By Thomas K
By Jo Nova
Despite twenty years of media stories telling us how every rain-bomb was “climate change” a new satellite study of rainfall suggests that in the last 20 years the intensity of rainfall has mysteriously declined a little in most places. This is despite predictions it would increase, and CO2 itself rising by 41ppm globally during the same period. In terms of total emissions released by humans since the stone age, it’s been a bonanza — in this 20 year period we emitted 38% of all the emissions we ever emitted.
So humans put out 656,000 Mt of CO2 and there’s been either a decline or no trend at all in rainfall intensity.
Is 38% of all human CO2 emissions enough of a test? The satellites cover all the Earth, including the oceans which the met bureau gauges don’t.
Thanks to Kenneth Richards at NoTricksZone for finding this paper:
New Study: 21st Century Precipitation Trends Have Become Less Intense Globally
Hydrological processes were expected to intensify with warming. The opposite has happened.
Nearly every which way we look at it, across the year, on different continents in different seasons, rainfall intensity is not getting worse. Small and medium size “precipitation systems” (red and yellow) have reduced in intensity in summer and winter and all over the globe. More widespread systems (green) are a wash with some up and some down, and none of it in a pattern that climate models predicted.
Fig. 9. Trends (unit: mm/h per century) of the mean core-region precipitation intensity of precipitation systems categorized by different precipitation system sizes at the annual timescale in (a) nine continental regions and (b) six oceanic regions during the 2001–2020 period. * and ** denote the 0.1 and 0.05 significance levels, respectively.
This is really quite complete. Small and medium size “precipitation systems” have reduced in intensity in summer and winter and all over the globe. And larger weather systems have “done nothing much”.
Fig. 8. Time series of the mean core-region precipitation intensity (in blue) of precipitation systems categorized by different precipitation system sizes (a1-3) at the annual scale and in (b1-3) warm seasons and (c1-3) cold seasons during the 2001–2020 period. The mean core-region precipitation intensity is calculated by the mean values of all the precipitation systems with different sizes during the study period. The 5-year moving average (in red) is also shown. Trends are calculated and shown, and * and ** denote the 0.1 and 0.05 significance levels, respectively.
And if there is a climate change signal hidden under a declining natural trend, the problem is that those other mysterious forces are more powerful than CO2, yet we have no idea what they are or how to predict them. Call it climate-poker. Would you like to bet your national economy on these models?
This well established theory is going swimmingly
The UN experts are certain that rain will become more intense over most land regions. Listen to the peer reviewed science. It’s all simple really…
ScienceBrief Review: Climate change increases extreme rainfall and the chance of floods
Theory
It is well established that the frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall increases more strongly with global mean surface temperature than does mean rainfall (Berg et al., 2013; Myhre et al., 2019) as the latter is limited by evaporation, whilst changes in extremes are also affected by local in-storm processes. In simple terms, warmer air can hold more water vapour that can subsequently fall as rain. For each degree of warming, the air’s capacity for atmospheric water vapour increases at about +6% to +7% per degree of warming, assuming other atmospheric conditions remain roughly constant, known as Clausius-Clapeyron scaling (Allan et al., 2014). A warming atmosphere with more moisture can therefore produce more intense rainfall events, with this scaling providing a first approximation (Fowler et al., 2021a)…
Future projections
Relatively coarse-scale global climate models show future increases in daily rainfall extremes over most land regions with warming (Seneviratne & Hauser, 2020; Coppola et al., 2021a)….
This ScienceBrief Review is consistent with the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 degrees (2018) Chapter 3 and Special Report on Climate Change and Land (2019) Chapter 4, both of which noted that human-induced global warming has already caused observed increases in frequency, intensity and/or amount of extreme rainfall in several regions.
There’s a consensus — it can’t be wrong.
The numbers:
Man-made CO2 emissions: By 2001 humans had cumulatively produced 291,000 Mt of carbon from fossil fuels, and cement production, but by 2020 our total cumulative emissions amounted to 470,000 Mt. (CDIAC data). So from 2001-2020, mankind produced 179,000 Mt of carbon or 38% of all-time homo sapiens emissions. Converting pure carbon to CO2 that means humans have emitted 656,000 Mt of CO2 yet seen either a decline or no trend at all in rainfall intensity.
Global CO2 rose from 371ppm in 2001 all the way to 414ppm in 2020.
REFERENCES
Zhang, Yan, (2023) Climatology and changes in internal intensity distributions of global precipitation systems over 2001–2020 based on IMERG, Journal of Hydrology 620 (2023) 129386
CO2 levels at Mauna Loa
CO2 emissions: CDIAC
.jpeg){kind=link}
Here, central Washington USA, annual precipitation is about 9 inches per year – much of it snow. Assume there has been one degree of warming, then a 7% increase in precip gets me to 9.63 inches.
Gee, I hadn’t noticed.
200
Sounds like a rainshadow area where you live. 9 inches is classified as desert.
101
Check East Washington State
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Washington/average-yearly-precipitation.php
20
John must live in Wenatchee!
40
It is wrong to call the computer games played by so-called “climate scientists” (sic) models.
Models (in any field) cannot claim to be true models unless they have been validated.
No claimed climate model has ever forecast anything, or even been able to hindcast when the results were known. Thus none have been validated.
Since no “climate model” has ever been validated, they are not models, just computer games used as political weapons to produce scary scenarios to control society and make vast amounts of money and power for the Elites with support from their slave army of useful idiots.
711
Here’s more BS from the MSM in the UK, apparently we’re all going to drown by 2050 … they actually call this science!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12291877/Heres-tourist-destinations-look-like-2050-climate-change.html
150
I had a look at some of the comments too. They seem rather derisive to me. These clowns who call themselves “journalists’ have nothing better to offer up to their readers.
100
Steve:
The MSM want a headline about coming disaster or in some cases where an actress or model has a “costume malfunction” near a photographer.
But Climate Scientists want people to know what is going to happen e.g.
1979 AD (Stephen Schneider) An ICE AGE within 30 years
1981 AD (Stephen Schneider) The World is getting hotter rapidly
1981: Scientists (including Steven Schneider) warn global warming would see Buckingham Palace 7 feet underwater (Thames TV)
2004: Britain to have Siberian climate by 2020 Source: The Guardian, February 21, 2004
Between 2010 and 2020, Europe would be hardest hit by climatic change, with an average annual temperature drop of 6°F (3°C). Major cities in Europe will be sunk beneath rising seas
1987: NASA’s James Hansen predicts world 3C warmer by 2020.
1988:NASA’s James Hansen says Maldives completely under water in 30 years, along with Florida beaches and parts of Wall Street.
2007 Dr. David Viner within twenty years, the Mediterranean would become far too hot for European holiday makers, who would instead flock to Blackpool to take advantage of warmer summers in the UK.
You see, the last could yet come true.
190
They’re impossible to varify and therefore perfect!
40
It is well known that models can’t represent clouds. How they model rain is beyond me.
20
The old idea of rubbish in, rubbish out seems to fit nicely here. Even the much vaunted AI is the same, they only do what their programmer imputs into their ‘memory’. The compliant media then pumps their usual mantra of gloom and doom and so many dim people believe every word. I must say I laugh every time I hear of torrential rain referred to as a rain bomb. We have heard it so many times here on the Gold coast and got about 5mm of rain.
310
Or “garbage in, garbage out”. It used to be a commonly known concept by anyone associated with computers.
Even Charles Babbage’s correspondents knew about he problem:
Today, most younger people, products of the dumbed-down education/indoctrination system lack Deep Knowledge about just about anything and computer code is not procedural code written from first principles but is object-oriented and the programmers are generally unaware of the contents of the code libraries they use.
Plus, the theory of anthropogenic CO2 causing catastrophic global warming is invalid anyway.
And why would anyone care in any case?
The only criterion for success of the pretend “model” / computer game is that it produces scary, politically-useful results.
241
The problem is that the attribution of computer modeling has changed from what computer programmers have always understood to be “garbage in, garbage out” to the current “garbage in, gospel out”. It doesn’t matter how many fewmets are fed into it, or what unwarranted assumptions are made in its algorithms, whatever comes out of a computer model is assumed de facto to be unquestionable truth.
40
I wonder if models also predicted that walk over in Ukraine?
91
The Clapeyron equation describes a closed system in thermal equilibrium. The atmosphere is an open system in constant non-equilibrium, albeit in a steady state.
The mantra ‘warm air holds more water’ has the never mentioned underlaying assumption that the relative humidity is somehow a conserved atmospheric quantity. There is no observational evidence for that and neither is there any known physical principle why that should be the case. It is all pure conjecture.
231
>”A warming atmosphere with more moisture can therefore produce more intense rainfall events”
Saw Gavin Schmidt on TV pontificating on this in a weather doom report last night. The Warmies love to say “Clausius-Clapeyron” because it validates their ethos.
Except application to the atmosphere is not so straight forward:
Global water cycle amplifying at less than the Clausius-Clapeyron rate
Nikolaos Skliris, Jan D. Zika, George Nurser, Simon A. Josey & Robert Marsh
(2016)
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep38752
So Skliris et al say climate models’ water amplification is LESS than Clausius Clapeyron and are in agreement with observations. Corroborated now by Zhang, Li, and Wang (2023).
Given Willis Eschenbach’s analysis of GISS Model E (see next) I’m inclined to think this was by accident more than design.
50
>”Willis Eschenbach’s analysis of GISS Model E”
Climate Models and Climate Muddles – download here:
Climate models behind Net Zero policies are ‘thoroughly flawed’
https://www.netzerowatch.com/climate-models-behind-net-zero-policies-are-thoroughly-flawed/
Question remains: how EXACTLY is Clausius-Clapyron applied in the models ?
90
>”Question remains: how EXACTLY is Clausius-Clapyron applied in the models ?”
Got as far as this:
CLAUSIUS-CLAPEYRON: CLIMATE MODELS – Cambridge Forecast Group
https://cambridgeforecast.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/clausius-clapeyron-climate-models/
Still no wiser as to application in climate models but at least we know the atmosphere is not a controlled lab experiment.
80
>”at least we know the atmosphere is not a controlled lab experiment”
Ed Zuiderwijk put this far better at #5:
Nailed it Ed. Something to remember when a Warmy cites Clausius-Clapeyron.
31
Willis E says its not getting drier either.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/16/is-the-dry-getting-drier/
60
Macha
In comments I see this – “Models require increased atmospheric water vapor to derive high equilibrium climate sensitivity under increasing CO2.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/16/is-the-dry-getting-drier/#comment-3750254
Problem is cloud cover and the sun overwhelming any theoretical CO2 effect:
Thermodynamics of climate change between cloud cover, atmospheric temperature and humidity
Víctor Mendoza, Marni Pazos, René Garduño & Blanca Mendoza (2021)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00555-5
From Abstract:
Yikes! Solar radiation increasing temperature – can’t have that, what to do?
Ans: “simple semi-empirical parameterizations”
From Introduction:
“[C]an reduce the uncertainty in the response of clouds to an increase in global temperature” but “further scientific research” required.
Maybe their initial solar attribution was just correct in the first instance. But that would displace CO2 so I guess it’s a non-starter.
30
>”Corroborated now by Zhang, Li, and Wang (2023)”
This is dead wrong on my part.
Skliris et al say observations less than Clausius-Clapeyron.
Zhang et al say (see graphs in post) not only less but opposite in sign.
That’s not corroboration – it’s an invalidation of the application of Clausius-Clapeyron to the atmosphere for 2001 to 2020 at least.
40
Of course Willis Eschenbach checked both the GLOBAL RAINFALL and DROUGHT data over 2 years ago and found ZIP to worry about.
So big SURPRISE NOT and yet we still have these LIARs and CON MERCHANTS trying to get stupid govts to WASTE endless TRILLIONs of $ for a rolled gold ZERO return for their long suffering taxpayers.
Russia and China are very happy and so are the bankers, the so called scientists, the MSM and all the other left wing loonies who are doing their best to wreck our electricity grids.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
200
And Willis today .. WUWT
Is The Dry Getting Drier?
5 hours ago
Willis Eschenbach
40 Comments
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach So I was wandering through the marvelous KNMI website, and I came across data for the Palmer Self-Correcting Drought Severity Index.
40
Sorry Sweet old Bob but we posted at the same time, but good to see that great minds think alike. Or something?
60
Willis Eschenbach has now updated his global drought and rainfall studies since 1900 and AGAIN found small changes and then corrections for every continent.
The IPCC are either really dumb or are feeding the loonies a load of BS and fraud. Big SURPRISE NOT.
And some very nice graphics from Willis to improve our understanding.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/16/is-the-dry-getting-drier/
80
From 2021
“To create a true “model” that has meaning there needs to be a clear overview of a relevant process.
Consider first;
The high energy Radiation from the Sun has only ONE ENERGY PATHWAY.
Away from the Sun and towards Earth in part.
It must always be degraded in it’s INTENSITY and capacity to heat an object or do work.
Inbound solar is high energy short wave.
From there it degrades and eventually leaves Earth’s holding bays, ground, ocean and Atmosphere, as low intensity IR – Long Waves.
The Warmer theme that you can store up low energy radiation (Ground Origin IR ) and convert it to high energy – shorter wave radiation and beam it back to ground is Scientifically NUTSO.
That is the only way to describe it.
Totally Impossible.
All of this “Climate Science” has been done on PAPER or inside the bounds of a COMPUTER and there has never been any associated physical measurement or experimentation.
The only experiment I have ever seen or heard of that closely resembles the CO2 heating meme was done by the TV Programme, The Myth Busters.
It was in true warmer Style, a total scientific FARCE.
There’s No model without a basic bit of measurable relationship between CO2 levels and atmospheric temperature”.
https://joannenova.com.au/2021/04/all-the-expert-climate-models-are-still-tuned-too-high-at-double-the-real-warming-rate/#comment-2423320
80
In true modeling you must know what you are measuring and hence need to identify all inputs and outputs of the system
Simple factorial analysis shows that the CO2 item is a non-starter in that it is quantitatively irrelevant in the system under examination.
You cannot make a model when the one and only pivotal factor is irrelevant.
100
You missed the point Steve. See #8.1.2
You don’t need computers when you are modeling.
Read this again;
“To create a true “model” that has meaning there needs to be a clear overview of a relevant process.
In other words pick it to bits, understand the system and all components.
Computers may be useful to process data but there’s no point starting up a computer until you got all the inputs and outputs detailed.
10
A computer model will never have “true” meaning – ever. It will always be simply a mechanistic fabrication, sets of syntax and semantics that outputs a fiction, a simulation. That output is informed by underlying bias and belief that all phenomena can be measured and predicted.
There is nothing real.
11
Willis E. goes looking again
“Is The Dry Getting Drier?”
“My rule of thumb is that most of the time when the IPCC says something is an “established fact” … it isn’t.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/16/is-the-dry-getting-drier/
90
And
“‘Hottest Days’ Manipulation?”
Looking under the skin of “Climate Reanalyser”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/16/hottest-days-manipulation/
61
Ian >“‘Hottest Days’ Manipulation?”
No, Aug 2022 glitch, storm in a teacup.
See #11.1 and #11.2 downthread.
30
FWIW
“More Disclosure About “Climate Risk Disclosure” ”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/16/more-disclosure-about-climate-risk-disclosure/
50
Steve Milloy and Tony Heller have been checking the alarmist’s so called HOT data and have found a problem.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/16/hottest-days-manipulation/
AGAIN could their so called HOTTEST day lunacy be just more BS and nonsense?
61
Neville >’could their so called HOTTEST day lunacy be just more BS and nonsense?”
It wasn’t lunacy, it was Antarctic weather skewing the entire global metric.
And “hottest day” was ABSOLUTE – not anomaly.
All those anomalies captured on screenshot Aug 2022 seem to be incorrect. All 6 were negative. The current anomalies conform with absolute:
Today’s Weather Maps – Sun July 16 2023
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var_id=t2anom&ortho=1&wt=1
Anomalies:
World, Northern Hemisphere, Arctic
+ 0.74 °C, + 0.86 °C, + 0.71 °C
Tropics, Southern Hemisphere, Antarctic
+ 0.87 °C, + 0.63 °C, + 1.05 °C
Daily 2m Air Temperature – Sun July 16 2023
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
World Absolute: 16.99 C
World Anomaly: +0.74 C
A glitch back in Aug 2022 but not now.
30
>”It wasn’t lunacy, it was Antarctic weather skewing the entire global metric.”
Take a look at the GFS anomaly:
GFS 2m-T
http://karstenhaustein.com/climate
The June and July spikes in the SH (Blue) are simply Antarctic weather. In the SH winter all you are seeing is Antarctic weather basically. And those 2 spikes pushed up the World average metric, the second to record levels because it coincided with peak NH summer. Those spikes are normal just that July one was the first at that time. It was by no means the largest.
You can see the Antarctic spikes and wild swings here:
Daily 2-meter Air Temperature
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
Choose Area: Antarctic
Now compare to Area: NH
No spikes in the NH, some fluctuation in the winter but nothing like NH.
The reason Antarctic fluctuates wildly is that the air is very dry so an encroachment from the north of relatively warmer and MOIST air has a profound effect, even when just localized. That hikes up and skews the entire Antarctic average which in turn hikes up SH which in turn hikes up World.
40
>”That hikes up and skews the entire Antarctic average which in turn hikes up SH which in turn hikes up World.”
That’s the statistical nature of averages. Take 2 sets of 10 values:
1) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, Average 1
2) 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1, Average 1.9 – almost double
Obviously “1” is the mode for datasets 1) and 2). It only takes one datapoint to skew the Mean but the Mode remains the same.
30
>”No spikes in the NH, some fluctuation in the winter but nothing like NH.”
Should be:
No spikes in the NH, some fluctuation in the winter but nothing like Antactica.
20
On the UNEP’s orders, for the first time in human history, we’ve cleaned up atmospheric pollution and that’s probably reduced cloud cover. As a consequence we get more sun (so we’re hotter) and we get less rainfall.
And who is the UNEP? It’s the United Nations Environment programme, which with the World Meteorological Organization pushed hard to establish and then co-sponsored the establishment of the IPCC that says change in climate is happening and it’s all the fault of mankind.
50
And they confuse ground with air teperature
Hot, detected over 47 degrees on the ground in Sicily and Calabria
The ESA published ground temperature data and model outputs for Sicily with 48°C saying air temoperatures at 2m hight will be much lower. That hint in a subordinate clause of course wasn’t seen and not taken into what newspaper, Greens and IPCC-Reviewer Peter D. Carter told about and started to panic. 😀
So called “Climate Scientists” are living in a panopticon…
130
Good one.
True scientists assume that we are comparing like with like, but setting up a Stephenson box is too much mucking about for the climate alarmists and doesn’t give them what they want.
90
The problem for the concept of CO2 induced higher temperatures is that the current reality for Earth’s atmosphere temperature is that CO2 levels do not have any effect.
More importantly there is a gigantic Heat Sink waiting to soak up any slight perturbation in the equilibrium and it completely engulfs the Earth: it’s called “space”.
It’s essentially an infinite heat disposal unit with a temperature of minus 272°C i.e. About 1.2 C° above absolute zero.
Our biggest problem should be to work out how to prevent the loss of energy from our planet which will take water from the oceans and fix it as ice at the poles and glaciers.
Shirley, the UNIPCCC could design some “batteries” to store surplus heat such as is currently being experienced in the northern hemisphere?
Then when the next big freeze starts, they can release that energy and save civilisation.
70
Guess what else happens when it gets “warmer”?
More evaporation from surface water; oceans, lakes, dams, etc.
If things go all Ice Age, the opposite occurs.
Ice ages have LOTS of ice but very little precipitation. This is handy if you want mega-deserts. With little to no precipitation, “downhill” glaciers STOP as there is no steady supply of snow in the Neve to shove them downhill.
HOWEVER, “cross-country” glaciation is all the go. As the oceans start to freeze, especially around the Arctic, the seawater starts to freeze and EXPAND. As this continues, kilometres-thick ice sheets are shoved out of the sea and start grinding their way towards the equator, terra-forming the real-estate in the process, If interested, check out the activity of the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets. And, just for giggles, look at the WATER that flowed both from BENEATH these sheets and in huge pulses as the ice ventured further south. Look for the “Channeled Scablands”. Remember; glaciers primarily melt from UNDERNEATH
Ice Ages are COLD AND DRY with the added risk of life in general being ground to slush by an ice continent. In all likelihood, there will also be NO edible plant-life, thus no edible herbivores and even the scavengers will be thin on the decreasing amount of actual ground… It is a bit different in the southern hemisphere: Antarctica has a circum-polar “warm-ish” current, the Arctic does not. Very different behaviours, albeit COLD.
A new Ice Age is the Death-Cultist’s ideal.
110
The scablands are fascinating. No one believed Pardee’s and Bretz’s theories about them for decades.
50
#climatescam
40
Working in agriculture my whole life you get a very good feel for rainfall statistics and data. When people work with rainfall averages and totals it very rarely tells the whole story. Because it’s not the average or the total that necessarily matters but the amount in the rainfall event and WHEN (time of year etc) it falls. This is especially crucial for grazing, broadacre cropping and horticulture. Hence, unless models can differentiate between effective and non effective rainfall events, they’re really not practical. That’s why predictions of El Nino/La Nina are almost worthless. That intensity and timing also has big effects on reservoirs for human water supply and river flow. The Zhang paper at least tries to examine these important parts of rainfall behaviour. As for the UN predictions- we all know you cant predict the future, so why do they keep on trying?
80
Australian BOM rainfall data shows more rainfall since 1950 and and from 1896 to 1950 a lower rainfall pattern.
Australia is the driest continent in the world and yet our farmers have just recorded their highest incomes for the last 3 consecutive years on record.
So why would donkey Flannery or anyone else want to whine about our post 1950 rainfall or our climate or …..?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=7
50
ENSO is the primary driver in this land of drought and flooding rain.
https://chaac.meteo.plus/en/climate/enso-elnino-lanina.png
Going back to the Holocene Climate Optimum it appears that ENSO displayed a ‘reduction in variance’, so I’m thinking Modoki conditions prevailed.
Keep in mind the planet was 1.5 C warmer than now.
52
Climate change is caused by modelling.
100
Fortunately Elle Macpherson retired.
40
Europe’s pyrrhic gas victory
War has taken a $1 trillion toll on European gas consumers
Europe survived last winter with unexpected ease. Mild temperatures helped, as did lacklustre Asian appetite for liquefied natural gas (LNG) and unprecedented conservation measures. There was much relief when wholesale prices fell below ‘pre-invasion’ levels in January, and this sentiment has intensified as Europe’s underground gas storage tanks swell. Mission accomplished?
EU Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson seems to think so. She made some bold remarks about turning the tables on Putin and ending reliance on Russian gas in an interview with Politico. Europe’s immediate energy situation is certainly much better than many feared just a few months ago. But this does not hide the fact that Europe is still paying significantly more for gas than it did prior to 2021, when Russia began meddling in European energy markets ahead of the full invasion of Ukraine.
Gas prices on the Dutch Title Transfer Facility (TTF, the European benchmark) averaged $5.31/MMBtu over the 2017-2020 period, whereas today the front-month contract is trading at $9.44/MMBtu, rising above $17 for delivery in January and February 2024.
Trillion-dollar albatross
These elevated prices are hard to absorb because European consumers are still burdened with an eye-watering cost overhang.
Believe it or not, Europe has burned through more than a trillion dollars’ worth of natural gas since Russia began weaponising pipeline exports in preparation to invade Ukraine.
Yes, you read that right: the value of gas consumed across the European continent since 2021 currently stands at $1.12 trillion, and structurally higher prices could see that amount rise by a further $600 billion by mid-decade.
Calculations by Energy Flux based on the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy and exchange data offer fresh perspectives on the toll of wartime gas pricing on Europe’s financial health.
Europe spent a decade’s worth on gas in just two and a half years, even though consumption fell to a 28-year low in response to scarcity prices.
A gargantuan debt is attached to gas held in storage, which means more pain for consumers and an enduring drag on European industrial productivity.
Restocking with LNG at the height of the market stifled Europe’s energy-intensive industries and rebased the continent around a high-cost, low-demand energy economy paradigm.
– Quantifying the burn
– Epic hangover
– Costing Europe’s LNG binge
– Higher for longer, lower forever?
– Exporting misery (at consumers’ expense)
60
Thanks Joanne another fantastic article
Its a pity it is not more widely reported
By the way you got a mention by Rowan Dean on outsiders yesterday so maybe that will happen
70
Whilst your comments suggest that orthodox climate alarmism has suggested that the world would get wetter the reality is that the alarmists have made so many predictions about frequency and intensity of various weather phenomena that they cover virtually every circumstance. They will claim that human induced CO2 emissions cause more floods , more droughts, less floods, less droughts, hotter temperatures, colder temperatures, more cyclones, more tornados, more heat waves, less heat waves whatever is happening it’s happening because of man’s CO2 emissions.
Their predictions don’t stay consistent for more than 24 hours and no matter what happens they claim predictive success.
60
Yesterday, my area in Virginia got some 13 cm of rainfall in 6 hours. Claimed by some as proof of AGW.
The week prior, we were at a net 8 cm deficit. Claimed by some as proof of AGW.
So which is it? Higher or Lower rainfall? Proof of what?
We got the same thing 3 yrs ago in April.
Methinks nobody knows, but the charlatans ply their trade.
All I know is the total number of annual lawn mowings hasn’t changed a bit.
130
How is Australia’s “permanent drought” going? It beggars belief that anyone takes the doomsday climate predictions seriously, let alone spending trillions to not solve a non problem, trashing our cheap and reliable power system in the process.
70
Here’s another way we can prove that Aussie rainfall changes in different states or North or South and ALWAYS with the same co2 levels.
Here’s Northern Australia and much more rainfall after 1970.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=naus&season=0112&ave_yr=7
20
Climate models are in quite a mess,
Would more likely be right with a guess,
Modelling more rainfall due,
Through decades not true,
And instead of more rain, we got less.
120
Well, that did it. That was the only metric I could not verify one way or another from available data.
Not a good case either way, precipitation or flood stuff.
I can now proclaim I have found no weather or natural disaster (whatever) metric that indicates an upward or BAD trend.
Somebody check me!
40
Here’s Southern Australia but the increase in rainfall in the last 53 years is not as obvious as for Nth Australia increase.
But is still better than Southern Australian rainfall since 1896.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=saus&season=0112&ave_yr=7
30
WA state rainfall is much better after 1970 and yet the SW of WA has had lower rainfall for the last 50 years. Same co2 levels of course.
But AGAIN the O’Donnell study has shown that rainfall in SW WA has been higher over the last 100 years compared to the last 500 years.
Rather stuffed up a lot of theories about their co2 driver abilities.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=wa&season=0112&ave_yr=7
30
And the NT has had much higher, consistent rainfall since 1970 and much lower from 1896 to 1970.
AGAIN co2 levels have been the same for these different states and NT and today is about 415 ppm at CSIRO Tassie site.
IOW about 5 ppm less than the NH in 2023.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=nt&season=0112&ave_yr=7
30
Given the prodigious amounts of hydrocarbons consumed deliberately or as “collateral” in the last Great Unpleasantness, 9 39-45), was anybody watchong the CO2 data for that period?
40
Here’s SA state rainfall and much better after 1970 and look at that disastrous drought from about 1921 and it lasted for 17 years of way below average rainfall.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=sa&season=0112&ave_yr=7
And Victorian rainfall dropped after 1995 and returned to more normal rainfall pattern after 2010.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=vic&season=0112&ave_yr=7
20
Here’s SW WA where Jo lives and note the rainfall reduction after 1974, while WA rainfall overall has increased over the same period.
Clever gas co2 that can apparently both increase and lower rainfall in the same state at the same time?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=swaus&season=0112&ave_yr=7
20
I think it’s fair to say that the climate “models” are about as convincing as the Miss whatever “models”? 😆😆
50
Netherlands.
40
Whenever they’re certain, I’m certain they’re wrong.
40
Where’s PF and GA, they would be right onto this.
40
Globa … I mean, Climate Change makes rainfall more intense and droughts more frequent. In general, it causes whatever weather you are having to be more so, except when it causes it to be less so.
30
I’ve often wondered about Specific Humidity at the 9 Klm height in the troposphere.
It has shown a lower trend since 1948 or about the last 75 years.
Dr Ole Humlum updates all the data every month and you can see the W V graphs up to May 2023 on page 43 at the link.
https://climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_May_2023.pdf
20
Dr Humlum also shows that GLOBAL SLR is about 1.5 mm a year at the Tide gauges and that’s about 150 mm or about 6 inches by 2123 and lower than the previous 100 years. So where’s their dangerous GLOBAL warming and SLR?
Very similar to the very sensible SL data by Andrew Bolt at Fort Denison NSW during his interview with Daniel Fitzhenry. Look it up at the link.
https://climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_May_2023.pdf
30
Here’s Bolt’s interview with Daniel Fitzhenry and he clearly states that the Fort Denison tide gauge data since 1914 is more accurate than satellite data.
Again where’s their Dangerous GLOBAL warming?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mjOmsqIibk
51
Killer pic. Props to Thomas K.
30
Yep, it captures that point on a ramble when someone points out “you said we wouldn’t need coats”.
20
I am late to the party but I feel that it needs to be pointed out that a change in rainfall IS a change in climate.
It makes no sense at all to claim that a change in climate is caused by a change in climate.
20
Well, I think that the fires in the north, Europe, and America, prove that Climate is changing. Shouldn’t sensible people acknowledge reality?
12
Yeah right. It’s not like there have been any fires in those areas before.
30
[…] This article originally appeared at JoNova […]
00
As for the NSW/Queensland floods of early 2022 and associated claims by the Climate Council and insurance industry that many properties are becoming uninsurable because of the increased frequency of extreme rainfall events, it’s worth having a look at http://www.waclimate.net/rainfall-insurance/index.html
Apart from influencing the makeup of Australia’s parliament, those floods prompted the Climate Council to publish a report naming 27 locations that are the most vulnerable in Australia to an increasing frequency and volume of flood events.
“Analysis of Bureau of Meteorology rainfall observations at the 27 locations shows a decrease in both the frequency and millimetre volume of the 90th percentile (top 10%), 95th percentile (top 5%) and 99th percentile (top 1%) of all rainfall days when comparing 1915-1999 with 2000-2021.”
10