Using faulty computer models to forecast climate chaos condemns millions to untimely deaths
Guest opinion by Dr. Willie Soon and Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
India Prime Minister Narendra Modi sensibly refuses to attend yet another climate summit – this one called by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in New York for September 23, under the auspices of the United Nations, which profits handsomely from the much-exaggerated climate scare.
Environmentalists have complained at Mr. Modi’s decision not to attend. They say rising atmospheric CO2 will cause droughts, melt Himalayan ice and poison lakes and waterways in the Indian subcontinent.
However, the UN’s climate panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has already had to backtrack on an earlier assertion that all the ice in the Himalayas would be gone within 25 years, and the most comprehensive review of drought trends worldwide shows the global land area under drought has fallen throughout the past 30 years.
Mr. Modi, a spiritual man and thus down-to-earth, knows that a quarter of India’s people still have no electricity. His priority is to turn on the lights all over India. In Bihar, four homes in five are lit by kerosene.
Electric power is the quickest, surest, cheapest way to lift people out of poverty and so to stabilize India’s population, which may soon overtake China’s.
The Indian-born Nobel laureate in economics, Professor Amartya Sen, recently lamented: “There would appear to be an insufficient recognition in global discussion of the need for increased power in the poorer countries. In India, for example, about a third of the people do not have any power connection at all. Making it easier to produce energy with better environmental correlates (and greater efficiency of energy use) may be a contribution not just to environmental planning, but also to making it possible for a great many people to lead a fuller and free life.”
The world’s governing elite, however, no longer cares about poverty. Climate change is its new and questionable focus.
In late August the Asian Development Bank, for instance, based on UN IPCC rising carbon dioxide (CO2) scenarios, predicted that warmer weather would cut rice production, rising seas would engulf Mumbai and other coastal megacities, and rainfall would decline by 10-40% in many Indian provinces.
Droughts and floods have occurred throughout India’s history. In the widespread famine caused by the drought of 1595-1598, “Men ate their own kind. The streets and roads were blocked with corpses, but no assistance can be given for their removal,” a chronicler in Akbar’s court reported.
Every Indian knows that too much (or too little) monsoon rainfall can bring death. That is why the latest computer-generated doom-and-gloom scenario by the Asian Development Bank is not merely unwelcome – it is repugnant. Garbage in, gospel out.
In truth, rice production has risen steadily, sea level is barely rising and even the UN’s climate panel has twice been compelled to admit that there is no evidence of a worldwide change in rainfall.
Subtropical India will not warm by much: advection would take most additional heat poleward. Besides, globally there has been little or no warming for almost two decades. The models did not predict that. The UN’s climate panel, on our advice, has recently all but halved its central estimate of near-term warming.
Sea level is rising no faster than for 150 years. From 2004-2012 the Envisat satellite reported a rise of a tenth of an inch. From 2003-2009 gravity satellites actually showed sea level falling. Results like these have not hitherto been reported in the mainstream news media.
More than 2 centuries of scientific research have failed to make the duration or magnitude of monsoons predictable. Monsoons depend on sea and surface temperature and wind conditions in the Indian and Western Pacific Oceans, timing of El Niños in the equatorial Pacific, variations in Eurasian and Himalayan winter snow cover, even wind direction in the equatorial stratosphere.
Earlier this year, the Indian Meteorological Department predicted a 1 in 4 chance that the 2014 monsoon rainfall would be below the long-term average, leading to a year of drought
The prediction was wrong. Widespread floods in northwestern India and Pakistan have killed several hundred people. Many environmentalists and governmental officials are now insisting that rising atmospheric CO2 is the culprit. Yet the one cause of the recent floods that can be altogether ruled out is global warming, for the good and sufficient reason that for 18 years there has not been any warming.
Worse still for CO2 alarmists: 20th and 21st century warming did not occur in the western Himalayas, and paleo-temperature records from for the last millennium confirm no exceptional recent warming in this region, although the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today almost everywhere else.
Regardless of the numerous political manipulations of fact and reality, the scientific problems of forecasting monsoon self-evidently remain unsolved.
In 1906 the forecasts depended on 28 unknowns. By 2007 scientists from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology were using 73. So insisting that just one variable – CO2 concentration – will drive future monsoons is unscientific.
Professor Nandakumar Sarma, vice-chancellor of Manipur University, recently confirmed that “even supercomputers cannot predict what will happen due to climate change within 10-20 years, since there are millions of variable parameters.”
Models said monsoons would become more intense. Instead, they have weakened for 50 years.
As for the floods in the north-west, a study of three major rivers floods in Gujarat by Dr. Alpa Sridhar confirmed that past floods were at least 8 to 10 times worse than recent floods such as that of 1973. CO2-based climate models have been unable to “hindcast” or recreate those floods.
Models also fail to replicate the 60-yr and 200-yr cycles in monsoon rainfall linked to solar cycles detected by studies of ocean sediments from the Arabian Sea.
A new study led by Professor K.M. Hiremath of the Indian Institute of Astrophysics shows the strong, possibly causative correlation between variations in solar activity (red curve) and in monsoon rainfall (blue curve) in Figure 1.
The red curve is actually the result of a simulation of the Indian monsoon rainfall for the past 120 years using solar activity as a forcing variable. The sun is visibly a far more likely influence on monsoon patterns than changes in CO2 concentration.
Governments also overlook a key conclusion from the world’s modelers, led by Dr. Fred Kucharski of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics: “The increase of greenhouse gases in the twentieth century has not significantly contributed to the observed decadal Indian monsoonal rainfall variability.”
Not one climate model predicted the severe Indian drought of 2009, followed by the prolonged rains the next year – up by 40% in most regions. These natural variations are not new. They have happened for tens of thousands of years.
A paper for Climate Dynamics co-authored by Professor Goswami, recently-retired director of the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, shows why the models relied upon by the UN’s climate panel’s recent assessments predict monsoons inaccurately.
Figure 1. There is a possibly causative correlation between variations in solar activity (red curve) and in monsoon rainfall (blue curve).
All 16 models examined had the same fatal flaw: they made rain too easily by artificially elevating air and water masses in the atmosphere.
Models are not ready to predict the climate. Misusing computers to spew out multiple “what-if” scenarios is unscientific.
Most fundamental problems in our immature understanding of climate have remained unresolved for decades. Some cannot be resolved at all. The UN’s climate panel admitted in 2001 what has been known for 50 years: because the climate is a “coupled, non-linear, chaotic object,” reliable long-term climate prediction is impossible.
Misuse of climate models as false prophets is costly in lives as well as treasure.
To condemn the poorest of India’s poor to continuing poverty is to condemn many to an untimely death. Mr. Modi is right to have no more to do with such murderous nonsense. It is time to put an end to climate summits. On the evidence, they are not needed.
______________
Willie Soon is a solar physicist and climate scientist at Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Lord Monckton was an expert reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report (2013) of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC.
To news and opinion websites September 22, 2014
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Would be stronger if the authors provided links or proper references.
While somewhat true, Lance, your remark is a smokescreen. You must be new here, because all of this has been presented here before, with links and references. “Proper” is a relative term, thanks.
I’ve not seen a link to this
And this forum, is NOT a formal “peer reviewed” climate journal, where such “proper references” are required.
I simply am not going to bother to dig out references, to every dataoid that I mention in any post I make. If I have ready access to those references, I am happy to cite them. As is customary, anyone who disagrees, or doubts the veracity of something I say, is ALWAYS free to cite his own references, to dispute anything I write.
Otherwise my memory serves as MY reference, and I can always be wrong; but YOU prove it, if you think so.
A timely comment MB-K
I did a Google search for gravity satellites and sea level. Guess which web site was at the top of the list:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/new-study-using-grace-data-shows-global-sea-levels-rising-less-than-7-inches-per-century/
Actually I agree with Lance. I had previously reposted their article (above) elsewhere and the alarmist crowd cheerfully demands links, while not bothering to read them even IF they are copied directly into responses to them. But Every little bit helps.
You can provide all the links and evidence you want to, but they won’t bother to read them. Climate alarmism is merely politics. Little more.
The alarmist is not interested in truth. They long ago sold the truth and their honor to attempt to scare people into doing what they felt necessary. It is useless to reason with them for they are self blinded to truth. If nature can not convince them with the empirical evidence available, our words will have no impact since they are committed to their lie.
I for one do not want them to change because I do not want such people in my camp. They no longer deserve to be called scientist, but only opportunistic liars. They deminish those of us who’s agenda is truth and understanding. Their agenda is political and their goal is personal power.
My experience has been the same as Klem’s. In face to face discussions with CAGW alarmists I have never had one who was willing to read literature that disagreed with their opinion. When I offered to email them links, the answer has always been no. Of course, if they were the kind of person who looks at evidence, they would not be CAGW supporters in the first place.
CAGW is not science. It is politics and religion.
My most effective weapon when talking to closed-minded CAGW acolytes is to tell them that trees are growing 30% faster now than they were 50 years ago.
Admittedly, this is a generalization and may be at the lower end of actual growing trends, but it’s something they can understand. And I tell them increased CO2 is the reason.
That’s a lot of additional wood for building homes and other structures.
Most people think plants only need water, sun, and soil, but they also need air–it’s CO2–the gas fertilizer–from which they derive the vast majority of their carbon.
Almost every person to whom I tell this tree-growth statistic stops and thinks. And they almost always say they’ve never heard that before, which isn’t surprising since the benefits of CO2 are never mentioned.
I believe stressing the benefits of CO2 is the key to conversion.
By the way, what IS the current atmospheric level of CO2? Have they stopped reporting it because it’s over 400 ppmv?
@Jason
I must say that I have yet to meet a person in my normal rounds who in fact believes in the CAGW story. The most common response I encounter is ” the climate always changes” and they call it weather really. Geologists, doctors, engineers, computer techies, gardeners, farmers . . . all I encounter and more just think it is like a religion or a political movement trying to push a social agenda. Often I will tell them about what is happening with sea ice or temperatures and the like and they are surprised because it is often at odds with what the MSM tell them but seem quite happy to take on board what I say. In fact it is almost a shrug because it really isn’t a big thing in their lives.
Then we have that very unpleasant, snotty, arrogant, rude bunch of motivated semi scientists that appear on every thread to do anything and all things climatological. They use “peer reviewed”, 97%, big oil and the Koch Brothers like they are cruise missiles that will destroy denialism in one swift strike. They point to paper after paper that they think proves they are right when so often the papers do nothing of the sort. When you point to the raw data that doesn’t support their doomsday thesis they shout out loudly that we are not climate scientists and so have no right to bring the data.
Here is the data I use with these folk and they never really understand what it is saying. Natural variation . . .
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125630565@N05/sets/72157645113383959/
The data doesn’t support their beautiful theory. Their theory is wrong.
RockyRoad September 23, 2014 at 6:15 am
My most effective weapon when talking to closed-minded CAGW acolytes is to tell them that trees are growing 30% faster now than they were 50 years ago.
=========================================
My wife (who doesn’t care one way or another about global warming) assumed that CO2 was pollution as well. She is a college grad and quite smart, but it goes to show people who aren’t interested/don’t know better about the science take what is spewed at them by the alarmists and bad reporting. CO2 is *essential* for life, and plants want even more of it – ask anyone who runs a greenhouse. Unfortunately there is no money in doing nothing (unlike being studying and prophesying doom).
Keitho,
That Flickr page is excellent. It shows a lot. It shows in particular that the GRACE satellites’ results are dubious at best, no correlation to ground-based data. The ARGO floats are the most damning of all, no increase whatsoever in ocean temperatures since 2004! I seem to recall that after one year the ARGO float data was “adjusted” because they showed the oceans to be cooling.
Thanks for that, saved the link.
@latecommer2014
Actually–not all alarmists are disinterested in the truth. My son in law was a “skeptic” until he recently watched Tyson on the comos thing. He was so enamored of his “scientific” presentation on climate change and how mankind is destroying the climate–he is now ashamed of his past skepticism. He doesn’t read the science–but follows those he respects. He thinks that Carl Sagan’s protege MUST be telling the truth about the science–and so that side convinced him. He will now no longer even look at any contradictory facts. He thinks he knows the truth and the rest of us are delusional. So he wants the truth–has found the truth and no amount of facts will change him.
@RockyRoad
Here’s the link to the WUWT thread about trees growing faster:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/17/another-benefit-of-climate-change-and-increased-co2-trees-continue-to-grow-at-a-faster-rate/
Thanks Keitho. With regards to the decreasing Antarctic ice mass, you might want to remind people that the GRACE satellite measures the height to plus/minus 1.3 cm. For a flat Antarctic that would be 200 Gt of ice.
I do indeed Robert. I point that out along with the fact that the ice loss represents 35mm of the ice surface, very hard to measure.
My thoughts exactly whilst reading this, Lance. Back up for comments or assertions with references are vital at all times. There are some very important statements and real-world observations in this article, and to be able to refer to these when writing to, for example, politicians would be very helpful indeed.
Please enumerate the times when you (or Lance) has read or even checked any of the references on any other posts. Thank you.
I agree that it is very desirable to provide links. Right now I have two such links that I have opened in new tabs, which I will read shortly.
While I would love additional links. I have to agree with Klem. Alarmists do not read that which does not fit their cause.
Links should still be provided. They aren’t being provided for the Climate faithful, but for skeptics and undecided who are willing to dig deeper
Frankly it would be stronger if Monckton kept to the background behind the scenes and got others with recognizable credentials to post.
The climate kooks need to be shown plainly for what they are: out of touch alarmists. Monckton distracts from that goal.
How so? Since: “Lord Monckton was an expert reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report (2013) of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC.”
Almost anyone can sign up as a reviewer. The question is, as Jennifer Morhasy has suggested, how to change the paradigm? The paradigm at this time is completely obsessed with CO2 and the climate apocalypse. She has challenged the pardigm by pointing out the deliberate maldjustment of the Australian climate data to mislead people. She has done so by hard work persistence and publishing facts. Well documented facts.
We do not ned to be the arm wavers. The climate kooks are waving their arms enough to power a large windmill.
We need to keep chipping away at the scam. Monckton, by his over the top inflammatory style is not the person to do that. This article, with a dearth of good references, is not going to do accomplish that goal either.
Lord Monckton actually knows what he is doing and how science works. When compared to those who DO have degrees in that field and the professionals who keep crying wolf, he comes out quite admirably.
He is willing to debate the leaders of the alarmist movement, and they aren’t. He’s a great warrior on the side of real science. To make him low profile would be a mistake. If you feel he is a distraction, challenge the other side to put him in his place. They won’t do it, they know better than to tangle with Monckton.
My idea debate would have a panel of Anthony, Monckton and McIntyre take on any of the leaders of the alarmist gravy train.
A further point to make: you don’t need to be professionally trained to be an expert in a field. while I am trained in computer science, I am an expert in legal matters relating to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (USC 227) and its regulations, I’ve never been formally trained as an attorney, but have won dozens of cases pro se against attorneys for the defendants. Likewise, I was never trained as a botanist, but successfully have done breeding of EPA listed cacti. The real point is that it is the results that count, not credentials.
In climate “science” it is a bunch of professionals that create models and theories that don’t work and predict changes in climate over a hundred years in advance and then announce that it is killing people today. These are the people that should get off their hobby horses and maintain a lower profile. They are harming science by advocating what is essentially a religion. Their place in history will likely be next to those who prosecuted Galileo.
So, a wish to lower Monckton’s profile is effectively a form of friendly fire, or you are possibly a member of the other side who wishes to take out someone who is quite capable of making a big difference in service of real science.
If you dismiss anyone not certified by the government science community, you are playing right into the hands of the warmists.
It becomes a catch-22: “We won’t listen to anyone not credentialed by us, and we’re only going to credential those that agree with us. Therefore, we have no obligation to listen to your argument.”
Appeals to authority are pretty much all that the warmists have going for them. Don’t play that game. Use science instead.
Monckton’s comments are a succinct summary of the key ‘skeptical’ points. The warmists attack the messenger as they have no logical, scientific response to the Monckton’s summary. The warmists will attack any effective messenger.
There is no climate change problem to solve based on observations, the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes. Adaptation is more than a order of magnitude less expensive than the most optimistic, unrealistic economic analysis of the green scams. The green scams do not work (See Germany or Spain for an example of the imploding of the green schemes.)
Regardless, the developed countries have run out of deficit money to spend on everything. There is no magic fiscal wand. The green movement are using voodoo economics and ignoring fundamental engineering problems (such as interment power sources require storage which increases there cost by a factor of 10 to reduce CO2 emission below roughly 15%) to push there scams.
And finally the developing world continues to develop (currently 60% of CO2 emissions) and will use carbon based fuel to produce electricity and to power their growth. What the developed countries do or do not do will therefore have almost no significant affect on CO2 emissions.
Hunter, you don’t have to read it. You can go home now.
I think Lord Mockton is a real PITA for the warmists. He’s indispensable. I won’t forget the video of him educating a dumb green follower about where to find actual data.
So your approach is that we continue to allow the Left to frame the debate and define us? When the Left demonizes someone it is because they are afraid of that person and their effectiveness. Look what they’ve tried to do to people on the political front like Palin and Cruz. The same thing is going on here with their attempts to demonize Monckton, and You are indicating to them that it is a good tactic to follow.
>sigh< for those who think I am some sort of warmist or concern troll, I would invite you to check my posts over many years. As for framing the issue, I am utterly against allowing the cliamte obsessed to frame the debate. But Monckton at this point ain't getting the job done: His framing is not up to code, so to speak.
“Having broken the back of the overt first wave, a second but more insidious type of zombie shuffled their way into the attack – the stealth zombie. They’d slither into a blog wearing clean clothes and makeup plastered all over their faces to hide their rotting green flesh. Due to their compulsive zombie urges, they just couldn’t keep up the pretence for long and suspicions were gradually raised. No matter how much cheap Cologne they splashed on, they still had that faint whiff of Eau de Eco-Zombie about them.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/28-predictions-later-or-the-invasion-of-the-living-dead/
Pointman
+1
The truly skeptical and curious seeker of knowledge will use their search engine to find such sources.
It is titled “Guest OPINION”
I noted that you didn’t offer any rebuttals. Anything you disagree with Lance?
It would also be stronger if Monckton’s credentials weren’t so unduly pretentious. “Expert reviewer” of the IPCC report is anyone who applies online with a self-declaration of expertise. Was this qualification the best he could offer to present himself here?
If there’s anything that came out of the last climate conference, it was that the developed world won’t be paying a penny to the developing world in climate reparations, hence their loss of interest in attending any more.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/cop19-the-grubby-truth-behind-it-all/
Pointman
I suppose one could also use the word, “grabby”.
Pointman, if the time ever comes when an obscenity like reparations are reality, the first thing we do is subtract all of the countless foreign aid from governments and western charities from the balance due. They will probably still be in our debt.
Well done Prime Minister Modi.
Antidote to the slathered smarm about to ensue in the Big Apple, on the heels of the Flying Circus yesterday.
An excellent article, and thanks for your significant contribution to rational argument on this subject. You have long been one of the rare voices of reason.
“Earlier this year, the Indian Meteorological Department predicted a 1 in 4 chance that the 2014 monsoon rainfall would be below the long-term average, leading to a year of drought
The prediction was wrong. ”
No the prediction was correct. There was a small chance of low rainfall. It did not happen. To express the statement the other way : there was a 75% chance that rainfall would NOT be below average, and it wasn’t.
Now if someone else was spinning this 25% figure as doom and gloom, attack them for being misleading. The prediction seems pretty good on the face of what you presented.
It could just be that there was 3 in 4 chance of rainfall in a ‘normal range’ with a 1 in 4 chance of lower than normal. I don’t know what they predicted but your argument isn’t necessarily correct because of this.
climategrog September 23, 2014 at 2:09 am
Suppose your doctor said you had a “1 in 4” (or 25%, if you prefer) chance of having a heart attack within 6 months. I think you’d worry about it, not feel complacent that you have a “3 in 4” chance of not having one. You’d then do whatever your doctor told you to try to avoid it. Similarly here. When drought might result in thousands of deaths, “1 in 4” seems scary and threatening. Would you drive a car if you had a “1 in 4” chance of dying in an accident today?
Your doctor advises you in the hope that you’ll follow his advise to avoid a heart attack and he will be just as happy about it as you when it doesn’t happen. On the other hand, it seems the Indian Meteorological Department intention was to scare people to buy into the “climate change” meme. They left themselves wiggle room to squirm out of it when it didn’t happen, of course. They’d use the exact argument you did: “We only predicted a 25% chance, which meant a 75% chance it wouldn’t happen. So we were correct!” However, the scare tactic has worked whether or not the drought actually occurs. People now think, “Wow, we dodged a bullet this year, but maybe not next year.”
There is no way of knowing if the giving odds are correct with only a single prediction and outcome. It takes hundreds of such ‘experiments’ to determine if the given odds are approximately correct.
Reblogged.
“Models are not ready to predict the climate. Misusing computers to spew out multiple “what-if” scenarios is unscientific.”
Yeah, but… it’s useful for advancing a political agenda.
Russia, China, India, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have voted with their feet. Their leaders will not attend the latest UN global socialism fund-raiser.
No one with a brain is attending. Obamaclese “the messiah” will be left blathering to a room of mendicant state leaders by his idiot self. I for one am looking forward to his “Now is the moment [I look like a total prat on the world stage]” speech.
Remember his 2009 effort?
No wonder Chinese security threw his noddy Muppet a$$ back out into the hallway….
mendicant is probably the best description of the politicians leading this circus I have ever heard.
The term ‘reparations’ is a verbal sleight of hand, as it deliberately implies paying compensation for something which has actually happened. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that human activities have shifted, altered, amended or ruined the world’s climate in any meaningful let alone negative way.
Inconveniently that also means there is not the slightest evidence to suggest such climate ‘reparations’ – by the rich West to the poorer third world – are due.
The single best thing the rich West could do with transferring to the poor third world is the ability to harness cheap, reliable energy. Poverty, sickness and mortality would be significantly reduced, while public health, living standards and industrial development would skyrocket. Makes you wonder why the UN is so reluctant to facilitate such obvious progress.
Well, the poor countries should pay the industrialized West for the increase in agricultural productivity which HAS provably happened through the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Bingo!
This is just extortion over something that hasn’t even happened. How very post modern and post science.
Actually it is just another ugly aspect of anti-colonialism. They weren’t able to get people to send them money for “stealing their resources” during colonial times so now they have moved on to the “your industrialization has killed us all” gambit (while still very much alive to deliver the line I might add). It is all variations on the theme of the envy and greed that Marxists everywhere play upon to gain political power.
One does not need sensible justification for “reparations”. All that is needed is an open palm and a wad of money- your tax dollar will serve very well, thank you.
Earlier this year, the Indian Meteorological Department predicted a 1 in 4 chance that the 2014 monsoon rainfall would be below the long-term average, leading to a year of drought
The prediction was wrong
A probability cannot be wrong !!! This sort of careless language is not good for the sceptical arguement.
Prediction of a probability? It’s the strangulation of the English language again! I think this post by Soon & Monckton may have been ‘dashed off’, as they say.
“A probability cannot be wrong !!!”
OK. So when the National Weather Service says there’s a 90% chance of rain in your location tomorrow and it doesn’t rain, their forecast was right. Right?
People make decisions based on probabilities. If you “forecast” a probability (e.g. 90% chance of rain) you need some way of assessing skill. One way would be to keep track of how often a decision based on a forecast was incorrect. If I took an umbrella with me as I left for work because the forecast called for a 90% chance of rain, and it didn’t rain, then my decision was incorrect. In the case of the IMD’s monsoon forecast, we could say that decisions based on the forecast would have been wrong, or at least “unskillful”.
And if a forecaster in any line of work, be it weather or the stock market, garners a track record of being unskillful, it doesn’t take long before decisions will stop being made based on their forecasts. I would say that point has been reach with climate models.
Frank, a ‘prediction’ is something that will definitely happen. A ‘probability’ is a likelihood measurement of something to happen. You can’t say that you predict it will rain on your head tomorrow. You CAN say the probability is X.
I would take a 90% chance of rain to mean that 90% of the area covered by the forecast will get rain while 10% will not.
I don’t know if I would have put any credence on that forecast…around here we have a 25% chance of rain pretty much all summer due to pop-up thunderstorms, and we may get rain 7 days in a row or none for two weeks. I would have liked to seen what made up the other 75%. A safe forecast would be 1 in 4 for drought, 2 in 4 for normal range of precipitation and 1 in 4 for flooding, but it would be completely meaningless!
Here’s some simple algebra for you, Dr. Soon, and Christopher Monckton:
A 1 in 4 chance of something happening is equal to a 3 in 4 chance of everything else happening.
So–the Indian Meteorological Department predicted a 3 in 4 chance (75%) that the 2014 monsoon rainfall would be at or above the long-term average, leading to a year without a drought.
So I would say careless logic, not careless language.
You guys don’t get it. The intention of the “1 in 4” forecast/prediction/probability was NOT about whether there’d be a drought or not. If a drought means thousands of people will die, a “1 in 4” chance is scary. Just like for you, a “1 in 4” chance of a heart attack is scary. If your doctor said that to you, he’d get your attention real quick!
The whole premise of the article is to stop the scare-mongering and the example of the Indian Meteorological Department prediction is a perfect example of it. Whether you want to call it a prediction, a probability or a forecast doesn’t matter. And it doesn’t matter whether the drought did or did not happen or whether the rains came in normal of below normal quantity. The intention was meant to scare people into accepting the climate change meme. The rains came this year so we dodged a bullet, but maybe not next year. The scare tactic worked whether or not there was a drought.
The one assertion that I queried was,
The UN has 8 Millennium Goals and anyone who opposes them all had better be majoring in supervillainy.
Well done to Mr Modi, though.
He seems to have the right priorities.
And he is obviously one of the world’s governing elite – India is not small.
I like the cartoon – wonderful!
Don’t want to pick holes, but a spiritual person is hardly ‘down to Earth’ are they?!? Just the opposite, actually!
Yep. I was going to say exactly the same. Gave me a nice smile though 🙂
Yep, I see it that way too.
Sure they are. A spiritual person can appreciate all of God’s creations. Including the Earth. It’s all one big package. And I do mean “big”.
exactly. Some are too blind to see.
A spiritual person can appreciate all around him/her – that’s not in question. But a spiritual person isn’t being rational or logical. To hold a spiritual belief – with no evidence whatsoever – is to be irrational. Sorry, I’m really actually not trying to be facetious or argumentative, it’s just how it is! Intangible beliefs have no basis in logic. I’m not having a go at you for it, frankly, I don’t care about people’s beliefs as long as they don’t interfere with my life. Live like you want to. Some believers get hung up on being told that they are irrational, but it is how it is! So a spiritual person is, by definition, hardly ‘down to Earth’!
Ken, I hope you’re not saying that I am too blind to see. When you look up at the stars, YOU are seeing something mystical, I presume – as you don’t accept the science that tells you what a star is? Or are you one of the many ‘believers’ who is selective about science? When I look at a star, I see the incredible violence of nuclear fusion. I am in awe at the length of time it has been here, and will be here. I am amazed that I am starstuff, that all of me was once out there. I don’t see a need for a deity to arrange that starstuff in order to make me – as I know how gravity coalesces atoms and molecules, how fusion takes place, how gravity and fusion are in balance until gravity has its day, and how the elements that are essential for life are formed. The Universe has no need of a sustainer, and no need of someone to light the blue touch-paper either. If I could wish anything for you, it would be to read how it all comes about – to truly learn of the need to know the truth, not just a search for an explanation – which religion is. I’m certainly not blind, Ken.
So Big Jim how did all this get here? If you say Big Bang please explain something from nothing using physics.
Religious debate on anonymous message boards helps nobody, changes no minds, distracts.
@mkelly – ‘quantum fluctuation’
A spiritual person believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose noodly tenticles effect the lives of men. And these are “down to Earth” people?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
One can see the Monk’s had behind this article. He has been spanked many times on this blog, for drifting away from science, but he just cannot help himself. He is more of a liability than an asset.
Ralph
Go concern yourself, concern troll.
Dear Ghost,
Since you misunderstand what spirituality is for many, you miss what the authors were implying. For some, certainly, spirituality is irrational and results in sometimes irrational behaviors. But for many, it is the highest form of rationality, resulting in a life more fully lived for the greatest benefit of others and a life lived in love with the truth. That is what the authors were implying.
Your misunderstanding is understandable because of a lack of personal encounter: but true, rational faith/spirituality is the consequence of a personal encounter. It would be the most irrational thing I could do to deny I had encountered the creator of the universe if I had! It may seem irrational to you, from your perspective, but for those to whom God has revealed Himself, their spiritual life is the highest form of rationality. We can all be irrational, at times, but if God revealed Himself to you, would it be rational to believe or rational to turn away from Him?
There are many extremely scientifically rational men and women on this blog who are also rationally spiritual.
Ric,
You describe precisely my experience. One should evaluate all available evidence with an open mind. While studying physics I asked God for his input. To deny His response would have been more irrational than denying there is gravity.
GoBJC,
You say:”I don’t see a need for a deity to arrange that starstuff in order to make me – as I know how gravity coalesces atoms and molecules…”
Please tell me how gravity bound protons within the nuclei of atoms?
If you were referring to gravity coalescing hydrogen into a star, please tell me how that happened for the first stars. Every scientific theory I have heard of requires a previous star going nova. If you say the minute variations of the CMB hold the answer, be aware that those variations are an order of magnitude too small.
I can tell you where “to read how it all comes about”, but first you should ask the Author for an interview.
SR
@ur momisugly the GoBJC
You say:”To hold a spiritual belief – with no evidence whatsoever – is to be irrational.”
If there were actually “no evidence whatsoever” for holding a spiritual belief, your belief concerning spiritual believers would be rational. As there is plenty of evidence (including scientific) for holding a spiritual belief, it is actually your belief that is irrational.
The belief by materialists that spiritual believers are in denial of scientific evidence is on par with the argument by warmists that sceptics are in denial of the evidence. In both instances, the relevant question is: who are the ones actually in denial?
SR
A “spiritual person” cast a pretty wide loop.
Some “spiritual people” are indeed loopy.
I’m a Christian and I’ve seen and experienced many of the “spiritual” things that the Bible speaks of. I’ve seen many “spiritual” things the its Author says are not of Him.
But all that aside, in the context of the natural world we live in, if one is honest and endeavoring to be accurate when dealing with the natural laws concerning our natural world, does it matter whether they are a “spiritual person” or not?
I don’t mean this to be an “in your face” comment but just something for your consideration.
Way to go Mr Modi, pushing back against the colonialism of the western eco-imperialist.
Wait. They send raw sewage directly into their rivers and they are worried about CO2 “poisoning the lakes”? Really?
Duh.
just like Vancouver and Victoria.. Home to Canada’s most outspoken righteous greenies.
Straight into the Strait with their effluent, while they lecture the rest of Canada on how we shall treat the “Environment”.
These Eco-Nasties are really beyond parody.
Having worked on Vancouver’s GVRD sewage treatment facilities, I think you should have another look. You might also want to look at what the “experts” say about Victoria’s outfalls which I also had the opportunity to study. You are propagating what I think is a long standing urban myth, pushed by certain paranoid groups in Washington State. If you actually looked at the Seattle metropolitan areas with over 3.5 million people discharging waste into Puget Sound versus Vancouver and Victoria – the total BOD and solids discharge, runoff and toxins from the Seattle region dwarfs what comes from the million and a half just north of the Medicine Line. If you think about it a bit, you might develop a different perspective. Living east of the Rocky Mountains, I agree with you that the left coast has its issues, but as someone who knows just a bit about that kind of “pollution”, your reference is a non issue for me. Food for crabs.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Study-Seattle-area-among-country-s-dirtiest-for-1354942.php
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wtd.aspx
http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wtd/About/System/West.aspx
http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/wastewater/treatment/TreatmentPlants/Pages/Annacis.aspx
Nothing is perfect, but the slagging of Vancouver on this particular point, isn’t justified, though I would never live there again as it is such a high cost of living area. But like Seattle, it is a pretty nice region with sailing and skiing available on the same day throughout most of the year.
Don’t want to hijack the thread, I agree that there are a lot of watermelons on the left coast, both north and south of the border, but the sewage discharge thing is a huge red herring IMHO.
Have a good day. Getting off my high horse now to go ride a real one.
Who is going to pay for the infrastructure?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/31/burying-electric-pylons-cheaper-government
When costs are calculated over 40 years, overhead cables were found to cost between £2.2m/km and £4.2m/ km to install and maintain, compared with between £10.2m/km and £24m/km for those buried. Costs varied according to the technology used and the voltage of the lines.
is it better to put up 100km of overhead power cables to remote villages where the villagers can neither afford to pay for the infrastructure nor the power
–
Or is it better to give them £1000 of batteries and solar cells and let them have locally managed free power for water purification, lighting and computers?
—————
“Figure 1. There is a possibly causative correlation between variations in solar activity (red curve) and in monsoon rainfall (blue curve)”
It is interesting how sometimes the monsoon predicts the solar activity by about a year (last 2 peaks) that is some amazing causative correlation!!
Are you asserting that the same benefit for £1000 of batteries and solar cells (one time cost?)
with 40 years costs for overhead cables at £4.2m/ km to install and maintain?
In terms of power carrying capacity, you are equating a hamster to a Mac Truck.
However, if all you need is a hamster, why pay for the Mack Truck? It was Peru or Chile, IIRC, that eschewed the installation of telephone poles in remote regions and went straight to cellular. They didn’t need the “Mac Truck” of overhead wires for telecom.
Those who are last shall be first, etc. etc,
The same situation was why Japan raced ahead of the US in manufacturing in the 60s. They had nothing to “upgrade” and could start with the latest technology. So yes, it is foolish for a nation today to “wire” for phone service when cellular is so well established. And they can use Satellite for Internet (but that does have issues with delay).
D. J., you are confusing the issue.
Peru and Chile make the sensible decision to install cell systems instead of land lines.
So did every country in SE Asia.
None of them eschew the power lines to run the cell towers.
Cell Towers are not powered by hamster wheels.
To Lance and the others requesting links etc: Did you not read this immediately below the cartoon?
“Guest opinion by Dr. Willie Soon and Christopher Monckton of Brenchley”
Opinion pieces are NOT scientific documents. How many time have you read an opinion piece by an editor or columnist that included references and/or links?
Even the Guardian provides links to relevant sources. This opinion piece is worthless as it stands. There are plenty of people who think that AGW is likely and that CAGW is possible. I’m afraid “our” side is too prone to issuing bold statements without any supporting evidence to back them up.
To this
I should have added
“but who are prepared to consider contrary evidence”
Well it’s all well and good that the “Grauniad” provides those links and references. My question is: Did the author of the piece (who is not an editor) provide them or did someone on the editorial staff request they be made available? I see very few opinion pieces in the mainstream print media in the US provide the same.
If we are going to go all gloom and doom, might as well blame the sun. The sun like climate is out of our control, so make that the boogey man. To assuage our fears the UN can create a global sun-tax that invests in a Gore created company that builds space cannons that shoots ice-cubes toward the sun.
Sounds stupid? Sure, but just as stupid as thinking a carbon tax is going to have any affect on the Earths climate.
It’s quite formal actually. Evidently you’ve never heard of probably approximately correct learning , which estimates the likelihood that a learning algorithm can be created that is likely to be correct. All probabilities are estimates, including the prediction of the likelihood that a probability can be predicted.
Got it?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/18/the-climate-of-history-condemned-to-repeat-it/#comment-927280
We have many examples in the world of “extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds”.
Global warming is one major delusion, not to be underestimated. It has cost society a trillion dollars in squandered resources. It is apparently a core belief of most government leaders – hence the abundance of nonsensical “green energy” policies that have only served to significantly reduce energy reliability and increase energy costs for everyone.
And please understand: If you live in the developed world, access to reliable cheap energy is your lifeline – you and your family would easily perish without it.
Global warming cults are incredibly rigid in their beliefs. The absence of global warming in the past decade does not cause them to reflect.
Neither does the failure of every single scary prediction by the IPCC and the global warming “scientific” elite.
Neither does the public evidence of professional, ethical and scientific fraud by this same CAGW elite in the ClimateGate 1&2 emails.
Neither does the criminal behaviour of Peter Gleick – witness the chorus of approval for his odious behaviour by the Gleick Klub.
Not even global cooling will shake the belief systems of these avid global warmers. These warming dervishes were not strong thinkers to begin with – they are Lenin’s “useful idiots”, who will continue to believe the lies of the global warming elite long after that elite has abandoned these lies in favor of shiny new ones.
Charles Mackay provides a glimpse of our future, from ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”, published in 1841:
• “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
• “Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome.”
• “We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.”
REF: Allan McRae:
+10
Excellent comment, Allan.
Global warming cults are incredibly rigid in their beliefs.
I no longer try to reason with them. When I rebut a comment, it is to show any casual readers that there is another side to the debate that they may not have thought about [and occasionally to give an especially dense commenter a well deserved zinger]. I also like to post graphs, because they convey an idea without a lot of writing.
Destroying this delusion is a long term process. Anthony is right to call it a mission. We won’t win it overnight. But there are some big cracks appearing in the alarmist narrative. As Pointman said a while back, they’re in the killing jar. We can’t let up now.
Rigid- this one word most effectively characterizes the minds and personalities of the global warmer cult, and yes, cult is also most appropriately applied to characterize their system of beliefs.
Your remarks are so true. The cult has struck very close to home for me, and as you say, there is no reasoning with them. It is very unsettling and helps me understand how family members get turned in in totalitarian states. There is no rationality or natural trust. It is as bad as the kids who converted to one of the many religious cults we saw in the 70s.
Going forward it certainly helps to rebut their claims but I believe the outcome is out of the control of rational thought. While I would like to think the cult is in the killing jar, I believe it is not. The only thing that will put an end to it is relentless cold winters, and fuel shortages. Then the cult will die and the politics will change. We can’t make the former happen, that is a function of natural forces, and who in their right mind would wish for either one? I think we should fasten our seat belts, it’s going to be a long bumpy ride.
Steve:
You comment “It is very unsettling and helps me understand how family members get turned in in totalitarian states” reminds me of my first trip into East Germany, just before the fall of the Berlin Wall:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/08/nzclimate-truth-newsletter-no-320/#comment-1470144
Thank you Vincent – as usual, an excellent article.
However, global warming alarmism has never been about the science. Science has been corrupted to fit a political agenda.
The following treatise explains the rationale supporting global warming alarmism – and it’s not about the environment either.
TODAY is the 24th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Wall was opened on November 9, 1989.
Five months earlier, in July 1989 I had travelled through the Wall via Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin
I was with colleagues on a business trip. It was not a fun trip , but it was highly educational. East Berlin and East Germany were everything Ronald Reagan said they were – repressive, backward, and evil – families were spying on each other and ratting to the Stasi, the dreaded East German Secret Police. We left a day earlier than planned – none of us could stand the place any longer.
The reason I raise this point is that Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, made particular mention of the fall of the Berlin Wall in this essay written in 1994 – see paragraph 2 below.
Keep in mind that I am not saying this, rather I am quoting Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace – but I tend to accept his analysis.
For more evidence, read http://www.green-agenda.com/
Regards, Allan
[excerpt]
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
• It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth.
The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
• It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tragedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
• It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are criticized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?
• It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is absurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.
• It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are successful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
• It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.
• It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.
**************
Willie and Christopher wrote, “Garbage in, gospel out.”
I like that. Good one.
I will second that Bob!
It would certainly be nice to have a list of all the model predictions over the last 25+ years to put in a tangible form the failure rate. In fact, have the basic GCM’s gotten anything right?
I too would really appreciate this list. I am one of the these people (from the comment above) “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
ossqss says:
In fact, have the basic GCM’s gotten anything right?
Climate alarmists say that GCM’s get some things right. I don’t buy it.
The most significant event by far for the past twenty years or more is the fact that global warming stopped some time in the late 1990’s, and has never resumed.
If GCM’s are able to predict anything at all, they should have predicted that major event, no? But they failed completely. They all predicted continuing global warming, and many predicted accelerating global warming. Not one multi-million dollar GCM predicted that global warming would stop.
In fact, none of the scary alarmist predictions has happened. The polar bears didn’t get wiped out. Arctic ice did not disappear. Sea level rise is not accelerating. The oceans are not “acidifying”. And the granddaddy of them all, runaway global warming, was a complete bust.
I repeatedly ask alarmist commentators: when one side of the debate has been consistently wrong in all of it’s predictions, why should any rational person believe anything they’re saying now?
They always change the subject.
” Many environmentalists and governmental officials are now insisting that rising atmospheric CO2 is the culprit. Yet the one cause of the recent floods that can be altogether ruled out is global warming, for the good and sufficient reason that for 18 years there has not been any warming.”
Yes, and remember: rising atmospheric CO2 is supposed to be causing global warming and then this global warming is supposed to cause changes in the climate such as floods, droughts, melting ice, etc.
If the CO2 can not be shown to be causing the atmosphere to warm, then it can not be causing anything further regarding a change in climate.
It can be causing non-climate related, positive things such as faster growing trees, increased crop production, etc.
With high confidence I am betting there’s a 50% chance India’s monsoon rainfall will be below a 30 yr running average “normal amount” in any given year. Going further out on a limb, I predict there’s is a 50% chance monsoon rainfall will be above the 30 yr average. Looking at the figure on yearly Indian monsoon rainfall amounts, the inquisitive mind should ponder on how many times did it actually hit that average?
There’s lies, damn lies and statistics.
-Mark Twain.
Joel,
True, but if the “normal amount” has any meaning at all statistically, and the person giving the stats cares at all about giving an accurate impression (there’s the hard part in climate science) then it will have one more number reported with it – the standard error or standard deviation.
Of course if he is any good at statistics at all, he will first test the data for skewness and whether or not the data actually represents a “normal distribution” or some other population model for which the term would have no meaning at all. However, most reports I’ve read start with the assumption that the data population is a normal distribution and go on from there. Of course if it is not normal, or not normalizable with standard tools, the law of large numbers goes out the window as it does not apply to non-normal populations.
With high confidence I am betting there’s a 50% chance India’s monsoon rainfall will be below a 30 yr running average “normal amount” in any given year. Going further out on a limb, I predict there’s is a 50% chance monsoon rainfall will be above the 30 yr average. Looking at the figure on yearly Indian monsoon rainfall amounts, the inquisitive mind should ponder on how many times did it actually hit that average?
There’s lies, damn lies and statistics.
-Mark Twain.
Anthony, Pls check out the story on Bishop Hill about Energy return. You should post it. I think it is very important.
[Reply: Messages to Anthony should go in Tips&Notes. ~ mod.]