Credit: NOAA
Some IPCC-supporting climate alarmists – you may have heard of some of them – are complaining about a research article by four Italian scientists in which they question the existence of a ‘climate crisis’. The objectors claim their ability to attribute climate change to human factors has improved, or something.
– – –
A fundamentally flawed study claiming that scientific evidence of a climate crisis is lacking should be withdrawn from the peer-reviewed journal in which it was published, top climate scientists have told AFP.
Appearing earlier this year in The European Physical Journal Plus, published by Springer Nature, the study purports to review data on possible changes in the frequency or intensity of rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and other extreme weather events, says Phys.org.
It has been viewed thousands of times on social media and cited by some mainstream media, such as Sky News Australia.
View original post 186 more words
Climate Collections 
The scientific evidence is compelling that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful. Here are some relevant peer-reviewed studies:
https://sealevel.info/negative_social_cost_of_carbon.html
Contrary to the complaints of the four critics of Alimonti et al, it is indisputable that extreme weather events have not significantly worsened as CO2 levels have risen, and one very important category of extreme weather events, severe tornadoes, has substantially improved (declined):
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html?0=tornadoes#tornadoes
The decline in hurricane and tropical cyclone destructiveness is less striking, and might be due to merely random variation, but here’s a paper about it:
Lin & Chan (2015), Recent decrease in typhoon destructive potential and global warming implications. Nature Communications, doi:10.1038/ncomms8182.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8182
Friederike Otto’s complaint about “heat waves” is much ado about very little, because the slight increase in global temperatures which the Earth has experienced over the last century decreases cold snaps as much as it increases heat waves, and:
“Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries..”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm
Source:
Gasparrini et al, (2015), Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study. The Lancet, Vol 386, no. 9991, pp.369-375. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
In other words, contrary to what climate activists would have you believe, a warming climate is generally net-beneficial. That’s why scientists call the periods of warmest climate, including periods warmer than our current climate, “climate optimums.”
The four critics of this paper are activists, not impartial scientists. All four of them make their livings in the “Climate Biz,” and have careers which are dependent on climate alarmism. When the fake “climate crisis” collapses , all four of them will need to find new jobs.
Stefan Rahmstorf is particularly notorious for publishing deeply flawed “studies” to promote the climate scare. Here’s an excerpt from one of the published critiques of his work:
“…this statistical analysis (Rahmstorf, 2007) is based on an application of statistics… violating basic assumptions of the statistical methods used.”
Schmith et al (2007), Comment on “A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise.” Science, Vol 317, Issue 5846, p. 1866. doi:10.1126/science.1143286
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1143286
See also:
http://tinyurl.com/rahmstuff
CO2 emissions have a slight effect on global temperatures, but they are enormously beneficial for agriculture. More CO2 benefits crops in two important ways: “CO2 fertilization” (which increases crop yields in all conditions), and improved water use efficiency and drought resilience. 15-20% of current crop yields are a direct result of the beneficial effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 for agriculture. If we didn’t have those improvements in crop yields we could approximately cover the deficit by using ALL of Earth’s rainforests for agriculture.
Climate change is a highly politicized topic, so (as is the case for any politicized topic) if you want to understand it you need to read balanced information. I have a list of resources which can help:
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html
It has:
● accurate introductory climatology info
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● information about climate impacts
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides of the issue
Listen to the wisdom of the late Prof. Freeman Dyson:
“…non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial… possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and… the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”
When he wrote these words he was, by general consensus, America’s most distinguished living scientist. He was the man who took over Einstein’s position, when Einstein died.
Prof. Dyson knew that manmade climate change is modest & benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, not harmful.
LikeLike
Thank you Dave. Great comment!
LikeLike