July 29, 2011

Airbrushed (Climate) Models?

So I stumbled across yet another "sky-is-falling" Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) headline:

Has warming put 'Dirty Dozen' pollutants back in the saddle?

Apparently, the Arctic ice is melting and releasing nasty chemicals into the atmosphere, right?.  But then I stumbled across this little gem, buried in the middle:

The scientists indeed found a long-term downward trend in primary emissions after the Stockholm Convention banned production and trade in the "Dirty Dozen."
But a more complex and disturbing picture emerged when the same data was crunched through a simulation of the effect of global warming on POP concentrations.(emphasis mine)

So...I guess you could say that the picture is not only "complex and disturbing," but also "imaginary." Let's not even discuss the fact that apparently this model starts with the assumption that global warming exists, something still in dispute. (Before you go all Gore-ish on me, keep reading...) It's a computer model. It makes predictions. And if it's anything like most global warming models, it does it poorly. (Again, keep reading.) So, what this article is really saying is "we see a decrease in bad chemicals, but our made-up projections from our handy-dandy doomsday computer are saying we're all...well, doomed." And I'm not even going to get into the fact that many people out there, including scientists, think that banning DDT in the first place cost millions of lives due to malaria that could have been prevented. What I will say is that it's very hard to take this article seriously when one of the other "related headlines" on the page was this one:

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

The article states that NASA satellite data (which many consider to be more accurate than ground data and definitely more accurate than made-up-doomsday-computer data) indicates that:
the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Yeah, that's right--Your computer models SUCK. If that sounds familiar, you've probably been reading my blog for a while, since I posted on this way back in 2008.

So what does this mean? Well, we can say that...wait! Shhh! I think if you listen carefully, you might hear the stake being driven through the heart of the AGW Alarmist Movement....

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

Can we finally take back Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize and Oscar (although maybe he should get one for acting, since he's fooled so many people)?

No comments:

Post a Comment