Climate Change- todays Wall St. Journal

[stevenash]

        

The biggest lie in American climate journalism is that reporters cover climate science as a science.

Except for a report on the Washington Post website that was picked up by a couple of regional papers, an important study on the most important question in climate science last month went completely unnoticed in the U.S. media. Consult the laughably named website Inside Climate News, which poses as authoritative. A query yields only the response “Your search did not return any results” plus a come-on for donations to “Keep Environmental Journalism Alive.”

So we’ll quote a passage in an exemplary French report that begins, “But uncertainty about how hot things will get also stems from the inability of scientists to nail down a very simple question: By how much will Earth’s average surface temperature go up if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled?”

“That ‘known unknown’ is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and for the last 25 years the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the ultimate authority on climate science—has settled on a range of 1.5 C to 4.5 C.”

The French report describes a new

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

by climate physicists Peter Cox and Mark Williamson of the University of Exeter and Chris Huntingford of the U.K.’s Center for Ecology and Hydrology. Not only does it narrow the range of expected warming to between 2.2 and 3.4 degrees Celsius, but it rules out the possibility of worrying outcomes higher than 4 degrees.

Their study might be less interesting and newsworthy if it weren’t the latest crystallization of a trend. Even the IPCC is an example. Slightly contrary to the French report, it backpedaled in 2013 to adopt a wider range of uncertainty, and did so entirely in the direction of less warming.

More to the point, this 2013 move was a much-needed confession of scientific failure that the Exeter group and others now are trying to remedy. The IPCC’s estimate was no more useful or precise than one developed in 1979 by the U.S. National Research Council, when computers and data sets were far more primitive.

This 40-year lack of progress is no less embarrassing for being thoroughly unreported in the mainstream press. The journal Nature, where the new study appears, frankly refers to an “intractable problem.” In an accompanying commentary, a climate scientist says the issue remains “stubbornly uncertain.”

You may be falling out of your chair right now if you recall a recent lawsuit by New York’s attorney general against Exxon, itself a pioneering pursuer of climate studies, for daring to mention the existence of continuing “uncertainties.”

This question of climate sensitivity goes not just to how much warming we can expect. It goes to the (almost verboten) question of whether the expected warming will be a net plus or net minus for humanity. And whether the benefit of curbing fossil fuels would be worth the cost.

Yet you can practically chart the deepening idiocy of U.S. climate reporting since the 1980s by how these knotty, interesting questions have fallen away in favor of an alleged fight between science and deniers.

“Fake news” is not our favorite pejorative. A better analysis is offered by former New York Times reporter Michael Cieply in a piece he wrote in 2016 when he started a new job at Deadline.com. He describes how, unlike at a traditional “reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper,” reporters at the Times were required to “match stories with what internally was often called ‘the narrative.’ ”

Leaving climate sensitivity uncertainties out of the narrative certainly distorts the reporting that follows. Take a widely cited IPCC estimate that, “with 95% certainty,” humans are responsible for at least half the warming observed between 1951 and 2010.

This sounds empirical and is reported as such. In fact, such estimates are merely derivative of how much warming should have taken place if the standard climate sensitivity estimate is correct. Imagine predicting an 8 before letting the dice fly, then assuming an 8 must have come up because that’s what your model predicted.

To be clear, the U.S. and other governments have done increasingly minute and exacting work in cataloging actual climate and weather patterns. We argue here they have grossly underperformed in sorting out cause and effect. And since the press’s job is to hold institutions accountable, the output of government climate science is so poor partly because of the abysmally bad job done by reporters on the climate beat.

No better example exists than their

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

in the face of U.S. government press releases pronouncing the latest year the “warmest on record.” Scroll down and the margin of error cited in the government’s own press release would lead you rightly to suspect that a clear trend is actually hard to find in recent decades despite a prodigious increase in CO2 output.

Well, guess what? Taking account of the actual temperature record and its tiny variations is exactly what the Exeter group and others have been doing in order to make progress on the 40-year problem of climate sensitivity. And they are finding less risk of a catastrophic outcome than previously thought.

  

[Englebert]

Thanks for the post Nash. I've read many articles like this over the past 30 years, but they all seem to get buried in short order...because, like the article stated, it does not fit the "narrative". This one will also never see the light of day in the MSM, and will be buried just like all of the others, and the "leaders" of Liberalism will continue to spout their unproven narrative, simultaneously deriding and ridiculing skeptics (i.e. normal people) as heretics. 

[Reagan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Hagar]

Amazing.