A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming–Alimonti et al
By Paul Homewood
Further to Tony Thomas’s article, which goes into great depth about how the climate establishment used bully boy tactics to force Springer to retract a paper by Alimonti et al, I am republishing my post from post from last year, summarising their paper:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9
In terms of rainfall/droughts, there has been a general increase in rainfall globally, but this has not translated into more flooding. Indeed, extra rainfall often tends to alleviate droughts instead:
And the authors conclude that drought is not increasing:
And as I have repeatedly reported, there are no long term trends in hurricane activity:
It is worth noting that the IPCC reviews continue to make the same point about extreme weather, ie that it is difficult to find any evidence that it is on the increase, regardless of cyclical regional changes.
Springer still have the paper online, see here.
It is also available on Wayback:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Paul, do you know if this paper and/or this post from you has ever been read by any MP or staffer? If so, have you had any feedback from them?
If it is ‘no’ to either then it is criminal that tptb can wallow in their ignorance while using the excuse of CC to not only make (bad) laws affecting people in the UK but to line their pockets with their – assumed – ill-gotten gains.
An MP read a scientific paper? Are you being serious? There is zero chance of that happening.
There are a few who might manage it. Graham Stringer, Steve Baker, Andrew Bridgen for example. There are others who would take on board the conclusions with an open mind. Craig Mackinaw, John Redwood for example. But altogether a minority.
Another dose of inconvenient truth which is deliberately ignored by our political class. Green gesture politics is the only game in town.
I think reality is increasingly starting to intrude. I’m increasingly hearing scepticism from people who previously swallowed the doctrine unquestioningly – particularly about the hysterical alarmism over perfectly normal events – “Storm” Betty being a particularly egregious example.
Another case of climate censorship showed the tactics and how to stand up to them. The bullies attempted to force retraction of Skrable et al (2022) They are trying to discredit and disappear a peer reviewed study of CO2 atmospheric concentrations because its findings contradict IPCC dogma.
The paper was published in the Journal of Health Physics, and the editor and the authors have stuck to their guns so far. I was alerted to this by one of the attackers commenting on a post at my blog regarding the paper. My synopsis of the attack and responses is in this post:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320123470_The_Relationship_between_Atmospheric_Carbon_Dioxide_Concentration_and_Global_Temperature_for_the_Last_425_Million_Years
This is a free to join service
An interesting piece of work by W. Jackson Davis from 2017
I quote from the abstract:
“This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate” .
The reference to ancient climate covers most of the Phanerozoic which extends from the present day back to 425 million years ago.
A combination of work by Berner 2001 (C02) and Scotese 1999 (Temperature) for the whole of the Phanerozoic also demonstrates a complete lack of correlation between surface temperature and atmospheric concentration of CO2. NONE!
I keep asking at every opportunity both verbally and in writing whenever claims about science and CO2 being the cause of global warming for direction to the data supporting that claim. My question is always the same:
“Please point to the statistically significant empirical data obtained by a falsifiable methodology which supports the claim that CO2 returned to the Carbon Cycle (from whence it was removed over geological time), by the actions of man can in any measurable way be shown to be responsible for all or part of the current welcome 150 year old warming of the Planet, the fourth warming in recent human history”.
I must have lost count of the times I have asked this question. Not one of my written requests (I have not kept a record but to the BBC and Guardian alone this must be more than 30), have ever received a response.
Your mention of Phanerozoic reminded of this:
The usual climategate zero integrity suspects subverting inconvenient science again – they are shameless grifters trying to bury the truth – if they reject it’s findings, they should issue a rebuttal, not get the publisher to simply cancel it because it threatens the alarmism gravy train