The examination and errors are complicated, but PaulM at globalwarmingquestions posted an excellent, link-filled, summary.
Last week's events are part of a pattern:
Predictions Forecasts of future temperatures by the IPCC and NASA have been well higher than observed readings:
source: The Blackboardlegend: blue vertical line - central tendency for trends projected by the IPCC in the AR4.
bell-shaped curve - trend spread by adding weather noise.
orange vertical line - IPCC's lower +/-95 % confidence interval.
green vertical line - trend of observations (merged NOAA/HadCrut/GISS Land-Ocean data).
source: Climate Skeptic
As Professor Don Easterbrook concludes, "The IPCC prediction of global temperatures, 1° F warmer by 2011 and 2° F by 2038 stand little chance of being correct." Indeed, we can more from the alarmist errors--including failing to account for changes around weather stations or the Urban Heat Island effect--because these mistakes disproportionately overstate future temps, likely evidence of bias.
Retroactive changes: Yes, data sets often are corrected for valid reasons. But official NASA/NOAA temperature records of years past appear to to have been revised 70 times by the government. These new numbers sneak into NASA's database without notice. And almost all the changes force the figures up to "prove" recent warming:
source: Zapruder
source: Climate Skeptic
As Climate Skeptic remarks, "It is amazing that all of the manual adjustments they add to the raw data constantly have the effect of increasing historical warming." At this point, much of the recent data may be corrupt.
Conclusion: Some scientists and some bureaucrats have sponsored a fraud and a panic. Although contrary, fact based, science and research exists, it is downplayed. The experts who produce them have their ethics challenged (wrongly) or are exorcised--and given less credence than uninformed European royals. Meanwhile, the IPCC is run by "a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science," who fudges and lies but somehow is more credible than any skeptic. Reality seems hopelessly obscured.
Yet I'm optimistic. The Democrats are about to complete their take-over of Washington. In two months, they'll be in charge. And they will realize that cutting carbon is hugely expensive--quite a strain given the current financial crisis and the President-elect's other spending priorities. Nor, in any event, would the benefits of carbon capture exceed its costs. And hypothetical warming/rising seas raises only a distant threat (defined as anything after November 2012). So I've predicted "we won't have to hear anything about global warming after January 20, 2009."
2 comments:
> And they will realize that cutting carbon is hugely expensive--quite a strain given the current financial crisis and the President-elect's other spending priorities.
I dunno. The Greens have bought and paid for the Dems. I think they're going to get rather POed when they try to reneg on their end of the deal.
The real thing which is going to hoist the Dems on their own petard is this winter, predicted to be very, very cold, and already showing signs of heading that way. Yeat another very cold winter, esp. if it's followed by another very mild summer like the one we just had, is going to make the non-Greens figure out that the Greens have no clue. And all that desperately manufactured "consensus" constructed of hysteria, prevarication, and distortion is going to go out the window in the face of empirical evidence.
i have no problem with minor reversals (retrograde motions) in general trends, as the current "cold snap" may be.
however, until the Global Weather Change models begin to more seriousl incorporate solar data (e.g., sunspot activity, flares, total emissions, etc.) i will not be panicking any time soon.
;o/
Post a Comment