Laugh of the day

False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness.
Charles Darwin—scientist

This will be a little longer than usual posts, but it is simply too good to pass up. An article at the Watts Up With That? (WUWT) site today (Click Link) was more gloom and doom from NASA. I laughed all the way through it. It is the perfect example of the present quality of climate models; and they use a boatload of the waffling words I had written about previously. I highlighted the words that explain just how “adjusted” this article is and I inserted my comments in parentheses and italics.

Here is the link to the NASA article in its pristine condition (Click Link)

By Rosemary Sullivant,
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

A little extra carbon dioxide in the air may (first wiggle word, shorthand for: We don’t know.), unfortunately, go further towards warming Earth than previously thought (back in 1988 Hanson of NASA predicted we would reach the tipping point for the destruction of the Earth in 2000. How much worse can it be?). A team of British and U.S. researchers have uncovered evidence (there can NEVER be any evidence uncovered in a computer model. Evidence is only found in the real world, climate models contain only what is put in them) that Earth’s climate may be up to 50 percent more sensitive (Hummm, “may be?”) to long-term increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide than current climate models predict (And the current models have been proven to be horribly wrong). The reason for the underestimation (Good lord, every one of them overestimates real world observations), they say, may be due (Oops, another “may be”) to long-term changes in ice sheets and vegetation that are not well represented (They are not well represented because all we know about them is scanty information from ice core and sediment studies. No one understands their relationship, if any, to CO2 forcing) in today’s global climate models (Here we go, referring to the failed models again).

Just how much (will this cost the taxpayers?) will global temperature rise in response to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide? This is one of the key questions that climate scientists need to answer (and the answer will read however you want it to read for a measly two million dollar grant).

According to the climate models used in the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Yep, these are the ones that have not been right on any prediction to date.), doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from pre-industrial levels is expected (Waffle word alert!) to warm Earth by about (Waffle) 3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), once the atmosphere and oceans spend a few years or decades adjusting and reaching a balance (or perhaps a few thousand years, or never if we are barking up the wrong tree).

But according to a recent study (specifically designed to show that CO2 is the only possible cause of global warming) by a team of researchers that includes Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Earth’s climate is also influenced by other, much slower processes (as well as a couple million we don’t know about or don’t want to consider). These include changes in ice sheets, vegetation and aerosols, for example (there are millions of other examples, but we want to keep this simple enough to fool some of the people some of the time), that take place over hundreds and thousands of years (except for the twenty-first century when it will happen overnight). Because of their complexity and long timescales, these processes are almost impossible to integrate into today’s climate computer models (because the climate is chaotic and changes for reasons we will never be able to predict. Why would they bother if it is going to take thousands of years to produce any change). As a result, it has been difficult to know just what their effect on Earth’s climate sensitivity would be (Not difficult, impossible).

To learn more about this sensitivity (shorthand for: a CO2 forcing that may or may not exist), Schmidt and his co-authors looked back 3 million years into Earth’s past. They used a computer model (that they totally control) that describes the oceans and atmosphere to predict, retroactively, the climate of the mid-Pliocene — a period when both global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were higher than today (this is exactly what the present models can not do trying to go back just two thousand years). The model substantially underestimated just how high temperatures would go (because they ignored anything other than CO2). When the researchers adapted the model (exactly what the modelers trying to go back two thousand years had to do. They kept inventing new, more exotic, CO2 forcing mechanisms until they came close to matching historical temperatures) to include the effects of long-term climate changes in vegetation and ice sheets (that aren’t understood at all), they were able to get a much closer representation (still didn’t get it right, but they pushed it until it was becoming ridiculous even to the researchers) of the warming in the Pliocene era.

The team found that it took much lower concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide to recreate (make up) the Pliocene’s warm climate than current models (I can not find anything about anyone else even trying to recreate the Pliocene to check CO2 forcing. Supercomputer time is too expensive to play games.) — which consider only the relatively fast-adjusting components of the climate — predict (Computer models don’t predict, they only create scenarios or simulations that become progressively more ridiculous the farther out they go on the time horizon). Pliocene carbon dioxide levels are estimated (there is a large margin of error that far back – hey, it’s not an exact science) to have been around 400 parts per million by volume (ppmv), while according to current simulations (we know how accurate they are) it would take 500 to 600 ppmv of carbon dioxide (even using all the imagined forcing mechanisms we dreamed up and piled on) to bring about the warm temperatures of the Pliocene. As a result, the researchers estimate (don’t know) that Earth’s response to elevated concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 30 to 50 percent greater than previously calculated (unless we do a projection back to the time when such concentrations did exist, but then we would have to admit that plants grew, animals flourished and the World survived just fine. Of course, there is no need for that study, because actual Empirical evidence of survival exists: we are here today. Humm, would that indicate there was no need for this study either?). In other words, the climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than we thought (this is a long way of saying the most common adage in global warming: It’s worse than we thought!!!).

This higher sensitivity of the climate should be taken into account (because everything else we have been predicting has fallen apart, and if congress doesn’t act on this quickly no one will believe it), the team concludes, when targets are set for limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The results of the study appear in Nature Geoscience (Does that mean it is peer reviewed?).

Advertisements
Published in: on May 6, 2010 at 4:23 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags:

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://stlouisooz.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/laugh-of-the-day/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. Just want to say what a great blog you got here!
    I’ve been around for quite a lot of time, but finally decided to show my appreciation of your work!

    Thumbs up, and keep it going!

    Cheers
    Christian, iwspo.net


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: