Guest essay by Eric Worrall
With an uncertainty of 900%, weather attribution specialists stand ready to contribute to the conversation about the urgent need for climate action.
Is climate change to blame for extreme weather events? Attribution science says yes, for some – here’s how it works
August 25, 2021 10.28pm AEST
Xubin Zeng
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Director of the Climate Dynamics and Hydrometeorolgy Center, University of ArizonaExtreme rainfall and flooding left paths of destruction through communities around the world this summer. The latest was in Tennessee, where preliminary data shows a record-shattering 17 inches of rain fell in 24 hours, turning creeks into rivers that flooded hundreds of homes and killed at least 18 people.
A lot of people are asking: Was it climate change? Answering that question isn’t so simple.
There has always been extreme weather, but human-caused global warming can increase extreme weather’s frequency and severity. For example, research shows that human activities such as burning fossil fuels are unequivocally warming the planet, and we know from basic physics that warm air can hold more moisture.
A decade ago, scientists weren’t able to confidently connect any individual weather event to climate change, even though the broader climate change trends were clear. Today, attribution studies can show whether extreme events were affected by climate change and whether they can be explained by natural variability alone. With rapid advances from research and increasing computing power, extreme event attribution has become a burgeoning new branch of climate science.
The latest attribution study, released Aug. 23, 2021, looked at the rainfall from the European storm that killed more than 220 people when floods swept through Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands in July 2021.
A team of climate scientists with the group World Weather Attribution analyzed the record-breaking storm, dubbed Bernd, focusing on two of the most severely affected areas. Their analysis found that human-induced climate change made a storm of that severity between 1.2 and 9 times more likely than it would have been in a world 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.1 F) cooler. The planet has warmed just over 1 C since the industrial era began.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/is-climate-change-to-blame-for-extreme-weather-events-attribution-science-says-yes-for-some-heres-how-it-works-164941
How can anyone say with a straight face that attribution science is adding value to the conversation, when the best they can achieve is an uncertainty of 900%, and a bottom limit of no change in severity whatsoever?
The bottom limit of 1.2 times worse seems indistinguishable from business as usual, or even a slight reduction in the severity of weather, with an uncertainty of that magnitude.
I have no problem with people working to understand how CO2, weather and climate change interact. But in my opinion a branch of scientific analysis which apparently cannot distinguish between an unfolding catastrophe and business as usual is way too immature to add any value to the public discussion about climate policy.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Attribution statistics is NOT SCIENCE it comes from the field of marketing.
These folks are getting desperate. They should instead brush up on their camping and survival skills if they really believe what they’re saying.
Since the statistics on bad weather hasn’t changed in over 100 years, how can every bad weather event now be attributed to non-existent climate change? Even the UN IPCC CliSciFi reports show no change in bad weather statistics, other than slight warming and dampening.
They tout the increases in deaths and property damage, ignoring the increased populations and more building in flood-prone areas, along with increased property value. So they get to say things like “increasing number of deaths” while the actual death rate from weather events goes down, or “most expensive hurricane ever” based on property value.
By choosing the measuring stick they get to push a particular view of reality that supports their goals.
Don’t forget the criminal negligence of the bureaucrats in Germany that did not release water from a damned lake 4-5 days ahead of the storm, even though the forecast was for record breaking rain.
We also had accurate forecasts for a large rain event from tropical storm Fred.
Our near term forecasting, while not perfect (Henri was a dud in Massachusetts) has become very good, even out 5 days out. People would do far better to pay more attention to short term forecasts than worry about the phony gloom and doom climate change predictions which have universally failed so far.
Of course it’s not. It’s numerology. They just do post hoc numerology and that has no prediction power. As such, it’s pseudoscience.
Come now, attribution “science” DOES have a sciency formula.
1) Take any recent weather event, hot, cold, hurricane, drought, flood, etc.
2) Label it “extreme.”
3) Do no calculations (because there aren’t any to support the position)
4) Within 1 to 2 days (no longer) call a reporter and attribute it to climate change
5) “Predict” there will be an increasing number of such events up to 2050 and when we will all disappear in a waft of blue steam.
E * n = 2050!!
These weather event attribution claims are plain old bogus, junk, pseudo-science at its worst. The so-called World Weather Attribution (WWA) group that got massive coverage over the recent NW US heat wave clearly has a predetermined outcome for any severe weather event – “anthropogenic climate change” did it. Check their website – pure alarmist nonsense. Try and find any weather event that they have “investigated” that they concluded was just natural variability.
There have always been severe weather events somewhere in the world virtually every month. The null hypotheses is that any specific weather event is a normal occurrence within natural variability. What evidence does WWA present to falsify the null hypothesis?
Individual weather events are well within the range of normal, nor has their been an increase in frequency.
I think calling it pseudo-science is an insult to pseudo-scientists 😜
Call it the bullshit it is.
“pseudo-science” how “science” is practiced today. Some of us are having a hard time adapting so the new dynamic. To me truth should win out, yet all that counts is “feelings”!
“Welcome to Climate Science™. We know the answers before you pose the questions”
Says it all
Thanks
My 2 cents on this issue
https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/06/07/extreme-weather-attribution/
My guess is that if they were of a mind to they could tweak their models to show storms were between 1.2 and 9 times less likely.
….”and we know from basic physics that warm air can hold more moisture….”
If it HOLDS more moisture then there is less rain …
See how easy it is to twist words ?
😉
Remember griff’s motto: If it can, it will.
Sort of a take off on Murphy’s Law.
I thought Murphy’s Law says that the probability of an event is inversely proportional to its desirability. Like comments from Griff.
I thought Murphy’s law stated that if griff can be wrong, he will be.
No, that is a variation on McGoon’s Law.
A lot of people are asking: Was it climate change? Answering that question isn’t so simple.
I can’t believe he said that. I thought there’s no question, everything bad is caused by climate change.
If it were simple they wouldn’t be able to command the large grant money allocations for their phony-baloney jobs.
That was just “the set-up” statement. You KNOW what the answer will be.
As they are using a rather short climate record, knowing what the actual probability of an event is, is at best speculation. For much of the American West, if one includes paleo reconstructions, one has the possibility of droughts measured in decades. Or for history, a flood that put Sacramento underwater by quite an amount.
Does anyone know if this uses the attribution methodology that Ross McKitrick recently published a paper on?
Non-technical summary: https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/
This group is using exactly what McKitrick was talking about. The organization “World Weather Attribution” is the front/marketing group for this particular effort in alarmism.
This “Attribution Science” thing that just came on the scene with the release of AR 6 seems to be well organized and well coordinated.
I do not think I have seen a branch of science which came with its own marketing group like World Weather Attribution before.
Psychics, astrologers, climate models and voodoo practitioners all claim to predict or cause future events and some are even occasionally somewhat accurate or lucky. Attribution science related to weather is easy by comparison. You can’t prove the conclusions are wrong no matter how unlikely. It is a pathetic and arrogant belief that a connection is there, without any believable or direct line of evidence
”Psychics, astrologers, climate models and voodoo practitioners all claim to predict or cause future events”
A climate modelers station…
That modelling station does not look anything like the one I use. My central crystal sphere is very clear, not dirty burnt red as here. I do not know what those green rocks are. They look like some poor second rate jade or some copper containing mineral. No wonder some people get erroneous results with a wretched looking setup like this one.
” My central crystal sphere is very clear, not dirty burnt red as here.”
That would be the Global warming part. You will notice too that most of it is in the arctic region 🙂
If the indefatigable zealotry of climate change as “official state policy” (not to be denied) is a conversation, then rape is a social event, and sticking up the local gas station is a financial transaction.
I suspect gasoline stations are hit much more frequently.
AR6 SPM highlights 45 land regions of the globe
The claim is
12 regions will have an increase in drought
19 regions will have an increase in heavy precipitation
6 regions will have both.#
20 regions will have neither
My claim – alarmist climate scientists know the above but are committing fraud or at least lying through silence by allowing media to claim extreme events in areas not predicted as being impacted.
Example
In June this year , an intense East Coast Low hit southern Australia causing flooding and damaging winds.
A. AR6 clearly states southern Australia will have more droughts not more floods.
B. Climate science states East Coast Lows should be reduced due to a stronger Sub Tropical Ridge.
Thus this storm event is clear evidence AGAINST CAGW. Climate scientists were lying by silence by allowing media to promote this storm event as being linked to CO2
# the IPCC definition of drought includes evaporation and ground water issues not pure lack of rain hence a place COULD have more drought and more heavy rains, but this is only likely in 6 of the 45 regions of the world
Only 900%? Close enough for government work.
trust me I’m dirty harry
Its true because I tell you
Don’t argue with my 44
It always speaks the truth and wins
You are dead because of climate change
Based on this report, what will our weather look like @ur momisugly 1,000 ppm CO2? Non-stop storms, hurricanes at 200 mph, 70C heatwaves. It’s just around the corner, we’re at the tipping point.
In fact I just completed my own attribution study based on Eastern Ontario, looking at the month of July. I assure you all, it’s moderate temps, light breezes, and sunny all the way down (OK, except for January and February where we freeze our balls off).
Froze your balls off?
Is that why they like Trudeau there?
Enforced femininity?
1.2 times to 9 times….
Funny stuff!
…. and it would be the same if they took CO2 out of their models completely.
How can these people demand to waste their own lives and careers? You only get one life.
Phil, imagine the dreary lives these drones are fleeing from by any beguiling means at hand. Even modest ill-gotten gains from proclaiming unfalsifiable tipping points best a lifelong miasma of serial pukings and bouncings from tippling joints.
Gee, I was involved in the design and construction of an 1800 MW, coal-fired power plant in New Roads, Louisiana, in the mid 70s
We designed gutters and downspouts and below ground rain sewers for downpours of SEVEN INCHES PER HOUR
That was well before the “warming climate” hysteria.
Louisiana IS closer to the source.
Weather event attribution has all the rigor of my assignments of my excess flatulence episodes.
I never want to attribute my windiness to the stuff I love to eat and drink (bbq ribs & beer) – it’s always something like that kale salad my neighbor brought to lunch.
But unlike the weather attribution “scientists”, at least I know and admit when I’m bullsh1tting.
I’m thinking the causes of excess flatulence have better predictability than climate attribution….digestive science and all….
But do you admit when you’re sh1tting?
Climate Attribution and Alarmism is 1.2x – 9x More Severe Because of Funding, Grants, Sponsorship and Support from Climate Change Central Orgaisation.
They could have said 20 to 30 times. It means the same thing – fiction.
Attribution is another religious sect like the climate change fearmongers.
It’s a new word theft from the libtardians. “Existential” appears to have run its course, although Biden used it a few days ago. He’s a bit slow. Give it about 3 weeks and we’ll have some Afghan attribution.
I’d like to know what severity means in scientific terms. I’d also like to know if proper management of the flood mitigation dam network would alter the “severity” of the floods.
There’s more I’d like for them to explain but that would make for a good start.
They say it because they believe large governmental grants will follow!
So it could be 9x less extreme. Hmmmm…
Finally, it is about time the journalist class starting looking behind the noise. All climate warming claims are based on a primary falsehood and that is the start date. It is no coincidence the start dates of 1750, 1830, 1910 (BOM/CSIRO) Australia start date and 1975 (Roy Spencer who I admire and who maintains global warming at 0.14C/decade from his tropospheric calculations commencing 1978) all start their stories at time of cyclical global temperature lows. This propagates the myth of global warming as a man made event caused by increasing CO2 levels.. It is just blatant stupidity to want to return to the dark ages of the pre-industrial revolution when it was cold wet and icy, disease ridden, famines aplenty all combining to give high mortality rates. Any study of palaeoclimatology will show the cyclical nature of the Earth’s climate using a variety of protocols. To insist on carbon reduction goes against the real science of palaoeclimatology.
I have actually read some of the attribution studies, as usual the studies are based on previous study models which have the wide uncertainty range.
The approach is to rush out an early analysis soon after event, this is usually based on very little real information and often is just model data. The headline climate emergency is proved.
Then when better data arrives the study is revised and the uncertainty band will now include no observable trend.