Michael Crichton has published what I believe to be an excellent critique of the religion of global warming in a speech given before the National Press Club in Washington, DC back on January 25, 2005 titled The Impossibility of Prediction.
Remember this graph?
It is probably the most frequently cited source for global warming data…yet is now largely disputed, as explained by Crichton.
Crichton brings into the discussion many variables which the mainstream media likes to neglect: solar variability, the urban heat island effect; to say nothing of the immense variability in the calculations and predictions of these long term forecasts.
Before we spend trillions on policy shifts as a result of these forecasts, I’d like to see a model, when set back 100 years, come close to accurately predicting the current state of the Earth’s climate. I’m not holding my breath.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://www.notesinthemargin.com/archives/217/trackback/
August 15, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Pingback from Notes in the Margin · Implications of NASA’s Climate Data Errors
March 8, 2006 at 7:34 pm
FLUX
Sure it’d be nice to ‘recreate’ the recent century’s perceived temp trend, but what would that get you? Remember the favorite line of financial advisors everywhere: ‘Past performance does not indicate future results’…things are a lot different now.
Raw numbers say that humans have a larger impact on the environment now than 100 yrs ago, what with the 6x increase in population and more resources consumed and all, but I do agree that the simplified cause–>effect relationship of warming seems to be invalid. After all, what drives climate change is still pretty much beyond the grasp of today’s science.
March 10, 2006 at 6:35 am
jmg
Whoa:
“I do agree that the simplified cause–>effect relationship of warming seems to be invalid”
I’ve never heard anything like that from you before…I’ll be curious to hear more.
In terms of where would it get us to have a model set back 100 years and be even CLOSE to modeling the conditions that have occured…well, it’d at least give me a LITTLE faith in the model…and a LITTLE would be more than I have now.
March 10, 2006 at 12:07 pm
flux
Never tried to come across as the type who drew a linear relationship between (wo)man and warming…just that I think it’s part of the equation. Realistically, ocean currents, solar output, volcanic activity, (other?) all probably have a greater (to what extent, who knows?) impact…it’s like saying one can predict the weather by simply tracking areas of low pressure; they are part of it, but connected to so many other variables which also influence things.
One theory put forth in the show was that excessive polar ice melting during the medieval warm period lower ocean salinity, in turn shutting down currents bringing warm water poleward (since the cold water’s density wasn’t such that it would sink sufficiently). Of course there was an opposing view presented, but my limited knowledge on the subject allows for me to find it believable. Then again, the idea that elevated methane levels add to warming and a good deal of the methane increase in the atmosphere can be blamed on people, due to livestock and deforestation(making more space for larger termite colonies in equatorial areas) has merit, in my opinion.
March 10, 2006 at 12:08 pm
flux
Do I have to change something to see dates…seems weird to me that just publish times are visible on the posts.
March 10, 2006 at 2:54 pm
JMG
All very valid points and none that I disagree with…
I’m not sure about the date/time thing - I noticed that yesterday too…I’ll try to change some settings tonight. I’m also looking at setting up a message board that would be a little easier than this comments format. Check it out and post some messages if you wish:
www.phpbbserver.com/ktgx
You’ll have to set up an account first.