Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "DW Documentary" channel.

  1. Dangerous and pointless. 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. The IPCC reports in AR6, chapter 11, "The total global frequency of TC [tropical cyclone] formation will decrease or remain unchanged with increasing global warming (medium confidence)." Not that I really care about what the IPCC says. 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. What the data from NOAA SPC shows about tornados: EF1-EF5 (1954-2022) no trend; EF3-EF5 (most destructive) (1954-2022) 50% decline. No EF5s in US since 2013 (a record absence). The Global Land Precipitation Anomaly from AR5 will disappoint with deviations from the average increasing by 0.2% per decade, but if you look at the actual data, it's just very variable over the decades. Drought appears to be decreasing globally (Watts et al, 2018) measured by SPI 1901-2017. For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%--from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 in per year during the 2010s. Data on disaster deaths come from (EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels,Belgium. ) Globally 2000-2019 there was a large decrease in cold-related deaths and a moderate increase in heat-related deaths (Zhao, 2021, Lancet). However, coldwaves are over 9 times more likely to kill than heatwaves, so the overall result is very beneficial. What else? Oh, deserts like the Sahara have shrunk considerably and the Earth has greened by 15% or more in a human lifetime (NASA). The Great Barrier Reef's coral cover has reached the greatest extent ever recorded. On extinction the rate is very low: 900 known lost species for 2.1 million known species in 500 years. 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. There is no climate crisis.
    5
  2. The Germans were always good at propaganda. "The most robust global changes in climate extremes are found in yearly values of heatwaves (number of days, maximum duration and cumulated heat), while global trends in heatwave intensity are not significant. Daily precipitation intensity and extreme precipitation frequency are stationary in the main part of the weather stations. Trend analysis of the time series of tropical cyclones show a substantial temporal invariance and the same is true for tornadoes in the USA. At the same time, the impact of warming on surface wind speed remains unclear. The analysis is then extended to some global response indicators of extreme meteorological events, namely natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of the four main crops (maize, rice, soybean and wheat). None of these response indicators show a clear positive trend of extreme events. In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet." (Alimonti, et al. 2022. The European Physical Journal Plus, Volume 137.) The climate crisis is nonsense.
    4
  3. The mirage of a climate crisis has hardened into a delusion. There is no climate crisis. 10% decline in natural disasters since 2000. Accumulated cyclone energy shows no increasing trend. Global hurricane landfalls shows no trend. Downward global trend for total hurricaine numbers. NOAA: "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." NOAA data 1851-2021 shows no trend in number of hurricaine landfalls with the record high being 1886. The trend for over 7 decades has been downwards in the Pacific as well. Drought appears to be decreasing globally measured by SPI 1901-2017. Global trends show no increasing flooding frequency or severity. For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes have declined 98%. Deserts have shrunk considerably since the 1980's. The Sahara shrank by 12,000km² per year 1984-2015. The Earth has greened by 15% or more in a human lifetime. The Great Barrier Reef's coral cover has reached the greatest extent ever recorded. On extinction the rate is very low: 900 known lost species for 2.1 million known species in 500 years, so from observations there are an average of slightly less than 2 species lost every year. Global temperatures maxed out in 2016 and have been lower ever since. There is no climate crisis.
    3
  4. This video obscures the truth. Go back to the source, the Norwegian Meteorological Office (Seklima), to try to get to the bottom of this. I suggest everyone check out their data. Ny-ålesund data for maximum annual temperatures shows no trend since records began in 1969. It has not got hotter. However, the minimum annual temperatures has increased, so the winters have become milder (but still extremely cold). The increase in the annual minimum temperature occurred over 20 years, but this trend stopped around 2006. To find a longer term view on Svalbard you need to look up other weather stations, for example Longyearbyen + Svalbard Lufthavn. Looking at say 1950 to the present shows no trend in the maximum temperatures. The minima dropped quite considerably from the later 50s. The 60s and 70s had an intensely cold trend of minima. It then warmed in the 80s/90s and from 2005 levelled off. So overall the swings in temperature on Svalbard during the year have become less extreme. Very roughly, it hasn't got hotter, but the winters, which got very much colder, became less cold, now they have stopped getting less cold since about 2005. Svalbard's climate became milder, less extreme than compared to the 60s and 70s, but not hotter. That process of amelioration has stopped. These changes are uncorrelated to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    3
  5. The Earth was warmer in the recent and distant past. The Earth warmed faster in the past. There is no climate crisis.
    3
  6. There is no climate crisis. Wind is due to the temperature difference between the Tropics and Arctic. If the Arctic is warming faster than the Tropics the temperature difference should be less, and shouldn't the wind speed decrease.
    3
  7. *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.
    2
  8. There are no actual global observational data on changes to permafrost. The Li et al 2022 paper 'Changes in permafrost extent and active layer thickness in the Northern Hemisphere from 1969 to 2018' states "The temporal change characteristics of the permafrost extent and ALT [active layer thickness] for the NH [Northern Hemisphere] have not been studied." These things have only been poorly estimated or modelled. The aforementioned paper modelled permafrost extent decreased from 23.25 × 10⁶km2 (average from 1969 to 1973) to 21.64 × 10⁶km2 (average from 2014 to 2018), with a linear rate of −0.023 × 10⁶ km2/a. That's an annual change of 0.099 of a percent. That's negligible and could just as easily be increasing due to the uncertainty in the modelling. Out of global estimated emissions of methane of around 600 Tg CH4 per year, the best estimate of emissions from pan-Arctic permafrost is 1 Tg CH4 per year (Elder et al, 2021), so that's less than 0.17%. It's almost nothing.
    2
  9. The oil companies didn't know what was going to happen in the 1970's. Nobody did, and frankly nobody does. They had done some scientific research and had constructed some models, which they correctly treated with caution. As everyone should do, as all the subsequent models have been shown not to work, and vary enormously in their output. The problem is people believe these climate models to be Truth Machines. They are not.
    2
  10. 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.
    2
  11. 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.
    2
  12. 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).
    2
  13. 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.
    2
  14. The usual nonsense. As regards the melting of Arctic Ice, the records nearly always seem to start in 1979. Strange that, considering it was a year of record extent for Arctic Ice. Even so, data from NOAA (2022 Arctic Report Card) show winter (March) ice coverage has hardly changed since '79, and that the summer (September) coverage trend had stopped declining since 2007. How inconvenient! Didn't someone predict in 2007 Arctic ice free by 2010, or 2015, or 2013, or in 5 years? Or was it in 2008 the Arctic ice sheet would melt away. Also predicted in 2008 North Pole ice free in ... 2008 ... or in 10 years. 2009 prediction: Arctic ice free in 2014. 2012 prediction: snow will be gone by 2020. And 2013 star prediction: Methane catastrophe in 2 years because of ice free Arctic. 2018 prediction: zero chance of permanent ice in Arctic by 2022. The Arctic Ice is still there, and it's stopped shrinking. If you consider global sea ice cover, it was basically flat from 1981 to 2008, rose until 2010, stayed level until 2015, dropped until 2018, and then rebounded almost all the way back to the 1990-2000 average. Nobody predicted theses changes, nor can they explain them. The changes have no relationship to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The climate crisis/emergency/apocalypse is make-believe. Multiyear ice is an unproductive habitat as far as marine organisms are concerned: first year (seasonal) ice over continental shelves is the most productive and this is where the vast majority of polar bears, seals, fish, whales, and sea birds are found. Therefore the decline of extremely thick multiyear ice (>4 years old) could be seen as an unconcerning development with regards to the wildlife in the region, especially since 2-3 year old ice that can be used as a resting/hunting platform for seals and polar bears hasn't declined in summer since 2007. In fact, biologically, the Arctic is in good shape with all its regions showing a positive trend in primary productivity over an extended period (2003-2022). This has resulted in more food for seals, walruses, bowhead whales and polar bears, which are hence maintaining or expanding their populations. There's no "death spiral" in the region as some people reported. In fact, there is, as I say, no evidence of any crisis/emergency. That is silly nonsense designed to scare people.
    2
  15. If you're worried about deaths due to climate, cold temperature events are the big killer, not heat. 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, and therefore a greater cause of mortality than air pollution. In a warming world there will be less death.
    2
  16. @gilian2587  Many people who are doom-sayers are using the climate as their new Armageddon religion. So no data required. They are always about. It must be a facet of human nature. Individuals are more likely to survive if they focus on the negative. I'm more "In God we trust, everyone else brings data."
    1
  17. @GreyDeathVaccine  The North Atlantic current has doubled its speed over the course of a quarter of century (Oziel et al, 2021). This is based on actual satellite observations. The idea the AMOC is going to shut down is based on modelling. There is minimal real world evidence to support these outlandish claims. It relies upon climate models. You know, those Magical Truth Machines that keep making false predictions. It claims with 95% certainty that the AMOC with collapse by the end of the century. Come on! Really?
    1
  18. 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. 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 linear 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, but can be correlated to multi-decadal oscillations in ocean circulation. It's going to be decades before even your big toe is submerged.
    1
  19. Nonsense. Drought appears to be decreasing (Watts et al, 2018) measured by SPI 1901-2017.
    1
  20. There is no climate crisis. 10% decline in natural disasters since 2000. Accumulated cyclone energy shows no increasing trend. Global hurricane landfalls shows no trend. Downward global trend for total hurricaine numbers. NOAA: "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." NOAA data 1851-2021 shows no trend in number of hurricaine landfalls with the record high being 1886. The trend for over 7 decades has been downwards in the Pacific as well.
    1
  21.  @f_youtubecensorshipf_nazis  Well that told me. You got me there, sport.
    1
  22. Everything we do releases carbon dioxide, so the Carbon Cult want to control everything. There will be global starvation if fossil fuels are eliminated. At risk in coming decades will be half of the world’s 8.5 billion to 10 billion people who are fed by crops grown with fertilizers derived from fossil fuels. Getting to Net Zero by 2050 would cost $9.2 trillion a year globally (McKinsey). That's not going to be good value for money. That's nearly one-tenth of global GDP. That money would be better spent on a myriad of things including educating the fifth of humanity who are illiterate and represent a 7% annual loss to the world's economy. Any country that attempts it will be indebted or impoverished. Example: For the UK to reach net zero by electrification of its transport fleet and heating system, it will require a tripling (as a minimum) of its current electrical generation capacity among other things. This will essentially require the UK consuming all of the current global supply of copper and other rare metals for the next 25 years. The cost will be unaffordable and the skilled manpower levels unattainable. And that is just to eliminate the 1% of the global CO2 emissions that the UK is responsible for. So times that by 100 for the Earth. 10,000 child slaves in the cobalt mines of the Congo not enough for you? Make it a million. Imagine all the human suffering and environmental damage done from all that resource extraction! It's pointless anyway. In just 8 years (prior to 2021) China emitted more CO2 than Britain did since the start of Industrial Revolution that began over 220 years ago! And China plans to vastly increase its coal fired generating capacity. An electric vehicle requires 6 times the mineral input compared to a conventional one, and the carbon cost is greater until you reach 80,000 miles. Production of all of these minerals has been mastered by China: a totalitarian communist regime that thinks nothing of the mass murder of its own citizens, imagine how much it cares about the rest of us. And why are we embarking on this great net zero crusade? For what? So someone can virtue signal by driving around in a Tesla. Maddeningly, there is no climate crisis. The Earth was warmer in the recent and distant past.
    1
  23. @swiftlytiltingplanet8481  I would be interested in a reference to support your point, so that I could follow that up.
    1
  24. @swiftlytiltingplanet8481  No famine death data. Oh dear. You want to start in the 1960s. That's fine. I understand why. Can I recommend you pop over to the website "our world in data" and go to the page "Annual Heat Wave Index in the United States"? Don't worry, it sources its data from NOAA. Now you should see a red spikey thing - that's a graph. You'll enjoy moving the slider along the bottom. Notice that all the tallest spikes are in the 1930s. The very tallest (1936) is 1.34 on the severity index. The most recent readings are around 0.1, so that's a factor of 13. Imagine if you had a heatwave like that now. People like you would be screaming and dropping from apoplexy. How did your ancestors survive without air-con (or global warming!)? Anyway, there's only one, just one, place on this graph you can start and show an increasing trend. That's the 1960s (less than 0.05). And that's why you've chosen it (or it was chosen for you). Another lesson to draw from this is that there is zero positive correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and heatwaves in the US.
    1
  25.  @swiftlytiltingplanet8481  The famine in the Horn of Africa is endemic not because of climatic factors but because of bad governance and poverty. If you compare these regions to the Gulf States, the climate of the Gulf is similar, although even drier, but the latter have a much higher standard of living due their wealth of fossil fuels and better social organisation. What the Horn of Africa needs is a good dose of reliable energy from fossil fuels to raise their living standards.
    1
  26. @swiftlytiltingplanet8481  One of the relevant papers referenced by the IPCC in support - Perkins-Kirkpatrick and Lewis, 2020 - has the number and length of heatwaves increasing globally (1951-2017) as you would expect in a slowly warming world, but there is no trend for average intensity. However, I dug a little deeper. The data that these heatwave assumptions are built upon are largely non-existent or fabricated. There are two data sources used: GHCN and Berkeley Earth. At least with the one data source GHCN it shows there is no reliable data going back to the 1950s across almost the whole of Indonesia, India, Arabia, Africa, plus Central and South America. The other data source Berkeley Earth "observational" dataset - now that's a misrepresentation! - just makes it up. It's supposed to be high resolution (1° lat, 1° long 69x54.6miles grid) and go back to 1850. So I thought, hmm, Somalia, the Ogaden and Arabia are looking a bit toasty and red on the maps. Let's check out the data. I found Berkeley Earth’s data sources. I reviewed WMO, GSOD, and NCAR. For the period reviewed in the paper (1950-2014) in the Horn of Africa there were no meteorological station that cover that period. That's right - zero. In the whole of Arabia there were three, just three. Just like Arabia, the whole thing is built on sand. There will be huge parts of the globe where no measurements will have been taken until the advent of satellite technology in the 70s. Very interestingly, if you look at the charts on Fig. 1 on the paper, the US, especially the eastern half looks distinctly unaffected by any increase in heatwaves. Bit of a blue tinge there, I think you'll agree. It's much more difficult to fudge that one because of the huge number of long-term meteorological stations in the US. And why do they start in 1950, and not 1930 or 1900? Hmm.
    1
  27. @swiftlytiltingplanet8481  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! There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis.
    1
  28. @swiftlytiltingplanet8481  You want to start in the 1960s. That's fine. I understand why. Can I recommend you pop over to the website "our world in data" and go to the page "Annual Heat Wave Index in the United States"? Don't worry, it sources its data from NOAA. Now you should see a red spikey thing - that's a graph. You'll enjoy moving the slider along the bottom. Notice that all the tallest spikes are in the 1930s. The very tallest (1936) is 1.34 on the severity index. The most recent readings are around 0.1, so that's a factor of 13. Imagine if you had a heatwave like that now. People like you would be screaming and dropping from apoplexy. How did your ancestors survive without air-con (or global warming!)? Anyway, there's only one, just one, place on this graph you can start and show an increasing trend. That's the 1960s (less than 0.05). And that's why you've chosen it (or it was chosen for you). Another lesson to draw from this is that there is zero positive correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and heatwaves in the US.
    1
  29. @swiftlytiltingplanet8481  Heat waves have not been increasing in intensity or frequency in the United States, which has by far the best meteorological data both spatially and temporally. Data from NOAA's Climate Reference Network shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since 2005 when that network began. In recent decades in the United States, heat waves have been far less severe than they were in the 1930s. At that time Heatwaves were more than 6 times worse with greater frequency and covering a larger area than the last decade (EPA). The most severe heatwave year was 1936, and was about 13 times worse than current. Many states in 1936 achieved temperatures 15° hotter than the present. The all-time high temperature records set in most states occurred in the first half of the twentieth century. The percentage of US Historical Climatology Network Stations reaching or exceeding 95°F (35°C) was at a record low (1895-2023) of 51% in 2023. The record high was 1931 at 93%. The trend has been consistently downwards since the thirties. The climate crisis was 90 years ago. You missed it.
    1
  30. @swiftlytiltingplanet8481  Do you have any data to back up your assertions? As I've already pointed out their is low confidence in a change in drought patterns and its attribution to human activity. For the Horn of Africa, Somalia specifically, World Bank data shows annual rainfall is on an upward trend, and the climatic period 1931-1960 had far lower precipitation in all seasons than the period 1991-2020. Somalia's climate is wetter than in the past. The data is the exact opposite of what you assert.
    1
  31.  @swiftlytiltingplanet8481  What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. 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%!
    1
  32. @swiftlytiltingplanet8481  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). Data. Global data. No climate crisis.
    1
  33. @swiftlytiltingplanet8481  "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." Indur M. Goklany Couldn't have said it better myself.
    1
  34. @swiftlytiltingplanet8481  Oh and thinking about UN reports, here's some 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.
    1
  35. @swiftlytiltingplanet8481  "Research determined that a 1C increase in temperature translates to 12% in GDP decline." Oh it does, does it? That's strange: Since 1900 the global temperature has increased by 1.3°C (so more than "1C"). 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.
    1