Feb 15 2007

More Bad Science On Global Warming

Published by at 11:47 pm under All General Discussions,Global Warming

In another of a series of ‘never mind’ retreats by the Global Warming charlatans it seems all their models showing rising temperatures in Antarctica are, … well….wrong. Folks, leave science to the scientists and keep the media (and Al Gores) out of it. They are clueless and shameless.

“We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment,” he said.

Er,…that’s because it doesn’t exist? I can explain why the poles are not seeing as much warming as the rest of the planet. If the warming is in fact due to changes in solar activity, the poles get the least amount of energy from the sun than any other place, which would be they would see the least amount of change. If, on the other hand, the green house effect was actually in play, then everything would warm up about the same.

15 responses so far

15 Responses to “More Bad Science On Global Warming”

  1. MerlinOS2 says:

    The sun warms. What a concept.

    Oh my solar pool heater has the water temp up to 78 even though we are having a cold spell here now due the front working it’s way through the area.

    I have a bubble tent over the pool and my son and I did a couple of laps last night and I sat dangling my feet in the water while enjoying a couple of glasses of wine.

  2. Retired Spook says:

    That’s right, Merlin, keep rubbing it in. It was 7 below each of the last two mornings here in Northeastern Indiana. Maybe, with any luck, it’ll kill all the bugs, especially the mosquitos.

  3. MerlinOS2 says:

    What concerns me most in this issue is not the Global Warming argument itself.

    If it is successfully debunked then the scientific community will be looked on with all the credence of the boy who called wolf.

    There are too many people who have put way to many chips into the pot.

  4. MerlinOS2 says:

    I see the media and some members of our congress are having their Joe Wilson moment about Iran involvement is arms and other supply to Iraq insurgents.

    The strongest piece of evidence at the moment is the 50 Cal bolt action sniper rifles Iran purchased that have magilisicly shown up in Iraq.

    Yes it gives no proof of highest level confirmation of policy and approval, but for 12% (over a hundred weapons) to show up in Iraq from their shipment with confirmed serial number tracking from the manufacturer documentation seems just a little bit suspect to say the least.

    We have recovered 12% of the initial shipment, I hope we don’t have to find another 10 or 12% the hard way.

  5. MerlinOS2 says:


    If it is any comfort to you we have a freeze warning for the weather report today.

    It was in the near 80’s Monday but we are looking at a stint in the 60’s with lows near freezing for the next four or five days.

  6. MerlinOS2 says:

    Mosquitoes can be so bad.

    On summer nights my son and I stand in the back yard with shotguns taking them down.

    Sort of like clay pigeons without having to say “pull”.

    They are getting more resistant here.

    We are up to using deer slugs rather than buckshot.

  7. MerlinOS2 says:

    If the weather warms a bit I have an invite from some friends to do a little in the hunting in the national forest south of here.

    If I decide to take them up on it we will be hunting wild boar and the only choice of weapons is either a classic bow and arrow or a crossbow.

    You are allowed one rifle per party as a backup safety measure, sort of like a designated killer if things go wrong.

  8. archtop says:

    Speaking as an PhD engineer with over 20 years experience in computational fluid dynamics and numerical analysis, I am truly perplexed (and amused) by the faith that certain global warming researchers put into their highly complex computer models. There are people in science and engineering who have spent their entire careers studying such simple phenomena as turbulent flows over aircraft wings, and there are still aspects of that problem that are elusive (e.g. predicting the point at which the flow separates from the wing surface at a given angle of attack).

    Then there is the issue (for me) of the well-posedness of the initial-boundary value problem. That is, the partial differential equations of fluid mechanics are highly non-linear. When you add to this geography, moisture effects, turbulence, radiation, ocean-air interactions, interactions with the biosphere, atmospheric chemistry, etc. etc., I am amazed that they get anything resembling physical reality after time marching the solution for more than, say, a couple of weeks of real time. This is why, even today, different global circulation and related short term forecast models diverge from one another after several days.

    For those who are interested, you can read all about one of the publicly available (NCAR) climate models at:


    As you read through the sections, note how many empirical models, constants, and fudge factors are introduced. I think I’ll eventually download the source code so I can see what the actual implementation looks like (should be an eye-opener).

    Ironically, I actually agree with some of the end goals of the climate fear-mongers, specifically looking at alternatives to oil and coal for our energy needs (such a modern nuclear technologies, fuel cells, hydrogen, solar, etc.). My reasons have ** nothing ** to do with global warming but more with removing our dependence on certain foreign governments for our energy resources (given that our eco friends refuse to let us explore for any domestic energy ourselves e.g. ANWR).

    Finally, I think climate researchers could do much more good for society if they focused on predicting climate change for just one or two years. For example, if they could, with high confidence, predict a drought in Iowa this year, farmers could reduce planting of their usual crops and substitute something that was more drought resistant. Unfortunately, if you look at the NCAR site, you’ll see that the historic forecast skill for such predictions is only a little better than flipping coin…

  9. Retired Spook says:

    Mosquitoes can be so bad.

    No kidding, Merlin. Last summer, in particular, was one of the worst I’ve seen. We live out in the country about 15 miles west of Fort Wayne, in a fairly densely wooded area, and my propane-powered fogger got a real workout. Last August my oldest daughter and her husband and two sons were visiting from Kansas. The night they left (they like to drive at night), my son-in-law inadvertently left the door to my office (that connects to the garage) open while he was loading their car. After they left I spent over a hour in my office with a fly swatter smacking mosquitos. I must have killed a couple hundred. Then I backed the cars out of the garage and fogged the garage. It was the first time in quite a while that we had seen a significant number of the striped Asian Tiger (I think that’s what they’re called) mosquitos — you know, the ones with twin engines and a 1″ wing span. Nasty, nasty creatures.

    Archtop, enjoyed your post. It appears to me that, as this topic “heats up”, more and more skeptics are beginning to step forward, and the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way. I suspect that, if mankind can avoid doing something really stupid over the next 10-20 years, the temps could very well begin to swing the other way as well. I keep thinking back to the 70’s when global cooling was the scare; not to the extent that warming is today, but enough that some scientists were actually suggesting blanketing the polar regions with soot to cause melting of the ice caps. Good thing we didn’t pursue that, heh.

  10. The Macker says:

    My academic and professional credentials include Wind Engineering and I liked your post.

    Dogmatism in science and engineering retard innovation.

  11. mrmeangenes says:

    I posted something about this subject yesterday,for anyone who might be interested,


  12. aerawls says:

    A.J. is almost right. Actually, co2 would do most of its warming at the poles (so that the lack of warming at the poles is, as A.J. suggests, evidence against co2 induced warming).

    The reason co2 mostly warms the poles is because co2 and water vapor trap the same wavelengths of infrared. Thus adding co2 where there is already a lot of water vapor (which is far more plentiful) has negligible marginal heat trapping effect. co2 has a substantial marginal effect only where the air is dry, and because the water carrying capacity of air goes up with temperature, the driest air is the cold air at the poles.

    Natural warming is also predicted to warm the poles disproportionately, but not directly the way co2 does. Thus either kind of warming should reduce the severity of storm events (opposite of what the IPCC claims), because storms are created by the difference in temperature between lower and higher latitudes.

    If anyone is interested, I have followed JunkScience Junkman Steve Milloy’s lead and posted on my blog the feedback that I submitted the the U.S. government about the draft IPCC report last spring. (Commentators were asked to not reveal publicly the contents of the draft report, but the IPCC has broken faith by releasing its “Summary for Policymakers” three months before the science.)

  13. For Enforcement says:

    predicting the climate. At 6 pm thursday, the weather service was predicting a low of 23 for Friday 5:00 am. the actual low at 5:00 am. 48. so they missed the temp prediction for 11 hours in the future by 25 degrees and they want us to believe they can predict it for 50 or 100 years in the future. Laugh of the day.

  14. missvotingforreagan says:

    In 1883, 1947 and 1992 volcanoes spewed into the atmosphere more hydrocarbons since the industrial age began. I would not want to go up against mother nature in this argument.

  15. smill1953 says:



    Wouldn’t that more appropriately be termed “weather”?