« Always look on the bright side of life... | Main | Palestinian Kids Encouraged to be Suicide Bombers »

Global Warming Evidence Questioned

Charles Martin writes in The American Thinker about a report released last week that calls into question the argument that humans causes global warming:

The scientific argument that humans have caused global warming - a major underpinning of the "Kyoto Protocols" - suffered a major blow last week, with the publication of a new study. The implications have not yet spread very far beyond the rarified circles of specialists, but the gospel of "anthropogenic" - human-caused - global warming has lost one of its intellectual foundations.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Global Warming Evidence Questioned:

» Prophetic Musings linked with Some interesting news on global warming

Comments (20)

Not to worry! Here's the so... (Below threshold)
profligatewaste:

Not to worry! Here's the solution:
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/weather-control-radar.htm

"global..um-hmm...zzzzzzzz... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"global..um-hmm...zzzzzzzzz"

Another problem with the cl... (Below threshold)
Carrick:

Another problem with the classic hockey stick is that the bend starts in 1900, whereas significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions didn't start until around 1950. See e.g. this curve.

I will guarantee that this ... (Below threshold)
JD:

I will guarantee that this guy will be dismissed out of hand by the enviro-whacko's, or they will claim that he was bought and paid for by the petroleum industry, or something to that effect.

Personally, I found his article to be interesting, and far more readable than most of the stats based writing one encounters.

I especially liked how he carefully qualified his conclusions, taking great pains to not over-reach.

Why would someone who suppo... (Below threshold)
Don:

Why would someone who supports action of climate change dismiss the report out of hand? That would be foolish. This is science.

If I understand this article, one predicitive model of climate change is statistically unverifiable. Interesting. Earth-shaking? Hardly.

Don,It's not just ... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Don,

It's not just the one model in question, but the methodology used in almost all the models. The new study is essentially saying that all the models that use the whole "tree ring as it relates to temperature" is fundamentally flawed. In essense, this finding throws out not just this oen model, but all of them.

At least with the Y2K scare... (Below threshold)

At least with the Y2K scare it didn't take 50 years to find out it was a bunch of alarmist hogwash...

I just finished reading Mic... (Below threshold)

I just finished reading Michael Creighton's, "State of Fear." Good thriller novel with lots of fun global-warming debate as a background. I recommend it.

One thing that I have alway... (Below threshold)

One thing that I have always pondered is how modern equipment biases all such studies. It is an unquestionable fact that we have made more accurate measurements of all kinds of things, temperature, hurricanes, earthquakes and so on during the last 30-50 years than any time before it. Our coverage of the globe has increased tremendously over time. The more readings you have, with more accurate instruments, the more accurate your conclusions will be. Thus, our conclusions about data from before the 1950s is completely questionable, and may be an artifact of our lack of measurements.

For example, number of hurricanes. We did not even have satellites before 1960, and our tracking of satellites didn't really get going well until the 1970s. Anyone want to guess what the trend would look like for number of hurricanes per year? Of course: it follows the trend for number of readings/coverage.

We had no ability to count all the hurricanes more than 40 years ago, so obviously our records will show less hurricanes from back then.

The same kinds of problems pop up with measuring temperature data, earthquakes, and all sorts of things.

Just like in medical sciences, where they still do not know if this or that causes cancer, it is all dependent on enough time passing in order to solicit enough measurements to be certain of our tests.

We cannot be certain about anthropogenic global warming until many years from now when we have a long enough time period to see it in perspective since our data from before 1900 are questionable at best in their precision and accuracy.

Which may also be why the promoters of the anthropogenic theory are in such a hurry to convince everyone that it is a fact, before it has enough time to prove itself wrong.

bullwinkle,The dif... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

bullwinkle,

The difference with Y2K was that it was a REAL problem--just that lots of people spent lots of time and money fixing it before it hit. Y2K was hyped by the press about all the things that COULD happen, but like the Iraq War they left out all the work people did to fix the problem before it hit.

And like a lot of modern stories when they needed to spice it up they just made stuff up too. Reality was there was a problem, but really, by the time the press started hyping it had already been solved.

Yes, I work in the computer software industry and did a ton of work from 1995-2000 on just such problems. My neighbor, often asked if I was afraid we wouldn't have power on 2 Jan. I told them, yes, they would have power. Now, come 1 Feb the bill might be for a million dollars since they will be charged for the last 100 years, but the lights would be on...and guess what, I bet if you call the power company and explain they will straighten it out by hand.

Global warming, or at least man's impact on it, I firmly believe to be over-hyped AND based on faulty data. Global warming enthusiasts still can't answer me on how we can put so much faith and spend so much money on computer models supposedly telling me what the weather is going to be like in 100 years when they can't even get a 48 hour forecast right 60% of the time...

The article doesn't tell us... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

The article doesn't tell us how many sets of random numbers Stockwell generated and run through the conditioning methods of MBH98 to get the hockey stick graph. If a significant percent of random number sets produce hockey stick graphs, then Stockwell has demonstrated the bias in the conditioning methods of MBH98. If only a few percent of these random numbers sets produce hockey stick graphs, then Stockwell hasn't proven significant bias in the conditioning methods of MBH98. In either case, Stockwell has not impugned the validity of temperature proxy data, only highlighted the need to use unbiased conditioning methods.

Nevertheless, Stockwell's contribution is important as he has demonstrated the need to test conditioning methods with random data to insure those methods are not biased. What's surprising is that such testing hasn't be done, or at least not documented, for the important studies mentioned in the article. What does peer review mean if not validation of a study's methods?

Faith+1:Word.<br /... (Below threshold)

Faith+1:

Word.

Faith+1:Global ... (Below threshold)
Earl:

Faith+1:

Global warming enthusiasts still can't answer me on how we can put so much faith and spend so much money on computer models supposedly telling me what the weather is going to be like in 100 years when they can't even get a 48 hour forecast right 60% of the time...

Yes they can, and for you to say that means you haven't paid any attention to the debate, at all.

From the Economist, just this week:

"How can you predict what the climate will be like in 20 years' time when you can't even get tomorrow's forecast right?" That is the usual
response from the layman to the climatologist expounding the latest theory on climate change.

Put it this way: forecasting tomorrow's weather is a bit like estimating how much loose change you will have in your pocket or purse in 24 hours' time. It is the result of many small transactions,
often inter-related, most of them entirely predictable at such short range: a visit to the cashpoint, buying groceries, pocket-money for
the kids, and so on. Foreshadowing changes in the climate over a long period is more akin to calculating the household budget over a year
or more: the daily transactions hardly matter, whereas much more important are outside influences, many of which are predictable but
some of which may be quite unexpected.

NASA has found that Mars is... (Below threshold)
lakestate:

NASA has found that Mars is experiencing "global warming" too. And they didn't find any SUVs on Mars either.

lakestate, Jupiter is also ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

lakestate, Jupiter is also measurably warming. Other planets show degrees of temperature changes to varying extents.

Hmmm.1. <blockquot... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

1.

Foreshadowing changes in the climate over a long period is more akin to calculating the household budget over a year
or more: the daily transactions hardly matter, whereas much more important are outside influences, many of which are predictable but
some of which may be quite unexpected.

Thank you for that analogy. It's like being handed a ball-peen hammer to hit someone.

Using your analogy then the climate-control freaks are trying to model the future whilst not having either the full accounting of income or expenses.

So it doesn't matter how much you calc and re-calc the figures it still won't be correct because you simply don't have all of the parameters and variables necessary.

It's like balancing the checkbook without all of the transactions. An utter waste of time.

2. Can we all come to a concensus about this Global Warming thing?

I hate the cold and I'd like to know what I have to do to increase the average temperature so I won't have to worry about winter anymore.

On the other hand I'm thinking about investing in a iceberg harvesting company so that'll be good if the temperature rises. But if the predictions are all buggered then that'll be a big white elephant.

Hi ed-Regarding yo... (Below threshold)
echibby:

Hi ed-

Regarding your response to Earl's analogy-

Consider this: Exactly how much money will you have in your pockets on September 27, 2006? Or June 1, 2007? Or November 17, 2008?

Now how much money do you predict you'll make in 2006? Or 2007? Or 2008?

The former is analogous to weather- daily or weekly microevents that can't be predicted too far ahead of time, but can be generalized. i.e. with weather one can generalize that summers are warmer, and winters are cooler, but specific temperature predictions for a certain day are much more difficult. Just like you might predict that you will have more money in your pocket at a certain time of the week or month, but not be able to specifically estimate exactly how much at any given time.

The latter refers to long term trends- i.e. what your future yearly income will be given current parameters such as inflation, job prospects, etc. I, for one, wouldn't think of inventorying my daily pocket change in calculating my yearly income, as I'm sure that would have the IRS knocking on my door! The amount of money I have in my wallet has been fairly invariant over the years even as my income has fluctuated. I might, in general, carry a bit more money in my pockets as my income goes up (the temperature warms, thus the day-to-day temp on average is warmer), or I might carry less (the temp cools and the day to day avg temp is cooler).

Hopefully this makes it a bit easier to understand.

echibby

Hmmm.Cons... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Consider this: Exactly how much money will you have in your pockets on September 27, 2006? Or June 1, 2007? Or November 17, 2008?

And so, according to your analogy, you know EXACTLY the temperature of every single cubic inch on this planet and you know EXACTLY every single parameter?

I know what I spent in 2005. I know what I earned in 2005.

But you do not have anything equivalent to this information. The fact that plants can and do emit methane came as a shock to climate scientists.

That alone, amongst many others, proves you wrong.

Hmmm.Hope... (Below threshold)
ed:

Hmmm.

Hopefully this makes it a bit easier to understand.

I know bullshit when I see it, so no help needed there.

ed-No, what I'm sa... (Below threshold)
echibby:

ed-

No, what I'm saying is that one doesn't need to know every single parameter on the microlevel (temperatures to the cubic inch) in order to make predictions at the macrolevel (global climate and average temperatures. I'm not sure how the analogy earl provided leads to me claiming to know the exact temperature of every cubic centimeter on the planet.

Can you provide a cite (from peer-reviewed scientific literature) that "that plants can and do emit methane came as a shock to climate scientists."

thanks,
echibby




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy