Climate Change Predictions Falsified

There are small but important similarities with climate change and research in evolution. Both tend to create scenarios of hypothetical realities. Some interesting evidence recently came to light, NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011, shows the earth releasing more heat into space than what computer models predicting global warming said it would be.

Also published in Forbes

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions is generally referred to as the cause of all global warming. The question is asked, will carbon dioxide emissions produced by man indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds? What computer models say is one thing but real-time observations say another. The data clearly shows carbon dioxide emissions are not the major cause in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the computer models have predicted.

NASA satellite data has also shown more heat escaping into space between 1985 and 1999 than what computer models have predicted. So what does this mean? If man-made CO2 was responsible, there should be more heat being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than what is being detected. In other words, the real-time data should be on par with the predictions of the computer models, right?

Does this mean the earth will never warm up? No! Historically the earth has warmed and cooled long before the industrial revolution and will continue to do so. But isn’t this a striking similarity between climate change and evolution? Both theories hold to predictions that are later falsified by the actual data. Then it becomes a media and political circus with claims that the major agrees there is no debate in this theory. Indeed, but they are being paid to discover global warming rather than being paid to see whether or not man is causing it.  It’s the same thing with evolution, of course on different issues but their argument remains the same on the confirmation of it.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Climate Change Predictions Falsified

  1. @Michael

    Man-made carbon dioxide emissions is generally referred to as the cause of all global warming.

    I’m as close to being a denier as it gets without calling the dignity of the scientists into question, but this claim is absolutely false. The claim is not that human emissions are “the cause of ALL global warming.: Global warming is accepted as a natural phenomena. The worry is that we are contributing to it at an alarming rate. — At the very least, you could accurately represent the other side.

  2. Oh dear … like many other creationists, you also seem to be a climate change denier.

  3. @Eelco

    Personally, I am not much of an environmentalist, but even IF Michael were right, the idea that we are not endangering ourselves is absurd because we are. Also the constantly growing human population is only going to exacerbate the problem. The higher the population, the more of a strain we put on our resources like gas, oil, coal, water and food.

    I guess Michael’s attitude here is “I don’t think the world will not end like this because the lord will come soon, so don’t worry. God will create for us a new world anyway.” To that, my question is “If we are messing up this world, why should God make a new one?” A belief in a new world is not an excuse for trashing the old.

  4. Kriss,

    I believe clear air is important but not for trying to change the weather. This man-made global warming scare has cost the average person in the United State, ethanol is used to combat emissions. However, it uses the most important crop, corn. It’s energy per volume is 2/3 of gasoline. In other words, you have to use more of it than gas. Since it’s corn based, the price of this crop has skyrocketed which affects the price of food in general. Imports of ethanol is banned too which also drives up costs. The ethanol industry created by the US government makes no sense, the mandate should be lifted and should only be used if the customer wants to buy it.

  5. @Michael,
    You completely changed the subject. No one here was talking about ethanol. That said, ethanol does not come from the same corn that we eat. We eat sweet corn, but ethanol comes from “dent” corn. The food price rises because of speculation, not because of using corn (even edible corn) as a fuel.

    That said, I am not even against using the same energy sources such like coal and oil, we just have not been mining them in environmentally friendly ways. Though I am completely against drilling in ANWR, but that has nothing to do with the envirnonment.

  6. Krissmith,

    You say, “You completely changed the subject. No one here was talking about ethanol. That said, ethanol does not come from the same corn that we eat. We eat sweet corn, but ethanol comes from “dent” corn. The food price rises because of speculation, not because of using corn (even edible corn) as a fuel. That said, I am not even against using the same energy sources such like coal and oil, we just have not been mining them in environmentally friendly ways. Though I am completely against drilling in ANWR, but that has nothing to do with the envirnonment.”

    I didn’t change the subject at all, ethanol is used as a result of a belief that it will help reverse so-called man-made global warming otherwise it’s use would not be as widespread as it is today. Food prices do not rise solely on speculation, to suggest otherwise is totally wrong. Back in 2007, there was massive jumps in the price of corn and it wasn’t merely speculation…

    Rather it was this

    The recent rise in corn prices–almost 70 percent in the past six months–caused by the increased demand for ethanol biofuel has come much sooner than many agriculture economists had expected. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, this year the country is going to use 18 to 20 percent of its total corn crop for the production of ethanol, and by next year that will jump to 25 percent. And that increase, says Marshall Martin, an agriculture economist at Purdue University, “is the main driver behind the price increase for corn.”

    By the way in order to keep up with the demand and with higher profits for corn, farmers who generally alternate crops yearly, plant more corn which causes a cut in supply for other crops and that also rises prices. I didn’t say anything about you being against coal or oil, that was your own straw man argument, in fact it wasn’t till now that I’m aware of your position on that. Why are you against drilling in ANWR?

  7. @Michael,

    Why are you against drilling in ANWR?

    Because it’s land that is sacred to traditional Alaska Natives. True, there are some Alaska natives that are fine with drilling, and there are some politicians that say there is nothing there so it is fine. The problem there is the land is sacred to the Traditional Alaska natives FOR THE REASON that there IS nothing there: It’s pure and and not corrupt. That’s what makes a land sacred to some native peoples in the first place, and that would change with an oil drill. To the traditional, it is their equivalent of desecrating a church, a Muslim Mosque or a Jewish synagogue.

  8. And as for being for or against various fuels, I didn’t mean it as an argument or counter-point; just as an extra detail. But it’s my fault that you took it that way since I didn’t clarify.

  9. Michael may shrug off the ANWR as sacred ground on the basis that, to Michael, it’s just another piece of permafrost. However, if someone should suggest building a McDonald’s on top of the birthplace of Jesus, he might have a different opinion.

    Fries with that?

  10. @Olorin

    Michael may shrug off the ANWR as sacred ground on the basis that, to Michael, it’s just another piece of permafrost. However, if someone should suggest building a McDonald’s on top of the birthplace of Jesus, he might have a different opinion.

    Many Americans who know nothing about Native American cultures tend to think that Indians had no “places of worship,” which is not true. The “Black Hills” in the Dakotas is sacred land to the Lakota (commonly known as the Sioux) and the Cheyenne. As I took American Indian History (something I am continuing independently), I was shown videos of white Americans being told of the Indian’s view that the “Black Hills” were sacred, and they simply waved that detail aside basically saying “We see no church there or building there. Again, Indians and Native Americans never needed a church building to make a land holy. This was in response to Indians who wanted the National Park service to limit access to rock climbers on certain rock formations. The Park Service granted their request –well, sort of, since now rock climbers can now climb said formations in a certain time in the summer. — In contrast, it is illegal to climb Mount Rushmore (also in the Black Hills) ANYTIME of the year. [1]

    Again, I am not much of an environmentalist, but I feel that we should show the First Americans the respect they have hardly had for the last 500 years.

    ——————
    [1] I don’t mean to sound unpatriotic, but the Carving of Mount Rushmore is a desecration of Sacred land. To add insult to injury, most of the presidents whose faces are carved on the monument inacted Anti-Indian policies, or at least condoned them:

    A. George Washington: During the Revolutionary war, Washington ordered an attack on the Neutral Iroquois Nation of Onondaga. –True, most other Iroquois nations sided with the British beforehand, but Onondaga didn’t enter the war until after Washington’s attack. The Onondaga (and other Iroquois) call him “Town Destroyer.”

    B. Thomas Jefferson: Even though he suggested the “mixture” of Indian and White blood, he also condoned the policies that would remove countless Indians from their homeland. He was fascinated with Indians, but saw white expansionism as more important.

    C. Theodore Roosevelt: As he commented on the Sand Creek Massacre (an event where ONLY friendly Indians were murdered), he said that it was “a righteous and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier.”

    D. Abraham Lincoln: He is simply guilty of continuing the policies of his predecessors, though to his credit, he pardoned most of the Santee Sioux that were involved in Little Crow’s war, despite all the maneuvers by military leaders to have all 303 executed.

    ——–

  11. The sacred-ground issue arises often in Hawaii, whose natives also never built anything corresponding to churches or monuments. However, the residents and the government do (for the most part) respect these sacred areas. Of course, in Hawaii, when anyone—Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist—builds a new structure anywhere, one of the items on the checklist is a blessing ceremony by a native kahuna. I’ve attended a couple of them on Maui and the Big Island.

  12. That said, ethanol does not come from the same corn that we eat. We eat sweet corn, but ethanol comes from “dent” corn.
    </blockquote.

    Dent corn (we call it "field corn") is used in processed foods for humans. It's greatest use is for animal feed—and humans eat the animals[1]. So, directly or indirectly, we do eat dent corn. And corn-based ethanol does increase the price we pay for food by a significant amount, quite apart from speculation.

    The ironic aspect, of course, is that ethanol does not help reverse global warming. A gallon of ethanol requires the expenditure of 3/4 gallon of other fuel—fossil fuel. But ethanol only has 2/3 the energy per gallon of gasoline, so there is a net loss to begin with. In addition, processing a gallon of ethanol requires 4-5 gallons of water, taking it away from other uses.

    Sorry. ethanol is a dead loss. Quite apart from the fact that is detriorates automobile fuel lines and corrodes metal parts.

    =================

    {1] An ultracarnivorous friend says that vegetables ain't food, they're food for food.

  13. Eelco,

    Climate change is an historical event, the earth has warmed and cooled over the centuries, it’s something you scientists cannot alter even though some of you suggest it’s man-made. Can you go green, now since I don’t believe in man-made global warming, I get 50 percent of my electricity through green, which means things like wind power, solar, and other things. Most likely I’m greener than you, and you believe in man-made global warming. Also my parents old house, 100 percent green! How green are you Eelco?

  14. Methinks Michael’s pride of greenness is misappropriated. Like most of us, he does not personally have a lot of choice as to where his electricity comes from. He could just as well claim that it was his choice to live in a country having the sixth-highest standard of living.[1]

    Well, Michael could move to Texas, where climate denialist Rick Perry spews more CO2 into the air than any other state in the union.[2]

    ================

    [1] Following Norway, Sweden, Canada, Belgium, and Australia. Sorry, Eelco, Nederland comes in eighth.

    [2] of course, Gov Perry did create 1/3 of the jobs in the US last year. But then, Texas also has the highest percentage of poverty-level jobs in the country. Which explains why the poverty rate in Texas is 8th highest in the nation, and one quarter of its children live in poverty. Gov. Perry’s response to this is, however, forthright: Cut child services even further! It’s the kids own fault; they should go get jobs.

  15. @Olorin

    Perry—a man I have mixed feelings about…and as of yet, I have NOT joined the ABO (anybody but Obama) bandwagon…

    If for example Michele Bachmann gets the nomination, I am determined to vote for Obama to keep that crazy woman out. Since she signed a petition with racist language in it, I determined to NEVER vote for her. [1].. And it doesn’t help matters that the same pledge says that homosexuality is a “choice.” Only an ignoramus would say such a thing.

    ——————
    [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/8628717/Michele-Bachmann-signs-controversial-slavery-marriage-pact.html

  16. Also, there is a major irony of Michaele Bachmann’s candidacy.. She made it clear that she does certain things because the “Bible says so.” (i.e., she submits to her husband.) Many of her supporters see her as a candidate that will uphold Biblical principles…

    But the problem here is that the Bible also says that you are not to put a woman over us, and we are not to let them speak in church….. Wouldn’t it be more biblical to NOT nominate and elect her?

  17. But the problem here is that the Bible also says that you are not to put a woman over us, and we are not to let them speak in church….. Wouldn’t it be more biblical to NOT nominate and elect her?

    Ho ho. Will you tell her about that, or shall I? I live uncomfortably close to her district—that is, in the same State.[1]

    The problem with lieralists is that the Bible is the ultimate quote mine. For any statement that, superficially, says X, you can find something else that says or implies ~X. This is why I maintain that one must always investigate his faith, must always ask, what is the reason and context for any passage, both theologically and historically.

    ==============

    [1] Michelle Bachmann also knows about creating jobs. Yep. highest unemployment in the whole State.

  18. @Olorin,

    Lol, since you live so close, you should tell her. Just quote her this verse from the Bible while you’re at it:

    A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

    Remember, she’s the Biblically inclined candidate..so if she wishes to be consistent, she should drop out of the race now.

    So I guess you live in Minnesota? I’m originally from Saint Paul, but now I’m over here in CA

  19. Yes. Altho originally from Indiana, I’ve lived here long enough to speak Minnesotan with no accent at all. Oufda.. South of the River, equal distance up 35W to Minneapolis and 35E to St Paul.

    (Did you hear about the Minnesotan who married a Palestinian? They named their first child Yassir Youbetcha.)

  20. @Olorin,

    Lol yep I did. That name really sticks out. I feel sorry for their child XD

  21. NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011, shows the earth releasing more heat into space than what computer models predicting global warming said it would be.

    .

    Michael is probably referring to the discovery that aerosols had not been taken into account in previous computer models.

    Michael seems to think that, because aerosols have a cooling effect, then global warming is falsified.

    For his benefit, let’s use a simple analogy. We turn the faucet on, and we find the the water level rises in the bathtub. But, calculating the volumetric flow from the faucet, we find the the level is not rising quite as fast as it should. We look around, and find a small leak in the drain plug.

    Michael would conclude from the existence of this leak that the bathtub is not filling up at all! Despite the rising water level. Baths have been falsified.

    So, Michael, since global temperatures continue to rise, how does a deficiency in a computer model falsify global warming?[1]

    Desperate. Did the dog eat your homework, too?

    .

    Pharyngula references a presentation by a Minnesota university professor tearing apart Lord Christopher Moncton’s denial of manmade global warming. He points out a number of Moncton’s “facts” that are simply not true. He actually wrote to a number of authors of papers cited by Moncton; every one of them said that Moncton had grossly misinterpreted the results. He identifies a number of graphs that have no attribution—apparently Moncton just made them up.

    Climate-change denialists and creationists thus share one prominent characteristic: They do not hesitate to lie in the service of their cause. This sets them apart from science. Indeed it sets them apart from civilized society.

    =====================

    [1] BTW, The cooling effect of these aerosols does not make them beneficial. The major one is sulfur dioxide from coal-burning plants. This is what, in the 1970s, we used to call “acid rain.” It caused thousands of deaths in the US from breathing problems, until we got a Clean Air Act to ameliorate the problem. These days, China emits most of the SO2.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s