The Fix is in for Global Warming Alarmists

_{Barry Arrington
June 8, 2015

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

By any reasonable measure the Global Warming Alarmists’ predictions have been utter failures. Their solution: Monkey with the data. Robert Tracinski reports

A lot of us having been pointing out one of the big problems with the global warming theory: a long plateau in global temperatures since about 1998. Most significantly, this leveling off was not predicted by the theory, and observed temperatures have been below the lowest end of the range predicted by all of the computerized climate models. So what to do if your theory doesn’t fit the data? Why, change the data, of course! Hence a blockbuster new report: a new analysis of temperature data since 1998 “adjusts” the numbers and magically finds that there was no plateau after all.

Comments

bb: Not with their trace contribution to the amount of a single trace gas in our atmosphere. That is incorrect. Monatomic and homonuclear diatomic molecules are virtually unaffected by infrared energy; consequently, nitrogen, oxygen and argon are not greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases, those that absorb and emit infrared radiation, include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, each with its own thermal footprint. Carbon dioxide constitutes about a fourth of the greenhouse effect. Small changes can have a significant effect on global mean surface temperature. Andre: So you think humans do affect it? We know humans influence the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere. PaV: Satellite data is available, and is considered the most reliable. Satellites do not generally measure temperature directly. Satellite observations show that, over the last four decades, the troposphere has warmed, while — crucially — the stratosphere has cooled, the signature of greenhouse warming. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7839Zachriel_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: Satellite data is available, and is considered the most reliable. Why don't they use that? Simple answer: the satellite data doesn't show any warming over the last 16-18 years. Couple that with the reality that in any modeling scenario, the most accurate results will occur up front, in the first few years. Global warming is just some more junk science. It is sad that even particle physics is on the verge of entering this classification via the 'multi-verse' hypothesis. What's at the bottom of all this bad science? Simple: people who won't admit when they're wrong. That's why people who hunger for the truth--like Christians (and Jews)--have historically made for the best scientists,PaV_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Zachriel So you think humans do affect it? Why do even care?Andre_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

"but they do influence the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere." - Not with their trace contribution to the amount of a single trace gas in our atmosphere. Climate science is complicated. The reaction to select climate scientists is political and simplistic.bb_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Andre: Do you think 7 000 000 000 people have any influence on the 27 000 000C ball of fire in the sky? No, but they do influence the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere.Zachriel_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Zachriel Question for you. Do you think 7 000 000 000 people have any influence on the 27 000 000C ball of fire in the sky? Do you think that said fireball that is 1 000 000 times larger than this planet gives a hoot about CO2? If there is no reason for any of this why do you even care?Andre_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Zachriel is defending the global warming con artists and other liars because he and his demons are also master weavers of lies and deception. Birds of a feather.Mapou_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

"You have to actually look at the report to see if the adjustments are merited." - Maybe so. But given the convenience of the conclusion so close to a global summit and hype so far, I'm more ready to look at the politics to see if the Lysenkoism is merited. Am I wrong to do so? Given the track-record of warming alarmism so far, I say no.bb_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: Hence a blockbuster new report: a new analysis of temperature data since 1998 “adjusts” the numbers and magically finds that there was no plateau after all. You have to actually look at the report to see if the adjustments are merited. They consider four sources of error in the raw data; differences between ship and buoy measurements, the transition from bucket to engine-intake thermometers on ships, new sources of historical surface temperature data; and fixing the underestimate of Arctic coverage. See Karl et al., Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus, Science 2015.Zachriel_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

In another 50 years, global cooling alarmists will be denying that "global warming" was ever part of the scientific consensus.William J Murray_{June 8, 2015
June
06
Jun
8
08
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply