Climate Emergency Not Supported by Data, Say Four Leading Italian Scientists
By Paul Homewood
Four leading Italian scientists have undertaken a major review of historical climate trends and concluded that declaring a ‘climate emergency’ is not supported by the data. Reviewing data from a wide range of weather phenomena, they say a ‘climate crisis’ of the kind people are becoming alarmed about “is not evident yet”. The scientists suggest that rather than burdening our children with anxiety about climate change, we should encourage them to think about issues like energy, food and health, and the challenges in each area, with a more “objective and constructive spirit” and not waste limited resources on “costly and ineffective solutions”.
During the course of their work, the scientists found that rainfall intensity and frequency is stationary in many parts of the world. Tropical hurricanes and cyclones show little change over the long term, and the same is true of U.S. tornadoes. Other meteorological categories including natural disasters, floods, droughts and ecosystem productivity show no “clear positive trend of extreme events”. Regarding ecosystems, the scientists note a considerable “greening” of global plant biomass in recent decades caused by higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Satellite data show “greening” trends over most of the planet, increasing food yields and pushing back deserts.
The four scientists are all highly qualified and include physics adjunct professor Gianluca Alimonti, agrometeorologist Luigi Mariani and physics professors Franco Prodi and Renato Angelo Ricci. The last two are signatories to the rapidly growing ‘World Climate Declaration’. This petition states that there is no climate emergency and calls for climate science to be more scientific. It also calls for liberation from the “naïve belief in immature climate models”. In future, it says, “climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science”.
‘Extreme’ weather events attributed by climate models – somehow – to anthropogenic global warming are now the main staple of the climate alarmist industry. As the Daily Sceptic reported on Monday, Sir David Attenborough used a U.K. Met Office model forecast in the first episode of Frozen Planet II to claim that summer Arctic sea ice could be gone within 12 years. But the likelihood of hardy swimming galas over the North Pole by 2035 seems somewhat remote, not least because Arctic sea ice has been growing in many summers since 2012. According to a recent report from the U.S.-based National Snow and Ice Data Center, at the end of August “sea ice extent is likely to remain higher than in recent years”.
Hurricane and cyclones are favourite subjects for green alarmists. It is unsurprising why they focus on these storms, since the Italian scientists note that historically around 60% of all economic damage caused by global disasters is the consequence of U.S. hurricanes. On May 27th, the Met Office predicted that the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June to November, would “most likely” be above average, with a “likelihood” of 18 named tropical storms including nine hurricanes and four major hurricanes. In fact, the current Atlantic hurricane season has had its slowest start for 30 years. At the end of August there have been no hurricanes, and only three named storms, none of which produced winds of 74mph or higher.
There is plenty of evidence that hurricane and cyclone frequency and intensity has changed little over the recent historical record. “To date, global observations do not show any significant trends in both the number and the energy accumulated by hurricanes,” note the Italian scientists. The two graphs below demonstrate this.
Full story here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
It is sure to headlined on BBC news tonight……not.
In future, it says, “climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science”.
It’ll never catch on! I don’t think the average climastrologist knows what ’empirical’ means.
Clearly something to do with the British Empire so they have permission for a sharp intake of breath, take out the worry beads and delete!
“empirical” Building a research empire with other people’s money.
It doesn’t matter how many times the theory is refuted, the agenda continues, because of course, it has never been about climate. Any papers countering the perceived wisdom are described as misinformation, or disinformation and will never be seen on MSM, BBC or otherwise. They still need to be widely disseminated and it seems just a few politicians are starting to falter.
That’s the norm when, say, Lindzen or Roy Spencer utter anything, they are the old guard of climate scepticism. These guys are new to the fray, and there seems to be an ever increasing number of them.
Not a lot I agree with, the Italians I mean but by golly I think they’ve got it.
The Atlantic hurricane season forecasting fiasco is interesting. Basically everyone got it wrong, from NOAA to the Met Office to Joe Bastardi (who had the decency to own up and vowed to try harder!).
Assumptions about La Nina threw them off the scent it seems.
At the end of August there have been no hurricanes, and only three named storms, none of which produced winds of 74mph or higher.
Of course the absence of them doesn’t count as a blow to climate alarmism, but their presence would have been treated as more ammunition.
There hasn’t been a warm El-Nino in seven years and the cold La-Nina is still making headway since it started in 2019. So much for “CO2 forcing”?
“David Attenborough used a U.K. Met Office model forecast in the first episode of Frozen Planet II to claim that summer Arctic sea ice could be gone within 12 years.” How many Wadham’s worth of ice is that?
Arctic Meltdown – February 2001
Peter Wadhams of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge agrees that the Arctic could soon open up. “Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there,” he predicts.
2011 – Prof Wadhams says in summer “it could easily happen that we’ll have an ice-free North Pole within a year or two”.
2012 Arctic Ice Cover, Ice Thickness and Tipping Points – Peter Wadhams
“Within a decade we can expect summer ice to be largely confined to a redoubt north of the north coasts of Greenland and Ellesmere Island, the only location where substantial multi year ice will be found”
June 2016
The Arctic is on track to be free of sea ice this year or next for the first time in more than 100,000 years, a leading scientist has claimed.
The media never remember what they have written and never ask why such a leading scientist has been so consistently wrong.
Dennis, I have been keeping track of Wadham’s prophecies (and others) at https://cliscep.com/2022/05/28/arctic-death-spiral-update/
I will update (and try to reformat the table) after this year’s minimum.
A good project! My 2001 reference is this one from NASA:
NASA – Arctic Meltdown February 27, 2001
https://web.archive.org/web/20130111044639/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22250
Peter Wadhams of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge agrees that the Arctic could soon open up. “Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there,” he predicts.
What sort of trade?
woodburnero:
NASA said: “if melting patterns change as predicted, the North-West Passage could be open to ordinary shipping for a month each summer. And the Northern Sea Route across the top of Russia could allow shipping for at least two months a year in as little as five years.
The new routes will slash the distances for voyages between Europe and East Asia by a third, and open up new fisheries.”
In 1984 ninety eight “sophisticated international travellers” paid $16,900 – $23,000 to journey on the cruise ship Lindblad Explorer through the North West Passage. The vessel completed the 4790 mile journey from St John’s, Newfoundland to Point Barrow, Alaska in twenty three days.
Source’ NORTHWEST PASSAGE : The Quest For An Arctic Route To The East’,
Struzik E and Beedell M, Key Porter Books, Blandford, 1991
Paul Heller and yourself have been banging on about all this for years. I’ve sent a lot of it to our local grammar school but never had a response, not even to tell me to F… off.
I wonder if we can contact the kids directly. Apart from their social media sites which seem awash with abuse etc., I can’t think of a way.
Surprised they haven’t had the Old Bill call by and caution you for disseminating “hate speech”.
Unfortunately, in today’s world, that might be true. Would be fun though to sow some doubt in the little ones’ mind so they might ask awkward questions in class.
Maybe thats where Paul, Tony et al are going wrong. Should be targeting the young, it’s what the Alarmists have been doing for years
Anybody got Greta’s phone number? It would give her great comfort to know that her childhood has been restored.
Heretics. The Inquisition will see they burn!
No, no, no, no! Think of the pollution, the release of CO2. They will probably be nailed to a windmill.
I think we are talking about ex-professors, ex-scientists here. They have surely brought their careers to a dismal end. The entire academic world will fall on them. We should never, never, ever forget the policy, first promoted by the University of East Anglia – https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-professor-Phil-Jones-admits-sending-pretty-awful-emails.html – which recommended straight out lying and the use of misinformation in order to the maintain the madness of the eco-loons and ensure the growth of the climate hysteria industry. This policy is still actively pursued today.
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/media-advisory-96-of-us-climate-data-is-corrupted
It is a hard and an uphill battle, and thank goodness for people like these scientists (and Paul Homewood, and the Daily Sceptic). My eldest granddaughter is now just 18 and wants to be a reporter. As time goes on, she will realise, by virtue of looking out of the window, that the poles are not melting, wildfires are not getting any worse and tornados are not become more frequent and intense. I can only hope that those who wish to destroy the planet have not done so by the time she and others of her generation, realise what a con it has been.
But it’s a cult. When I post links from here or Bishop Hill on some forums the greens dismiss them without even reading them as merely by being from here they are obviously untrustworthy denier lies.
Being correct is not enough.
As most of you know I do not support Human made Climate change advocates !
That said, our climate has been warming since the depths of The Little Ice age, the coldest moment since 300 BC. The second coldest in 10,000 years.
Glaciers are melting on EVERY continent of the world but NOT at the poles!
This is the Ninth time the planet has warmed during the Holocene. Throughout our planet’s history the one thing we can count on IS CHANGE. Some wet places get dry, some dry places get wet. Some cold places get much warmer, some warm places get HOT. Brian Fagan chronicles much of this in his books looking at European weather during the Middle Ages Warming Period and The Little Ice Age.
None of this has EVER been caused by elevated CO2. ALL have been caused by NATURE herself. 10,000 years of science Dwarfs fear mongering covering a measly 150 years!
My Thoughts . . .
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/212-environment/man-made-global-warming-organizations-discussing-all-positions/north-america/3197-climate-change-for-the-21st-century?highlight=WyJqaW0iLCJsZSIsIm1haXN0cmUiLCJqaW0gbGUiLCJqaW0gbGUgbWFpc3RyZSIsImxlIG1haXN0cmUiXQ==
The sun even.
“. . . the consequence of U.S. hurricanes.”
There is an attribution not to go unnoticed!
These storms usually begin in Africa and move to and across the Atlantic Ocean.
The growth in people and expensive building on the U. S. Gulf and East coasts suffer the consequences of these African-origin storms.
“Build a Wall”
This is a religion which is being manipulated for political gain. Useful idiots to the cause have not got a clue what it is they are supporting but dare to challenge their religion with data and they will cry and call it hate speech or whatever they can to shut it out/down. Facts are dangerous to religions. We should have learned that from history by now sadly.
Anyone taking bets on whether the BBC will mention it even to wheel out disgraced yobos like Mann to diss it? The reality is they will ignore it because there will be no comeback whatsoever. This from an organisation which will jump on and promote verbatim without challenge, any tosh churned out by any old activist as long as it promotes the cause.
Where is the Director General and what is he actually doing to earn his salary? He is certainly not acting on the lies for public consumption he blabbed upon taking up the job.
But he has got the King on his side now. Its going to get worse.
Dig down through the link that says “full story here” and you will find the following from “petrograde” under his summary comment:
It explains the differences between the temperatures of Earth with and without water vapour in the atmosphere and demonstrates (first time for me) why a rise in temperature must PRECEDE an elevation in the so-called greenhouse gas concentrations and not follow it. Consequently CO2 levels cannot be a cause OF “global warming”, at least in the Universe that I pretend to comprehend.
In Hertford Hereford and Hampshire hurricanes hardly happen.
We had one in Surrey in the 80s and the Met Office managed not to forecast it – in fact denied its existence.
Meanwhile, back in the propaganda sphere our old “trusted” friend McGrath performs a constant vigil at the outfall of the climate sewer to find “truth” supplied by a never endling line of “experts” dependent on spouting climate fear for money.
Here is evidence of malpractice and lying by omission is clear at the BBC where the product of garbage modeling gets reported whereas a paper based on empirical data does not.
Notice the McGrath uses the weasel word “likely” in the title of his latest propaganda piece. Why, because as ever the giveaway is here.
“The researchers then used climate models to determine how likely these events would be in a world without warming.
Some of the models indicated that the increases in rainfall intensity could all be down to human-caused climate change – however there were considerable uncertainties in the results”.
HOWEVER, THERE WERE CONSIDERABLE UNCERTAINTIES IN THE RESULTS.
Therefore, his usage of the word LIKELY is not only misplaced it is misleading and wrong! Has this propagandist got a problem with reading English? How did he get a degree and how did he get employment with the once august BBC with such a poor grasp of comprehension?
Garbage in garbage out and once again models are as good as the input upon which they are based and do NOT produce empirical data. A model can be made to say whatever the person running it wants. Fundamentally wrong models producing meaningless drivel for consumption by the masses
Climate change: Pakistan floods ‘likely’ made worse by warming
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62915648
Language is the thing: Could be, may be, thought to be, suggests that, rapidly warming planet, rising sea levels, melting Arctic, increasing scientific evidence, overwhelming scientific evidence, scientific consensus, attacking the science, the world’s top scientists, (meaning anything from IPCC), the latest science [another modelling run], etc.
Model outputs are no longer presented as projections but as factual predictions, these claims WILL happen. Model outputs are used as facts for the next model run, creating a circular virtual reality.
Reblogged this on Calculus of Decay .
The purpose of the *null hypothesis* is to filter out junk hypotheses such as CAGW. The party would be over in an instant were its application insisted upon.
It’s very disappointing that only four scientists would speak up.
Not only is there no evidence of CAGW (AGW x3) but there has been no warming at all for the past seven years.
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/09/no-global-warming-in-past-seven-years.html