Recently someone post a claim that the 'climate models are divergent with the actual temperatures.' A curious claim made without citing a source. So went to my usual sources, primarily the Berkeley Earth project and other sources making similar claims such as Judith Curry. It was Judith in her year-end summary mentioned the '538 firing of a climate skeptic.' Huh? Eventually Google found references to Roger Pielke's article: Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change | FiveThirtyEight . . . Fortunately, scientists have invested a lot of effort into looking at data on extreme weather events, and recently summarized their findings in a major United Nations climate report, the fifth in a series dating back to 1990. That report concluded that there’s little evidence of a spike in the frequency or intensity of floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes. There have been more heat waves and intense precipitation, but these phenomena are not significant drivers of disaster costs. . . . Now the section bolded reminds me of what 'man-made global warming' would do: (1) more heat waves, and; (2) intense precipitation. Recent history, we've seen the Southern part of the USA including Texas, Louisiana, and even Alabama riding this feast or famine cycle which I understand many of the models predict. Part of this increasing intensity being CO{2} exacerbating the earth's water cycle and water vapor amplifying global warming. But there is another tell found in climate deniers ... a near universal rationalization about costs. Until this evening, I knew nothing about Roger Pielke by either reputation or previous publications. But finding him (via Google) has once again revealed a familiar pattern of claiming 'economics' justify their positions. This is like claiming 'gravity is too expensive' or any other natural phenomena because of the cost. This may be the tell, the way to ferret out those interested in the science and engineering from those with another agenda. If we see (or solicit) a ready position that includes economic references, we can pretty well understand how they choose to deal with facts and data. Going back to Roger Pielke, there are several devastating reviews of which Slate pointed out 'poor people' disasters don't matter. Yet objective metrics in Pielke's own words,"There have been more heat waves and intense precipitation". Yes there are more events but they only matter if they have an economic effect on the wealthy. What sort of empirical science uses dollars over data? Bob Wilson
Climate science predicted More hurricanes more tornadoes .There have been much less tornadoes and hurricanes. So Climate science is wrong. But because there is more heatwave and precipitation you presume the models made a prediction and that proves those events are caused by CO2. Far fetched to say the least. Heat waves and Precip may be caused by natural warming having nothing to do with CO2 .Or they may be caused by ocean currents or Suns magnetic field. Climate science who is wrong about tornadoes and hurricanes cant really predict anything reliably.
More fake climate science.First of all warming oceans off gas CO2 not absorb more .How does less cO2 cause acidification? 'Ocean Acidification' Exposed as Fake News - Principia Scientific International
linked@2, Principia-scientific.org is totally new for me. I had wondered where the 'sky-dragon slayers' had gone after being banned and erased from Judith Curry's site. Now I know. It is no trivial matter to get banned and erased from Judith Curry's site. No other discussion seems to have. So I have high hopes that this new find will distinguish itself in some way.
A bit more study on the Pielke family may be in order. The father Roger Sr. has made his career in mesoscale atmospheric modeling. Recently with particular focus on hurricane trends. The son Roger Jr. has focus on mitigation/adaptation of human structures to extreme events. You might not agree with either of them on all counts, but they are serious people.
I am OK with discussing facts and data. My problem is seeing a pattern of claiming economic factors have some bearing on whether (or weather) there is an effect on global climate. Look, I'm firmly in the camp of 'they ain't making it any more' when I criticize fossil fuels. I'm with Edison wondering if we have to 'burn it all up' before we notice that 'big light in sky.' When we discuss the growing population, I am reminded of the largest shark and mammals on earth, the whales. They feed of phytoplankton, one of the shortest paths between that fusion furnace in the sky and critters (didn't mention fungi.) Herbivores have always been the largest because in part, they have the most efficient path between that ball of incandescent gas in the sky and their biological processes. Notice, I didn't mention our friends, flora. It is interesting to observe human evolution from not just in Syria but other conflicts. Evolution works by taking reproductive age members out, selecting those who figure out the puzzle. I don't advocate 'selection' as much as pointing out it exists. Bob Wilson
They tend to be big because they also need a good size, internal bioreactor for microbes to break down the cellulose. Smaller ones, like rabbits, have to eat the plant matter twice, or they stick to eating the seeds, fruits, and parts where the plants store energy in more accessible compounds. Warming water does reduce the amount of dissolved gases. So warm oceans will hold less CO2, but also less oxygen, which isn't good for aquatic life either. In addition to the oxygen loss, more calcium carbonate comes out of solution. Then we are stuck with more CO2 dissolving into the water if the planet isn't warming. The issue with acidification of the ocean isn't just about pH. It's also about what happens to that carbonic acid. Seawater does have buffering ability do to calcium carbonates. CO2 dissolves in, some converts to carbonic acid, the acid reacts with the carbonate, converting it to bicarbonate, which makes it unavailable for snails, corals, and other organisms to use for skeletons. As for the link, the author is being misleading or has poor reading comprehension. "This overall pH-lowering “trend” of less than 0.1 since the industrial era began is “predicted” to “potentially threaten the existence and development of many marine calcareous organisms”. Again, it’s the 150-year -0.1 trend in pH-lowering — which the authors admit is subject to “large errors” in measurement — that threatens the oceanic biosphere according to modeled predictions. In contrast, large natural pH drops of -0.2 to -0.5 occurring on 10-year timescales do not threaten “marine calcareous organisms.”" The local pH can have wide swings due to the availability of nutrients and chemical runoffs. Monitor it through 24 hours, and you will see pH drops when the sun sets and photosynthesizing organisms stop taking in CO2. This swings will average out when observed over time. The 0.1 lowering trend is worrisome because it means that average is dropping. So the dips and peaks will be more acidic too. So if you believe increased CO2 from our emissions isn't causing warming, nor acidifying the oceans, do you believe the reports of increased CO2 in the air are lies?
