Global Warming...still not working...

[billc]

A new article on the problems with the theory of man made global warming...

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/13/junk-science-week-climate-models-fail-reality-test/

Junk Science Week: Climate models fail reality test

This reminded me of a presentation I’d seen years earlier about predicted changes in U.S. rainfall patterns under global warming. The two models being used for a government report again made diametrically opposite predictions. In region after region, if one model predicted a tendency toward more flooding, the other tended to predict drying.
Just how good are climate models at predicting regional patterns of climate change? I had occasion to survey this literature as part of a recently completed research project on the subject. The simple summary is that, with few exceptions, climate models not only fail to do better than random numbers, in some cases they are actually worse.
There are two reasons why this is important. First, it tells us something about our lack of understanding of the climate.

Second, when policymakers and scientists think about climate change, they are usually not interested in abstract global averages but in potential changes where people actually live, namely at the local level. To say anything meaningful about this requires models that make valid regional predictions.
We already had a clue that something is wrong with spatial details in climate models. Due to the water-vapour feedback, models predict rapid, amplified warming in the troposphere over the tropics. But data collected by weather balloons and satellites fail to show this, and the discrepancy between models and observations is statistically significant.
So how do models do at predicting the spatial pattern of warming over land? Though the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) devoted a whole chapter to model evaluation, it said almost nothing about this question. The IPCC talked mainly about static features, such as whether the model can make the tropics hot and poles cold, and so forth. But it was mostly silent on the spatial changes. A 2008 report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program went a bit deeper, but only to report on tests of how daily and seasonal variations in models matched the real world (is winter a suitable amount colder than summer, etc.).

 

[Xue Sheng]

If I dood it I get a whippin'!
I dood it!
%think%
Yeah..... this thread is definitly a

:deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse

On the beat a dead horse scale

 

[billc]

To beat it a little more...

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
The implications were extraordinary.
Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.
As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

You have to admit, it is better to beat a dead horse than a live one, and manmade global warming is not the same topic it used to be...

 

[Sukerkin]

With all due respect (and there is much to give) for Professor Lovelock, he is now a very old man and thus is subject to the vagaries of the mind that afflict us all as we age - this includes the reconsideration of long held positions.

I listened to a podcast of The Life Scientific the other day which spoke on the pertinent matters of his career and he did not sound as if he was losing his faculties when he said that, yes, he had been guilty of over stressing the dangers of global warming. However, he also elaborated that it was an over-stressing of the problem when it came to the planet, for Gaia doesn't care how long it takes to 'fix' imbalances - for human-kind, however, it is a different matter for we do not have millions of years to straighten things out ... we have decades. Even assuming we can do anything to divert the massive forces that are in motion.

Leaving aside the global warming debate, here is a link to the man's web site for those interested in learning more:

http://www.jameslovelock.org/page0.html

P.S. Any man who uses a home-made bomb to dig up a rose bed falls comfortably within the boundaries of the honoured Order of Eccentric British Scientists; this cadre has been responsible for nearly all of the major advances of science and technology for the past couple of centuries.

 

[Sukerkin]

Here is a pertinent article from a few years back:

http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html

 

[WC_lun]

Great article in last months (i think) Pop;ular Science about global warming and who those are pushing against it being true. Seems 98% of scientist believe global warming is man made and a threat. Even one hired by the Koch brothers to bebunct the methodology and results of global warming studies determed that the methodology and results were valid. On the opposing side from the scientist are politicians, like the senator from Oklahoma who is the biggest recepient of money from big oil, and lobbyist that are hired by big oil, some of which tried to convince us cigerettes had no effects on human health. To thier credit, between them and the talking heads they have convinced many people to believe global warming is a hoax.

When I look at who is getting paid what to voice what they are, I gotta come down on the side of the scientist. Also, keep in mind that within that 98% of scientist in the field who say global warming is real and man has contributed to it, not all of those are left wing, as some people would have you believe.