THIS POST IS A COLLECTION OF LINKS TO POSTS ON THIS SITE ON THE TOPIC OF THE POST HOC EVENT ATTRIBUTION PROCEDURE USED BY CLIMATE SCIENCE TO CLAIM THAT THE SELECTED EXTREME WEATHER EVENT WAS CAUSED BY ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING.

(1): RELATED POST#1: THE ORIGIN OF EVENT ATTRIBUTION SCIENCE (EAS): LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/07/10/event-attribution-science-a-case-study/

EXCERPT: The Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) redefined climate change impacts funding by rich industrialized coountries to poor third world countries as a form of compensation for loss and damage due to extreme weather events. Whereas these funds were defined as payable for all extreme weather events, the WIM requires that compensation can be sought only if the extreme weather event is attributable to fossil fuel emissions. A probabilistic methodology was devised to address the need for attribution. The procedure uses a large number of climate model experiments. The probability of an observed extreme weather event with anthropogenic emissions and the probability without anthropogenic emissions are derived from climate model experiments as P1=with and P0=without. The condition P1>P0 is taken to mean that emissions played a role in the occurrence of the event in question and that therefore the extreme weather event is attributable to AGW. The probability that fossil fuel emissions played a role in the extreme weather event is proposed as P=(P1-P0)/P0. The problem here is uncertainty because the significant standard deviations in the estimation of P1 & P0 are acknowledged but ignored.

(2) RELATED POST#2: AN EXAMPLE OF THE APPLICATION OF EVENT ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS. LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/06/29/diffenbaugh-2017-extreme-weather-of-climate-change/

CITATION: Quantifying the influence of global warming on unprecedented extreme climate events. Diffenbaugh, Singh, & Swain ET AL, PNAS April 24, 2017, Edited by Kerry A. Emanuel. FINDING: We find that historical warming has increased the severity and probability of the hottest month and hottest day of the year at >80% of the available observational area. Our framework also suggests that the historical climate forcing has increased the probability of the driest year and wettest 5-d period at 57% and 41% of the observed area, respectively, although we note important caveats. 

CRITICAL COMMENTARY: THE TIME SCALE FOR THE STUDY AND THE EXTENT OF THE OBSERVED AREA AFFECTED ARE NOT PRE-SPECIFIED NOR CONSTRAINED BY THE RESEARCH QUESTION AND THEREFORE OPEN TO THE CONFIRMATION BIAS OF THE RESEARCHER. THE CONFIRMATION BIAS OF THE RESEARCHER GUIDES THE SELECTION OF THE DATA AND THEIR INTERPRETATION. UNBIASED OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY BEGINS WITH THE RESEARCH QUESTION BUT EVENT ATTRIBUTION RESEARCH BEGINS WITH THE DATA.

(3): RELATED POST#3: AN EXAMPLE OF THE ATTRIBUTION OF EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS TO AGW WITHOUT THE USE OF EVENT ATTRIBUTION ANALYSIS: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/01/30/the-extreme-weather-of-climate-change/

THIS STUDY IS FROM AUSTRALIA. HERE WE FIND THAT THE EXTREME WEATHER IMPACT OF AGW IS ASSESSED FOR EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS IN AUSTRALIA. THE FOLLOWING EVENTS ARE CITED:

1. On January 4 last year, a suburb in Sydney’s west was the hottest place on earth.

2. In early February of the same year, Sydney received more rain in 4 days than in the previous 6 months.

3. The cost of extreme weather in Australia has risen to $35 billion in the past decade (2010-2020).

4. Last summer’s fires burned more than 20% of the country’s forests.

CRITICAL COMMENTS:

1. The analysis of global warming and global climate action in terms of Australian emissions and Australian temperatures is not possible.
2. It is not possible that temperature events or short term temperature dynamics geographically limited to Australia can be understood in terms of AGW. The theory of AGW does not contain information for making temperature forecasts for Australia at decadal time scales.
3. The claims with respect to rising destructive impacts of AGW in terms of forest fires, droughts, and high temperatures are made in terms of the cost of extreme weather in Australia without consideration of inflation In fact, this comparison is made over a period of high inflation such that $100 in 1970 is equivalent to $1,193 in 2020. If over this period the cost of extreme weather only doubled, it does not imply rising damage due to extreme weather. It actually implies declining damage due to extreme weather .
4. No rationale is provided for the attribution of these extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The internal climate variability issue would make it impossible to claim this attribution. Besides, climate science requires that, at the minimum, such attribution must be supported by “Event Attribution” analysis.
5. THAT AN EXTREME WEATHER EVENT OCCURRED DURING A PERIOD OF GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING.

IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE LEAD AUTHOR OF THE PAPER IS WILL STEFFEN OF ANTHROPOCENE FAME KNOWN FOR HIS OBSESSION WITH A GEOLOGICAL CONTROL OF THE PLANET BY THE HUMANS.

CITATION: SUPERSTITION EVOLVED TO HELP US SURVIVE: LINK: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14694-superstitions-evolved-to-help-us-survive/

WE HUMANS ARE NATURALLY SUPERSTITIOUS AND MUCH OF THE CLIMATE SCIENCE THAT DERIVES FROM FEAR OF CLIMATE CHANGE CAN BE UNDERSTOOD IN THAT CONTEXT.

RELATED POST: LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/08/03/confirmationbias/

RELATED POST ON EVENT ATTRIBUTION:

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/07/13/a-comment-from-ralph-alexander/

HUMAN CAUSE: THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS HUMAN CAUSE BECAUSE WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CAUSE OF THE WARMING TREND, WHATEVER IMPACTS THE WARMING MAY HAVE ARE ALL NATURAL.

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/11/09/the-issue-is-human-cause/