Friday, February 16, 2007

I guarantee you won't see this in the Oregonian

A new report from Ohio State University that says temperature patterns in the Antarctic in the latter part of the 20th century did not conform to the predictions made by the global climate models.

We've known for years that the models do a very poor job of "backward predictions," which is to say plugging all the known variables the models say determine temperature, and seeing if the models can accurately reproduce the temperatures that actually happened.

They can't, and this Antarctic study is a similar thing. What the models predicted the Antarctic temp would be was not even close to the actual temp record.

Certainly this will be breathlessly reported by the Oregonian and every other mainstream media outlet for unbiased information, right?


Mick said...

"Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong."

Clearly the study author does not share your conclusions. His view is a little bit more nuanced than what you are suggesting.

Rob Kremer said...

Not really -

What I am suggesting is that the media will not report anything that casts skepticism on the global warming hypothesis and the models.

Sure, this study does not "prove" the models are wrong. It just casts doubt on them. Which will go unreported.

But every little item that they can claim supports the models and the hypothesis gets front page coverage.

My "conclusion" is that the media is utterly biased in their reporting of this issue. I wouldn't expect the author of this study to share this conclusion - it would be quite far afield from his area of expertise.

OregonGuy said...

Ah! nuance.

Next time I run an econometric model I'll try to throw in "nuance" as an endogenous variable. Something like, dividing by zero.

Here's something you won't see in the Oregonian until Tuesday. The gov's going to be on the steps of the capital to address school funding issues, and a spontaneous demonstration for the gov's "Kids Health whatever" is going to take place. And Anti-Big Tobacco speeches are going to be made.

And it's all going to be spontaneous! (They've been organizing it for weeks!)

Mick said...

Your conclusion that this study somehow casts doubt on the climate models is the conclusion to which I was referring.

Your judgement of the media is based on that conclusion. Perhaps you could contact Bromwich to get his opinion of the media's coverage.

Rob Kremer said...

Mick -

I think it is a perfectly valid conclusion that this study casts doubt on the accuracy of the climate models. How could it not?

Models predict X and Y happens. That doesn't cast any doubt on the model?

The author of the study even said: "The best we can say right now is the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from contintal Antarctica."

That's the BEST he can say - the models are currently "somewhat inconsistent." I wonder how it could be characterized in the "worst" way? The models are completely false?

So, I think the author DOES agree with my conclusion that the study casts doubt on the models.

Anonymous said...

mr. bromwich obviously doesn't want to jeopardize his position at tOSU, nor have the governor of ohio threaten to fire him, nor have mick suggest he be put in prison for being a "global warming denier." the "nuancing" of his remarks is probably wise, lest he be burned at the stake for heresy.

Anonymous said...

It does not matter if we have a "fifth Ice-Age" or not.(which is probably what is happening,and not global warming.Why?Cause some scientists say,the earth regularly has "ice ages,"and there is no way to stop one from happening.So,why worry about it?Apparentally,since they regulary happen,the planet survives them.WHY WORRY??? You can't change that,so forget it.It's out of your most things in life.

On the other hand,if it is really "global warming,"caused by emissions made by man,there is no way the countries are going to stop making emissions.NO WAY.

China will not stop,neither will India,or the U.S.,or other countries.You just cannot control those other countries.You can't get them to do anything else,either,can you?Well,then forget making them,stop global emissions;they're not going to do it!! You would have to nuke them,to stop them. haha.(black humour.) Forget it.Yes,forget it.Mankind is uncontrollable.

It would be nice to have real CLEAN AIR,that would be nice.We do have to breathe,remember that? Air?Well,people breathing China's "brown-air"are going to choke to death eventually. As far as the huge masses of dirty,filthy air go,that's probably what's going to kill us first.U.C.Medical Center,in San Francisco,CA,put out a report(pretty secretly)of research they did,that said that car-emissions were what were causing increased cancer in women's breasts. Yes,your cars are giving women breast cancer.Science has said this,and they swept the report under the carpet. I saw it. I was one of the few.
So,there are just too many things, like "iceages",and "global warming," and "brown-air",that are things we cannot control. AT ALL. Oh,yes,and none of you are going to give up your 2nd car,just so women can keep their breasts,and not die from cancer,either,are you? Of course not.

Gee,then,we'd actually have to start depending on mass-transit, like other people in the world,that that would be unendurable. tsk tsk.

Anonymous said...

Gee,then,we'd actually have to start depending on mass-transit, like other people in the world,that that would be unendurable. tsk tsk.
You IDIOT - transit pollutes more than cars.


Mick said...

Thanks, anonymous, for putting words in my mouth and bringing this civil debate down to your level. Nicely done.


The author explicitly stated (as I quoted above) that he is not questioning the models. Again, if you feel otherwise, I would think you would want to contact him to get the proof you want.

Rob Kremer said...

Actually, Mick, I don't think it matters much whether the author says he questions the models or not.

There are lots of reasons why he would softpedal any such view. But the data are what the data are.

Anonymous said...

JK: I get the impression that modelers tend to think the data is wrong if there is a conflict.

Gee,then,we'd actually have to start depending on mass-transit, like other people in the world,that that would be unendurable. tsk tsk.

JK: Europeans use provate cars for 78% of their mechanized travel. See PDF page 3 of: