NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. [...]Will this new data - data, not a model - have much effect on the global warming debate? Incrementally, perhaps, but on the whole not much. There seems to be almost no other current debate whether in science or any other area of endeavor in which minds are as fixed as they are in the AGW area, and I include myself in that characterization. Two pieces of evidence prevent me from giving much credence to the alarmists: one, that it is well-known and obvious that the climate has changed radically over the course of the earth's history, whether man was present in any numbers or not; two, our current global elite stands to make huge profits out of cap-and-trade (link thanks to jmperry), their preferred "solution" to AGW, and besides, they fund the scientists doing the research. And that leaves aside any question whether the earth's current climate is some kind of optimum, which seems to me doubtful.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
On the other side, the alarmists are just too convinced of man's essential evil towards the environment - lately, with the arrival of Gaiaism, to the earth as a whole - to listen to opposing arguments. To them, industrial civilization is a disease that must be cured, the earth must be "saved", no matter the cost.
Point 3, and the reason why I tend to categorically reject the AGW/CC folks out of hand:
ReplyDeleteIf we assume that all of their premises are true, the solutions they propose do NOT solve their alleged problem (to do that would require something almost as extreme as that explored in 'Rainbow Six' or at least Cuba's circumstances after the fall of the USSR or Cambodia under Pol Pot). Their leadership is at or above the intelligence of such accountability (I take that to be around 2 sigmas), so I hold them responsible for knowing this. Their solutions DO however give them a great deal more control over the lives of ordinary people, so I infer THAT as their objective rather than their stated one.
For whatever reason, I'm reminded of "worse is better." True, "worse is better" is horrible if you don't have the brains to think it through. But given the brains, it makes sense in a lot of contexts. E.g., no, "worse is better" does not work for immigration. We need to stop immigration yesterday, because that's the kind of "worse is better" that's very difficult to bounce back from. But "worse is better" is arguably applicable here, since this kind of thing works to de-legitimize the regime.
ReplyDeleteSo I don't yet know if I'm going to get all het up over Global Warming. As in, het up enough to make it a talking point.
"Will this new data - data, not a model - have much effect on the global warming debate? Incrementally, perhaps, but on the whole not much."
ReplyDeleteI agree. The article's author -- Roy Spencer -- is regularly vilified by the Warmistas as a religious crank and an oil industry shill.
There are just two many tenured faculty members who are heavily invested in the global warming scam for it to go away overnight.
Anyway, I've looked at the evidence pretty carefully and satisfied myself that global warming is a scam. In addition to the arguments you make, it should be emphasized that the models used by the Warmist scientists have never made predictions which were significant, interesting, bona fide, and accurate.
Thus, Warmist scientists are in the same category as astrologers of the Middle Ages and in fact use many of the same strategies as these kinds of charlatans:
1. Using detailed mathematics to give their work a scientific aura;
2. Making predictions which are vague and/or far off into the future so it's unlikely they will be proven wrong any time soon;
3. Making predictions which conveniently serve the political needs of their patrons;
4. Belittling and intimidating laymen who challenge them;
5. Predicting stuff after the fact.
It's not just the elites making money, it's also that AGW is a perfect anti-white leftist idea:
ReplyDeleteLeftist Motivations for Climate Science
"It's not just the elites making money, it's also that AGW is a perfect anti-white leftist idea:"
ReplyDeleteEspecially since the proposed CO2 treaties don't limit the CO2 emissions of China and most other non-Western countries.
The average IQ of the world will drop by about 15 points:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189522/20110729/population-growth-billion-developing-2050.htm
Idiocracy goes global.
This idea
http://generation5.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/practical-advice-on-countering-interracial-adoption/
needs to be hammered into the mind of every Christian fundamentalist.
I don't know enough science to judge this issue on scientific grounds. I just have a rule of thumb, namely, people who lie to me are not to be trusted. I've caught these liars out too many times.
ReplyDeleteThe infallible litmus test, of course, is the assertion that the current crisis requires us to send money to Africa.
It's not just the elites making money, it's also that AGW research funding went way up when they convinced the world that the world is at stake. At it will go way back down if it once again becomes a mildly interesting subdiscipline of geography.
ReplyDeleteTo explain why the Earth is radiating more energy than expected, we might go back to the science. When we burn something, particles of various sizes are put into the air. Smaller and lighter particles stay in the air longer than larger and heavier ones.
ReplyDeleteSometimes these are called "aerosols". They have the effect of reflecting more energy than they absorb, so more energy goes out to space. That's probably what they are finding in that study.
"To explain why the Earth is radiating more energy than expected, we might go back to the science. "
ReplyDeleteI think you don't even need to look at the science. Just using common sense, one can be pretty confident that the Earth's climate is dominated by negative feedback. Why? Because it's been around for millions of years. If you push a system which has been around for a long time, chances are it will push back at you.
If there were some positive feedback loop in which warming would result in an enhanced greenhouse effect, resulting in further warming, etc., then surely something would have set if off long ago.
So one can be pretty confident that there are mechanisms which will dampen the effects of CO2.
"If we assume that all of their premises are true, the solutions they propose do NOT solve their alleged problem"
ReplyDeleteWell also they are not pushing to ramp up use of nuclear power, which really could be used to put a big dent in CO2 emissions.
Nor are they pushing to limit third world immigration to the West, which would be an easy way to slow down growth in CO2 emissions.
I've come to suspect that AGW theory is a scam initially based on patterns. The patterns are the same as in the HBD denial, Pravda-style. On another level, it's the complexity of the AGW beliefs that makes me doubt there are reasons to be very worried about it. Someone articulated it quite well (didn't save the author's name):
ReplyDelete"Yet from a scientific point of view, the belief system required to support that ideological belief is, inherently, actually quite complex. They must believe:
1. the increase in carbon dioxide is directly causing an increase in global temperatures
2. the increase in carbon dioxide is indirectly causing a far greater increase than by carbon dioxide alone due to positive feedback effects
3. the overall impact of increased carbon dioxide, both direct and indirect, is very dramatic, in the range of 2 to 5 degrees C over the next century.
4. the rise of temperature in the range of 2-5 degrees will have terrible effects on human existence, including a drastic and destructive rise in sea level of perhaps several feet
5. there is no effective way in which to counter any of these effects other than to decrease carbon dioxide emissions -- geoengineering won't work."
Now if we just look at the solid evidence available right now with regard to the points above:
#1 True but the extent is uncertain.
#2 Maybe true. But maybe not.
#3 Very speculative. Unlikely to be true given our ability to model complex systems.
#4 No evidence.
#5 No evidence.
AGW alarmism is actionable if #1-5 are all true. As of now, the overall chance of that is very, very low.
The defining characteristic of bullshit, according to one Harry Frankfurt, is that it is uttered or written not with regard to whether it is true or false, but rather to serve another agenda entirely.
ReplyDeleteGlobal Warming clearly falls in this category, as do the "benefits" of mass immigration.
This is why the Left do not care if it the tenets of Global Warming conflict with mass immigration, or the values of third world immigrants conflict with the Left's own views on societal norms, since the real objective of both projects is the replacement of whites by other peoples.
Anon.
Some beliefs are impervious to evidence. Some explanations are 'justified' by evidence both pro and contra making them impossible to refute. Temperate weather in the winter? Obviously that's down to global warming. Cool weather in the summer? Again, global warming has upset the regularity of the seasons. Deluge and drought are attributed to the same cause etc., etc.
ReplyDeleteClimate change 'deniers' are thought to be afflicted by a mental derangement similar to that suffered by holocaust deniers. And global warming enthusiasts would like to see them locked up in psychiatric hospitals.
I'm a regular follower of these kinds of blogs, normally I post supportive comments, but this one needs some criticism.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever wondered why left-wingers believe such stupid and insane things as they do, even when there are right-wingers around correcting them? It's because they notice that right-wingers say lots of stupid things that are obviously false, so they just assume right-wingers are totally clueless idiots and ignore everything right-wingers say. It's a fallacy, and it prevents left-wingers from noticing their own (frequent) mistakes.
You are falling for the same fallacy.
Whether left-wingers believe that races are magically equal in ability, Muslims are saintly victims, or whatever, has no bearing on whether or not Global Warming is a real problem.
Global Warming is not a traditional left-wing view. It was not developed by the left. It's just something they use as an opportunity.
As people have mentioned, the solutions that the left propose don't actually fit the problem. If they were just making the problem up, they would make one that fit their proposed solution.
Their bias on this issue is far, far, far less than yours. If Global Warming was proven false to the left tomorrow, the left would feel a bit embarrassed, then carry on exactly like normal but without talking about Global Warming. It wouldn't hurt them. If Global Warming was proven true to everyone tomorrow, and everyone understood it, it would be, literally, the end of the world for you, and you would have to drastically change everything. That's called bias, and it makes it hard for you to get the right answer.
The global elites are NOT on the same side as the Global Warming alarmists. Quite the opposite. Which is why nothing is done about Global Warming, unlike the massive social changes for every other leftist cause.
This is completely different from the normal causes you discuss. It is actually a complicated scientific issue, and you have no knowledge and a huge vested interest.
This isn't an issue like race where trivial applications of Occam's razor are sufficient. You are completely out of your depth on this issue, like an African trying to master space travel.
I haven't actually looked at this issue in depth, but I can see none of you have either. So I'm not going to be trusting your views on this.
By the way, that journal article actually says the satellite data tells them nothing, except that now they have a theory about why they can't tell anything. Hardly a great revelation.
The whole Global Warming/Climate Change movement has always been more of a religious phenomenon than a political one. Therefore, like all religions, the true believers are going to ignore the evidence and continue promoting their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteAnon 7/31 is right to chastise us for condemning the alarmists. We are essentially trying to refute the collective efforts of many science labs that have built climate models that show a progression upward of global mean temperature based upon various assumptions about idustrial outputs,etc. Co2 seems to be an important component of the Geenhouse Effect. Climate scientists generally agree about this upward increase in global temperature.
ReplyDeleteThat Leftists engage in Gaiaism is simply part of their ideological evolution since The Greening of America first appeared.Back to nature movements and a respect for nature seems to be part of their zeitgeist.However, the AGW problem is a real scientific problem unrelated to the culture wars. Real science is not dictated by politics despite the whinings of the post-modernists of the Left.
We must not politicize this issue when it seems utterly within the bounds of genuine science. We must trust the climate experts to eventually provide enough evidence for policy-makers worldwide to deal with the issue. If AGW has an empirical basis,we will regret not listening to the alarmists.
Anon at 6:59 AM demonstrates his/her ignorance of science in saying:
ReplyDeleteBy the way, that journal article actually says the satellite data tells them nothing, except that now they have a theory about why they can't tell anything. Hardly a great revelation.
Since the paper is pointing to data (you know, real measurements) on radiation escaping from the atmosphere that diverges from the models they are simply pointing out that the models are incorrect. They could only advance a hypothesis at this stage (which is how science works) and suggest (by implication) that the models are full of shit.
Oh, and BTW, they do advance a hypothesis:
We hypothesize that changes in the coupled ocean-atmosphere circulation during the El Niño and La Niña phases of ENSO cause differing changes in cloud cover, which then modulate the radiative balance of the climate system.
(from the paper).
So, perhaps Anon was wise not to associate his/her name with his/her rambling crap, especially given that the usual climate alarmists have decided that the paper is worthy of attacking.
@Anonymous 7/31/2011 6:59 AM:
ReplyDeleteVery well said. I largely agree with you. But it is also worth pointing out leftists do take global warming as a great opportunity to push forward their mirage dreams such as global equality and neo-luddite movement in the West...
I think the reason why there's not much done yet on issues like global warming is that such environmentalism ideologies create a split between liberal globalists and environmentalist/leftists. The root is that neo-Luddite would severely jeopardize the well-established global economic and social order, which globalists would defend as much as possible. I have written an article regarding the neo-Luddite movement in Europe
In my perception, as I do have certain experience and expertise in the international environmental policy field, Global warming might take place, but to what extent artificial emission would impact such global climatic pattern shift is disputed, together with the uncertainty of the anthropological impacts of such climate change (I doubt if it were ever be as disastrous as alarmists advocate, e.g the sea level rise, the change of precipitation patterns, the change of natural disaster frequencies etc.). Precautionary principle is a real double-sword. The consequence of adopting such principle in such uncertain and profound subjects is like risking one's life on a russian roulette. Any pre-determination on both sides are immature and should not be adopted as THE answer for the issue, if it's a problem.
theslittyeye said at 8:35:
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming might take place
The issue is not Global Warming, and you do your on-line reputation a dis-service by failing to demonstrate an understanding of the issues that the alarmists claim exist.
The issues started as Anthropogenic Global Warming. That is, the claim that human activity, specifically the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, is increasing Global Warming. Of course, they were relying unduly on temperature sets that had been contaminated with the Urban Heat Island effect. After there seemed to be little or no further warming in the last 10 years, they shifted to the claim of Anthropogenic Climate Extremes, and they have now morphed the claim to Anthropogenic Climate Disruption.
Given that the energy that flows through our atmosphere is two or three orders of magnitude larger than the energy that humans currently consume, I don't think we have much to worry about on that front, and should rather worry about the possibility of largish objects from the solar system smashing into the earth and reduction in temperature caused perhaps by a quiet sun.
In addition, the claim that a warmer climate would destroy humanity seems hard to believe, since it would improve plant production (see for example the recent re-greening of the Sahara ...)
ReplyDeleteOf course, if run-away thermageddon occurs, then we are in trouble, but given that the temperature response to CO2 increases is logarithmic, and the ability of H2O to transport heat upwards, and the fact that it has not occurred in the past despite large increases in methane and CO2 (see, for example, the PETM), it seems impossible.
sabril said: "So one can be pretty confident that there are mechanisms which will dampen the effects of CO2."
ReplyDeleteEcohormesis in action?
Many other commenters have given good reasons to be skeptical of global warming. There were three things specifically that convinced me AGW is a scam:
ReplyDelete1. As Dennis wrote, the climate has changed radically over time. Apparently there were times in the past 1000 years when it was hotter than today. Predictions of AGW are almost always made using complex statistical models rather than actual rising temperatures.
2. These models are vulnerable to fraudulent data input, such as we saw at the Unviersity of East Anglia, and their predictions are basically unfalsifiable. Actually, the predictions seem intended to be unfalsifiable. They'll say things like, "AGW won't reach critical mass for another 10 or 20 years, but if we want to prevent it, we need to do something NOW." How convenient.
3. AGW partisans always resort to appeals to authority. "98% of scientists believe in AGW and no one likes the other 2%," and so on. I can't believe any real scientist would make that argument: scientists collectively have been wrong about numerous things, and scientific knowledge is constantly being refined and revised. Saying we need to follow "science" on such a speculative topic is giving it a religious tint.
Finance provides an interesting analogy for this. Before the debt crisis, nearly all leading economists said that the economy was fine and housing/debt wouldn't be a problem. The only dissenters were a few fringe academics and non-academic commentators. We know how that ended...
And cap-and-trade is an awful law even if one believes in AGW. Beyond transferring wealth to managerial elites as Mish mentions, it would create a situation where companies have to pay constantly-fluctuating emissions fees. The cost would be very difficult for them to budget for, hampering new investment.
ReplyDeleteI live in a country where mild and wet winters are the norm.-5c would be regarded as a "bitter" night.
ReplyDeleteOne morning last December I rose for work,as usual,at 5am.My outdoor temperature gauge read -21c.This was not a surprise as,for two weeks previously,the daytime temperature had not risen above zero.The gauge did not rise above zero for the rest of the month either.
Oddly enough,these record low temperatures had occurred the previous January and February also.And for much of the winter before that.
Of course,I fully accept that a discrepancy of 20 degrees for 3 winters in a row,is simply the result of a local anomaly in the indisputable truth of climate change.
"Cornelius Troost said...
ReplyDeleteAnon 7/31 is right to chastise us for condemning the alarmists. We are essentially trying to refute the collective efforts of many science labs that have built climate models that show a progression upward of global mean temperature based upon various assumptions about idustrial outputs,etc. Co2 seems to be an important component of the Geenhouse Effect. Climate scientists generally agree about this upward increase in global temperature."
I am not convinced that some level of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not happening, but I am far from convinced that it is and that it's an iron clad certainty. The predictions of AGW proponents rely on elaborate computer models that show large average global temperature increases, based on certain assumptions. I am deeply skeptical of these models. They probably have hundreds of free parameters which can be adjusted in various ways and combinations so as to make a whole range of outcomes possible. And they do not include many physical phenomena which are quite possibly very important.
The AGW side also claims that temperature data back them up, but there are good reasons to question that too. The urban heat island effect - which they often casually dismiss - has systematically skewed the measurements from a lot of recording stations. The manner in which they are weighted is often also suspect. And if temperature data in the hear and now, as recorded by an instrument as simple as a thermometer is suspect, imagine how much more questionable is the historic proxy data. And indeed, as has been shown, there are reasons to question such data - the Siberian tree-ring data, for example - which appears to have been cherry-picked in such a way as to give results that the investigators wanted.
There have often been scientific consensuses in the past that were wrong - especially in those sciences in which it is not possible to carry out controlled experiments, such as geology, paleontology, and astronomy. Atmospheric science certainly falls int hat category.
jmperry is wrong about the Argument from Authority.Arguing that real authorities are more likely correct than are lesser "authorities" is absolutely proper. Most of the climate change authorities do in fact support the negative prognosis, so we must take it seriously. Even Skeptic Magazine fully endorsed this "liberal" stance. Believing in the right authorities is obedience to sound principles of logic. In science experts can be wrong on occasion and oddballs right, but over time the vast major of cases will vindicate genuine experts over casual, often spuriously educated dissidents.Authority has been given a bad name in the era of post-modernist insanity, but sound thinking should always include respect for the established foundations of science as well as the authorities like Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Darwin, and Boyle. In science authority must be earned the hard way and winners deserve more than a Nobel Prize-they are usually right far more often than dilettantes.
ReplyDeletejmperry is wrong about the Argument from Authority.Arguing that real authorities are more likely correct than are lesser "authorities" is absolutely proper.
ReplyDeleteFollowing authorities is fine when the authorities are uncorrupted and the basic science is beyond dispute. When the authorities are motivated by ideological bias and the science is highly speculative, it's foolish to blindly accept their conclusions. Such is the case with AGW.
You're also missing my point. Appeals to authority have nothing to do with the substance of an issue, and they're given as a substitute for real, logical arguments. They're used as a way to pre-emptively shut out opposing views, and that's why they indicate a scam.
I agree with jmperry.
ReplyDeleteMr. Troost, if somebody challenged you on the claim that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, would you simply say "the surgeon general says so," or would you link to a few of the numerous studies which show that cigarette smokers face a higher risk of lung cancer?
Appeals to authority are for people who cannot offer solid evidence and arguments for a claim.
As to the authorities themselves, if you look carefully you will see that there are surprisingly few scientists who unqualifiedly endorse the CAGW hypothesis.
The way the huge "consensus" numbers are arrived at is that scientific membership organizations put out statements with plenty of weasel words in them, probably at the behest of a few radical members of the organization who have insinuated themselves into positions of power.
These consensus statements do not represent the views of rank and file scientists any more than your typical American supports gay marriage or amnesty for illegal Mexicans.
"We must not politicize this issue when it seems utterly within the bounds of genuine science. We must trust the climate experts to eventually provide enough evidence for policy-makers worldwide to deal with the issue. If AGW has an empirical basis,we will regret not listening to the alarmists."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet we must proceed apace in breeding Northern Europeans with Arabs and subcontinental Indians so as to better avoid offending our Jewish masters before every last shred of scientific evidence of general Arab and Indian stupidity is in? LOL!
In that spirit, I submit this artistic masterpiece for Troost's exalted delectation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcJI87u3DoQ
Christ...I just debunked Troost and his acolytes at OneStdv
ReplyDelete