Climate Change Alarmism Is ‘Garbage In, Garbage Out,’ Retired NASA Physicist Says

HOUSTON—Unvalidated climate models that don’t correspond with physical data and the requirements of the scientific method contribute to unfounded climate alarmism, a retired NASA physicist said at the Heartland Institute’s recent America First Energy Conference.

Since America’s national security depends in part on energy security, unsubstantiated claims about global warming that prevent policymakers from making “rational decisions” with regard to the development of U.S. energy resources have become a national security threat, said Hal Doiron, a 16-year NASA veteran.

The “propaganda” underpinning climate alarmism is “causing tremendous political bottlenecks” that prevent government officials from “doing the right thing” on energy, he said.

Doiron, who helped develop the Apollo Lunar Module’s landing dynamics software during NASA’s moon missions, also expressed concern that the U.S. military has been directly affected by climate alarmist claims separated from sound science.

He criticized the U.S. Navy for “preparing for something that is unreasonable and would cost too much money” in the form of “extreme sea-level rise,” which has not been borne out by rigorous scientific study.

Doiron defines unvalidated climate models as those that do not agree with physical data. Public policy and military planning should be based only on models validated by physical data, he said.

“At NASA, we have a policy: You can’t make a design decision on a spacecraft or rocket that is not validated,” he said. “You don’t make critical decisions based on ‘garbage in, garbage out.’ Yet our government has been doing that with respect to climate alarm, because too many academics in universities are writing papers, drawing conclusions from models that don’t agree with physical data.”

Doiron is part of a group called “The Right Climate Stuff,” which includes engineers and scientists from across generations who have taken part in NASA’s most high-profile missions dating back to Apollo.

The group has produced its own “rigorous, earth surface temperature model using conservation-of-energy principles” that operates similarly to the way the surface and internal temperature of a spacecraft is analyzed, the Right Climate Stuff team explains on its website.

The reports produced from the analysis provide more “realistic projections” of the rise in the earth’s surface temperature over the next 150 years that show severe anti-fossil fuel regulations are not justified, Doiron and other former NASA team members contend.

“The scientific method requires that your hypothesis and theories be confirmed by physical data,” he said. “Computer models are not physical data, although I think many in academia don’t understand that.”

When unvalidated models are compared with validated models based on physical evidence, the validated models predict much less global warming, Doiron said. Moreover, the fact that unvalidated models often don’t agree with each other should be a “big, red flag.”

The retired NASA physicist is calling for U.S. policymakers to establish official data on two key metrics; specifically, “the true sensitivity of surface temperature to greenhouse gases” and a “reasonable projection of greenhouse emissions and [the] concentrations rise in our atmosphere.”

Doiron and his team have developed “a new metric” called “transient climate sensitivity,” which measures how much warming can be seen with a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the “way that it’s actually happening,” based on a “very small amount of [carbon dioxide] each year.”

That’s something that can be measured and verified against available physical data, he said. But because policymakers, including military planners, are not operating from reasonable projections, they are not in a position to adequately plan for the future, Doiron cautioned.

Another way climate change alarmism has worked to undermine America’s national security standing is by consuming too much of the military budget at the expense of military readiness, a top naval commander said during the panel discussion.

Adm. Thomas Hayward, who retired from the U.S. Navy as chief of naval operations and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after serving as commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet and commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, also addressed the Heartland Institute’s energy conference and sounded concerns.

For the past six to eight years, Hayward said, climate change has been given “a higher priority” than the readiness of the Navy’s fleet. During that time, the U.S. Defense Department has spent $100 million on “just climate change,” while the U.S. Navy has spent “$58 billion chasing what is called the ‘green fleet.’”

That means many U.S. Navy vessels are using biofuels, but Hayward wonders how many ports around the world are equipped to accommodate U.S. Navy vessels that rely on a high percentage of biofuels, and he worries how that would work in a combat situation.

Read more at Daily Signal

Trackback from your site.

Comments (22)

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Looks to me like those Usefu; Iidots in the picture above are all bundld up against the cold if it was real warm like they beleive it is they would be in T-Shirts and shorts like many wear when its warm outside proving that there Is No Climate Change and Climate skeptics have the same right to speak as these bunch of fools

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    How about a national contest? Reward the institution that designs an accurate climate model . The successful model must concur with unadulterated historical data.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    rakooi

    |

    THE RIGHT CLIMATE STUFF….which is populated by NON CLIMATE SCIENTISTS….As far as I am able to determine…not one of the signers have done climate research at all. They were notably involved in the US Space Program…not climate research or climate Physics!

    Harold H. Doiron

    (( DAILY CALLER calls him “retired NASA physicist”))

    (( Of course, DAILY CALLER called a CERTIFIED MASSAGE THERAPIST a “CLIMATE EXPERT” at the beginning of this year))
    Credentials
    Ph.D., “”Mechanical”” Engineering, University of Houston (1970).
    B.S., Physics, Mathematics, Univ. of Louisiana at Lafayette 1963
    Background
    According to his biography at the Seventh International Conference on Climate Change, Harold Doiron is known for his experience in eliminating unstable vibrations in liquid propellant rockets.

    He organized and led the NASA/industry team, titled the “Pogo Prevention Panel”that successfully eliminated this pogo stick vibration problem from the Space Shuttle design.

    Stance on Climate Change
    According to an open letter signed by Doiron,
    “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated… . With hundreds of well-known climate scientists ((none mentioned in this article))
    and tens of thousands of other scientists ((perhaps non related to Climate )) publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS

    NOTE: other signers are “…engineers and scientists from across generations who have taken part in NASA’s most high-profile space missions,,,”
    ((Once again, NO climate, NO physics, NO Meteorological degree or studies….NONE !))

    Admiral Haywood is 93 and has had ABSOLUTELY ” NO ” TRAINING IN CLIMATE, Physics or ANY RELATED field…he is a right wing Republican active financial contributor in ultra conservative causes.

    American Meteorological Society
    “….
    New Survey Shows AMS Members’ Positions on Climate Change

    March 24, 2016 · 0 comments

    The vast majority of members of the American Meteorological Society agree that recent climate change stems at least in part from human causes, and the agreement has been growing significantly in the last five years.

    According to a new survey of AMS members, 67% say climate change over the last 50 years is mostly to entirely caused by human activity, and more than 4 in 5 respondents attributed at least some of the climate change to human activity….”

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sonnyhill

      |

      Everyone has an opinion, including actors, oil exec’s,comedians,geologists,weather bunnies, astronauts. I’ll pick who I respect and I’ll listen to them. Most of the people that I listen to have no incentive to lie. You’re not on my list, Rakooi, because you repeatedly post disinformation from activists.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      David Lewis

      |

      So it is okay for Bill Nye, who has an engineering degree and no scientific degree to support the climate change agenda, but it isn’t okay for other engineers to oppose it.

      In social sciences “who” is saying it carries weight, but in true science the only thing that matters is “what is being said.” The “what” in this article that carries profound weight is “drawing conclusions from models that don’t agree with physical data.” Another is “the fact that invalidated models often don’t agree with each other should be a “big, red flag.”

      A huge problem is that the climate alarmists who claim to be scientist have abandoned the standard scientific process in order to support a political agenda. When the data doesn’t match the theory, true science says to either abandon or alter the theory. This has not been done.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Jaypee is an idiot

        |

        Bill Nye isn’t contradicting climate scientists, he is telling their story.
        Big difference between Nye and a mechanical engineer trying to refute the overwhelming consensus without offering a shred of counter evidence of his own.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      Jaypee is an idiot

      |

      For every 1000 articles posted on this “science”site, you will be lucky to find 1 written by an actual scientist who has done actual work in climate.
      Pretty much tells you al you need to know about the people who believe what they read here.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        David Lewis

        |

        You are avoiding the true issues by continuing to talk about “who.” All we need to do is consider the facts in the case. The UN models to not match the data. The UN models do not agree with each other. The scientific process says when the theory and data do not match, modify or scrap the theory. This has not been done. This proves incompetence in those supporting the overwhelming consensus either for political or other reasons.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Jaypee is an idiot

          |

          Actually, the more recent models which include the data from GRACE satellites and from ARGO buoys, have all been within one standard deviation of actual temperatures. BTW, 2017 is on track to be the 2nd warmest year on record making the last 4 years the warmest on record.
          Perhaps articles by actual climate scientists could have informed you of those facts.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            David Lewis

            |

            There is no doubt that the models are wrong. Thanks to AMIRLACH we have reference to an article written by Jon Fyfe and Nathan Gillett who are Canadian climate modelers. Francis Zwiers literally wrote the book on climate statistics (w/von Storch): Statistical Analysis in Climate Research. Fyfe was a lead author for the AR4; Gillett is a lead author for the AR5 Chapter 9; Zwiers is Vice Chair for WG1 of AR5.” Their article stating that the models are running too hot is at:
            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309
            Before the election the fact that satellite data didn’t support the climate change movement was a big deal. After the election I read an article by an actual climate scientist stating how the “corrected” satellite data closely matched one of the UN climate models. It is obvious that this correction is part of the massive fraud being committed by some “actual climate scientists.” The raw satellite data does not support this cause.

            Ocean buoys are another example of fraudulently altering data. They have used data from the in take ports on ship to “correct” the raw data from the buoys, moving the values higher. The buoys are scientific instruments which mean they should be more accurate than the industrial instruments on ships. If it was done honestly the ocean buoys would have been used to correct the data from the ships, but that doesn’t support he climate change movement.

            Fraud in itself is an excellent indication what is going on with this issue. NOAA and NASA have altered historical data lowering temperature values before 1950 and increasing values after that date to make it appears global warming is happening. NOAA has altered data to make it appear the pause isn’t happening. NOAA has removed temperature sensors in cooler locations causing the average of those remaining to be higher. An Austrian government organization had its scientists admit that they reported higher temperatures than their instruments showed. There is Climategate I and Climategate II. If global warming was actually happening, the raw unaltered data would show it. The only possible reason for all of this fraud is that it does not.

            The idea that articles we are reading should be by authored by actual climate scientists is arbitrary and irrelevant. What counts is the information. Getting back to climate models, take the article

            http://climatechangedispatch.com/new-study-by-german-physicists-concludes-we-can-expect-climate-cooling-for-next-50-years/

            for example. This publication in the Climate Change Dispatch was not written by the authors, though a link to the one that was written by them was available. It is the information that counts. The information in this article was about a German group that had come up with a climate model that works. Unlike the models of the UN which can’t even match the current period, this model works for the Roman Optimum, the Medieval Optimum, the Little Ice Age, as well the current period. The model matches actual data by correlation of 0.84. Any one familiar with science knows this is very high. This model says that carbon dioxide has minimal influence on climate. It also says we will enter a cooling period.

            You implied that those who read this site are at a lower level. With some individuals, I agree. Calling someone an idiot is something that is done by middle school students. To do so says much more about the person doing the name calling than the person they are attempting to belittle. However, one of the strengths of this web site is it is open to everyone and even someone operating at the middle school level can log in and make comments.

          • Avatar

            Jaypee is an idiot

            |

            I tell you that the more recent models which include ARGO buoys and GRACE satellites are statistically consistent with current temperature observation and then you point me to a paper on modeling BEFORE ARGO and GRACE!!
            Then you blather on about honesty this and fraudulent that without a shred of proof.
            You are cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
            Perhaps, having REAL scientists write about REAL scientific studies could help you.

          • Avatar

            David Lewis

            |

            So, like the German model I pointed you to, the more recent models which include ARGO buoys and GRACE satellites work for the Roman Optimum, the Medieval Optimum, and the Little Ice Age? If we are going to do what the activists want, it had better.

            It is easy to get data statistically consistent when the data is altered to fit.

            Here is one reference to climate fraud. I’m sure you will find fault with it but the fraud is so wide spread it is undeniable.

            https://climatechangedispatch.com/visualizing-noaanasa-us-data-tampering/

          • Avatar

            Jaypee is an idiot

            |

            David,
            What would ARGO buoys and GRACE satellite data from 2002 onwards have to do with the LIA or MWP hich occurred hundreds of years ago?
            Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
            Your first link is from Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard who has yet to publish a single peer-reviewed paper in any scientific journal and was so ridiculous he was actually kicked off of WUWT by Anthony Watts.
            Your 2nd paper has also not been peer reviewed but makes the case of the sun being the main driver of climate. The only problem with that is the sun has been in a long and deep solar minimum for much of the past 2 decades during a time where we have had most of our record-breaking temperature years. In fact 23 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the past 26 whereas the last cold record year was a century ago.
            Get back to me when you can reference REAL scientists who have conducted peer-reviewed studies by other REAL scientists.

          • Avatar

            David Lewis

            |

            I admit I made a statement that didn’t make sense when I was sleepy.

            You might be sleepy too because you still focus on the “who” rather than the what. Referring to the German model, do you even know what a correlation factor of 0.84 means? It is a close match between theory and data. This also for a time that includes periods that the UN models can’t even come close to explaining.

          • Avatar

            Jaypee is an idiot

            |

            David, that German model may have been accurate HISTORICALLY but when it states that the next 50nyears will be cooler because of lower solar output and ignores that the past 2p years, solar output was ALREADY lower and yet temperature records were regularly broken (the last 4 hottest of all) makes me wonder what the peer-review says. Oh, that’s right – THERE ISN’T ANY.

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    AMS like many leading Eco-Wacko groups Useful Idiots like Rakooi and their beyond all hope of any recovery from their stupidity

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Look at one Useful Idiots sign STOP CLIMATE DENIERS its quite plain to anyone this persons a watermelon(Green on Outside Red Inside)just more Eco-Marxists useful idiot and who probibly likes to recite Al Bores stupid poem to deniers

    Reply

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    Selling Socialism is like trying to sell a pile of steaming dog excrement. The only way to make the ideology remotely palatable is to convince people that the sky is falling, that there is no time to verify the claim, and that socialism is somehow the answer to what is posed as a scientific crisis.

    Anything that short circuits the intended panic, such as logic, reason, and open scientific debate is to be met with threats and rage. Sorry, that’s all the left has these days. Absurdity on parade.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Robert Kennedy Jr one of the Kennedy Brats wants so called Climate Crinimal’s sent to prison he even tried to grab a microphone from a reporter who dared to question his own hypocricy and he belongs to some Eco-Wacko group Water Keepers Alliance who lost two big lawsuits against Poultry and Pork Farmers

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    Accurate climate modeling would happen sooner without political interference. Remove the leftist pressure for sounding the alarms.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Greenpeace still uses Fossil Fuels for their ships their not using sails and their not using big long oars like the vikings did for their long boats and all the useful idiots in the picture above use fossil fuel to commute where they go even on a bike

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Strand Al Bore,Leonardo DiCaprio and Bill Nye in a leaking lifeboat with a big storm approaching and surrouned by sharks lets see how long these three nuts in a tub would last

    Reply

Leave a comment