“If Scientific Models Can’t Project the Last 15 Years, What Does That Mean for their Projections of the Next 100?”


earth

That quote comes to us from The New Republic, which like a lot of liberal outlets that took the word of a non-existent scientific consensus on Global Warming, seems somewhat surprised by the delay in the destruction of all life on earth.

Even as scientists asserted an incontrovertible consensus on climate change, a funny thing has happened over the last 15 years: Global warming has slowed down. Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections…

If scientific models can’t project the last 15 years, what does that mean for their projections of the next 100?

That’s obvious really. It means they’re worthless. Anyone can predict that the world will end in 100 or 1000 years. Everyone from cult leaders to Al Gore and Prince Charles have done it.

The problems happen when the Date of Doom is set a little too close to the present and can be exposed by the simple fact of its non-existence.

The ecoscammers claimed that they were practicing science. But their doomsday predictions required a pattern of numbers in the present day. They wildly fudged those numbers, but there’s only so much you can fudge. If you predict that an asteroid will hit the earth in 2100, then you need to have

1. An asteroid

2. A course for the asteroid that will lead it to collide with the earth

What Warmunists really had was an asteroid that was in the Solar System but not actually headed for the earth. What they had was a hypothetical apocalypse that their own numbers didn’t even support.

Here’s what I wrote back in 2011.

The difference between religion and science is that one is revealed truth and the other is theory. But when men and women in lab coats start predicting the end of days if the heretics don’t repent and cast out their incandescent light bulbs and SUV’s, then what you have is theory as revealed truth. An experiment in eschatology.

Environmentalists parade around the corpse of science on their shoulders, mount it on their walls and proclaim that science is on their side. Once you completely murder a system of using trial and error experimentation to confirm a theory, then you might as well use it as a banner on a flagpole or a trophy in your living room. But the environmentalist’ science has as much relation to a living field, as the head of a dead moose mounted over a bed and breakfast’s fireplace does to a living creature.

Ideology has killed science and now claims its intellectual credibility for its own. But purging dissenting scientists, burning books and silencing all critics with jeers is not science, no more than what passed for it in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was science. It is the fanaticism of an ideology, the championing of backwardness, the exploitation of titles and terminology to silence debate and betray the ethical trust of inquiry.

It’s still true. This isn’t science. This is a scam by profiteers and false prophets of leftist ideologies.

  • anor277

    The author of this article, who in the past has admitted he
    is not a scientist, again repeats another canard, “Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models……..If scientific models can’t project the last 15 years, what does that mean for their projections of the next 100?”

    Scientific models of course are models, theoretical constructions; they do not purport to predict reality; they may nevertheless be useful to understand highly complex systems. In fact the estimates of petroleum and hydrocarbon reserves are based on similar models, yet I have not seen criticism of their validity solely on the fact that they are based on modelling. (This is perhaps surprising given our society’s absolute dependence on hydrocarbon resources.)

    It is incontestable that global warming has continued its trend since 1998. The year 2010 was the hottest year on record. It is also largely a matter of record that there is a global warming trend, and the best explanation for this is increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The author can ignore these data if he likes but the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not going anywhere soon. I also challenge the author of this article to produce a scholarly article, written by those scientists whom the author winsomely refers to as men and women in white coats, that predicts the end of days. (And by the way, by scholarly article I mean a piece of work that appears in a peer-reviewed jounal.)

    • tokoloshiman

      incontestable ? take a look at the graphs to see how ridiculous this statement is!

      • anor277

        You mean like these graphs?

        http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/10/carbon-dioxide-and-temperature/ I cite these because they are remarkably clear to a non-specialist and the presentation seems to be fair and reasonable.

        • Guy Fromage

          No need to look at the graphs, when the closing sentence in this “Climate Abyss” (heh) blog says the following:

          If you plot other data sets, you’ll get slightly different results, but the same take-home message: there’s nothing in recent global temperatures that disproves the importance of CO2 as an agent for climate change. (emphasis mine)

          The onus is on the warmists to prove their case, not on reasonable people to be skeptical, absent such proof.

          • anor277

            Really? No scientist can offer proof. He can offer evidence. Carbon dioxide is known to be a greenhouse gas and currently over 31000 million tonnes of it are added to the atmosphere every year. You don’t think it has any consequence; indeed, you won’t even look at a graph. And yet observation shows global temperature increasing. C’est la vie.

          • Guy Fromage

            No scientist can offer proof.

            Nonsense. The models upon which these attempts to forecast the climate have been proven erroneous. What we have here is a failed hypothesis. Time for a do over.

            Carbon dioxide is known to be a greenhouse gas.

            Categorical vs. quantitative thinking. It’s great for propaganda. For science, not so much…

          • tagalog

            Carbon dioxide is known to be a greenhouse gas, and so is water vapor which is far more prevalent in the atmosphere. Shall we declare water vapor a pollutant?

          • anor277

            Tell me, what is the difference in volatility between carbon dioxide and water? The boiling/sub. points are about 179 degrees different. What does the difference in volatility suggest with repsect to persistence in the atmosphere?

          • tagalog

            If you know, why are you asking me? Besides I asked MY question first.

          • anor277

            I thought the question was rhetorical. Water cannot be declared a pollutant because it’s the basis of all life (also we’d have to concrete over the oceans to prevent its evaporation). On the other hand, carbon dioxide is also the basis of most life when converted by photosynthesis. Nevertheless, increased concentrations of carbon dioxide likely has serious environmental consequences.

          • tagalog

            Well, that difference between “most” and “all” is the critical one, eh?

          • anor277

            Is it? I was differentiating here between green plants and chemosynthetic bacteria. But this is a question of biology.

            At the moment, more than 31,000 million tonnes of carbon dioxide are being pumped into the atmosphere, where it will reside for at least half a millenium. A greater quantity will be pumped into the atmosphere next year. Many here think this is immaterial. The presence of so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has already had an ecological consequence. There is likely more to follow, and this will affect all of us.

          • tagalog

            For my part, I was being ironic.

    • Smoking Hamster

      “Scientific models of course are models, theoretical constructions; they do not purport to predict reality”

      Hahahaha, that is rich… If your models continually fail to predict real world phenomena then in the private sector you will be fired or your prediction software will be thrown out and get a bad reputation. Of course in the public sector performance doesn’t matter and if your results adapt to the newest politically correct views you will continue to get funding.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Private companies are cashing in on the global warming gravy train too. Al Gore doesn’t pay for his private jet’s fuel with an EBT card.

    • OfficialPro

      There’s several other factors that influence temperature, not merely CO2. CO2 itself operates on a logarithmic curve. That means, that after a certain concentration, you will progressively get weaker and weaker additional warming effects as the concentrations rise.

      Computer models are worthless because they cannot replicate reality. Not one model takes into account the presence, effect, or amount of clouds or when and how they appear and under what conditions. Look up Dr. Roy Spencer’s work for more information.

    • Guy Fromage

      You’re talking out your backside. The purpose of a scientific model is precisely to predict the future. If a model proves to not be accurate, it is a bad model which obfuscates, and should be discarded.

      • anor277

        I am not talking out of my burro. If a model is inaccurate it can be refined. It is your choice to ignore data not mine.

    • ziggy zoggy

      “Scientific models of course are models, theoretical constructions; they do not purport to predict reality.”

      And bears don’t $hit in the woods.

      “It is incontestable that global warming has continued its trend since 1998. The year 2010 was the hottest year on record.”

      It is irrefutable that it IS being contested, and 2010 was NOT the warmest year – not that a dispute of less than 1 degree Fahrenheit proves anything but irrefutable stability.

      “It is also largely a matter of record that there is a global warming trend, and the best explanation for this is increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” The Earth is warmer now than during the last Ice Age ended over 10,000 years ago and it has been far hotter between then an now but unfortunately, it has not got warmer in the last 16 years. (Balmy weather helps humanity and Ice ages suck for weaklings like you, in case you didn’t know.) Co2 accounts for less than 1% of so called greenhouse gasses, which in turn account for about 3% of the atmosphere. How could it be causing the average temperature to increase, especially considering that warmer weather causes higher Co2 levels rather than the other way around?

      “And by the way, by scholarly article I mean a piece of work that appears in a peer-reviewed jounal.” (Sic.) So are articles that claim race is a social construct and America is the source of all evil in the world.
      You are living proof that Britain has the lowest education level in the developed world – and most of the undeveloped world – because it has become a nation of chavs and islamopitecines. Way to go!

  • tagalog

    How much of the warming (assuming there IS ongoing warming) of the atmosphere is caused by humans?

    If humans stop doing whatever it is that they’re doing to raise the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, what effect will that have on global warming?

    What will be the net effect of human activity to reduce human CO2 emissions?

    What if we reduce human-caused CO2 emissions and that triggers another ice age?

    Is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere a cause of atmospheric warming, or is there merely a correlation between more CO2 in the atmosphere and atmospheric warming?

    When these questions are answered, I’ll be willing to take scientists’ recommendations about what should be done about human CO2 emissions more seriously.

    • Cold_Drake_80

      Well, that’s quit a good example of the old Gish Gallop you’ve got there. No computer modelling isn’t perfect and no one with any sense is saying it is. Actual science is hard. Bashing out some trash talk on line is easy which is why we see so many articles like this one.

      • tagalog

        What’s the Gish Gallop? Does it have anything to do with Lillian Gish? She was great in Orphans of the Storm.

        Why are you raising computer modeling in a reply to my post, when my post said not one word about computer modeling?

        • ziggy zoggy

          Gish Gallop is what Brits get when they eat too much halal hummus.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Note ziggy’s attempt at evasion and minimizing what I’ve posted. This is a common response to being caught out. Also tossing in the halal comment is the bigotry tinged red meat that he thinks FPMers will lap up.

        • OfficialPro

          No, it’s allegedly an arguing tactic by Dr. Duane Gish, a creationist who supposedly “elephant hurled” so that his opponent couldn’t answer/rebut everything and so ended up losing on a technicality.

        • Cold_Drake_80

          OfficialPro’s answer isn’t useful since it’s tinged with so much denial. The Gish Gallop IS an arguing tactic named after Gish. A wall of questions is thrown out in rapid succession that takes to long to answer in real time.
          In internet parlance it forces so much research – lying, for example, doesn’t require research – that a comeback is usually dismissed with “took to long”. Or the target of the Gish Gallop realizes dealing with so much flotsam would be a waist of time.
          Their are detailed examples out there just look it up and you’ll see what I mean.

          • tagalog

            I asked five questions. On an internet forum, where there’s time to come up with answers. Also, my questions should be easy to answer.

            Surely the global warming/climate change advocates have worked out the answers to them, don’t you think? Wouldn’t the research to answer them already have been accomplished, eliminating the “too much effort to answer” claim? I mean, they’re obvious questions.

            Five internet questions constitute a series of questions that throw up a “wall of questions” that are impossible to answer?

            My my, those global warming types are pretty sensitive to questions about their conclusions, aren’t they?

          • Cold_Drake_80

            I didn’t say you were a good practitioner of the Gish Gallop I just identified the tactic you were trying to use. No surprise you failed you’ve been lapping at the FPM trough too long. It’s made you weak which explains your vitriol over being called out.
            Of course your comment begs the question if the answers were so easy why didn’t you look them up yourself in an effort to become educated. Truth is you weren’t sincere at all. You just wanted to get everyone to follow your dictates and I’m equally sure you would have ignored any counter questions put to you.

          • tagalog

            Why should I have to look up the answers myself, when the burden of proof of a proposition, such as the earth is on the verge of human-caused climatic catastrophe if we don’t submit ourselves to global governmental action, is on the proponents of that claim?

            For what it’s worth, what I was able to glean on the net about the so-called “Gish Gallop” persuades me that I’m not ANY kind of practitioner of it, good or otherwise.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Cold_Dork_80IQ,

        computer modeling is a joke, which is why only real atmospheric recordings matter. The actual science of weather observation is easy.
        Bashing out mentally retarded comments on line is easy which is why we see so many like yours. Pisher.

        • Cold_Drake_80

          Here ziggy retreats into an old ploy that is VERY common on FPM. Unable to come up with an idea he rewrites what I posted in an attempt to look clever. Unfortunately, FPMers have achieved basic literacy and can read what I’ve written above and see through this childish tactic.

          • tagalog

            Yes, yes, they’re all copying you.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            You’re a liar or you’re illiterate. If you read my previous comments then ziggy’s you’ll see that what I’ve posted is true. I know you won’t because, as a good FPMer, you’ll never sully that mind of yours with real thinking.

          • tagalog

            I choose illiterate! Dibs!

      • OfficialPro

        Computer modelling isn’t science, it’s video games dressed up as science.

    • ziggy zoggy

      “How much of the warming (assuming there IS ongoing warming) of the atmosphere is caused by humans?” None has been proved, which isn’t surprising because there is no warming, and without warming there can be no increase. Warmer weather causes higher Co2 levels, not the other way round. The eco-scammers are trying to reverse cause and effect.

      “If humans stop doing whatever it is that they’re doing to raise the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, what effect will that have on global warming?” None. Humans have been burning wood all across the planet since the dawn of time and the Industrial Age was even worse. Co2 levels are much lower now that people understand the impact of pollution and all modern countries protect the “environment” than they were during most of our history.

      “What will be the net effect of human activity to reduce human CO2 emissions?” Nothing, unless some environmentalcase devises a way to reduce it so much that plants start dying.

      “What if we reduce human-caused CO2 emissions and that triggers another ice age?” America’s deserts will bloom.

      “Is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere a cause of atmospheric warming, or is there merely a correlation between more CO2 in the atmosphere and atmospheric warming?” Warming causes the oceans to release more Co2. =D

  • DogmaelJones1

    I guess we may take it as a given that earth’s atmosphere isn’t speaking to Chicken Little’s computers, isn’t nodding agreement with their projection models, and that no symbiotic relationship between them exists. Who da thunk it?

  • Infovoyeur

    Warning: politikally-inkorrekt comment ahead… The question remains, why do Rights, Conservatives, etc. ham-fistedly reject climate change, when they are so needfully accurate on so many other vital issues? Perhaps something in the psychology of politics, see Jonathan Haight, Moral Foundations, or Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science… Perhaps fear of loss of control, or of too-big government, who knows…

    • tagalog

      They don’t reject it; they just don’t insert themselves into the herd of independent minds that just gulps global warming down their credulous gullets without chewing.

    • ziggy zoggy

      For the same reason we reject astrology and holistic nostrums.

      • Cold_Drake_80

        Here ziggy compares astrology – which is shown to be totally non-scientific in its approach – to Climatology that IS scientific. He could have said the data was not correctly gathered or the analysis was incorrect but he didn’t. Instead he hides behind this trick.
        ziggy you are providing a real education for people here. Though I doubt you meant to. Oh, well.

        • tagalog

          Well, it’s been amply demonstrated, hasn’t it, that there have been instances of incorrect gathering of data (as in, on the one hand, the heat island effect and the ignoring of a month’s worth of cool weather, and on the other, incorrect reading of satellite data) as well as incorrect analysis (as in the Mann “hockey stick” analysis)?

  • Crazycatkid

    Hello, kiddies. There can never BE a consensus in science. You can have a consensus in a committee meeting or your favorite club. But, by definition science is not science if one claims a consensus. Sheesh! This is elementary school stuff. Pathetic!

    • Cold_Drake_80

      This is why real scientist refer to “theory”, “margin of error” and “modelling” rather than making absolute assertions. Anti-science forces have always relied on misunderstanding and misuse of terms used in science to confuse people and create doubt. It’s just a stalling tactic really but the side with the most money (denialists in this case) can keep people chasing their tails damned near forever.

      • Crazycatkid

        “Denialists”????!!!! Oy! Another troll idiot chimes in. In science, sonny, there can be no denial or affirming nor consensus. Um, that was the entire point of my comment that you missed. Perhaps when you grow up you’ll get it.
        For the adults: Science gathers evidence through certain procedures and then does it again and again. There is never a set conclusion. There cannot be consensus, affirmers nor deniers. These are terms appropriate to wars, games/teams or religions.
        Big tired sigh.

        • Cold_Drake_80

          Okay so gravity and germ theory lack any consensus support in the scientific community? Their are moon bats who demand a teaching of the “controversy” but guess what? They are always full of it.
          If you look hard enough, and throw enough money around, you can find someone in any group who will say anything. Greed overrides integrity all the time which is how the fossil fuel industry can staff all those “think” tanks.
          Consensus is possible in science but one of the rules of the game is it’s always subject to amendment or flat out rejection if the data doesn’t support theory. What isn’t possible is absolute certainty which is why denialists always, disingenuously, demand it.

          • tagalog

            Yes, and the predictions of every computer model discussed by the IPCC reports (I believe that there are six or seven sets of computer models) are seen, by the unfolding of climatic events in the real world, to be inaccurate.

          • Cold_Drake_80

            Inaccurate in that their predictions were to optimistic. Things like arctic sea ice melt are happening faster than they thought. I wish they were off in the other direction. It would be nice to not have to deal with climate change on this scale. Reality has other plans and whether you believe it or not means nothing.

          • tagalog

            No, inaccurate in the sense of not reflecting reality in ANY accurate way.

          • tagalog

            Gravity remains a consensus view that is still, to this day, questioned despite its obvious utility.

        • tagalog

          Scientists can and do reach consensuses. In real science, a consensus forms a target for constant questioning, hypothesizing, experimentation, and amendment.

      • tagalog

        Hasn’t it recently been noted that the margin for error in the specific predictions of global atmospheric warming is close to being reached, and that the computer models and the warming predictions are about to be overturned by real circumstances?

        • Cold_Drake_80

          Outside denialist circles reality still reigns so no hockey stick hasn’t been disproved. The heat island effect was also accounted for but I suppose that didn’t happen either because their is a blog out there that implies otherwise.
          Look, science is a bastard to get right mostly because other scientist are only to happy to shred someone’s work in the process called peer review. It’s a long vetting process that denialists either fail to endure or don’t even bother with because they know their “research” won’t pass muster.

      • nightspore

        Can’t you guys ever avoid the usual canards? “Denialists” don’t have the most money. Have you any idea of the billions and billions of dollars that have been spent to promote AGW? (Obviously not – or perhaps you don’t really care what you say as long as you can appear to score points.) Start with the EU, then segue over to the NSF, then factor in the big NGOs (Greenpeace, WWF, etc). And who’s up against them? The Heartland Inst., a battalion of bloggers – that’s about it. (And don’t mention the oil companies; they’re all aligned with AGW – just check out their websites.) It’s a David and Goliath situation – where Goliath tries to pin that name on David.

        • Cold_Drake_80

          I’ll mention the oil industry as much as I want. Since they provide bottomless funding for the anti-climate science crowd. Ever heard of front groups? Yesh, you must be dense to think that one of of the main beneficiaries of fossil fuel use would do nothing to continue it’s own existence. Coal, oil, natural gas extractors have hammered away at any regulation they thought might limit their ability to claim huge profits and avoid responsibility.

      • tagalog

        Yes, and the IPCC folks and their allies have proposed a margin of error. It now seems likely that that proposed margin of error is about to be crossed by real events, and that the predictions of a variety of ill climatic effects are about to reveal themselves as not reflective of what is really going to happen.

  • anor277

    You’ve gotten a bit personal there bud. Please mind your manners, I don’t know you.

    The global temperature for the past 150 years is a matter of record. You may ignore it if you wish. You may also wish to investigate geological versus historical time spans.

    • nightspore

      Sadly, it’s not that straightforward. The ‘records’ that are usually presented are for adjusted temperatures – and the adjustments have gotten more and more outrageous over the years. (Do I hear “hockey stick”?) There’s also the problem of comparing averages based on different temperature stations (which gets excruciating when one comes to compare, say, 1850 with 2005). There’s also a major problem with quality of measurement (which is why the adjustment business got started in the first place). Check out the Surface Station Project – until this was done, no one even had a clear idea of the quality of the siting of stations in the US – and the project clearly showed that this was atrocious.

      • anor277

        If you’re telling me that measurement is imprecise, I’d be inclined to agree with you. The best data indicate substantial global warming up to the present.

    • tagalog

      Yeah, but at least he didn’t accuse you of being either a liar or illiterate.

  • tagalog

    Warmer temps in the United States, or for that matter in the Northern Hemisphere, are NOT, repeat NOT, global warming.