Skip to content

Inquirer’s Global Warming Alarmism: “Inevitable meltdown”

July 28, 2012

The Philippine Daily Inquirer’s editorial today warns the public about “inevitable meltdown” if world governments failed to pursue necessary measures or actions to “to stop or just slow global warming”. First, the editorial writer informs his reader about “the signs” that prove that planet earth “is sweating a lot”. The editorial talks about the latest National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) report that reveals the ice covering Greenland was melting at a rate not observed in the past three decades.

It talks about very recent global warming events such as the rising ice melt rate on the Greenland ice surface that increased from a normal 40 percent to a staggering 97 percent. In effect, the Inquirer’s editorial board is alarmed by the “sheer scale of the ice melt” because it proves the ” dire predictions of what global warming can bring”.

The piece then made the following conclusion:

“All this combined with the freakish weather and temperatures being experienced by people worldwide is too much of a coincidence, even for those who insist that global warming is a myth. Yet for all the dire predictions, very little has been done to stop or slow it.”

Oh really? Well, that statement merely proves that the Philippine media is full of global warming alarmists. 

The editorial piece mentions a study published last March. It says:

“Just last March, a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change stated that the Greenland ice sheet was actually more vulnerable to global warming than previously thought. Should the ice sheet be melted completely, it would raise the sea level by 7.2 meters (a whopping 23.6 feet) and submerge low-lying areas. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the world has warmed by 0.8 degrees, and now human civilization seems intent on proving that, yes, we can melt Greenland if we just pretend it isn’t happening.”

It also cites another study published last year:

“In February 2011, the first scientific paper to use complex computer programs to simulate weather patterns attempted to prove that the extreme weather could be the result of natural variability. Climate scientists have found that it could not, and thus proved that the bizarre weather patterns—highlighted by the increase in precipitation leading to heavier rainfall and more flooding—are caused by humans and the greenhouse gases left in the wake of their activities, such as burning fossil fuels. They say more rain will come, and that it’s our fault.”

The study being referred to is entitled Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by Pardeep Pall, Tolu Aina, Dáithí A. Stone, Peter A. Stott, Toru Nozawa, Arno G. J. Hilberts, Dag Lohmann and Myles R. Allen . Yes, this particular study focused on England and Wales in autumn 2000. In the autumn of 2000, there was heavy rainfall in southwest England and Wales that caused widespread flooding. The researchers made the following conclusion (emphasis mine):

“… in nine out of ten cases our model results indicate that twentieth century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%.”

The problem with the Inquirer’s cited 2011 study is that it was completely destroyed by a more scientifically informed and honest critic.

Willis Eschenbach critiqued the 2011 study. To start with his analysis, Eschenbach had to take into account the “Qualitative Law of Scientific Authorship”, which states that as a general rule: Q ≈ 1 / N^2.

Eschenbach used the following methodology:

“where Q is the quality of the scientific study, and N^2 is the square of the number of listed authors. More to the point, however, let’s begin instead with this. How much historical UK river flow data did they analyze to come to their conclusions about UK flood risk?”

“Unfortunately, the answer is, they didn’t analyze any historical river flow data at all,” Eschenbach said.

It seems that the Inquirer simply cited a weak study to support its global warming agenda.

Here’s an excerpt of Eschenbach’s paper:

You may think I’m kidding, or that this is some kind of trick question. Neither one. Here’s what they did.

They used a single seasonal resolution atmospheric climate computer model (HadAM3-N144) to generate some 2,268 single-years of synthetic autumn 2000 weather data. The observed April 2000 climate variables (temperature, pressure, etc) were used as the initial values input to the HadAM3-N144 model. The model was kicked off using those values as a starting point, and run over and over a couple thousand times. The authors of Pall2011 call this 2,268 modeled single years of computer-generated weather “data” the “A2000 climate”. I will refer to it as the A2000 synthetic climate, to avoid confusion with the real thing.

The A2000 synthetic climate is a universe of a couple thousand single-year outcomes of one computer model (with a fixed set of internal parameter settings), so presumably the model space given those parameters is well explored … which means nothing about whether the actual variation in the real world is well explored by the model space. But I digress.

The 2,268 one-year climate model simulations of the A2000 autumn weather dataset were then fed into a second much simpler model, called a “precipitation runoff model” (P-R). The P-R model estimates the individual river runoff in SW England and Wales, given the gridcell scale precipitation.

In turn, this P-R model was calibrated using the output of a third climate model, the ERA-40 computer model reanalysis of the historical data. The ERA-40, like other models, outputs variables on a global grid. The authors have used multiple linear regression to calibrate the P-R model so it provides the best match between the river flow gauge data for the 11 UK rainfall catchments studied, and the ERA-40 computer reanalysis gridded data. How good is the match with reality? Dunno, they didn’t say …

So down at the bottom there is some data. But they don’t analyze that data in any way at all. Instead, they just use it to set the parameters of the P-R model.

Certainly, he’s not kidding. Perhaps the Inquirer editorial writer is. LOL!

Also from Eschenbach’s paper:

Two datasets of computer generated 100% genuine simulated UK river flow and flood data have been created. Neither dataset is related to actual observational data, either by blood, marriage, or demonstrated propinquity, although to be fair one of the models had its dials set using a comparison of observational data with a third model’s results. One of these two datasets is described by the authors as “hypothetical” and the other as “realistic”.

Finally, of course, they compare the two datasets to conclude that humans are the cause:

The precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases our model results indicate that twentieth century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%.

Summary to date

•  The authors have conclusively shown that in a computer model of SW England and Wales, synthetic climate A is statistically more prone to synthetic floods than is synthetic climate B.

I’m not supposed to reproduce the entire paper here. So, if you’re interested just read the entire analysis.

The critic explains why he’s “scornful” of the 2011 study:

“I am not scornful of this study because it is wrong. I am scornful of this study because it is so very far from being science that there is no hope of determining if this study is wrong or not. They haven’t given us anywhere near the amount of information that is required to make even the most rough judgement as to the validity of their analysis.”

Eschenbach said it was “very disturbing that Nature Magazine would publish” the 2011 study. What made him say his condescending comment? He said:

” There is one and only one way in which this study might have stood the slightest chance of scientific respectability. This would have been if the authors had published the exact datasets and code used to produce all of their results. A written description of the procedures is pathetically inadequate for any analysis of the validity of their results.”

But the editorial writer of the PDI took that 2011 study on faith. They think it is science… Well, perhaps because this “very far from being science” study was published in Nature, and because of the term “scientific paper” or “scientific study”. Most people these days are too gullible and too lazy to conduct their own analysis and research.

What’s the Inquirer editorial’s concluding remark? Well, just a piece of alarmism and fear-mongering:

“The signs are here. When will the world’s governments decide to take action to stop or just slow global warming and preserve Earth for future generations?”

What can I say? LMAO!

What do other independent scientific studies say?

This new research in Antarctica shows that carbon dioxide follows temperature.

The question of “which comes first, the temperature or the CO2 rise?” has been much like the proverbial “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” question. This seems to settle it – temperature came first, followed by an increase in CO2 outgassing from the ocean surrounding Antarctica.

“Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” – Sune Olander Rasmussen

IMPORTANT LINKS:

Scientists’ petition against global warming lies and alarmism

Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now – and world has been cooling for 2,000 years

This is what global cooling really looks like – new tree ring study shows 2000 years of cooling

Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. monk permalink
    November 16, 2012 3:38

    The NAS final report and even BEST, which is supported by deniers, confirms human-induced global warming.

Trackbacks

  1. Ondoy II in Pictures « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: