![468px-NOAA_logo.svg[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/468px-noaa_logo-svg1.png?resize=300%2C300&quality=75){kind=logo}
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A NOAA study has been published, which claims to attribute various extreme weather events to anthropogenic climate change.
According to the NOAA press release;
“For the past four years, this report has shown that human activities are influencing specific extreme weather and climate events around the world,” said Thomas R. Karl, LHD, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. “In the 79 papers that have been published through the annual report over the past four years, over half of these papers show a linkage to human-caused climate change.”
When a climate change influence is not found it could mean two things. First, that climate change has not had any appreciable impact on an event. Or, it could also mean that the human influence cannot be conclusively identified with the scientific tools available today.
In this year’s report, 32 groups of scientists from around the world investigate 28 individual extreme events in 2014 and break out various factors that led to the extreme events, including the degree to which natural variability and human-induced climate change played a role.
Read more: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/explaining-extreme-events-2014
The strapline of the report betrays the speculative nature of this effort;
This BAMS special report presents assessments of how climate change may have affected the strength and likelihood of individual extreme events.
The disclaimer in the report itself is even funnier;
Challenges that attribution assessments face include the often limited observational record and inability of models to reproduce some extreme events well. In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthro- pogenic signals this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.
Lets just say I would be a lot more impressed if NOAA could explain the extreme events of 2016, rather than trying to retrofit alarmist explanations to events they have no skill to predict. Starting with an assumption that an anthropogenic effect is playing a substantial role is not the same as demonstrating that this is the case. Retrofitting an explanation is easy – everyone can explain a stock market crash, after it occurs.
Consider the following (talking about Californian wildfires);
… A process called CO2 fertilisation (Donohue et al. 2013) tends to increase vegetation activity simply through the uptake of an increasing atmospheric CO2. Under such a scenario along with a wetter climate, vegetation growth would increase and subsequently supply sufficient fuel load.
And here I was thinking California was scheduled for perpetual drought. But I guess this is NOAA, they can disagree with James Hansen if they want.
Interestingly the report contains a testable prediction or two. Some good news for people in the Upper Midwest, who suffered through the brutal 2013-2014 winter. According to NOAA, nobody is likely to ever see such a winter again;
… While a winter comparable to 2013/14 would have been roughly a once-a-decade event in 1881 (return periods from 5–20 years), it has become roughly a once-in-a-thousand years event in 2014 (return periods from 90 to over 10 000 years). is implies that extremely cold winters are two orders of magnitude less frequent in today’s climate than in that of around 1881. Using a Gaussian t rather than GPD, the change in probability for such a cold winter would go from once-in-14 years in 1881 to once-in-200 years in 2014 (Supplemental Fig. S3.6). Due to the area-averaging, these changes in odds are more extreme than those found by van Oldenborgh et al. (2015) for individual stations since 1951, but match the drastic reduction in odds that Christidis et al. (2014) computed for cold springs in the United Kingdom. …
But lets assume for the sake of argument, that NOAA are right, and climate change is causing more extreme weather. What should we do about it?
Would you rather face a dangerous hail storm on your bicycle, or would you prefer to be protected by a safety capsule made of steel and toughened glass?
Would you prefer to suffer an extreme heatwave with, or without, the benefits of air conditioning? How insufferable would Summer be, if you couldn’t afford to cool your house, because electricity bills had skyrocketed beyond your ability to pay?
Would you give up home heating, so people who won’t be born until you are long dead, could enjoy a few more snow days?
Would you give up your right to travel by air, to make room for people rushing to attend climate conferences in exotic holiday destinations?
Nothing about the climate movement makes sense.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lets just say I would be a lot more impressed if NOAA could explain the extreme events of 2016, rather than trying to retrofit alarmist explanations to events they have no skill to predict.
That reaches the heart of the matter. Get some real, specific and measurable predictions correct and I might get on board with the CAGW crowd.
Exactly. They can’t even stop rain or drought, let alone prescribe accurate weather forecasts a week in advance. In Oz, we’re currently suffering a Climate Change ©®™ show by Bill Nye, the fake science guy. Pathetic.
My car gets 50 mpg (US) at 30-60 mph on a flat road. It gets about 4 mpg getting up from a stop to 25 mph, with my foot as light on the loud pedal as I can make it, and still accelerate.
Four way stop signs make NO traffic decision whatsoever, except that the next crash will be from a standing start. I figure that 100% of ALL of the oil we import from outside the
USA gets burned up by automobiles that are stopped at four way stop signs or red traffic lights.
USA traffic lights are programmed to implement the ” Who should I let go ?” algorithm, where most traffic lights are mostly red most of the time. That should be changed to implement the “Who must I stop ?” algorithm, where most traffic lights are mostly green most of the time.
I say we should get rid of every second traffic light, and repeat every six months, and require that drivers take a driving test before being given a driving licence.
So take your hands off my car. It is NOT the problem.
G
And here I thought 2016 has not happened yet?
I’m not sure you understood the point. Nor am I sure you understand question marks.
I agree with PaulH & Olef Koenders — In India, the heat and cold waves in summer and winter respectively are related to weather associated with western disturbances. In this the main player is ridge around Nagpur. Based on the movement of the Ridge to east and south, the heat or cold wave movement penetrates to east and south. Some times these are modified by a system in Bay of Bengal. This heory was presented by me in 1975 [published in a journal in 1978]. The extreme temperatures associated withse have not crossed the Normal published for 1931-60 by IMD. In some local areas through mining and deforestation activities the temperatures are affected. This is the factual information. Let those from NOAA study these and show to the public is there any global warming effect on them — unfortunately NOAA is shy of using the word “global warming” and instead using anthropogenic climate change [climate refers to several met parameters and not temperature alone]. Human activities not only relate to global warming but also other than global warming — local and regional phenomenon]. Also temperature follow the rainfall pattern. Rainfall presents natural rhythm in India. During 2009 drought year the temperature has gone up by 0.9 oC at all India level.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
You raised a key point Dr. Reddy. Local modifications of albedo coupled with human generated thermal flux may have substantial impacts on locally experienced conditions.
The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.
================
or it could be that there are no significant anthropogenic effects.
plain and simple. if humans were truly affecting the climate in excess of natural variability, it would have been detected given the large numbers of people looking for just such a signal.
ferd…..it leaves the door wide open to prove the cats did it
People should be destroying the planet, and it’s a travesty that we can’t prove it!
Yet again, this is just total, utter rubbish. It’s an embarrassment to science. The whole idea seems to be that all recent bad weather events (as if they had never happened before…) MUST be attributable to AGW. So, if the proof isn’t there (and which cases actaully DO prove it?), these idiots claim it CANNOT be because we DIDN’T cause it, it MUST be because we haven’t got the measurements and evidence right.
What utter, unscientific, illogical tripe! Anyone associated with this should be fired immediatelay. Of course that isn’t going to happen. Shame.
Truth (and science) is what works. The rest is conjecture and religion.
CAGW is a cargo cult escathological religion, little else. It does not work to predict the future. Given the multitude of knobs it has, the resulting overfit and lack of robustness it can be made to fit the past very well.
The real crime is the fraud being forced on the country by the far-left. The false premise of cars causing AGW is completely unprovable on its face. The effort to eliminate cars is just a ploy to reduce freedoms. The left is a completely evil movement – they should be shunned.
“Given the multitude of knobs it has…”
If I started naming the climate control knobs do you think some of them would sue me? Maybe I should ask Tim Ball.
“Climate control knobs”……..who mentioned Da Mann?
well said. it is now obvious these people have no shame whatsoever .
There is no evidence anywhere that ANY human action, “giving up” anything including our very lives, would influence the climate one iota. Because there’s no evidence we’ve influenced it to begin with except on a local to regional level through acts such as deforestation or the creation of urban heat islands. BTW love the weasel words (“may influence”) in this article!
The proof that AGW is causing the extreme events or the extreme absence of extreme winters, about which we should be equally concerned, is hiding in the deep oceans with the missing heat.
Rubbish. It is hiding in an apartment in Paris with Jim Morrison and Elvis.
Brian,
My man in MI5 tells me that Shergar, the Loch Ness Monster and Lord Lucan are all hot-bunking in the very same apartment. Not sure about the Yeti – who rather puts itself about if forced to share . . . .
Auto
[Mods – this is /SARC. seriously /SARC]
Though best to help our much-appreciated Mods.
So, in short, NOAA claims they cannot scientifically measure something.. therefore it exists.
How will they measure the outcomes of their solutions if they are incapable of measuring the baselines…never mind…they have no intentions to do that.
It’s sort of like Bigfoot, extraterrestrial aliens and the Loch Ness Monster.
Come on PiperPaul. You know full well that those examples you gave are way more realistic than CO2 controlling the climate! 🙂
PS. Lochie (and Ogopogo) are probably giant sturgeons, bigfoot a misidentified bear (or staged prank) and ET’s are very real (on their worlds, don’t know if or how any could get here but I’m open to proof).
Even discussing this, even to rubbish it, is a victory for the crazies.
“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
And “You can’t cheat an honest man.”
“Razzle dazzle, ’em.” Billy in “Chicago.”
How does the theory handle the fact that there have been fewer extremene events in recent years than before? Is that human caused as well?
“…implies that extremely cold winters are two orders of magnitude less frequent in today’s climate than in that of around 1881.” and that with the ever churning temperature adjustments cooling the past and warming the present, this will soon be an alarming three orders of magnitude.
Gary, surely you know that we should be extremely concerned about the ever-more-extreme absence of extreme winters. While extreme winters may be extreme, they cannot be considered extreme events because they occurred more often before the extremely troubling increase in true extreme events that accompanied the extreme increase in atmospheric CO2.
I forgot to mention that extreme winters are just due to weather, while extreme events are due to climate change.
Actually, these loons are basically saying that the Little Ice Age is the Ideal Climate!
emsnews said: “Actually, these loons are basically saying that the Little Ice Age is the Ideal Climate”.
Yes! Ideal to the greens because it likely results in a shrinkage of population.
” fewer extremene events in recent years than before? Is that human caused as well?”
1. Greens will never admit that there have been less extreme events (or even fewer)
2. Greens will never admit that anything humans have done could ever be anything but bad. A farmer (the biggest green hatred after miners) built a “leaky weir”, kind of like a beaver dam but man-made, on their property and a variety of other water improvement measures. Now they have a real aqua-culture going on. You should hear the screaming going on in the offices of the gaia worshippers.
It rather reminds me of an old patent medicine that claimed it only cured “cattarh”, and then defined every disease as a variety of cattarh. No one has come up with a new fallacy in several thousand years.
Tom,
Doctor Forster’s Febrile Puissant Nectar [$17.00/200 ml bottle; take a litre a day] get rid of your cold in just seven short days.
But, left to itself, it will hang on for a week.
Auto
Post cheques [checks from N. America] to me, please.
Auto, you wound us Canadians! We go owt and abowt withowt our tooooks in the most extreme of winters. Re. cheques, of course.
♫Love, Brother Love, Hey Brother Love’s Travelling Salvation Show♫
Let’s reverse it:
Would you drive more if there was a small probability it could reduce the severity of the next glacial advance.
Yup! In my V-8 with 4WD!
Me too. Towing a three horse slant load with 12ft. living quarters and bath.
Richard, just to be safe I’d be driving south. To Phoenix.
lol, Richard — I’d get a government subsidy to save the planet from a Lack-of-Enough-Human-CO2-Emissions-Caused {<– after, therefore because of … oh, yes, I DO have proof: after Americans in the early 1970’s turned in their big block station wagons, Cadillacs, and Camaros for… tiny little Datsun B210’s… it got COLDER (Leonard Nimoy knows)} – Ice-Age…
to buy myself this:
(youtube)
And on the bumper it would say:
– SAVIN’ THE PLANET –
ONE BURNOUT AT A TIME
Yeeeeeeeee-haw!
#(:))
+1
Hi Janice!
Forged pistons, solid lifters, and 7,000 rpm. Cures climate change, traffic congestion, boredom, depression, and fascism. Good for the mind, body, heart, and ongoing pursuit of human freedom.
Good to hear from you!
Tom Judd: “Forged pistons, solid lifters, and 7,000 rpm.”
Stick a couple of Dominators and a tunnel ram on top, it’ll go to 10,000 RPM.
Now, that will really pump out some plant food!
And if you really want to go for broke, stick a GM 6-71 between the carbs and the manifold.
Ah, happy days!
Thanks, Mike. 🙂
Tom….?? Is that YOU, f.n.a. “TomJ”? I thought of you around Halloween — hope you had a cheery one.
And, I agree… especially about “depression.” Driving a muscle car/sports car is SO much fun!
Take care of yourself…. and go out and meet some nice women — for a guy as kind and intelligent as you, there just HAS to be a lovely (remember, the heart is what matters, not her beauty or lack of) “her” out there. And DON’T date ANY of those bimbos who put prostitute-wanna-be photos online. NO woman worth having a meaningful relationship with would EVER put such a photo out there: I guarantee it. There is NO SUCH THING as “the whore with the golden heart.” They are either brain disordered (to some degree) or using (likely mostly subconsciously) their “power” over men to get back at…. whoever he was. Some of those women have dated HUNDREDS of men!! Such women will get you wrapped around their little finger and then jerk you around for the rest of your life. I — have — seen — this — happen!
Okay, I’m off — (((((ssscrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRRRRRRRRRMMMMM!!!)))
(that was supposed to be an excellent burn-off)
#(:))
Edit: There is no such thing as ” the [healthy] whore with the golden heart.” Sadly, there are some brain-disordered or developmentally delayed prostitutes-for-free (and a few for pay, too) out there.
Somehow Rush’s ‘Red Barchetta’ seems appropriate in this setting:
Forged pistons? Who brought Dan Rather into this discussion?
American cars do seem to have a problem with bends. British cars were down on power. So a match was made in heaven. The AC Cobra.
A guitar with the correct number of strings…
Your local climate catastrophist will be pleased to flip a coin to see who gets your money. Heads he wins, tails you lose. It’s quite simple, really.
Wouldn’t they use a two-faced coin in the first place?
That would be dishonest!
I actually have a two headed coin. This year Canada made a $2 coin with the Queen of Canada (Elizabeth II) on one side, and our first Prime Minister (John A. MacDonald) on the other side. I keep one in my pocket incase I ever need heads in a coin toss.
I actually have a two headed coin.
===============
in contrast, two faced politicians are quite common.
‘In general, when attribution assessments fail to find anthropogenic signals this alone does not prove anthropogenic climate change did not influence the event. The failure to find a human fingerprint could be due to insufficient data or poor models and not the absence of anthropogenic effects.’
The foregoing has given me the solution to a dilemma. You see, my neighbor’s wife is, like, really hot. You would not believe how many times I’ve fantasized about her. And, once in a while she’s actually given me a knowing look, a suggestive little smile. Or, at least I think she has. Trouble is; I’m pretty certain she’s faithful. In fact I’m convinced she is. And, that’s probably irrelevant anyway; her husband’s a lot bigger than I am. And, better looking too.
But, I’ll tell ya’, reading that paragraph above has given me a ray of hope. I’ll just do the same kind of thing to get that inconvenient husband outta’ the way. I’ll go to the police and accuse him of murder. Now, I know they’re going to ask me for a body. Taking my cue from above I’ll just simply say, “Challenges that murder assessments face include the often limited observation of a body on record and inability of investigations (i.e. models) to reproduce the crime events well. In general, when investigations fail to find a murdered body this alone does not prove that murder did not influence the event. The failure to find a crime could be due to insufficient investigation or poor evidence and not the absence of a crime.”
Yeah, I know it’s complete babble. But, it just might work. I can smell a conviction coming when he hasn’t done anything at all except being in the way of my amorous feelings towards his hot wife. I’d say a life sentence is appropriate. I promise I’ll visit him, “Honest guy, don’t worry, I’ll look after your wife while you’re in prison. Mind if I drive your Porsche?”
I’m beginning to worry about you.
Next you’ll be claiming glaciers are melting and applying to run the IPCC…
Tom Judd:
Stop giving the name “Tom” a bad name.
I agree with what you said, but it was a total jumble of nonsense.
You only give up your car if it’s coal powered. Gasoline, NG, E85, diesel, electric, etc. don’t count.
Electric is coal powered.
Oddly enough a similar question is posed in this recent popular song:
“Yeah, I would give all I have to give
Would you give up your car?
(Mmm) Are you kidding me, of course I would have given the car
What car do you drive?
I drive a Civic, drive a Civic. Drive a Civic!
A car you can trust!
Never mind about the car…”
But what does it MEAN?
I don’t know, and I would give anything to know…
Perhaps we should create a “paleolithic reconstruction” of the precise events that took place 5000years ago.
Where’s Mike Mann when you need him?
Spinal Tap have a better version!
Yeah, including a mock henge at 1/12th scale.
The henge in my video is a real henge.
It’s the greatest henge of all.
It goes up to eleven.
I will readily admit to having weak math skills, but I don’t understand how, in a record of 134 winters, could they determine if a severe winter was one-in-a-thousand or even one-in-200 year event?
[snip – commenter using a fake identity -mod]
Given that the “measure” of the severity of winter is normally distributed,
The problem is that is not a “given”.
The natural distributions are likely fatter-tailed (leptokurtic) than a normal distribution, thus increasing the expected probability of extreme events over what a normal distribution would predict.
Ok, my math skills are sufficient to understand standard deviations. However, wouldn’t this depend on a) how you define and scale “severe” and b) if they really are normally distributed? After all, aren’t they trying to tell us that the distribution is no longer normal due to excess CO2 in the atmosphere?
This is not really a working solution for two reasons. First the scale here is not a theoretical dot count from a dice roll with a perfect distribution, but rather a muddy number with imprecise distribution. Second, your number, even if it is a number, might not represent what you claim it to represent. Certainly a temperature is a number at some point in space-time with some precision, but should you choose a different way to measure and calculate severity, you’d get a different rank.
People have too much faith in decimals. If one is the dumbest in the world, one’s IQ is by definition negative, but you should think twice before you tell you actually *can measure* a negative IQ.
And Taleb has shown that convergence on a reliable mean takes millions or billions of data points for those kind of distributions.
For many cases the Normal distribution is the most optimistic distribution. The fact that it’s easiest do do the math on fuels most of Taleb’s books and diatribes. The normal distribution is easy to use and often wrong. A terrible combination with human nature thrown in…
Peter
How very odd that there is a Richard A. O’Keefe visiting here (me) and a Richard A. O’Keef just above (not me). What’s really odd is that clicking on “Richard A. O’Keef” takes you to my web page. I hope this is a glitch in the blog software… If it had been me, I would have pointed out that rather fewer things in nature follow a Gaussian distribution than Stats 101 would have you believe, that heavy tails are common, and that “1 in N year” statements are always highly suspect.
moderators have dealt with this person
Gaussian statistics are limited. I live in the flood plain of lake Red Rock. We have had four 200-year floods in the last three years.
Climate Science 101. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Of the three, statistics provide plausible deniability, so go with statistics.
So the identity thief without a life has stolen another person’s identity.
He sure wastes a lot of his time doing something that will just be erased.
Another problem with distributions, is that there are many things that affect the distributions.
For example, depending on where you live, floods or droughts become more or less common depending on whether you are in an El Nino year. Or on whether the PDO, AO or such is in it’s positive or negative phase.
Given how few years we have of accurate observations, trying to figure out what a “normal” distribution of any type of event, given the various other factors, is a fools errand.
Here’s Robert F Kennedy Jr, showing us what he’s willing to do to save the planet:
Kennedy is literally insane.
lobotomies run in the family.
But, here is the key, the political elite make their income and cash for booze by selling this.
His demeanor reminds me of the lifetime alcoholics I know.
It does seem to run in his family.
kath..009……………good post
“They have the money on their side”. BS, BS, BS – check what gov’ts spend on the hoax.
“I don’t believe we have to reduce our quality of life….” – BS – the UN disagrees.
What cracks me up is how indignant he gets over the idea of giving up his cell phone for the cause.
These folks really do live in the land of magical thinking.
It is all narcissistic guilt without reason.
And here it was that I thought he wanted to throw me in jail for speaking out against CAGW! He’s for democracy as long as it is his point of view. Child slavery to build cell phones is ok. I’ll bet he didn’t ride a bike to this party. Reminds me of Chairman Mao. The party says he’s to eat well while you starve to death. It’s the same logic.
Didn’t the Kennedy’s make their name and fortune from Capitol Hill the very Mob he is slagging off
The original fortune came from running illegal foreign made booze during prohibition.
I thought it was bootlegging during Prohibition.
Grandpa Joe sold steel the Germany prior to WWII ( Krupp)
sold steel TO the germans ( oh these rubber fingers)
Also, insider trading and manipulation of the stock markets.
Anything he could get away with.
If the US were to pass a law, as Kennedy suggests, to only allow electric cars, then yes, everyone’s quality of life would drop. Maybe in his golden spoon life, his wouldn’t change, but the middle class’s standard of living would, and the lower class’s would be completely eliminated from the car market.
PS, I always thought Koch was pronounced ‘Kosh’ not ‘Coke’. Locally a family of Koch brothers (different family) own several Ford dealerships in several different cities. They pronounce their name ‘Kosh’.
Both pronunciations avoid the obvious references to roosters, weather vanes etc. And, I wonder what his rum-runner ancestor would have done without fossil fuels. But I guess inter-generational hypocrisy is allowed.
I’m not getting on any ark built by NOAA.
Why not? its not like there’s going to be a flood, Ah unless you’re next to a flooded mine the EPA is looking into…
michael
lol, a kennedy talking about democracy being subverted ,lmfao.
According to many of the leftists I have talked to, allowing anyone other than the mainstream media to comment on the elections, subverts democracy.
BTW, the govt gets to determine who is a member of the media, and who isn’t.
“Thomas R. Karl, LHD, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information”
Could you please tell us what caused all the ‘Extreme Weather’ many years ago.
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather
NOAA is now anti-science and anti-truth.
Doing my 1/7 billionth part to increase atmospheric CO2 for the benefit of all life.
“Using a Gaussian t rather than GPD, the change in probability for such a cold winter would go from once-in-14 years in 1881 to once-in-200 years in 2014”
Predicting less probability of severe weather while predicting increased severe weather due to AGW/CC.
I guess we can take our pick as to which is true.
It’s rather amusing that they call the brutal East-US Winter 2013/2014 a “once-in-200-years-event” AFTER there was a second winter of this sort in the directly following season 2014/2015…
Don’t these people realize their own contradictions ??? 🙂
They do it on purpose. The idea on telling ‘this is a 200-year-event’ is telling it is not, because climate has changed. It does not make sense philophically, but rhetorically it works well for people who can’t even solve a proportion since that involves both multiplication and division and you need to know which number to multiply with.
missing so. so-so.
They switched from global warming to climate change as there was no discernible global warming. Now they switch to “extreme weather” as there is no discernible climate change.
It is interesting that as their predictions have failed, the Warmistas have moved from global to regional to local scales.
Local scales and seasonal.
“We must ban snow blowers to prevent more blizzards!”
Make that, ““We must ban snow blowers to prevent the next blizzard!”
(They aren’t just shifting to more local but also more immediate.)
The next step is blaming the plumber when the hot water heater for the shower fails. Let’s see how they enjoy cold showers? Oh right that’s why they are in Paris to enjoy the cold showers, restaurants that serve cold food and warm wine ( because the fridges stopped working). (sarc).
We must ban all alcoholic beverages to all politicians, and all other mind altering and sore-throat making substances. Wouldn’t it be nice to hear that Kennedy talk in a reasonable tone in defending a reasonable subject or proposal?
Eric, once again an excellent essay!
First of all to answer the question posed in the title my reply would be: No I don’t have to!
“For the past four years, this report has shown that human activities are influencing specific extreme weather and climate events around the world,”
We have had an 18.75 year pause where temperatures have not risen. How has the climate changed in view of that? I cannot decide if these people are jut plain stupid, are congenital liars or a mixture of both!
More Karl instigated bunkum. For climate change to increase extremes one needs two things. 1. The climate changes. In this century, it hasn’t. 2. Either more or worse extremes. Neither has occurred, either in the US or globally. The 2014 US National Climate Assessment tried to pull the same trick, and every single one of their specific claims proved easy to shred factually in essay Credibility Conundrums.
But it could, scientists suggest!
Sorry, could not resist. The idea of extremes and permanent drought etc. is just so persistent you don’t need a reality to check it against. A model with concerned activists is enough.
Pity they didn’t think to look for Ma’ Gaia’s fingerprints. (She’s inhuman.)
“We have no evidence but we know Man did it!”
If this were an episode of Perry Mason, I’d say his client, Man, is innocent.
Did they just admit that their models are poor? And if they are, maybe, just maybe, they catastrophic warming they predict may not occur. Maybe the warming is not in the pipe as they have repeatedly told us.
Karl et al. are just auguring for free tickets, drinks, meals and prostitutes at Paris, to sit at the table with Obama, a Latin-Pope and a Korean-Japanese Emperor, then charge the expenses for tickets, drinks, meals and prostitutes (hotel room) on their travel re-embersment forms.
18+ years with no statistically significant change in global temperatures yet they still insist that extreme weather events are climate-change related??? Can’t they see how ridiculous that pronouncement makes them look? Even the hard-of-thinking can link the two claims and figure there’s something wrong somewhere. W. T. F. ?