Feb 05 2007

Global Warming “Whoops – Did We Say That?”

Published by at 10:03 am under All General Discussions,Global Warming

Now that the political propaganda piece regarding the Global Warming issue (yes, our temps are rising, they have been this high before) we are starting to see the facts that will be coming out to destroy the mirage. Here are some of the expected reversals on Global Warming that we shall see in a few months [H/T RCP]:

More pertinent is the underlying scientific report. And according to people who have seen that draft, it contains startling revisions of previous U.N. predictions.

Take rising sea levels. In its 2001 report, the U.N.’s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. Lord Monckton notes that the upcoming report’s high-end best estimate is 17 inches, or half the previous prediction. Similarly, the new report shows that the 2001 assessment had overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

At this rate there will be zero estimate of sea level increase in ten years and in 20 we should be back to the hysterics of Global freezing, as these people ring the alarm bells so they can garner research money and travel the world presenting papers before the cocktail hour. Never trust opinions where money (and therefore careers) are part of the equation. That is not science, it is snake oil:

Such reversals (and there are more) are remarkable, given that the IPCC’s previous reports, in 1990, 1995 and 2001, have been steadily more urgent in their scientific claims and political tone. It’s worth noting that many of the policymakers who tinker with the IPCC reports work for governments that have promoted climate fears as a way of justifying carbon-restriction policies. More skeptical scientists are routinely vetoed from contributing to the panel’s work. The Pasteur Institute’s Paul Reiter, a malaria expert who thinks global warming would have little impact on the spread of that disease, is one example.

One has to wonder how many times the world will let these charlatans cry “Wolf” before they learn their lesson. In fact, what we have is the scientific equivalent of the echo chamber, where models and selected data are pumped through computers with predetermined outcomes which provide some wierd emotional support to theories which cannot predict squat.

U.N. scientists have relied heavily on computer models to predict future climate change, and these crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate. According to the models, for instance, global temperatures were supposed to have risen in recent years. Yet according to the U.S. National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001–in the range of measurement error and thus not statistically significant.

The models also predicted that sea levels would rise much faster than they actually have. The models didn’t predict the significant cooling the oceans have undergone since 2003–which is the opposite of what you’d expect with global warming. Cooler oceans have also put a damper on claims that global warming is the cause of more frequent or intense hurricanes. The models also failed to predict falling concentrations of methane in the atmosphere, another surprise.

Well, not a surprise to some of us. I have spent years designing simulations to help design large complex systems and it is incredibly easy to run yourself down a rabbit hole. People start getting tunnel vision and they start filtering data because they want to be right – it is human nature. And even in this day and age, people take anything shown on a computer screen as truth (except those of us who design the systems behind the screen – we know better). The Global Warming crowd are doing the unthinkable, they are pretending all their failures do not exist or are meaningless. Is this what you would want to see from a doctor who is trying to convince you THIS TIME he will find the source of all your pain and suffering. Just give him one more time to operate and he is sure he will get to the root of that ails you? Even though he has tried 5 times and removed half your redundant organs?

Some scientists and engineers have a problem with failure, they cannot face it. Others are like Edison, who found something like 200 ways to not build a light bulb before finally succeeding. The Global Warming crowd are remiss to admit they are scientific disasters. If at NASA we launched a shuttle and missed our insertion point by half or a third we would be fired for criminal incompetence. The shuttles we lost we lost by mis-estimating simple factors on very simple systems (tiles and O-rings), and people now know what happens when you mis-estimate even by a little. What do people think when Global Warming fear mongers mis-estimate? Why would we let shoddy work that would be considered dangerously incompetent in any other field of science and engineering be passed off as some ‘adjustments’ in climatology? We should be demanding some minimum standards of proof and quality on these people – not pretending their shoddy use of millions of research dollars has been a success when all I see is failure. “Whoops Mrs Smith, we took the wrong lung out – so sorry”. “Whoops, we missed that runway by a bit and lost all souls on board that plane – we didn’t expect that!” “Whoops, we were sure Global Warming was driven by human activities”. Unbelievable.

12 responses so far

12 Responses to “Global Warming “Whoops – Did We Say That?””

  1. MerlinOS2 says:

    There was an excellent article over at American Thinker the other day that goes pretty much to the gut of the problem.


    also you can use http://tinyurl.com/2pfc2o

  2. dgfx says:

    S.S. Strata —

    AJ (“Permanently Down Alice’s Rabbit Hole”) Strata only sees failure in progress (GW science) and success in failure (Iraq). Now, then will the accuracy of Strata’s predictions on the last election find reprise in th outcome of the Libby trial? (Not much posting on Libby here of late, eh wot?)

  3. Carol_Herman says:

    Well, once, people believed what they heard from the pulpit. When the priest said “all their troubles were due to witches.”

    Less religion, today. But the same “needs” among the ignorant, to think they’re smart scientists.

    Richard Feynman noticed this, when people would approach him, (thinking of themselves as geniuses, on par with his own mental talents.) And, they’d ask him, “have you tried this number?”

    Oy. All the obvious numbers WERE tried already!

    But it didn’t stop those who came by and wanted to see if they could interest him “in some debate.”

    Given that even high schoolers get some “earth science,” I am puzzled at how people believe (because of their weather pattern) that, yes, “those poor polar bears are sitting on top of melting ice.” But at the zoo? Not uncommon for polar bears to SWIM. And, where was “that” photographer standing? To take “that” silly picture? He wasn’t at home, ya know. And, he wasn’t walking on water, either.

  4. Carol_Herman says:

    As to blogs dedicated to partisans to fight it out? We’re not lacking partisans on both sides of the fence. Nor are we lacking a judge who KNOWS “his own kind” will NOT reverse!

    As a matter of fact, judges shreak like pigs when their “discretionary powers” are curtailed. As they did, when the Legislature THREW THE BOOK AT THEM, and stopped “discretionary” in its tracks, WITH: SENTENCING GUILDLINES. Judges hate them. But they ‘must abide.’

    As to Libby’s case? Strictly INSIDE THE BELTWAY. Lots of folks see this as a partisan effort, by the press, to take down Bush, the way the press got such a good shot at Nixon. But since then? More bloody noses, than success. Reagan stood firm. And, Clinton didn’t suffer.

    I’d add that Michael Jackson didn’t suffer, either. While Sneddon, and the press corps couldn’t budge the jury to convict. After “that” verdict came out? The press upped and left. And, the jurors went home to normal lives. (THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED PROVING SNEDDON’S CASE! While I rarely watch TV, when the verdict came in. I flipped it on. And, waited for the jurors to be interviewed. I came away learning a lot of stuff about human nature.) I hope Wells has picked a good jury, here. But if not? It’s strictly “INSIDE THE BELTWAY.” It will affect Libby’s life. On the other hand? Look at Martha Stewart. She just took her wallet off the table; kept the ankle bracelet. And, put it behind her.

    While the press? You think they’re influencial OUTSIDE the beltway? I don’t.

    And, I don’t think all that much about the crap that gets politically elected to carry “gavels.” Weasels. Legal lynchings, however, do eventually come back to haunt. If there was a long view, we’d get out of the partisan bullshit business. Mainstream Americans aren’t buying this garbage. While jury trials? A throw of the dice! As if Vegas was the “operator” you wanted your laws to stand on. Pffeh.

  5. Retired Spook says:

    Well, this issue is really starting to heat up (pun intended). The more light that’s shined on it, the faster we’ll return to some semblance of sanity.

  6. WSJ Offers Sanity on Global Warming Report…

    This Wall Street Journal editorial examines last week’s “breathless” global warming report. The IPCC has pulled back from their previous dire predictions:
    More pertinent is the underlying scientific report. And according to people who…

  7. Sensible Mom says:

    Where’s That Global Warming?…

    It’s 9 below zero here in Chicago (30 below with the wind chill). So where’s that global warming Al Gore promised? Oh, that’s right. They’ll blame the cold on global warming, too. …

  8. Neo says:

    I find the parallels of the process of drumming up support for the “War on Climate Change” is much like the scenarios spelled out for the “Iraq War”.

    We have:
    1) incomplete infromation
    2) quick to judgment
    3) large cost
    4) long period of time
    .. and then
    5) claims of misinformation after setbacks

    I bet the politicians will all be dead before the get to step 5 with the “War on Climate Change”.

  9. crosspatch says:

    One interesting thing that has not come out much in the mainstream is that the oceans have, for unknown reason, lost around 50% of the accumulated heat from the past 50 years in only the last 3 years. Nobody knows why the oceans overall have lost such a huge amount of heat but it is suspected that it has something to do with a weather pattern that has reduced nighttime cloud cover over the equatorial pacific that has allowed much more heat to radiate into space than has been the case in recent decades.

    Last year’s Atlantic spring sea surface temperatures were also lower last year than the year before.

    Overall folks, global warming is not a bad thing. If we were to cool the globe by only 1 degree, we would see a great reduction in food production. This would be felt most in places such as the central plains of Canada and across the Russian steppes. A frost early or late by only a couple of weeks can greatly impact crop yields.

    I fear global cooling much more than global warming and so should poor countries who depend on food products that are grown in Northern lattitudes. A failed corn harvest in South Dakota would cause tortilla prices in Equador to skyrocket because corn is a world market.

    Keep your eyes peeled concerning predictions for solar cycle 25. So far it looks like we might be setting into a solar pattern more likely to produce long term cooling than warming once cycle 24 is out of the way.

  10. The Macker says:

    You are the “target” victim of agenda journalism. You have bought into the Popular Media’s junk science, anti war reporting and wishful thinking about the Libby trial. You are its reason for existing.

    Your cheap shot at AJ for his pre- election comments indicates that you can’t differentiate substance from speculation.

  11. AJStrata says:

    Actually, I called most the races correctly. I, like many, did not know how many races were in play. But election projections are not science. And dgfx is just pretending he grasps the matter.

    Pretty funny actually.

  12. Global Warming stuff…

    Here are a collection of Global Warming links, with a brief excerpt. 
    Before I do I want to note that this is becoming as contentious of an issue as any I have ever debated, and the politicking in it is sickening.
    I am embroile…