Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "How science can combat climate change conspiracies - Whose Truth? The Documentary, BBC World Service" video.

  1. There has been a 10% decline in natural disasters since 2000 (CRED). Normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920, so you're 50 times less likely to die from a climate-related disaster in a world that's 1°C warmer than 100 years ago (EM-DAT, CRED/UC). Deaths from drought have declined by 99%! As an example of good news, Climate Change saved 555,103 lives in England and Wales between 2001 and 2020 (ONS, 2022).
    14
  2. There is no climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that certain severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Pages 1761 - 1765, Table 11.A.2 Synthesis table summarising assessments Heavy Precipitation: 24 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (12 medium confidence), 43 out of 45 low confidence in human attribution. Agricultural Drought: 31 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (14 medium confidence. No high confidence assessment). 42 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (3 medium, no high confidence). Ecological Drought as above. Hydrological Drought: 38 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend. 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (2 medium confidence, no high confidence). So the IPCC are saying we didn't cause droughts and we didn't make it rain. How surprising!
    12
  3. @komousch  You should read chapter 12. The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Average precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Tropical Cyclones. How about some quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6? "There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions." "There is low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations, for any type of drought, in all regions." "Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas, but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remains of low confidence due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is not established. . . The same limitation also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms)." There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.
    7
  4. Extinction rates (1500-2009) peaked around 1900 at 50 per decade. Extinction rates have declined dramatically to around 4 to per decade in the 2000s. So the extinction rate is very low: 908 known lost species for 2.1 million known species in 500 years (IUCN Red List), so from observations there are an average of slightly less than 2 species lost every year. Out of a known species total of over 2 million. That gives an annual percentage loss of less than 0.0001%. That's background extinction. At that frequency it will take over 930,000 years to reach 80% extinction of species experienced at the K-T boundary that saw the extinction of the dinosaurs. Of course, extinction is a natural part of the evolution of life on this planet with the average lifespan of a species thought to be about 1 million years (cf 930,000). It is estimated that 99.9% of all plant and animal species that have existed have gone extinct. It should also be noted that no taxonomic families have become extinct in the last 500 years. In fact marine diversity at the taxonomic level of families is the highest it has ever been in the Earth's long history (see Sepkoski Curve). In a review of 16,009 species, most populations (85%) did not show significant trends in abundance, and those that did were balanced between winners (8%) and losers (7%) (Dornelas et al, 2019). There have been only 9 species of continental birds and mammals confirmed extinct since 1500 (Loehle, 2011). No global marine animals have become extinct in the past 50 years (McCauley et, 2015 using IUCN data). Take bird species: 11,195 have been counted (not estimated). All of these have been assessed by the IUCN. They catalogued 4 bird species became extinct over the course of 28 years between 1988 and 2016. That's 1.4 per decade or an annual extinction rate of 0.001%. Also the proportion of species assessed as threatened by the IUCN has declined rapidly over time, from 65% in 2000 (11,000 out of 17,000) to 28% in 2024 (46,000 out of 166,000). This increasingly positive outcome of their species assessments is only accelerating as time passes. Using IUCN data on assessed species- Amphibian species extinct 0.009% per decade. Mammals 0.029% per decade. Reptiles 0.006% per decade. Fish 0.006% per decade. Insects 0.009% per decade. There is no climate crisis.
    7
  5. @darrenb3830  Quotes from IPCC AR6 WG1: Flooding - “the assessment of observed trends in the magnitude of runoff, streamflow, and flooding remains challenging, due to the spatial heterogeneity of the signal and to multiple drivers” "Confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on a global scale is low." "In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence" So in absence of detected trends, there won’t be much ability to attribute to humans. You can't say floods are caused by, driven by, or intensified by climate change. The evidence doesn’t support that. Drought - "There is low confidence that human influence has affected trends in meteorological droughts in most regions" So no real evidence we changed the weather to cause periods of dryness. Tropical Cyclones (TC) - "Identifying past trends in TC remains a challenge...There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency - or intensity based metrics" So we can't spot a trend and therefore we can't really attribute that unknown trend to us humans. Storminess - outside the tropics (ETCs) - "There is overall low confidence is recent changes in the total number of ETCs over both hemispheres" "Overall there is low confidence in past-century trends in the number and intensity of the strongest ETCs" So we don't know what's happening with winter storms, so we can't say it's us that changed them. Tornadoes, hail, lightning, thunderstorms, extreme winds - "It is not straightforward to make a synthesizing view of trends in severe connective storms [thunderstorms] in different regions. In particular, observational trends in tornadoes, hail and lightning associated with severe connective storms are not robustly detected" "the observed intensity of extreme winds is becoming less severe in lower to mid latitudes" That's between 60°N and 60°S, so pretty much where everyone lives.
    6
  6. It is estimated that 5.1 million people annually die in association with non-optimal temperatures. 4.6 million are link to the cold, so over 90% (Zhao et al, 2021). And it is worst in the warmer parts of the world. 98% of temperature related deaths in SubSaharan Africa are due to the cold. Temperature events may be linked to upto 10% of human deaths annually. In a warming world there will be less death.
    5
  7. This video lacks scientific foundations. Quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6 WG1: Flooding - “the assessment of observed trends in the magnitude of runoff, streamflow, and flooding remains challenging, due to the spatial heterogeneity of the signal and to multiple drivers” "Confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on a global scale is low." "In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence" So in absence of detected trends, there won’t be much ability to attribute to humans. You can't say floods are caused by, driven by, or intensified by climate change. The evidence doesn’t support that. Drought - "There is low confidence that human influence has affected trends in meteorological droughts in most regions" So no real evidence we changed the weather to cause periods of dryness. Tropical Cyclones (TC) - "Identifying past trends in TC remains a challenge...There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency - or intensity based metrics" So we can't spot a trend and therefore we can't really attribute that unknown trend to us humans. Storminess - outside the tropics (ETCs) - "There is overall low confidence is recent changes in the total number of ETCs over both hemispheres" "Overall there is low confidence in past-century trends in the number and intensity of the strongest ETCs" So we don't know what's happening with winter storms, so we can't say it's us that changed them. Tornadoes, hail, lightning, thunderstorms, extreme winds - "It is not straightforward to make a synthesizing view of trends in severe connective storms [thunderstorms] in different regions. In particular, observational trends in tornadoes, hail and lightning associated with severe connective storms are not robustly detected" "the observed intensity of extreme winds is becoming less severe in lower to mid latitudes" That's between 60°N and 60°S, so pretty much where everyone lives.
    5
  8. There are over 5 million excess deaths per annum globally due to abnormal temperatures from the 2000-2019 study led Prof. Guo of Monash University. It found that over 90% of excess deaths were caused by excess COLD rather than excess heat. So, in a world with increasingly mild temperatures, there will be less excess death. Lives will be saved. Warming is good not bad. A 2022 Lancet study reported 791 heat-related excess deaths and 60,753 cold-related excess deaths in England and Wales each year during the years spanning 2000-2019. That’s an excess death ratio of about 85 to 1 for cold vs. hot temperatures. Due to warmer urban temperatures, the number of premature cold-related excess deaths avoided averaged 447 per year from 1976-2019 in the city of London alone (Hajat et, 2024).
    5
  9. Since 1900 the global temperature has increased by 1.3°C. Despite that humanity has flourished. Life expectancy has more than doubled from 32 to 73 years. Literacy has quadrupled from 21% to 86%. Humans are seven times more productive ($2,241 to $15,212 GDP per capita, per annum). People are better fed, having ⅓ more calories every day (2,192kcal to 2,928kcal). Global extreme poverty rates have tumbled from 70% to less than 10% (<$1 a day). And death from weather events have collapsed by a factor 50 from 241 million down to 5 million even while the global population has increased by a factor of 5. There is no climate crisis. There is no evidence of a climate crisis. Even if there is radical climate change (and that is a very, very big 'if') with the manifestation of numerous tipping points (including permafrost thaw, ocean hydrates dissociation, Arctic sea ice loss, rainforest dieback, polar ice sheet loss, AMOC slowdown, and Indian monsoon variability) the disruption to economic growth and well-being will be minimal. The world's economy will continue to grow making everyone much richer. By 2050 world mean consumption per capita should be $29,100 with tipping points or $29,300 without tipping points. Barely noticeable. Apart from it being approximately double what it is now. By 2100 world mean consumption per capita should be $71,000 with or without tipping points (Dietz et al, 2021). This is the most fortunate time to be alive in the whole of history.
    5
  10. The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Increased Flooding: not detected, no attribution. Increased Meteorological Drought: not detected, no attribution. Increased Hydrological Drought: not detected, no attribution. Increased Tropical Cyclones: not detected, no attribution. Increased Winter Storms: not detected, no attribution. Increased Thunderstorms: not detected, no attribution. Increased Hail: not detected, no attribution. increased lightning: not detected, no attribution. Increased Extreme Winds: not detected, no attribution. There is no climate crisis.
    5
  11. @komousch  Oh climate is changing natural systems, but for our betterment. Deserts have shrunk considerably since the 1980's. The Sahara shrank by 12,000km² per year 1984-2015(Liu & Xue, 2020). The Earth has greened by 15% or more in a human lifetime. "The greening of the planet over the last two decades represents an increase in leaf area on plants and trees equivalent to the area covered by all the Amazon rainforests. There are now more than two million square miles of extra green leaf area per year"(NASA, 2019). Observations of Earth’s vegetative cover since the year 2000 by NASA’s Terra satellite show a 10% increase in vegetation in the first 20 years of the century. Global tree canopy cover increased by 2.24 million square kilometers (865,000 square miles) between 1982 and 2016 (Nature, 2018). As well as human intervention, the reasons for this include forests expanding polewards aided by additional CO2 and a slight rise in temperature. Increased CO2 causes this in two ways: it has a direct fertilising effect (the CFE), and it increases drought tolerance by reducing stomata. This greening of the Earth due to CO2 is now "an indisputable fact" (Chen et al, 2024). In fact, 55.15% of those areas greening have been doing so at an accelerated rate since 2001. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution the Earth's primary productivity has increased by more than 30% (Campbell et al, 2017 and Haverd et al, 2020). Zhu, Piao, & Myneni, 2016 calculate that 70% of Earth’s global greening in the modern period is due to CO2 and only about 13% is due to fertilizer and land use changes by humans. The Earth’s natural vegetation productivity actually increased 6% in 18 years (Nemani et al, 2003) with 42% of this increase coming from the Amazon rainforests. Between 1961 and 2021 global cereal production increased 250% and cereal yield increased over 200%. Land used for cereal hardly increased (Data from World Bank, FAO/UN). This is the only time in human history that you are more likely to be overfed rather than underfed. We should be thankful we were borne into an age of such abundance. A US DoE study (Taylor & Schlenker, 2021) estimated that a 1 ppm increase in CO2 led to an increase of 0.4%, 0.6% and 1% in yield for corn, soybeans and wheat, respectively, and that CO2 increase was the main driver of the 500% yield growth in corn since 1940. Global tomato production has set a record each year for the past 10 years. Banana production has doubled in 20 years. All 10 of the largest sugar crops in global history occurred during the past 10 years. All 10 of the 10 largest rice crop years occurred during the past 10 years (UNFAO). 2023 was another record cereal crop. There is no climate crisis.
    4
  12.  @komousch  So global objective data is cherry-picking, but the single uncorroborated story from a non-scientist stranger in Africa is to be accepted unconditionally as totally relevant. Bollox.
    4
  13. "Heat-attributable mortality fractions have declined over time in most countries owing to general improvements in health care systems, increasing prevalence of residential air conditioning, and behavioural changes. These factors, which determine the susceptibility of the population to heat, have predominated over the influence of temperature change." IPCC
    3
  14. @komousch  There has been a 10% decline in natural disasters since 2000 (CRED). Normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920, so you're 50 times less likely to die from a climate-related disaster in a world that's 1°C warmer than 100 years ago (EM-DAT, CRED/UC). Deaths from drought have declined by 99%! As an example of good news, Climate Change saved 555,103 lives in England and Wales between 2001 and 2020 (ONS, 2022). Globally the ACE index (accumulated cyclone energy) 1980-2021 shows no increasing trend. Global Hurricane Landfalls 1970-2021 (updated from Weinkle et al, 2012) shows no trend. Satellite data since 1980 shows a slight downward global trend for total hurricaine numbers with 2021 being a record low year. From the NOAA GFDL website 'Global Warming and Hurricanes, An Overview of Current Research' (dated Feb. 9, 2023). And I quote "We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes." Multidecadal variability in Atlantic hurricaines is most probably related to the AMO (Vecchi et al, 2021). NOAA data 1851-2021 shows no trend in number of hurricaine landfalls with the record high being 1886. There is also no trend in the frequency of major hurricanes (Cat 3 +) for the same period, although the trend for the last 20 years is downwards. It makes no difference if you look at the Pacific. Using data from the JMA 1951-2022 we see typhoon activity trending downwards for over 7 decades.
    3
  15. @komousch  "As regards disease, the Lancet's Countdown on Health and Climate Change (2019) shows Climate-related deaths are a small proportion of all-cause fatalities (1990–2017). That is based on data per IHME (2019), and between 1990 and 2017, the cumulative age-standardized death rate (ASDRs) from climate-sensitive diseases and events (CSDEs) dropped from 8.1% of the all-cause ASDR to 5.5%, while the age-standardized burden of disease, measured by disability-adjusted life years lost (DALYs) declined from 12.0% to 8.0% of all-cause age-standardized DALYs. Thus, the burdens of death and disease from CSDEs are small, and getting smaller. However, the declines in death and disease rates from CSDEs since 1990 are only a small proportion of longer-term declines across the globe. In the USA, one of the few places with good long-term data, death rates from dysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid, other gastrointestinal diseases, and malaria – all water-related diseases and therefore, almost by definition, climate-sensitive declined 99–100% between 1900 and 1970. We are solving our problems with CSDEs faster than we are solving our other health problems."
    3
  16. @komousch  The Arctic minimum summer sea ice trend is zero for the past 17 years. In the past few years it was almost as high as 1995. The probability that this could be due to chance has now dropped to 10% (after Swart et al calculations, 2015). If the hiatus continues until 2027, it will become statistically significant (p<0.05, or less than 5%) and no longer explainable by chance. Using National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) information for September minima (million km²): 2007 4.16 2008 4.59 2009 5.12 2010 4.62 2011 4.34 2012 3.39 2013 5.05 2014 5.03 2015 4.43 2016 4.17 2017 4.67 2018 4.66 2019 4.19 2020 3.82 2021 4.77 2022 4.67 2023 4.23 Plot the trend line for this data and it will be flat. ZERO net change in 17 years. The linear trend since 2007 is indistinguishable from zero ( around -0.17% per year ). In the early 1950s the sea ice concentration anomaly was lower than it is at present. The sea ice anomaly then rose during the 50s, 60s and 70s. This was followed by a decline. This is demonstrated in Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) data, which is based on historical sea ice charts from several sources (aircraft, ship, and satellite observations). The AARI data shows the sea ice concentration anomaly was lower in 1952 (-5%) than 2005 (-3%). The anomaly increased in the 50s, 60s and 70s. In the 80s, 90s and early 2000s it decreased. Since 2007 the trend has been flat. JAXA (Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency) satellite data from 2002 to 2024 Arctic Sea Ice Extent (365 day running average) shows no noticeable trend with values close to 10,000,000km² throughout. Their minimum extent for daily values was in 2012. No other year since has come close. MASIE (Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent - Northern Hemisphere) shows something similar to JAXA. From 2005 to 2024 Arctic Sea Ice Extent (365 day running average) shows no noticeable trend with values close to 10,000,000km² throughout. Their minimum extent for daily values was in 2012. Again no other year since has come close. It also shows a marked increase in Ice in the Greenland Sea since 2018. Polyakov et al (2003) show "ice extent (1900-2000) in the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, and Chukchi Seas provide evidence that long-term ice thickness and extent trends are small and generally not statistically significant". Trend -0.5% per decade (±0.7%). Vinje (2001) shows a deceleration in the rate of ice loss from 1864 to 2000. Recent sea ice extent is very high when compared to the last 10,000 years. Also changes in sea ice extent and the speed of those changes were greater in the past (Stein et al, 2017). NOAA's Global Time Series Average Temperature Anomaly monthly data (1995-2004) for the Arctic region shows the peak anomaly occurred in January 2016 (+5°C), another El Niño year, and the trend is now downwards (-0.33°C per decade). HadCRUT4 Arctic (70N - 90N) monthly surface air temperature anomalies record (1920-2021) shows the greatest number and magnitude of positive temperature anomalies occurred between 1930-49. All anomalies in excess of 5°C, including +7°C (referenced to 1961-1990) are from this period. No temperature anomalies from 2000-2019 exceeded 5°C. It shows no decade warmed faster than the 1930s and the current 'warming' finished in 2005. JRA55 SAT (2010-2020) shows most of the Canadian Arctic and Greenland cooling with parts of Canada cooling by 3°C and western Greenland cooling by 2.5°C in a decade. KNMI data (Twentieth Century Reanalysis V2c, 1851-2011, 68°N-80°N, 25°W-60°W, so Greenland) shows the most pronounced warming took place in the 1870s, and when comparing temperature anomalies, highest are in the 1930s and comparison of that period with recent temperature anomalies shows no net warming.
    3
  17. @ThePursuitWOD There is no climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that certain severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Pages 1761 - 1765, Table 11.A.2 Synthesis table summarising assessments Heavy Precipitation: 24 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (12 medium confidence), 43 out of 45 low confidence in human attribution. Agricultural Drought: 31 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (14 medium confidence. No high confidence assessment). 42 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (3 medium, no high confidence). Ecological Drought as above. Hydrological Drought: 38 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend. 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (2 medium confidence, no high confidence).
    3
  18. @komousch  Sea level appears to be rising at a small 3mm per year. Atolls in the Pacific nations of the Marshall Islands and Kiribati, as well as the Maldives archipelago in the Indian Ocean, have risen up to 8 percent in size (Ford and Kench, 2020). 89% of the globe’s islands and 100% of large islands have stable or growing coasts (Duvat, 2019). No island larger than 10ha decreased in size. As regards NOAA tide gauge data, let's look at some examples from around the world. N.B. All sites show a linear Relative Sea Level Trend: Kanmen, China 2.40mm/yr; Sydney, Australia 0.75mm/yr; Ferandina Beach, Florida 2.20mm/yr; Los Angeles, California 1.04mm/yr; Mera, Japan 3.8mm; Cascais, Portugal 1.32mm/yr; Newlyn, UK 1.94mm/yr. Jevrejeva, et al (2014) estimated 2 mm/year (± 0.3), and Church and White (2006) estimated 1.7mm/year (± 0.3). So that's a total rise of between 126 and 151mm (less than 6 inches) from 2024 to the end of the century. Or try PSMSL data: Kwajalein (Marshall Islands) 1.95mm/yr; Maldives (Indian Ocean) 3.21mm/yr; Lautoka (Fiji Islands, Pacific Ocean) 3.50mm/yr; Port Elisabeth (South Africa) 2.34mm/yr. Remember, all linear over many decades, or more than a century. Anyway, if you prefer satellite data NOAA's trend was +3.0mm/year Global Mean Sea Level (1993-2022), again linear last time I looked for each set of satellite data (but hey, it may have accelerated in the last month). NASA satellite data (1993-present) for Global Mean Sea Level shows a rise of 3.3mm per year. That's the same as two stacked penny coins. There is no relationship to the exponential increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. It's going to be decades before even your big toe is submerged.
    3
  19. @komousch  When you use data from the World Bank and global insurance, and try to measure the cost to society of climate change, you find the cost is minimal and diminishing. Global weather losses as a percentage of Global GDP sank from 0.25% to below 0.20% between 1990 and 2022. Based on data published in the Lancet in 2019, GDP percentage Climate-Related Disaster Losses have declined in all global income categories, with the most noticeable declines in the lower income countries (Watts et al., 2019).
    3
  20. Another artless piece of propaganda from the BBC. An anecdote about some poor foreigner. A child enforcing lies onto adults. Globalism. No data. No evidence. Complaints about propaganda when it is the BBC spreading propaganda.
    3
  21.  @jmcdtucson  How am I misinformed?
    3
  22. There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Average precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Tropical Cyclones. How about some quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6? "There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions." "There is low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations, for any type of drought, in all regions." "Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas, but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remains of low confidence due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is not established. . . The same limitation also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms)." There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.
    3
  23. @darrenb3830  As the information is clearly referenced anybody can go back to the source material themselves and clarify its veracity. I hope people do.
    3
  24. @darrenb3830  Fine. You shouldn't be trusted. Everybody should go back to reputable source material. Do their own research. Form their own views.
    3
  25. @komousch  Another cherry! The whole of East and West Antarctica is cooling, and has been for 40 years. East Antarctica has cooled by an impressive 0.7°C per decade. Resulting in an overall substantial and statistically significant decline of 2.8°C since 1980. So much for "Global" warming. I am referring to a paper by Zhu et al (2021) that looked at the reanalysed ERA5 satellite dataset. Check out table 4. Furthermore, the Antarctic Peninsula ice has since been shown to be on the increase “The eastern Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet has grown in area over the last 20 years, due to changing wind and sea ice patterns.” (University of Cambridge, May, 2022.) In reality, "there have been statistically significant positive trends in total Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979." (Fogt et al, 2022. Published in Nature) "since 1979 is the only time all four seasons demonstrate significant increases in total Antarctic sea ice in the context of the twentieth century". A study of Antarctic ice shelves from 1980 to 2021 (Banwell et al, 2023) showed meltwater volume dropped with "decreasing trend in both annual melt days and meltwater production volume over the 41 years.” "Overall, the Antarctic ice shelf area has grown by 5305 km² since 2009, with 18 ice shelves retreating and 16 larger shelves growing in area. Our observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade." (Andreasen et al, 2023). It is from a paper entitled "Change in Antarctic Ice Shelf Area from 2009 to 2019". They use MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite data to measure the change in ice shelf calving front position and area on 34 ice shelves in Antarctica from 2009 to 2019. Also, as the mass gain (661Gt) was given, you could calculate the volume of the ice gained using the formula: Volume = Mass ÷ Density (assume Density of glacier ice 0.9167 Gt/km³). This would give you (well not you obviously) an Ice Gain Volume ≈721km³. That's how much extra of the lovely white stuff there is around Antarctica. Imagine standing in the centre of this extra ice. It would stretch beyond the horizon in all directions and would be 45 storeys high. Antarctica contributes 0.36mm to sea-level rise per year (that's essentially nothing as well). At the current rate it will take well over ¼ million years to melt, but we are due for two more glacial periods in that time. That ice is here to stay.
    3
  26. @komousch  So I referenced 8 internationally renowned scientific organisation plus important relevant scientific papers that refute your position, and it's cherry-picking. Have some more cherries. "Greenland ice sheet mass balance from 1840 through next week." (Mankoff al., 2021). If you examine Fig.2 on page 5, you will see there would be no correlation with the exponential increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide (280ppm to 420ppm) and the change in the annual Mass Balance Sum shown in the paper. Indeed there have been periods of increasing mass of the Greenland ice cap in the 1940's, 70's, 80's and 90's. (Remember CO2 was rising all the time.) The Greenland ice sheet is thought to contribute 0.7mm/yr to sea-level rise, so 54mm by 2100 (just over 2 inches). That sounds small because it is pitifully small. Also an accounting error. More recently Greenland Total Ice Mass Balance rate of loss reached its maximum in 2012 but the trend rate of loss has been diminishing ever since. That's while we've added 500 million tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere (14% of total human emissions). The average annual loss is 0.005% of the total mass (around 3 million gigatonnes). That's neglible.
    3
  27. ​ @bakedbean37 Just spreading the good news.
    3
  28. @rashomon66  Even the biased UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Mean precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Antarctic Sea Ice, Tropical Cyclones. If there's a dichotomy between different parts of the report, you'll have to take that up with the IPCC.
    2
  29.  @darrenb3830  But 42 out of 45 regions have a low confidence in human attribution. The climate is changing as you would expect - it has to change - but humans are not causing that change.
    2
  30. @birbatron987  You still haven't explained how I'm misinformed. And the climate isn't getting worse. Quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6 WG1: Flooding - “the assessment of observed trends in the magnitude of runoff, streamflow, and flooding remains challenging, due to the spatial heterogeneity of the signal and to multiple drivers” "Confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on a global scale is low." "In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence" s11.5.4, p1569. So in absence of detected trends, there won’t be much ability to attribute to humans. You can't say floods are caused by, driven by, or intensified by climate change. The evidence doesn’t support that. Drought - "There is low confidence that human influence has affected trends in meteorological droughts in most regions" s11.6.4.5, p1579. So no real evidence we changed the weather to cause periods of dryness. Tropical Cyclones (TC) - "Identifying past trends in TC remains a challenge...There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency - or intensity based metrics" s11.7.1.2, p1585. So we can't spot a trend and therefore we can't really attribute that unknown trend to us humans. Storminess - outside the tropics (ETCs) - "There is overall low confidence is recent changes in the total number of ETCs over both hemispheres" "Overall there is low confidence in past-century trends in the number and intensity of the strongest ETCs" s11.7.2.1, p1592 So we don't know what's happening with winter storms, so we can't say it's us that changed them. Tornadoes, hail, lightning, thunderstorms, extreme winds - "It is not straightforward to make a synthesizing view of trends in severe connective storms [thunderstorms] in different regions. In particular, observational trends in tornadoes, hail and lightning associated with severe connective storms are not robustly detected" s11.7.3.2, p1595. "the observed intensity of extreme winds is becoming less severe in lower to mid latitudes" s11.7.4, p1598. That's between 60°N and 60°S, so pretty much where everyone lives.
    2
  31. @darrenb3830  Specifically the UN's IPCC AR6 report, chapter 11 'Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate' summarises the fact that certain severe weather events cannot be detected as increasing, nor attributed to human caused climate change: Pages 1761 - 1765, Table 11.A.2 Synthesis table summarising assessments Heavy Precipitation: 24 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (12 medium confidence), 43 out of 45 low confidence in human attribution. Agricultural Drought: 31 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend (14 medium confidence. No high confidence assessment). 42 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (3 medium, no high confidence). Ecological Drought as above. Hydrological Drought: 38 out of 45 global regions low confidence in observed trend. 43 out 45 low confidence in human attribution (2 medium confidence, no high confidence). So the IPCC are saying we didn't cause droughts and we didn't make it rain. How surprising! How about some quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6? "There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions." "There is low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations, for any type of drought, in all regions." "Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas, but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remains of low confidence due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is not established. . . The same limitation also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms)." There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.
    2
  32. ​@bakedbean37 Nonsense dis-info are just awkward scientific data that doesn't fit with your world view.
    2
  33.  @komousch  And what exactly are the negative impacts of rising CO2?
    2
  34. @darrenb3830  I broke down the results for you. Out of the 45 global regions there is low confidence of human attribution in nearly all of them.
    2
  35.  @darrenb3830  The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 112.12 entitled "Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section" refers to numerous CIDs including "Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood" and shows "evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal." for the said CID. It assesses there is "low confidence for direction of change" for 1) "Already Emerged in the Historical Period"; 2) "Emerging by 2050"; 3) "Emerging between 2050 and 2100""in low-end scenarios". Precipitation and flood. Lacking. Not present. Low. Low. Low.
    2
  36.  @darrenb3830  The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 112.12 entitled "Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section" refers to numerous CIDs including "Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood" and shows "evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal." for the said CID. It assesses there is "low confidence for direction of change" for 1) "Already Emerged in the Historical Period"; 2) "Emerging by 2050"; 3) "Emerging between 2050 and 2100""in low-end scenarios". Precipitation and flood. Lacking. Not present. Low. Low. Low.
    2
  37.  @darrenb3830  The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 112.12 entitled "Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section" refers to numerous CIDs including "Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood" and shows "evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal." for the said CID. It assesses there is "low confidence for direction of change" for 1) "Already Emerged in the Historical Period"; 2) "Emerging by 2050"; 3) "Emerging between 2050 and 2100""in low-end scenarios". Precipitation and flood. Lacking. Not present. Low. Low. Low.
    2
  38.  @darrenb3830  The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 112.12 entitled "Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section" refers to numerous CIDs including "Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood" and shows "evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal." for the said CID. It assesses there is "low confidence for direction of change" for 1) "Already Emerged in the Historical Period"; 2) "Emerging by 2050"; 3) "Emerging between 2050 and 2100""in low-end scenarios". Precipitation and flood. Lacking. Not present. Low. Low. Low.
    2
  39.  @darrenb3830  The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 112.12 entitled "Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section" refers to numerous CIDs including "Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood" and shows "evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal." for the said CID. It assesses there is "low confidence for direction of change" for 1) "Already Emerged in the Historical Period"; 2) "Emerging by 2050"; 3) "Emerging between 2050 and 2100""in low-end scenarios". Precipitation and flood. Lacking. Not present. Low. Low. Low.
    2
  40.  @darrenb3830  The information I refer to is in the report. We won't agree on how to interpret it, but the data is as I have specified. To repeat the UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Average precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Tropical Cyclones. That's what is in the report in black and white.
    2
  41.  @darrenb3830  The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 112.12 entitled "Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section" refers to numerous CIDs including "Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood" and shows "evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal." for the said CID. It assesses there is "low confidence for direction of change" for 1) "Already Emerged in the Historical Period"; 2) "Emerging by 2050"; 3) "Emerging between 2050 and 2100""in low-end scenarios". Precipitation and flood. Lacking. Not present. Low. Low. Low.
    2
  42.  @darrenb3830  The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 112.12 entitled "Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section" refers to numerous CIDs including "Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood" and shows "evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal." for the said CID. It assesses there is "low confidence for direction of change" for 1) "Already Emerged in the Historical Period"; 2) "Emerging by 2050"; 3) "Emerging between 2050 and 2100""in low-end scenarios". Precipitation and flood. Lacking. Not present. Low. Low. Low.
    2
  43.  @darrenb3830  The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 112.12 entitled "Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section" refers to numerous CIDs including "Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood" and shows evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal for the said CID. It assesses there is low confidence for direction of change Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood for 1) Already Emerged in the Historical Period; 2) Emerging by 2050; 3) Emerging between 2050 and 2100 in low-end scenarios. Precipitation and flood. Lacking. Not present. Low. Low. Low.
    2
  44.  @darrenb3830  The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 112.12 entitled "Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section" refers to numerous CIDs including "Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood" and shows evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal for the said CID. It assesses there is low confidence for direction of change Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood for 1) Already Emerged in the Historical Period; 2) Emerging by 2050; 3) Emerging between 2050 and 2100 in low-end scenarios. Precipitation and flood. Lacking. Not present. Low. Low. Low.
    2
  45. @jmcdtucson  How is what I have presented misinformation? All the data is from reputable institutions or peer reviewed material published in scientific journals? Have you considered "misinformation" to be itself a misnomer for information that is unfavourable to a narrative developed by elites?
    1
  46.  @darrenb3830  I've tried to write a reasoned response numerous times now. You Tube won't allow it.
    1
  47.  @darrenb3830  The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 112.12 entitled "Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section" refers to numerous CIDs including "Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood" and shows "evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal." for the said CID. It assesses there is "low confidence for direction of change" for 1) "Already Emerged in the Historical Period"; 2) "Emerging by 2050"; 3) "Emerging between 2050 and 2100""in low-end scenarios". Precipitation and flood. Lacking. Not present. Low. Low. Low.
    1
  48.  @darrenb3830  The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 112.12 entitled "Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section" refers to numerous CIDs including "Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood" and shows "evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal." for the said CID. It assesses there is "low confidence for direction of change" for 1) "Already Emerged in the Historical Period"; 2) "Emerging by 2050"; 3) "Emerging between 2050 and 2100""in low-end scenarios". Precipitation and flood. Lacking. Not present. Low. Low. Low.
    1
  49. @komousch  So global data carefully referenced from internationally recognised organisations like NASA and the UN is cherry-picked, so obviously you can't accept it, and therefore I'm not sure what you would accept. In fairness you don't cherry-pick any data...because you don't reference any data.
    1
  50. @darrenb3830  Oh and Antarctica has cooled dramatically and the Sahara has shrunk.
    1
  51. @darrenb3830  So there is no GLOBAL man-made climate crisis. Glad to see you coming around to my way of thinking.
    1
  52. @darrenb3830  Read this again and take as long as you like: “the assessment of observed trends in the magnitude of runoff, streamflow, and flooding remains challenging, due to the spatial heterogeneity of the signal and to multiple drivers” "Confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on a global scale is low." "In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence" Those last two sentences are my favourite. Gone on, read them again. Enjoy.
    1
  53.  @bakedbean37  “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” Socrates.
    1
  54.  @darrenb3830  Scientists do not essentially write the final version of the IPCC reports that you refer to. It is reverse engineered. The Summary for Policymakers is thrashed out by a very large group of politicos. Line by line. Remember, these are not scientists, but government officials. Then they go back to information the scientists gave them and change it. The scientific statements must conform to the political ones, not the other way around. You are quoting statements written by political activists for active politicians. Numerous scientists involved in the composition of the ARs have complained about this.
    1
  55. @darrenb3830  "Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has further strengthened since ar5" You are quoting from the Summary for Policymakers, not the fully original report, where the chapters I quote from are largely written and collated by scientists. Scientists do not essentially write the final version of the IPCC reports that you refer to. It is reverse engineered. The Summary for Policymakers is thrashed out by a very large group of politicos. Line by line. Remember, these are not scientists, but government lackies. Then they go back to information the scientists gave them and change it. The scientific statements must conform to the political ones, not the other way around. You are quoting statements written by political activists for active politicians. Numerous scientists involved in the composition of the ARs have complained about this. What you quote is not founded in the underlying scientific data. What I refer to is. You do not accept the data, only the dogma. Which is a pity.
    1
  56. @darrenb3830  "Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has further strengthened since ar5" You are quoting from the Summary for Policymakers, not the fully original report, where the chapters I quote from are largely written and collated by scientists. Scientists do not essentially write the final version of the IPCC reports that you refer to. It is reverse engineered. The Summary for Policymakers is thrashed out by a very large group of politicos. Line by line. Remember, these are not scientists, but government lackies. Then they go back to information the scientists gave them and change it. The scientific statements must conform to the political ones, not the other way around. You are quoting statements written by political activists for active politicians. Numerous scientists involved in the composition of the ARs have complained about this. What you quote is not founded in the underlying scientific data. What I refer to is. You do not accept the data, only the dogma. Which is a pity.
    1
  57. @darrenb3830  You are quoting from the Summary for Policymakers, not the fully original report, where the chapters I quote from are largely written and collated by scientists. Scientists do not essentially write the final version of the IPCC reports that you refer to. It is reverse engineered. The Summary for Policymakers is thrashed out by a very large group of politicos. Line by line. Remember, these are not scientists, but government lackies. Then they go back to information the scientists gave them and change it. The scientific statements must conform to the political ones, not the other way around. You are quoting statements written by political activists for active politicians. Numerous scientists involved in the composition of the ARs have complained about this. What you quote is not founded in the underlying scientific data. What I refer to is. You do not accept the data, only the dogma. Which is a pity.
    1
  58.  @birbatron987  There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Average precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Antarctic Sea Ice, Tropical Cyclones.
    1
  59.  @birbatron987  There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Average precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Antarctic Sea Ice, Tropical Cyclones. The climate isn't getting worse, whatever that means.
    1
  60.  @birbatron987  "as the climate worsens"...that's not happening, and hasn't happened. There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. The UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Average precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Antarctic Sea Ice, Tropical Cyclones.
    1
  61. @bakedbean37  What do you know about glaciers? The retreat of Himalayan glaciers began before the current warming and was caused by reduced precipitation (Shekhar, 2017. Singh, 2020.). This supported by further work done by Schneider (2014), and Chen (2019). The retreat was due to a reduction in precipitation. Currently, precipitation is half of what it was 20 years previously. Research by Salerno (2015) "challenges the assumption of the main driver [i.e. temperature] of glacier mass changes". Satellite data shows the glaciers in the Karakoram largely unaffected by current warming. Of 1219 glaciers surveyed, 79.5% were stable, 5.3% were advancing, and 7.6% retreating (Rankl, 2014). Swiss Alps glacier extents were smaller than 2000 C.E. during the warmer-than-today Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and throughout 75% of the Holocene, or when temperatures were 1-3°C warmer (Schimmelpfennig et al., 2022). Glaciologists Bohleber et al, 2020 of the Austrian Academy of Science discovered from ice cores that the 3500-meter high Weißseespitze summit was ice free 5900 years ago. There is “no evidence” that Jostedalsbreen, a southern Norway glacier, even existed during the first several thousand years of the Holocene, or when CO2 hovered near 260 ppm (Winker, 2021). There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis. Glacial retreat is certainly not evidence of this.
    1
  62.  grindupBaker  There will certainly be more life as the Earth has greened dramatically. More plants = more animals. All over this increasingly verdant planet. Wonderful.
    1
  63.  @darrenb3830  The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 112.12 entitled "Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section" refers to numerous CIDs including "Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood" and shows "evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal." for the said CID. It assesses there is "low confidence for direction of change" for 1) "Already Emerged in the Historical Period"; 2) "Emerging by 2050"; 3) "Emerging between 2050 and 2100""in low-end scenarios". Precipitation and flood. Lacking. Not present. Low. Low. Low.
    1