Tuesday, 16 August 2022

Scientists paid to find evidence find evidence - shock

From the BBC:

The record temperatures in the UK last week would have been "almost impossible" without human-induced climate change, leading scientists have concluded...

The findings are released by the World Weather Attribution group - a collection of leading climate scientists who meet after an extreme weather event to determine whether climate change made it more likely.


When they say "determine whether", they clearly mean "determine that". They are hardly likely to spend years putting out press releases saying "nothing to see here", are they?

The whole thing is nuts anyway. Temperatures have been going up and rainfall patterns changing in many parts of the world since the Little Ice Age ended (they have been surprisingly stable in other parts). By definition, higher (or indeed colder) temperatures and different rainfall patterns indicate "climate change". Their job is entirely superfluous.

We have few records on the what happened during transition from the Dark Ages cooler period to the Mediæval Warm Period and even less (fewer?) on how quick the start of the Roman Warm Period was, so nobody has any idea whether this is "normal".

11 comments:

DCBain said...

https://dailytimewaster.blogspot.com/2022/08/arctic-sea-ice-extent-reaches-12-year.html

Mark Wadsworth said...

DCB, sure, but it's less than longer term averages. I'm not getting into an argument over WHETHER the climate is changing (it might well be)

My bug bear is the completely made up pseudo-scientific diagonal comparison that says there is a 33 degree greenhouse effect, half of all Warmenist articles re-state this as if it is a given.

If you do the proper scientific approach applying their method correctly, the effect is plus/minus ZERO. Same approach neatly explains (high) surface temp of Venus and why there is no GHE on Mars, despite it having six times as much CO2 as Earth has CO2 and H2O vapour put together.

A K Haart said...

There are people who think scientists wouldn't do that, but this kind of work attracts scientists who are prepared to find what they are paid to find. It's just a job.

decnine said...

The Coningsby 'record' owes more to human deposits of concrete than to human emissions of carbon dioxide. The weather station sits between the main runway and a taxiway. On Google Earth, concrete paving/structures are visible within 5 metres. By USHCN standards, the location is heat polluted by 1-2.5 degrees. Yet the UK Met Office 'validated' the temperature reading.

Mark Wadsworth said...

AKH, exactly.

D, for sure, as soon as they "Coningsby" I looked up whether they meant an airport. They did. Like the other record that day at HEATHROW!

Mark Wadsworth said...

But, urban heat island apart, on 18 and 19/7 it was insanely abnormally hot. Mainly because of hot air from Sahara arriving via Spain and Portugal...

ontheotherhand said...

The International Panel on Climate Change AR6 does not have a lot of confidence in attributing meteorological drought to climate change, but one place it does have confidence is Northern Europe, where human-caused climate change may have contributed to DECREASING
meteorological drought.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

Bayard said...

The Germans have a handy habit of engraving stones on the beds of rivers which are only exposed at times of drought. Hence we know that there was a similarly low level in the River Spree in the C15th. I wonder how the humans of the day caused that.

Mark Wadsworth said...

OTOH, the predictions are all made up.

B, they also have high water markers. The Rhine floods of a couple of years ago were not unusual or excessive compared to other floods in past couple of centuries.

Bayard said...

Mark, it occurred to me today that, only two or three years ago we were joking about coming home to a real fire...in July, the summer was so cold.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, tut tut, a cold summer is just 'weather', a hot summer is 'climate change', surely you know that by now?