03/24/2008 (7:00 pm)
Another Nail in the Climate Change Coffin
Via Hot Air (ironically named, for this topic): An article in The Australian reports on a radio interview in which a representative of the Austrian think tank, the Institute for Public Affairs, acknowledges not only that the earth is no longer warming, but that the climate models are now known to have been wrong about the greenhouse feedback effect. New data from NASA’s Aqua satellite shows that where climate models have assumed a positive feedback loop in which additional CO2 causes more water vapor, hence more clouds, hence more warming, the earth actually compensates for additional CO2 and creates a negative feedback loop.
From the interview:
Duffy: “Can you tell us about NASA’s Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we’re now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?”
Marohasy: “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”
Duffy: “The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?”
Marohasy: “That’s right … These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.”
This is remarkable because at the moment, the primary scientific support for anthropogenic global climate change is from climate models, and the positive feedback effect is a significant multiplier on global temperatures in current understanding of the greenhouse effect. Most other factors are now pointing away from man as a significant contributor to climate change. If an overhaul of the climate models incorporates the new data, then it’s probable that future climate models will not predict global catastrophe the way the existing models do.
This illustrates, of course, why relying on climate models has always been a bad idea. Models are excellent tools for learning how variables interact with each other in complex systems, so time spent building them is seldom wasted. However, we not only don’t know all the variables in the earth’s climate, we don’t know what the relationships are between them — and therefore can’t possibly build algorithms knowledgeably. Basing public policy solely on the output of climate models is senseless; the more so now that we know that the models’ algorithms are incorrect.
« « Alright, Who Let Rove Near the Margueritas? | Main | Nice To Have Company » »
11 Comments »
Comment by NevadaDad
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact, much as gravity or the periodic table. Therefore, any model that does not not agree with the output that we can plainly observe – namely that the earth is warming dangerously and man is the cause – is clearly not just faulty, but a deliberate manipulation of science by big oil.
No rational person could be so flippant as to mortgage the future of their grandchildren just so they can keep driving their SUV and powering their consumerist lifestyle with carbon. That’s why I drive an electric car — my car doesn’t emit therefore the powerplant that delivers the electricty to my car must not emit either. I know this because I have stood outside my house and cannot see any smokestacks in my backyard. The $5,000 premium I paid for my hybrid vehicle came with a certificate in the glovebox that actually certifies my right to be smug. It also entitled me to a nifty little leaf-shaped piece of chrome next to the name of my car on the tailgate.
You should be ashamed, Phil, for continuing to flaunt facts in the face of our fundamental spiritual connection to Mother Earth — a Mother who is grieving even as I write this at the way her children treat her. Global warming is real because we can feel it when we are in tune with that which connects us to one another and our spinning blue orb. We are one with the cosmos that gave us birth billions and billions of years ago while you are simply in denial and have the audacity to imply that the earth was made for our benefit rather than vice-versa.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, my jet is finished refueling and if I keep writing I am going to be late for an urgent speaking engagement on AGW in Malaysia. The sea level will be rising and I have to get the word out.
Comment by darkhorse
Great humor, NevadaDad,
Phil, I fail to see the difference in smugness between the Global Warming Alarmists, who highlight every shred of evidence that raises red flags, and your position, which speaks of nails and coffins as if all is decided in the other direction, based on a few other shreds.
I hate the de-objectivication of science…but you needn’t rocket-sled to the other end of the spectrum simply because someone isn’t thinking clearly.
Comment by Phil
Nevada Dad,
How can I tell whether you’re serious or not without [satire] [/satire] tags?
Comment by Phil
darkhorse,
“Smug?”
You need to learn that it’s neither immoral, nor unchristian, nor “smug,” to express an opinion based on sound information.
The case for anthropogenic global warming, in purely objective terms, is looking weaker and weaker as time goes on. I’m not being smug by pointing it out; in fact, I’m actively combating a particularly vicious attempt at coercion by anti-scientific activists with a clear political agenda.
The difference between them and me, darkhorse, is that I actually care about what the scientific findings say, while they only care to bend the findings to fit their pre-conceived agenda.
If that’s smug, then you can expect me to grow ever more smug as the days go forward, and expect a “Well done” at the end for it.
Comment by Old Mike
Those beating the “global warming” drum are rapidly diminishing to those for whom grant money is at stake and those with plans to sell carbon credits.
Comment by darkhorse
Phil,
You yourself agreed with me that the science is not conclusive in either direction.
On that basis, it sounds as if you are smug to draw the conclusion that global warming is “dead”. The only way to conclude as much is, regrettably, to ignore the possible evidence that disagrees with you and highlight that which supports you.
That appears to be what you are accusing your opponents of.
Comment by NevadaDad
Phil,
It’s me (Steve Sabin) just posting under my other username.
That’s the thing about liberal satire: No matter how deliberately over-the-top you try to be, it can’t be distinguished from the thing you are trying to satirize.
That’s an interesting commentary in itself.
And, I think you’re right. Some new HTML codes would be helpful. Or perhaps some boilerplate text at the end of such satire …sort of the equivalent of the fine print in magazine ads or the fast-talking part on radio ads…
“The above constitutes a mockery of the beliefs held by actual people. Any resemblence to real people is purely intentional. Do not emulate or embrace such beliefs unless trying to achieve levels of cognitive dissonance associated with mental illness. Such beliefs are also known by the State of California to cause cancer. We now return you to our regularly scheduled program.”
Comment by Phil
I was teasing about the satire, Steve. I know who you are, and what you were doing. Actually, I agree with darkhorse, it was great satire.
Ironically: how can you tell whether I’m being serious without the [satire] [/satire] tags? 
Comment by Phil
You yourself agreed with me that the science is not conclusive in either direction.
We’re shooting at a target that’s moving in two dimensions:
1) New research is providing additional findings, which are pretty consistently damaging to the AGW position; and
2) I’m reading more about the existing science, which is likewise damaging to the AGW position.
I’m pretty certain at this point that human beings are, at most, tiny players in the global climate picture. I don’t see anything wrong with the “nail in the coffin” analogy, particularly when talking about a theory which is still being ignorantly and inaccurately touted as the “consensus of the scientific community.”
And once again, you’re trying to force me into a “all arguments are equal” position, and that’s just not an intellectually valid position. Give it up. All arguments are not equal, and the AGW argument sucks.
Comment by Robert
You might want to add to your blog the data from the NASA Aqua satellite which proves that the climate models are wrong. BTW, wasn’t Algore at the forefront of the Y2K hysteria?
Comment by Mark
AlGore has a great intense hysteria about everything he gets involved in! Today Global warming… oops “climate change” (the High Priests of Global Warming are going to spank me for sure). Yesterday he KNEW the earth was going to end with the onset of Y2K. Before that, all his hard work went to creating the internets. I cant wait to see what tomorrow brings….. $40,000 electric bills and 10,000SF mansions?
If nothing else, maybe he can create a business model based on carbon credit trading and he can sell himself carbon credits for all the energy he wastes while paying himself a kings ransom as the president of the company while duping the tinfoil hat kids out of their carbon offsets. Oh wait, he’s already done that.
Oh, and ya’ll are right… the more over the top comments are, the more real it sounds to the left. Remember, truth and facts just get in the way for the left.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
