Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Published on June 11, 2013 By Draginol In Politics

As discussed here, the climate models that predicted a rapidly warming earth continue to be way way off.

 

image

The measured results and the projected results are way off.

I’ve received a lot of grief over the years from friends, family and colleagues because I’m a global warming “skeptic” (particularly about AGW). 

Now mind you, I drive an electric car powered by a solar array and live in a house heated and cooled through Geothermal and had a gold rating from the NAHB.  I personally fall into the “the less impact I can have on the environment, the better” line. But there’s a big difference between what I voluntarily do and what the government tries to coerce me and other people to do and when it comes to AGW, I don’t think the evidence is compelling enough to justify a world wide economic depression.

6 years ago, I wrote an article called “What happens if the Earth starts cooling?” which speculated on what would environmentalists say if their predictions turned out to be wrong. 6 years later, the measured temperatures for 2012 are less than those of 2006 which in turn were less than 2005 which where less than 2003 which were less than 1998.  I’m not arguing a trend down but now that global temperatures have gotten highly politicized, the measured temperatures are now much more scrutinized than they used to be (which is why I take the precision of temperatures in say 1950 with a grain of salt).

What should be reasonably irrefutable at this stage is that the climate models are wrong. By a lot.  According to the models, the mean atmospheric temperatures should be well over almost 0.50 degrees higher than they were in 2000.  Instead, it’s within the margin of error of being the same. 

None of this should mean that we shouldn’t try to reduce our impact on the environment. But hopefully people will start to decouple their political beliefs from their scientific beliefs. Skepticism isn’t a bad thing.

 

IMG_00100

I’d like to think I’m doing my part but I did this voluntarily.


Comments (Page 1)
on Jun 12, 2013

And good onya for doing so.  And I'm with you in being completely against coercion (taxation) in the name of a (literally) non-existent threat.  Al's got enough money.  Just ask BO ("At some point, you have enough money.")

on Jun 12, 2013

Not all climate models are wrong.  But those used to promote a meme of AGW always are.  The reason is simple.  It is not science.  It is a conclusion chasing data.

 

I have made an extensive study of the claims.  The problem is that the proxy data is exactly what they accuse the skeptics of doing (cherry picking - MBH98 is based on a single Tree in Yamal). 

 

Many dismiss the CG emails because no illegal activities were proven by them.  But then the corruption of science is not a legal issue.  They did prove that the authors were subverting science to advance their conclusion.  So they can call it whatever they want, but the reality is, it is not science.  It is pure faith.

on Jun 12, 2013

We can't even figure out what the weather will be tomorrow.

To look ahead and say, we can predict this, and then it doesn't happen as you predicted, makes me question the ability of scientists to look at something today and understand the past from it as well. 

I'm very skeptical.

on Jun 13, 2013

This!

I personally fall into the “the less impact I can have on the environment, the better” line. But there’s a big difference between what I voluntarily do and what the government tries to coerce me and other people to do and when it comes to AGW, I don’t think the evidence is compelling enough to justify a world wide economic depression.

on Jun 19, 2013

Gah... I try to avoid the argument all together with...

"Pollution is bad, stop polluting."

Take care of the easy things 1st I guess.

Regardless, go read "Sea Sick" if you really want to see what the impact of pollution is having. It paints a pretty grim scenario with the ecosystem buffers because of stupid human nature.

Basically, we can create enough pollution right now to damage the oceanic eco-systems directly, but the natural buffers temporarily mitigate that. The problem is that the buffers are an accumulating deficit, so when they are breached we are well past the point of no return. Human nature is that we generally do not take action until we notice a problem. (for the economy etc...).  

 

on Jun 19, 2013

LORD-ORION
Regardless, go read "Sea Sick" if you really want to see what the impact of pollution is having.

Pollution is bad - just look at Beijing.  However CO2 is not pollution. It is an essential life gas for the planet.  We are at roughly 400ppm right now.  Should that drop by 60%, plant life stops.  Without plants, you have no herbivores.  With no herbivores the carnivores die.  Etc. etc. etc.

 

The false argument is against CO2, not pollution.  And that is why the models are always wrong.  The basic premise is wrong.

on Jun 19, 2013

Omnivore plants live forever.

on Jun 21, 2013

 

This chart is directly from Wikipedia.

Now, I want to point out that according to this chart, between 1975 and 2001 the measured temperature supposedly increased by 0.80C. That's a pretty abrupt increase. Of course, people weren't really paying attention back then and having some familiarity with how scientific readings are often taken (especially at the university level) I have some skepticism on the accuracy of the readings that came out BEFORE the IPCC report.  

After that report, people really started to pay attention and the readings started to get scrutinized prior to being recorded to make sure there weren't various other influences on the temperature reading. So what happened? The temperature readings stopped trending any particular way. 

I want to point out again: Before 2001, the temperature was going up at an alarming rate.  After 2001, when the "deniers" started scrutinizing how the data was being collected, the "warming" abruptly stopped.

on Jun 22, 2013

http://ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/vuositilastot 

The data is in Finnish and from Finland. From this data it's obvious that there is at least local (country level) warming trend in Finland. Extreme weather is also more common now days than it was in my childhood, as a personal observation.

It is often predicted that melting ice caps counter the global warming effect. That might or might not be true; what is true is that Greenland will soon be worthy it's name: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jun 22, 2013

Frogboy, I would not use any climate data from wiki.  Google William Connelly to find out why, especially in the area of Climate Science, Wikipedia is worthless.

The information you seek is available from other sources, and gives a slightly different picture.  A more honest one.

on Jun 22, 2013

Boogeytroll
what is true is that Greenland will soon be worthy it's name: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html.

Doubtful.  As the temperatures have not gone over freezing.  And unless you know of a way for 10th century vikings to farm permafrost, then Greenland got its name legitimately and was warmer during the MWP.  However, if you have a theory on how midevel farmers could farm permafrost (explaining the historical data from both the Vatican and physical evidence left by the former occupants), I think the scientific world would be fascinated to hear how it was done.

Boogeytroll
It is often predicted that melting ice caps counter the global warming effect.

There is no hypothesis that describes such a scenario.  Indeed, the worst case scenario of the alarmist is that the ice cap on Greenland and Antarctica (which is actually growing colder over the past few years) would melt completely and raise sea levels by about 60 feet.  However, that hysteria fails to take into account that Greenland is actually bowl shaped, and more likely, if the entire cap melted, would create one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world.

 

on Jun 23, 2013

@dr, I know but even using their datto you notice that as soon as the tempersture readings started to get closely scrutinized that the temperature miraculously stabilized.

moreover, tsees same groups had predicted that the temperature would be o.50c warmer by 2011 (10 yealate after the IPCC report) when in fact according to their own readings it was cooler.

on Jun 23, 2013

Dr Guy

Quoting Boogeytroll, reply 9what is true is that Greenland will soon be worthy it's name: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html. 

Doubtful.  As the temperatures have not gone over freezing.  And unless you know of a way for 10th century vikings to farm permafrost, then Greenland got its name legitimately and was warmer during the MWP.
 

 

According to folklore, which is believed to be correct, Grænland got it's name as a marketing device. Greenland has been for the past 100.000 years mostly frozen, in fact most of that ice is over 15 million years old.

Dr Guy

Quoting Boogeytroll, reply 9It is often predicted that melting ice caps counter the global warming effect. 

There is no hypothesis that describes such a scenario.  Indeed, the worst case scenario of the alarmist is that the ice cap on Greenland and Antarctica (which is actually growing colder over the past few years) would melt completely and raise sea levels by about 60 feet.  However, that hysteria fails to take into account that Greenland is actually bowl shaped, and more likely, if the entire cap melted, would create one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world.
 

Jiping Liu's (and METOffice UK's) scenario is quite often referenced when talking about current winter conditions. 

 

 

 

on Jun 23, 2013

Boogeytroll
According to folklore, which is believed to be correct, Grænland got it's name as a marketing device. Greenland has been for the past 100.000 years mostly frozen, in fact most of that ice is over 15 million years old.

There are indeed areas of Greenland that have ice cover that old.  But there are also places, now covered with permafrost, that show farming by the ancient vikings 1000 years ago.  Which indicates they either knew how to farm permafrost, or the part now covered with permafrost (not ice sheets) was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today.  And not all records are merely geological and archeological records.  The Vatican has records of church taxes collected during that time which indicate a thriving society of about 3600-4500 people.  These are written records.

 

 

on Jul 20, 2013

Climate Change by - Baud2Bits   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm9bV5_hEeI

Climate change isn’t all that complicated except for all the political opinions offered as somehow meaningful. Do you really care about the modeling in the face of the data collected? The simple fact is that we are altering the earth’s natural hot/cold cycles and that is undeniable, beyond that it is a flip of the coin. Is our ‘interference’ delaying the inevitable or quickening it? What is taking place now is due to what we did 50-100 years ago, not what we are doing now. That will become apparent much later in this century and because we are on an exponential curve here, the effects will be much worse (its accumulative). Most of what I hear is based on humanities survival which would be greatly inconvenienced by 5-10 degree change in global temperature but survivable but what will stabilize it then? Unfortunately most of the plants and animals on earth aren’t so adaptable which is why ~99.9% has already gone extinct. As a species we are newborns on the geological time scale and our survivability has yet to be determined. But the surest way to fail (IMO) is to ignore the impact on the ecological foundations all life on earth is dependent on … the food chain. The planet will survive and recover because that is nature’s way, but if we want to be here to experience it; well nature doesn’t GAS how intelligent we think we are and will have no problems adding humanity to the long list of species failures. The bottom line is that if we continue to do what we are doing now we will be totally screwed in the not so distant future. Don’t know where the point of no return is but I know we don’t want to get there.

Meta
Views
» 8278
Comments
» 28
Category
Sponsored Links