Hey Carbon Temporary, cease complicated model-based “attribution examine” outcomes with actual climate knowledge – are you okay with that?

The Carbon Brief (TCB) recently launched an interactive webpage titled “Mapping: How climate change is affecting extreme weather around the world.” However, the website creates the false impression that TCB uses actual data showing how climate change affects severe weather. That's not it. Instead, TCB relies heavily on so-called “attribution studies,” which use climate model simulations and estimates. Climate model results do not match actual data, which the TCB website debunks.

TCB's interactive attribution studies feature page provides a comprehensive overview of the “attribution” research linking climate change to extreme weather events. Although the compilation is comprehensive, it is important to approach such narratives with a critical eye, particularly when considering the broader context of severe weather trends and the methodologies used in these studies.

The aim of attribution studies is to determine the extent to which climate change, allegedly caused by humans, influences certain weather events. These studies often use climate models to compare real-world scenarios with hypothetical situations where the human impact estimates assumed by the models (modellers) are missing. The reliability of these models cannot be verified, and where their results have been tested against real data and historical events and trends, they have failed. As highlighted in Climate At A Glance, climate models have historically shown significant discrepancies compared to observed temperature data, raising questions about their predictive accuracy.

Contrary to the prevailing narrative, empirical data does not support the claim that severe weather events are becoming more frequent or more intense. For example, Climate Realism points out that despite increasing media coverage, the data shows no significant upward trend in the frequency or severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, or floods over the past few decades. As explained in several Climate at a Glance articles, the data shows that floods, hurricanes, cases of extreme heat or cold, tornadoes, and wildfires have not increased in the last century, let alone in the last 30 years. This strongly suggests that the perception of worsening weather conditions is due to increased awareness, increased reporting and the uncritical promotion of attribution studies by the mainstream media, rather than to actual changes in weather patterns.

The perception of escalating severe weather events is often reinforced by media coverage and technological advances. A 2011 Watts Up With That article noted that the proliferation of instant communication tools and 24-hour news cycles has led to more immediate and comprehensive coverage of weather events. A follow-up article from 2017 titled “Reporting Bias and the “Increase” of Weather Events in the U.S.” noted the same problems.

This increased visibility can give the false impression of increasing frequency and severity, even when statistical data shows no such trends.

Attribution studies rely on climate models to simulate scenarios with and without human impact estimates. However, these models are inherently limited by the assumptions and parameters set by the researchers. The main problem is that attribution models and the studies they produce assume what they are trying to prove. Attribution studies assume that climate change has influenced, affected, or caused every “modeled” extreme weather event; the only question is how much impact climate change has had. As discussed in Climate At A Glance, the fallibility of climate models is demonstrated by their inability to accurately reproduce observed climate patterns, casting doubt on their usefulness in attribution studies.

While TCB's interactive page on attribution studies offers some insight into ongoing climate research, it is important to recognize that what they present is not based on actual data, but rather on computer model results.

Actual empirical data do not support depictions of increasing numbers of severe weather events or increasing severity of such events, and the methods used in attribution studies contain significant errors and biases. Furthermore, increased media awareness of worsening weather is often a byproduct of improved reporting capabilities rather than actual climate changes. Therefore, TCB does readers a great disservice by failing to address these issues and limitations and misrepresenting model results as fact.

Like this:

How Load…

Related