Why? Good question
The Truth Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You To Know About The Climate Models
The global warming alarmists tell us to trust the science. But when it comes to climate studies, there’s less science and more accounting going on there.
Computer models have an important place in science. They are useful in helping us understand our world, but models themselves aren’t science. Encyclopaedia Britannica says “scientific models at best are approximations of the objects and systems that they represent,†but “they are not exact replicas.†In the case of climate models, they are not even close to being approximate replicas.
“There can be too much of a good thing,†scholars Patrick J. Michaels and David E. Wojick wrote last week in a Cato At Liberty blog post about climate models. And in climate science, the “good thing†has become the dominant thing.
Michaels and Wojick did a little digging and what they learned was “that modeling completely dominates climate change research.†In other words, climate scientists put greater faith in results produced more by math calculations than solid science.
Of course, Warmists will complain about the messenger, rather than the notion that what they call climate science is really climate modeling. 55% of all modeling in scientific research is done by Warmists, while climate science accounts for just 4% of all science. Think about this in reverse: 96% of other scientific endeavors accounts for just 45% of the modeling. And the models from Warmists are consistently wrong. 95% failed to predict the Pause. They failed to predict the greening of the earth. They even fail in reverse, being unable to replicate the actual climate, both at the local level and world level.
Yet the modeling template marches on, even as, Michaels and Wojick note, “the climate science research that is done appears to be largely focused on improving the models.â€
Get that? Climate scientists are spending more energy and resources trying to upgrade their flawed models than they are trying to understand the climate itself. And it’s a good bet that what most climate scientists will consider improved modeling will be programs that predict even greater warmth.
The models will give out exactly what the Warmist “scientists” want them to give out. When in doubt, change the data and the model to conform to the preconceived notions. This is what modeling does: allows wild, incoherent prognostications of doom, while also creating “data” out of nothing.
Global warming ceased being science years ago when people like Hansen and Gore found out they could get rich on it. Leftist Politicians embraced it since it nicely detracts from the abysmal job they do when elected and diverts attention from their inherent corruption. And of course academia embraced it since there’s money to be made.
As for science, they all try to silence the opposition. If there were real science involved, debate would be encouraged and if the global warming cultists arguments had merit, they’d be winning the argument with ease.
Blah, blah, blah. Yet, the Earth is still warming rapidly from CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere. Do you think the thermometers are all being mismodeled? The loss of Arctic ice, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers are all modeling errors?
This is how Denialists like Michaels operate. Pick a tangent and run with it.
Do you deny that the Earth is warming in an unprecedented fashion over the past 12,000 years?
CO2 is increasing, and the Earth is warming rapidly. What you are spewing is Denier BS.
Now to Crooked Teach’s lies:
95% failed to predict the Pause. Prove it.
They failed to predict the greening of the earth. Prove it.
They even fail in reverse, being unable to replicate the actual climate, both at the local level and world level. Prove it.
-that little guy who exaggerates often
Prove it!
Jeff,
How many times do you have to be shown to be wrong on all your assumptions before you get smart? Of course, you only look at the increase in taxes that we have to pay so you can write a grant and get more of it.
It sucks to be a climate scientist if you have to use real measurements like other scientists do. What a hassle!
I remember (a long time ago) working on the cytogenetics of corn. First I had to grow the corn. Till the field, make furrows, acquire controlled seeds, plant, water, thin, fertilize, manual pollination and bagging, harvesting. Then you have to collect all the kernels and count and catalogue them and do statistical analysis. Then do it again the next year. If only we had computers then. I could have stayed in my cubicle and hung around the coffee pot and been a blowhard about how my simulations will prove my hypothesis 100% of the time.
dave,
Is the Earth warming?
They failed when their models predicted more hurricanes, bigger hurricanes, more tornadoes, worse droughts, worse floods, less snow, coastal destruction, accelerated sea level rise, accelerated glacial melting, loss of ice caps, and a thousand myriad side-effect models predicting bad things happening to flora and fauna and housecats.
They failed in almost every way. Pull their budgets and send them home.
Not sure about the housecat thing, but the rest is occurring, just outside Denierville.
The models (as did Svante Arrhenius a century ago; and also scores of other scientists) predicted that burning fossil fuels would cause CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere causing the Earth’s surface to warm.
Is the abrupt and unprecedented (for at least 1 million years) rise in atmospheric CO2 from humans burning fossil fuels? Yes, without question.
Does CO2 in the atmosphere absorb infrared radiation and warm the atmosphere? Yes, without question.
Is the abrupt and unprecedented (for the last 12,000 years) increase in surface temperature explained by the increase in CO2? Yes, without question.
Is ice in the Arctic, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets being lost rapidly? Yes!
Is sea level increasing as the models predict? Yes!
Are the oceans warming as the models predict? Yes!
Is ocean pH decreasing just as the models predict? Yes!
Are the distributions of flora and fauna changing? Yes!
Is the Earth flat? No!
Is there proof of gods, demons, miracles, angels or magic? Of course not.
Denialists would have us belief these are all coincidence or the result of magic or diving intervention!
OK Denialists, here’s your chance to shine!
By what physical mechanism(s) is the Earth warming?
Scientists are convinced by evidence that the warming is caused by increased atmospheric CO2.
By what physical mechanism(s) is the Earth warming?
-that little guy…
Can they prove it?
By what physical mechanism(s) is the Earth warming?
Jeffery brings this up once in awhile.
It only shows how desperate he is.
The argument he is making is a well known logical fallacy in which because one does not have a answer, the hypothesis must be true.
Here, the logic less Jeffery is saying “because you can’t state a theory on why the earth is warming, AGW must be true!”
Yet the fact of the matter is that the science of climate is not settled, is relatively young with relatively limited and imprecise data, and consists of millions, if not billions of variables.
Non worshipers of the AGW religion say that the earth warms and cools due to a natural cycle which we do not yet fully understand. Jeffery, because he believes himself to be omniscient and infallible, believes in AGW.
In short, Jeffery is trying to make a logically fallacy into an argument. What he doesn’t realize is that all he is doing is making himself to appear ignorant and without the ability to think critically.
Note, scientist were convinced that cholesterol caused heart disease, it has nothing to do with it. Then they were convinced that bleeding patients cured their many ailments, nope. They were convinced that stomach ulcers were caused by excess acid and other issues, no, caused by a little known bacteria. The list of issues that convince scientist is enormous and they are wrong most of the time. This has nothing to do with “denying” science, it has to do with understanding the scientific process, something Jeff and the left have no knowledge of.
Now, Jeff is very good at one thing. He knows how to write grant request. That is a true talent and in doing so, Jeff has been amply paid from our tax dollars for his education and corporation.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php
global warming debate has grown so tiresome.
Water vapor will actually cool the earth by bringing more clouds until this planet becomes shrouded in cloud cover due to water vapor.
The end result will be what has always happened historically with rapid heating………
RAPID COOLING>……..I fear this much more then a warmer planet.
Kleagle-dee,
So cholesterol has NOTHING to do with heart disease? LOL. That’s a good one.
I bet you read a lot by Dr. Mercola, don’t you?
But, yet there are actual scientific studies that call into question the benefit of statins for some populations. Because of these studies, the AHA and the ACC changed their guidelines. That’s how science works. Note that these studies did not falsify the theory that serum cholesterol contributes to cardiovascular disease.
In fact:
You are quite right that gastric and duodenal ulcers, once thought caused by stress, spicy foods, coffee, etc were shown to caused by Helicobacter and NSAIDs. Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize for the their discovery of the infectious basis of peptic ulcers. These discoveries changed how ulcers were treated. That’s how science works.
So… can you present actual scientific studies that falsify the theory of AGW?
Is it the position of you and Teach and gc that the physical cause of this unusual rapid warming just hasn’t been discovered yet? And your solutions are to stop research and then do nothing.
Laim,
From your reference:
Much above 2°C would prove catastrophic to human civilizations.
Jeff,
If I had a modicum of respect for you, then I would answer your comments. As it is, I don’t have any concern about your education or improving your logic. I suggest you write another grant proposal and take more college classes.
Kleagle-dee,
We’ll take that as a no, you can’t make an argument.
And honestly, you’re insults are bottom shelf.
Have you stopped with your shoe shine boy white supremacist meme?
Denialists,
Let’s try another approach. We put the likelihood that human produced CO2 is causing the Earth to warm at about 95%. Obviously, it gets more likely as each year passes and there is no feasible alternative uncovered, but there is a remote chance that the theory is wrong.
Do you put the likelihood at 0%, 1%, 10%, 50% or more? Is it even possible that fossil fuel generated CO2 is causing the current rapid warming?
Jeffery try to understand this in the context of science.
It does NOT matter if we are adding co2 to the planet via mankind’s actions or not. The planet is warming. Throughout the evolution of earth there have been dozens upon dozens of rapid temperature rises which are always followed by RAPID slides into mini or maxi ice ages.
This is only natural. The point here is scientifically proven. Warmth causes more water vapor. More water vapor creates more cloud cover…..More cloud cover creates more reflection of the suns warmth. This results in a dramatic and rapid colder planet.
As the planet cools, the water vapor evaporates and the other Greenhouse gases including methane and CO2 are sinked.
Unfortunately the anti-capitalists around the world have used CO2 in an attempt to squelch productivity and return the economies of the world to facists, socialist and communist governments in some uneducated desire to see equality of the masses.
This makes AGW political, not scientific. They cloak their agenda in science and fear mongering when the real agenda is the simple redistribution of wealth. When its 40 degress in florida those same AGW kooks will be demanding the production of fossil fuels and blaming exxon for turning of the spickets to raise prices after they were shut down due to the fear mongering of the AGW crowd using co2 and science as their scare tactic.
Its political….so I ask again….what makes you think Mankind even deserves to live given its massive propensity to kill any and everything that inhabits the planet including themselves?
Laim,
We’ll put you down for a 0%.
Who decides if we “deserve” to survive.
Perhaps our will to survive is genetically programmed – selfish DNA, we suppose. But you raise a good point. In scientific, non-magical systems, species live in their environments interacting with other organisms, both plant and animals. Each individual takes what it needs to survive from the environment.
If predators are not abundant, and food is, and the weather is not too severe, white-tail deer populations increase, attracting predators, depleting food sources and the high population density of deer makes the spread of disease more likely. It’s the self-limiting circle of death.
So maybe our overproduction of noxious gases IS natural, and the resulting flooding, diseases, famine, war, mass migrations and severe weather should be embraced as natural. We’re very likely the only species that can make conscious decisions regarding our own population. Your question is, should we?
Friday morning links: Holiday weekend begins today
White Man’s Game: Saving Animals, Rebuilding Eden, and Other Myths About Conservation in Africa What’s the future for Great Lakes salmon? Interesting story about this introduced, non-native fish – landlocked salmon 28% of US bees wiped out this wi
So the Earth is actually cooling from the increased cloud cover or is it just hypothetical at this time? Or is this something that is predicted to happen in the future?
You mentioned science – and certainly science demonstrates that warmer air holds more water vapor (and this is a positive feedback loop that worries climate scientists) – is there evidence of greater cloud cover reflecting sunlight, stopping warming? Is there an estimate of when the mini or maxi ice age will start?
You describe the hypothesis that could lead to cooling – do you have one that led to the current period of rapid warming?
We assume you mean the water vapor will be lost as rain and trapped as ice, and the methane as clathrates – what’s the nature of the CO2 sinks?
Google Scholar is not the best resource for this purpose.
‘Biology’ since 2006 493k links.
‘Modeling’ since 2006 971k links.
‘Biology Modeling’ since 2006 (conjunction is tacit, as can be determined in advanced search) 1490k links.
That means modeling in biology is found about 300% of the returned links. Other odd results can be had by searching for things like climate change -modeling, which implies that modeling is never mentioned in papers on climate change.
zachriel,
I agree with you, climate science should be labeled as a religion or even voodoo. Also, searching the internet for reliable information is fairly stupid.
dave,
Did you have any residence training?
Did I have residence training? What is that? Or do you mean residency? If so, not only that but fellowship as well. And the government did not pay my way or start my businesses.
dave,
The federal government (Medicare) pays for residency programs. If you were a resident, you were subsidized by taxpayers.
You had a fellowship? Paid for by whom?
Wrong Jeff. Get your facts straight. Remember, I trained forty years ago. And I worked eighty hours per week. You got a free ride..
Wrong Dave. Get your facts straight. Remember, Medicare is fifty years old. I only worked 60 hours per week. You got a free ride.
So dave, the post-doctoral training that most US physicians receive in America is paid for by American taxpayers. Wow, taxpayers subsidizing the wealthy. Do you think we should slash the money the government gives to doctors in training and let the free market take care of it? Or make it a loan where the residents are required to pay back the money once they’re making over a million a year like you do?
Here is the thing. The warmists say that if CO2 is responsible for warming, the warming should show up in the layers of the atmosphere easily measured by the orbiting satellites.
The nice thing about this is that it can easily be verified and inaccuracies in measurements can be corrected for the time of day and anomalies in the satellite’s orbit and, if we do not trust the adjustments, we can take the raw data and do the math, ourselves. Also, unlike the surface data, the satellites provide coverage of everywhere on the surface of the planet, not just those locations where surface data is collected, and it is totally unaffected by urban heat island effects.
What does the satellite data tell us?
That during the period when mankind was adding CO2 to the atmosphere at the fastest rate, global warming slowed to rate whose 95% confidence levels do not rule out slow cooling and must be less than 0.5 degrees per century.
If this data is wrong, it would not agree with the weather balloon data, but it does. It does disagree with the surface data, but the surface data has severe issues with not being everywhere.
UAHv5.6 shows warming from 1999 of 0.192 ±0.180°C/decade at the 2-sigma level.
Richard Bell: The data disagree with your analyis. Any rebuttal?
Zachiel is correct – Spencer and Christy’s UAH shows 0.192°C/decade warming since 1999 as CO2 was increasing steadily. Even the denialist-approved RSS shows 0.143°C/decade over that interval.
We suspect you prefer using an older version of RSS satellite data (your so-called “raw” data, which is not raw at all but more adjusted than thermometer data) and that you prefer an interval starting just before the 1998 El Nino and ending just before the 2015 El Nino (the Denialist “Pause”). Using those limits we see 0.00°C change!
The Earth is warming from CO2 we’re adding.
Jeff,
If you receive Medicare, you have worked for it. I don’t know where you get the facts that it is a gift. Now, you are not deluding me and the people on this comment board know that you are a liar and some kind of nut. So, you are inventing this stuff to satisfy some bizarre need and frustration, likely related to not being able to use the women’s restroom. Now, what is obvious is that you received grants for school and business, that is our tax money. For some scum like you to be supported by the taxpayer is beyond obnoxious.
As to the subject of CO2, your analysis is consistently wrong and there is clearly no relation between CO2 and climate. You have been posting for a few years now and have not been able to give any analysis of CO2 and climate that is remotely convincing. Instead, all you show is that you are a bigot, racist, ignorant piece of crap that has no idea as to how the rest of us work as you simply write a grant and get our tax money.
– Prove it.
The most direct evidence is the warming surface and troposphere while the stratosphere cools, a signature of greenhouse warming.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
Any real practitioner of the scientific method would compare the model to the empirical data and say “We are missing something”.
The joy of birthing in science is when your model matches reality. That’s when they name stuff after you.
Here you are:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
dave,
You probably just didn’t know that Medicare pays for our residency programs. That’s OK, there’s a lot you don’t know. Do you think that a 20-something resident who’s done little but attend school for 20 years has paid a lot of Medicare taxes?
http://www.med.uth.tmc.edu/administration/edu_programs/Assets/documents/gme/medicare_payments_gme.pdf
2. Does Medicare have a role in financing graduate medical education? Yes. Medicare is the largest single program providing explicit support for graduate medical education (GME). In federal fiscal year 2011, the Medicare program paid hospitals that train residents approximately $3.2 billion dollars in direct graduate medical education (DGME) funds… DGME payments cover a portion of the direct costs of training residents, such as residents’ stipends and benefits…
Regarding CO2 and global warming, your thinking is not in line with the scientific understandings of climate. The Earth is warming. The reason the Earth is warming is CO2 that mankind has added to the atmosphere. You can deny those facts, just as one can claim that vaccines cause autism, one can claim serum cholesterol has NO relation to CV disease, that toads cause warts, that we use only 10% of our brains (insert insult here), sugar causes hyperactivity, lightning only strikes once, antibiotics kill viruses etc etc.
Here’s an interesting essay on the nature of the scientific processes and methods.
http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/TenMyths.html
LOL!
Using MET Office info to support arguments for AGW is like using State Dept info to support arguments for Hillary’s non-use of classified emails on her server. Or using the IRS to support arguments that Lois Lerner was non-biased in her pogroms against conservative non-profit groups.
Well, there it is, two pretty little graphs that ‘prove’ CO2 added by mankind causes global warming.
Thanks.
The MET Office are the laughingstock of failed climate predictions. They are only useful if you use the opposite rule on their predictions. Not to mention that they tried to hide the decline, cover up the pause, and erase the Medieval Warming Period.
Jeff,
It is funny, but when I was a professor and obtaining money for residency programs, Medicare was a very small part of the funding. Besides, how does that figure at all in that you are a free loader? No one works harder than residents and they get paid very little. You on the other hand did nothing to get your money for your education and business except stiff the taxpayers.
Finally, CO2, especially that produced by man, has nothing to do with the climate and you have done nothing to demonstrate that. In addition, you have totally lost your credibility on this site.
Jeff,
I looked at your little reference on science myths, it supports the arguments of others on the site, not yours. You don’t seem to have any idea what the scientific method is, do you?
Jeff,
Also, as to the cholesterol issue. I don’t give a flip if you can’t understand the issue. I think others can and this further goes to showing your stupidity. One of your issues is that you are only as smart as the internet and abstracts that you see. Go to your local medical library and look up the original articles, oh, I am so sorry, I forgot you can’t read and understand.
Every major scientific organization in the world agrees with the basic findings. There is no reasonable dispute that the surface and lower troposphere have warmed, while the stratosphere has cooled, a signature of greenhouse warming.
Handwaving does not make the data go away.
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be frozen.
Oh, sorry. Guess I missed the part where the ‘data’ in those two pretty little graphs ‘proved’ CO2 added mankind causes global warming.
Please point out where it is.