http://www.qando.net/ - Top 10 Dud Global Warming Predictions

Home News NN Blogs Chat Advertise Search Privacy

Author Posts: Jon McQ Dale Bryan Billy Lance Michael Jason

Meta-Blog

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

Recent Posts

The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....

QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

Top 10 Dud Global Warming Predictions
Posted by: Dale Franks on Friday, December 26, 2008

Andrew bolt has compiled a list of the top 10 dead-wrong predictions (in Australia, at any rate) about global warming for 2008, along with the lessons to be drawn from those failures.

Among the various bits of interest in his recounting, is this:

What's more, a study this year in the Hydrological Sciences Journal checked six climate models, including one used by the CSIRO [Australia's top science body—Ed.].

It found they couldn't even predict the regional climate we'd had already: "Local model projections cannot be credible . . ."

It also confirmed the finding of a study last year in the International Journal of Climatology that the 22 most cited global warming models could not "accurately explain the (global) climate from the recent past".

As for predicting the future...

If your current computer models can't predict the known past from retroactively entered data, then why, precisely, would you expect them to accurately predict the future.

You can't, of course.

Look, I've been working with computers for—Oh my God, I hate to even say it!—twenty seven years, and doing it professionally as a developer and IT consultant for the last 12. And I have no faith at all in computer models. I know how they're programmed.

Computer models—all computer models—do nothing more than produce an extrapolation from the assumptions that are programmed into them. The input always determines the output.

Moreover, when it comes to climate, the number of variables is so incredibly large, and often prone to chaotic effects—that I don't believe anyone has ever built, or realistically can ever build a valid computer model with our current state of computer technology.

More importantly, I don't think that, no matter how good the technology, the state of climate science is advanced enough to even know what all of the variables are, or how they should be weighted.

Here's what we do know. The earth has never had a stable climate. Ever. For instance, take note of the last 450,000 years:

Is climate change real? Of course it is.

But it appears to be driven by something other than man-made carbon dioxide.

TrackBacks

Return to Main Blog Page

Comments For This Post

Previous Comments to this Post

Comments

Happy Holidays

Written By: Neo
URL: http://

Dale - what’s the source for that chart? That’s a nice graphic.

Of course, the existance of natural climate chage doesn’t preclude man-caused climate change. The problem I’ve always had with the various "global warming" hypotheses is that we don’t understand what drives temperatures (and CO2 levels, which show a similar curve) up and down on the 100K-year cycle.

Does CO2 naturally rise until triggering some feedback mechanism? If so, man-made CO2 may not be a big deal. Does CO2 naturally fall untill triggering some feedback mechanism? If so, we’re in real trouble. Does temperature naturally rise and fall for reasons unrelated to CO2, and somehow cause the matching CO2 changes? Unlikely, but possible.

Saying "we must make any sacrifice necessary to lower CO2 emissions" without knowing the answers to those questions is absurd. Futher, since we know that we’re in an ice age, and that glaciers cover most of Europe at normal temperatures, are we sure man-caused warming is worse than the alternative?

Written By: Skorj
URL: http://

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, "What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling, sharply declining temperatures the last couple of years, record setting lack of sun spots . . . failure of computer models to predict real climate, predictable warming and cooling climates for the past 500 years. The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!"
Now they are telling us that their models have predicted the recent decline in temps and that cold weather and snow proves the planet is getting warmer? To me that’s like eating a steak to PROVE you are a vegetarian!

Written By: bobiscold
URL: http://

Get ready guys, cause the wheels are rapidly falling off of the global climate change wagon, so it will be some other scare tactic soon.

Let’s see, in my lifetime it has been ;
population bomb
silent spring
ozone hole
nuclear winter
china syndrome
new ice age
global warming
Y2K
hot zone
global climate change

Whats next?

Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog

I hate to say it, but graphs like that are considered "proof" of AGW to true believers. Years ago I read a little blurb in a science-y magazine about the discovery of larger climate swings in the far past than we are having today. At the end of the article the author concluded that this showed us that we needed to control our contribution to global warming. I wrote a letter to the editor pointing out that proof of non-human-caused change suggested that change can be caused by other sources than human, and I received back a slightly nasty letter accusing me of being wrong.

You can’t reason with anyone who thinks that way, especially if they believe thinking that way IS reasoning.

Written By: Wacky Hermit
URL: http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com

Modelling even the simplest physical fluid system such in order to forecast the future is almost impossible. To do so, absolutely every variable must be taken into account, absolutely precisely. Any tiny omission may lead to massive deviations in the output.

Such fluid modelling is based on the Navier Stokes differential equations, whose solution is challenging to say the least!

Other "modelling" such as used for weather and climate simply involves curve fitting to past data. It has ZERO forecasting ability.

Written By: Dr Burns
URL: http://www.salesolympian.com

fOFtwo jzddimyafjkq, [url=http://zhcnlwwgavsw.com/]zhcnlwwgavsw[/url], [link=http://aenjcmzbftbs.com/]aenjcmzbftbs[/link], http://pnxqhfywuxyi.com/

Written By: 3
URL: http://zralegdcicmq.com/

AvladR xerpreuetifp, [url=http://dxqbnzetarad.com/]dxqbnzetarad[/url], [link=http://jbtvfpxzbjkn.com/]jbtvfpxzbjkn[/link], http://cdszooibafvj.com/

Written By: 3
URL: http://tkzfsnddbgqj.com/

Add Your Comment

	NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
	Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Comment:
	Remember Me

Vicious Capitalism

Buy Dale's Book!