Watch out, guys! There’s a new rodeo game in town – one called ‘Climate Allocation’. It has its vision set on every extreme weather event that has ever happenedand don’t mind taking credit for them.
This is a description of an upcoming session at AGU23call “Closing the Gap from Climate to Extreme Weather: Observations, Theory, and Modeling”. They have a whole bunch of scientists ready to convince us all how climate change is responsible for everything bad under the sun.
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Climate’s Best Friend
What tickles me is that all of these climate attribution studies seem to be classic examples of the Texas Marksman Mistake. You know, that’s when a gunner shoots into a warehouse, then draws a target around the nearest cluster of bullet holes to brag about his accuracy.
This is exactly what is happening with these extreme weather regulations. Climate scientists pick out extreme weather events, draw targets around them and voila, climate change did it! But what about regular, normal weather events? Is climate change convenient on vacation when it happens? If we want to talk about attribution, let’s put everything on the table, not just the extremes that make good headlines.
“Bridge” to nowheree
The conference’s introduction says it aims to “bridge the gap between climate and extreme weather.” But doesn’t this just create a bridge where no river exists? It seems like a great attempt at confirming their biases rather than analyzing the data objectively. And if the bridge exists, they’ve only built half of it. Where are the studies showing the effects of climate change on mild sunny days? Or on the perfect average rainfall?
Climatic physics of convenient omission
The conference promises to delve into the “fundamental climate physics” that generates extreme weather events. Now that’s a loaded term if I ever hear it. But let’s be honest, physics doesn’t just trigger hurricanes, tornadoes, and heatwaves. It’s always at work. So why selective studies? Could it be that regular weather events don’t quite have the same ‘doom and gloom’ appeal?
Hit the Bullseye or just shoot the space?
The conference also promises to explore “the mechanisms by which their statistics differ across climate states, including global warming.” Now, I’m not a statistician, but I know something about playing with numbers. When you focus solely on extreme events and attribute them to climate change, you are painting an inaccurate picture. You are skewing the data to fit the narrative. It’s like shooting a gun into the void and claiming you’ve hit the bull’s-eye.
While they’re at it, perhaps these rodeo clowns can figure out why climate change is causing EF-3 and more powerful tornadoes to decline in the United States for more than 5 decades. But in case it’s TOO HARD, maybe they can remove the evidencebecause it’s a lot less work and a lot less embarrassing.
So guys, as we watch this upcoming conference unfold, don’t forget to keep an eye out for where these sharp shooters are drawing their targets. How likely are they to honestly explore the effects of climate on large-scale weather events, or are they just highlighting the extremes for a round of bingo on climate change? And remember, it’s all fun until someone starts blaming the sunset on global warming.
For a bit of refreshing wakefulness, here’s Pielke Jr. on the flood attribution hype:
I want to hear your thoughts. Does this climate distribution remind you more of science or acumen?
HT/MM
Related
