Quote of the Day: Climate Science

 

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
— Kenneth Watt, Ecologist, Earth Day 1970

Science is settled. All those people talking about global warming are science deniers! Glaciers are coming for us… slowly.

Climate predictions and climate science are in an extremely primitive state. The modeling systems in common use are still ignoring major factors, such as solar activity and cloud formation, and cannot retrodict (predict the past) with accuracy. They often make use of poorly justified correction factors, which tend to always point toward global warming or whatever the cause du jour is.

This is not really a conspiracy, outside of stuff like Climategate (hide the decline, anyone?). All it takes to skew science is to have a lot of clout at the granting agencies. Scientists live and die by grants, so the evidence presented will be interpreted so as to get published and support their next grant proposal.

The way to get around this is to look at the actual papers, and the evidence and methodology presented. While you can do a lot with statistics, people should be able to replicate your results and look over your method. A proper challenge to scientific orthodoxy starts there, like the talented folks posting at WattsUpWithThat or Climate Audit.

Published in Group Writing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 17 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Misthiocracy secretly Member
    Misthiocracy secretly
    @Misthiocracy

    OmegaPaladin: The modeling systems in common use are still ignoring major factors, such as solar activity and cloud formation, and cannot retrodict (predict the past) with accuracy.

    One issue is that they only track the metrics that are easily tracked.  For example, atmospheric water vapour, which is the most important greenhouse gas, is virtually impossible to track on a global scale over time because it’s distributed so unevenly in the atmosphere and also because it moves around so much with global air circulation.  As such, the models simply ignore it.

    It’s sorta kinda like telling a cop that you shouldn’t get a speeding ticket because your speedometer is broken.  “If I can’t measure my speed, how can I take it into account?”

    • #1
  2. DonG Coolidge
    DonG
    @DonG

    OmegaPaladin: The modeling systems in common use are still ignoring major factors

    A quote for a quote, “Who controls the past controls the future.” (George Orwell, 1984).  This idea can be applied to the official climate models.  The people that control the models (assumptions and feedbacks and inputs and outputs) are the people that control the policy choices.  We don’t have honest models, because we don’t have honest people controlling the models.  We have people with agendas creating models that support their agendas.  To disagree with that, is to be a (pschology) science denier.

    • #2
  3. Vectorman Inactive
    Vectorman
    @Vectorman

    Quoted from a recent Quote of the Day:

    Will the great Climate Change debate go differently than spontaneous generation of flies and maggots on raw beef?

    Along with Socialism, Climate Change seems to never go away.


    The Quote of the Day series is the easiest way to start a fun conversation on Ricochet. We have 1 open date left on the April Schedule, and many dates available on the May Signup Sheet. We even include tips for finding great quotes, so choose your favorite quote and sign up today!

    • #3
  4. PHenry Member
    PHenry
    @PHenry

        The End Is Near cartoons, The End Is Near cartoon, funny, The End Is Near picture, The End Is Near pictures, The End Is Near image, The End Is Near images, The End Is Near illustration, The End Is Near illustrations

    • #4
  5. Mark Wilson Member
    Mark Wilson
    @MarkWilson

    OmegaPaladin: They often make use of poorly justified correction factors, which tend to always point toward global warming or whatever the cause du jour is.

    Here’s a good example of this practice from Coyote Blog:

    My skepticism was increased when several skeptics pointed out a problem that should have been obvious. The ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities — how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures? If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data. But they all do. It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct (or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time).

    The answer to this paradox came in a 2007 study by climate modeler Jeffrey Kiehl. To understand his findings, we need to understand a bit of background on aerosols. Aerosols are man-made pollutants, mainly combustion products, that are thought to have the effect of cooling the Earth’s climate.

    What Kiehl demonstrated was that these aerosols are likely the answer to my old question about how models with high sensitivities are able to accurately model historic temperatures. When simulating history, scientists add aerosols to their high-sensitivity models in sufficient quantities to cool them to match historic temperatures. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.

    Specifically, when he looked at the climate models used by the IPCC, Kiehl found they all used very different assumptions for aerosol cooling and, most significantly, he found that each of these varying assumptions were exactly what was required to combine with that model’s unique sensitivity assumptions to reproduce historical temperatures. In my terminology, aerosol cooling was the plug variable.  [emphasis added]

    • #5
  6. Misthiocracy secretly Member
    Misthiocracy secretly
    @Misthiocracy

    Mark Wilson (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin: They often make use of poorly justified correction factors, which tend to always point toward global warming or whatever the cause du jour is.

    Here’s a good example of this practice from Coyote Blog:

    My skepticism was increased when several skeptics pointed out a problem that should have been obvious. The ten or twelve IPCC climate models all had very different climate sensitivities — how, if they have different climate sensitivities, do they all nearly exactly model past temperatures? If each embodies a correct model of the climate, and each has a different climate sensitivity, only one (at most) should replicate observed data. But they all do. It is like someone saying she has ten clocks all showing a different time but asserting that all are correct (or worse, as the IPCC does, claiming that the average must be the right time).

    The answer to this paradox came in a 2007 study by climate modeler Jeffrey Kiehl. To understand his findings, we need to understand a bit of background on aerosols. Aerosols are man-made pollutants, mainly combustion products, that are thought to have the effect of cooling the Earth’s climate.

    What Kiehl demonstrated was that these aerosols are likely the answer to my old question about how models with high sensitivities are able to accurately model historic temperatures. When simulating history, scientists add aerosols to their high-sensitivity models in sufficient quantities to cool them to match historic temperatures. Then, since such aerosols are much easier to eliminate as combustion products than is CO2, they assume these aerosols go away in the future, allowing their models to produce enormous amounts of future warming.

    Specifically, when he looked at the climate models used by the IPCC, Kiehl found they all used very different assumptions for aerosol cooling and, most significantly, he found that each of these varying assumptions were exactly what was required to combine with that model’s unique sensitivity assumptions to reproduce historical temperatures. In my terminology, aerosol cooling was the plug variable. [emphasis added]

    Therefore, it stands to reason that we should stop burning efficient-combustion fossil fuels like natural gas and gasoline and instead switch to coal and diesel because those emit way more particulate, and particulate has a cooling effect.

    ;-)

    • #6
  7. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    OmegaPaladin: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
    — Kenneth Watt, Ecologist, Earth Day 1970

    I have begun to notice how many doomsday predictions include the phrase “if present trends continue.” But present trends rarely continue. Ecosystems include inherent feedback loops that alter future trends. People develop new technologies that alter future trends.

    So most of the doomsday predictions we read are based on a faulty premise.

    • #7
  8. Misthiocracy secretly Member
    Misthiocracy secretly
    @Misthiocracy

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
    — Kenneth Watt, Ecologist, Earth Day 1970

    I have begun to notice how many doomsday predictions include the phrase “if present trends continue.” But present trends rarely continue. Ecosystems include inherent feedback loops that alter future trends. People develop new technologies that alter future trends.

    So most of the doomsday predictions we read are based on a faulty premise.

    “Between 1960 and 1965, Family x had three children.  If present trends continue, this poor family will be burdened with 24 children by the year 2000!”

    ;-)

    • #8
  9. Linc Wolverton Member
    Linc Wolverton
    @LincWolverton

    We know from historical records that Greenland was inhabited and farmed for centuries during the Middle Ages. Thus, it seems to me that global warming has quite a ways to go before we get to that level–if such should occur. Until the climatistas can explain Greenland’s more temperate climate for that  long without recognizing the importance of solar cycles or other non CO2 causes, for example,  in their impact on global warming, the alarmism seems overwrought.

    • #9
  10. Sweezle Member
    Sweezle
    @Sweezle

    When it hits 110 this summer I will try and remember this is an ice age. 

    • #10
  11. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Here’s a question: where do you think this comes from? It’s c. 1971.

     

     

    • #11
  12. Quietpi Member
    Quietpi
    @Quietpi

    Misthiocracy secretly (View Comment):
    Therefore, it stands to reason that we should stop burning efficient-combustion fossil fuels like natural gas and gasoline and instead switch to coal and diesel because those emit way more particulate, and particulate has a cooling effect.

    This was proposed a couple years ago by a “leading climate scientist.”  He was not well received by the “scientific community.”

    And actually, objectively, this would be the way to cool the earth, per actual quantative data.  There was the 1883 eruption of Kratatoa, which did just that. And subsequent experiments with particulate matter from wildfires.  It works.

    • #12
  13. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Misthiocracy secretly (View Comment):
    “Between 1960 and 1965, Family x had three children. If present trends continue, this poor family will be burdened with 24 children by the year 2000!”

    I’ve used a similar line myself, when speaking to someone who was worried about some statistical blip.  “Last year at this time your daughter had zero husbands.  Now she has one husband.  If this trend continues, in another decade she will have 11 husbands!”

    • #13
  14. Mark Wilson Member
    Mark Wilson
    @MarkWilson

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy secretly (View Comment):
    “Between 1960 and 1965, Family x had three children. If present trends continue, this poor family will be burdened with 24 children by the year 2000!”

    I’ve used a similar line myself, when speaking to someone who was worried about some statistical blip. “Last year at this time your daughter had zero husbands. Now she has one husband. If this trend continues, in another decade she will have 11 husbands!”

    Extrapolating

    From xkcd.

    • #14
  15. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy secretly (View Comment):
    “Between 1960 and 1965, Family x had three children. If present trends continue, this poor family will be burdened with 24 children by the year 2000!”

    I’ve used a similar line myself, when speaking to someone who was worried about some statistical blip. “Last year at this time your daughter had zero husbands. Now she has one husband. If this trend continues, in another decade she will have 11 husbands!”

    There’s a relative of mine for whom that trendline did carry out.  I think in 12 years she was married and divorced 5 times.

    • #15
  16. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy secretly (View Comment):
    “Between 1960 and 1965, Family x had three children. If present trends continue, this poor family will be burdened with 24 children by the year 2000!”

    I’ve used a similar line myself, when speaking to someone who was worried about some statistical blip. “Last year at this time your daughter had zero husbands. Now she has one husband. If this trend continues, in another decade she will have 11 husbands!”

    There’s a relative of mine for whom that trendline did carry out. I think in 12 years she was married and divorced 5 times.

    Holy Matrimony, Batman!

    • #16
  17. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    SkipSul (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy secretly (View Comment):
    “Between 1960 and 1965, Family x had three children. If present trends continue, this poor family will be burdened with 24 children by the year 2000!”

    I’ve used a similar line myself, when speaking to someone who was worried about some statistical blip. “Last year at this time your daughter had zero husbands. Now she has one husband. If this trend continues, in another decade she will have 11 husbands!”

    There’s a relative of mine for whom that trendline did carry out. I think in 12 years she was married and divorced 5 times.

    Holy Matrimony, Batman!

    Pretty sure there was nothing holy about any of it.

    • #17
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.