Climate change dogma is challenged by satellite data on the earth’s release of energy into space's not as warm up here as I was predicting.

The Greens are grouching again about climate change and all that carry-on at the same time as scientists are affirming that we are no good at forecasting anything to with the future.

Because forecasters only forecast something they reckon will happen in the future, this means we haven’t progressed much from the days when a pile of chicken guts would be consulted before decisions were made.

But the forecasters will keep on forecasting and getting it wrong because the incur no penalty for getting it wrong, which happens most of the time.

Well, almost nobody.

They’ve got the right idea in Romania where they have been considering legislation to keep witches from misleading the people.

A month after Romanian authorities began taxing them for their trade, the country’s soothsayers and fortune tellers are cursing a new bill that threatens fines or even prison if their predictions don’t come true.

The witches kicked up a fuss about this, saying they shouldn’t be blamed for the failure of their tools.

“They can’t condemn witches, they should condemn the cards,” Queen Witch Bratara Buzea told The Associated Press by telephone. … Sometimes, she argued, people don’t provide their real identities, dates of birth or other personal details, which could skew a seer’s predictions. “What about when the client gives false details about themselves? We can’t be blamed for that.”

But Stephen J. Dubner, oviously a sceptic, said if he were Queen Witch (for a day),

I might frame my argument a bit differently: As soon as the government starts to punish all fortune-tellers — including macroeconomists, financial analysts, government officials, sports pundits and the like — for their wayward predictions, I will gladly join the throng. Until then: no deal.

And where do the Greens get their ideas about the globe getting hotter?

Yep. From fortune-tellers disguised as scientists.

Today Alf has caught up with them blatting about New Zealand running the risk of losing its green technologies to Australia if the Emissions Trading Scheme is not toughened up.

The catalyst for this pap was Climate Change Minister Nick Smith sending the Government’s Emissions Trading Review back to be reconsidered following Australia’s announcement of a carbon tax.

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman popped up from somewhere to say New Zealand must put a decent price on carbon or it risks clean technologies being drawn to Australia and New Zealand left with polluting technologies.

The only reason we are buggering around with an ETS, of course, is because the conventional wisdom holds that the earth is warming up, and all sorts of awful things are going to happen, and we’ve got to reduce the emissions we pump into the atmosphere…blah blah blah.

Who says so?


Alf therefore is doing us a service by bringing you a bit of enlightenment from ScienceDaily.

Data from NASA’s Terra satellite suggests that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change may indicate, according to a new study.

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The article goes on to tell us about the previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming.

It says these have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades, but –

In research published this week in the journal Remote Sensing, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks.

Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

Here’s the thing.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized.

Alf is urging his constituents to read the rest of the article for themselves.

He would suggest the Greens read it too.

6 Responses to Climate change dogma is challenged by satellite data on the earth’s release of energy into space

  1. Sally says:

    Why won’t the Greens provide an alternative view to Lord Monkton?

  2. robertguyton says:

    Because he’s a crack-pot.
    Good call Greens – wrestle with a pig, get covered in … well. it ain’t glory!

    • Sally says:

      RG, You are extremely well trained with your propagandising insults, which have nothing to do with the merits of Lord Monckton’s arguments.

      You need to be made aware that many folk believe that you are a crackpot in the views you put forward. But so far no orchestrated campaign has tried to shut you up.

      Lord Monckton may appear to be unduly enthusiastic. But he truly believes in the fraud of this global warming controversy.

      By not fronting up to a debate, the greens have lost all credibility.

      • robertguyton says:

        Sally – people think I’m a well-trained crack-pot?
        This is exciting news indeed. I hope to meet these perceptive folk face to face, the sooner the better. As for the Greens having lost credibility – you cannot be serious. The issue has passed 99% of New Zealanders by and those who are discussing the ‘unduly enthusiastic Lord Monckton’ are either Greens, who refuse to fall for his rhetoric, or the likes of you, who can’t resist it. No Green credibility has been lost at all, in fact, amongst the scientific community, I’m betting they’ll have garnered support.

  3. Alf, I’d agree with you 100% around our ability to predict complex future outcomes, and global warming/climate change is extremely complex. There are so many underlying assumptions and unknowns in the prediction models, and this bears out in the type of research that you point to.

    There is plenty of data that isn’t lining up with climate change predictions (in particular, sea level rise) and for me, the only option is to suspend belief in climate change/global warming..

  4. Tired Farmer says:

    John Ansell sums up Robert’s reply to Sally

    If you’re right then the best way to expose him is to debate him and defeat him. Yet nobody dares do that.

    What do you think that suggests to the average thinking person? Could that be why the public now no longer believe the so-called scientists?

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: