Modeling Error; Always check your assumptions

GIGO reliably informs us that a corrupted data set will always yield unreliable results. By the same token, processing and analysis of valid data (or corrupt data for that matter) which rests on erroneous assumptions or which forces an outcome is also unreliable.

The IPCC and their 1990 forecast demonstrate that for us nicely.

ipcc1990overlayco2.png

Note that atmospheric CO2, the “deadly greenhouse gas” which the EPA (and other regulatory bodies) seek to curb for the benefit of all mankind (or so they tell us) has steadily (as measured at Moana Loa) increased while global temperatures have done no such thing. This has been implicitly admitted by the protagonists of AGW since they now claim that their cause is not Global Warming but Global Climate Change.

While this is not surprising, given that no one has been able to accurately forecast weather more than a week out and since climate is the moving average of weather, it does tell us a lot about the credibility of those making the forecast and demanding action based on those forecasts.

It also tells us a lot about the politicians (why yes, I am talking to you Mitt Romney) and agencies (this one’s for you, EPA) which either still insist the planet is warming or which still insist that preventative actions of enormous cost must be taken to curb emissions of a naturally occurring gas which has defied the outcomes predicted by the experts and their models.

Pull the other one, it has bells on it.

Hat Tip: Clive Best via “Andy” at Ace of Spades.

UPDATED: under the fold

]]>< ![CDATA[Ed Morrisey of Hot Air:

Where’s the warming?

By Ed Morrisey, Hot Air

Carbon emissions over the past decade actually exceeded predictions
by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), no thanks
to the global economic recession.  According to their anthropogenic
global-warming theories, global temperatures should have risen
significantly as a result.   James Taylor at Forbes wonders what happened:

Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster
during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international
agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is
much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should
shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks
currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA
satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show
absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.

If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary
driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming?
We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse
gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada,
nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

Be sure to check out the links, which show charts over varying time
sets, but which all show basically the same thing: no real change over
longer periods of time. Not in the Arctic, which Taylor notes was
supposed to be the canary in the coal mine, nor in the northern
hemisphere, or the globe overall.  That’s even true for just the last
decade, but it’s especially true over the period of several decades. 
Periods of high amplitudes in warming are matched with low amplitudes.

The “scientifically” predicted cause met or exceeded projections, but the data regarding the climate was not so cooperative.  Color this theory and the models based on it as busted.

Shortlink:

Posted by on June 12, 2011.
Filed under Energy, Environment.
Tagged with: .


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • http://2011.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    climate is the moving average of weather

    In this debate, “climate” is when it’s hot. “Weather” is when it’s cold. Just ask any AGW cultist.

  • jim m

    Unfortunately for the rest of us, the warmists believe that “science” is when you decide how something works and then you go out and collect data to support your conclusion. Contrary data is just dismissed as irrelevant.

    Science used to be about collecting data and seeing where it lead you. You constructed your theory to match the facts not your facts to match the theory.

    Science today is mostly dead. It is no longer practiced much in many universities and not at all in the area of climate.

  • Gmac

    It’s all about power, the power to control how and where you live and who gets to tell you.

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    I recently discovered a metaphor that is evidently popular among economists. It certainly applies here. It concerns inquisitors who torture the data till the data confess.

  • Rodney Graves

    Jeff,

    In Lit Crit that is known as “source torture,” in news and opinion reporting it’s known as Dowdification.

  • retired military

    But but Art W said that global warming was real and that scientists believe in it.

  • jim m

    But but Art W said that global warming was real and that scientists believe in it.

    Indeed. For the left science is a faith based initiative.

  • Sep14

    Art also believes that Barry is the golden goose.

    Color them both dumb..

  • jim m

    Art also believes that Barry is the golden goose.

    That’s not a golden egg he’s laid on the economy. More like a turd. And with the looming shuttering of coal fired power plants it looks like he’s going to continue to $#!+ all over us.

  • fustian

    I can’t tell from the article or the links what this chart is about.

    What’s DeltaT? Is it yearly temperature increase? Is it temperature increase from some fixed date? What is it?

    I assume the sawtoothed black line is CO2 at Moana Loa, but are the straight lines predictions of CO2 or of temperature?

    Finally what is meant by HadCrut and UAH?

  • Rodney Graves

    fustian,

    The three strait lines are the IPCC predictions (worst case, expected case, best case) as to change in temperature [DeltaT]. The saw tooth black line is indeed observed CO2 at Moana Loa observatory. HadCrut and UAH are two independent measurements of observed change in temperature [DeltaT] globally. Note the observed temperature data falls well below the best case prediction and is trending in the opposite direction, while CO2 has been increasing along the expected slope of DeltaT, which indicates that the IPCC predictions were based almost solely on increasing CO2 levels which did not have the predicted effect (increasing DeltaT).

  • jim m

    I’m not certain that the deviation of the actual observed temperatures is a statistically significant deviation from the IPCC low prediction. I believe that it will be, but it may not be just yet.

  • Faith+1

    Global Warming has always been nothing but a bunch of hot air.

  • JLawson

    One of the things I learned early on when I was going through a course on geodetic survey (long-distance, high precision determination of latitude, longitude and elevation starting at a predetermined benchmark and using theodolites and various other tools to create a ‘chain’ (actually, a set of triangles) of points of known location and elevation, to the point you were actually trying to get a position on… tedious work, complex, and using a whole lotta geometry… pre-GPS, of course) was that if you blew a set of observations somewhere in the survey chain, you would blow the rest of the chain no matter how good the observations were past the point it was blown.

    Sure, there’d be some variance caused by atmospheric conditions – variations of a few tenths of a second of arc, (which is why you turned a LOT of angles and made a lot of observations) but if you had a consistent 10 or 15 second, or a few minutes variance, (Degrees, minutes, seconds, you know…) and you couldn’t connect the corners of the triangle in the survey chain, you were screwed.

    I also learned you couldn’t get more precision out of an instrument than it was designed to give, no matter how many observations you took.

    Which is why when the AGW folks started blathering about human-caused warming, citing hundredth of a degree variances out of instruments that (at the beginning) were barely able to do half-degrees, ignored problems with urban buildup and changes of the envirnments around the stations, ignoring solar input, ignoring the already observed cycles in climate and weather, writing out the Roman Warming Period, the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming Period, and anything else in the contemporary record that didn’t support the warming orthodoxy, and insisting stridently that we had to do something NOW NOW NOW – and that something just happened to include the purchase of carbon credits from a company which had as a founder the most ‘credible’ face of the Global Warming movement, and fulfilling green luddite fantasies of ‘eco-friendly’ living through solar and wind power… I was skeptical. (Oh, I believe in AGW, Ruddiman’s paper on how the beginnings of agriculture changed the amount of methane in the atmosphere laid out the data and his conclusions quite well. I just don’t think it’s a crisis that can only be alleviated by throwing the world economy back to about the 1880s.)

    So we’ve got ‘Global warming/climate chaos’ that only ‘climate scientists’ could accurately detect, only ‘climate scientists’ could determine the causes of, only ‘climate scienctists’ could ever falsify, and then they wouldn’t release raw data sets they were using, they had all sorts of ‘adjustments’ designed to take the variances in the data quality into accounts and then they wouldn’t release their source code to show how the adjustments were applied – and you weren’t even supposed to question their pronouncements because ‘The Science Was Settled’.

    Why didn’t that set bullshit detectors screaming loudly throughout the media?

    If the raw data didn’t work – how far could it be ‘adjusted’ before the whole mess turned from science into science fiction? You can’t take bad data and turn it into good. You can’t get a decent output from bad data, no matter how much you ‘preprocess’ it.

    The AGW scare is, at this point, as busted as Buster on Mythbusters after a good day at the bomb range.

  • Earthling

    The ‘experts’ will drag this money making hoax out for as long as possible and taxpayer money is available.

    NB; The Hawaiian volcano’s name is MAUNA LOA, although Moana does sound better in so many ways.