Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Four years ago noted theoretical physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson warned about the heavy reliance on computer modeling to predict the proposed future harmful effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that other scientists and environmental activists claimed would cause a calamitous increase in the Earth’s temperature resulting in sea-level rising, famine, wars, hurricanes and a general gnashing of teeth. Dyson advocated using new and very sophisticated instruments to more precisely measure carbon dioxide levels – because flawed input could result in flawed output.
In a report published three days ago in the scientific journal, Remote Sensing, it appears that Dyson’s warning is being vindicated. As reported in Forbes, data collected by NASA’s Terra satellite has indicated that the levels of CO2 previously thought to be the contributing factor for the trapping of heat in the atmosphere is significantly less than previous computer models have predicted thereby nullifying the dire warnings that the UN’s IPCC and Albert Gore, Jr. have been persistently pounding podiums about or pushing the propaganda of the perilous plight of polar bears. And speaking of polar bears, the satellite data report comes at the same time that a researcher in Alaska is being investigated for improper conclusions about said bears in the Arctic circle. It seems that the only endangered species at the moment could be the global warming alarmists themselves.
I guess the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming wasn’t settled after all. Now the question remains whether this will help to expedite the death of the Carbon Tax, Carbon Offset Trading and the belligerent agenda of the EPA...or whether we will have to wait for a Republican president and Republican-controlled Senate to put an end to that nonsense.
- Comment (43)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
It always amazed me the faith some people put into climate scientists and their computer models. The Earth's climate is an incredibly complex system that we haven't even begun to understand, whether you're a climate scientist or not. If you want me to listen to you you need to prove you know what you're talking about. Make a prediction for 10 years out and see it it comes true. This is the one thing the climate alarmists failed to do. I suspect most people who believed in this stuff did so because they wanted it to be true. Thankfully the argument is falling apart before it could do too much damage.
May '10
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Moments later President Obama agreed to his first substantial budget cut in the debt limited negotiations: the NASA's Terra satellite program.
Jun '10
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
I think human history shows, it's the cool climate periods (in the Northern Hemisphere) that killed us off most effectively. In a warmer climate, we might be eating different things, but we'll be eating something.
Oct '10
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Must discount NASA data, those folks do not know what they are doing....Not to be trusted.... That is why they now have been retasked..
Jul '11
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
It would be funny if only it were less likely to come to pass.
May '10
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Computer simulation of dynamic physical systems is a big part of my job on a daily basis. This experience has always been the root of my skepticism about the predictions made by climate scientists. No matter how good the internal equations are (and trust me, my equations describe my system better than their equations describe the climate), you only get realistic results if you use realistic inputs. I can make the simulation do almost whatever I want by changing the inputs. The problem with climate modeling is nobody knows how to decide whether inputs are realistic. So they end up choosing inputs that give interesting, attention-grabbing results.
Jul '10
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
"...or whether we will have to wait for a Republican president and Republican-controlled Senate to put an end to that nonsense."
When it freezes over.
Feb '11
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
It's always been obvious that what was going to control accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere was the flux of CO2 in and O2 out of plant life. Because plant life evolved during a period of much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere than currently, it should have been evident that there was at least a range of flux rates at which the RuBisCo operates. Dyson said that this experiment was tried for tree canopies, but most of the CO2 is taken up by algae in the oceans. So that is an experiment that should be performed as well.
Aug '10
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
I wish! No matter how many AGW-pushing scientists are exposed as frauds and no matter how the data skews against them these people will not give up their nonsensical power grab.
I believe a large part of the problem is the egotism of much of the baby boom generation. These people think they are God's gift to the earth and only they can save us from the evils of AGW, Happy Meals and Big Oil. The hubris of these people has no limit!
Apr '11
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
The one reason that I have never bought into this entire global warming nonsense was specifically because of the computer modeling. Not one of the dozen pulse models could accurately predict current weather. If your model couldn't get close to outputting known weather, how could you trust the model's prediction 100 years hence?
How long will it take to undue the economic devastation already in place or planned by various government entities here in the US and around the world? I live in California and we are heading for a green train wreak, which I wrote about a year and a half ago: http://alpipkin.com/blog/?p=399
The longer it takes for the scientific community to start actually doing science instead of this so-called "consensus science," the longer it will take to undo the economic and social damage.
Apr '11
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
I long ago figured out that, "The science is settled" was in fact, "We don't want to argue this; we just want you to accept it."
Jun '10
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Frozen Chosen: I wish! No matter how many AGW-pushing scientists are exposed as frauds and no matter how the data skews against them these people will not give up their nonsensical power grab.
I believe a large part of the problem is the egotism of much of the baby boom generation. These people think they are God's gift to the earth and only they can save us from the evils of AGW, Happy Meals and Big Oil. The hubris of these people has no limit! · Jul 28 at 12:54pm
Well, that's painting Boomers with a pretty broad brush. I think it's more to do with personal ideologies than age groups. And keep in mind that there are thousands of scientists who reject AGW and even some environmentalists, like, Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace who rejects the claims of global warming alarmists and the AGW movement.
May '10
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Actually, Wilber, you have that wrong. The paper is by Dr. Roy Spencer, who is one of the sacred three (Lindzen, Michaels, and Spencer) who have been right all along. He explains the findings at his web site.
Dr. Spencer, who works with John Christy at U-Alabama Huntsville on satellite measurements, has always stated that the climate system is relatively insensitive. The entire CAGW* case depends on the general circulation models' (GCMs) assertions of significant positive feedback loops. Spencer has always said that the feedback valence is, if anything, slightly negative.
Don't confuse them with James Hansen of NASA's GISS, who is the foremost religious CAGW nut out there. Or Ben Santer at Lawrence Berkeley, who is simply a zealous nasty guy.
*catastrophic anthropogenic global warming
Aug '10
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Brian Watt
Frozen Chosen: I wish! No matter how many AGW-pushing scientists are exposed as frauds and no matter how the data skews against them these people will not give up their nonsensical power grab.
I believe a large part of the problem is the egotism of much of the baby boom generation. These people think they are God's gift to the earth and only they can save us from the evils of AGW, Happy Meals and Big Oil. The hubris of these people has no limit! · Jul 28 at 12:54pm
Well, that's painting Boomers with a pretty broad brush. I think it's more to do with personal ideologies than age groups. And keep in mind that there are thousands of scientists who reject AGW and even some environmentalists, like, Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace who rejects the claims of global warming alarmists and the AGW movement. · Jul 28 at 1:07pm
Full disclosure - I was born in 1962 so I think technically I am a baby boomer as well.
But I really am God's gift to the world...
Apr '11
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
In the short term, yes. But in the longer term there's still hope.
Edited on Jul 28, 2011 at 2:09pmThe major players (whether scientists, economists, policy makers or what not) promoting the so-called CAGW "consensus" are hardly going to put their respective hands up and say nostra culpa. A few may repent of their ways but by and large these people will go down fighting to the end rather than lose face. But over time a new generation of scientists, economists, and policy makers that doesn't believe in CAGW will arise and their views will become the accepted wisdom, thus relegating the CAGW nonsense to the dustbin of history. That's how these things tend to work. Not repentance but relegation and replacement.
So given enough time I think sanity will prevail. But there will be considerable pain to go through before then as politicians in many parts of the world are intent on pushing through economically suicidal policies and the IPCC unleashes another Assessment Report on us.
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
I am always so inspired by the young, brilliant minds Ricochet continues to attract. It's always great to get the perspective of someone who's in there, doing the work the rest of us who flunked pre-algebra couldn't hope to do. Thanks, Mark.
Aug '10
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Al Gore is counting his hundreds of millions....EPA is counting their new budget dollars...European Carbon Trading Platforms all shut down after massive theft discovered...American Carbon trading platforms never opened...maybe it was time for the truth anyway. GE is tired of selling wind machines anyway, China has bought the excess ones. Spain is shutting them down...reverting to nuclear.
AJ Strata has been one of the most critical sources of info for years on this and here's his article about the Terra findings.Read it here, probably won't show up in your paper.
May '11
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
I have always found it interesting the AGW alarmists can place so much faith in weather computer simulations, to the point of demanding we should all change our evil ways and straighten up and green right, but the computer simulations that show nuclear power plants are the safest form of energy production are all useless and should be ignored. Demonstrates a lack of seriousness.
Oct '10
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Duane Oyen
Actually, Wilber, you have that wrong. The paper is by Dr. Roy Spencer, who is one of the sacred three (Lindzen, Michaels, and Spencer) who have been right all along. He explains the findings at his web site.
Dr. Spencer, who works with John Christy at U-Alabama Huntsville on satellite measurements, has always stated that the climate system is relatively insensitive. The entire CAGW* case depends on the general circulation models' (GCMs) assertions of significant positive feedback loops. Spencer has always said that the feedback valence is, if anything, slightly negative.
Don't confuse them with James Hansen of NASA's GISS, who is the foremost religious CAGW nut out there. Or Ben Santer at Lawrence Berkeley, who is simply a zealous nasty guy.
*catastrophic anthropogenic global warming · Jul 28 at 1:10pm
One must apologize, the comment was meant to be sarcastic considering how political thinking and money has infected the topic. Thanks for some definitions though...
May '10
Re: Is The End Near...For Anthropogenic Global Warming?
I read an article a few years ago by an engineer where he discussed the problems of computer modeling in the silicon chip industry. He described how modeling was problematic as a predictor in spite of very few input variables: heat, pressure and temperature. The implication was since reliable predictions could not be made with these very simple systems, it could not be reasonable to expect to make accurate predictions with systems as complex as the earth and its atmosphere.
But of course, objective truth was never the goal of the global warming bunch, was it? At least I never thought so.