The Chill Is On [no global warming]

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 4/4/2008 | editorial

[Need4Truth]

Climate Change: Global warming? Don't worry about it. It's over. No longer does Al Gore have to fly around the world in private jets emitting greenhouse gases to save the world from — greenhouse gases

Were the IPCC not dedicated to spreading fear, it would admit its climate models, on which much of the global warming madness is based, are flawed. While pandering politicians, media sycophants and Hollywood dupes desperately seeking significance have lectured us about our carbon monoxide emissions, real temperature changes measured over the past 30 years have not matched well with increases predicted by the IPCC's models.

That means that projections of future warming are too high, that the entire global warming assumption is suspect, and that Gore [McCain,...] should find something more productive to do with his time.

It also proves that Howard Hayden, physics professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut, was correct in describing the machinery of the climate model-hysteria industrial complex as one that takes "garbage in" and spits "gospel out."

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

Thanks, but somewhere some such results must have been published or IBD wouldn’t have written that they were not predictive

Not necessarily true, if they got "close enough" by "curve fitting" instead of creating an actual analog of the Earth's dynamic climate system, they could tweak the fudge factors enough to look reasonable. What they published were not "calibrating" runs but "projections" into the future which just happened to coincide with their pre-established conclusions. At no time have they ever used those systems of equations to "predict the past" and thus demonstrate that they are valid.

Baldly put, they lied and forced the model so as to prove what they deeply believed to be the truth. Perhaps they didn't even realize they were lying because the "observer effect" causes most researchers to find exactly what they are searching for, right or wrong.

That "observer effect" is the reason the scientific method requires a vigorous debate among your peers and duplication of results by independent researchers before a theory is accepted as more then a "working hypothesis".

Regards,
GtG

PS There is a vast difference between fitting a mathematical curve to historic data and building an actual model of a natural phenomenon.

[GregoryFul]

Apparently the current models do not include the effect of clouds, as nobody knows how to model them. It is known that they have a great effect on temperature, it is not known how they form, when they form, where they form, etc., so the modelers, as I understand, leave them out.

I've not seen one claim of a back tested model, the minimum criteria one should accept as a possible validation. Give me a model that predicts forward climate in 10, 20, 30 year epochs over a 100 year time span, maybe you got something. If not, flush the trash down the toilet.

[NordP]

..."we will not usurp the liberty of our countrymen over a theory..."

EXCELLENT - LOVE IT, but be SURE to add:

"It goes without saying that we should ALWAYS strive to be good stewards of the land, for our children and grandchildren's sake."

That is fair and respectful.

(IF WE RULED THE WORLD, HUH???? ;-)

[Robert A Cook PE]

I like that phrase “Garbage in, Gospel out” too.

(Too bad I couldn’t have come up with it first!)

[Robert A Cook PE]

Thanks, but somewhere some such results must have been published or IBD wouldn’t have written that they were not predictive. If no such results, how did Kyoto ever get off the ground?

Nope. Sorry - Even the modified/revised “warnings” (modified from as recently as 1998) have NOT been correct only ten years later: Hansen predicted (in the late 1990’s) that under his “if no action is taken” scenario (which, after all - IS what has happened from 1998 - 2008!) that temperatures by 2010 would be 1.5 degrees hotter than in the baseline year of 1972.

Well, it's now 2008 ( only two years from his SHORT-RANGE prediction of +1.5 degrees, and he (as always) has failed utterly. Temp's have NOT risen for ten years, are now cooler than they have been since 1996-1997, and show no rising trend at all.

EVEN in the shortest range, his predictions are off by 1/3. And yet we are supposed to believe that his predictions for 300 years are correct - and we are to bankrupt our economy, and condemn billions to cold and starvation without energy, based on his guesses. His gospel of lies.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

Apparently the current models do not include the effect of clouds, as nobody knows how to model them.

That's not all that gets left out. I remember reading a few months ago that a European mathematician took a look at the differential equations that form the core of the current "hot setup" model. It turns out that in establishing the boundary conditions for the model, it was assumed that the Earth's atmosphere is infinitely thick, homogeneous and isentropic. This was done because the modelers didn't know how to attack the actual case of a finite atmosphere with decreasing density.

The math whiz corrected the glaring misapprehension of fact and guess what? The CO₂ feedback loop changed sign from it's original (tipping point) positive to a nice comforting negative. The result of that "little" change quashes the possibility of "runaway" global warming. It's all over, game, set, match! As Al Bore would say, there is nothing to discuss.

Regards,
GtG

PS I'm still looking for that citation, when I dig it up I'll post links on this thread.

[GregoryFul]

Little details...

[uscabjd]

Thanks. Any cite for this?

[uscabjd]

Also, who is Hansen?

[neverdem]

I like that phrase “Garbage in, Gospel out” too.

It strikes me as a handy rhetorical retort.

[Eye On The Left]

Also, who is Hansen?

"Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz. Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist.":
http://www.freedom.org/news/200607/12/morano.phtml

James Hansen, from October 2004:

"Several years ago I received the Heinz Environment Award. I don't know who nominated me for that award or how the selection works."

"I am confident that it has no impact on my evaluation of the climate problem or on my political leanings."

"In the upcoming election I will vote for John Kerry."

Source: Columbia University.edu [pdf]:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf

Also see: Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady for the Radical Left:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12187

[Newtoidaho]

I’ve read where these climate models, in addition to leaving out clouds and using a simplified assumption of the atmosphere, also leave out the following:

Ocean current and changes in ocean temperature (El Nino and La Nina)
Wind
Moisture in the atmosphere
Sunspot activity
Impact on humidity levels caused by melting sea ice

It seems they are trying to correlate, almost exclusively, the percent of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to changes in surface temperature.

[alwaysconservative]

What the heck happened to the ping page all of a sudden? Thanks for the pings, but I probably am missing some of them since I can’t figure out the new system, LOL!

[xcamel]

“View All”

[syriacus]

The global warming debate is not over. Indeed, the debate is beginning to favor the skeptics.

Someone needs to tell more of us little people, the non-scientists, that the temperature hasn't increased since 1998.

That's pretty straightforward.

[alwaysconservative]

You neglected to say that I have to click “view all” EVERY single time I go to my pings. . .(aaargh!)

[antonia]

If no such results, how did Kyoto ever get off the ground?

The main supporter of the treaty is the United Nations whose humble beginnings as an eleemosynary institution was too restrictive for it's big spending, fascist ideals. And so the UN has embarked on a course of developing some kind of world tax (with out any representation on the part of the taxed) with which to fund it's expansion. The underlying appeal in these scheme is fear mongering.

Because of America's singular propensity of extreme generosity in the in the face of any country's disaster and/or hardships, the UN has realized that America's love of altruistic,benevolent, charity can be exploited.

It has only been recently, with the internet's access to all kinds of historical, technical and factual data that we have had the ability to question what has actually been done with money. Or to even question what these people have said about the climate for example. If we hadn't developed this ability, of independently being able to analyze data and to publish instantly on the web our views, the mass media would have remained the last word on the subject.

[uscabjd]

Thank you, but my original question (I think) was did the predictions of 5, 10 15 or 20 yr ago about how hot it would be in 2009 prove to be accurate or wrong?

[SIDENET]

Does this mean that somebody can scream back at Al Gore “HE PRAYED ON OUR FEARS”...... LOL...

He looks like he has preyed on some Big Macs.

[PA Engineer]

Methinks it is going to get much colder. Today from Spaceweather.



The sun is blank--no sunspots. Credit: SOHO/MDI