3 ms·

Well documented? This claim about extreme weather gets repeated and echoed by people who assume that it must be true because they keep hearing it, so they don't

Well documented? This claim about extreme weather gets repeated and echoed by people who assume that it must be true because they keep hearing it, so they don't check. But it's not actually true. There's a summary paper here that explores the data and shows this to be true: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9.pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjp/s13360-02... The analysis is then extended to some global response indicators of extreme meteorological events, namely natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of the four main crops (maize, rice, soybean and wheat). None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events There are other indicators you could use but they also don't show any crisis of extreme weather, often the opposite. Examples: - Wildfire burn acreage is drastically down over the past 100 years. - Hurricanes are in decline, both in frequency and energy. - Rainfall is also down slightly. You can google those claims to find them if you like because the datasets are all public, except maybe the third which is a bit obscure so I'll give it here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022169423003281 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00221... the small- and medium-size precipitation systems both exhibit significant decreases during 2001–2020 with trends at −1.13 and −2 mm/h per century, respectively. The large-size precipitation systems exhibit nonsignificant increasing trends during 2001–2020.

tfourb 3y ago
The study you are linking is written by four authors, three of which are without any climate science credentials (at least two are nuclear physicists). One of those three has been disowned by a former institute he has worked at because of his unfounded claims regarding climate change (or the supposed lack thereof): https://it-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Franco_Prodi?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=tr&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://it-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Franco_Prodi?... These quotes are from the IPCCC (which represents the consensus of thousands of climate scientists) sixth assessment report from 2021: "The frequency and intensity of hot extremes (including heatwaves) have increased, and those of cold extremes have decreased on the global scale since 1950 (virtually certain). This also applies at regional scale, with more than 80% of AR6 regions1showing similar changes assessed to be at least likely." "The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have likely increased at the global scale over a majority of land regions with good observational coverage. Heavy precipitation has likely increased on the continental scale over three continents: North America, Europe, and Asia. Regional increases in the frequency and/or intensity of heavy precipitation have been observed with at least medium confidence for nearly half of AR6 regions, […]" "More regions are affected by increases in agricultural and ecological droughts with increasing global warming (high confidence)." "The average and maximum rain rates associated with tropical cyclones (TCs), extratropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers across the globe, and severe convective storms in some regions, increase in a warming world (high confidence)." All from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/ This stuff is complex, as is correctly interpreting the available data. But sure, go with the opinion of four random Italian dudes over the consensus of literally thousands of subject matter experts.
- revelio 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - tfourb 3y ago
    I am not a climate scientist so my ability to adjudicate the finer details of climate science is very limited. But I have a decent understanding of how science works in general. If I am confronted with two rivaling interpretations of the data and one side is supported by the consensus of 99% of the subject matter experts from virtually every country in the world, while the other is brought forth by four dudes, at least three of which are not subject matter experts, I know which side I trust. I'm not sure if you understand how the IPCC reports are put together. There are working groups for each specific subject matter, comprised of subject matter experts. They put together their findings and open up the draft for comment to the entire scientific community. The version that is published in the report is the lowest common denominator that all involved experts in a given field (literally hundreds of people from around the world for each chapter) can agree on. If I read the 2023 study you cite correctly (I am not an hydrologist and my guess is you are neither), it looks at a very specific set of data and interprets it under a narrow set of questions, bringing up some potentially interesting questions that would need to be studied further. At no point do the authors claim that it fundamentally contradicts established scientific consensus. They argue that their results could help better understand the phenomenon of climate change and its effects, which might well be the case. My guess is that their findings will be considered as we speak by some of the people involved in the IPCCC reports and matched with other studies that have studied aspects of the issues in question. Global climate change is an incredibly complex subject and I do not claim to understand more than a sliver of it. But having followed this topic intensely for 20+ years, there has never been a scientific subject of this complexity that at the same time was supported by such a broad consensus of the actual subject matter experts. If you say that a fundamental aspect of this consensus is false, that claim is extraordinary and demands extraordinary proof. A couple of random studies one of which you haven't researched the authors for and the other which you probably do not have the required knowledge to understand just won't cut it.
    - 3y ago

tfourb 3y ago

The study you are linking is written by four authors, three of which are without any climate science credentials (at least two are nuclear physicists). One of those three has been disowned by a former institute he has worked at because of his unfounded claims regarding climate change (or the supposed lack thereof): https://it-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Franco_Prodi?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=tr&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://it-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Franco_Prodi?... These quotes are from the IPCCC (which represents the consensus of thousands of climate scientists) sixth assessment report from 2021: "The frequency and intensity of hot extremes (including heatwaves) have increased, and those of cold extremes have decreased on the global scale since 1950 (virtually certain). This also applies at regional scale, with more than 80% of AR6 regions1showing similar changes assessed to be at least likely." "The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have likely increased at the global scale over a majority of land regions with good observational coverage. Heavy precipitation has likely increased on the continental scale over three continents: North America, Europe, and Asia. Regional increases in the frequency and/or intensity of heavy precipitation have been observed with at least medium confidence for nearly half of AR6 regions, […]" "More regions are affected by increases in agricultural and ecological droughts with increasing global warming (high confidence)." "The average and maximum rain rates associated with tropical cyclones (TCs), extratropical cyclones and atmospheric rivers across the globe, and severe convective storms in some regions, increase in a warming world (high confidence)." All from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/ This stuff is complex, as is correctly interpreting the available data. But sure, go with the opinion of four random Italian dudes over the consensus of literally thousands of subject matter experts.

revelio 3y ago
[flagged]
- tfourb 3y ago
  I am not a climate scientist so my ability to adjudicate the finer details of climate science is very limited. But I have a decent understanding of how science works in general. If I am confronted with two rivaling interpretations of the data and one side is supported by the consensus of 99% of the subject matter experts from virtually every country in the world, while the other is brought forth by four dudes, at least three of which are not subject matter experts, I know which side I trust. I'm not sure if you understand how the IPCC reports are put together. There are working groups for each specific subject matter, comprised of subject matter experts. They put together their findings and open up the draft for comment to the entire scientific community. The version that is published in the report is the lowest common denominator that all involved experts in a given field (literally hundreds of people from around the world for each chapter) can agree on. If I read the 2023 study you cite correctly (I am not an hydrologist and my guess is you are neither), it looks at a very specific set of data and interprets it under a narrow set of questions, bringing up some potentially interesting questions that would need to be studied further. At no point do the authors claim that it fundamentally contradicts established scientific consensus. They argue that their results could help better understand the phenomenon of climate change and its effects, which might well be the case. My guess is that their findings will be considered as we speak by some of the people involved in the IPCCC reports and matched with other studies that have studied aspects of the issues in question. Global climate change is an incredibly complex subject and I do not claim to understand more than a sliver of it. But having followed this topic intensely for 20+ years, there has never been a scientific subject of this complexity that at the same time was supported by such a broad consensus of the actual subject matter experts. If you say that a fundamental aspect of this consensus is false, that claim is extraordinary and demands extraordinary proof. A couple of random studies one of which you haven't researched the authors for and the other which you probably do not have the required knowledge to understand just won't cut it.
  - 3y ago