Posts Tagged climate models

Climategate source code more damning than emails.

***update 12:33AM US MST (UTC-7)***

Here is an example of actual code from the CRU. Try explaining this away warmers…

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(…)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

valadj is an array that if we plug in the numbers we get Michael Mann’s hockeystick. The programmers have hard coded a predetermined result.

Hockey Stick l

So now when they plug the actual numbers in no matter what they are it will always result in the hockeystick even if temperatures remained the same.

For example. Just for the sake of arguement lets say the average temperature remained constant at 70 degrees last century. When you run the numbers through their “fudge factor” you still get a hockey stick. Even a decline in temperatures would still result in a hockeystick. Way to hide the decline!

hockey stick

Just imagine if there really was global warming and they ran those numbers through the magic global warming program then we would really be frying.

From the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file which documents a programmers frustation with trying to make sense out of the sloppy code and bad databases the the CRU was using. Read the rest of this entry »

, , ,

186 Comments

BBC Asks the Forbidden Question “What happened to global warming?”

global warming, climage change, Al Gore, climate models, BBC, skeptics, global warming deniers, Ken Bingham, oneutah.org

How did this slip past the editors of the BBC? One of the leading global warming promoters is asking the forbidden question “what happened to global warming?“. To even use the term global warming in a month with an ‘R’ in it is unfathomable but to actually contemplate that climate change may not be occurring is downright heresy. They even go as far as to suggest that global warming skeptics may have legitimate arguments and that the debate over climate change is “far from over”. gasp!

The BBC sites the fact that world temperatures peaked in 1998 and have steadily declined ever since and that the infallible computer models did not predict this. They also site a study that shows the sun may have been the driving force for increased temperatures during the 20th century and not from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide as claimed by Al Gore and global warming believers.

Since atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has increased since 1998 there should have been a corresponding increase in world temperatures but that has not occurred which has baffled scientists. Maybe they will be less baffled if they use actual science to come to their conclusions and show a willingness to change the conventional wisdom when confronted with data that does not fit their preconceived notions?

From The BBC What happened to global warming?

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Should the US spend tax money to try and stop global warming?
Is global warming Real? (G) Is it human caused? (H) Will it be catastophic? (C) Can we stop it? (S) G ^ H ^ C ^ S
T T T T T
T T T F F
T T F T F
T T F F F
T F T T F
T F T F F
T F F T F
T F F F F
By Ken Bingham

This is a logic truth table. It carries every option conceivable based on the propositions listed. I have removed the false options on ‘is global warming real’, not because it may or may not be real but that a false renders everything else not only false but irrelevant.

The first 3 propositions are conditions that global warming believers must meet for their hypothesis to even be considered valid.

1. ‘Is global warming real?’ I have not included false logic on the first question since if that premise is false then all others are irrelevant.

2. ‘Is it human caused?’ The question is essential because if it is not human caused then the 4th proposition is automatically false. If humans are not responsible for global warming then there is no possibility we can do anything about it and spending trillions on it would be an act of futility.

3. ‘Will it be catastrophic?’ This is an important question because even if global warming is real and human caused if it is not going to have massive negative effects then it would not be worth spending trillions of dollars to combat a non-problem.

(2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive because even if global warming is human caused it does not automatically mean it will be catastrophic or vise versa.)

4. ‘Can we stop it?’ Must always be true in order to justify spending trillions of dollars, not to mention our freedoms, to stop global warming. However, I would submit that there is nothing that justifies losing our freedom.

Thus my analysis comes to this, if we can’t stop global warming then it is irrelevant whether it is happening or not. If it is really happening then we must expend our efforts to adapt to it rather than tilting at windmills spending trillions of good dollars over bad in a Quixotic effort to try and stop it.
All we can do is adapt which is the only thing nature truly cares about.

, , , ,

198 Comments

%d bloggers like this: