In recent years, climate science has increasingly relied on obscure metrics and complex methodologies to assert that human activities are causing catastrophic changes to our planet. [emphasis, links added]
This approach often obfuscates rather than clarifies, leading to alarmist narratives that are not usually supported by observable data.
One striking example of this can be seen in the claims that climate change is making turbulence on flights worse.
The Turbulence Myth
An article from the BBC discusses how climate change is purportedly causing an increase in severe turbulence, impacting flights and passenger safety.
This claim is based on sophisticated models and projections rather than straightforward observational data.
The article uses terms like “clear-air turbulence” and references predictions from climate models to paint a dire picture. However, when we turn to the observable data, the narrative falls apart.
Modified from https://icao.usmission.gov/air-carrier-turbulence-related-injuries-can-be-reduced-ntsb-finds/This graphic illustrates the number of turbulence-related accidents in the U.S. from 1989 to 2018.
Despite the rise in annual global airline passengers from one billion in 1989 to over four billion by 2018, turbulence-related accidents have remained relatively constant.
If climate change were indeed making turbulence significantly worse, we would expect to see a corresponding increase in these accidents. Yet, the data does not support this assertion.
Instead, it suggests that the relationship between turbulence and climate change is either negligible or nonexistent.
SourceIn fact, even the coauthor of the original study linked above stated a few months after publication:
When we add these new years to the previous results, the statistical significance assigned to the now 22-year North Atlantic winter jet stream increase within the Global Aircraft Data Set (GADS) boxes disappears.
Source: https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.4676
This was conveniently left off the BBC article and nearly all other MSM reporting.
The Broader Climate Crisis Narrative
This disconnect between obscure metrics and observable data is not limited to turbulence. The broader climate crisis narrative is often built on similar shaky foundations.
The second graphic highlights several key points that contradict the alarmist claims frequently made by climate scientists and echoed by the media.
No Increase in Extreme Weather: The number of hydrological, meteorological, and climatological disasters has not shown a significant upward trend since 2000. If climate change were causing more extreme weather events, we would expect to see a clear increase in these numbers. Instead, the data remains relatively stable.
No Increase in Loss of Life: Deaths from meteorological, hydrological, and climatological disasters have not increased. This is a critical metric because it directly reflects the human impact of these events. Despite frequent claims that climate change is making weather more deadly, the data does not bear this out.
No Increase in Costs: Global weather losses as a percent of global GDP have not risen significantly. This is another crucial metric because it accounts for the economic impact of climate-related disasters. If climate change were truly making these events more severe, we would expect to see a rising trend in economic losses relative to global GDP.
The Reality of the Climate Crisis
The reliance on obscure metrics and complex methodologies to support the climate crisis narrative often serves to obscure the truth rather than illuminate it.
By focusing on projections and models rather than observable data, climate scientists and advocates make claims that are difficult to verify and easy to manipulate.
This approach creates a climate of fear and urgency that is not justified by the facts.
In reality, the data suggests that many of the dire predictions associated with climate change are not materializing. This does not mean that we should ignore environmental issues or stop working towards sustainability.
However, it does mean that we should approach claims of a climate crisis with a healthy dose of skepticism and demand that assertions be backed up by observable, measurable data.
