NPR spreads misinformation about climate change and models (Again!) – Do you stand out for that?
Via Linnea Lueken
National public radio station (NPR) ran a story claiming that scientists using computer models can now determine the severity of a weather event or whether a particular event could be caused by climate change. caused or not. Weather data proves this claim to be false. There are serious problems with the types of computer models that attribution scientists use to make these types of connections. They have yet to predict any weather events, and real-world weather data shows no trend for deterioration in the current warming landscape.
NPR has a bad reputation for spreading misinformation about climate science. Climate realism included countless stories exposing the new artificial environment promoted by NPR, here, hereand here, For example. Actually, in the first story link listed, Climate realism Rebecca Hersher, a writer on “Science Desk,” posted a post by this same writer who misleads about the link between weather and climate.
In her latest work, “Researchers can now explain how climate change is affecting your weather.” Hersher says that scientists can unequivocally attribute various natural events – namely heat waves, wildfires and hurricanes – to climate change.
“For some types of weather, it is possible to say exactly how bad it is due to climate change. Or that without global warming, disaster would not have happened,” Hersher wrote.
Since climate is the average weather for an area over a 30-year period, it is unscientific to immediately try to attribute individual storms to climate change. Distributive research has been widely criticized for its inability to reproduce through real-world testing, falsification, or measurement — all essential features of science — and the fact that The model’s predictions based on emission scenarios do not match real-world emissions data and are, in some cases, impossible. Climate and temperature change scenarios on which weather attribution models are based running track is too hotaccording to scientists, and is therefore not an accurate representation of current warming.
You cannot tell the difference between a fictional climate system and a real one — or worse, two fictional climate systems, as is the case with Mr. modern attribution science. The attribution researchers compared aa model of what they thought Earth’s climate would be like, without any humans present, with the model scenario they created that included humans. but based on faulty temperature and emission assumptions. The difference between the two is what attribution modelers consider “evidence” that climate change is making the weather worse.
Real-world data refute the model’s predictions.
Specifically, in the case of heat waves, the worst of which occurred during the dust bowl era of the 1930s, shown in the chart below.
The graph shown in the alleged NPR article showing the increase in frequency of heatwaves is misleading, as explained in a post on the climate website WattsUpWithThat, here. When maximum temperatures are compared across the United States, it demonstrates that most of the warming is in urban areas. The urban heat island effect causes lower nighttime temperatures in cities because concrete and other surfaces absorb heat during the day and give off heat at night. Anthony Watts explains this effect in one Climate realism parcel, here.
Wildfires are also not getting worse globally. The opposite is true. Satellite data (shown in the figure below) comparing wildfires and atmospheric CO2 concentrations shows an increasing trend in the occurrence or severity of wildfires. Indeed, a study published in the journal Journal of Geophysical Research, an analysis of global wildfires since 1901 reported, “a significantly reduced proportion of the area burned globally”. Additionally, NASA satellites have recorded a long-term global decline in wildfires. According to a NASA report, satellites have measured a 25% decrease in land burned globally since 2003.
Another specific claim made in the paper is that storms are getting stronger, more intense or with more rain due to climate change. Hersher compared the distribution of Hurricane Harvey now debunked: “Researchers found that climate change caused up to 15% more rainfall during Hurricane Harvey in 2017. Another study looked at the entire 2020 hurricane season and found that climate change increases extreme rainfall by 10 percent for the entire season. “
In fact, such attribution studies face the same problems discussed above (and in Climate realism Posts like this), and the data showed no trends in storm severity or frequency. The figure below shows data for Cumulative Saturation Energy, a measure of hurricane strength, in various tropical watersheds and globally.
NPR’s Science Desk authors should take the time to really look at the data and be a little curiously skeptical in the face of claims made with attribution models. The fact that such studies use computer models has repeatedly been shown to be unreliable; It is not possible to successfully predict temperature trends even over the next few years. Accordingly, how can they accurately represent extremely complex weather conditions such as hurricanes? Attribution modeling organizations care about continuing their work and getting paid to do so, and like anyone selling a product, they downplay the associated weaknesses and uncertainties. to their product, in this case claiming to be climate-driven and making bright promises about how the product will improve lives. In fact, all that is sold is fear. It is completely unreasonable and does not represent the real state of the Earth’s climate.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/linnea-lueken
Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy. As a Heartland Institute intern in 2018, she co-authored the Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Drawling Four Persistent Myths of Hydraulic Fracture.”
Related
