As the Goracle is scheduled to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations committee on global warming, Washington is struck by the Gore effect: Al Gore Braves Snow & Ice Storms to Testify to Congress on Global Warming.
But the really big news comes to us via Watt's up with that. Jim Hansen, the NASA guy who is the most ... strident in his activism with regard to global warming has been disowned by his former supervisor, Dr. John S. Theon. In fact, Theon disowned Hansen in rather harsh terms:
Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.And without calling Hansen by name, Theon adds:
[S]ome scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.The reason why climate models are poor informers of public policy:
[T]he models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit.As far as I understand it, this is the butterfly effect in practice: In the real world there are processes which cause small disturbance, too small to be picked up by a grid of measuring stations. But these small disturbances grow larger, because the climate is an essentially chaotically dynamic system. Current climate models do not account for these disturbances very well, if at all, even if they are known processes. Which basically means that climate models have the same limited use as weather models: Short-term predictions are reasonably accurate. But over the longer term the correlation between prediction and reality degrades to zero. As far as I can make out, Theon just declared the predictive value of climate models to be zero...
Be that as it may, these statements by dr. Theon are are the latest major blow to a narrative that is becoming increasingly untenable. A couple of days ago we referred to a study that concluded that the Antarctic was warming up. A very amusing detail around the critical discussion about that study was pointed out by Roger Pielke Jr. One of the scientists involved in the study came out rather triumphantly declaring:
“Contrarians have sometime grabbed on to this idea that the entire continent of Antarctica is cooling, so how could we be talking about global warming,” said study co-author Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. “Now we can say: no, it’s not true … It is not bucking the trend.”Yet, these same scientist have been quoted as saying that a cooling Antarctica was “consistent with” greenhouse warming, back in 2008:
The study does not point to man-made climate change as the cause of the Antarctic warming — doing so is a highly intricate scientific process — but a different and smaller study out late last year did make that connection.
“We can’t pin it down, but it certainly is consistent with the influence of greenhouse gases,” said NASA scientist Drew Shindell, another study co-author.
. . . we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century (...)So, which is it? If the models you are using (and on which are based a number of measures that will cost us, ordinary citizens, a blasphemous amount of money in taxes and increased energy bills) predict both cooling and warming of the Antartics, then what use the models? Is there anything that is NOT consistent with global warming?
Bottom line: A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming. For a long time the models have predicted just that.
Maybe it is time to settle the knowledge that 'climate change' is another article of faith of a particular group of people, a group that is not known for its dedication to freedom and prosperity for all. Maybe it is time to put the entire hype out with all the other hypes of the past. I mean, is there anyone that remembers the time when acid rain would destroy us all?