Patterico's Pontifications

8/26/2011

“Climate models will have to be revised;” Once Again Climate Science Makes Major Mistakes

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 11:56 am



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

You see, it turns out that cosmic rays have a significant influence on cloud formation and cloud formation has a significant influence on global temperatures.

And none of the current climate models took any of that into account.  Seriously, read the whole thing over at Pajamas Media.

And then ask yourself this: are you confident that they didn’t miss anything else?

They should not be allowed to screw up our economy and to take away our freedoms without solid evidentiary support for their claims.  And they are not even close to achieving that, here.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

30 Responses to ““Climate models will have to be revised;” Once Again Climate Science Makes Major Mistakes”

  1. Could we not sue them for economic damages?

    Rorschach (c5574d)

  2. Early in my career in the wonderful world of IT a user experienced a disk crash, and I mentioned that one possible cause is cosmic rays. Which is perfectly true, but apparently it was the wrong thing to say, and I became known for a while as “Cosmic Rays”.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  3. El Nino just hates non-Spanish speakers.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (985f21)

  4. Well Milhouse, as they say, he who laughs last laughs best; but still, I bet it was no fun enduring the nickname.

    I did always wonder how a computer could have a problem booting up, then turn it off and try again and everything was fine. I wondered why “electrons would sometimes take a wrong turn”; now I know, cosmic rays.

    I wonder how often cosmic rays can be invoked as an explanation- maybe next weeks Sockpuppet Friday edition could be “cosmic rays”. Of course that assumes nothing else jumps up to take the spot.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  5. The problem is that most people know of cosmic rays only from comics.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  6. Use the Force, Doc, use the Force!

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (985f21)

  7. Cosmic rays, solar flares, axis tilt, colliding weather patterns . . . shall I go on?

    Icy Texan (534223)

  8. Racist new Earth science-deniers. Theocracy NOW!

    JD (306f5d)

  9. And, of course, the most basic problem in the climate models is that the programming they are using doesn’t have any way of accounting for the variation of the atmosphere. So they think that they can model something by using numbers that represent the air as being of the same density and volume from the ground to the edge of space, like it was some kind of evenly filled bubble…

    Sue (40062f)

  10. 5.The problem is that most people know of cosmic rays only from comics

    Start throwing around wavelengths and letters of the greek alphabet, and as soon as eyes glaze over you’re in the clear.
    But it’s way too easy to think up snide comebacks in hindsight without pressure. I’ve had a few times where other docs felt free to abuse my opinion on something where I was later vindicated, but like retractions in newspapers, correcting a public insult usually doesn’t carry nearly the effect of the original insult.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  11. Does anyone know of person or place that will write about this impartially?

    koam @wittier (4ec816)

  12. This reminds me of something that an old-timer in my IT shop told me about. They were rolling out a new system, and ran into a bug which took some time to diagnose and correct.

    During a status meeting, someone asked “Are there any other bugs in the system that we don’t know about?”

    Old timer kept a straight face. “None that we know of.”

    Pious Agnostic (6048a8)

  13. So, you worked with Don Rumsfeld?

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (985f21)

  14. So that big round orange thing in the sky has more to with Global Warming than my car???
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Who the fuck knew!!!!!

    S. Carter aka J-Z (786e37)

  15. Can the trial lawyers finally be of service to sue into oblivion Al Gore and the rest of his ilk?

    S. Carter aka J-Z (786e37)

  16. I think if launch some virgin Global Warming Scientists into the sun, the sun god will be pleased and stop heating us up!
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    You know how us religious, ignorant peasants we are. Clinging to god and guns.

    S. Carter aka J-Z (786e37)

  17. if WE launch

    S. Carter aka J-Z (786e37)

  18. I live near San Diego, which has about the most predictable weather on the planet, and sometimes the weather prognosticators get it wrong, with no rain when rain predicted or vice versa.

    So we can’t accurately predict the weather a day or two in advance with lots of real time data available. Why, then, should we believe computer models for global climate a hundred years hence, when climate is at least a couple orders of magnitude more complex than weather and there aren’t anywhere near as many data points and none of them are real time?

    ExRat (3b46ff)

  19. Milhouse,

    Are you saying Stan Lee and Jack Kirby misinformed me as a youth?

    Karl (f07e38)

  20. On the contrary, I’m saying that not everything in the comics is fantasy. Cosmic rays won’t turn you into a superhero, but they can easily mess with electronics, and, as we now know, make clouds.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  21. They can also cause cancer, so with decreased solar activity meaning more cosmic rays hit us, look for a slight bump in cancer stats down the road, which will undoubtedly be blamed on whatever human activities the Gaians are targeting at the time (don’t expect those to be the same as they are today, btw).

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  22. It’s a bigger deal than you state here. For several years a major argument of the “deniers” has been that there is a very strong correlation between cosmic ray levels (which can be tracked historically via isotopic studies) and climate while the correlation with CO2 levels is nonexistent. The hypothesis was that the correlation was due to the impact of cosmic rays on cloud formation. The climate change community has responded that there is no established method for cosmic rays to impact cloud formation therefore they will not include it in their models.

    This is a VERY big dealon the science side of this debate.

    Koparosti (1de56d)

  23. I have a feeling that a hundred years from now, people will be looking at Global Warming alarmists the same way we view apothecaries letting blood and giving enemas.

    Book (c7b6c5)

  24. Oops. Totally forgot to add the “!” after “Global Warming!”.

    My apologies.

    Book (c7b6c5)

  25. #23 Enemas make me feel pretty damn spiffy.

    Al Gore (786e37)

  26. Republicans seeking office need to be more careful with Global Warming. Let others fight the fight of declaring the science mostly bullshit. Focus on the outrageous costs of the proposed solutions, which happen to be mostly ineffective anyway. Everyone understands blowing billions of dollars for nothing. One example is California’s $100+ billion green jobs high speed rail project. It has grown increasingly ridiculous since it was approved, and voters get that.

    The core plan has been to be leaders in torpedoing our own economy with the rest of the world joining in to destroy their economies too. That’s not happening; it’s not going to happen.

    Even NY Times is reporting the failure of Green Jobs Economics.

    Wesson (e5cf78)

  27. apothecaries letting blood

    I thought that was barbers.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  28. As Koparosti mentions, this was a hypothesis advanced by skeptics for years but poo-poo’d by the AGW advocates.

    So we see several things, first of all the “science” is not settled. Secondly, the skeptics want to debate the science while the AGW advocates want to name-call.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  29. It’s so funny to me. Smart people I know defend AGW like crazy. I can’t understand why they are such “bitter clingers” to it. The data either support it, or the data do not. So debate the data!

    This “the debate is over” business, especially given evidence of data tampering, is bad enough. But link it to progressive politics (as it is), and it goes bad places quickly.

    I don’t see why people can’t be agnostic on the topic, and then look at the data. But the folks on the Left respond VERY much like the caricature they have of the Right when challenged.

    Oh well. I remember this from back in the “Nuclear Winter” days. Except this is worse. That was bad modeling linked to Leftist politics. This is bad modeling, data fudging, covering up tracks, and linked to Leftist politics.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4233 secs.