Tweet
But these doomsday scenarios have always been way more fiction than science. For some time now, an alleged warming link to extreme weatherhas been the only card left in the climate alarm deck. Climate activists repeatedly assert that severe droughts, floods, and Hurricane Sandy are now the “new normal,” and, of course, they blame fossil fuels and “climate change.”
Actual weather data do not support that storyline either. There has been no long-term change in the strength or frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, U.S. floods, or drought. Similarly, there has been no long-term change in “normalized” extreme weather damages (weather-related losses adjusted for increases in population, wealth, and inflation).
The IPCC has come around to that overall assessment too. Among the findings in chapter 2 of the IPCC report:
• “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
• “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”
• “Based on updated studies, AR4 [the 2007 IPCC report] conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”
• “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”
University of Colorado Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr., a key participant in the debate on climate change and extreme weather, explains the IPCC’s non-alarming findings as follows: “the data says what it says, and what it says is so unavoidably obvious that the IPCC has recognized it in its consensus.”
Pielke, Jr.’s summary comment is worth quoting in full: “Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change -- Zombie science -- but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence.”
Actual weather data do not support that storyline either. There has been no long-term change in the strength or frequency of hurricanes, tornadoes, U.S. floods, or drought. Similarly, there has been no long-term change in “normalized” extreme weather damages (weather-related losses adjusted for increases in population, wealth, and inflation).
The IPCC has come around to that overall assessment too. Among the findings in chapter 2 of the IPCC report:
• “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
• “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”
• “Based on updated studies, AR4 [the 2007 IPCC report] conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”
• “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”
University of Colorado Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr., a key participant in the debate on climate change and extreme weather, explains the IPCC’s non-alarming findings as follows: “the data says what it says, and what it says is so unavoidably obvious that the IPCC has recognized it in its consensus.”
Pielke, Jr.’s summary comment is worth quoting in full: “Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change -- Zombie science -- but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence.”
Comment