dipole
But overall, you are relying on people who are deliberately misinterpreting the science, Ward.
Poll
