Guardian’s Hurricane Florence Claims Were Fake
March 16, 2023
By Paul Homewood
The fake news Guardian published this report in 2018:
It turns out it was all BS, as the authors of the study admitted a year later:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9253
Instead of 50% extra rainfall, when they rechecked their calculations their models only came up with 4.8% extra, while the size only increased by 9km, not 80km.
Roger Pielke Jr has the full story here.
But the whole episode shows that these weather attribution models are run for political impact, and contribute little to the science.
24 Comments
leave one →
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Well it was publicised in the Grauniad, so everybody with more than two brain cells knows it would be totally wrong.
Does the Guardian still give freebee copies of their rag to teachers common rooms, if so it would explain why education is in such a mess?
Does the BBC still bulk buy the majority of the few copies sold?
I covered this sorry tale in Denierland. To quote myself:
I’ve just finished reading Denierland for the second time, and recommend it to one and all (disclosure – Jit and I both blog at Cliscep – although I may be biased, my recommendation is sincere).
So, the authors were an order of magnitude out!! But I doubt they have not suffered as a result, academically speaking. It’s a good job they weren’t responsible for designing nuclear power stations.
BTW. I think I understand what an ‘Attribution Study’ is but I’d welcome anyone giving me a proper definition…
Assume climate models and all physics contained therein are correct and complete with no effects omitted and also show that they fully and reliably model observations to date.
Run model (a) with the effects of AGW and (b) without.
Any difference in the result eg rainfall intensity, storm frequency etc is therefore due to AGW.
All based on the very strong assumption (and circular argument) that the models are correct. Of course if the models are wrong, so is the attribution.
Many thanks TS.
You miss out – get starting conditions for both models completely right. Good luck with that for a non-stationary, non-linear set of data!
They can’t even validate the climate models because no-one knows what the natural warming or cooling would have been. So that means all the attribution studies are absolute BS. And tell that to every silly person who quotes the results of attribution studies. Attribution is utterly deceitful and dishonest, and uses no science – it is just mathematical with completely false assumptions.
No, they were wholly wrong. There’s no way they can calculate accurately to within 5% what any theoretical increase was. Their results are null. They say 4.9% plus/minus 4.6% so just scrape in but that means the increase might have been just 0.3%! Since they can’t possibly know what the rainfall “should” have been, you can see its a null result.
Hurricanes are local weather events. They couldn’t care less about ‘climate change,’ whatever that means.
Attribution MUST INCLUDE MECHANISM. ‘50% more due to climate change’ is stupid.
And usually there’s no local “climate change” they can point to – temperatures aren’t higher or lower than ever before. So it’s completely non-logical. As you say, no hurricane is bigger because of a global average over ten years – that’s physically impossible. Averages aren’t real.
There’s been claims of numerous spurious metrics by which cyclone Freddy is a record breaker. And of course climate change is to blame. You can check the news and pull apart the claims at leisure.
Our dearly beloved BBC has a new trick.
On its BBC-News ‘Home’ page, there are a number of tabs, one of which is ‘Climate’.
It is often the depository of stories and reports of adverse events that Beeboids wish to be associated with scaremongering climate change.
Not all events though have been (adversely) affected by climate changing. The stories sometimes explain the fundamental causes of the reported events – some of which have sweet FA to do with climate change.
Three recent stories were initially ‘misfiled’ by Aunty to give the false impression they were adversely affected by ‘climate change’, and then subsequently correctly refiled to their appropriate geographic tab only as a consequence of formal complaints:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-64201536
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-64258918
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-64816863
The resistance to Netherlands attack on farming (‘nitrogen’ reduction) has resulted in election success for new farmer/citizen movement.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/16/rural-populist-party-farmer-citizen-movement-big-winner-dutch-elections
“weather attribution models … contribute little to the science.”
What a mealy-mouthed way of saying that they were lying tw@ts.
‘Attribution Study’ – what is there to study? The pronouncements they make from such things are just propaganda, not science.
Other famous attribution studies
On 911
Illan Omar, ‘some people did something’
On Nice terror attack
BBC ‘Lorry hits pedestrians’
On Climategate
BBC ‘Hacked emails’
On Hunter’s laptop
Everybody ‘Russian disinformation’
Tick VG!
Unfortunately, the power of these nonsensical pronouncements (and their regular repetition) is that they brainwash the populace into believing that doom is imminent.
Apart from GB News, none of the media outlets offers fair balance encouraging the Goebbels-line that repetition of the lie is enough. Fortunately, the public response to GB News seems to be far better than the billionaire-owned press are admitting, as can be seen from the increasing adverts.
The Guardian lied … how unusual
But in the US they are now in trouble as a Rasmussen survey has 60% saying that climate change is a religion and is all about power and control. the exact question:
‘Climate change has become a religion that actually has nothing to do with the climate and is really about power and control?’
And even 47% of DemoTwats agreed with it. This came about when Vivek Ramaswamy talked about the climate religion on Fox News, so Rasmussen asked the very straightforward question. Perhaps they didn’t expect the answer they got.
Yes, it seems foolish to ask if you don’t already know the answer.