Mar 30

Climate models?  Nah.  In this case it’s models predicting when Japanese earthquake debris starts washing up on the West Coast of the US, which only serves as further evidence that nearly all computer models cannot be relied upon.

NOAA originally predicted debris from the tsunami triggered by the 9.0 earthquake in Tohoku, Japan, in March of 2011 would begin washing up on shores in the Pacific Northwest in 2013. Those were rough estimates based on forecasted ocean conditions and reports of debris from fishing and commercial vessels.

But, The Oregonian now reports:

Perhaps the largest piece of debris resulting from last year's tsunami in Japan is this fishing boat. It was sighted March 20, drifiting 150 miles off the coast of British Columbia. Photo via Canadian Department of National Defence

Debris from the March 2011 Japanese tsunami will likely wash ashore sooner than originally thought.That’s a prediction the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says was confirmed by the sighting of a Japanese fishing vessel lost in the tsunami and spotted last week in Canadian waters off the Queen Charlotte Islands.

Faced with the facts, NOAA responds:

“We’re working on updating the model,” said Dianna Parker, NOAA spokeswoman. “We expect results will show some of the debris that rides a little higher will arrive ahead of schedule. The bulkier debris, sitting lower in the water, will take longer.”

Whether it be global warming climate models, or earthquake debris models, or a fill-in-the-blank model, it’s garbage in, garbage out.

7 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Sep 15

Instead of refining the theory, perhaps it should just be scrapped altogether.

The Oregonian reports:

In a warming world, scientists have told us to expect more rain and less snow in the Northwest — but not less overall precipitation.

New evidence, however, suggests that both rain and snowfall may decrease across the region during dry years.

Even in the rain-drenched Northwest, the trend could escalate water conflicts if it continues. Farmers, conservationists and city water managers would face severe challenges trying to balance human needs with the survival requirements of endangered salmon that need cold, clean, rushing water.

Researchers with the U.S. Forest Service looked for changes in the amount of water flowing out of mountain basins since 1948 at 43 rivers and streams across Oregon, Washington, Idaho and western Montana.

Few rivers showed significant declines in runoff until researchers isolated the driest 25 percent of years.

Then nearly three-quarters of river basins showed severe decreases in water flow. Runoff fell by 30 percent or greater in most streams, and by nearly 50 percent at some locations during dry years.”

And those are really important years,” says study author Charlie Luce, a Forest Service research hydrologist in Boise.

The pattern found in the new study runs contrary to predictions based on computer simulations of global warming. Those suggest the Northwest should continue to receive about the same amount of precipitation but that runoff will peak earlier and leave rivers emptier in hot summer months.

That’s because rising temperatures are likely to cause more precipitation to fall as rain instead of snow and the mountain snowpack to melt earlier in the spring. In a new forecast for western Washington, for instance, Susan Dickerson and Robert Mitchell at Western Washington University in Bellingham predict increases in winter flows, decreases in summer flows, and a shift toward earlier spring snowmelt as the regional climate warms.

“The biggest hydrologic change is a shift in timing of flow, not a change in total annual flow,” Mote says. Since 1920, snow accumulation in Northwest mountains has fallen about 25 percent, Mote has calculated.

The new findings paint a more complicated picture. Not only will we see more rain and earlier snowmelts, but we also could see significant decreases in overall precipitation during drought years.

The new study doesn’t prove that dry years are getting drier because of less rain and snow, just that rivers run much lower than they did decades ago.

“It is not clear whether precipitation is decreasing, or whether water use is increasing,” says Julia Jones, an associate professor in the department of forest ecosystems and society at Oregon State University.

Because climate models don’t point to decreasing precipitation, says Mote, the OSU climate scientist, rising greenhouse gases may have nothing to do with decreased runoff in dry years. “You can’t conclude based on this study that climate models are missing something.”

Luce agrees that it’s impossible to link greenhouse gases and a warming climate to less precipitation in dry years. But he says the evidence is fairly strong that the decreases in river runoff are the result of less rain and snow and that the shift is contrary to climate models. Luce plans to extend his analysis to precipitation records but says those records aren’t as reliable as the numbers on runoff.

To account for changes in water use, Luce tracked forest water consumption and evaporative losses in one river basin and found that those water losses could not explain the decreases in river flow. Luce and co-author Z.A. Holden with the Forest Service in Missoula, Mont., also noted sharp decreases in flow in two river basins in which large tracts of forest had been lost to fires — which should have increased runoff by allowing more precipitation to reach streams.

Luce speculates that changes in the Pacific Ocean circulation pattern known as the El Nino Southern Oscillation may be the driving force behind his findings. Scientists have linked shifts in the El Nino cycle to droughts in some regions and torrential rains in others. In recent years, some researchers have proposed that global warming may be altering El Nino events and intensifying droughts.

But researchers don’t know enough to predict how the El Nino cycle will respond to future climate warming.

“Climate models embody the theory as we understand it,” Luce says. “Now we’ve got a new set of observations that don’t quite agree with the theory. People can go out and refine the theory.”

These people haven’t got a clue about this, but instead of just admitting that their theory is wrong, they are now busy tweaking their theory so that it still falls in line with “the consensus”, whose validity and conclusions shall never, ever be questioned. Ever.

As a fellow blogger likes to sarcastically say, “…global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs. Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to new data.”

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Jun 17

To paraphrase Tom Nelson, more raving madness from James Hansen.

The following exchange can be found at about 8:30 in the video.

Softball question for James Hansen:

…I wonder if that’s not another part of the reason that the public has a certain trouble connecting this is ’cause we in the press for so long mimicking you, with all due respect, in the scientific world.  Most of your models were talking about the year 2100 as when we would REALLY feel the impacts, and hasn’t climate change arrived 100 years sooner than you scientists expected?

To which Hansen deadpans:

…The climate models were not, uh, are more sluggish than the real world has turned out to be.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
May 28

turtledezine

It’s just more evidence of a positive feedback that is accelerating the rate of loss in the public’s belief in man-made global warming, as indicated by the GORE LIED computer model.

Hat tip: Tom Nelson

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Apr 20

GORE LIED has fired up our staff computer modeling contraption, input the latest Rasmussen Reports data on the public’s belief in man-made global warming, and has produced a computer model which is showing the imminent demise of any belief in man-made global warming.

Rasmussen Reports has reported that the public’s belief in man-made global warming has decreased from 47% to 34% in just one year.

The GORE LIED computer model below shows  that at the current rate of loss of belief in man-made global warming that such belief will be virtually non-existent by 2020 (with the exception of Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Joe Romm, and a few other assorted dead-enders).

Also, evidence of a positive feedback trend has caused many experts to believe that the actual rate of loss of belief in man-made global warming is happening even faster than this model is predicting, and that the world may be completely free of belief in man-made global warming by as early as 2015.

9 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Feb 16

In a long interview with John Coleman which has appeared in Good Magazine, the writer, David Pruner, tries unsuccessfully to provide some balance to Coleman’s anthropogenic global warming skepticism by talking to an authority on the other side of the debate:

To get some sort of definitive explanation, I talked to Kerry Emmanuel, who is a professor of Atmospheric Science at M.I.T. He agrees with Al Gore that the debate is over (although he does think the movie has some “scientific flaws”)….Emmanuel says he could relatively quickly give me a “good feeling for the evidence.” But, he says, to bring me up to speed on the physics behind the greenhouse effect, “you’d have to take a semester class.” On top of that, he says, “The models are even difficult for the professionals to understand.” So the problem, as Emmanuel presents it, is that scientists often expect the general public to accept conclusion “as an article of faith” because the explanation can be so intricate and difficult to communicate. “Therein lies a problem,” says Emmanuel. “You have to take my word for that.”

Is it remotely possible that the professionals don’t really understand it at all? And we’re going to gamble $45 trillion dollars on something that you just expect me to take your word on?

Hat tip: Climate Change Fraud

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Feb 04

The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Senior Fellow Chris Horner was recently a guest on Glenn Beck’s television show.

Horner discussed Al Gore’s congressional testimony last week:

“Mr. Gore does this for a living, so he knows he ignored three years of observations, scientific literature, and of course court opinions saying that his projections and his claims about observations are nonsense.”

Beck and Horner also discussed $140 million worth of pork in Obama’s stimulus package to pay for “climate data modeling”. Horner:

“There’s 140 million reasons to suspect these very expensive PlayStations that we have been spending hundreds of millions of dollars on, telling us it’s still warming now, are not legitimate premises for for trillion dollar policy decisions. And isn’t it strange to spend now $6 billion a year at the federal tax payer level alone on science that is – ‘settled’”.

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
preload preload preload