By Paul Homewood

Ben Pile’s video on climate attribution, which I posted earlier, starts with this example from Richard Betts:

Of course, these type of simulations have no more connection with reality than me winning the FA Cup on X-Box!

But why do we even need this new industry of climate attribution? If we wanted to find out if droughts in China, for instance, were getting worse, all we would have to do is check the data.

The IPCC did precisely that in SR15 three years ago, as well as in AR5 four years earlier. This is what they had to say about drought:

In short they could find no evidence of any global trend to worse droughts, and whilst some regions such as the Med and S Africa appeared to be getting drier, other parts were wetter.  These changes may have been caused by global warming, but it is much more likely they are just part of multi-decadal natural events, such as oceanic cycles.

Notably there is no mention of China.

Looking forward, CMIP5 models suggest that China will likely get wetter, not drier, if temperatures continue to increase:

And as HH Lamb knew, the worst drought in Chinese history occurred during the most severe phase of the Little Ice Age:

HH Lamb: Climate, History and the Modern World pp256

I began by asking why we need this new climate attribution science?

The answer is of course obvious. There is a need to “blame” things on climate change. It is nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics.


February 17, 2021 at 09:15AM