February 13, 2011
Thus Endeth Global Climate Change
... oh, not global climate change itself, just the "theory".
In the wake of increasing public doubt about the theory of AGW as data collection and analysis problems continue to mount, there has been an attempt to recast the theory as "global climate change", "global climate disruption" or "global weirding", the proposition that man's greenhouse gases ... okay, may not be causing global warming but it's sure causing extreme weather. John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, went so far as to call the term global warming "a dangerous misnomer”, a remarkably strange observation in light of the fact that so many AGW scientific endeavors have been aimed at proving both a warming trend and the dire consequences that could arise therefrom.
One hitch: there hasn't been any "extreme weather".
As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."
Monique, tell me it ain't so! Should I "stand down"? I still haven't distributed all of that food I stockpiled for Y2K! How about all that money I spent to hear Al Gore.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at February 13, 2011 6:43 PMI know, Warrington. It's simply stunning news.
Tell me at least that you divested all of your holdings in the Chicago Carbon Exchange before it collapsed ...
It'd be funny if they had to dig Al Gore out of a snow drift.
Posted by: joe bernstein at February 13, 2011 8:02 PMNah, just leave him there. The polar bears can eat him.
Posted by: BobN at February 13, 2011 8:17 PM... oh, not global climate change itself, just the "theory".
Oh, do tell: what exactly is a physical theory? And can you provide an example of one that has been proven?
Russ, you are so clever - for a teenager. Perhaps someday you'll learn not to embarrass yourself around the adults.
Posted by: BobN at February 14, 2011 2:19 PMIf there's one thing you can count on, it's the brownshirts coming out whenever someone interrupts the wingnuts well honed marching in lockstep. Megadittos!
Posted by: Russ at February 14, 2011 3:22 PMbtw, I found the data interesting. More interesting is how little introspection occurs by folks supposedly concerned with "proof" of scientific theories...
www.climatecentral.org/news/old-weather-is-shedding-new-light-on-climate/
Although there is a lot of detailed information that can come from this iteration of the reanalysis, there is also concern that some researchers might use it in the wrong way, without understanding where the errors can come in.“This reanalysis is a really important growth of the science, but there are growing pains that go along with it,” says John Fasullo, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. Fasullo says that the reanalysis method of sampling and “filling in the blanks” with models comes with a lot of errors. His concern is that some won’t realize that the recreated maps always contain some amount of information that was not observed, but was recreated by a model of the climate.
Fasullo says another limitation is that the NOAA/CIRES reanalysis depends primarily on atmospheric pressure observations, which aren’t always well correlated to rain, clouds and wind speeds.
In any case, it does speak to the dangers of making assertions based on personally observed data like the latest storm.
Posted by: Russ at February 14, 2011 3:31 PM"Nah, just leave him there. The polar bears can eat him."
Wait, how can that be?? Polar bears are sweet, cuddly, vulnerable and vegan. (At least, that's how they're portrayed in AGW ads ...) Al would be in no danger, surely???
Posted by: Monique at February 14, 2011 10:21 PMNo-Fat Albert would be in no danger as long as he had a Marlin Model 95GS Guide Gun loaded with 45-70 405 grain hardcast lead flatpoints.
Posted by: joe bernstein at February 14, 2011 10:36 PM
Posted by Monique
"Nah, just leave him there. The polar bears can eat him."
Wait, how can that be?? Polar bears are sweet, cuddly, vulnerable and vegan. (At least, that's how they're portrayed in AGW ads ...) Al would be in no danger, surely???
Although it is seldom noted anymore, it was the habit of the eskimos to leave the incapacitated and elderly out as fodder for the polar bears. It was a little hard to dig graves in the ice, I suppose. No doubt it also takes some of the shine off their "rich culture". I seem to recall this was pictured in an old, silent, documentary film "Nanook of the North".
Posted by: Warrington Faust at February 14, 2011 11:42 PMAh, yes, the erudite scientific discussions of the right. Bookmark this one.
Posted by: Russ at February 15, 2011 10:22 AM