ryck'Z rantZ: Comments On Global Warming and Failed Computer Models

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Comments On Global Warming and Failed Computer Models

Comments On Global Warming and Failed Computer Models

11/29/07

There are some serious problems associated with the current Global Warming Circus. The political forces seem to cherry pick those features that tend to amplify and extend their Tour of Fear and the usual Holocaust Songs. Our planet is burning! There are many so-called scientists who squat at large universities with fat research grants paid for with tax money and play with computers and, not surprisingly, have conjured up scary scenarios of disasters that would the Earth.

Al Gore has mustered a pack of leftist scientists who tend to benefit from more and juicer research grants, higher tax revenues for their favorite social projects as in Africa and South America and more. The temptation to impede growth and capitalism, the forces that trashed the socialists and Communists in the last century, is too irresistible for the far-left liberals and Neo Marxists to give up. They have lost everything as the capitalism juggernaut crushed their phony attempts to control the world. The losers in the socialist and peasant world have only our wealth for money to spend. They cannot survive on their own as we see clearly from 7000 years of history. The Marxist-oriented states of Sweden and Norway are always anxious to promote some new form of George Bernard Shaw Fabianism, Marxism, Maoism, Castroism or worse even though they made their money from selling guns to everybody who wanted one or submitting to Nazis and Communists.

___________________________

Here are some facts from many places collected by Wikipedia [1]

[1] They [some researchers] claim global average air temperature rose1.33 ± 0.32 F during the last 100 years. The error in a single thermometer reading is + or - 0.2 deg C.

[2] They use phases like is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [man made] greenhouse gas concentrations and overwhelming majority of scientists.. agree with this.

___________________________

Here are my problems with this:

[a] That is a very very very small increase. The satellites show essentially no change in the last 30 years when the proper noise factors [3 sigma] are added in. Scientists who claim this frequently refuse to give out data and then sneakily include tree ring measurements [2] to correct their data. Can you imagine that anybody can correct 1.33/100 or 0.0133 deg per year with tree rings?? Note that we had no sophisticated temperature measurement devices before about 1930. How do they get a good temperature measurement for 1900?? They had thermometers that good back then in the field around the Earth? No.

[b] How do you measure the average surface temperature on the Earth? Pick 100 cities or airports?? What if one group picks 100 sites and another group picks 100 different sites and suppose the second set shows a cooling of 1 deg F over 100 years? There are thousands of temperature monitoring devices on roofs next to smoke stacks and other sites whose local environment can affect the readings and bias the mean. Any extra heat only biases the result toward global warming!

[c] What is the standard error in measuring the temperature on the second Tuesday in August at 100 sites?? How about + or - 0.01 deg F? Can we believe they can take 100 to 10,000 measurements within+/- 0.01 deg?? What if they can only get down to 1 deg F? What then is this trend based on?? How about a 2 or 3 or 4 degree uncertainty for a set of data? So, how about a rise of 1 deg F + or 3 degrees?? How does that sound? That means we might be in a Global Cooling mode and not know it.

The ref above says this in footnote 12: The error in recent years is dominated by the incomplete coverage of existing temperature records. Early records also have a substantial uncertainty driven by systematic concerns over the accuracy of sea surface temperature measurements.[12][13]

They used to measure sea temperatures with buckets and thermometers. How accurate is that??

There are some serious questions about what this trend might be and how big it is. Recall that there was a glacier in Kansas 8000 years ago, the Viking settlements on Greenland froze over and the ice wiped out their crops about the year 1000 and medievalEurope nearly starved to death in the Middle Ages because the weather changed.

___________________________

Apart from the science, I am bothered by the following question:

Who benefits from this even if the studies are flawed or phony??

[1] Do politicians get more power? Do they attract votes with speeches on global warming? Yes. Do they demagogue with unsubstantiated fears? Yes.

[2] Do politicians get more taxes from this?? Yes.

[3] Does the UN want to tax carbon?? What will they do with the money?? Yes.

[4] During the Kyoto period no European country met the standards of the treaty they signed [nobody tried to] and China and India were given a pass and, of course, didnt meet any standards imposed upon them. Is the US supposed to do it all?? Yes.

[5] Do colleges and research facilities get more tax monies for research on the weather?? Yes.

[6] What is the effect of sun spots on surface temperature? Can we tax the sun and lower the temperature in August in Maryland?? Yes.

There are very serious questions about temperature changes in the last 10,000 years and if there are long term trends of say 75 to 100 years we do not know where we are on the curve. If we can only measure 30 years of measurements out of 10,000 years how do we know if we are in some cyclic or random phase where the temp rises and then falls?? If the trend is sine wave cyclic or some approximation thereof, and the temp rises and falls in a 300 year sinusoidal cycle then are going up or down? Do we only focus on the rise?? What if the temperature begins to fall in 20 years? They then want to do what? Do we put out more CO2 to heat the place back up??

Have the scientists forgotten that the sun heats the Earth and that sun spots vary with ime and that the energy input happens in cycles from 11 years to dozens of years?? The output from the sun is constant? Any change must have come from CO2 emissions from Buicks and SUVs?

There are too many politicians pandering for votes in this Global Warming Circus and too many third world countries with Marxist Dictators and other losers at the controls that will benefit from UN sanctions and taxes. They like to rely on computer models instead of hard data.

Let us not forget the phony science that predicted that saccharine was a carcinogen, also NutraSweet and others. Have we forgotten that the ozone layer is now not caused by Freon as we were assured in the 80s?? Let us not forget Carl Sagans Nuclear Winter predictions that were trounced in Science Magazine as lousy science and his membership in AAAS was rejected twice. Let us not forget Lysenko and his stuff and when we look at computer models let us ask why we got zero our of 14 hurricanes last year. And this year we might also get zero hurricanes. How is that for computer model predictions? What happened to the canals on Mars? Everybody happy with this kind of failure? Why dont we all just predict the destruction of everything and somebody will be right eventually then they can be hailed as a prophet.

___________________________

An early computer model was a farce [3]:

What happened to the computer study from MIT[?] [The Limits to Growth] in 1972 that predicted the world economy would be critically dependent scarce metals and fail from depletion of fossil fuels.

Here are their predictions from 1972:

[1] They predicted we would run out of gold by 1981,

[2] we would run out mercury in by 1985,

[3] be out of tin by 1987,

[4] out of zinc by 1990,

[5] run out of oil by 1992, and copper, lead

[6] out of natural gas by 1993.

What went wrong here?? Limits to Growth attracted controversy as soon as it was published for its absurd and phony assumptions and political bandwagon mentality. Yale economist Henry C. Wallich labeled the book "a piece of irresponsible nonsense" in his March 13, 1972 Newsweek editorial. The authors of this tripe still cling to their notions and want people to think them might have right in the first place. Such hooey. Failure is failure. I had to deal with this group a decade or so ago at an innovation conference when they wanted to issue a new book with revised computer models yet they could not really explain why they failed the first time to get anything right. I pointed out that their methods were largely similar to the methods that failed 30 years before. Trash this computer model and stop funding phony studies like this.

Is this just as phony as the hurricane predictions of last year and this one when the score is 0/14 and will probably be 0/14 for the second year in a row?? Yes.

___________________________

Two days ago a study was published that noted the following [4]:

[1] The mean global temperature peaked in 1998 and has shown no warming for a decade now.

[2] From satellite data dating to 1979, we note global cooling is the general trendnot warming.

[3] Changes in El Nino appear to have ended the warming trend in the Pacific that began in 1978.

[4] There was a cooling trend correlated with three Las Ninas in a four year period that helped cool the earth in the late 1990s.

There are more data and information in the link.

Conclusion:

Science is not that good and politicians do not need the truth to gain powerall they need is persuasion. Let us be careful who we believe when there is tax money and political power to be had. There are a lot of third world parasites who would like free money from the US to deal with problems associated with US CO2 emissions. Such crap.

rycK, a retired scientist and inventor who is sick of reading this meretricious fluff. .