Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "The Hill" channel.

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.
4
@WeToddEd-r3g No. I faithfully represented the information based on current observations. I included a clear reference so anyone can look it up, and I hope they do. What is remarkable is how little evidence there is that the Global climate has changed or is changing. Some patchy warming based on dubious evidence and that's about it. No changes to droughts, floods or storms. None of that has happened or is happening. I didn't include the information on what was emerging because it is based on implausibly extreme RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5. Those climate scenarios are obsolete, and there use would be misleading.
2
@WeToddEd-r3g The "Historical" column is based on objective observations, i.e. things that people have measured. They've happened or are happening (or in this case mostly not happening). The "Emerging" columns are based on models. These are things that haven't happened, and in this case, are so unlikely to occur that they can be disregarded. Let me explain why. The climate scenarios used have already diverged from reality quite significantly, and by 2050 the projected annual CO2 emissions from these scenarios will be double, or more than double the actual emissions.
1