Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Global Warming Heats Up


First there was the "hockey stick" fiasco. [image from]

Then there were two rounds of Climategate and "hide the decline." [image from]

Now there are "global warming dirty tricksdocument forgeries. [image from the Heartland Institute]

There is a pattern here to the global warming debate... on the activist side.

On one side are the environmental activists who have strong quasi-religious beliefs... that they hold the scientific truth with regard to climate knowledge because... that's what their computer models tell them.
That reminds me of my youth when I went to Sunday School and all the four-year olds would sing, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so."  Of course, we were four-year olds and had no idea who Jesus was and what the Bible was other than a black book.  Now the grown-up version is, "Warming harms me this I know, for the models tell me so."  All this with a vague understanding of what's in the computer models and who the master programmers are... and what the real implications of warming or cooling are.
This side is well-funded and politically ensconced.  It sees the ends...  to "control" the climate... justifies the means... massive spending and regulation and outright lying.


On the other side are so-called "skeptics."  These are climate scientists, physicists, meteorologists, and other well-educated people who say "not so fast... nothing is ever as simple as it first seems."  These people want a scientific assessment of data and models, not a political pronouncement.
One organization dedicated to the scientific inquiry of climate dynamics is the Heartland Institute.  It's funding is private through contributions... no feeding off the government trough... and minuscule compared with the activists.  It became the target of activists because of their frustration with Heartland's refusal to accept... unconditionally... the political science of global warming and simplistic models based on CO2 as the primary factor affecting climate rather than the actual scientific study of all of the possible factors... including influences deemed "minor" by activists... such as the sun and clouds and ocean currents and land use [deforestation, farming, urbanization, etc.].
Why refuse to accept the so-called IPCC "consensus" projections?  Well, those models have problems; large problems... not the least of which may be using data that doesn't reflect the real world [as shown in the video above].  And the result is the IPCC projections have problems; large problems.

As The Wall Street Journal pointed out:
In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.   
From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.
Actually, "it appears that the projections exaggerate" is an understatement of the problem for the activists.  The real issue is that there has been no warming for more than a decade.  That does not compute... at least in the way that alarmist models compute.


But just to put this in further perspective, we should note that the chart above is comparing projected versus actual temperature variations from long term mean [average].  Since the models used for projections are highly bound to changes in CO2, the IPCC projections are expected.

Joe D'Aleo, a meteorologist and executive director of the ICECAP site, provided the chart below that shows the actual relationship between atmospheric CO2 [right scale - parts per million] and global average temperature variation [left scale - 2 methods].

The relationship between the increase in atmospheric CO2 and global mean temperature variation from the long-term average over the past decade is approximately... zero.  In other words: other stuff happens.
For further discussion about the differences between the UAH and GISS temperature metrics, CLICK HERE.  That's another story of data manipulation, intrigue, and discovery.

So, when models do not compute, what is left is lying, falsification, and obfuscation.



2012 IS HERE


Can"t Find It?

Use the SEARCH BLOG feature at the upper left. For example, try "Global Warming".

You can also use the "LABELS" below or at the end of each post to find related posts.

Blog Archive

Cost of Gasoline - Enter Your Zipcode or Click on Map

CO2 Cap and Trade

There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.
Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956)
“The Divine Afflatus,” A Mencken Chrestomathy, chapter 25, p. 443 (1949)
... and one could add "not all human problems really are."
It was beautiful and simple, as truly great swindles are.
- O. Henry
... The Government is on course for an embarrassing showdown with the European Union, business groups and environmental charities after refusing to guarantee that billions of pounds of revenue it stands to earn from carbon-permit trading will be spent on combating climate change.
The Independent (UK)

Tracking Interest Rates

Tracking Interest Rates


SEARCH BLOG: FEDERAL RESERVE for full versions... or use the Blog Archive pulldown menu.

February 3, 2006
Go back to 1999-2000 and see what the Fed did. They are following the same pattern for 2005-06. If it ain't broke, the Fed will fix it... and good!
August 29, 2006 The Federal Reserve always acts on old information... and is the only cause of U.S. recessions.
December 5, 2006 Last spring I wrote about what I saw to be a sharp downturn in the economy in the "rustbelt" states, particularly Michigan.
March 28, 2007
The Federal Reserve sees no need to cut interest rates in the light of adverse recent economic data, Ben Bernanke said on Wednesday.
The Fed chairman said ”to date, the incoming data have supported the view that the current stance of policy is likely to foster sustainable economic growth and a gradual ebbing in core inflation”.

July 21, 2007 My guess is that if there is an interest rate change, a cut is more likely than an increase. The key variables to be watching at this point are real estate prices and the inventory of unsold homes.
August 11, 2007 I suspect that within 6 months the Federal Reserve will be forced to lower interest rates before housing becomes a black hole.
September 11, 2007 It only means that the overall process has flaws guaranteeing it will be slow in responding to changes in the economy... and tend to over-react as a result.
September 18, 2007 I think a 4% rate is really what is needed to turn the economy back on the right course. The rate may not get there, but more cuts will be needed with employment rates down and foreclosure rates up.
October 25, 2007 How long will it be before I will be able to write: "The Federal Reserve lowered its lending rate to 4% in response to the collapse of the U.S. housing market and massive numbers of foreclosures that threaten the banking and mortgage sectors."
"Should the elevated turbulence persist, it would increase the possibility of further tightening in financial conditions for households and businesses," he said.

"Uncertainties about the economic outlook are unusually high right now," he said. "These uncertainties require flexible and pragmatic policymaking -- nimble is the adjective I used a few weeks ago."

December 11, 2007 Somehow the Fed misses the obvious.
[Image from:]
December 13, 2007 [from The Christian Science Monitor]
"The odds of a recession are now above 50 percent," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's "We are right on the edge of a recession in part because of the Fed's reluctance to reduce interest rates more aggressively." [see my comments of September 11]
January 7, 2008 The real problem now is that consumers can't rescue the economy and manufacturing, which is already weakening, will continue to weaken. We've gutted the forces that could avoid a downturn. The question is not whether there will be a recession, but can it be dampened sufficiently so that it is very short.
January 11, 2008 This is death by a thousand cuts.
January 13, 2008 [N.Y. Times]
“The question is not whether we will have a recession, but how deep and prolonged it will be,” said David Rosenberg, the chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch. “Even if the Fed’s moves are going to work, it will not show up until the later part of 2008 or 2009.
January 17, 2008 A few days ago, Anna Schwartz, nonagenarian economist, implicated the Federal Reserve as the cause of the present lending crisis [from the Telegraph - UK]:
The high priestess of US monetarism - a revered figure at the Fed - says the central bank is itself the chief cause of the credit bubble, and now seems stunned as the consequences of its own actions engulf the financial system. "The new group at the Fed is not equal to the problem that faces it," she says, daring to utter a thought that fellow critics mostly utter sotto voce.
January 22, 2008 The cut has become infected and a limb is in danger. Ben Bernanke is panicking and the Fed has its emergency triage team cutting rates... this time by 3/4%. ...

What should the Federal Reserve do now? Step back... and don't be so anxious to raise rates at the first sign of economic improvement.
Individuals and businesses need stability in their financial cost structures so that they can plan effectively and keep their ships afloat. Wildly fluctuating rates... regardless of what the absolute levels are... create problems. Either too much spending or too much fear. It's just not that difficult to comprehend. Why has it been so difficult for the Fed?

About Me

My photo
Michigan, United States
Air Force (SAC) captain 1968-72. Retired after 35 years of business and logistical planning, including running a small business. Two sons with advanced degrees; one with a business and pre-law degree. Beautiful wife who has put up with me for 4 decades. Education: B.A. (Sociology major; minors in philosopy, English literature, and German) M.S. Operations Management (like a mixture of an MBA with logistical planning)