Free Markets, Free People

CERN: ‘Climate models will need to be substantially revised’

The findings by CERN which have finally been published in Nature magazine, are fairly explicit about the validity of current AGW models. They will need to be “substantially revised”.

Why?

Because the findings substantiate the fact that the sun plays the major role in changes in our climate and not the human factors claimed by warmists. It’s all about the sun, clouds, cosmic rays and nucleation.

CERN conducted a CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment to test a theory at odds with current warmist theories about cloud origins. As it turns out, the findings provide:

… support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

Who knew that big yellow hot thing that hangs in the sky each day would play a major role in our climate?

Prior to publication of the Nature article, it had been assumed the findings were negative to warmist theories when the head of CERN (director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer) warned his scientists to just provide the facts and not interpret them.

Here’s how CERN presented the data via lead physicist Jasper Kirkby:

"Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere."

Kirkby is quoted in the accompanying CERN press release:

"We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."

[…]

"[I]t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.

Here is another unknown finally known. Yet the scientists on the warmist side tried to claim they had all the information they needed to build their models and make their wild claims. However, as more and more real science comes it, it becomes clearer and clearer that their science falls at best in the “junk science” category and their claims are unsubstantiated assertions. As we’re finding out, they’re certainly not backed by science.

So, what should be taken from this? A) the climate models are junk. Most observers have known this for quite some time. They are incomplete, their forcing data are all out of whack, and they not only can’t forecast the future, they can’t reproduce the past. B) We’re really just now beginning to understand the climate and its dynamics. And, unsurprisingly for most, despite the warmists attempts to ignore it, the sun plays a major role in determining temperature on earth.

Seems like common sense to me. So why has it taken so long to finally surface?

As with all such things, follow the money.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

59 Responses to CERN: ‘Climate models will need to be substantially revised’

  • Wull, Sha-FREAKING-zaaaam…!!!
    Now that damn troglodyte Rick Perry will think he was right…???  That CANNOT be permitted…!!!

  • McQ:
     
    Sigh. Logically speaking, this new finding has either no effect on the AGW debate–or it enchances the the AGW proposition.
     
    If, as previously believed, much of GW is anthropo while some of it was helio, but now it turns out that some of it is anthropo while much of it is helio, that increases the urgency and narrows the range of effective policies.

    • Yet another “heads we win, tails you lose” analysis, with a healthy helping of argument by assertion.

      So if the models proved to be complete, predictive, and correct, you would no doubt be telling us that this “increases the urgency and narrows the range of effective policies.” (Translation to effective political speak: “We have to do something! Give the government more power right now!”)

      However, since the models have, in fact, proven to be incomplete, not very predictive, and in some cases fraudulent, you are now telling us that this “increases the urgency and narrows the range of effective policies.” (Translation to effective political speak: “We have to do something! Give the government more power right now!”)

      No. You don’t get to simply assert that, no matter what happens, this is all about effective policies. Until the problem is understood, meaning we have some models that come at least within shouting distance of predicting reality, then it is literally impossible to know what policies would be effective.

      The only thing we know with reasonable confidence is that, once government were given power over a huge additional swath of economic activity, it would never give it up short of violent revolution. From your comment, it sounds like you are all in favor of handing that power over to them, with no strong evidence that they have a clue what to do with it.

    • Um, how, pray?  If the sun is driving most of the alleged warming (I believe that even the gorebots admit that there hasn’t been any in a decade, thanks to Chinese coal plants or something), then why does “doing something” suddenly become more urgent?  I agree with Billy Hollis: this is a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition.

    • “while much of it is helio, that increases the urgency and narrows the range of effective policies.”
       
      A big umbrella perhaps?
       
      Yeah, it narrows the range of effective policies.  You do understand that if you narrow something down enough, it goes for all practical purposes, from being a door, to being a wall.
      The policies are narrowed down, It’s a wall, there’s not a damn thing you can do that will have any significant effect, learn to live with change and stop trying to pick my pocket to make yourself feel better.

    • (Face-palm)
      NOTHING…NOT ONE THING…proposed would ADMITTEDLY make any difference.
      And why TRY to stop a natural process…which you DON’T FLUCKING UNDERSTAND…????

    • Actually, it has been sold as caused by AGW, not helio. And the skeptics have argued the helio side. This study comes down firmly on the skeptical side (which is why the head of CERN decided they should just present the facts, not interpret them). And, further, it doesn’t narrow the policy range, it outright blows most of the drastic crap the warmists have proposed out of the water. “Do nothing” is becoming more and more viable as the best option.

    • NASA estimates that each year 168 billion metric tons (BMTs) of CO2 are added to the atmosphere from the following sources.  Oceans give off 100 BMT, decaying biomass, 30 BMT, animal respiration, another 30 BMT.  Forrest fires add 1 BMT and industrial activity such as smelting, distillation and venting, 1 BMT.  Oxidizing fossil fuels, only adds 6 BMT.

      Stephen W. Hawking says that on a planetary scale, humans are pond scum.  We could not affect atmospheric CO2 levels if it were causing warming, which it is not.

      • Hawking has been cited by climate alarmists expressing concerns that Earth could turn into Venus, with 250C temperatures, sulphuric acid, etc..  Climatology isn’t his field of expertise, so he’s basing his assessment on the work of others, trusting that their models are accurate.
        He’s being used for propaganda.

    • Sigh. Logically speaking, this new finding has either no effect on the AGW debate–or it enchances the the AGW proposition.

      No. Not at all. We have seen a small amount of warming over the last few decades. The only reason anyone thinks this is a problem is the theory that warming will result in a positive feedback loop that further drives up temps. This new finding undercuts that theory. The climate scientists have to go back to the drawing board.  

      If, as previously believed, much of GW is anthropo while some of it was helio, but now it turns out that some of it is anthropo while much of it is helio, that increases the urgency and narrows the range of effective policies.

      We haven’t had much warming. We have had some, we are talking on the order of tenths of a degree, mostly from ’75 to ’98. If half of it is man made it is essentially insignificant.

      The AGW worry is not about measured warming. It is about assuming that the warming was caused by man, and that it would result in a feedback loop that would force future warming. Once that idea is dead, the reason to worry about AGW is also dead.  

  • Billy:

    So if the models proved to be complete, predictive, and correct, you would no doubt be telling us that this “increases the urgency and narrows the range of effective policies.”

    No. Or rather, only if the complete model showed negligible contribution by human activity. Otherwise, if a malign situation is partly inevitable and partly exacerbated by chosen conduct, why would you choose to continue the exacerbation? If half your emphysema is by genetic predisposition and half because you smoke, do you keep smoking anyway because Bastiat thinks taxes are theft?

    You don’t get to simply assert that, no matter what happens, this is all about effective policies.

    Sure I do. But I didn’t assert “no matter what happens” anyway. I assumed the CERN findings were accurate. And the CERN findings (as summarized in the source article) do not change the fact that human activity is interfering with the carbon cycle.

    The only thing we know with reasonable confidence ….

    No. “We” do not know that. You know that. And you don’t “know” it as an empirical matter, you believe it as an ideological principle.

    • Nor do you ‘know’ – the difference between us, is you’re willing to spend our money, and alter OUR lives for YOUR beliefs.
       
       

    • So if you could stop exacerbating the emphysema would you chop off your left leg? No of course not because either way you have emphysema. Why be an amputee with emphysema? Instead try to cure the emphysema.

      • It would be closer if you suggested they knew he had a lung problem, but not what kind, nor how to cure it, yet they suggested amputation of the left leg might (for some tenuous scientific reason) fix his lung problem, but, maybe not, but they have to DO SOMETHING, and they need the rest of us to pay for it, and they’re going to pass laws that the rest of us have to wear full enviro suits all the time so we don’t breath bad stuff into his air.

        • looker:
           
          That’s actually a fair point–and you’ll note for the record I did not say what “effective policies” would be. Unless you think human activity has zero or near-zero impact on climate change, all I’m saying is that the CERN finding does not say “AGW is not happening.” It says “Our measure of the causes and contributions is different than previous measures.”
           
          If it turned out that CO2 emissions were the critical ingredient in a feedback loop that would lead the Earth to turn into Venus in 100 years, I would say a totalitarian restriction on fossil fuel consumption would be effective and necessary. If it turned out that CO2 emisions advance the time Earth turns into Venus from a 1,000,000 years from now to 950,000 years from now, I’d say drive your F-150 to death and have fun doing it.

          • Since CO2 has always been a lagging indicator of warming and not a leading indicator (or cause), I’d say have fun with that F-150.

          • Without effective policies, and since they’re not sure they’re right, they’re just tossing darts – shade tree climate mechanics – they can’t actually solve anything, can they?
             
            The proposed solutions always seem to involve gobs of money, gobs of regulation, and gobs of control over economies and life styles taken by politicians and their bureaucratic pets (a railroad engineer in charge of climate?  really?).
             
            In return for this, they offer literally, hope, and guarantee nothing else, except their own jobs and their own power.
             
            There aren’t effective policies, how can there be, they aren’t sure what the causes are.  For years we’ve been told what the causes are, and now CERN derails that.  All the money they’ve spent, all the regulations they’ve passed.  Even now, this very minute, the EPA is prepared to shut down numerous electrical generation facilities, based on the bankrupt science of AGW that says CO2 generated by man is the largest proximate cause of warming (and we’re still arguing about whether or not there even IS warming worthy of being called something other than a statistical margin of error).
             
            They’re are literally prepared to destroy a very fragile economy, imperil people with brownouts and turn their back on our technology in the ‘hope’ that anything they do will have ANY effect.  And now their science is proven to be crap, and I’m supposed to turn a blind eye to that and let them continue with their scam?
             
            I think not.
             
            Doing things for the sake of ‘doing something’ may be fine when you’re a 12 year old kid with time on your hands, but it’s not a rational basis for national and international government policy.

          • Actually on reflection, “continue with their scam” is not a sufficient, you’re suggesting we must now accelerate their scam.

          • looker:
            As opposed to nobody throwing darts at all at something that could be a serious problem?
            As for the gobs of money and such. Yeah. Of course. If there was an easy and free expedient, don’t you think we’d be employing it?

          • Operative word is ‘could’.
             
            Therein lies the problem.
             
            Doesn’t it puzzle you that CO2 is the single most magic gas that will fix this problem?  Isn’t that just a bit convenient? Well, actually, it’s better than that, it’s FIRST WORLD CO2 that’s the problem.
             
            All the gases in the atmosphere, all the the variables involved, and if we’d just stop driving our SUVs and watching our color flat screens and running our air conditioners it will all be better.  AND the Chinese don’t have to do anything, and the Indians don’t have to do anything, and the South Americans don’t have to do anything and the Russian don’t have to do anything, no, in fact, they can continue to advance their standard of living apace, then can continue to generate CO2, because it’s not First World CO2.   Nope, just the First world.  If the ‘wealth’ contained in the First World countries would sort of unpile itself from the 1st world, and sort of spread itself out across the globe, the climate would cool down, the seas would stop rising, the ice would stop melting, and the polar bears would stop drowning.  I gather it will act as a radiant barrier and cool the world down until it’s an nice regular 72 degrees during the day, and a nice snuggly warm under a light blanket temperature every night.
             
            I mean, there’s just too much at stake for us to take the chance and not do…uh….something.

          • “accelerate the scam” brings to mind:

            The beatings will continue until morale improves.” (Author unknown)

          • If it turned out that CO2 emissions were the critical ingredient in a feedback loop that would lead the Earth to turn into Venus in 100 years, I would say a totalitarian restriction on fossil fuel consumption would be effective and necessary.

            The problem is, there is no means shortr of war that is gonna get China and Indai to play ball on this. If AGW really was a problem, we couldn’t fix it for political reasons.

            We have had a temp rise of about 1 degree over the last century IIRC. No one is gonna do anything drastic over such a small rise. The only logic leading towards concern is the theory of a positive feedback loop. A positive feedback loop sounds unlikely on the face of it; it such did exist the temps should have ramped up long ago and we would not be here to have this debate.

            This is why is is so important for the AGW crowd to downplay the MWP, and why a recent study showing that not long ago we had 50% of the artic ice we now have undercuts AGW.

          • The problem is, there is no means shortr of war that is gonna get China and Indai to play ball on this. If AGW really was a problem, we couldn’t fix it for political reasons.

            And yet, the “solutions” are generally a plan to radically shift our politics to be more in line with those of China.  Give up your individual rights for the sake of the collective.  Let the “wise leftists” make more and more decisions about how you run your life because they promise, promise, PROMISE that you’ll drown or bake otherwise and only their wise societal blueprints will avoid catastrophe.

      • Oh, and they’ll need lots and lots and lots of funding to continue to study the problem.

        • The more a purported scientific expert or political pundit presents AGW in dire, alarmist terms, insisting that something needs to be done NOW!, the more their recommended “solutions” mirror Marxist “solutions”: redistribution, punishing the productive and successful, granting governments far greater, intrusive dominion over the day-to-day lives of citizens, and a concentration on the alleged benefits to the collective at the expense of individual rights.
          Many of these people are closet communists and a few are even out of the closet.  Those who aren’t socialist in their philosophy, but believe the save the polar bears hype are useful idiots.
          Yes, human industry probably has at least some influence on global temperatures, but the math and science simply doesn’t support the alarmist, catastrophic predictions.  These alarmists who are green on the outside and red on the inside see an opportunity in exaggerating the risks, hiding counter evidence, and scaring people into acting NOW!  When people are panicked and riled up, radical changes can be made, like major socialist shifts.
          There are plenty of free market solutions to various environmental crises.  Like, when solar energy is economically feasible, you won’t need subsidies and tax credits to get people to transition.  Or, when ethanol subsidies and regulations are lifted, the market will correct for this huge blunder, so that food prices will drop to natural levels.  Without subsidies and mandates, metal recycling works because you’ll get paid for selling cans and scraps, while recycling paper and plastic makes no sense, because nobody will pay you for it.
          And, as resources become more scarce, in a free market the prices rise as a signal to consumers to be more selective about their use.  Government mandates only distort market signals, so that people overuse scarce resources which are subsidized (corn) and underuse resources which are artificially penalized (coal).

    • I said:

      The only thing we know with reasonable confidence is that, once government were given power over a huge additional swath of economic activity, it would never give it up short of violent revolution.

      To which you replied (while being catty and cutting off what I actually said):

      No. “We” do not know that. You know that. And you don’t “know” it as an empirical matter, you believe it as an ideological principle.

      In which case, I look forward to your counter-examples, in which government has acquired a lot of power over a society with some policy and voluntarily given it up. For example, name the welfare state that has voluntarily reversed itself in any significant long-term way.

      Oh, there might be a few edge cases. But as a general principle, this one is pretty well supported. You just don’t like it, perhaps because you seem perfectly happy with the idea of giving the government vast amounts of power. 

    • No, actually what it means is that you need to get down on your knees and kiss Rush Limbaugh’s fat hairy ass because he was right all along and you were wrong.
      And you are still wrong because there is no percent that that can be reasonably leveled to human activity except that it seems negligible, so there is no reason to assume that anything we can do will make any real difference.

  • CITY FORUM, POMPEII, NOVEMBER 23, 79 AD

    FORMER SENATOR ALBERTUS ARNOLDUS GOREUS: Friends, Romans, countrymen!  Lend me your ears!  Burning of wood and oil must cease!  Look around you!  Our city is growing hotter!  Soot and ash pollute the skies!  I call upon the tribune to regulate burning of wood and oil lest our unhealthy addiction to heat, light, and cooked food kills us all!

    LUCIUS GAIUS CASTUS, CITIZEN: You bloody idiot!  The volcano is erupting!  THAT’S where the heat and ash are coming from!  And there’s nothing we can do!

    GOREUS: All the more reason to act quickly to regulate the burning of wood and oil!

  • If, as previously believed, much of GW is anthropo while some of it was helio, but now it turns out that some of it is anthropo while much of it is helio, that increases the urgency and narrows the range of effective policies.

    Nonsense.  If human input, good or bad, has less of an effect, that decreases the urgency.  Not only does it mean that the predictions of the past couple decades were based upon bad information, which means that the proposed answers to such problems are based upon bad information, but it also means that whatever actions we take are going to have less of an effect.  If a drug manufacturer touted a study that their new medicine increased survival rates for a type of cancer from 50% to 90%, but subsequent studies found that the increase was from 50% to 55%, would patients feel more urgency to take the medicine, or less?  Wouldn’t it make more sense to study the drug more and to continue to look for better solutions?
    As an analogue, consider Amdahl’s Law of computing.  If you can gain speedups by changing 90% of a program via optimization and parallelization, that means the best you can attain is a theoretical maximum 10 times speedup (i.e., 900% improvement).  But if only 10% of your program lends itself to optimization and parallelization, the best you can attain is a theoretical maximum 1.1 times speedup (i.e., 10% improvement).  The less influence you have on the outcome, the less urgent it is to spend your resources to get a diminishing return.
    Even if the most alarmist catastrophic AGW predictions happen to be true, the fact is that nothing human beings do is going to reduce the global temperatures very much.  If industry has caused the warming that the doomsayers claim, we can’t stop it even if humans took radically harsh measures to cut carbon emissions—which at some point would mean economic devastation, widespread poverty, malnutrition, and eventually mass starvation and “plagues” due to lack of resources to maintain adequate hygiene.  Do you really want to doom billions of people to miserable, short lives on flimsy theories?
    Anyone who simultaneously parrots the alarmist predictions and claims to have a blueprint to “save the planet” with “green jobs”, “renewable energy”, “sustainability”, etc., is a fool or a snake oil salesman (or both).  Such initiatives are nearly always economic boondoggles which won’t scale (you can only snooker the government for subsidies so much before you bankrupt the government coffers).

    If half your emphysema is by genetic predisposition and half because you smoke, do you keep smoking anyway because Bastiat thinks taxes are theft?

    You’re mixing your metaphors and mangling the logic.  It’s a strawman to imply that the only reason a person would oppose radical government destruction of economic production would be because of an appeal to the authority of a historical figure from centuries back.  The arguments against wasteful “green” boondoggles, shutting down industry, restricting behavior via harsh regulations, etc. are far more substantive, reasonable, and nuanced than your sarcastic quip about Bastiat.  I’m sure you know this, but you have your agenda, so you don’t care so much for facts than about cheerleading your team.

    • Good post.

      Does anyone else notice the left’s logic meltdown?

    • Eliot:

      If human input, good or bad, has less of an effect, that decreases the urgency.

      Not at all. Because that means there a fewer and less potent things we can do to ameliorate whatever unbalancing we’ve contributed in the last 150 years or so.
       
      I don’t understand why all you whiz-kid libertarian folk don’t get this. If a system is in rough equilibrium, and an exogenous force measurably disturbs the equilibrium, it doesn’t really matter whether that exogenous force is 2% of the total system or 98% of the total system for us to say “An exogenous force is disturbing the equilibrium.” The study itself, quoting from the summary above, says:

      Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

      Therefore, if the AGW effect is tiny relative to the helio- effect, but that tiny effect is resulting in large temperatures changes, and, oh btw, we can’t control the helio- effect, we can only control the anthropo- effect, then how does it logically follow therefore we should do nothing about the AGW effect?

      • If this, if that, if the other thing…. all you’ve got are a long chain of hypotheticals.

        I don’t understand why all you whiz-kid libertarian folk don’t get this.

        What the “whiz-kid” libertarians get that apparently you don’t is the lunacy of turning a whole bunch of power over to the bureaucrats and accepting a potentially devastating impact on standard of living for a long, long string of hypotheticals. Especially when they look more hypothetical by the month.
        You just keep ignoring the problems here. First, that we don’t have any decent models to tell us what’s really causing the problem, if indeed there is a serious problem. The whole point of the post is that the models have to be fixed, and Climategate etc. showed us how questionable the science behind the models really is. (Have you seen that FORTRAN code? It’s garbage.)
        Therefore, even if the problem exists, we don’t know what will work to fix it, and we won’t know until we have better models. CO2? Maybe, but we don’t know.
        Second, even if we stipulate the unproven assumptions you are making that there is a problem and the CO2 reduction is our best bet at trying to fix it, you keep ignoring that we in the US can’t do it.
        Your entire pitch boils down to “We have to *do* something!” even though we don’t know if we do in fact need to so something, and we don’t exactly what to do in any event, and the only candidate for what to do (significant CO2 reduction) is impossible for the US to alone. Wailing your non-sequiturs about doing some unspecified 2% we could hypothetically do can do doesn’t change any of that.

        We’ve been going through this stuff for years on this site. When we starting our own skeptical discussion (because one of the front-page posters was an AGW advocate), those of us questioning the received wisdom of climate change were considered oddballs. But lo and behold, every passing year makes the Al Gore crowd look sillier, the UN crowd look more power-grabbing and mendacious, and the leftists who keep pounding the table look more out of touch.

      • I don’t understand why all you whiz-kid libertarian folk don’t get this. If a system is in rough equilibrium, and an exogenous force measurably disturbs the equilibrium, it doesn’t really matter whether that exogenous force is 2% of the total system or 98% of the total system for us to say “An exogenous force is disturbing the equilibrium.” The study itself, quoting from the summary above, says:

        According to Phil Jones, the fastest warming we experienced was 0.166 degrees per decade in the period 1975 – 1998. We don’t have any reason to worry about AGW based upon the actual temp record. AGW is only a threat if the models, based upon positive feedback, are correct. The models are garbage.

      • “If a system is in rough equilibrium”

        People don’t ‘get it’ because you’re entire premise is flawed. The system wasn’t equilibrium to begin with. There is a long, consistent history of climate changes prior to the evolution of humans, much less the industrial revolution.

        The facts of the matter are this – If a system is continuously variable and an exogeneous force not only doesn’t correspond the rate of variation, but consistently lags behind the changes in the system, then it doesn’t really matter if that force is 98% of the system or 2% of the system for us to say “That force is not disturbing the system.”

      • “Not at all. Because that means there a fewer and less potent things we can do to ameliorate whatever unbalancing we’ve contributed in the last 150 years or so.”

        This could only be true if the warming was an absolute deviation from a vital ideal which was previously in equilibrium.
        Human existence was easier when it was warmer, there never was an equilibrium, the increase was a rate effect not a discrete anomaly, and there is no great harm done by what warming will naturally occur.  If you think the law of unintended consequences will not entail upon any deliberate attempts to cool the globe, I see no basis for your enthusiasm.

      • I don’t understand why all you whiz-kid libertarian folk don’t get this. If a system is in rough equilibrium, and an exogenous force measurably disturbs the equilibrium…
        The system will either…
        1. establish a NEW equilibrium
        2. counter to re-establish the OLD equilibrium, OR
        3. adapt to the dis-equilibrium
        You apparently are like the economic idiots who believe that economies are static, or the scientific idiots who believe that populations of species are static.
        Our earth is a very dynamic “system”, as is our solar system.
        Cripes…

      • You are stupidly wrong because you assume that the small effect is resulting in large changes to the system, but that is NOT what has been found in any credible study. What has been found is that nearly all changes which have occurred are not due to any tiny human effect. That is really not the same thing at all.
        What you are not getting is just how inconsequentially small your skills at reading are.

      • “If a system is in rough equilibrium,…”
         
        So what is the equilibrium temperature? CO2 concentration? When did this equilibrium occur?

    • ‘If human input, good or bad, has less of an effect, that decreases the urgency.’

      Not at all.

      Your Peewee Herman impression is wearing thin.  People who are obviously much smarter than you have explained this to you several times in this comment section, but you’re just going to stomp your foot and repeat your eco-mantra.

      Because that means there a fewer and less potent things we can do to ameliorate whatever unbalancing we’ve contributed in the last 150 years or so.

      When your actions have less impact, the increasingly futile efforts are a waste of your resources.  They’re pointlessly symbolic exercises, or, even worse, narcissistic attempts to make yourself look like you care about polar bears and stuff, though you know your actions do nothing to help them.  It’s all about popularity and ego, nothing about science and reality.
      Because your actions to change global temperatures are “fewer and less potent”, you redirect your energies to adapting to natural changes.  In short, you accept the things you can’t change and focus on those you can.

      I don’t understand why all you whiz-kid libertarian folk don’t get this.

      I understand the math and reasoning far better than you.  You’re not getting the concept of diminishing returns.  If we accepted your argument and decreased human influence from 10% to 1%, or 0.1%, you’d be arguing that we should do even MORE, to the point of tearing down modern industry and living in huts.
      Again, I’ll quote the unknown author:

      The beatings will continue until morale improves.

      Intelligent, rational people, on the other hand, realize when efforts are futile, then change and adapt to reality.

  • It should be pointed out that if the models are not merely a little wrong, but drastically wrong, along with throwing out the models we must throw out the acquired casual presumption that mankind’s net effect is warming at all. It is those same flawed models that led us to that conclusion, and if the models are useless, then so are any conclusions based on those models. We would return to simply not knowing what our impact is. Not even a little. Broken models are useless. Not “sort of useless but let’s listen to them anyhow”, useless. Not “it’s better than nothing”, useless. Bereft of value. Not suitable for any purpose, implied or explicit.

  • https://www.gplus.com/Hurricanes/Insight/The-storm-cannot-master-its-own-strength#.TlkWsF20-Zh
    A storm.  Along the Eastern Seaboard.  Apparently petering out, but still being hyped.
    And “modeling” by a lot of people with actual empirical data is looking pretty crappy.
    Hmmm….

    • Modeling works as an adjunct, but not a foundation, for the scientific PROCESS.
      “Science” is the process, it’s not a body of knowledge.

  • From the junk science factory at the NYT…

    The short answer from scientists is that they are still trying to figure it out. But many of them do believe that hurricanes will get more intense as the planet warms, and they see large hurricanes like Irene as a harbinger.
    While the number of the most intense storms has clearly been rising since the 1970s, researchers have come to differing conclusions about whether that increase can be attributed to human activities.

    Where, apparently, they can’t read…

    In his new paper “Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity”, Dr. Ryan Maue, a meteorologist from Florida State University, examined the last 40-years of global hurricane records and found strikingly large variability in both tropical cyclone frequency and energy from year-to-year. Since 2007, global tropical cyclone activity has decreased dramatically and has continued at near-historical low levels. Indeed, only 64 tropical cyclones were observed globally in the 12-months from June 2010 – May 2011, nearly 23-storms below average obliterating the previous record low set in 1977.

    • No! No! it’s worse!  Look at these home videos of…flooding!  See!  It’s worse! One had a
      piece of a roof of something fly into a pool, and one showed water in a backyard!  And there were piers broken loose and tilted!  and GADS!!! HIGH TIDES AT HIGH TIDE WITH A NEW MOON!!!
       
      It’S WORSE WORSE WORSE!   It’s a catastrophe of epic proportion!  Any moment now it’ll flood some more and the videos of the trees being bent by the wind will  SHOW you it’s WORSE!!!!!
       
      Frankly, I’m sick of it.  I grew up north of Boston and saw hurricanes and nor-easters every couple of years.  And I hear newscasters saying “people have never been through a hurricane’ up in the north east – Bullspit.   Okay, maybe the last decade of internet kiddies, but the seniors they talk about who refused to evacuate HAVE (in case people were wondering why they didn’t evacuate….).
       
      It’s a welcome respite from ‘unexpected’ Obama and the economy, and the troubles of the Democratic party, the threat of Islamic extremism and the deadly deadly danger of Christian fundamentalists terrorists who will do the unthinkable and pray at you.
       
      They can chalk this storm up to yet another ‘unexpected’ as it wasn’t what they worried about.   There’ll be damage, and have already been some deaths, but it’s not Vesuvius vs Pompeii by a long shot.
       
      AND – there’s a corollary here for the panic newscaster AGW crowd – if things have gotten SOOOOOOOO flucking much worse, why IS IT that all these people have never experienced a hurricane?

      • Today, the death rate per million from extreme weather has dropped from 241.8 in the 1920’s to 3.5 in the 2000-2006 period—a decline of 99%. Coal and oil can take a lot of the credit for that.

        http://townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2011/08/28/coal_and_oil_provides_the_shelter_from_irene
        Which, if you are a Collectivist, is a highly dubious achievement.  And something to reverse with all dispatch.
        I wonder how the wind-farms are doing…???

        • Well, you know why it stopped short of stomping out NY city – because the Won(ton) was behind the wheel at the emergency center, ready to take calls from people trapped on the 3rd floor of a high rise.   I saw the photo, he was there in his shirt sleeves, ready to dig in.   They gave him a better seat this time then when they made him sit in the corner during the Bin Laden raid.
           
          His very presence, caused the storm to abate.   I’m surprised he didn’t go out and walk upon the waters of Chesapeake bay and calm the storm.   Or maybe he did, and that’s why it died out.   His powers are many (one of them is the ability to remotely send electric current up Chris Matthew’s leg), just ask him*.
           
          (*some limits may apply, Obama is not responsible for the economy unless it is good, nor can he control the weather in your neighborhood, or pay your rent or bail out your company unless you are affiliated with a major union and/or have donated significantly to his reelection fund.  Not all Obama promises are binding, or legal, and you should check with your doctor before following any medical advice Obama has given you.  Obama is not currently accepted in Texas and several other states, you should check with the government in your area to see if these limitations apply).