Climate change predictions incorrect

obama greatest threat“But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact,” said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right about climate change. GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate change: “Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system.” That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth’s existence.

You say, “Williams, that’s not what the warmers are talking about. It’s the high CO2 levels caused by mankind’s industrial activities that are causing the climate change!” There’s a problem with that reasoning. Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers, the Earth should have been boiling.

Then there are warmer predictions. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, warmers, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, made all manner of doomsday predictions about global warming and the increased frequency of hurricanes. According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, “no Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, and Earth’s temperature has not budged for 18 years.”

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let’s look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that “in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier. He said, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, “somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct.”

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.’s chief climate change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking “probably the most difficult task” they have ever given themselves, “which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model.” In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer’s views this way: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. … The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it’s settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Source

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (112)

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    I just don’t understand leftists. If I find out that I am wrong, I change my mind and go with the facts, instead of trying to change the facts. If my peers start breaking rules, lying, or generally cause mayhem, I stand up and denounce them instead of defending them, or ignoring their bad behavior.

    And I have been wrong before, and changed my views. I have called out peers and bosses who do wrong, and left organizations that continued to do wrong, sometimes making personal sacrifices to do so.

    So what does it say about our “friends” on the left, when they remain silent? Or when they refuse to change their minds in the face of clear evidence? Or when they attack honest people?

    Just how brain damaged are these lefties? How is it that they continue to think that all of this evil behavior will beget anything good?

    • Avatar

      Robert

      |

      Certainly, “asl the google” the company that is planning to determine for us what is and isn’t truthful.

      Thanks but no thanks.

      For your information, the amount of information and how rapidly it is communicated has increased dramatically over time, so trying to claim something is “the likes of which nothing, in all of recorded history, has ever been described” is just meaningless theatrics.

      We’ve had enough of those, how about some actual facts for a change?

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        Remove the google reference and…
        [quote]The geologic record contains indications of “abrupt climate change” the likes of which nothing, in all of recorded human history, has ever been described.[/quote] Recorded human history is about the thickness of the paint on the roof of an 80 story building. And the modern temperature record only goes back a couple hundred years.

        So i would agree that there have been past “abrupt” and “natural” changes to the climate that dwarf the mere thenth’s or hundreth’s of a degree alarmists are claiming are catastrophic.

        It might have been worded in an overly dramatic way, but there is some truth to it.

        And yeah! Google can suck it.

        • Avatar

          Peter_PNW

          |

          While the modern human facilitated temp record is 100s of years, the geologic record is 100s of K years. It clearly shows that all of recorded human history is contained within a tiny statistical oddity.

          If you elect to reject oxygen isotope rations as a indicator or evaporation rates (and hence temperature), that your judgment.

          And… I refer to it as “the google”, not the search engine, but rather the artifact its has become and will embody. Just another corporate entity that eats, grows and poops. Not even close to being the moral “don’t be evil” the engineers imaged decades ago.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            wish I could edit the typos

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]While the modern human facilitated temp record is 100s of years, the geologic record is 100s of K years. It clearly shows that all of recorded human history is contained within a tiny statistical oddity.[/quote] Yes, but climate changed naturally before man began emitting Co2. Often times climate naturally changed at rates no living human has observed.

            Extreme “natural” climate change in the pre industrial age was far greater than today. This refutes Co2 alarmism.
            [img]http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png[/img]

            [quote]If you elect to reject oxygen isotope rations as a indicator or evaporation rates (and hence temperature), that your judgment. [/quote] For the record I “reject” failed and invalidated models warmists present as evidence. I reject the AGW “hypothesis” simply because it has been refuted by observations.

            What about oxygen isotopes? Who mentiond rejecting them? A proxie for ancient temperatures? You have a point?
            [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png[/img]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Hey amirlach! Peter takes it all on faith, science is a mystery to him.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            I’m quite sure he does not grasp the importance of refuting natural variability as cause for recent observed climate.

            How can alarmists prove recent climate change was not due to natural variability if they cannot quantify all climate forcing’s and their effective values?

            Simple answer? They cannot.

            Of course we know that the IPCC has little to no understanding of these climate forcing’s.
            [quote]Models and simulations are critical to the IPCC’s case for man-made warming but in its Third Assessment
            Report (TAR) the IPCC admitted that the level of scientific understanding (LSU) of 7 of 11 “known” climate factors
            was “very low” and that for another the LSU was “low”. [/quote]

            He simply does not understand the scientific method. And parrots alarmist talking points without really understanding them.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            “Forcing” sure seems to be foundational here. Can anyone point me to a place where is analysis has been accomplished?

            Or, is that the point?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [b]2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing[/b]

            When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 “Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing” of AR4.

            And this is the[i] known[/i] forcings. Now do you understand my question?

            Please list all climate forcings and their effect values.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Gator, please stop it with the rhetorical posturing. I’m looking for answers. If you have such an analysis, why not point me to it?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I already have. Pay attention.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            The IPCC, the claimed Gold Standard of climate science has not quantified these natural forces. Yet they claimed natural variability could not have caused observed temperatures since man made Co2 became a factor, since the 1930’s.

            The models are programed with assumptions, not real measured effects. This is why they have all failed.

            What you call “basic findings” are nothing of the sort. They have yet to be found and quantified.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            So this boils down to “we don’t know”, right? Information quality is too low, uncertainties too high, systems knowledge too poor.

            There is no forcing calculation you can point to that shows the net system energy gain/loss.

            Am I correct in this understanding?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            That’s pretty much where things are in ‘climate science’. What we do know is that CO2 is a bit player, whose part has pretty much come and gone.

            See: The pause.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            So what ? Will you ever admit there is no proof that there is a greenhouse effect ? That no gas not even water vapor has been proven a greenhouse gas ?

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            We all make judgments in the absence of information, and I’m happy to be discussing the knowledge to do (and don’t) have with such well informed citizens and experts.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Good. Now go spend your time helping the needy and ignore the Chicken Littles.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Here is a link to the Cloud Mystery.

            More recent experiments done at CERN confirm these results.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            NO WE DON’T !

            Do not apply your arrogant reasoning technique as if because you stupidly do it therefore so does the rest of the world.

            The rest of the world does NOT share your fault.

            Typically, when pointed out as incorrect or fundamentally illogical, you come up with the time honored leftist ejaculation of ” SO DOES EVERYBODY ELSE ” as if that excuses your inaccuracy or illogic.

            Nice try and I don’t expect you to understand.

          • Avatar

            Steve

            |

            Oh behave…..

            A frioend of mine was talking to a 20-something who asked him what he was going to do about climate chnage. Now my friend has seen a lot of life, and had to wade through a huge ammount of cr*p that most of us can only have nightmares over…..
            He quietly said “there is no man made climate chnage – the data says so”
            At thsi point it appeared she had a near coronary, and retreated into “but 97% of scientists say…” aty which point he stoped her and said” I ‘m sorry, there is no scientific basis to the 97% thing, and I have a brain and I reject this nonsense”.

            She went silent.

            All I could think of is – its starting to sink in. This friend used to laugh at stuff that logic says exists, but POPULAR THOUGHT ( if you can call it “thought” ) says otherwise.

            Now this friend is NOT highly educated, but has been around , travelled and knows a lot of people.

            As such, which is why the warmists are trying to up the ante by persecuting people like Willie Soon who dares not cow to them out and exposes them as bare faced liars.

            All I can say to all warmists – you had it coming. And its gunna hurt, and you deserve the exposure youre going to get.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            If you want to see how an honest scientist talks about what is known and what is not… There should be a balance is science, Observation, Theory and Numerical modeling.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Amirlach, thank you for the graphics.

            I certainly do not refute natural variation as a normal state, for any system, including geologic fluids. As a manufacturing manager, I have a keen understanding that one can *never* remove NV from a system, given fine enough measurement scales.

            It is from the data culled from oxygen isotopes rations in glacial ice that I’ve been lead to many of my judgments concerning the debate on anthropogenic climate change. It’s a trivial 15 minute job to collect a handful of such studies, which all display a remarkable consistency in the nature of global temperature change over many 100k years.

            Do you agree that oxygen isotope ratios, taken as multi-study aggregates, are measurements that are free of corrupting bias?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Do you agree that oxygen isotope ratios, taken as multi-study aggregates, are measurements that are free of corrupting bias?[/quote] Probably not, every multi-proxie study warmist trot out is an exercise in cheery picking. Like the MB 98 “study” you linked to above. You are aware it has been completely refuted right?

            Why would I, a skeptic agree to anything without first examining the data and methods employed?

            And now with the new rush to force scientists to disclose all funding sources and possible conflicts of interest. I also want to see that disclosure.

            So you can post a link to your ” multi-study aggregates” and we will determine if we think it is free of corrupting bias, after we read the full disclosure of it’s funding sources and all of the possible conflicts of interest the authors disclosed.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            The MB 98 study I selected was completely random, intended to illustrate, through its context in the post, that Gator would reject whatever resource I selected, regardless of source type.

            I have long been intrigued by the consistence of O isotope data like the set used in this article:

            http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097

            What is your opinion of this data?
            [img]http://www.nature.com/scitable/nated/../content/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/24290862/resized_1_2.jpg[/img]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            And this refutes NV How?

            Peter, listen to those who know more than you, and learn.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            The question is whether this is an acceptable set of data?

            You seems to be having a hard time with the fact that we both recognize NV as a natural and immutable phenomena.

            You of course understand standard deviation and control ranges? Then we all know that the issue is right in front of you, and the reason you fall back to “refuting NV” is because you have no motivation to discuss what we see in the data. I’m interested in your motivations – they are as much a part of this world as any raindrop.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You are right, I am not interested in navel gazing. This is precisely the problem with the discussion with those not trained in the Earth Sciences. Neophytes latch onto a single twig in a forest and think they really have the forest. I am trying to get you to think outside of the isotope.

            Please list all climate forcings and their effect values.

            Peter, I have seen every bit of info you can post, you have nothing to offer me. I OTOH have decades of knowledge on the subject and can offer you much.

            You can bark, or listen.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]You seems to be having a hard time with the fact that we both recognize NV as a natural and immutable phenomena.[/quote]
            And you seem to have a hard time understanding that until you can quantify NV, you cannot prove which factor has driven recent climate change and the Null Hypothesis stands.

            “The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. In statistics, it is often denoted H0 (read “H-nought”, “H-null”, or “H-zero”).”

            Failed models are not evidence indicating otherwise.

            [quote]A Challenge to the Climate Research Community
            February 2nd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

            I’ve been picking up a lot of chatter in the last few days about the ‘settled science’ of global warming. What most people don’t realize is that the vast majority of published research on the topic simply assumes that warming is manmade. It in no way “proves” it.

            If the science really is that settled, then this challenge should be easy:

            Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.

            Studies that have suggested that an increase in the total output of the sun cannot be blamed, do not count…the sun is an external driver. I’m talking about natural, internal variability.

            The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.
            [/quote]
            “In statistical inference on observational data, the null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena.[1] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false.”

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]The MB 98 study I selected was completely random, intended to illustrate, through its context in the post, that Gator would reject whatever resource I selected, regardless of source type.[/quote] We have seen most of these Papers that claim unvalidated models are evidence. :zzz They are not.

            The above data is a proxie for past temperatures. While interesting, it does not say what drives climate. They mention two competing “hypothesis”, but come to no provable conclusions.

            If you read deeper you find they are using a “Model” as evidence…
            [quote]Furthermore, computer models (Dahl et al. 2005, Lohmann 2003, Stouffer et al. 2006, Vellinga & Wood 2002, Zhang & Delworth 2005) of global ocean and atmosphere circulation show that a reduction in AMOC and the associated high-latitude cooling also causes a coincident cooling in the northern tropical Atlantic and a southward displacement of the tropical rain belt known as the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). [/quote]

            What do I think? It has zero relevance to alarmists failure to quantify natural variability. They say it was man made Co2. Their evidence is based upon fiddled data and models that cannot make a single skillful prediction.

            On the other hand we have this.
            [quote]An irreducibly simple climate-sensitivity model is designed to empower even non-specialists to research the question how much global warming we may cause. In 1990, the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed “substantial confidence” that near-term global warming would occur twice as fast as subsequent observation. Given rising CO2 concentration, few models predicted no warming since 2001. Between the pre-final and published drafts of the Fifth Assessment Report, IPCC cut its near-term warming projection substantially, substituting “expert assessment” for models’ near-term predictions. Yet its long-range predictions remain unaltered. The model indicates that IPCC’s reduction of the feedback sum from 1.9 to 1.5 W m-2 K-1 mandates a reduction from 3.2 to 2.2 K in its central climate-sensitivity estimate; that, since feedbacks are likely to be net-negative, a better estimate is 1.0 K; that there is no unrealized global warming in the pipeline; that global warming this century will be < 1 K; and that combustion of all recoverable fossil fuels will cause < 2.2 K global warming to equilibrium. Resolving the discrepancies between the methodology adopted by IPCC in its Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports that are highlighted in the present paper is vital. Once those discrepancies are taken into account, the impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century, and even as far as equilibrium many millennia hence, may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC's current projections.[/quote]
            http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Rather than attack the substance of the paper, the warmists reverted to their usual tricks, lead by Kert Davies, an activist lawyer who works for a Greenpeace front organisation called Climate Investigations Center.[/quote] They could not refute Soon’s findings so they instead attacked his funding.

            Your claim that we reject all models is incorrect. We reject failed models. There are models based upon empirical observations that can make skillful predictions.

            Now can you tell me Peter, would you trust 74 failed IPCC models over one that works?

            [quote] This is a CO2-free prediction model. The model was built from observational data from October 1988 till April 2011 of up to 1000 input variables with time lags of up to 120 months, which is a typical input space dimension for complex dynamic systems modeling.

            As of August 2013, the OUT-OF-SAMPLE prediction accuracy of the most likely prediction (solid red line) of the self-organized model is 73%. The accuracy relative to the prediction range (pink area) is 98%
            [/quote]

            [quote]In comparison, the highly expensive General Circulation Models (GCMs) which the IPCC AR4 projections are based on and which simplistically rely on atmospheric CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) as the major climate driver show a prediction accuracy of only 10% for the time period 2007 (the year of publication) till today.[/quote]

            So lets see? The models that are based upon un-validated, unquantified climate factors all failed.

            And a model based upon real world observations seems to work far better. We rightfully reject invalidated hypothesis over validated ones. This is called the scientific method.

            http://climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Entries/2013/10/7_Still_confirming_forecast_of_Apr_2011_at_73_accuracy._IPCC_forecast_at_10._What_drives_Global_Warming_(Update_2).html

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Walter Williams just earned 5 stars for his excellent article Climate Change Predictions Incorrect.

    Combine an income redistribution scheme agenda with a $Trillion scam = Climate Change .The latest and greatest doomsday swindle in decades .

    Well done Mr. Williams. I hope more of the people with your background step up to expose the fraud .

    • Avatar

      Peter_PNW

      |

      My post included facts.

      I live at the mouth of the Columbia Gorge. Read up about the Bretz Floods. It is not theatrics, but simple fact, that the climate has been in a 10k year stable run, into which humans deployed agriculture (you know, like, where your milk comes from), which is not possible if you don’t know when to sow the seeds. In that 10k year run, earths normal and natural range of change did not occur. Not theatrics. Simple fact – you don’t have the imagination to understand what oxygen isotope ratios actual mean.

      “Truth makes more converts than reason”. I fear for some of us, the truth will come only through the most blunt and violent realities.

      Facts? Open your eyes, the sky has changed. [quote name=”Amber”]Walter Williams just earned 5 stars for his excellent article Climate Change Predictions Incorrect.

      Combine an income redistribution scheme agenda with a $Trillion scam = Climate Change .The latest and greatest doomsday swindle in decades .

      Well done Mr. Williams. I hope more of the people with your background step up to expose the fraud .[/quote]

      • Avatar

        Robert

        |

        And your evidence that that “10k stable run” is? The earth has been through a lot of changes, it will go through many more.

        Have we had an impact? Certainly.

        Is it going to cause runaway anything? No.

        The models are wrong, the physics they are using is flawed, the predictions keep failing.

        Yes, the truth. It is why people convert to skepticism of the entire meme while very few who are being honest change from being skeptical to a believer.

        The sky has changed? Does so every day, if I go out at midnight the sky is dark, if I go out at noon it isn’t dark. So what? At least we do know the real reason for that change.

        Your original post contained a graphic the compares current conditions to a 1981-2010 media, you talk about floods when nothing in your post or the graph mentions or hints at floods, those aren’t facts you presented, it’s a picture with your claimed interpretation.

        BTW, 1981-2010 for comparison hardly establishes anything unusual in something with a billion year history.

        • Avatar

          Peter_PNW

          |

          “The models are wrong”

          Your assertion, despite the feedback you get from the Likeminded, is a fact of limited efficacy.

          So. Let’s play dueling fact base.
          http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

          The fact that humans are greedy and corrupt is all very rantable, but is largely irrelevant when it comes to physical fluid systems of geological scale.

          The relative stability of the last 10k years shows up in nearly every measurement set of greater than 10k years.

          But I don’t think that’s real to you. Which is the root of our problem. What data do you accept as being True? If it is your own sensorium, then look at the sky, look at the plant kingdom… The change is already underway

          “Truth makes more converts than reason”

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            And prior to that 10 thousand years? This “relative stability” your proof that it it would have continued? Change, it happens.

            We just happened to be lucky to have been around during a stable period on an unstable planet. Deal with it.

            You don’t know what is real to me, you have no clue, but it is easier to make a claim like that than address the other points I made that you wish to avoid.

            Better yet why don’t you address some of the actual points made by Professor Williams.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]So. Let’s play dueling fact base.[/quote] sCeptical sCience has zero credibility.
            [quote]
            Unreliable*
            Skeptical Science – John Cook

            * Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.[/quote]

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]”Truth makes more converts than reason”[/quote] And the truth is every IPCC Model has been invalidated by observation.
            [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]
            And the further from reality they drift, the more convinced warmists become? 😮

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Amirlach, could you provide a link to this fine looking analysis?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            “John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.”
            [quote]John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record.[/quote]http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

            It’s these same failed models that warmists want to base the Global Economy on? 😮

          • Avatar

            Steve

            |

            Its a joke – the further you get away, the LESS accurate it beconmes…..

            These people need mental enemas….

        • Avatar

          Peter_PNW

          |

          “At least we do know the real reason for that change.”… From day to night… Not log ago, on the timescale of geologic process, the cause of day and night was incorrectly understand.

          And then we learned to talk. And write. And measure.

          And it was a grave threat to the politically powerful to assert the earth was not the center.

          Changes is climate are no different. Without a basic, foundational knowledge of the roundness of a planet, day and night are mysterious. Without a basic knowledge of geologic timescale fluid dynamics, climate will just be the weather we’ve ever experienced.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Please list all climate forcings and their effect values.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Please detail the molecular mechanisms by which cigarettes cause cancer.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            No strawmen please. That is childish nonsense.

            Please list all climate forcings and their effect values.

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            He can’t, his “source” is SkepticalScience. i.e. Propaganda for Dummies.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            The question is pointless, unless you’re running climate models, because that what it takes to emulate those fluid systems. And we all know you’ve judged any model corrupt, effectively closing the discussion.

            “truth makes more converts than reason”

            Can you prove cigarettes cause cancer? Of course not, no one can, and yet, will you smoke? Eventually, one forms judgments, and if you can’t accept that your silly demand for “forcings” (ie all inputs to a global fluidic dynamic) is rhetorical chestthumping to win support from like minded Tools, then we have a very long road ahead indeed.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Sane old tired childish strawman. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….

            Please list all climate forcings and their effect values.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]And we all know you’ve judged any model corrupt, effectively closing the discussion.[/quote] Models that fail 100% of the time are worthless.

            [quote] If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.[/quote]

            Every single Co2 based model has failed the scientific method. They disagree with experiment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            What “source” do you accept? dot GOV? dot EDU? Because they all exist a few clicks from here.

            Heritage? Oh yea, there’s a pool of experts – on Constitutional dogma at least.

            Seriously, what findings do you point to model the “forcings”?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I accept sources who make accurate statements and predictions.

            You inferred that climate science is understood as well our planetary rotation.

            You used the word ‘basic’ when referring to understanding of climate changes.

            Please list all climate forcings and their effect values.

            Remember, it’s basic.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Yes, its as basic as knowing why day turns to night (as Robert cleverly noted), which was a mystery until we applied reason and measurement.

            Enjoy the world of forcings, and thanks for drawing my attention to this fundamental facet.

            dot gov
            http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/climate-forcing.html

            dot com
            http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/what-are-climate-forcings/54094

            dot org
            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/255/5043/423.short

            dot edu
            http://www.uvm.edu/~bbeckage/Teaching/HCOL_185_2012/AssignedPapers/Mann.Nature.1998.pdf

            Or is there a source you prefer?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I prefer you show your ‘knowledge’ of climate change. You are just cutting and pasting the same nonsense I have read for years, from the same people who make inaccurate statements and errant predictions.

            Please list all climate forcings and their effect values.

            Can’t handle basic climate science?

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            your request is irrelevant – it leads into the fluid complexity of which you reject the required modeling.

            “truth makes for converts than reason”

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So you believe NV is irrelevant. How brilliant! 😆

            Thanks Chicken Little.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            “They found that the simulations accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade to within a few hundredths of a degree”

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            They who? Nobody.

            Where is even one paper refuting NV?

            Surely your priests would not have lied to you about disproving NV.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            You can find it, I’m confident. But reason is not likely to sway you from your entrenchment.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Lies are not swaying me either.

            Paper please.

            Remember, it’s basic. 😆

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            you’ve failed to address basic findings concerning your approach, and I’m out of play time for today.

            Let’s just agree that NV exists in all things.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Playing is all you are doing, fantasizing.

            Unless you can disprove NV.

            Get busy! 😆

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Oh, and BTW, “Hope” is still trying to sell her BS about fracking. Even after I showed her that Lipsky et al committed court ruled fraud, she still keeps barking.

            [i]“The Lipskys reside in a 14,000 square-foot home on almost fourteen acres in the exclusive Silverado development in southwestern Parker County. In 2005, they drilled a water well to a depth of approximately 200 feet. The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads “DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.” In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas…

            “In March 2011, after an extensive two-day evidentiary hearing, the TRRC issued its Final Order finding and concluding that Range’s drilling operations did not cause or contribute to any contamination in the Lipskys’ water well. The TRRC concluded that the gas in the Lipskys’ water was from the Strawn formation, not the Barnett Shale. The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water. [The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.]”

            “While the TRRC investigation was underway, Mr. Lipsky had conversations with [Alisa] Rich in which he discussed wanting to contact the news media “to get Range to do something.” Rich is an environmental “consultant” who has a history of dishonesty and using false or misleading information to support her bias against oil and gas drilling, including manipulating “evidence” and publicly misrepresenting her credentials. In an August 12, 2010 email to Mr. Lipsky, Rich outlined a “strategy” in which she proposed staging a deceptive air test designed to create a non-existent imminent danger of explosion. The strategy also involved making and disseminating misleading videos purporting to show flaming water from a green water hose attached to the Lipskys’ water well. The green hose actually was attached to the gas vent on the water well as shown below.”[/i]

            http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup

            Idiots don’t know when the game is over.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            You realize that the error bars are at least ten times larger than the few hundredths of a degree claimed? 😀

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            What I inferred is that climate science is proposing as radical a proposition as the world being round – which was actual known long before Galileo ( forced it down the pope’s throat), by the learned.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Actually alarmists have the burden of proof on them as they have claimed that for the first time in 4,500,000,000 years, natural variability is dismissed. That is the definition of radical.

            Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent or any global climate changes.

            Remember, it’s basic.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Of course its natural variability.

            In a system wholly incompatible to the practice of agriculture.

            Enjoy your basic cereal.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So you cannot disprove NV, and you cannot list climate forcings and their effect values.

            Have faith brother! 😆

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            I don’t need to disprove NV – its a fact we can agree on.

            Milk doesn’t come from cartons

            And “forcings” are irrelevant without the fluid modeling you reject.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote] don’t need to disprove NV – its a fact we can agree on.[/quote]

            You are an even bigger idiot than I imagined.
            Sorry, we do not agree. Natural variability is dictated by Occam’s Razor.

            Disprove it or it is the default position.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            What have you missed here? “it is the default position”, agreed?

            NV is dictated by substance much more basic than the Razor.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So where is even one paper refuting NV.

            It’s basic, remember? 😆

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]And “forcings” are irrelevant without the fluid modeling you reject.[/quote] The models you refer to have been “rejected” by the scientific method. Not one has made a skillful prediction.

            “Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said,

            “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
            [quote]
            This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.

            John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.
            [/quote]

            http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    It should be no surprise to anyone, including AGW scammers, that predictions and models keep failing. What we must remember is that doesn’t really matter. When you have trillions of dollars of public funds to shower upon anyone with a “favorable” AGW grant request and an accomplice media you can churn out new skewed facts and bogus stories much faster than they can ever be refuted.

    The left strategy is to use tax dollars to outspend and flood the zone. A lie repeated often enough…

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    GR82DRV
    Couldn’t agree more. No Scare =No Cash. Whether it’s the EPA giving money to green lobby groups or other forms of government grants they have become addicted to the cash .
    Fear opens wallets and as the media often demonstrate …If it bleeds it leads .
    Some things never change .

  • Avatar

    Aido

    |

    Gator: what we must always bear in mind is that the leftist/socialist mind-set is a sort of religion. Religion is based on belief, usually blind belief, not facts. Most organised religions contain elements that fly in the face of fact or proof. Catholics, for instance, believe in resurrection, miracles and divine presence at every mass. Millions believe it; many have died rather than recant.

    The left/warmist/socialists will never be swayed by facts.

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      It is neither science nor religion. Science is about the search for truth, and obviously the alarmists are not honest. All religions have one thing in common, help the needy, and alarmists are doing nothing to help those at real risk.

      Alarmists are more of a cult.

    • Avatar

      Peter_PNW

      |

      “truth makes more converts than reason”

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        And the truth is that NV has never been disproven.

        • Avatar

          Robert

          |

          Have you noticed how many times he’s pasted in his “truth makes…” quote? I’m not even going to bother counting.

          History and personal experience has shown that the more people have to claim what they are saying is the truth, or somehow associate the word truth with whatever they are saying/claiming, the more likely it is that it is anything but the truth.

          He talks about oxygen isotopes, but has not once written anything that indicates he has any understanding of them, the same with fluid modeling.

          Just stopped by on a break, saw the comment count has hit 51. Knew immediately why.

          It was -9.0F here on the 5th, today the 10th it was 66F. Is it unheard of? No. Is it unusual? Not really. Is anyone worried about it? Other than the media and people like Peter no. Instead people have their windows open, are out taking walks, and generally enjoying life. Except for the people like Peter.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Hey Robert! Ever notice that they call it ‘climate science’? That is a ‘tell’. Whenever you hear ‘x-science’, you know you are getting a sales job. Nobody refers to ‘physics science’, or ‘biologic science’, they are called ‘physics’ and ‘biology’.

            The only time you get ‘x-science’ is ‘political science’, which is also not science.

            The term is ‘climatology’.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            I thought you’d never ask…

            “…a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time [b]makes more converts than reason[/b].”

            COMMON SENSE, by Thomas Paine Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776

            Speaking to those who argued for the status quo, for the alignment with power at the expense of being on the right side of history.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            And your refutation of NV is where?

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            Well you thought correctly because I didn’t ask. I already knew where your distortion of that quotation came from. It is what alarmists count on and why they continually repeat the same garbage over and over even when empirical evidence and observations show otherwise.

            I made an observation that the fact you continually need to try and associate the word truth with your comments is a strong indicator that they are anything but.

            What do people like you have such poor reading comprehension skills?

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            Yep, and still nothing that indicates he has any understanding whatsoever of the oxygen isotopes he constantly refers to, nor is their anything indicating he understand fluid modelling.

            Once again, someone brings up a point and he studiously avoids it, changes the topic, go off on some other tangent.

            Address the points made by Professor Williams. The article is above, pick one of his points, quote it, and address it logically. If you can’t do that then who cares what you think?

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Robert and Gator, I’ve here for the minority report. Because, every now and then, it is in the minority report than you find important truths. So, if you have convincing data, convincing arguments, please, this is the place to put them up. Because if you change my mind, I’ll take what I learn and apply it in the court of the majority, where there are plenty of libtards whining about the death of the planet.

            It’s not my job to collect climate data (though, as an agriculturalist for decades, I could say I’ve been reading the weather with practical intent much longer some of the MDs I know have been alive). It is not my job to grind through the mountains of data electricity affords us, and find the patterns (though, in fact, I do that for a living). It is my job to be a good citizen, and to [b]make judgments in the absence of full information [/b] (because there is no such thing as full information, the unknown being infinite as it is).

            I’m not here for your ignorant insults, your reflexive judgments about my capabilities and knowledge, your posturing and chest thumping. Save that for your fellows and you can self-amplify all you want. If that’s really all you’ve got for someone making the minority report in your Hall, then please, ignore me, I’ve got nothing of value for you.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            And I’m not here to get lectured by neophytes.

            Peter, I was a climatology student three decades ago after spending a decade as a geology major. I have spent four decades studying climate and the Earth’s history. I have read every study (not the cliff notes) and never found a shred of compelling evidence that what we are seeing anything other than nature at work.

            Please, if you know of anything whatsoever that disproves natural variability, I would love to know.

            My forty years of study have shown that what we are witnessing is exceedingly natural, and without a doubt beneficial to mankind and the planet.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Again (again again…) I do refuted the fact of NV.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            [corrected] Again (again again…) I do not refute the fact of NV.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You do refuted the fact of NV? 😮

            Is that word salad?

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Do you understand that I agree that NV is a part of every system?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Great! Which part? And how do you quantify that?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            So would you agree Peter, that before you can convict man made Co2 you might first have to quantify and measure the natural factors(NV) that drive observed climate?

            The Gold Standard of Climate Science, the IPCC admits they have not done this. In fact they have little to no understanding of these forcing’s and have never quantified them.

            Do you agree Peter that these factors are not “basic”? And that they are largely not understood nor are their values quantified?

            [quote]You used the word ‘basic’ when referring to understanding of climate changes.

            Please list all climate forcings and their effect values.

            Remember, it’s basic.[/quote]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Peter does not know what the IPCC charter is.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Gator, you are ignorant of what I don’t know, at least. Probably more, but that’s the human condition for ya.

            And here’s my “basic” understanding of climate – that the stability of the last 10k years is an anomaly, that the amount of perturbance required to end that stability is unknown, and that if that stability ends, so does agriculture.

            Basic, huh? and about as certain as “we don’t know”. So, we make judgments in absence of complete information.

            You must be feeling really lucky, or just don’t give a shit about what the world will be like in 100 years.

          • Avatar

            Garbo

            |

            Gator, amirlach, etal, my initial observation from reading these threads is that Peter_PNW isn’t really a pro AGW advocate. He is either a AGW misinformation vehicle or, more likely, someone who is on a different plane altogether. He doesn’t want to bother with questioning the common AGW narrative, he wants to question those who have effectively, like you, demolished their hypotheses. He sees himself as a higher sceptic. Go back, and read these threads with that position in mind, and see that some of what he writes from that point of view is explained. Peter’s patter reminds me of the lines of reasoning I ran into during the 60’s, if you know what I mean.

          • Avatar

            JayPee

            |

            I agree that he sees himself of great intellectuality and a ” higher ” skepticTell him to get off the drugs !

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Peter’s pater is mostly an outcome of patiently accommodating the second year debate techniques / redirections / diversions and provocative personalizations I usually encounter with grumpy elder males craving the likeminded and frustrated with stupid humans.

            And yes, there is a difference between awe and awesome.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            [quote name=”amirlach”]So would you agree Peter, that before you can convict man made Co2 you might first have to quantify and measure the natural factors(NV) that drive observed climate? [/quote]

            No, I can’t agree with these assertions:
            “convict” is anthropomorphizing
            “first quantify and measure natural factors” – the root of the CO2 question lies in the physics of CO2’s interactions with EM energy.
            “natural factors(NV)” – NV is “natural variation” [as I understand its use in this forum] and while applicable (redundantly dealt with elsewhere) it is a different quality than the quantities and measurements of forcing factors

            [quote] Do you agree Peter that these factors are not “basic”? And that they are largely not understood nor are their values quantified? [/quote]

            Certainly I can agree that the complexity of the various systems we’re considering exceeds the purpose of “basic”. However, “basic” can be understood as the required aggregation of complexity. Astrophysics data and analysis is not required to understand the earth is round, and the phenomena of day/night can be taught to children during the early formation of language. And what we are debating will be resolved to basic principles – just a fact of communicating with the herd and political power exerted there.

            [quote]Please list all climate forcings and their effect values.[/quote]
            Through this discussion, I’ve become familiar with “forcings” in a way that is quite valuable to me, and I appreciate that. I don’t elect to engage any further than this with repetition of the rhetorical request for readily available data and that results, to be effective, in systems modeling.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Please show us very familiar you are with forcings. List them all. Then list them by efficacy, and then quantify them.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            What you’re asking for is called a “model”

            Please explain the shift in distribution ranges of oxygen isotopes during the past 10k years when compared to the prior 800k years

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            No, the models are incapable of reproducing our climate.

            Please show how us very familiar you are with forcings. List them all. Then list them by efficacy, and then quantify them.

            Remember, [i][b]you[/b][/i] claimed it was basic. So what is the problem Peter?

            Once you do this, I will consider answering your question. It is rude to ignore a request and then demand one.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            Rudeness is not intended: I just thought maybe you’d respond to a familiar pattern differently – which you did…

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            I’m still waiting on you to explain the basics.

            Please show how us very familiar you are with forcings. List them all. Then list them by efficacy, and then quantify them.

            What is the problem?

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]What you’re asking for is called a “model”[/quote] What about empirical observations? You know actual real world measurements of natural forces acting on climate?

            You keep dodging the fact that models are useless until you can put valid numbers into them. First you need to quantify natural factors. This has never been done.

            Alarmists are claiming these models are “evidence”. They are programed with assumptions not validated numbers.

            This is why they cannot make any skillful predictions.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]What you’re asking for is called a “model”[/quote] Ever heard of measurements? You know like turning off the computer and actually measuring an effect in the real world?

            [quote]Please explain the shift in distribution ranges of oxygen isotopes during the past 10k years when compared to the prior 800k years[/quote] Why? This is completely irrelevant to why Co2 based Climate Models have all failed.

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            He bangs on and on about oxygen isotopes never once including anything that indicates he understands anything about them.

            We’ve been hearing the claims of increased CO2 for years as the cause of all things climate related, now along comes Pete with his “oxygen isotopes” as though he’s found some magic explanation for something.

            But he never seems to be able to explain what that something is and how or why oxygen isotopes have anything to do with it.

            As you say, what does any of what he is claiming have to do with why the CO2 based models fail? What does any of what he is claiming have to do with any of the points Professor Williams made in his article?

            Not a damn thing, but still he goes on.

            Garbo is right, this guy is off on his own little trip and nothing we say will get through to him. When he says:

            [quote]I don’t elect to engage any further than this with repetition of the rhetorical request for readily available data and that results, to be effective, in systems modeling.[/quote]

            He doesn’t “elect to engage any further” because doing so would show everyone that he doesn’t understand it. Because if he did understand it he would know it is not a rhetorical request for readily available data because those dealing with this don’t know what the forcings are either. It is why their models fail continually.

          • Avatar

            Peter_PNW

            |

            O isotopes uniformly, through many measurement sets, portray the normal range of global temperature variation of 100Ks of years.

            Any “climate” analysis based on data sets of less than 100K years is [b]irrelevant[/b].

            I find it useless to discuss complicated things with people without joint acknowledgement of basic data. I don’t accept rhetoric as data, sorry.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You have yet to discuss anything complicated. You continue to drone on about isotopes and refuse to acknowledge our posts other than impolite dismissal.

            Come on genius, it’s ‘basic’.

            Please show how us very familiar you are with forcings. List them all. Then list them by efficacy, and then quantify them.

            What is the problem?

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            He’s bs’ing and hoping he can convince someone that he actually knows even a smidgen of what he is talking about.

            So far the only person it would appear he has convinced is himself.

            He “finds it useless to discuss…”

            Translation: If he refuses to discuss things he knows nothing about he can continue to try and bs people that he has a clue.

            Hasn’t shown us that he has yet.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            [quote]Any “climate” analysis based on data sets of less than 100K years is irrelevant.[/quote] Perfect! This means you have nothing further to add, seeing as we only discuss the few “decades” old CAGW climate scare.

Comments are closed

No Trackbacks.