Posted on 04/06/2008 7:41:23 AM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Does this mean that somebody can scream back at Al Gore “HE PRAYED ON OUR FEARS”...... LOL...
Ya but...next year...look out!
Doesn’t matter how many of these little voices are heard. The Global Warmers are ignoring all of it and dominate the media.
This guy gets an A for accuracy.
Smoke and mirrors to keep Iraq in the back ground so her successes and ours won't be known.....imho I believe that is true. The other is a way for the United Nations and friends like Algore to tax the free world. Gore and others are making out like bandits on the hoax called Global Warming/climate change.
now.. That’s.. FUNNY!!!!
more...
Breaking News: News has reached us that Al Gore will receive an honorary doctorate on April 15, from Lausanne University, Switzerland. The Swiss newspaper Weltwoche wrote an angry protest, reminding its readers that the same university had awarded an honorary doctorate to Benito Mussolini in 1937. It writes that the success of both comes from the same type of political agitation and that Gore, with his fanatical worldwide campaign, has pushed half of mankind into climate hysteria. Weltwoche also comments, in passing, that both Mussolini and Gore do not practise what they preach. The other half of mankind, if they cherish their democratic freedoms, should be worried. Be very worried.
It would help if the author referred to Carbon Dioxide as the alarmists do, instead of mistakenly referring to Carbon Monoxide.
It allows detractors to totally dismiss his view.
I will be that this won’t be the end of the scam.
The book to read is “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years” by Singer & Avery. It presents scientific evidence that the idea of man-made global warming is a hoax. Of course very few people read facts, they would rather get their information from the media and Gorons.
The real trouble is the fact that all three of the people vying to become President believe in this global warming nonsense and are committed to screwing us all.
Man, that truth thing is a real b!tch, ain’t it?
(I hear it’s been causing trouble for Hillarity CLintoon lately, too.)
I really don't understand why politicians (Republicans) can't simply say..."I believe we need to be good stewards of the land." And, if someone presses them further, simply state, "I'll leave the numbers up to the scientists, but after seeing Yosemite today, or knowing Mount St. Helen's distruction, I cannot believe that only man is the main cause of something the scale of "global warming."
They learned from their mistakes in the 70’s.
Back then, they didn’t scare the crap out of us enough.
So, they went back and tweaked the program some and now everyones rushing to leap off that cliff.
I’m totally disgusted with the whole deal myself.
That's the beauty of Global Warming Theory, it's extremely robust with respect to data - all observations confirm it with probability 1.0.
Rain, snow, drought, hail, heat wave, cold snap, temperate or harsh weather, it matters not. All are triumphant "confirmations" of Global Warming. (Currently being rebranded as "Climate Change".)
If that's the case, then why can't the Pacific's El Nino current, which played a large part in the warm reading for 1998, simply been seen as a "variability" and not part of a greater warming trend? Because it doesn't fit the agenda?
Good one!
The Heat is on The Tennessee 2 x 4.
Music to read this thread by...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJtEzSCa13A&feature=related
Allah Gorey needs to find a new religion.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
As it turns out global warming also causes global cooling haha, thus the necessity of a new catch phrase. One thing we can be sure of is that the climate will always change, thus the enviro-socialists win either way. This junk works on John Q Public because a)Everybody has been stuck in traffic behind an exhaust spewing truck. b)It’s a secular religion that fills a void in the live of Hollywood celebrities and failed Presidential candidates.
What did the IPCC climate computer models of 30, or 20, or 10 years ago predict the temps would be in 2008? The article says the predictions “don’t match well” with what actually happened.
Ohh WOE is me... whys everybody pickin on me???
I can verify that global warming is a hoax. I was in Texas last week and froze my arse off....as evidenced by Bender wearing a fur coat.
Allegra....are you missing a fur coat?
Interesting. INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY.
It's OK... you just keep changing the models each year to allow for what actually happened... get the terms right, and you can still predict upcoming disaster.
That's the nice thing about the “garbage-in, what-you-want-out” approach.
The criteria of “correct” is “do I get next years grant?”.
Exactly, Republicans are not going to get the global warming vote anyway. They should come right out and say there is not a consensus among scientists and we will not usurp the liberty of our countrymen over a theory. At least some on the fence would appreciate the candor.
I don’t understand your answer. The computer models of 30, 20 and 10 years ago must have reached conclusions of what the temps would be in the “future”. Well, the “future” is here - were the predictions correct? The article seems to suggest they were not. What were the predictions? It they have been consistently wrong, that should be powerful evidence that one can’t model climate. Thanks
I thought this was settled. Why do we keep seeing these stories put out by the oil industry? /sarc
The History Channel, which I used to love, had a “Global Warning?” special on yesterday. What a load of crap. It was full of all the misconceptions and flat out lies about Global Warming. Also there is a new ad being shown in Northern CA, don’t know if it is being shown elsewhere, about how Polar Bears are facing extinction, etc.. They, the enviros, are pushing hard now that the climate change scam is falling apart, they need to get new restrictive money grabbing laws passed before the stupid electorate realizes what a scam is being perpetrated on them.
There is a slight difference...McPain doesn’t believe one word of this
Don’t worry about it. It’s over.
It's not necessary to use the older models, they could take their latest and best model and just load in the data up to thirty years ago and have the computer calculate a "projection" of the "next" thirty years. The projection could then be compared to the actual data from available records. I fully expect that such "calibration" runs have in fact been made as part of the modeling process. Since they have never been made public, I expect they would revel a lack of correlation sufficient to invalidate the model.
There are some problems that are considered to be "computationally unsolvable". That is, the math is not all that difficult but a solution requires such a vast number of simple calculations that the time required starts to approach the expected life of the sun or some equally daunting interval. One such problem is factoring very large prime numbers, that simple fact gives an unbreakable cipher system which is in use everyday to secure everything from email to bank and credit card transactions. The protection being the vast amount of time it would take to decipher the code.
I expect that modeling the earth's climate accurately may be such a problem. If true the only way to get a model to work in a reasonable amount of time would be to simplify the model by plugging various dimensionless coefficients into the equations and tweak them until the results matched the historical record to the desired accuracy. The problem with this approach is that the model is only accurate within the time interval you used to establish the values of the coefficients (sometimes known as "Fudge Factors"). A Case in point:
A person could take the Dow Jones closing averages for every Friday in 2006 and fit a sixth order polynomial equation with excellent accuracy. Such an equation would allow you to come up with reasonable estimates for the DGA at any date within the year 2006 but would be wildly in error either before or after that year. The same would be true for climate modeling.
Regards,
GtG
While I never tried to model the Earth's atmosphere and climate, I do have a Master's degree in Mechanical Engineering, concentrating on thermodynamics and momentum, heat, and mass transfer in solids and fluids. In other words, the fundamentals you need to begin to attempt climate modeling, since atmospheric processes are just giant problems in thermodynamics and mass, momentum, and heat transfer.
I would tell you that modeling the earth's climate accurately is *exactly* that class of problem, and anyone telling you they have for-sure solved it is either lying to you, lying to themselves, or both. The differential equations involved are of the sort discussed for a popular audience in James Gleidk's Chaos: Making a New Science.
One of the better technical articles I've come across that speaks to the physical fundamentals of supposed CO2-driven global warming is here:
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (pdf warning)
This article pretty well shreds the concept that CO2 concentrations could be the driving force behind any warming.
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?
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.
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.
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???? ;-)
I like that phrase “Garbage in, Gospel out” too.
(Too bad I couldn’t have come up with it first!)
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.
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.
Little details...
Thanks. Any cite for this?
Also, who is Hansen?
It strikes me as a handy rhetorical retort.
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.