Climate theory used to hold that there was a link between the amount of extreme weather and the equator-pole temperature gradient, meaning that warming poles should mean less of it, not more. But nowadays almost anything unusual can be labelled extreme weather by alarmists, creating headlines but no understanding of the climate.
– – –
A new Global Warming Policy Foundation report from retired physicist Ralph Alexander, Ph.D. (Oxford University) supports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s conclusion there is limited scientific evidence linking human-caused climate change to increases in extreme weather, says H.Sterling Burnett.
Alexander’s conclusions are also confirmed by recent documents produced by Heartland Institute Senior Fellow and meteorologist Anthony Watts on the Climate at a Glance website.
Alexander’s paper begins by remarking, “The purported link between extreme weather and global warming has captured the public imagination and attention of the mainstream media far more than any of the other claims made by the narrative of human-caused climate change.”
This is odd because data and analyses from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N. body that climate alarmists in academic, political, and media circles continually cite as the authoritative source of information on climate change, confirm that “if there is any trend at all in extreme weather, it’s downward rather than upward.
Our most extreme weather, be it heat wave, drought, flood, hurricane or tornado, occurred many years ago, long before the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere began to climb at its present rate,” writes Alexander.
“Recent atmospheric heat waves in western Europe,” writes Alexander, “pale in comparison with the soaring temperatures of the 1930s, a period when three of the seven continents and 32 of the 50 US states set all-time high temperature records, which still stand today.”
Nor has the IPCC discerned or identified any long-term trend in drought patterns, either in the United States or globally.
And even though rainfall has modestly increased in recent years, there is no evidence floods are becoming more frequent or severe.
Many recent flood events can be traced almost entirely to land-use changes such as channelization, deforestation, the destruction of wetlands, and the building of dams, Alexander notes.
Continued here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“…nowadays almost anything unusual can be labelled extreme weather by alarmists, creating headlines but no understanding of the climate.”
Nuff said.
The reason why the influence of clouds is so poorly understood which is the position of the IPCC, is that the thermodynamic behaviour of the Hydro Cycle has largely been ignored in both the models and in the groupthink obsession with GHGs and radiation as the means to explain everything.
The Hydro Cycle operates as a form of Rankine Cycle which is well understood; but ignored. Large energies are physically moved up through the atmosphere and beyond to space quite apart from by radiation in this process. Why this is ignored beats me.
For instance, In particular: at the evaporative phase change of water the Planck sensitivity coefficient is zero; as it occurs at constant temperature. This is a continuing and ubiquitous process endemic in climate behaviour and needs to be accounted for when considering the global sensitivity value.
For every kilogram of water evaporated at the surface some 694 Watthrs. of energy is pumped up into the clouds and beyond before returning to earth as snow, rain, ice etc.
One may well ask the IPCC et al to explain how this is incorporated in the models and calculations; if indeed it is.
They don’t like to be reminded that most so-called GHG is water vapour, so any conceivable influence of CO2 has to be vastly exaggerated to make it look as if it matters.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
there is little scientific evidence that there has been much change in climate beyond 30 year variations, in the last 100 years. This falls into the trap of using their language. “Human caused climate change” states it as a fact and it is supposed to be caused by the use of fossil fuels leading to an increase in CO2, which then is warming the planet out of control.
The problem is that there have been long periods where temperatures have fallen whilst CO2 continued to rise, eg late 40’s to late 70’s and on an annual basis CO2 and temperature do not show cause and effect, even though the two have risen similarly over time. Temperatures do not increase every year, whereas CO2 does so monotonically.
The whole notion of human-caused climate change is moronic, but no-one is supposed to say that. Well, tough luck.
the issue is NEVER the issue. “Global warming,” was always about rent seeking and power. Always. Some deluded fools carry the water for the temperature terrorists, but otherwise it’s all hypocrisy.
Reblogged this on Utopia, you are standing in it!.
“Extreme weather” is a marketing term. Attributing “extreme weather” to “climate change” is applying a marketing term to a mythologized abuse of language.
Yet a significant part of the world’s resources have been spent based on just that. Great article, thanks.