Global warming

A while back I tried to actually understand the science of global warming.

The "science" is not science – in my opinion – it’s statistical modeling. Statistical modeling is very different than science. If they were the same things, our large banks would be solvent. I spend a fair amount of time analyzing the models at the largest banks – perhaps the only models more complex than the climate models. By all rights, the climate models should be much less rigorous than the global warming models – after all, banks are betting the house on the models. If the climate models are worse than the banking models, then they’re less than worthless. But I digress . . .

The "science" of global warming makes specific claims: 1) global temperatures will increase gradually over time; and 2) these increases will be more pronounced in extreme latitudes.

Thus, condition 1) implies that we would not be able to determine if global warming is happening until we have temperature data many many years into the future. In other words, if someone actually believes in the "science" of global warming, he’d never write anything like this.


4 Responses to Global warming

  1. Tim says:

    The argument, as I understand it, is that the warming in the second half of the 20th century was unusually rapid, thus indicating an artificial forcing of the climate.

    The fact that (even though the temperature record books appear to have been cooked) the warming looks, to the non-climatologist, very similar to earlier warming is not significant.

    You simply don’t understand the sophisticated statistical analysis techniques the climatologists have invented. Neither do statisticians, but you wouldn’t get a plumber to fix your computer would you?

  2. sconzey says:

    Well, actually global warming as described by most of the watermelon lefties who actually use the term postulates 5 things:

    1. There is a generalised rise in earth surface temperature.
    2. This is largely anthropogenic.
    3. This is largely reversible.
    4. It will be catastrophically negative in it’s consequences.

    If any of these things are not true, the traditional proscriptions of global warming fail:
    1. Clearly, if this isn’t true, “global warming” is bull.
    2. We may still have to do something, but we needn’t feel guilty about it, or retard 3rd industrialisation.
    3. If it’s irreversible then, however bad the consequences, we must adapt rather than cutting carbon emissions.
    4. Clearly if the consequences are positive then cutting carbon emissions is the worst thing we can do. If the consequences are negative, cutting carbon emissions might still be the worst thing we can do, if the cost is greater than the cost of adaption.

    1. is debatable, 2. and 3. are dubious, and literally no-one has made any serious attempt to ever explain to me 4.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: