Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) predictions based upon the output of their climate models have a poor record for accuracy. Examples of zombies would be those that say Arctic sea ice will melt away completely by such and such date. The date came, it didn’t happen. But like a zombie, it comes back to life when another expert tells us the Arctic sea ice will melt away completely by some new date.
This posting will high light a few of the failed predictions.
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Climate Alarmism, ClimateGate, CO2, Drought, Environment, Famine, glaciers, Global Temperatures, Ice Melt, IPCC, Sea Ice, Sea Level
Dan Kahan, Yale law professor and communications researcher, posted a paper in June, 2014, that reported on his work to try to remove bias when testing a subject’s knowledge. That paper can be reviewed by clicking here.
From reports on Fox News, Kahan submitted the paper and it will be published by Advances in Political Psychology. The paper’s intention was to determine what the general population thinks they know about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Kahan used a quiz containing 9 questions. Something in the range of 2000 people were randomly chosen to take the quiz. The numbers of skeptic and warmers were about equal in number. He computed each testee’s answers. He then compared the skeptics and warmers answers for each of the nine questions. The results according to a report found that the skeptics answered more questions correctly than did the warmers. The difference was small, with the skeptics average scoring 4.5 correct versus the warmers that got “about 4” correct.
If you are comfortable with eliminating private property; if you are comfortable with eliminating Free Enterprise; if you are comfortable with dumping our form of government for socialism or communism; if you are comfortable with having the UN rule the world; then you are comfortable with people that want to use the man-made global warming theory as the instrument to achieve all of the above. And the kicker is they do not care if the theory of man-made global warming is wrong.
As most of you are not in accord with those objectives, it’s likely that you are not aware that the founders of the global warming movement have those things in mind.
Continue reading
All engineers and scientist should be skeptics. Most engineers are because if they build a bridge or an automobile, or what ever, it better work right away. Some scientists are making a lot of predictions about events to come 25, 50 or 100 years into the future. Well that’s their privilege, but it probably would be well to take a skeptical view on any prediction years into the future.
The Pacific Research Institute has produced several videos that are meant to challenge “appeals to authority’ like all scientist believe in …….
Ehrlich’s solutions were for the government to take charge. Impose taxes, new regulations etc. Doesn’t that seem very much like what is now underway to “stop catastrophic global warming” some day out in the distant future. Remember that name, Paul Ehrlich. He wrote another book which was just as wrong as the “Population Bomb”. By the way, this other book was co-authored by John Holdren. Holdren, in case you don’t remember, is President Obama’s Science Czar. Aren’t we lucky.
cbdakota
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Domestic Energy, EPA, Famine, Government Regulations, IPCC
The warmers know that CO2 by its self is insufficient to get the predicted temperature rises that they need to scare you with future weather of catastrophic proportions. So they decided that there is a positive feedback that occurs. The theory goes like this— For every little temperature increase resulting from CO2 interrupting thermal IR headed back into space, that interruption will cause some small amount of temperature increase which in turn will force more water vapor into the atmosphere. So this increase in water vapor, the big green house gas, absorbs more thermal IR and the temperature goes up.
The following illustration (by Dr. David Evans) begins with the increase in global temperature from a doubling (say 400ppm to 800 ppm) from “established science—1.1C. Then the warmer’s inferred amplification, will increase the temperature by 3 fold resulting in a final temperature increase of 3.3C. That is what the climate models produce and that is where the warmers get their scary scenarios.
Figure 1 Amplification:
The Sun generates the energy that warms the Earth. The Sun’s extreme surface temperature (In the range of 9900 F (5500 C) results in the emission of electromagnetic radiation. (ER) The ER most obvious to us is sunlight. But in addition, gamma rays, X-rays, and Ultraviolet are emitted and reach the Earth. This ER is called short wave because the wave length (crest to crest) is in meters 0.0000007 or shorter.
The above illustration shows the range of ER. All the way from Gamma rays to Radio waves. The most energetic are those from the Sun. In one second, light can travel 299,792kms (186,000 miles). All ER travel that same distance in a second. The difference between x-rays and radio waves is the amount of energy each contains. The shorter the wave length, the more energetic it is.
When a discussion of “greenhouse gases” takes place, one sometimes wonders if the reader is aware of the make up of the Earth’s atmosphere. Many of you, especially the engineers and scientists that read this blog, know about the elements that make up the atmosphere and what the carbon cycle is. But for those that don’t have this background, this may help.
The measured atmospheric CO2 is about 400 parts per million (ppm) at present. That means that for every 1,000,000 gas molecules in our atmosphere, about 400 of the gas molecules are carbon dioxide.
The most recent posting on this site was a discussion of why the year 2014 has been misrepresented as the “hottest year ever”. A broader examination of this claim is made in Dr Roy Spencer’s blog titled: “2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures. OR: Why I Should Have Been an Engineer Rather than a Climate Scientist.” Here is an excerpt from his posting:
“Reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn’t matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error. Who wants to bother with “margin of error”? Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn’t have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo. I said this six weeks ago, as did others, but no one cares unless a mainstream news source stumbles upon it and is objective enough to report it.”
Dr Spencer, a climatologist, is the Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Spencer’s posting in its entirety: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/2014-as-the-mildest-year-why-you-are-being-misled-on-global-temperatures/
It is truly amazing that no major US media outlet managed to challenge the recent NASA/GISS statement that 2014 was the warmest year ever. There was no equivocation in the US media about that being the truth. And they quoted “scientists” that said this proved that man-made global warming was an unarguable fact.
A UK media organization took the time to read the presser and concluded that the leader of NASA’s GISS organization needed to be challenged. The upshot is that GISS’s Director Gavin Schmidt, according to the DailyMail.com “ has now admitted NASA thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.”
Wow, perhaps it could be said that it is 62% unlikely to be the warmest year ever.
Posted in AGW, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Global Temperatures, Media Bias, NASA/GISS
(This 11/03/2013 posting is being updated to include more comprehensive information regarding non-governmental organizations environmental contributions. The updates will be obvious as they will be in color.)
It is misinformation, largely based upon purposeful lies, that a giant conspiracy funded by Big Oil is making people skeptical of the theory of man-made global warming. Accordingly, this supposed campaign has been so good that the majority of people do not think that global warming is a significant issue. Surely that must be the explanation, they say. How else could such an insignificant number of people (skeptics) be so persuasive?
Lets assume that the premise that enough money can buy opinion is factual. If so, who is getting the money? The skeptics or the warmers?
This posting looked at Federal Government funding of the Warmers. It also looked at funding by non-governmental groups. But a new book”Cracking Big Green” by Ron Arnold and Paul Driessen has more comprehensive information about non-government funding and I think the reader will understand how vast the funding for the Warmers is. The amounts of moneys that the Green Organizations have is breathtaking. One small section is lifted from the book to supplement my original information. It follows:
Cracking Big Green: to save the world from the save-the-earth money machine “This is where we open our inquiry in detail. More than 26,500 American environmental groups collected total revenues of over $81billion from 2000 to 2012 according to Giving USA Institute, with only a small part of that coming from membership dues and individual contributions.
Climate Change Sanity 