Richard’s X Box or Real World Data?
By Paul Homewood
Ben Pile’s video on climate attribution, which I posted earlier, starts with this example from Richard Betts:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/02/17/richard-betts-pseudo-science/
Of course, these type of simulations have no more connection with reality than me winning the FA Cup on X-Box!
But why do we even need this new industry of climate attribution? If we wanted to find out if droughts in China, for instance, were getting worse, all we would have to do is check the data.
The IPCC did precisely that in SR15 three years ago, as well as in AR5 four years earlier. This is what they had to say about drought:
In short they could find no evidence of any global trend to worse droughts, and whilst some regions such as the Med and S Africa appeared to be getting drier, other parts were wetter. These changes may have been caused by global warming, but it is much more likely they are just part of multi-decadal natural events, such as oceanic cycles.
Notably there is no mention of China.
Looking forward, CMIP5 models suggest that China will likely get wetter, not drier, if temperatures continue to increase:
And as HH Lamb knew, the worst drought in Chinese history occurred during the most severe phase of the Little Ice Age:
HH Lamb: Climate, History and the Modern World pp256
I began by asking why we need this new climate attribution science?
The answer is of course obvious. There is a need to “blame” things on climate change. It is nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The time and geographical constraints of these climate events are such that they should be understood as internal climate variability. Pls see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/
They should also check the Fang Zhi to see whether these kinds o things are unique to the industrial economy.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/22/climate-science-versus-the-fangzhi-2005/
I would add the words ‘and money’ to your final sentence, Paul, to read ‘. . . everything to do with politics and money’!
Most of the evidence suggests that extreme (bad) weather events occurred during the Little Ice Age (but I don’t know where that evidence is, perhaps Richard Betts has the evidence hidden away somewhere out of sight).
Climate propagandists like Richard Betts dissemble by omission all the time. For example, he will always avoid admitting that the country suffered far worse extreme weather events during the LIA than we do now in these days of “global heating” (© Richard Betts), for the very good scientific reason that stronger thermal gradients were then more prevalent across our colder latitudes.
I would use the word lie, not dissemble. You are too kind.
A lot can be done with the models but these guys only present outputs (not data!) that suits their case. Every model should be history matched using now known real inputs, and attribution studies done against every run, for say 150 years at various inputs i.e. CO2 levels and compared with reality. i.e. history match attribution studies and see what you get compared with reality. This would cost a lot of money and time but given the potential misallocation of real resources it would be worth it. I still cannot accept that it is OK to average model runs – plain meaningless. Just use the model run that has the best history match with reality using the best assumptions possible, updated with known inputs, not unrealistic scary guesses.
The climate change industry is really slimy now.
Lets face the facts, Feynman style.
1: Is CO2 increasing in the atmosphere? Yes
2: Is it man made (anthropogenic)? Some of it is.
3: Is it causing global warming? Maybe, not proven
4 Is global warming dangerous? Not really
5 Is it necessary to stop using fossil fuels in the next 30 years? No, wait and see.
NOT ENOUGH FACTS TO JUSTIFY THEORY
Is global increasing CO 2 and warming good for humans? Yes.
Why?
Because the climate activists can’t win an informed debate or a straight democratic contest to impose their agenda. So they ratchet their policies forwards outside of the ballot box.
Manufacturing modeled ‘evidence’ for litigation and climate groups and governments and policy advisers etc., because there is no convincing real world evidence, is part of the game plan.
The idea for attribution dates back to the leaked Podesta/Steyer/Lehane emails showing the Obama team discussing setting up an “extreme weather SWAT team” to exploit any natural disasters or unusual weather by flooding the MSM with alarmist climate change attribution propaganda. Shortly afterwards (2014/15) climate attribution organisations started popping up and the new ‘science’ (as they like to categorize it) was born.
Actually the Alarmists prosecution through the courts might be their undoing. They will have to prove that what they are saying is correct and there will be some very sharp lawyers out there trying to prove them wrong.
There will be no place to hid in a court. They won’t be able to browbeat or cancel these lawyers nor the judges. There could be some very interesting cases coming up.
Putting the counter-facts/viewpoint will be as unpopular a job and as fraught with personal safety and career risk as representing Trump.
There have already been courses/conferences run by the UN, activists, etc. to co-opt the judiciary, just as nearly every other institution has been infiltrated and co-opted. Judgements are becoming more and more political/politically correct by the day.
As Chaz the fool says:
“….whereby judges from around the globe meet to discuss ways that courts can support the achievement of climate change goals.”
Click to access hrh-prince-of-wales—letter-to-climate-change-conference.pdf
“Shortly afterwards (2014/15) climate attribution organisations”, surely you mean criminals?
Not strictly topical to this post but I’ve just viewed a section on the BBC news app reporting the freezing weather in Texas.. The blame for the widespread power cuts is being laid at high demand. There was no mention in the piece of wind turbine failure. A quick web search was top loaded with denials that turbines were to blame, instead pointing the finger at gas failure. What’s going on Paul?
Propaganda, that’s what’s going on.
Lying seems a more accurate description.
Thank you , Paul, for your tireless work in broadcasting the Truth rather than the misinformation and straight lies that the MSM dish our on a daily basis. When will the numskulls of the world actually wake up ? ( and that includes the brainless “scientists” who support the nonsense.)
Regards, Mike Turner
Sent from my iPad
>
43% higher than what? Than a model that assumes all the changes observed in the climate are due to man-made CO2. So the chances of these “extreme” events happening are substantially decreased in that model because there’s very limited natural variation that can account for them.
Thus the attribution simply uses its own assumptions. There is no independent figure to compare it with and the 43% is totally circular. If we build a comparison model with no CO2 but with natural variability sufficient to produce these extreme events, the attribution probability will fall to 0%.
Or we could build a model for comparison somewhere between the two. And the attribution will be somewhere between 0% and 43%. Thus the output is entirely dependent on the assumptions and the assumptions used are that man-made CO2 is responsible for all variation.
This is junk science, claiming to prove climate change is caused by man-made CO2 by using a model that assumes man-made CO2 causes climate change.
Betts is looking after his job, now that the Met Office is responsible to BEIS and leading up to Glasgow Cops and Robbers.