Saturday, April 26, 2014
Three Strikes and You're Out There - Way, WAY, Out There
If a scientist is judged based upon his or her predictions, then the global warming cabal of individuals such as James Hansen, Phil Jones, and Kenneth Trenberth has to be ranked at or near the bottom. Back in the '90s these folks made three separate predictions pertaining to temperature; one with a zero decrease in carbon emissions, one with a moderate decrease in carbon emissions, and one with a draconian decrease in carbon emissions......and as we're all painfully aware of by now, the actual temperature recordings have been slightly BELOW even those predictions with a draconian decrease in carbon emissions......................................................................................And what of course makes this failure all the more disturbing is the fact that, instead of just admitting that they were wrong and adjusting their theory, THEY FRIGGING DOUBLED DOWN...and tortured not just the current data but a lot of the readings from the '30s, '40s, and '50s. To even attempt to assert that these lunatics are actual scientists is a joke (and, yes, thank the good Lord for folks like Judith Curry, James Lovelock, and David Evans who in fact HAVE seen the problems and who have adjusted their thinking, not the data).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Apparently, the current temp plateau is in for an El Nino, with predictions for record global temps the next couple of years.
Maybe, maybe not: no one should look at 5 or even 10 year segments, it is the long term
trends which attention focuses on.
BB, it was Hansen and Santer who picked the time frame for their models and not me. As for the long term trend, there is very little correlation between CO2 and temperature over the past 150 million years (this, according to Don Easterbrook, Ian Clark, and other paleoclimatologists - solar flux being a much more significant predictor) and there have even been episodes of ice ages with much higher CO2 levels than now (the current levels not being alarming at all). I'm sorry but there just isn't any there there (my suspicion is that a doubling of CO2 to 800 ppm would likely only give us a .4 to .6 degree Celsius increase in that a) the feedbacks of natural systems are almost always negative and b) the effect of CO2 on warming has long since proven to be a logarithmic one) and in 20-30,000 years we'll be in another ice age anyway with Canadians and Scandinavians being forced to move south.
I guess the problem relates to
GHG forcing and its
affect on the periodicity of the
ice age-warm period cycles. For
some eons, the flora sink was in balance with the CO2, which in
unscientific terms, is out of whack. Thus at this point in the
long charting of things, it may
be a reversible blip or not. If not, serious weather may lie in
future centuries; otherwise, yes,
the next ice age should be right on schedule. (I'm afraid we will
miss it though) If it were simple, I'd offer a hardnosed opinion. It's not and I won't!
BB, how many more years of CO2 and temperature not correlating will it take for you to think that maybe this whole thing has been oversold to us? I mean, we're up to 17 now and I would also instruct you to look at the satellite data from 1979 to 1997. There was no global warming then, either. It was only in 1997 that we got a spike and that was probably from El Nino and the PDO.......And how is CO2 out of whack when it's currently at a historically speaking low point?
I would also add that it's just as likely that the warming is causing the CO2 and not vice versa. When the oceans warm (from natural warming) they emit CO2. It's a scientific fact; the law of inverse solubility.
It appears that CO2 is at least 100 ppm higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years . (at the end, the graphics go back into the eons)
Just what we need, another "hockey stick". I mean, my God, even Al Gore's charts show CO2 going up and down over the past 500,000 years. And those 19th Century CO2 readings were cherry-picked. As Ian Plimer pointed out in his book, there were years in the 19th Century (per that Hawaiian method) in which the CO2 levels were over 400.
Ian Plimer?
..hmm, better to just wade through the data.
Plimer is one of the most renowned geologists on the planet who's won the Clarke Medal, the Centenary Medal, and the Eureka Price twice. The fact that some alarmist from down-under wants to tar him with that bogus consensus argument when the guy HASN'T used a nature trick or abolished the Medieval Warm Period (a la Michael Mann), HASN'T eliminated the cooling period from 1945 to 1979 (a la James Hansen), HASN'T lied about warmest years on record (again, a la James Hansen), HASN'T chopped of the beginning and the ending of a graph to make the rise in troposphere temperature look more pronounced (a la Ben Santer) is disgusting.
I'm not sure the Heartland Institute folks can be trusted .
Post a Comment