Science is all about the data. We create a falsifiable hypothesis, collect data related to that hypothesis (usually from a repeatable experiment of some sort), analyze the data, then evaluate the hypothesis in light of the data. While our conclusions drawn from the data may vary somewhat, usually in the form of an alternate hypothesis, the data itself should be unassailable and open for all to check and use.
The current hypothesis on the table is that human activity causes global warming. This is called anthropologic global warming (AGW). This supposedly results from human-created gases like carbon dioxide in particular as part of human industrial activity. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 3rd Annual Report made a number of predictions (falsifiable hypotheses), claiming that a number of things would happen as a result of human activity. These hypotheses were entirely based upon computer simulations that depended not on data, but on convenient assumptions that fed an anti-development agenda. I talk in some detail about the shortfalls of computer simulations here and here. It’s been 10 years, so time to check out some of those alarming assumptions.
A convenient one here in the NE U.S. involves snowfall. We’ve had an incredible amount of snow the last few years. What did the IPCC hypothesize? Decreasing snow, especially in the U.S. NE. From the report:
Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.
Really? After 10 years of actual observations, this hypothesis has been falsified. The last 2 years in particular have seen record snowfalls in the U.S.
What prompted this post, however, is NASA’s latest Terra satellite observations. Terra’s observations indicate that the earth is radiating far more energy into space than the AGW proponents put into their computer models. In fact, the radiation into space is about 7 times the alarmist predictions, providing a negative rather than the alarmist’s required positive feedback. In other words, the earth’s climate system is self-correcting. That’s the opposite of what the AGW alarmists are trying to sell the world through their flawed models. Their assumption and hence their model results have been falsified by real data. There’s a graphical representation of the alarmist models vs. real data here.
Here’s a great article about what the data for the last 10 years says. I’ll give you a clue – AGW proponents won’t like it. In fact, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT offers the following concerning “corrections” that alarmists always want to make to real data (page down to Update3):
That said, it has become standard in climate science that data in contradiction to alarmism is inevitably ‘corrected’ to bring it closer to alarming models. None of us would argue that this data is perfect, and the corrections are often plausible. What is implausible is that the ‘corrections’ should always bring the data closer to models.
For anyone paying attention, AGW is coming apart at the seams. That’s the problem with lies. Sooner or later, the truth comes out.