How climate change is fueling extremism
By Isabelle Gerretsen, CNN
Updated 6:26 AM ET, Wed March 6, 2019
(CNN) Climate change is already triggering devastating weather events across the planet… [Blah, blah, blah]
Does anyone else always hear Darth Vader’s voice in their head whenever they read the letters CNN?
Predictably the scientifically illiterate 20-something year old CNN “journalist” wasn’t even wrong.
Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined. As a more formal fallacy, it refers to the fine art of generating an ostensibly “correct” conclusion, but from premises known to be wrong or inapplicable.
The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don’t even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.
What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
—James Downey, Billy Madison
The phrase apparently originates with physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who used the phrase (in the form “Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!” — “That is not only not right, it is not even wrong!”) to describe an unclear research paper. Pauli was known for his detestation of sloppy writing and arguments, and for his somewhat “colourful” objections to such things. The term has since gathered some popularity, amongst those involved in refuting pseudoscience, to reference the difficulties faced in dealing with some of the more out-of-this-world arguments. Examples include so-called creationist escape hatches, which are a series of irrefutable (but equally unprovable) claims that defy correction with conventional logic. It also applies to science stoppers.
Climate change isn’t triggering devastating weather events. There isn’t even a way to adequately test the concept. Such claims are “not even wrong.”
FEBRUARY 10, 2011
The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder
The latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme.
By ANNE JOLIS
Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.
Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter’s fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December’s blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.
But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.
As it happens, the project’s initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”
In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. “There’s no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather,” adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.
From the abstract of Compo et al., 2012…
Some surprising results are already evident. For instance, the long-term trends of indices representing the North Atlantic Oscillation, the tropical Pacific Walker Circulation, and the Pacific–North American pattern are weak or non-existent over the full period of record. The long-term trends of zonally averaged precipitation minus evaporation also differ in character from those in climate model simulations of the twentieth century.
From Sardeshmukh et al., 2015…
Given the reality of anthropogenic global warming, it is tempting to seek an anthropogenic component in any recent change in the statistics of extreme weather. This paper cautions that such efforts may, however, lead to wrong conclusions if the distinctively skewed and heavy-tailed aspects of the probability distributions of daily weather anomalies are ignored or misrepresented. Departures of several standard deviations from the mean, although rare, are far more common in such a distinctively non-Gaussian world than they are in a Gaussian world. This further complicates the problem of detecting changes in tail probabilities from historical records of limited length and accuracy.
Current statements concerning changing extreme weather risks associated with global warming mainly involve quantities related to surface temperature (IPCC 2014) and essentially amount to simple shifts of existing PDFs. Such statements downplay the fact that there is more to regional climate change than surface warming, and that assessing the changing risks of extreme storminess, droughts, floods, and heat waves requires accurate model representations of multidecadal and longer-term changes in the large-scale modes of natural atmospheric circulation variability and the complex nonlinear climate–weather interactions associated with them. The detection of changes in such modes from the limited observational record is much less clear cut than for surface temperature. Figure 12 demonstrated this for indices of large-scale modes of wintertime atmospheric circulation variability in the North Atlantic sector (the NAO index) and the North Pacific sector (the NP index). We found no significant changes either in the mean or in the entire PDFs of these indices over the last 140 years. This is of course not to imply that there have been no changes in other modes of circulation variability in other parts of the globe, just that any such changes need to be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis after due consideration of the non-Gaussian aspects of the probability distributions.
To detect, attribute, and make credible projections of changing extreme weather risks in a changing climate using climate models, the models need to represent not only the shifting means but also changes in the width and shape of the distributions of daily weather anomalies. Model misrepresentations of these changes can cast doubt on such efforts. Indeed current models have difficulty in representing even the mean changes, such as their inability to adequately capture the post-1998 “hiatus” in global warming (Fyfe et al. 2013). The mean errors are relatively large on regional scales, in substantial part because of model difficulties in capturing the pattern of tropical ocean temperature changes and their global impacts (Shin and Sardeshmukh 2011) that are associated with misrepresentations of tropical feedback processes (Shin et al. 2010). To estimate changes in tail probabilities using such imperfect models, it is important to account for biases in the probability distributions. However, it is clearly inappropriate to do so through a simple a posteriori “bias correction,” given the links between the mean, variance, and shapes of the predicted probability distributions. There is limited understanding of such links at present, mainly due to the limited understanding of climate–weather interactions on regional scales.
How scientific and economic illiteracy are fueling weather extremism
While there’s no evidence of climate change triggering anything, much less “fueling extremism”… Scientific and economic ignorance clearly are triggering a lot of extremism regarding the weather, like Ms. Gerretsen’s rambling, incoherent nonsense and a steady stream of the most insanely idiotic things from Marxist politicians…
“You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change. The future of the planet is at stake,” said Comrade Bernie Sanders… It doesn’t get any more retarded than this: “The future of the planet is at stake.” The “planet” handled far warmer climates with ease over most of the Phanerozoic Eon (most recent 550 million years). The current climate is abnormally cold.
Our balmy Quaternary Period interglacial stage is only slightly warmer than the coldest temperatures of the last 550 million years… And Bernie thinks that a couple of degrees of warming puts the “future of the planet… at stake”? Really? The “planet” doesn’t even notice climate change. At most, climate change moves a bit of dirt around. 99.999999999% of the planet is totally unaffected by climate change.
How could someone be so fracking stupid and still manage to breathe? Autonomous functions should be disabled with such minimal brain power.
Since Bernie is an idiot, who has never held real job in his life, I can understand his total ignorance of science and economics… However, how in the Hell could he be ignorant of George Carlin?
Of course, Comrade Bernie isn’t even the stupidest weather-extremist in Congress…
Amazingly, the idiocy isn’t strictly limited to Marxist journalists and politicians…
The Green New Deal isn’t outlandish — it’s a necessity
BY JEFFREY SACHS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/04/19
A recent Washington Post editorial and a letter by leading economists suggest that a carbon tax is the “best first-line policy.”
The editorial argues that “a high-enough carbon price would shape millions of choices, small and large, about what to buy, how to invest and how to live that would result in substantial emissions cuts.” It sounds plausible, yet it’s not the right way to approach the problem.
Let me start with a close analogy. In the 1980s, scientists realized that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were destroying the stratospheric ozone layer, at great peril to humanity. CFCs needed to be replaced by safer chemicals.
To do so, the world’s government’s adopted the Montreal Protocol, which set a timeline to replace CFCs mainly by other fluorine gases without the ozone-destroying properties. That treaty has worked. CFCs are no longer used. The ozone layer is gradually being restored.
Jeffrey Sachs is ostensibly a serious academic… In other words, dumber than Marxist journalists and politicians. There is no analogy between CFC’s and climate change… I take that back. There is an analogy. The “peril to humanity” was greatly exaggerated in both cases.
However, CFC’s do have an adverse effect on stratospheric ozone. While anthropogenic carbon compound emissions will, all other factors held equal, raise the bulk temperature of the atmosphere by about 1 °C per doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, it’s quite possible that a slight warming of the lower atmosphere will yield more beneficial than adverse effects.
The lack of analogy becomes even more obvious regarding the Montreal Protocol and the Green New Deal. While the Montreal Protocol was expensive, particularly if you needed air conditioning repairs in the early 1990’s, it had no potential to devastate the global economy and it may have contributed to an almost measurable recovery in the seasonal Antarctic ozone hole (this is called “damning with faint praise”). The Green New Deal would totally destroy the US economy, plunge the entire world back into the economic and technological abyss of the Pleistocene and have absolutely no measurable effect on the weather.
Replacing CFC’s was trivial compared to replacing high-carbon energy sources…
Particularly since they insist on doing this without relying on the only energy sources that could actually significantly reduce carbon emissions at a reasonable cost.
Before anyone babbles something about wind and solar getting cheaper… The cost could drop to Dean Wormer levels and it wouldn’t make any difference (look at the right side of the graph).
In case you are unfamiliar with Dean Wormer:
Compo GP, Whitaker JS, Sardeshmukh PD, Matsui N, Allan RJ, Yin X, Gleason Jr BE, Vose RS, Rutledge G, Bessemoulin P, Bronnimann S, Brunet M, Crouthamel RI, Grant AN, Groisman PY, Jones, PD, Kruk MC, Kruger AC, Marshall GJ, Maugeri M, Mok HY, Nordli Ø, Ross TF, Trigo RM, Wang XL,
Woodruff SD, Worley SJ. 2011. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 137: 1–28. DOI:10.1002/qj.776
Sardeshmukh, P.D., G.P. Compo, and C. Penland, 2015: Need for Caution in Interpreting Extreme Weather Statistics. J. Climate, 28, 9166–9187, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0020.1