Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (38147)	2/16/2013 9:45:17 AM
From: Alastair McIntosh	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

They don't do that, either. They are saying our activities are making weather events stronger; more extreme. The weather has been juiced with 'roids. The IPCC doesn't seem to have picked up on that as yet. A Case for Playing it Straight I have just participated in a lengthy Twitter exchange with Marshall Shepherd ( @DrShephard2013), a professor at the University of Georgia and President of the American Meteorological Society. The occasion for the exchange was Dr. Shepherd's presentation yesterday at a Congressional Briefing sponsored by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (his prepared remarks can be found here in PDF). The briefing focused on "t he latest trends and scientific evidence related to the growing impacts associated with climate change." Three other scientists testified at the briefing, but I am not interested in what they had to say. Shepherd's remarks are of interest because he is the President of a major scientific society. He was not at the briefing to present his personal opinions, but rather in his role as a leader and representative of the scientific community. Thus, in my view of the obligations of such a role, he had a duty to play it straight. Unfortunately, as is so often a case when leaders in the climate science community find themselves before an audience of policy makers, on extreme events they go rogue, saying all sorts of things with little or no scientific basis. Even if the scientist includes many accurate statements in his/her remarks (such as the reality of significant risks of human-caused climate change), the presence of horsemeat ruins the lasagne. Let's take a step back. The science on climate change, extreme events and disaster costs is clear and unambiguous. You don't need to take my word for it, you can find the science well summarized in the IPCC SREX. And if you don't like the IPCC you can find an array of peer-reviewed literature. I am happy to debate this topic with all comers as the data and analyses overwhelming support the claims below. In a nutshell here is the state of the science (here I focus on the US as Shepherd did): US floods have not increased over a century or longer ( same globally). US hurricane landfall frequency or intensity have not increased (in US for over a century or longer). US intense hurricane landfalls are currently in the longest drought (7 years+) ever documented. US tornadoes, especially the strongest ones, have not increased since at least 1950. US drought has decreased since the middle of the past century. US East Cost Winter Storms show no trends (here also). Disaster losses normalized for societal changes show no residual trends (US, other regions or globally). Trends in the costs of disasters are not a proxy for trends in climate phenomena. Any presentation of the state of the science of extreme events and climate change that does not explicitly acknowledge the important conclusions above from the IPCC and other assessments is incomplete and potentially misleading. rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca