IPCC Succumb To Weather Alchemy

By Paul Homewood

Chris Morrison on the IPCC story I ran last week:

Last December the Daily Sceptic published an article reporting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) could be preparing to start blaming humans for individual bad weather events. Straws-in-the-wind stuff, based on an IPCC press release claiming a century of burning hydrocarbons had resulted in “more frequent and intense extreme weather events”.

“One-off weather attribution is a pseudoscience based mostly on the flimsy findings of computer models. Two imaginary atmospheres with different levels of carbon dioxide are compared, and, hey presto, claims are made that a weather event is x times more likely to be caused by humans.”

To date, the IPCC has failed to detect that humans using hydrocarbons have led to worse bad weather on the simple scientific ground that it is impossible, with current data sources, to remove the overwhelming role of natural variation. Our story was prescient. It’s all change at the IPCC, with the appointment of Attribution Queen Friederike Otto and a troop of fellow attributionists to take charge of writing a new chapter on extreme weather for its forthcoming seventh climate science assessment report. With the foxes now in charge of the chicken coop, political order can be restored, with the IPCC science more closely aligned with current Net Zero political requirements.

Full story here.

Chris highlights the green-blob funding behind Otto’s World Weather Attribution outfit, as their own website admits:

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/about/

The IPCC is supposed to offer impartial advice to governments. How then can they justify turning over a whole Chapter of the report to a team who most definitely are not impartial?

As others such as Roger Pielke Jr have pointed out, the rise of weather attribution has occurred because of the failure of successive IPCC Reports to find any disturbing trends in extreme weather, whether due to global warming or otherwise, despite intensive efforts. Yes, of course there are regional variations and cycles, the sort of things that have always occurred.

And this has always been the IPCC’s problem, removing the overwhelming role of natural variation.

But when it comes to major impacts, the most recent IPCC Report, AR6, was able to find no evidence at all of any worsening in extreme weather, other than a trend to more extreme heat, which was fully offset by a reduction in extreme cold:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12.pdf

With Net Zero policies dying on the vine all around the world and the public beginning to wake up to the crippling costs imposed on them as a result, the IPCC now appear to have lost patience with the well established scientific practice of collecting and analysing data. Instead they will rely on dodgy computer models, which can be programmed to come up with whatever results they want.