Bishop Hill Slow news day
Apr 30, 2015 Climate: Models Climate: WG2 It's a slow news day so far today, so I'll go with a Guardian-talking-drivel-on-climate story, which is a bit like a Pope-is-Roman-Catholic story, but can occasionally provide some light relief. Today's headline from the fount of foolishness is
Extreme weather already on increase due to climate change, study finds.
Unfortunately for the Guardian, the study in question, by Fischer and Knutti, is actually nothing to do with observations of extreme weather at all. Instead it is about their attribution to humankind. You have to wonder whether the headline writers even read the paper.
And if you look at the study, it turns out to be just an extension of the use-shonky-GCMs-to-blame-humankind approach adopted by others in the past. I'm hugely amused by its suggestion that GCMs, which have precisely zero ability to predict precipitation, can be used to show that "18% of moderate daily precipitation extremes over land are attributable to the observed temperature increase since preindustrial times". Particularly since in the IPCC's view it's hard to find any evidence of changes in extreme weather anyway.
It's like...magic.
Reader Comments (13)
You do sometimes wonder if warmists are trying to appear untrustworthy rather than just achieving it by accident.
Peter Stott is right. The Guardian reports his words and then misunderstands them. Quite silly really.
This study calculates what we would expect to happen if the models are right. It does not report what is happening. This study gives us another test of the models.
Yet the Guardian cannot doubt that the models are a perfect replication of the real world and so reports cyberworld as the real world.
Next week, how Earth is under threat from alien invasion by the Covenant - as modelled by Bungie.
Note that the "extremes" are one in a thousand DAYS, which is not very extreme at all.
Listening to the Today prog this morning it was interesting to find that Nat. Bennet of the Greens was much less eco-loony than the BBC interviewer. Continually being pressed on why the greens don't mention a fuel escalator to 'tackle' climate change, she reminded the interviewer about the high level of fuel poverty and the lack of decent public transport, both of which needed tackled first. However she was as nice as ninepence to Bennet and gave her the luxury of time to answer: Very different to the interview of Owen Patterson about changing our Climate Change Act targets to match those of the rest of the world. Of course politically correctness counts far more than factual correctness at the Beeb - as W1A lampoons so well.
With a week to go before the election, the Grauniad are now releasing their best and hardest hitting Global Warming stories.
When asked to schedule them in reverse order, there was evidently poor communication, about what constitutes 'reverse order' in climate science. Worst first? Funniest last?
Climate science is like chicken dishes. Once Cooked, do not reheat.
The paper claims that its modelling "agrees well with the observed increase over the past 6 decades".
Of course it does. This period starts with the mini-ice age in the 1970s...
One can only hope that the new editor will bring some journalistic quality to the Guardian.
Knutti is somewhat infamous for comparing models and declaring the result 'robust' if some agree then refusing to bother with the real world weather in the area of concern that would show exactly the opposite of the models. Pielke Jnr used to be hot on this type of model misdirection. Sadly now bowed (& cowed) out of the argument having thought that the argument was won with the IPCC SREX. Alas it keeps popping back like a whack-a-mole game.
Beyond comprehension.
"You have to wonder whether the headline writers even read the paper."
Of course they don't.
Headlines are taken from a pull quote of the source material, which of course always contains a CAGW-affirming, irresistible we-told-you-so reference. Since most people won't read the article, constant, subtle reinforcement of the received wisdom via headline crafting is necessary to back up the illusion that 97% of the time, 97% agree that 97% of the "problem" is caused by 97% of humans.
If extreme events are considered highly unlikely, when will accurate climate science predictions cease being extreme events?
Of course there is nothing to stop the author of the study correcting the Guardian if they do not like the fact its been misrepresented . A part of course from the that fact they work for the MET and his boss had made it publicly very clear that the type of alarmist claims so beloved of the Guardian, are ones they are happy with especially given these help to bring in much funding to the MET , such has the recent 97 million for a new computer. So any public correction of the Guardian may do the authors next performance no good at all.
It's
like...magicbollocks.