Nice review of a very important but confusing (for the laymen - myself included!) topic. The climate hype machine loves the attribution angle because it looks so "sciencey".
My understanding of the climate models is that they are parameterized ("tuned") to the weather of the 20th century, where CO2 starts to really accelerate. Thus CO2 would the primary driver of warming. So, when running an attribution calculation (counterfactual) by pulling out CO2 from the model equations wouldn't one expect some difference? Seems almost like a tautology.
2 + 3 + 4 = 9 but lets change '3' to a '2' [20th Cent. CO2 remained stable] and we get '8'. 9 - 8 = 1 Bingo! Attribution! Lol
Roger, following up on Jim’s comment below, I think there would be value to initiating some kind of attribution review website. Perhaps hire someone to do the preliminary work and you review it. Or get a team of knowledgeable volunteers and review their work. This group could score each attribution study based on your criteria (and others) with full transparency and opportunity for others to comment. I don’t know how much it would cost, but it seems like a trust worthy source of info would be worth something compared to the zillions of bucks in the climate space.
Why don’t people believe climate scientists? Because no one spends money on developing trustworthy institutions, and bully people who are skeptical of The Dominant Climate Narrative. That’s ultimately not a winning strategy, and divides people when joint fact finding is a way of bringing people together. There is a field of environmental conflict resolution. It’s kind of funny that climate is thought to be an environmental issue, but environmental conflict resolution mechanisms are not invoked. What’s up with that? Example https://scienceimpact.mit.edu/joint-fact-finding
Roger, appreciate your ongoing effort to bring balance to all these discussions including critical examination of key assumptions and methodologies in the multi disciplinary field that is Climate research. As a curious consultant in the energy space I have been trying hard to understand all the complex issues. We are asking taxpayers, companies and governments to spend literally trillions on the basis of IPCC consensus policy recommendations. This matters on so many economic fronts---especially if large parts of the non Western world is not aligned. Your writing is some of the best and easily digestible. I am however alarmed by the following tags on You Tube Videos of various scientist describing theories. See copied language of one such video:
"Climate change
United Nations
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.
140. Climate Alarmism w/ Professor Richard Lindzen".
This worries me because it is so definitive and any lay person, such as myself, would think these videos are all incorrect. Our college students making a cursory effort to research some of the claims the media outlets you mention would encounter this tag on all such videos that challenge the current consensus narrative. This is yet another example of suppressing debate on the greatest challenge humanity may be facing---how to adapt and thrive n a changing climate. Have you encountered this on a regular basis?
Did any of the media outlets that hyped the claims about hurricane Florence publish corrections when the peer reviewed report was published? If not, that would be lying by omission aka propaganda.
Roger, please justify this statement "Human caused climate change is real and has undoubtedly influenced all global weather events. " in light of the now accepted fact that in the 170+ years of hurricane records, there is no detectable change in atlantic hurricanes, in either number or intensity. And with regard to attribution, please see this article: https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/
I might add rule 4: Don't trust any announcement or prediction by known highly biased "experts" who repeatedly tilt and bias the data toward alarmism and extremism.
One more thing. Those of us who shoot down claims that the effects of climate change are already here, feel a necessity to reassure others that we are not saying climate change is fake; only that the early impacts have been greatly exaggerated. For example, you made the usual statement:
"Before proceeding it is necessary to state the obvious: Human caused climate change is real and has undoubtedly influenced all global weather events. The world has evolved differently than it would have otherwise due to the significant human influence, which notably includes the emission of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, but through other influences as well, such as changes to the land surface."
But what does that mean? Certainly we can see a retreat in global glaciers. That is clear evidence. We also see a small change in the global network monitoring earth temperatures (although the network leaves much to be desired). There have been some changes in the oceans. But in general, for the overwhelming majority of people in the world, pragmatically, life goes on and climate change has not affected our lives at all. If the world "has evolved differently" why are the promulgators of alarmism at the hotbed at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (which gets so much funding to study climate change) so hell bent on lying to us to convince us that we are already suffering from climate change?
So, I suggest a change in wording as follows:
"Before proceeding it is necessary to state the obvious: Human caused climate change is real and although the effects of climate change are relatively minor in the present, continued high emissions of carbon dioxide and other influences as well, such as changes to the land surface are likely to produce significant impacts in future decades."
Interesting article; however, as a non-scientist member of the public merely HEARING the reporting of the media, I don't really know how to implement the three rules. So, I know that SOMEBODY should check to see if the study leading to the report should have verified your three rules, but I don't believe there are any methods by which I can do so. Am I missing something?
Okay here I go again, WHY, are the people, the press the scientists, and governments around the world so underwhelmed by contradictory science? What’s in it for them.I have heard grants for climate scientists that play ball. Maybe papers sell more papers, or media revenue. What do the politicians get? Sufficient donations to carry on their trickery? Or is it more devious then that? I can think of no one better then you Roger to pull the cloak off. If it’s in the book I am still struggling through it the small print puts me to sleep.
Roger
Nice review of a very important but confusing (for the laymen - myself included!) topic. The climate hype machine loves the attribution angle because it looks so "sciencey".
My understanding of the climate models is that they are parameterized ("tuned") to the weather of the 20th century, where CO2 starts to really accelerate. Thus CO2 would the primary driver of warming. So, when running an attribution calculation (counterfactual) by pulling out CO2 from the model equations wouldn't one expect some difference? Seems almost like a tautology.
2 + 3 + 4 = 9 but lets change '3' to a '2' [20th Cent. CO2 remained stable] and we get '8'. 9 - 8 = 1 Bingo! Attribution! Lol
Roger, following up on Jim’s comment below, I think there would be value to initiating some kind of attribution review website. Perhaps hire someone to do the preliminary work and you review it. Or get a team of knowledgeable volunteers and review their work. This group could score each attribution study based on your criteria (and others) with full transparency and opportunity for others to comment. I don’t know how much it would cost, but it seems like a trust worthy source of info would be worth something compared to the zillions of bucks in the climate space.
Why don’t people believe climate scientists? Because no one spends money on developing trustworthy institutions, and bully people who are skeptical of The Dominant Climate Narrative. That’s ultimately not a winning strategy, and divides people when joint fact finding is a way of bringing people together. There is a field of environmental conflict resolution. It’s kind of funny that climate is thought to be an environmental issue, but environmental conflict resolution mechanisms are not invoked. What’s up with that? Example https://scienceimpact.mit.edu/joint-fact-finding
Roger, appreciate your ongoing effort to bring balance to all these discussions including critical examination of key assumptions and methodologies in the multi disciplinary field that is Climate research. As a curious consultant in the energy space I have been trying hard to understand all the complex issues. We are asking taxpayers, companies and governments to spend literally trillions on the basis of IPCC consensus policy recommendations. This matters on so many economic fronts---especially if large parts of the non Western world is not aligned. Your writing is some of the best and easily digestible. I am however alarmed by the following tags on You Tube Videos of various scientist describing theories. See copied language of one such video:
"Climate change
United Nations
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.
140. Climate Alarmism w/ Professor Richard Lindzen".
This worries me because it is so definitive and any lay person, such as myself, would think these videos are all incorrect. Our college students making a cursory effort to research some of the claims the media outlets you mention would encounter this tag on all such videos that challenge the current consensus narrative. This is yet another example of suppressing debate on the greatest challenge humanity may be facing---how to adapt and thrive n a changing climate. Have you encountered this on a regular basis?
Did any of the media outlets that hyped the claims about hurricane Florence publish corrections when the peer reviewed report was published? If not, that would be lying by omission aka propaganda.
Roger, please justify this statement "Human caused climate change is real and has undoubtedly influenced all global weather events. " in light of the now accepted fact that in the 170+ years of hurricane records, there is no detectable change in atlantic hurricanes, in either number or intensity. And with regard to attribution, please see this article: https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/
I agree with Rob below. Excellent information.
Roger: Well done (as usual)
I might add rule 4: Don't trust any announcement or prediction by known highly biased "experts" who repeatedly tilt and bias the data toward alarmism and extremism.
One more thing. Those of us who shoot down claims that the effects of climate change are already here, feel a necessity to reassure others that we are not saying climate change is fake; only that the early impacts have been greatly exaggerated. For example, you made the usual statement:
"Before proceeding it is necessary to state the obvious: Human caused climate change is real and has undoubtedly influenced all global weather events. The world has evolved differently than it would have otherwise due to the significant human influence, which notably includes the emission of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, but through other influences as well, such as changes to the land surface."
But what does that mean? Certainly we can see a retreat in global glaciers. That is clear evidence. We also see a small change in the global network monitoring earth temperatures (although the network leaves much to be desired). There have been some changes in the oceans. But in general, for the overwhelming majority of people in the world, pragmatically, life goes on and climate change has not affected our lives at all. If the world "has evolved differently" why are the promulgators of alarmism at the hotbed at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (which gets so much funding to study climate change) so hell bent on lying to us to convince us that we are already suffering from climate change?
So, I suggest a change in wording as follows:
"Before proceeding it is necessary to state the obvious: Human caused climate change is real and although the effects of climate change are relatively minor in the present, continued high emissions of carbon dioxide and other influences as well, such as changes to the land surface are likely to produce significant impacts in future decades."
Interesting article; however, as a non-scientist member of the public merely HEARING the reporting of the media, I don't really know how to implement the three rules. So, I know that SOMEBODY should check to see if the study leading to the report should have verified your three rules, but I don't believe there are any methods by which I can do so. Am I missing something?
Okay here I go again, WHY, are the people, the press the scientists, and governments around the world so underwhelmed by contradictory science? What’s in it for them.I have heard grants for climate scientists that play ball. Maybe papers sell more papers, or media revenue. What do the politicians get? Sufficient donations to carry on their trickery? Or is it more devious then that? I can think of no one better then you Roger to pull the cloak off. If it’s in the book I am still struggling through it the small print puts me to sleep.
Jim
I knew there was a reason i subscribed. This article alone is worth a years subscription.