Science slows global warming!

American Thinker ^ | September 07, 2008 | James Lewis

[neverdem]

Yes, kids, science is a wonderful thing. But not nearly as wonderful as climate modeling, which can perform supernatural miracles. Honest! Climate modeling can raise the level of the oceans (even without Obama's intervention), it can burn up the planet a hundred years from now, and Shazzam! -- the models can save us again -- all without leaving your video games, and without the benefit of the real-world data that you need for boring old regular science.

At least, that's what Nature -- the oldest science journal in the world, going back to Isaac Newton -- now claims.

According to credulous journalist extraordinaire Katharine Sanderson (who has no degree in climatology), we are supposed to believe that "sophisticated climate chemistry models have shown that the (Montreal) Protocol has done much more than rescue the planet from sunburn."

For all you great unwashed, the Montreal Protocol prohibited CFC's, which used to keep our refrigerators cold. Now we find out that not only has Montreal saved the world's ozone layer, but it has even postponed the dreaded catastrophe of Global Warming!

How do we know that? What's the actual evidence?

Well, ummmm... well... duuuhhh

Oh yes, it's a "sophisticated climate chemistry model"!

Phew.

Nature.com tells us that

"The team worked out a predicted value for chlorine levels in the stratosphere ... in the year 2030, on the basis of how quickly chlorine levels were rising in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

"Chlorine is known to be the main driver for atmospheric ozone depletion in the stratosphere, ...

"They ran this value of chlorine -- 9 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) -- through their computer models simulating climate chemistry. For comparison, they also ran the models with a chlorine level of 3.5 ppbv, which was the level in the stratosphere by the late 1990s. ... (The computer model) showed what effect this ozone loss would have had on the planet's climate at the surface. And those changes are significant.

"'What we're seeing here is a big signal,' says (John) Pyle (the Cambridge scientist who led the modeling team)."

So -- pay attention to this, now, kids -- these video gamers extrapolated the chlorine numbers from fifty years ago, before satellites were available to measure that stuff. Then they took another number from the 1990s. Then they projected two decades ahead to 2030 what would have been the value of chlorine without and without the Montreal Protocol.

Then they took credit for the "improvement" in chlorine levels, which are supposed to stand for ozone levels, which are supposed to stand for global warming levels 22 years from now.

Got that?

It is the ultimate example of scientific hubris. 

As Bjorn Lomborg just wrote in The Guardian, of all places,

"Much of the global warming debate is perhaps best described as a constant outbidding by frantic campaigners, producing a barrage of ever-more scary scenarios in an attempt to get the public to accept their civilisation-changing proposals. Unfortunately, the general public -- while concerned about the environment -- is distinctly unwilling to support questionable solutions with costs running into tens of trillions of pounds. Predictably, this makes the campaigners reach for even more outlandish scares."

And Freeman Dyson, who is a real Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist, not the fake kind, wrote in his autobiography that: 

"...all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. ... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."

In no other field of science can you create a garbage-in/garbage-out video game about one of the most complex nonlinear systems known to science, the earth climate, and make wild guesses and get paid for it -- not to mention being celebrated in the pages of Nature. You just take a data point from fifty years ago, add another point from the 1990s, project it all to 2030, make inferences from chlorine to ozone to global warming, publish the result, and get celebrated for your non-existent proof of current pop orthodoxy about Armageddon.

And no, this is not "a big signal" in climate evidence, Professor Pyle. It's a big signal in your model. If you tweak a dozen other variables you could change that result without ever leaving your desk. And what's more, you and all the other global warming frauds out there know that perfectly well.

This is a sad reflection of the corruption of the scientific enterprise. Non fingo hypothesi, said Newton when he was urged to perform a similar miracle in his time: I do not make wildly speculative hypotheses. Today we do perform miracles of prediction, and earn Nobel Peace Prizes for superannuated politicians, not to mention billions of dollars to support fraudulent superstition in the name of science.

Today's climate modeling has gone far beyond Isaac Newton. Or beyond any other scientist in history, for that matter. Today, we can not only predict the things that will happen to Planet Earth a hundred years from now within a few degrees Centigrade, we can also tell you about all the terrible things that woulda happened if our Green politicians hadn't passed the Montreal Protocol.

Whoever said scientists don't believe in miracles? 

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com

[BenLurkin]

“sophisticated climate chemistry models have shown that the (Montreal) Protocol has done much more than rescue the planet from sunburn.”

Oh goody.

Can I pay more thaxes?

[plsjr]

Would someone, anyone, ... pleeeaase ... ask The Maverick to consider this?

[ConservativeMind]

I created a sophisticated computer model based on information from World War I and II, the Cold War, through today, and I found that if I hadn't blown my nose three times on Jan 28, 1977, we would have had over 1,352 nuclear bombs detonated around the world, with three accidentally detonating within their silos without having been fully launched.

My model was unable to determine whose nuclear missiles had mistakenly gone off. However, Nature is reviewing my paper on the matter and I expect it will be a major news article in two months, once published.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

Question.
“ extrapolated the chlorine numbers from fifty years ago, before satellites were available to measure that stuff.”
Was there abdo-lutely no way of making those measurements in the 1960s?

[Pontiac]

Did you use the same tissue three times or a fresh one for each blow?

The difference could drastically change your results.

My model shows that if you used a fresh tissue for each blow the earth would have been deforested and we would be all swimming is mucous.

[Pontiac]

Was there abdo-lutely no way of making those measurements in the 1960s?

Weather balloons could take very high altitude air samples.

But you must remember that despite what the modelers assume the atmosphere is not a homogeneous mixture and sampling methods, efficiencies of detection and numbers of samples taken are drastically different 50 years hence.

[Jim Noble]

I just bought a new Suburban, so everyone can relax.

The glaciers have been put off another 25 years.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

“drastically different 50 years hence.”
There’s no question about that. I was just trying to figure out how they arrived at their figures for 1960s. It seems that whenever you see anything about weather balloons, they’re always being released in fairly unpopulated areas. I would think one wouldn’t want to release them near airline routes, etc. So, considering that. their figures might be extremely low. A higher figure would show a much slower than predicted rise in atmospheric chlorine, ozone, whatever!

[sobieski]

The central planners in the USSR used those types of models to allow Khruschov to say that they would ‘bury us’ economically.

Of course, Democrat economists readily agreed that, yes, that’s what the models showd so we had to change.

Of course, there’s not USSR anymore.

[oh8eleven]

I surfed onto a Discovery Channel show last week and at first I thought it was a joke. It wasn't ...
"Wrapping Greenland - Dr. Jason Box, a glaciologist from Ohio State University, is on a mission to prevent glaciers from melting by covering them with blankets that will reflect the powerful rays of the sun."
After reading the descriptions of a few more shows listed on their website, it's obvious they need to change their name to The Chicken Little Channel:

• Greenland is melting. Find out why and what it means for the planet.
• Pesticides, heavy metals and other airborne contaminants are raining down on national parks across the West and Alaska.
• The icy north is disappearing faster than ever, report scientists.
• America's crown jewels are facing threats from human activity as never before.

[reformedliberal]

44 years ago, I worked in the library of American Appraisal. They had just received a huge book of beautiful maps of all sorts from Lester Brown, founder of World Watch.

http://www.earth-policy.org/About/Lester_bio.htm

These maps showed that we would run out EVERYTHING within 10 years, including arable soil. I was 21 and pregnant. Those maps terrified me.

Well, here we are today and we still have plenty of everything. When the Ozone Hole hysteria hit the media, my husband and I recalled (and you can check this) that National Geographic had shown the ozone hole in the IGY issue of January 1957. It was described as a natural phenomena. Of course, we all know it has closed significantly in recent years and it is doubtful the Montreal Protocol had a thing to do with it.

I keep wondering just how many erroneous valuations were made by American Appraisal of the value of things like gravel pits, metal mines, woodlands, et al, based on those maps and predictions? We have had many booms and busts in every commodity class since 1964. I also wonder how long it took to create those maps before computers, scanners and printers? The book, which took up an entire library table when opened, surely took at least two years to produce,back then, if not more.

Why can't the hysterics come up with anything new? Same old game plan, same old fabrications, same old agenda.

[oh8eleven]

Why can't the hysterics come up with anything new? Same old game plan, same old fabrications, same old agenda.
They don't need to. They have at least one entire generation that's now been brainwashed by public schools. Throw in a willing MSM along with The Discovery Channel, The National Geographic Channel (they're just as bad if not worse), etc., plus all the kook websites out there, and their propaganda gets soaked up like a sponge.

[sionnsar]

Heard this garbage at a green buildings conference earlier this year. Several people got up and walked out on the *keynote* speaker.

[neverdem]

Numerous Undiscovered Gene Alterations In Pancreatic And Brain Cancers Revealed

Jews and Their DNA

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

[Robert A Cook PE]

High altitude samples were taken then, but not for what you think of as open-desk research in general studies. Most were done in odd locations at classified times and classified elevations. And the samples they were taking were very specialized, not a “let's sample everything everywhere and see what we get in trace gasses over a wide area over a long period of time for weather research in 2008.”

The high altitude weather balloons sampling the 50’s and 60’s were almost all done by (or for) the DOD nuclear testing programs, and to test for enemy nuclear weapon explosions. To see what we were releasing (and how to cover it up, clean it up) and what they were releasing - to see how powerful their bombs were and how well we could detect bomb blasts.

Very, very little was openly released then (particularly then) and now? If you get data, how relevant it is (in the hands of today's propagandists?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Can I pay more thaxes?

I hate thaxes. April fiftheenth is the worsth day of the year.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Ah, the joys of modeling...

[BenLurkin]

Thilly of me.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !