Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Observer bias
The apparent increase in tropical storms is not an increase at all, but a function of better observational tools. Global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise, is not responsible. So says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which certainly does not shy away from blaming AGW for changes in climate.
Meanwhile, it is increasingly clear that those who want to regulate and tax carbon emissions based on climate models are actually pushing all our national chips into the middle of the table. Is it really smart to bet the ranch because of a computer model of an exceedingly complex system? That is exactly what our financial institutions did over the last few years, and they were not "scientists" with a political agenda and no personal accountability -- few of them will live long enough to see whether their predictions are accurate -- but traders and executives with an enormous financial and personal incentive for success. How did that work out?
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
16 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Aug 12, 08:32:00 AM:
" Is it really smart to bet the ranch because of a computer model of an exceedingly complex system? "...First, one must understand that all of this concern about global warming or climate change, whatever the terminology of the day is, is about money. money and the power that comes with it is the prime driving force. That is why the Enrons were involved, and that is why the GE's et al and the UN are involved in this boondoggel. There is no concern among the proponents of this charade as to the effects on the economy so long as they profit, by either direct payment or rent seeking, there is no risk to them as they have nothing to lose.
By , at
Wed Aug 12, 09:13:00 AM:
About 110 million years ago, when dinsoaurs dominated the earth, there was a period of severe global warming where the average world temperature is said to have increased by 10 degrees F for several years. I am uncertain what impact this has on species alive at the time but it is generally not regarded as a "mass extinction" period. This was evidently a naturally occurring phenomenon and today, we are climatologically in a relatively cool period of the earth's history; recent spikes in global temperature are somewhat linked to human activity - particularly since the industrial revolution - but I think there is a lot of political zealotry which clouds logic on this issue. If we have a giant asteroid impact or a supervolcano eruption on the order of Mount Toba, the Yellowstone caldera, or the Deccan Traps, that would have a more immediate, very severe impact than gradual temperature changes.
By , at
Wed Aug 12, 09:43:00 AM:
I've made this point again and again here. Obviously the climate is a "system" infinitely more complex than the financial economy, so even if climate modeling techniques are equal in capability to financial modeling techniques(hardware and software, as well as understanding the system itself), which is a laughable idea in and of itself, they are still are probably several generations of technology away from being even slightly helpful or revealing. That's being charitable.
We have a hugely more complex problem being attacked by substantially less capability, so the faith CC's evidently have in climate models is really laughable. How can anyone take these people seriously?
By , at
Wed Aug 12, 09:52:00 AM:
What is worse, by the way, is that national climate data for many developed countries is increasingly not being made available to outside researchers. Much raw station data is covered under Confidentiality Agreements, and now old data is actually being purged from public databases in the US and the UK.
Climate nuts don't like disagreements, so they are not revealing the data.
By , at
Wed Aug 12, 10:21:00 AM:
Anon said, "Climate nuts don't like disagreements, so they are not revealing the data."
To which I will add,"Apparently, dissent is no long patriotic." I wonder how that happened?
By , at
Wed Aug 12, 10:29:00 AM:
<< Is it really smart to bet the ranch because of a computer model of an exceedingly complex system?<<
No. Pure collective insanity.
I sometimes imagine a Universe where countless civilizations are working through the muck of their folly to find a successful destiny. Keeps me on the edge of my seat, fingers crossed behind my back. I remain hopeful that clear thinking trumps hysteria.
M.E.
By 
JPMcT, at
Wed Aug 12, 05:34:00 PM:
The Carbon Tax proposal isn't just based on junk science, it is pure, crystalline, bejeweled FRAUD!
As the computer models fall apart, and more scientists (at least those who are not suckling the government teat) are issuing public statements about "alarmism", it is obvious to anyone rational that we are not gambling with our future to take time to make the correct policy decisions.
If we spent the same amount of money PREPARING AND ADAPTING to climate change as we spend thinking we can change the climate, at least we would be a little closer to common sense.
Do these people REALLY think that science is going to provide them with a license to steal indefinitely?
Apparently so, as long as the perpetrators of the fraud control access to the scientific data...and limit such access.
By , at
Wed Aug 12, 07:26:00 PM:
Always click the link:
"“This new study is one piece of the puzzle of how climate may influence hurricanes. Although Atlantic storm counts overall have not changed, this study does not address how the strength and number of the strongest hurricanes have changed or may change due to global warming,” noted Knutson."
And anyone who thinks climate change is a fraud has a great chance to make some money by betting me over it.
By , at
Wed Aug 12, 08:07:00 PM:
1. The data used to assert AGW is cooked and/or bogus to make the most useful point.
1A. If we are left to trust only scientists from the same leftist universities that profit from climate research used to prove AGW we are all screwed by this point anyway.
2. The politicians and celebrities crowing about AGW are mostly intent on profiting from it.
3. The Earth Changes everyday. Deal with it. Nature doesn't hate us, we are insignificant, deal with that too.
4. Mankind is being overly arrogant to think they have that much effect on much of anything but economics.
5. We can't cause something that happens anyway, we can only witness it. We can however build really elaborate rituals to ward off evil spirits.
6. Nobody knows how hot or cold it was before they invented all these damned instruments anyway. We can guess, but we don't know for certain.
7. Al Gore and Dr. Hansen are charlatans.
By Roy Lofquist, at
Wed Aug 12, 09:17:00 PM:
There are four times as many tornadoes as thirty years ago. Not! Widespread use of Doppler radar (you've seen it on the TV weather casts) is why.
The comment on NASA is a bit unfair. A now apparently unstable person, James Hanson, rose to a position of authority and sullied the reputation of an earnest agency. I live very close to Kennedy Space Center and have occasion to run into NASA guys on the golf course. They are embarrassed, but you know beauroacries.
By Roy Lofquist, at
Wed Aug 12, 09:20:00 PM:
Appalled at the spelling errors - must be the gin.
By JPMcT, at
Wed Aug 12, 10:50:00 PM:
Brian,
Climate change is not a fraud. Climate changes all the time.
I'm not sure what your hurricane quote is all about...that little theory kind of went out the window with the Perfect Storm, the 30 foot water level increase, the arctic ice fiasco and, of course, the actual temperature measurements.
The only reason we have shifted the discussion to "Slimate Change" rather than "Global Warming" is because the AGW fools got tired of being embarrassed by all the cold weather and snowstorms that seem to haunt their meetings.
Why bet? We are one major volcanic eruption away from more climate change than our factories could cause in a hundred years.
Besides, after another few years of this administration, I will have no disposable income for such frivolities.
By Brian, at
Thu Aug 13, 02:49:00 AM:
JP, the hurricane quote is from the article TH is citing. The issue with hurricanes has mostly been about intensity, not number.
Not to mention the fact that Landsea is known to be dismissive of the hurricane link, so this is not a conversion story. I trust him only a little more than you trust Hansen.
By , at
Thu Aug 13, 08:55:00 AM:
But Brian, JPMcT's basic point still is right on: climate change is a constant while AGW is pure faith based agitation. No one argues that climate is static. In fact, climate modeling is a great idea, and after about a couple of generations of work and many billions of dollars invested, maybe the field will someday begin to describe the earth systems at work in some rudimentary way. But not if the primary data used to assess climate is being confined behind walls, with only the AGW priesthood being allowed access to the raw numbers. What's up with that?!
By , at
Fri Aug 14, 03:18:00 PM:
Link,
The strongest hurricane in history hit Key Largo in 1935 (it inspired the Bogart movie). It didn't get a name because we weren't set up the way we are now. There were some other very bad hurricanes in the 1930s. Bad weather led to the the dust bowls of the 1930s. We had a freakishly bad Mississippi flooding in 1927.
If we were experiencing this today, AGW promoters would be on their soapbox.
Link, over
By Brian, at
Sat Aug 15, 06:33:00 PM:
Strongest hurricane in Atlantic Ocean history was Wilma, in 2005:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Wilma
What many seem to miss is that AGW was understood long before computer models were developed. The theory relies on basic physics that doesn't need fancy models. The four basic proofs are theory, models, instrumental record on both land and sea, and compound forms of proof like stratospheric cooling and Arctic warming.
