02 January 2011

Climate Models Flying Blind, Deaf, Dumb


Top leaders of the US and the EU are prepared to send their respective economies into a fatal tailspin on the basis of climate pseudo-science. Obama and his fellow cargo-cultists across the pond are willing to destroy the futures of their nations on the claims and declarations of climate modelers whose models omit the most salient movers of climate.

Clouds and water vapour, for example, may be the most crucial determinants of how the climate adapts to genuine climate forcings -- yet climate modelers haven't a clue how to deal with these crucial factors.

Another important factor -- black carbon soot -- is likely the primary determinant of melting of the Arctic ice and high latitude northern glaciers besides winds and currents, yet climate models have not been savvy about modeling this crucial driver of melting.

Just as crucial in the overall scheme of climate is the changing sun, and how the oceans react to changing solar activity. Models haven't a clue what to do with it.

Certainly recent winters are much colder with more snowfall than modelers have been predicting. And what's more, a recent paper claims that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature changes.

Finally, there is dust. Climate models seem to miss larger dust particles called "silts" altogether. How can they expect to get anything right when they keep missing the most important drivers of climate, and emphasise things like CO2 which may actually be confounders, or "pseudo-drivers?"
Kok’s theory suggests that dust storms produce two to eight times more silt-sized particles than climatologists previously thought. Neglecting the boost in particles suggests that climate models, and even short-term weather models for dusty regions, are somewhat off. Until climate scientists better understand how dust changes over time, however, Kok said it’s tough to gauge the effects. _Wired
Dust, soot, clouds, ocean cycles, cyclic solar activity, water vapour, and more. Climate models even do a poor job with aerosols, as recent analyses are discovering. If climate models over-emphasise CO2 and under-emphasise the real drivers of climate, what are they good for -- other than providing a basis for huge bureaucracies, carbon taxes, cap and trade, and the strangulation of energy supplies and industry for the US and the EU?

Remember, if energy supplies are choked off, the underlying economy gets strangled. Startups and new technologies go elsewhere. Job prospects shrivel and die. Ever more people are unable to make mortgage payments or get away from dependency on government.

That seems to be what Obama and leaders of the EU want for their constituencies. But what do the people want? More debilitating cargo-cult pseudoscience from their witch-doctors in chief, or a fair chance to succeed in the world?

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger KGould said...

Thank you for posting this. It can be very difficult and confusing for the layperson to understand and track down all of the contributors to climate.

In Canada, we have been literally inundated lately with news headlines saying that Canada has been 'worst hit' by Climate Change in 2010, record high temperatures, etc. Canada is a huge country, as is the United States of course, and it seems to me that data from regions that were far COLDER were almost completely removed from their little 'averages'. My region of southeastern Alberta had a very tough year. We had snow until the second week of June, July was far colder than normal (we didn't even bother setting out the kids' paddling pool until the 31st!), August brought a couple of days over 33C but then it cooled, and then we had snow again in September. Two months this year with no snow (and remember, I only live an hour north of the US border), but apparently we were hotter than ever recorded.

It is truly aggravating. The top news story on my national weather network was how hot Canada was this year. Yes, some were hotter, but some were far cooler. We spent the entire month of November with bitter temperatures 20 degrees celcius BELOW normal. And yet I have to read headlines about how a European Climate Watch Group listed Canada as hardest hit by rising temps.

Now to see how many little tidbits are left out of the climate models, it helps me to have a little bit more ammunition when discussing our future with my fellow Canadians. Are we willing to toss out millions of our citizens' way of life (oil gas coal forestry) in order to follow a plan that has been so faulted right from the start - many decades ago?

Sunday, 02 January, 2011  
Blogger al fin said...

KC: Unfortunately, even the most knowledgeable scientists don't know, understand, or suspect all of the contributors to climate.

You're right about the omission of important data from global climate data. Anthony Watts "Surface Station" project found that only 1 in 10 of US climate stations met standards for climate data collection. And the US has the best network of climate data collection anywhere.

Globally, large numbers of climate stations have simply disappeared.

When a politically biased group of lefty-Luddite fanatics gets control of governments like the US, the EU, Australia, and some Canadian governments and government agencies, the economies of those nations are doomed to suffer.

Monday, 03 January, 2011  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts