Modeling Error; Always check your assumptions

GIGO reliably informs us that a corrupted data set will always yield unreliable results. By the same token, processing and analysis of valid data (or corrupt data for that matter) which rests on erroneous assumptions or which forces an outcome is also unreliable.

The IPCC and their 1990 forecast demonstrate that for us nicely.


Note that atmospheric CO2, the “deadly greenhouse gas” which the EPA (and other regulatory bodies) seek to curb for the benefit of all mankind (or so they tell us) has steadily (as measured at Moana Loa) increased while global temperatures have done no such thing. This has been implicitly admitted by the protagonists of AGW since they now claim that their cause is not Global Warming but Global Climate Change.

While this is not surprising, given that no one has been able to accurately forecast weather more than a week out and since climate is the moving average of weather, it does tell us a lot about the credibility of those making the forecast and demanding action based on those forecasts.

It also tells us a lot about the politicians (why yes, I am talking to you Mitt Romney) and agencies (this one’s for you, EPA) which either still insist the planet is warming or which still insist that preventative actions of enormous cost must be taken to curb emissions of a naturally occurring gas which has defied the outcomes predicted by the experts and their models.

Pull the other one, it has bells on it.

Hat Tip: Clive Best via “Andy” at Ace of Spades.

UPDATED: under the fold

]]>< ![CDATA[Ed Morrisey of Hot Air:

Where’s the warming?

By Ed Morrisey, Hot Air

Carbon emissions over the past decade actually exceeded predictions
by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), no thanks
to the global economic recession.  According to their anthropogenic
global-warming theories, global temperatures should have risen
significantly as a result.   James Taylor at Forbes wonders what happened:

Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster
during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international
agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is
much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should
shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks
currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA
satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show
absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.

If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary
driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming?
We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse
gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada,
nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

Be sure to check out the links, which show charts over varying time
sets, but which all show basically the same thing: no real change over
longer periods of time. Not in the Arctic, which Taylor notes was
supposed to be the canary in the coal mine, nor in the northern
hemisphere, or the globe overall.  That’s even true for just the last
decade, but it’s especially true over the period of several decades. 
Periods of high amplitudes in warming are matched with low amplitudes.

The “scientifically” predicted cause met or exceeded projections, but the data regarding the climate was not so cooperative.  Color this theory and the models based on it as busted.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
Well, Wasn't That Special?