Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/17/2009 1:03:04 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE
Just about every major outlet has jumped on the news: Antarctica is warming up. Most previous science had indicated that, despite a warming of global temperatures, readings from Antarctica were either staying the same or even going down.
The problem with Antarctic temperature measurement is that all but three longstanding weather stations are on or very near the coast. Antarctica is a big place, about one-and-a-half times the size of the US. Imagine trying to infer our national temperature only with stations along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, plus three others in the interior.
Eric Steig, from University of Washington, filled in the huge blanks by correlating satellite-measured temperatures with the largely coastal Antarctic network and then creating inland temperatures based upon the relationship between the satellite and the sparse observations. The result was a slight warming trend, but mainly at the beginning of the record in the 1950s and 1960s. One would expect greenhouse effect warming from carbon dioxide to be more pronounced in recent years, which it is not. There’s actually very little that is new here. Antarctic temperatures do show a warming trend if you begin your study between 1957, when the International Geophysical Year deployed the first network of thermometers there, and the mid-1960s. Studies that start after then find either cooling or no change.
The reaction to this study by Steig and his co-authors is more enlightening than its results. When Antarctica was cooling, some climate scientists said that was consistent with computer models for global warming. When a new study, such as Steig’s, says it’s warming, well that’s just fine with the models, too. That’s right: people glibly relate both warming and cooling of the frigid continent to human-induced climate change. Perhaps the most prominent place to see how climatologists mix their science with their opinions is a blog called RealClimate.org, primarily run by Gavin Schmidt, one of the computer jockeys for Nasa’s James Hansen, the world’s loudest climate alarmist.
When studies were published showing a net cooling in recent decades, RealClimate had no problem. A 12 February 2008 post noted: “We often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the southern ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict and have predicted for the past quarter century.”
A co-author of Steig’s paper (and frequent blogger on RealClimate), Penn State’s Michael Mann, turned a 180 on Antarctic cooling. He told Associated Press: “Now we can say: No, it’s not true. [Antarctica] is not bucking the trend.” So, Antarctic cooling and warming are both now consistent with computer models of dreaded global warming caused by humans.
In reality, the warming is largely at the beginning of the record - before there should have been much human-induced climate change. New claims that both warming and cooling of the same place are consistent with forecasts isn’t going to help the credibility of climate science, and, or reduce the fatigue of Americans regarding global warming.
Have climate alarmists beaten global warming to death? The Pew Research Centre recently asked over 1,500 people to rank 20 issues in order of priority. Global warming came in dead last. We can never run the experiment to see if indeed it is the constant hyping of this issue that has sent it to the bottom of the priority ladder. But, as long as scientists blog on that both warming and cooling of the coldest place on earth is consistent with their computer models, why should anyone believe them?
But - with no morals and no moral compass - can you really claim they are lying?
Reference.
“Good explanation in the middle of the article about how the AGW crowd can agree with ANY data that is found. Regardless of whether or not it shows temps rising or falling.”
Michael Crichton made some good points about this in “State of Fear”. Good read. One thing I really agreed with is the idea of “blind funding” in science. That would mean the scientists wouldn’t know what they’re “supposed” to find.
RIP Michael Crichton.
The problem the author has is he mistakenly believes these scientists follow the evidence toward a conclusion. This method of doing science is antiquated and comes from a time when scientists believed the earth was flat. It is based on the severely flawed western customs of thousands of years of making observations and then making predictions based on these observations. These are antiquated methods arising out of a white male mentality designed to enslave women and minorities.
The modern methods of science are to arrive at a conclusion based on methods of consensus whereby everyone has a place at the table and where the voices of others have equal say. This consensus based on the use of specially trained facilitators who direct the process to its proper end insure that the end product is acceptable to the carefully chosen participants.
With the conclusion in hand, the evidence is then carefully sifted so that it conforms to the conclusion bringing a perfect balance to the world of those who arrived at the carefully constructed conclusion. Any evidence which may contradict this conclusion will be troublesome and make people feel uncomfortable so it either needs to be ignored or re framed to comport to the conclusion.
The new method brings peace and harmony to our system of living in a global world. The old system is divisive and creates a hierarchy favorable to western culture and perpetuates white male dominance.
I applaud your conclusion but quibble with the idea that this is new. Even in the growth of European Civilization (aka Dead White European Males [DWEM]), there was a strong and vibrant group that was practicing this very methodology. Even today there are multiple governments and non-government organizations that practice this methodology. In general the descriptive titles of these groups would be theocracies and dictatorships. In short, the description may be newish but the problem is very old!
You had me going for a bit there. I was about to rant about how people don't understand how science is supposed to work.
Flawless.
Thanks, we all have to do our part. I am humbly doing my best to bring my fellow knuckle dragging Freepers into the 21st century.
(Robt begins to hymn (er, hum) “This is the Dawning of the Age of ... as Jesus (er, John) Lenin is sainted ....)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.