Roger, whenever, in the past, I pointed out events which did not fit a global warming narrative, say unusually late frosts or cold summers, to climate change true believers, they invariably shot back "That is weather! Weather is not climate, you fool!!" Now the extreme weather attribution folks are using individual weather events to hype their climate change narrative. Without double standards, such folks would have no standards at all.
Excited about this series, I've never really understood how well to believe news articles with the attribution of extreme weather with climate change. I just don't know!
My first question: how accurately can climate scientists claim that climate change has made an exent XX times for likely? How well do these models do?
I am a little confused. You indicate that the IPCC does conclude reported increases in heat waves and in heavy precipitation. Seems like some climate change. And you agree that we are causing climate change with the burning of fossil fuels. But what is the metric you use to say that we are causing damage beyond extreme weather? (Since that is all I hear about in the MSM.)
I started this as a simple comment, but think it is worth posting on my own Substack
***
Pielke has a new post “Weather Attribution Alchemy” that is misleadingly negative about the practice of (partially) attributing extreme weather events to the accumulation of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. These take the somewhat unfortunate form of “[Event X”] was [Z%] more probable because of climate change”
Pielke in his post makes a series of negative observations:
“First, event attribution research is a form tactical science — research performed explicitly to serve legal and political ends.”
Could not the same be said of the whole IPCC process? We very properly want to know the effects of the accumulation of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere so as to use “legal and political” means to modify the trajectory of accumulation and reduce future harms.
“Otto and others have been very forthright that the main function of such [attribution] studies is to create a defensible scientific basis in support of lawsuits against fossil fuel companies”
This is a misuse of attribution. If legal blame should be assigned for the harms caused by CO2 accumulation, it should be to those who emitted the CO2 or more concretely, to the policy makers who did not create incentives to force emitters to internalize the harm they were causing. The underlying climate model themselves on which attribution is based are sufficient for assigning blame to policy makers. Attribution is unnecessary.
But how attribution has been misused or the intentions of its developers does not necessarily invalidate the concept.
“Second, extreme event attribution was developed as a response to the failure of the IPCC’s conventional approach to detection and attribution (D&A) to reach high confidence in the detection of increasing trends in the frequency or intensity of most types of impactful extreme events — notably hurricanes, floods, drought, and tornadoes.”
This response seems understandable as to the uninitiated (or the ill-intentioned!), this “failure” is easy to confuse with or (to portray) as uncertainty about the harm of CO2 accumulation. Attribution is but an example of _one kind_ of harm that past accumulation has caused and that continued emissions will cause in the future. It is a legitimate way to make visible the harm that climate-economic modeling quantifies.
“The underlying theory of change [among supporters of attribution] appears to be that people must be fearful of climate change and thus need come to understand that it threatens their lives, not in the future, but today and tomorrow. If they don’t have that fear, the argument goes, then they will discount the threat and fail to support the right climate policies.”
Well, there may be many different reasons to support attribution. Supporters should be aware, however that attribution could be counterproductive. If in fact it _does_ create “fear,” then the likelihood of public support for wrong climate policies could increase.
Pielke’s own position,
“I want to once again emphasize the reality and risks of changes in climate due to human activities”
is unobjectionable if perhaps underpowered, as is the recognition,
“some dismiss entirely the possibility of human-caused changes in climate while others quickly claim that every weather event is more extreme or more common due to climate change”
It would be helpful if Pielke would indicate what the proper attitude and consequent policy actions flow from his position.
Finally, it would also have been helpful if Pielke had made a distinction between correct (more probable) and incorrect (less probable) attributions, if for no other reason that incorrect attributions can undermine confidence in correct ones and so create yet another avenue for arriving at bad climate policy decisions.
I appreciate this discussion and that someone is giving it some visibility for what it actually is. Too bad that we are all spending so much time on the causes of extreme climate events and not enough time on how to mitigate the deaths and destruction from those events. Rather than getting smarter and changing our conservation and construction standards, so many are trying to change the entire Earth climate system. Which would be easier and which would save more lives in the next 100 years? It should be acknowledged by almost everyone that we benefit from most of our climate (relative to the rest of the Universe), and suffer from other aspects of it -- regardless of "change" and what causes it. The more immediate and effective solution for saving lives involves us adapting instead of us changing the entire atmosphere. Real near-term solutions if the real agenda is human life.
I look forward to this, Roger. The attribution scenario has become settled science to so many in the scientific community, heresy to question it, I find, including with several of your former colleagues at CU.
In my home city of Melbourne, Australia, population about 6 million, we have a protest about something every weekend now, usually under 1,000 protesters. News media get into a fuss when counting or reporting the number of people protesting when the number grows a little larger. Sixty thousand is exciting. But 60,000 is a tiny 1% of the population. Those who stayed home are 99%. Should we get excited about 1%? Or be part of the 99%?
I suggest that attribution analysis in climate research should be viewed through a similar lens. I suspect that a neutral poll of scientists would find that a low %, maybe even 1% of those polled, would describe the statistics of attribution analysis as questionable to invalid. There are papers objecting to attribution analysis, just one being
It is generally true of climate research that a small % of all scientists fall into the zealous activist camp who cry catastrophe. Yet, by clever manipulation of the media, with a lot of money and underpinned by the threat of damage to sacred Mother Earth, this tiny % of people have gained influence beyond their importance.
It does no harm to stress this minority opinion. It is opinion, not statistically valid science, that is preying upon an unsuspecting larger society. It is harming society and should be resisted in plain, direct words at every opportunity.
I value and support the thrust of your research, Dr Pielke.
Great post, sir. Thank you. I look forward to the series.
Early in this post you quote Michael Wehner as saying "Dangerous climate change is here now!” My question is, at what point do claims like this become akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. While such claims do not directly threaten lives, they certainly force expenditure of tremendous amounts of money, money (and research) that might be better spent in defending against weather extremes.
If California can sue Exxon for causing climate change, why can't a citizen sue those who employ tactical science to advance a half-truth, or even an outright lie (the hockey stick comes to my mind). I am not a denier (I detest that term), but remain skeptical of man's ability to do much to control it. We need to invest in "adaptive strategies that can serve us well when change inevitably arrives on our doorstep."
It is maddening understanding all of this yet our government spends billions of dollars and suppress speech about the stupidity of their polices and their condescending attitudes towards the truth. Have you ever seated Kerry? Would you if you could. I’d love to see his answer for saying no. Remember his new fantasy, free speech is an impediment to knowledge g climate change. Yes, he is one of the main alchemist of man made climate change.
Thank you for this, Roger! I look forward to your analysis. Perhaps at the end you could explain the foundations of the IPCC's conclusion that humanity has affected temperature, from a climate perspective. Since my understanding is that any climate conclusion requires at least 30 years for good weather/temperature data, I am particularly interested in the period and locations of temperature data chosen for this conclusion. The same question applies to any other weather phenomenon that the IPCC has applied its D & A methodology to and found a link. Thanks again!
As a retired litigation lawyer I can see the benefit to plaintiffs’ litigators of calling something attribution science. But if I understand your column correctly “attribution” is intended to be a synonym for causality while avoiding words like “x causes y”. And the purpose of that semantic device is to induce the reader or viewer or judge into believing that climate change causes increased whatever bad effect, with plausible deniability in cross examination that the scientist witness was claiming causality.
Interesting stuff Roger. After reading your description of the crisis argument I can conclude that no matter what the evidence the Crisis mongers will use every unusual weather event, or even common weather events to push their agenda to shut down the world economy. Now that is a crisis I can believe in.
I need this and more of this so I don't get in trouble losing my temper and thumping the next person claiming the next weather event is proof of climate crisis. There is no statistical proof over 100 years of measuring that we are experiencing more hurricanes or stronger hurricanes. There is no proof that storms are more deadly. There is evidence that population growth along coastal areas and waterways has significantly increased the number of structures at risk. But that is human stupidity crisis.
Roger, whenever, in the past, I pointed out events which did not fit a global warming narrative, say unusually late frosts or cold summers, to climate change true believers, they invariably shot back "That is weather! Weather is not climate, you fool!!" Now the extreme weather attribution folks are using individual weather events to hype their climate change narrative. Without double standards, such folks would have no standards at all.
Excited about this series, I've never really understood how well to believe news articles with the attribution of extreme weather with climate change. I just don't know!
My first question: how accurately can climate scientists claim that climate change has made an exent XX times for likely? How well do these models do?
I am a little confused. You indicate that the IPCC does conclude reported increases in heat waves and in heavy precipitation. Seems like some climate change. And you agree that we are causing climate change with the burning of fossil fuels. But what is the metric you use to say that we are causing damage beyond extreme weather? (Since that is all I hear about in the MSM.)
I started this as a simple comment, but think it is worth posting on my own Substack
***
Pielke has a new post “Weather Attribution Alchemy” that is misleadingly negative about the practice of (partially) attributing extreme weather events to the accumulation of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. These take the somewhat unfortunate form of “[Event X”] was [Z%] more probable because of climate change”
See [https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/did-climate-change-cause-hurricane ] for a discussion of why the form of the statement is not quite correct without negating the value of attribution.
Pielke in his post makes a series of negative observations:
“First, event attribution research is a form tactical science — research performed explicitly to serve legal and political ends.”
Could not the same be said of the whole IPCC process? We very properly want to know the effects of the accumulation of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere so as to use “legal and political” means to modify the trajectory of accumulation and reduce future harms.
“Otto and others have been very forthright that the main function of such [attribution] studies is to create a defensible scientific basis in support of lawsuits against fossil fuel companies”
This is a misuse of attribution. If legal blame should be assigned for the harms caused by CO2 accumulation, it should be to those who emitted the CO2 or more concretely, to the policy makers who did not create incentives to force emitters to internalize the harm they were causing. The underlying climate model themselves on which attribution is based are sufficient for assigning blame to policy makers. Attribution is unnecessary.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/legal-remedies-for-climate-change
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/legal-remedies-for-climate-change-e7d
But how attribution has been misused or the intentions of its developers does not necessarily invalidate the concept.
“Second, extreme event attribution was developed as a response to the failure of the IPCC’s conventional approach to detection and attribution (D&A) to reach high confidence in the detection of increasing trends in the frequency or intensity of most types of impactful extreme events — notably hurricanes, floods, drought, and tornadoes.”
This response seems understandable as to the uninitiated (or the ill-intentioned!), this “failure” is easy to confuse with or (to portray) as uncertainty about the harm of CO2 accumulation. Attribution is but an example of _one kind_ of harm that past accumulation has caused and that continued emissions will cause in the future. It is a legitimate way to make visible the harm that climate-economic modeling quantifies.
“The underlying theory of change [among supporters of attribution] appears to be that people must be fearful of climate change and thus need come to understand that it threatens their lives, not in the future, but today and tomorrow. If they don’t have that fear, the argument goes, then they will discount the threat and fail to support the right climate policies.”
Well, there may be many different reasons to support attribution. Supporters should be aware, however that attribution could be counterproductive. If in fact it _does_ create “fear,” then the likelihood of public support for wrong climate policies could increase.
Pielke’s own position,
“I want to once again emphasize the reality and risks of changes in climate due to human activities”
is unobjectionable if perhaps underpowered, as is the recognition,
“some dismiss entirely the possibility of human-caused changes in climate while others quickly claim that every weather event is more extreme or more common due to climate change”
It would be helpful if Pielke would indicate what the proper attitude and consequent policy actions flow from his position.
Finally, it would also have been helpful if Pielke had made a distinction between correct (more probable) and incorrect (less probable) attributions, if for no other reason that incorrect attributions can undermine confidence in correct ones and so create yet another avenue for arriving at bad climate policy decisions.
I appreciate this discussion and that someone is giving it some visibility for what it actually is. Too bad that we are all spending so much time on the causes of extreme climate events and not enough time on how to mitigate the deaths and destruction from those events. Rather than getting smarter and changing our conservation and construction standards, so many are trying to change the entire Earth climate system. Which would be easier and which would save more lives in the next 100 years? It should be acknowledged by almost everyone that we benefit from most of our climate (relative to the rest of the Universe), and suffer from other aspects of it -- regardless of "change" and what causes it. The more immediate and effective solution for saving lives involves us adapting instead of us changing the entire atmosphere. Real near-term solutions if the real agenda is human life.
"... research is a form tactical science..." Should be "...research is a form OF tactical science..."
I look forward to this, Roger. The attribution scenario has become settled science to so many in the scientific community, heresy to question it, I find, including with several of your former colleagues at CU.
Correction.
Below, change " ... as questionable to invalid." to
" ... as unquestionable to valid."
Apologies, I was lost in my negatives. Geoff S
In my home city of Melbourne, Australia, population about 6 million, we have a protest about something every weekend now, usually under 1,000 protesters. News media get into a fuss when counting or reporting the number of people protesting when the number grows a little larger. Sixty thousand is exciting. But 60,000 is a tiny 1% of the population. Those who stayed home are 99%. Should we get excited about 1%? Or be part of the 99%?
I suggest that attribution analysis in climate research should be viewed through a similar lens. I suspect that a neutral poll of scientists would find that a low %, maybe even 1% of those polled, would describe the statistics of attribution analysis as questionable to invalid. There are papers objecting to attribution analysis, just one being
https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2023-11/
It is generally true of climate research that a small % of all scientists fall into the zealous activist camp who cry catastrophe. Yet, by clever manipulation of the media, with a lot of money and underpinned by the threat of damage to sacred Mother Earth, this tiny % of people have gained influence beyond their importance.
It does no harm to stress this minority opinion. It is opinion, not statistically valid science, that is preying upon an unsuspecting larger society. It is harming society and should be resisted in plain, direct words at every opportunity.
I value and support the thrust of your research, Dr Pielke.
Great post, sir. Thank you. I look forward to the series.
Early in this post you quote Michael Wehner as saying "Dangerous climate change is here now!” My question is, at what point do claims like this become akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. While such claims do not directly threaten lives, they certainly force expenditure of tremendous amounts of money, money (and research) that might be better spent in defending against weather extremes.
If California can sue Exxon for causing climate change, why can't a citizen sue those who employ tactical science to advance a half-truth, or even an outright lie (the hockey stick comes to my mind). I am not a denier (I detest that term), but remain skeptical of man's ability to do much to control it. We need to invest in "adaptive strategies that can serve us well when change inevitably arrives on our doorstep."
It is maddening understanding all of this yet our government spends billions of dollars and suppress speech about the stupidity of their polices and their condescending attitudes towards the truth. Have you ever seated Kerry? Would you if you could. I’d love to see his answer for saying no. Remember his new fantasy, free speech is an impediment to knowledge g climate change. Yes, he is one of the main alchemist of man made climate change.
Thank you for this, Roger! I look forward to your analysis. Perhaps at the end you could explain the foundations of the IPCC's conclusion that humanity has affected temperature, from a climate perspective. Since my understanding is that any climate conclusion requires at least 30 years for good weather/temperature data, I am particularly interested in the period and locations of temperature data chosen for this conclusion. The same question applies to any other weather phenomenon that the IPCC has applied its D & A methodology to and found a link. Thanks again!
As a retired litigation lawyer I can see the benefit to plaintiffs’ litigators of calling something attribution science. But if I understand your column correctly “attribution” is intended to be a synonym for causality while avoiding words like “x causes y”. And the purpose of that semantic device is to induce the reader or viewer or judge into believing that climate change causes increased whatever bad effect, with plausible deniability in cross examination that the scientist witness was claiming causality.
Perfectly fair
Interesting stuff Roger. After reading your description of the crisis argument I can conclude that no matter what the evidence the Crisis mongers will use every unusual weather event, or even common weather events to push their agenda to shut down the world economy. Now that is a crisis I can believe in.
Thanks, Roger! Looking forward to the trip!
I need this and more of this so I don't get in trouble losing my temper and thumping the next person claiming the next weather event is proof of climate crisis. There is no statistical proof over 100 years of measuring that we are experiencing more hurricanes or stronger hurricanes. There is no proof that storms are more deadly. There is evidence that population growth along coastal areas and waterways has significantly increased the number of structures at risk. But that is human stupidity crisis.
Thanks Frank and thanks for subscribing!