If we had the mathematics and knew what we were doing and took advantage of every computer on Earth running day and night to churn the numbers to model the physical mechanisms and the product of their synchronizations and the effects of the swirling vortices of ocean currents and monsoons bringing on heat and cold waves around the globe as hurricanes spout heat to dark reaches of empty space and volcanoes shoot more pollution into the atmosphere than ever produced by every single car that has ever been driven on the face of the Earth — enabling us to foresee the climate of the world 50 years into the future — we still need to face the fact that today we cannot even produce good seasonal predictions.
We cannot continue the pretense that we are dealing with a scientifically valid use of statistics to construct the GCMs (Global Circulation Models) that are held out by academia to frighten us into believing we are the cause of global warming. GCMs are the work of political ideologues not scientists. Calling GCM-fabricators climatologists does not change the fact the value of GCMs is based on their use as propaganda tools by the Left.
Statisticians understand that smoothing raw data results in a loss of information and a resultant loss in degrees of freedom (df). In statistics df is central to understanding the accuracy of our estimate about reality when we know our estimates are based on but a sample of the observable reality around us. For example, our estimate of the number of people in the world with sun bleached hair will be wildly inaccurate if based only on the population of California’s Pacific Beach. A shrinking df is a big problem because we already lose df with parameterization.
We use parameters to force GCMs to capture reality –i.e., their use helps us turn events of a large scale — like storms over the Pacific — into something we can deal with. The use of parameters are indispensable because our understanding about how such forces are related to global warming is unclear to begin with and even if we knew more our limited computing power would be like a toddler running out of fingers. We continually fine tune parameters to make GCMs agree with empirical observations but we cannot fail to notice that models constructed in this fashion fail validation.
The projections of GCMs fail because these models are merely a representation of our reality–i.e., they cannot be said to actually capture the relationships between forces that give rise to reality — not even in any meaningful way that a painting by artist Claude Monet might capture a seagull. Statistically, a shrinking df due to the smoothing and inferential interpretation and manipulation of observational data results in models with no real-world validity.
That GCMs begin life by weaving samples from the real world to create a digital picture of reality does not make them real. Academics cannot swagger around with dabs of acrylic on their sleeve and call themselves artists just because their easel is pointed at the sunset. As science, GCMs are nothing but toys but as political tools GCMs have power in the hands of those who do not care about all the forces that influence the weather and how they are related. Weather (and by extension, the climate) is unpredictable precisely because we only see what is going on in hindsight. GCMs are not crystal balls capable of seeing into the future.
There is a problem with attributing the 20th century warming to increasing CO2: most of the temperature increase occurred from 1910 to 1940, but only a third of the modern increase in CO2 had occurred by then… The emerging hypothesis is that post-1940 temperature change was suppressed by the cooling effect of aerosols (particulate pollution) in the atmosphere, which diminished since the 1970s.
The CO2-temperature causal relation has been mentioned in connection with ice-core data dating to several hundred thousand years ago, correlating CO2 and temperature, but it is increasingly clear that in the geologic past the temperature changes preceded the CO2 changes… Rather than atmospheric CO2 driving temperature changes, it is temperature changes which may have driven past changes in the global carbon cycle… ~Wm. Robert Johnston
An important climate change force that GCMs do not effectively handle is the Earth’s albedo (more specifically, the albedo or reflectivity of clouds). According to E. Pallé, the effect of albedo over a 20 year period on the reflectance of solar energy, in terms of solar irradiance for comparative purposes, is greater than the variation in solar irradiance over the successive maxima to minima of the solar cycle by a FACTOR of 20!!
Separating fact from fiction, climate alarmists didn’t know that albedo due to clouds varied a lot; and, albedo has more effect on the Earth’s climate than the climate alarmists ever realized. “Do we understand,” asks Pellé, “the relationship between cloud cover and global warming? And, can we explain why clouds change?” We are only sure these changes are not due to GHGs (e.g., CO2). Pellé believes that changes in the albedo of clouds probably is related to natural variability and perhaps solar activity.
Freeman Dyson just does not believe climatologists “understand the climate,” and says, ”their computer models are full of fudge factors.” The academics’ GCMs, “are extremely oversimplified,” says Dyson. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
We know that over the last 17 years the Earth’s climate has not followed changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases in the way academics’ GCMs assumed. Now we understand the amount of climate forcing supposedly due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases was obviously overstated by GCMs due to a lack of appreciation for countervailing forces such as clouds–i.e., GCMs fail to account for changes in the Earth’s albedo due to clouds and do not account for the effect that clouds have on the amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the Earth. Clouds help explain how climate changes in the real world but not even knowing the how of it all, we have always known that natural variation can explain all climate change, both warming and cooling, currently and over the last 10,000 years. The real question should be, why did academia continue to ignore natural variation?
The overall reflectance of sunlight from Earth is a fundamental parameter for climate studies. Recently, measurements of earthshine were used to find large decadal variability in Earth’s reflectance of sunlight… Using satellite cloud data and Earth reflectance models, we also show that the decadal-scale changes in Earth’s reflectance measured by earthshine are reliable and are caused by changes in the properties of clouds rather than any spurious signal, such as changes in the Sun-Earth-Moon geometry [or, greenhouse gases]. ~Abstract, E. Pallé, et al. Interannual variations in Earth’s reflectance 1999–2007
The Earthshine project at Big Bear Solar Observatory in California is poetic in its design and simplicity:
We have been to the Big Bear
high upon the mountain
who looks to the sky
and have seen the Earth
reflected in the eye of the Moon
through sunlit clouds.
Unlike actually measuring how much of the sun’s energy actually reaches Earth, the pseudo-science of global warming alarmism can be pretty easily summarized, as follows: America should feel guilty about its enviable lifestyle because it is causing polar bears to be stranded on small chunks of ice, floating in the middle of an ocean, doomed to die. We need more research like Earthshine –i.e., science that is pragmatic and measurable and based on the good rules of the scientific method, without which GCMs are little more than doomsday signs around the necks of insane urban witchdoctors.
Western science has lost its way and one of the big contributors has been the confusion on American campuses concerning its facilitation of fascism in America–e.g.,
One reason that the academic world has not taken the problem of Communist infiltration more seriously may lie in the fact that far too many educators even yet fail to realize that Fascism does not change its character simply because it flourishes as a Soviet-directed conspiracy to conquer the world instead of being directed by Adolf Hitler. We once examined a Communist theoretician and asked him if he was in favor of Fascism. This, of course, drew an angry denial. He was then asked to define Fascism and did so with great feeling and precision… He declared that Hitler’s Nazi regime was an excellent example of a Fascist government; so was Mussolini’s Black Shirt regime in Italy. Pressed for details, this witness explained how under Fascist rule the will of the dictator is imposed on the people by force; how he controls all the machinery of government — transportation, communication, education, the military… ~Tenth Report of the Senate Fact-Finding Committee On Un-American Activities (California legislature), 1959
Why is global warming a Left vs. right issue? Obviously, AGW theory is a political statement and not a scientific hypothesis. Does the Left care about ever actually being right in a scientific argument or gaining political power by whatever means? Western academia is dominated by the Left. All of Europe is dominated by the Left. The mainstream media is dominated by the Left. In the process of pushing propaganda that the business of America is burning up the Earth the Left is holding a match to the frayed and tattered edges of Constitutional democracy.