« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | Al Gore's Global Warming Hysteria the Result of a NASA Programming Error »

Best. Global. Warming. Story. Ever.

In all I've seen and read on the present global warming hoax, this is -beyond any doubt- the best story I've ever read. It's an instant classic that shows not only what an absolute fraud the whole thing is but it exposes the hucksters who call themselves scientists. -- Of course they don't realize they just outed themselves.

Natural forces offset global warming last two years: study

Natural weather variations have offset the effects of global warming for the past couple of years and will continue to keep temperatures flat through 2008, a study released Thursday said.

But global warming will begin in earnest in 2009...

Oh come now.... global warming has been "delayed" for two years but it will be here "in earnest" in 2009? Who writes this stuff?

Then what about all the things they have already blamed on global warming?

What about the children with fever? We where told "the science was in" and the children where getting sick because of global warming. But if "natural forces" offset global warming why did the children get sick? (follow that link BTW it's hysterical)

But this story has only started giving.... So how did the "scientists" figure this out?

Existing global climate computer models tend to underestimate the effects of natural forces on climate change, so for this analysis, Met Office experts tweaked their model to better reflect the impact of weather systems such as La Nina, or fluctuations in ocean heat and circulation.

Instead of using approximations, they used real data on the state of the ocean and the atmosphere to generate forecasts of climate change for the decade beginning in 2005 and running through 2014.

Game. Set. Match. The global warming hucksters just admitted the whole thing is a scam.

The models could not predict the climate 2 years in the future so they had to be "tweaked" when the real data came in. 2 years. Al Gore has told us these models where good for 300 years! But they have been proven to be flawed after only 2 years.

And this story proves another of my points on global warming; it is based largely on man's hubris. "Existing global climate computer models tend to underestimate the effects of natural forces" How much more damning can that get? The modelers all think man has a bigger factor on the climate than nature itself. Hubris, friends, hubris.

But wait, it gets better:

The projections suggested [suggested? -ED] that while man-made greenhouse gases would raise temperatures over the long run, cooler water in the tropical Pacific and a resistance to warming in the Southern Ocean would counteract the effect of global warming in the early years of the decade.

The findings fit with the weather patterns seen so far...

Well I hope to hell they did! They had the real data in front of them, if they couldn't write a computer model to give them an answer they already knew, they'd need to hire new programmers.

Think about what this joker is saying... If we give the programmers the answer first, they can write a computer model to explain it. All that proves is that the programmers can do math.

It should be no surprise the models are flawed. I already blogged the fact ALL 18 models failed to model THE PAST and were off by a factor of 300%.

But what this story really shows is how UNscientific this whole scam is. Global warming was not "offset." It did not occur. The only way these "scientists" can say that Global warming was "offset" by natural forces is to presume they knew what the temps should have been.

In other words, this is the opposite of science. They are starting with a conclusion then when they don't get it, they say the experiment must have been flawed.

If there where any intellectual honesty in this debate, the people who have developed these models wouldn't be telling us that global warming was "offset." They would be telling us that the models as they exist today are systemically flawed and can't even predict the past.

They've admitted it in this article, just not in those words.

Anyone who still believes in Global Warming isn't talking science, they're talking religion.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/23256.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Best. Global. Warming. Story. Ever.:

» Dust my Broom linked with Global warming has been delayed

» Mike's Noise linked with Science that challenges Global Warming

Comments (28)

Proves all this global warm... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Proves all this global warming is nothing more then the HOT AIR fro various eco-wackos and certian persons who wnat to control our lives

Paul, perhaps you missed th... (Below threshold)
Strick Author Profile Page:

Paul, perhaps you missed this one:

[link=http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383]Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data[/link]

Basically a bug in the adjustment NOAA and NASA make on the temperature data they publish, used by climate researchers across the country, caused them to overstate temperatures in the US for the 90s. There's still a warming trend in the data, but it's dramatically smaller.

Where once it was thought that 1998 was the warmest year in the past 1000 years, now we know that the 1930s were actually warmer.

So, not only are the models predicting global warming dubious at best, the data they've used up to now is suspect.

One thing I've never seen -... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

One thing I've never seen - what's the supposed baseline temperature that we're attempting to establish as a 'normal' temp for the earth?

Is it when it was warm enough in Greenland for the Vikings to settle in? Or the temperatures during the Little Ice Age? Or maybe one of the big ice ages? What's the set point on the thermostat?

If there's asupposed 'normal' temperature we're trying to get to, I'd sure like to see their data on it and how they arrived at it!

How long til the far left '... (Below threshold)
GianiD:

How long til the far left 'academics' give back the grant money??

Great post Paul, and you di... (Below threshold)

Great post Paul, and you didn't even have to mention the corrected data just posted at NASA. Michelle has the details.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/

Serious scientists accept t... (Below threshold)

Serious scientists accept the general premise of the effects of global warming on the planet. For example, scientists employed by NASA and other space exploration agencies are actively using the lessons learned in global warming research here on on Earth for future plans to thaw out the polar ice areas of Mars and create an environment able to support life on that planet.

Even PBS ran a recent special on their HD channel that displayed plans for equipment to generate fluorocarbons on a wide scale to thin the ozone layer over Mars to allow more sunlight to raise the planet's temperature and thaw the ice covering much of it. And plans to plant plants that can produce oxygen in areas and create a life supporting environment are also being planned.

For the first time in Earth history, the population of the planet is now so large, and some byproducts of industrial society so massive, such as the rapidly industrializing society of China without some serious checks on pollution, that mankind is now able to alter his Earth in a very negative way. But some enterprising companies will make lots of money by development of more "green" and energy efficient products that have less impact on the environment. And the focus on China with the Olympics will pressure that society to make some serious inroads against their industrial pollution problem that now kills 400,000 a year and is bad as smoking two packs of cigarettes for many children living there.

The business community will adapt to making more global warming sensitive products, and consumers will save in lower energy costs. It will be a win-win situation for business, the consumer and the planet.

Well, if even PBS says it's... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Well, if even PBS says it's true...

Mr. Hooson;The Mar... (Below threshold)
Aog Author Profile Page:

Mr. Hooson;

The Martian ice caps are already melting. Did our flourocarbons already drift over to Mars?

Annoying Old Guy, actually ... (Below threshold)

Annoying Old Guy, actually it is very interesting that the polar ice caps are melting even without the future space missions to refine the planet. Both that melting as well as the global warming on Earth may even suggest some minor changes in orbit of the planets somewhat closer to the Sun that are causing a slight warming. Your link to the information on Mars could be a significant clue to some reasons for common global warming on both planets.

Hooson, serious scientists... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Hooson, serious scientists? Where are these serious scientists? Science is not done by hiding data, concealing methodology and publishing the results of blackbox work.

That's what AGW "science" is today, propaganda instead of science.

Bu...Bu...Bu...But...But...... (Below threshold)
Disillusioned Socialist:

Bu...Bu...Bu...But...But....Professor Algore said....

Global warming... the new p... (Below threshold)

Global warming... the new pseudo-religion of the bat-$h!t crazy left. I have Sirius satelite radio, and OMG, there is a global warming commercial every other break on the news shows. ARRRGGH! We are being inundated with this crap as if it is FACT that man is causing this. And here we have an example, again, that the "science" is anything but factual at this time....

SPQR,When he said ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

SPQR,

When he said "serious scientists", Hoosen was referring to socialist regressive propagandists who have a degree (anything from HS diploma to doctorate, in any field- it doesn't matter).

Hey Paul:... (Below threshold)
thecomputerguy:

Hey Paul:

Earth may even suggest some minor changes in orbit of the planets somewhat closer to the Sun that are causing a slight warming

I believe the correct answer is changes in the output of the sun... but nice try.


I see you found yourself an... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I see you found yourself another brilliant journalist. Here is what the AFP says:

But global warming will begin in earnest in 2009

And here is what the paper in Science says:

Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

Sounds a bit different, doesn't it? Where the AFP makes it sound like global warming is about to start, the report is merely improving their model to take into account internal variability, and adjusting their predictions accordingly. Their predictions focus on the next 7 years, so we'll get to see if they're right real soon.

In other words, this is the opposite of science. They are starting with a conclusion then when they don't get it, they say the experiment must have been flawed.

I suggest you learn the difference between a prediction and a conclusion, and between an experiment and a computer model. The predictions are based upon trends, not a foregone conclusion. Climate is complex and models are constantly updated and improved, but that does not mean that they are starting with a conclusion and working backwards. Internal variability vs. natural external forcing are terms you would do well to familiarize yourself with as well.

The funny thing to me, is that when someone points out a flaw in the data or modeling, you are quick to say "see, they don't know what they are talking about! It's all a farce!" but if they correct problems and improve their models you say "see, they don't know what they are talking about! It's all a farce!" You think either all climate science must be perfectly accurate in it's predictions right now, or it's a hoax. It's a rather ignorant position.

Actually mantis, all I ask ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Actually mantis, all I ask is that climate scientists act like scientists, but as we see in the next post, they don't.

Hiding data, concealing methodology, and refusing to cooperate with those who are examining their work. That is not science.

The hoax of "Global Warming... (Below threshold)

The hoax of "Global Warming" will be looked back on by history as akin to our Salem Witch Trials. As for the now, I use it as an IQ check. If you believe it, you are either very young, very naive, very brainwashed, or very about to be gang-banged by the track team.

We know less about the clim... (Below threshold)
mantis:

We know less about the climate of Mars than that of Earth, but the prevailing theory about current Mars warming is that it's largely caused by orbital variations, not the sun (read past the headlines, friends).

Damn. <a href="http://news... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Damn. Second link didn't work.

The discussion of Mars demo... (Below threshold)
Aog Author Profile Page:

The discussion of Mars demonstrates yet another example of how one side is not being scientific nor honest, and that is the conflation of climate change with anthropogenic global warming. We can see here (and numerous other places) how these two different things are discussed as if they were the same thing. In this particular case, the data on Mars supports climate change while casting doubt on anthropogenisis.

Why does it matter? Because the appropriate actions are very different for global warming caused by human emitted green house gasses vs. orbital cycles. But that fact is willfully elided by every global warmenist I've seen.

Actually Mantis, there are ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Actually Mantis, there are 2 competing theories. Some believe it is orbital, some believe it is increased solar activity, and some believe it is a combination. No one knows for sure. It's all just speculation. It could be none of the above and something else entirely.

A devout leftist would call this situation "settled science".

I live in blue-state Chica... (Below threshold)

I live in blue-state Chicago among people who believe 70 to 100 year weather forecasts from people (NASA) who are not really sure whether or not it will rain in the Mojave desert next week. It should be called "global fever".

Back in high school in the ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Back in high school in the '90's, when Chaos theory was all the rage, I read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Making-Science-James-Gleick/dp/0140092501/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6690648-1680736?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186765358&sr=8-1

I'll have to thumb through my copy at home later to find the exact wording, but one of the things discussed is how susceptible computer models are to unknown data. In the relevent example, it was posited that even if we had weather sensors a foot apart in every direction, the gaps in the info collected would still not allow completely accurate modeling.

That and the fact that we still list PERCENT CHANCES of whether or not it will rain for each day is why I cannot believe anyone who screams about all of this being "settled science."

Well, that and that huge ball o' fusion in the sky...

really sure whethe... (Below threshold)
really sure whether or not it will rain in the Mojave desert next week.

I live in the Mojave Desert. I can tell you it won't rain next week.

That's always a pretty safe prediction here, especially in the summer. The normal average rainfall for August here is .3 inches. Annual norm is 4.4 inches. When it does rain, it usually rains buckets.

You could probably predict "no rain next week" 52 times a year, and be right about that at least 42 of them.

>You think either all clima... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>You think either all climate science must be perfectly accurate in it's predictions right now, or it's a hoax. It's a rather ignorant position.

Not in the freaking least. It's is an absolutely sane and rational position.

Yes (damnit) I expect that if we are going to wreck the global economy we sure (as shit) better be doing it on accurate predictions. Right now.

Anything less is a hoax.

If you want us to ignore these idiots, then by all means, I will let them refine their flawed models till their hearts' content.

But if you expect to change global public police I think they should know what the hell they are talking about.

Anything less mantis is an ignorant position.

mantis:One of the ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

mantis:

One of the hints is in the article you cited above. The variation from the Sun is discounted, since it's only 1/10 of one percent or so, which would allow for a variation of about 0.2 degrees (measured in degrees Kelvin, not Centigrade, since solar warming doesn't start at the freezing point of water, and the variability isn't flat across the spectrum, but enhanced in some ranges - like infrared).

Oddly enough, 0.2 degrees K is about the amount of observed warming. What a shock...

I agree that this was excel... (Below threshold)

I agree that this was excellent news. It shows that even with a further refinement of the processes (always a goal of legitimate scientists) that the basic model was accurate.

See the quote from mantis upthread about what the study (not the article about the study) says.

I'm not happy to see GW taking place, but since it is I want us to have the best possible understanding of what's going on so we can take the appropriate steps.

Paul Hooson,<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Paul Hooson,

Even PBS ran a recent special on their HD channel that displayed plans for equipment to generate fluorocarbons on a wide scale to thin the ozone layer over Mars to allow more sunlight to raise the planet's temperature and thaw the ice covering much of it.

I have no doubt that destroying the ozone layer would warm Mars, but I'm wondering if you see the irony. While Ozone absorbs ultraviolet light it's also more effective at absorbing infrared than CO2. Ozone is a greenhouse gas. Sunlight is made up of about 10% ultraviolet, 45% visible and 45% infrared, so the infrared properties of ozone are more important than the ultraviolet properties, at least for the purpose of warming.

So doesn't it seem strange that destroying a greenhouse gas causes warming? It shouldn't as the physics has been known for nearly 100 years, but it runs counter to the IPCC dogma.




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