Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "European court rules human rights violated by climate inaction in landmark case | BBC News" video.

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. This applied globally including in the hottest continent, Africa. So, in a world with increasingly mild temperatures, there will be less excess death. Warming is good not bad.
19
90% of these deaths are due to cold not heat. Also the climate is becoming less extreme. The marginal warming also appears to be largely due an increase in minima temperatures rather than maxima temperatures, i.e. warmer nights and winters. So essentially the climate is getting milder rather than hotter.
5
@Niko257x The big problem for doomists is peak interglacial warmth is not now but around 8,000 years ago. Proxies show a downward trend to the present day but with an interruption for the Medieval Warm Period (that doomists aren't allowed to believe in) followed by a decent into the The Little Ice Age (which doomists think also didn't exist), and a very slight recovery to the present day still below MWP though. Now I know what you're going to say about the supposed rapid warming over the last century but that's not a fair comparison. That's instrumental - which is unreliable due to it poor spatial and temporally collection -with annual instrumental measurements compared with proxy data whose the resolution is 200 years. If we smooth out the current data over the last two centuries you'd be lucky to see ½ degree per century. Your rapid warming disappears, and a very large number of bicentennial periods over the last 16,500 years warm at a faster rate (than 0.5°C/century). And let's not forget the Dansgaard–Oeschger events. The Dansgaard–Oeschger events were global (Dima et al, 2018). One about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet increased by around 8°C over 40 years, in three steps of five years, but a 5 °C change over 30–40 years is more common for these events. So shall we say a rate of change about 20°C per century. If that happened now you'd be foaming. But life carried on.
3
Since 1900 the global temperature has increased by 1.3°C. In that time 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.
2
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.
2
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. Indur M. Goklany
1
@boss_albaner 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. 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 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! 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.
1
@boss_albaner 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.
1
@boss_albaner Since 1900 the global temperature has increased by 1.3°C. In that time 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.
1
@boss_albaner 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.
1
@Niko257x When you are referring to the Summary for Policymakers, not the full original report as I have you may be lacking in how the former is fabricated. It is reverse engineered. The Summary for Policymakers is thrashed out by a very large group of politicos at the UN. 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. This is policy based evidence making, not evidence based policy making. It's atrocious.
1
@Niko257x the final version of the IPCC report is reverse engineered (unlike the full report that i am referring to). The Summary for Policymakers is thrashed out by a very large group of politicos at the UN. 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. This is policy based evidence making, not evidence based policy making. It's atrocious.
1
@Niko257x The Summary for Policymakers is thrashed out by a very large group of politicos at the UN. 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. This is policy based evidence making, not evidence based policy making.
1
@Niko257x The Summary for Policymakers is thrashed out by a very large group of politicos at the UN. 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. This is policy based evidence making, not evidence based policy making.
1
@Niko257x Oh dear, you poor thing. Just because you lack the ability to find the material I clearly referenced doesn't make it a lie. You also appear to have trouble discerning exactly the points I'm trying to make. For example although there is evidence for a mild warming, I did not say that was "human caused". You are putting words in my mouth. That's naughty. I gave referenced evidence that this was a good thing e.g. reduced mortality from extreme temperatures. The point I'm trying to make in this commentary is that the warming that is occurring is within the rate and range of what has occurred in the recent past. Again without reference to it being "human caused". Dramatic changes in climate are perfectly natural and normal on this planet and have never required any human input. Your use of Wikipedia as a reference source is laughable: a schoolboy error. It is probably the kernel of your problem. You don't (or can't) go back to the original sources of data and evaluate them. You just take what you're given. When it comes to "the warming" I can quote you upwards of 100 recent peer reviewed published scientific papers that show both qualitatively and quantitatively that the Medieval Warm Period was hotter than the Current Warm Period. Around 1700AD the Little Ice which again was a global event reached its nadir with temperatures possibly 2°C lower than present. Warming proceeded hesitantly from that point (so before the onset of the Industrial Revolution). With initial rapid warming then a cooling in the earlier 1800s, followed by rapid warming again in the early part of the 20th century where the average daily maxima records were set (1930s) and remain extant to this day. There followed a general cooling in the mid-century which lasted until the latter 1970s. Since that point there has been a hesitant warming of 0.13°C per decade (UAH v6). My précis of the Current Warm Period is a little simplistic for brevity as it has been neither consistent nor rapid both temporally and spatially. The warming isn't even "global", and I can reference data on that if you wish. When it comes to extreme weather e.g. hurricanes, there's little or no change. The reason begin there's been some warming at the northerly latitudes but not in the tropics, so the temperature gradient across the northern hemisphere (that drives the wind) is reduced. "Basic thermodynamics". Don't take my word for it: 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."
1
@Niko257x Well if we're quoting. 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.
1
@Niko257x And just so we are clear in detail, I will repeat 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 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! There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis.
1