It's an interesting position for sure.... advocate 300-350 nuclear power plants annually but brisk at "code red".
And taking the position of Pielke Jr doesn't make it so either...... The 2020's could make Pielke Jr's "attribution position" obsolete or maybe not.
There's been a run up on uranium futures even without new plants on the horizon. I guess we can bet on plants that use other radioactive fuels, but it's not like people are screaming that they're ready for prime time.
I mean it's weird...... the position is there's a bit of climate change (not Code Red) but it's effects aren't impacting the globe any more than previously.....
I took his article as everyone's faces aren't going to melt off yet. It is more than detectable, just not world breaking..yet
IDK.... loss of biodiversity, bleaching coral, etc..... We sure he's looking in the right places? Or is he sticking to a narrowly defined list of "effects"?
I wonder if there is any paper from Roger Pielke Jr on "There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather" for all to review how he came to that conclusion? I couldn't find it. And if not, not sure why anyone would take it on face value.
he's looking at extreme events, where there's lots of ambiguity. take one case, sea level rise: and many studies to date utterly fail to distinguish between sea level rise effects and subsidence effects. Coral bleaching is ambiguous--folks have worried about the Great Reef in the last 15 years, and just recently there were reports that the Great Reef is better off now than it was 30 years ago. Biodiversity has more to do with land use and agriculture than climate. etc etc So I think when one looks at the 'evidence' the evidence is a lot less convincing than you think
again, the book. I have offered previously to buy this and send it to people, no one has taken me up on the offer
Book isn't exactly a science paper that is published for others to review data and conclusion. I did run across this article that talks about two of his post at 538 related to this topic of extreme weather. They argued that he.. well, you can read it for yourself. Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand (skepticalscience.com)
But clearly there are more markers than just "extreme events", especially when making such exclamations about climate change such as Pielke Jr did. There's more to coral than the Great Barrier Reef and Australia is trying get UNESCO to certify the Great Barrier Reef..... The degradation of the reef isn't linear. The Atlantic reefs are degrading too. Yes and no like everything. Growing seasons, phenology, primary production, etc appear to be linked to climate change unsurprisingly. I guess we see different "evidence" and it seems in totality the global climate direction is clear.
fair enough. it's also the case that changes due to climate change have rarely been assessed for positive benefits. A genuine 'cost-benefit' analysis of climate impacts would avoid catastrophism and strive for objectivity.
it's because the convincing evidence is evidence beyond your scope of ability to understand because it isn't your field of study. You aren't a informed skeptic on this matter and neither am I hence why I trust the people actually creating and testing the models. The only input I can provide from my personal experience is doing some dynamic system modeling for systems related to me h engineering such as spring and damper systems or thermal systems or electrical circuits. I trust the math behind it especially when the output from the most accurate climate models match current trends and past climate eras with hindcasting so well. Mathematical models where the hypothesis being the system of equations is tested through hindcasting with different eras of our climate history and through recent real data where the output of the model is close enough to the hindcasting data and current data. This is the same process that made the Big Bang a theory. The output of a mathematical model matches the real data of the cosmic background radiation. So yes, that is where the most significant evidence is and unfortunately that type of evidence is beyond the scope of understanding for the laymen u like these talking points about one specific event. The climate is a dynamic system therefore trying to discredit climate change evidence by saying that the most media friendly evidence such as extreme whether events rather than the actual most significant evidence, climate model accuracy, stands on shaky groundis rather disingenuous. Ya it's difficult to tell whether a specific weather event is climate change related. But that isn't the top most scientifically sourced evidence fir climate change.
