The L. A Times ignores climate science to push “California’s hellish summer” alarmist propaganda

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The latest L. A. Times climate alarmist propaganda article tries to blame California’s recent tragic wildfires on global warming as addressed in its flawed articles on this subject that were previously debunked here and here at WUWT.

The latest article also uses anecdotal stories by the writer and a few others saying in essence “its hotter than ever” to make their case for global warming with these false claims being addressed in a previous Times article also debunked at WUWT.

The article then tries to support the proposition that climate model simulation estimates can be relied upon to show “human influences” on global climate with this claim based on the flawed assertions of Lawrence Livermore climate scientist Ben Santer who perpetrated one of the most scandalous and notorious alarmism distortions of climate science that helped politicalize the climate debate thus driving the discussion away from rigorous and open scientific pursuit and instead supporting climate alarmism political advocacy.

The shenanigans of Ben Santer who changed a key UN IPCC report finding by rewriting it to reflect his own bias of “human influence” unsupported by his scientific colleagues is summarized below:

“Santer was appointed lead-author of Chapter 8 “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes” of the 1995 IPCC Report. In that position, he determined to prove humans were a factor despite no evidence. His fellow chapter authors agreed to a final draft at a meeting in Madrid. Here are the four agreed to comments

1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”

Here are the entries that appeared after Santer rewrote them.

1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”

2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

Only much later were these shenanigans revealed as the WUWT article notes – “Santer did not admit the changes at the time and got his “discernible human influence” message on the world stage. According to one source, he later admitted that

“…he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.”

The Times article egregiously ignores the key scientific fact that the inherent inadequacy of climate models to reflect global climate outcomes is conclusively supported by the UN IPCC itself as addressed in its numerous climate report reviews conducted over the last 25 years as addressed here.

Hidden by the L A Times is the 2001 UN IPCC AR3 report fully acknowledging the inability to create climate models which represent the behavior of global climate systems.

Specifically in Section 14.2.2.2 (Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles) of the AR3 report the bottom line concerning the unresolvable shortcomings of global climate model simulations was articulated and clearly presented as:

“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by generation of ensembles of modal solutions.”

Despite the latest global climate model updates reflected in the UN IPCC AR5 report the limitations clearly articulated in the UN IPCC AR3 report that “the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible” applies to the AR5 report assessments and findings.”

Furthermore the UN IPCC AR5 report notes the very clear and significant limitations regarding the climate scenarios underlying its report by noting:

“The scenarios should be considered plausible and illustrative, and do not have probabilities attached to them. (12.3.1; Box 1.1)”

This latest L. A. Times article gives short shrift to the extensive criticisms of climate model limitations by renowned climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry who has detailed these shortcomings in a recent study noted here.

The Times article makes the ridiculous claim that Ca. can make a difference in global emissions behavior.

“The state has long led the way on embracing renewable energy sources and limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Then there’s the current legislation demanding better gas mileage in the near future, which is under attack by the Trump administration. But as a single state in a world of major polluters, can going green make a difference?

Alex Hall, a UCLA climate scientist, has no doubt.

“I think what’s happening in California is wonderful,” said Hall, who traded his gas-hungry car for a Chevy Bolt. “It’s a pathway forward.”

Environmentalism isn’t sacrifice, Hall said. It’s change. And in charting a course toward renewable energy and lower greenhouse gas emissions, California is setting an agenda.”

This is complete climate alarmism drivel as noted in a recent article at WUWT.

In the period 1990 to 2016 China’s growth of 7.7 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions per year compares to California’s AB 32 reduction of about 0.052 billion tons of CO2 per year (CO2 emissions represent about 80% of Ca. greenhouse gas emissions). How this huge increase by China can earn the political admiration by climate alarmists here in California that China is “leading the fight against climate change” is preposterous.

The recent L. A. Times articles noted previously have failed to address NOAA temperatures showing measured maximum temperatures and instead have addressed average and minimum measured temperatures since the maximum measured temperatures did not show increases that the alarmist Times wanted to reveal.

Dr. Judith Curry addressed a recent WUWT study which had shown that average and minimum measured temperature data are impacted by inaccuracies driven by improper temperature station siting conditions.

Specifically the WUWT study notes that:

“Using NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network, which comprises 1218 weather stations in the CONUS, the researchers were able to identify a 410 station subset of “unperturbed” stations that have not been moved, had equipment changes, or changes in time of observations, and thus require no “adjustments” to their temperature record to account for these problems. The study focuses on finding trend differences between well sited and poorly sited weather stations, based on a WMO approved metric for classification and assessment of the quality of the measurements based on proximity to artificial heat sources and heat sinks which affect temperature measurement.

Bias at the microsite level (the immediate environment of the sensor) in the unperturbed subset of USHCN stations has a significant effect on the mean temperature (Tmean) trend. Well sited stations show significantly less warming from 1979 – 2008. These differences are significant in Tmean, and most pronounced in the minimum temperature data (Tmin). (Figure 3 and Table 1)

The 30-year Tmean temperature trend of unperturbed, well sited stations is significantly lower than the Tmean temperature trend of NOAA/NCDC official adjusted homogenized surface temperature record for all 1218 USHCN stations.

We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations.”

The temperature inadequacies of improperly sited temperature measurement stations which results in inaccurate and misleading temperature data is a topic unlikely to ever be available to readers of the L. A. Times.

The L. A. Times article also fails to address the fact that drought cycles in Ca. and the Western U.S. are driven by natural climate variation as specifically noted in a recent study here which Times readers are likely to never read about in its pages.

This most recent article by the L.A. Times is a hodgepodge of climate alarmist propaganda claims which are scientifically unsupported and anchored to politically contrived climate science alarmism.