T Nation

Global WTF?ing



Serious AGW and/or Discover Magazine fail; about halfway down through the 'Halted Global Warming' article is the 'No support for warming slowdown' article from a month ago.

Seriously, can one of the AGW faithful please clarify? Are there any of them left around here?

A) Is Yu Kosaka, U of C, and/or the NOAA part of the consensus that the globe is warming or no?

B) Is Yu Kosaka, U of C, and/or the NOAA part of the consensus that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are the most significant driver of the rise in global temperatures?

C) In the consensus around 'CO2 mediated anthropogenic global warming', is there any conditionality for the time frame and/or remediation (by that I mean mediation by another source not necessarily remediation in the sense of it being fixed). By this I mean, when I hear proclamations of 'CO2 mediated anthropogenic warming of the globe' if I consider this to be correct for this Wednesday or every third week for the next 15 yrs., or for the next 5 years until some catastrophe, breakthrough, or other undiscovered phenomenon displaces or disproves it, am I a skeptic or part of the consensus?

D) Why are scientists who have only recently begun to study and model complex systems as part of the interplay between man, each others, their resources, and the environment regarded as 'right' and considered part of the consensus; while economists who have been studying and modeling complex systems as part of the interplay between man, each others, their resources, and the environment regarded as 'wrong' and excluded from the consensus?

E) This one is more of a philosophical question than strictly climate-related one, but isn't the use of Occam's Razor in the modeling of complex systems synonymous with reductio ad absurdum? Is a, by design, simple cube model of the Earth's known complex climate system rational? Is it any more sensible than spherical cows in a vacuum (as it were) or invisible pink unicorns (if you follow me)?

Personally, I'm just missing the disconnect of how the Pacific cooling has been happening for a decade and, with all the models and computing power (not to mention all the people studying every aspect of it and every other ocean), we haven't known about it. The same way I was confused when the same Scripps institute showed that the (then largely unknown) effect of particulate aerosols could easily be as large or larger than CO2 and could easily wholly offset or radically amplify the effect of CO2 (which other scientists have proposed as the reason for the non-warming).

I mean, since the laws of thermodynamics haven't changed and we didn't just discover that the Pacific ocean exists and isn't boiling into the atmosphere, how did the models get to be (or start out) so wrong? To me it seems that it's almost like there's some sort of underlying truth that there is no direct evidence of but that is, nonetheless, true.

Like it's all a conspiracy without any overtly malicious intent and where the conspirators profess their partaking in the conspiracy and affirm each others' beliefs despite what any evidence, no matter how rational or not, significant or trivial, would suggest.


From the article-

The article seemed to be written with the intent of being so open to interpretation that if anybody has a given bias they will likely interpret it to mean what they think it should.


as someone that works with computer modeling almost daily let me say this-

I can make any computer model say anything I want.

Assuming the algorithms these models run on are correct (I dont think they are, btw), the models are still subject to boundary conditions and defined influences (forces, if you will).

I can make a model that says a simply supported beam with a load in the center will flip over and explode. It is ALL IN THE INPUTS.

A computer model is never considered valid until it is validated (shocker, right?) against test data. NONE of these models have been validated to any long term data. They would have to track global conditions for a decade and compare it to the model. Then they would have to reconcile the differences and make changes as needed, then do another decade of tracking and comparison. As far as I know, that hasnt been done yet. These models havent even been around long enough to do that.

in summation, model /= reality.


Thank you. This is completely misunderstood by so many people. Methods require validation before they can be looked at as anything more than suggestive with a large grain of salt--or bucket. The more complex the model or method that exists without validation, the more salt comes with it. Pharmacology analytical methods are peanuts simple compared to trying to model the fucking globe, and they require detailed and extensive validation for them to be introduced and used in approval and analysis.


I think there is a bit of officiousness in this, but I agree that it is misunderstood by many people. Unfortunately, I believe the many to be predominantly scientists and those with only a modest degree of exposure to statistics and modelling. From what I understand, polls of the layperson show them to be more skeptical of global climate models and forecasts than the average scientist.

I don't think it's ignorance of the need for validation as much as it is a need for hubris. It's very much a case of 'a little knowledge can be dangerous'. I think lots of them consider modelling to be something special and, for them, lots of well-thought out computer models, that 'just work', have generated a sort of fanaticism and faith in the methodology. While the average layperson and more specialized troubleshooters get to stumble over thought models that don't work in any phenomenal fashion and are forced to evaluate them on their merits rather than novelty or inclusiveness.

Feynman asserted in his '74 Caltech address, when talking about the history of the charge on an electron, that we don't have this kind of 'disease' anymore (the one where we fool ourselves and each other, virtuously or not). I think we stop suffering from this disease shortly before we cease being human.


Another fucktard liberal billionaire that TIME MAGAZINE glorifies... Algore in a hysterical prediction stated Arctic Summer Ice Could Disappear BY 2013 ( this summer.)

A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be ice-free by 2013 that was cited by former Vice President Algore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has PROVEN to be offâ?¦ by 920,000 square miles.

In his Dec. 10, 2007 Earth has a fever speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arcticâ??s summer ice could COMPLETELY DISAPPEAR due to global warming caused by CARBON EMISSIONS.


Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013 â?? Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the LARGEST INCREASE on record.


Most scientists are supported by federal grants or universities so they have to declare for it or lose their millions in grants.

CO2 is a natural gas that we breathe daily and that plants must have to survive. leave it to the liberal communists to lie to us about global warming in an effort to hamstring America's economy.

What I really want to know is how we are affecting the rise of temperatures on other planets in our solar system. MANKIND is the reason obviously.


i lol'd when i read this

like i said, models are what you make them


Most relevant statement ever made on global warming.

Also the reason studies of such nebulous subjects leave the caveat that more research is required.


I'm positive the climate is either warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature.

Either way be fucking scared. We may as well just kill ourselves now before the Earth gets us.