The Importance of Responsible Communication in Climate Science

Written by Dr. Matthew Wielicki on February 20, 2024. Posted in Current News

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is a crucial system in the Earth’s climate, responsible for regulating global temperatures and weather patterns

It is also a favorite of climate alarmists, despite the IPCC clearly stating:

There is no observational evidence of a trend in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), based on the decade-long record of the complete AMOC and longer records of individual AMOC components.

Now a recent study by Dutch researchers suggests that the AMOC is at a ‘tipping point’.

The study, published in the journal Science Advances titled, “Physics-based early warning signal shows that AMOC is on tipping course”, uses a simplified model to simulate the AMOC and its response to changes in freshwater input.

The study concluded the AMOC could collapse in the next few decades if the freshwater input increases significantly.

Of course, such a result was celebrated by the MSM…

…and climate alarmists such as Dr. Johan Rockström, director at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), who tweeted…

…in response to the study.

Dr. Peter D. Carter, director of the Climate Emergency Institute and ‘expert’ IPCC reviewer, tweeted…

…and Dr. Rupert Reed, co-director of the Climate Majority Project and emeritus professor tweeted…

During my time in graduate school, with an ever-increasing emphasis on the use of computer models in earth science and especially in the study of climate, my Ph.D. advisor frequently recited a well-known saying by the statistician George Box:

“All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

Unfortunately in this case the model is both wrong and useless. British researchers have found that the models were manipulated by incorporating essentially impossible assumptions such as substantial freshwater influxes into the Atlantic to force the model into the result they wanted.

This is not science and should have never passed peer-review.

Prof Jonathan Bamber, director of the Bristol Glaciology Centre at Bristol University, said: “They did this by imposing a huge freshwater forcing to the North Atlantic that is entirely unrealistic for even the most extreme warming scenario over the next century.

“Their freshwater forcing applied to the North Atlantic is equivalent to six cm/year of sea level rise by the end of the experiment, which is more than seen during the collapse of the ice sheet that covered North America during the last glaciation.”

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that the AMOC is unlikely to collapse this century, and many scientists do not believe it will fail even if the climate continues to warm.

Observational data for the ocean system only goes back to 2004, making it difficult to predict, and because it spans the globe, most models cannot account for all the nuances and influences.

Commenting on the new research, Prof Andrew Watson, of Exeter University, said “They say it suggests that ‘the present day AMOC is on route to tipping’.

‘Push it quite hard’

“This sounds alarming, but it’s important to note that this is not the same as saying collapse is going to happen imminently. They have to run their model for a long time (1,700 years) and push it quite hard to make the collapse happen.

“Models are not reality. The real system may be more, or less, prone to collapse than this model suggests.”

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/09/climate-change-modelling-wrong-claim-uk-scientists/

Climate ‘scientists’ pushed a model with unrealistic assumptions to produce an unrealistic outcome, which not only underwent successful peer review but also gained traction among some of the most prominent climate scientists and activists, in addition to being circulated by the MSM.

As a scientist, I firmly believe in the paramount importance of sharing accurate scientific information with the public. Scientists stand as bridges between complex research and public understanding.

By translating jargon into clear language, highlighting limitations, and fostering open discussion, we empower people to make informed decisions by engaging with the scientific process.

However, scientists hold significant power in shaping public opinion and policy through their work. When they exaggerate their findings, intentionally or not, they can manipulate public perception and influence decision-making processes.

Exaggeration can amplify fears, skew public understanding, and lead to misguided policies or panic. It’s crucial for the scientific community to maintain strict adherence to ethical standards, ensuring that their communication is as accurate and unbiased as possible.

In conclusion, the debate around the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and its future highlights a broader challenge within climate science and its communication to the public.

While the AMOC is undeniably a critical component of our planet’s climate system, its portrayal by some as on the brink of collapse—based on studies utilizing highly contentious assumptions—serves as a cautionary tale.

It reminds us that while models are indispensable tools for understanding complex systems, their limitations and the assumptions underpinning them must be clearly communicated.

This commitment to ethical science communication is essential, not just for the credibility of the scientific community, but for the informed engagement of the public.

See more here substack.com

Bold emphasis added

Header image: Royal Meteorological Society

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.