About the Recent Global Warming Headlines
Many times on this blog I have asked the question, "Where is the institutional incentive to disprove global warming?"
This question becomes pertinent when examining the recent headlines proclaiming that storms are now more frequent due to 'global warming' (which, as we have seen, does not exist at the moment as world temperatures are slightly below normal). A commentary in the UK observes,
As the great global warming scare continues to crumble, attention focuses on all those groups that have a huge interest in keeping it alive. Governments look on it as an excuse to raise billions of pounds in taxes. Wind farm developers make fortunes from the hidden subsidies we pay through our electricity bills. A vast academic industry receives more billions for concocting the bogus science that underpins the scare. Carbon traders hope to make billions from corrupt schemes based on buying and selling the right to emit CO2. But no financial interest stands to make more from exaggerating the risks of climate change than the re-insurance industry, which charges retail insurers for “catastrophe cover”, paid for by all of us through our premiums.
What do we mean by bogus science? As I have posted on this blog and elsewhere, the global warming scare is overwhelmingly driven by computer models. Here is what computer modeler Willis Eschenbach says about this latest "study,"
[Willis'] conclusion is worth quoting at some length: “When your results represent the output of four computer models, fed into a fifth computer model, whose output goes to a sixth computer model, which is calibrated against a seventh computer model, and then your results are compared to a series of different results from the fifth computer model, but run with different parameters, in order to show that flood risks have increased from greenhouse gases…” you cannot pretend that this is “a valid representation of reality”, let alone “a sufficiently accurate representation of reality to guide our future actions”.
Just a few days ago, I lamented the overuse of computer models in the global warming debate. The "study" cited above ignored the fact that the actual weather record shows no actual upward trend in storms.
Ignore the hype. That is all it is.
A present, there is no valid scientific evidence that storms are getting worse due to 'global warming.'
This question becomes pertinent when examining the recent headlines proclaiming that storms are now more frequent due to 'global warming' (which, as we have seen, does not exist at the moment as world temperatures are slightly below normal). A commentary in the UK observes,
As the great global warming scare continues to crumble, attention focuses on all those groups that have a huge interest in keeping it alive. Governments look on it as an excuse to raise billions of pounds in taxes. Wind farm developers make fortunes from the hidden subsidies we pay through our electricity bills. A vast academic industry receives more billions for concocting the bogus science that underpins the scare. Carbon traders hope to make billions from corrupt schemes based on buying and selling the right to emit CO2. But no financial interest stands to make more from exaggerating the risks of climate change than the re-insurance industry, which charges retail insurers for “catastrophe cover”, paid for by all of us through our premiums.
What do we mean by bogus science? As I have posted on this blog and elsewhere, the global warming scare is overwhelmingly driven by computer models. Here is what computer modeler Willis Eschenbach says about this latest "study,"
[Willis'] conclusion is worth quoting at some length: “When your results represent the output of four computer models, fed into a fifth computer model, whose output goes to a sixth computer model, which is calibrated against a seventh computer model, and then your results are compared to a series of different results from the fifth computer model, but run with different parameters, in order to show that flood risks have increased from greenhouse gases…” you cannot pretend that this is “a valid representation of reality”, let alone “a sufficiently accurate representation of reality to guide our future actions”.
Just a few days ago, I lamented the overuse of computer models in the global warming debate. The "study" cited above ignored the fact that the actual weather record shows no actual upward trend in storms.
Ignore the hype. That is all it is.
A present, there is no valid scientific evidence that storms are getting worse due to 'global warming.'
I think for those reading a meteorologist's musings on global warming, it would be worth watching this video as well, just to keep things balanced and in perspective.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
http://planetsave.com/2011/03/02/meet-the-scientists-video/
Hi Saul,
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting a comment. I watched your video.
Are you trying to say Al Gore is a scientist (the video certainly implies he is)? He is not. I have a copy of his college transcript from when he ran for President and he took one course in natural science. He received a 'D'.
Are you saying the the long list of authors of those papers (the ones with the "page turning" special effects in the video) are more qualified to opine on the atmosphere than Coleman and Monckton? That does not appear to be the case. For example, the lead authors of the first paper cited are specialists in the field of botany and biology (respectively), which have nothing to do with atmospheric science -- the same criticism the video levels against Coleman and Monckton!
If you wish to criticize the qualifications of Coleman and Monckton when they comment on things atmospheric you would think the tape would talk to actual atmospheric scientists.
I also note the video is from a "Guest Contributor" but his or her name is not given.
For our many new readers: I have a BS in Meteorology with minors in both engineering and mathematics. That includes upper division courses in statistics, atmospheric chemistry, and atmospheric physics as well as courses in weather prediction.
I am a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and am a board certified consulting meteorologist.
I welcome comments to the blog, but simply posting a link to a video that contradicts itself doesn't advance the discussion.
Mike
No, Al Gore is not a scientist and the video also states that he is not a scientist. I just think that there's a bit too much politics injecting itself into science these days. There's all these people who claim to suddenly be experts on climatology and some even go so far as to disguise their credentials (I'm not accusing you of that, Mike). Honestly, I think the skeptics are really the ones we should be skeptical of. That's just how I see it.
ReplyDeleteSomething interesting I've been thinking about recently:
So, Al Gore was concerned about pollution and it's effect on our climate. He seemingly, all by himself, brought it to the world's attention and jump-started a new environmental movement, which is a good thing. A few years ago there actually were several republicans who wanted to help the environment and mitigate climate change too, but as the republicans moved to the extreme right, they had to oppose all things democrat which unfortunately included climate science as it was associated with Al Gore. This really bugs me.
Thanks for letting me rant a bit.
Saul
Saul,
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting your comments.
Mike