National Public Radio (NPR) ran a story claiming that scientists using computer models can now determine how much more severe a weather event was, or whether a particular event was likely caused by, climate change. Weather data demonstrates this claim is false. There are significant issues with the kinds of computer models that attribution scientists use to make these kinds of connections. They have yet to predict any weather event, and real-world weather data show no worsening trends amid current warming.
NPR is famously bad about spreading misinformation about climate science. Climate Realism has covered a multitude of stories debunking the fake climate news pushed by NPR, here, here, and here, for example. In fact, in the first story link listed, Climate Realism debunked a post by this very same “Science Desk” writer, Rebecca Hersher, who again misleads on the connection between weather and climate.
In her latest piece, “Researchers can now explain how climate change is affecting your weather,” Hersher says that scientists can decisively attribute different natural events—specifically heat waves, wildfires, and hurricanes—to climate change itself.
“For some types of weather, it’s become possible to say exactly how much worse it was because of climate change. Or that without global warming, the disaster would not have happened at all,” writes Hersher.
Since climate is an average of weather in a region over the span of 30 years, right away attempting to attribute individual storms to climate change is unscientific at best. Attribution research has been widely criticized for it’s inability to be repeated through testing, falsified, or measured in the real world—all necessary characteristics of science—and for the fact that predictions made by the models are based on emission scenarios that don’t match real world emission data, and are, in some instances, impossible. The climate change and temperature scenarios that weather attribution models are based on run way too hot, according to scientists, and therefore do not accurately represent current warming.
You cannot determine what the difference is between a fictional climate system and a real one—or worse, two fictional climate systems, as is the case with modern attribution science. Attribution researchers compare a a model of the what they think the Earth’s climate would be like, absent any humans in existence, to modeled scenario they create including humans but based on faulty emission and temperature assumptions. The differences between these two are what attribution modelers claim as “proof” that climate change is making weather worse.
Real world data refutes the model predictions.
Specifically, in the case of heat waves, the worst of them occurred during the dust bowl era of the 1930s, shown in the chart below.
The chart shown in the NPR article that allegedly shows an increase in the frequency of heat waves is misleading, as explained in a post on climate website WattsUpWithThat, here. When maximum temperatures are compared across the United States, it demonstrates that most of the warming is in urban areas. The Urban Heat Island Effect causes higher nighttime lows in cities due to concrete and other surfaces taking in heat during the day and releasing it at night. Anthony Watts explains this effect in a Climate Realism post, here.
Nor are wildfires getting worse globally. Just the opposite is true. Satellite data (shown in the figure below) comparing wildfires and atmospheric CO2 concentrations show increasing trend in wildfire occurrence or severity. Indeed, a study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, analyzing global wildfires back to the year 1901 reported, “a notable declining rate of burned area globally.” In addition, NASA satellites have documented a global long-term decline in wildfires. NASA reports satellites have measured a 25-percent decrease in global lands burned since 2003.
Another specific claim made in the article is that hurricanes are getting more powerful, intense, or have more rain, due to climate change. Hersher parrots the now-debunked Hurricane Harvey attribution: “Researchers found that climate change caused up to 15% more rain to fall during Hurricane Harvey in 2017. Another study looked at the entire 2020 hurricane season and found that climate change increased extreme rain by 10% for the season as a whole.”
In reality, those attribution studies suffer from the same issues discussed above (and in Climate Realism posts like this one), and data show that there is no increasing trend in hurricane severity or frequency. The figure below shows data on Accumulated Cyclone Energy, a measure of hurricane power, in different tropical basins and the globe.
NPR’s Science Desk writers should take the time to actually look into data, and have just a touch of curious skepticism when confronted with claims made with attribution modelling. The fact is such studies use computer models that have repeatedly proven to be unreliable; unable to successfully predict even temperature trends just a few years out. Accordingly, how could they accurately represent hugely complex weather conditions like hurricanes? Attribution modeling organizations are interested in continuing their work and getting paid to do it, and like anyone selling a product they will downplay the weaknesses and uncertainties concerning their product, in this case climate attribution claims, and make glowing promises about how the product will improve lives. In reality all that’s being sold is fear. It is completely unjustified and does not represent the real state of Earth’s climate.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/linnea-lueken
Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”
Good report — bad climate models. Not only do the models run too hot, none can replicate past climate changes — like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. They all fail the smell test.
Allan Savory has an interesting solution to the problem. At least his approach can be tested within a few years. He says Big Agriculture is the big problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?=v58Fu1_3EBVU
What “models”?
A model has to have reproducible mathematical precision and only use actual inputs from collected and measured data.
60% of what is inserted into those shitty attempts at linear progressions is fabricated and near to 100% of the actual real-world data is altered with bias and set inflation.
With the way they smooth data for local temperatures they’re literally shoving the actual thermometer readings completely out of the data set.
Every time I try to figure out what they think they’re doing I come to the conclusion that they don’t understand that derivatives will produce up to 3 false answers per-nomial in the original integration and that it is a good thing none of them are primarily statisticians because their source universities would revoke their degrees.
As president the first thing that I would do is to defund National Propaganda Radio.
“The biggest problem with computer models is getting them to match-up with reality.”
Narrative
Propaganda
Regurgitated
And that’s at best…
I’m just waiting for National Public Radio (NPR)—with their outstanding knowledge of weather, climate and the accuracy of climate models—to explain why Earth has experienced a pause/hiatus in global warming for the last 7 years and 10 months (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/02/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-7-years-10-months/ ) despite humans continuing to emit their “massive” quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and making cement and glass.
/sarc off
“NPR is famously bad about spreading misinformation about climate science.”
Actually, NPR is very good at spreading lies about the climate.
Bad weather = climate change
Good weather = just weather
Proof of any climate claim “Scientists say … “
It should be called National Progressive Radio. I stopped listening years ago since their so call “news” is anything but factual.
Satellite radiometer measurements give 240 ±100 W m-2 OLR flux [CERES]. However, the spectral distribution of the OLR flux is not that of a single blackbody radiator. Instead, the LWIR emission to space is produced by the cumulative effect of the LWIR emission from many different altitudes in the atmosphere. It is simply a cooling flux that cannot be associated with any single temperature. The intensity of the LWIR flux at TOA cannot be used to define an ‘effective emission temperature’ of 255 K using Stefan’s Law.
The surface temperature is dominated by the operation of the Second Law of thermodynamics. The troposphere functions as an open cycle heat engine that transports part of the absorbed solar heat from the surface to the middle and upper troposphere by moist convection. From here it is radiated back to space, mainly by LWIR emission from water in all its phases. The only direct surface contribution is by the IR windows. There can be no positive water vapor feedback so long as the water continues to condense and emit continuous IR spectra, and so long as water vapor remains buoyant relative to a dry atmosphere.
There is no requirement for any kind of thermal equilibrium as assumed in common concepts. The solar insolation for any location at TOA changes on a daily and a seasonal time scale. The LWIR flux at TOA does not show similar changes in intensity. There are significant time delays between the absorption of the solar flux by the climate system and the subsequent LWIR emission to space. The absorbed solar heat is stored both as heat in various climate thermal reservoirs and as gravitational potential energy in the atmosphere. This makes prediction of future climate states practically impossible by quantifying a LW radiative forcing.
The response of the climate system to the imposition of an initial radiative forcing is frequently described using the linearized energy balance equation: R = F + λTs where R is the is the resulting TOA flux imbalance from the combined forcing and response. F is the is the imposed forcing, and λ is the change in TOA flux per unit change in surface temperature Ts, or ‘feedback parameter’. λ is expressed in units W m-2 K-1. However, the λ is not really a feedback at all to a LW radiative perturbation. It is the most basic and universal climate process. It is the result of the total system thermodynamics, not just the puny impact of human emission of CO2.
Physical reality has been abandoned in favor of mathematical simplicity. The only physical mechanism whereby humanity can affect their climates is by disruption of the small water cycle in our terrestrial landscapes. Whereby massive drainage and drying of the lands necessarily results in anomalies of temperature and hydrological extremes by water cycle disruption. ‘Global’ climates are dominated by time varying flux from the various thermal reservoirs in the total system, including solar and oceanic reservoirs.
O/T but relevant.
A clearly illegal offer is being made for Antifa or for public service employees to stalk and report the locations of several Supreme Court Justices in order to harass them or worse, perhaps to harm them as we have seen one alleged assassin arrested near the home of Justice Thomas with a weapon. This solicitation is for money to be sent to them via a payment processor called “Venmo” or something like that. Shouldn’t those accounts be shut down as funding criminal activity and possibly violating the RICO law since it appears to be a coordinated group “conspiring” to fund crime and for those accepting payment to be conducting criminal activity?
” Satellite data (shown in the figure below) comparing wildfires and atmospheric CO2 concentrations show increasing trend in wildfire occurrence or severity.” Is there a NOT missing?
Today, in my area of the globe, weather will be another mild 80f summer day with 56f overnight low, scattered clouds, 3 mph wind. It is one of many similar mild days so far this season.
Should the weather be somehow different today? What is the correct weather?
Do these models ever predict extremely mild weather because of climate change?
The last time NPR had anything at all worth listening to was Garrison Keillor’s Prairie Home Companion. That ended in 2016.
Defund NPR. And all the rest of them, PBS and the like who are firmly attached to the taxpayer teat, spewing leftist propaganda without even trying to be objective and search for the truth.
By an amazing coincidence, scientists can also decisively attribute certain events to witches, hob goblins, and space aliens. It’s science, so you can’t argue with it, unless you are a witch-hob goblin-space alien denier.
“NPR is famously bad about spreading misinformation about…” everything.
A total waste of taxpayer dollars. Even their classical music broadcasting is ostentatiously woke.
Hello, I know this comment will probably get a lot of downvotes and backlash, will probably get called a troll but I’m honestly hoping very much to find some kind of help and answers that will help ease my extreme eco-anxiety. I’ve made comments like this on a few other posts but I’m still having some issues. I’m so sorry to do this but I’m honestly at the end of my rope here, losing my grip and I don’t know what else to do. I apologize for this comment not being relevant to this particular post but I didn’t know where else to go. I’ve spent on and off the last 7 years going down the rabbit hole of looking up stuff online about global warming/climate change. Mostly trying to find arguments/debunkings against the alarming claims for my own peace of mind. I know it probably would have been smarter for me not to but when you suffer from OCD, eco-anxiety, and depression like I do you’re willing to try anything just to get your brain to shut up with the worries. I’ve always been on the fence with this, mostly because I don’t really understand it. Was never good science or math, I’ve always just wanted to have my mind set and my feet firmly planted on the skeptics side without any question but it makes it difficult when so many argue against it and say that it is happening. Every time there’s an article or some video on YouTube that’s there to debunk the claims from the alarmists there’s so many comments from people below arguing against said article or video using scientific explanations as to why carbon is a pollutant and how things are very bad and are going to continue to get worse, hence why it’s difficult for me to figure out which side I’m on. I definitely don’t want to believe that we’re all doomed and there’s nothing we can do and that’s really why I’m here. Honestly I hate everything about the topic of climate change and wish no one had ever said anything about it one way or another. In many ways it has ruined me being able to enjoy a qulaity of life. I’ve spent so much time trying to do research when I could have been doing something more productive or fun with my time. It’s all so confusing when there’s so many different theories and opinions going from ‘there’s nothing going on and it’s all a scam’ to ‘it is happening, just not that bad’, to ‘it is bad but we can still fix it’, to ‘it’s way too late, we’re totally screwed, and there’s nothing we can do.’ Of course that last one worries me the most. And then there’s what I call the biggest extremist doomers when it comes to that last one. People like Extinction Rebellion, Jem Bendell and his ‘Deep Adaptation’ which is said to be sending people to therapy, and then Sam Carana of the ‘Artic News’ blog site and Guy Mcpherson with their near term human extinction saying that because of tipping points, positive feedback loops, and methane being released that by 2026 it’s going to cause temperatures to increase 10 degrees and wipe out all of humanity. Of course I don’t want to believe this, I want to tell myself it’s absolutely ridiculous and they’re just doing it for the attention but it makes it difficult when there’s so many other people who agree and say that the science is spot on. And then others who say that the IPCC is erring on the side of less drama and putting out conservative reports to not let us know just how bad things really are. All this doom and gloom just really scares me and it doesn’t help that I live in San Antonio, TX and we just had our hottest June on record since 1895. The last record was in 1990 where there were 10 days that hit triple digits, this June we had 17. Not to mention that any day that wasn’t in the triple digits was in the high 90s, the whole month was close to 17 degrees above seasonal average or more. And now every day of July so far has hit triple digits and that’s not stopping anytime soon when looking at our local forecasts. I’ve lived here since 93 and have never seen it being this hot this early for this long. I don’t want to believe it’s cause of global warming and I’m hoping to find an alternate explanation as to what’s causing this to happen. So I’m asking if anyone here can use graphs or some mathematical/scientific explanation that shows this has nothing to do with global warming. I’m so tired of constantly worrying about this. I have a wife and we have a 7 month old daughter and I just want to feel strong and confident that we didn’t bring her into a world that’s going to cause her a short life that ends in doom. I also wanted to ask if it was at all possible for someone to specifically directly address the claims made by Jem Bendell and his ‘Deep Adaptation’, Extinction Rebellion, Sam Carana from Arctic News and Guy Mcpherson possibly specifically directly debunking what they all say. I know it may sound ridiculous but it’s what really causes very bad anxiety. Again also looking to find an explaination why San Antonio, TX just had their hottest June on record and why the highs still continue to be in the triple digits every single day and that doesn’t look to be stopping anytime soon that has nothing to do with global warming. It’s just unusually hot for us and too early because we normally don’t get triple digits until August and I can’t stop worrying about all of this and am desperately looking for help. I know it’s a lot to task and if it’s too much I understand and I apologize. This is literally on my mind 24/7 and I don’t want to become suicidal because I can’t do that to my family. So if anyone here, anyone at all can possibly provide something scientific/mathematic to show that all these worries are bunk I’d really appreciate it. I know I repeated myself a bit there but as I said truly at the end of my rope and I don’t know what else to do.
I wish we stop using the term “Misinformation” and call it for what it is. LIES.
From the article: ““For some types of weather, it’s become possible to say exactly how much worse it was because of climate change. Or that without global warming, the disaster would not have happened at all,” writes Hersher.”
Predictably, the author doesn’t explain how it is possible to attribute CO2 to weather changes.
So, again, we are left with mere assertions from alarmists. No proof of anything, just assertions that there is proof. This is the state of alarmist climate science: One unproven assertion after another.
The author is either a dupe or a liar.
Main photo caption:
Sheeple listening to NPR
Climate Change is a political movement. It has nothing to do with the environment. Climate Change is about power.
Even Tokyo Rose knew she was lying. These imbecile leftwits are too dumb to even realize it.
In graphs I’ve seen (I believe from John Christy), IPCC’s models nearly all run too hot. The one that is closest to mirroring reality is a Russian model.
Why do the models run too hot. I’m not an expert, and I’d love to hear responses from those more familiar with the methodology. I can think of 3 possible reasons:
The network for the ill-informed and easily distracted