Cumberland BC: The Cumberlander Articles Section
Global · 3rd January 2010
Editor, with permission.
by Richard Moore
Sunday, Jan 3, 2010
Editor's note: This aticle has too many diagrams to include in this posting. For complete article as a PDF, click HERE.
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.
– Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom
True science begins with observations and measurements. These lead to theories and models, which lead to predictions. The predictions can then be tested by further measurements and observations, which can validate or invalidate the theories and models, or be used to refine them.
This is the paradigm accepted by all scientists. But scientists being people, typically in an academic research community, within a political society, there can be many a slip between cup and lip in the practice of science. There are the problems of getting funding, of peer pressure and career considerations, of dominant political dogmas, etc. In the case of models there is a special problem that typically arises. That is, researchers become attached to their models, both psychologically and professionally, and typically will tweak their model in whatever way is necessary in order to get it to fit data that does not really match the model, and in order to continue to get funding from their regular sources.
The classic example of this was the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. The model assumed that the Earth was the center of the solar system. At first glance, this model makes a lot of sense. On the Earth, it feels like we are stationary. And we see the Sun come up and go down. "Obviously", the Sun goes around the Earth. So the model was born. But then, as the planets were observed more closely, problems began to arise in the model.
There are then two paths the scientists can follow. The rational path would be to abandon the model, and look for one that fits the facts better. However, the path that was followed instead was tweaking the model, in this case due to Church dogmas. The tweaking involved inventing an imaginary mechanism: epicycles. Epicycles, although they had no scientific basis, enabled the model-believers to hold on to their assumption that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Once it became politically possible to drop this assumption, and recognize the Sun as the center, it was possible to develop a simple (Copernican & Newtonian) model, that matched the data, without bringing in imaginary mechanisms.
In the case of the climate models being used by the IPCC, the assumption is that Co2 is a primary driver of climate. There is an intuitive basis for this assumption, given that Co2 is a greenhouse gas. But as with the Ptolemaic model, the climatologists have needed to bring all sorts of imaginary mechanisms into their model, in order to get it to fit data that doesn't really match the model. This enables scientists, and their political backers – who have positioned themselves to make billions from cap-and-trade – to hold onto their assumption of Co2 causality.
Let's look at the actual temperature measurements over the course of civilization – the past 6,000 years – based on ice-core data. I downloaded this data from the official http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov website, and constructed the graphs myself. Ice-core data is universally recognized as a very reliable indicator of temperature. Let's first look at the Northern Hemisphere, as shown by the Greenland ice cores:
See figure 1, below.
Here we see that over the past 3,000 years there have been 4 peaks of temperature, each peak lower than the previous one. Leading up to 1909 we see the beginning of a new peak, as we emerged from the Little Ice Age. This new peak began long before human-generated Co2 became significant, and is well within the pattern of diminishing peaks. In 1909 the temperature was very low compared to temperatures over the course of civilization. Overall, in the Northern Hemisphere, temperatures have been on a downward trend for the past 3,000 years.
Now let's look at temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere over the same period, based on the Vostok ice cores:
See figure 2, below.
For the Southern Hemisphere we see a quite different pattern. This difference is understandable as most of the Earth's land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere, while the Southern Hemisphere is dominated by the oceans. Instead of a decline over the past 3,000 years, we see oscillations around an average base line for the whole 6,000 year period. Currently we are a bit above the average for the period.
These two temperature records cannot be averaged. The Northern and Southern temperature records must be treated separately. Because of the different balances of land vs. ocean, there are clearly different dynamics at work in the two hemispheres. Although the patterns are different, neither one shows any kind of unusual or alarming warming.
Despite the fact that these records must be treated separately, the IPCC crowd goes ahead and averages them anyway, together with other records from various places. By assigning arbitrary weights to the different records, they can come up with almost any average result they want to come up with. Here's what they show for the past 2,000 years:
See figure 3, below.
End of introduction. For complete article as PDF, click HERE.
Sunday, Jan 3, 2010
Editor's note: This aticle has too many diagrams to include in this posting. For complete article as a PDF, click HERE.
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.
– Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom
True science begins with observations and measurements. These lead to theories and models, which lead to predictions. The predictions can then be tested by further measurements and observations, which can validate or invalidate the theories and models, or be used to refine them.
This is the paradigm accepted by all scientists. But scientists being people, typically in an academic research community, within a political society, there can be many a slip between cup and lip in the practice of science. There are the problems of getting funding, of peer pressure and career considerations, of dominant political dogmas, etc. In the case of models there is a special problem that typically arises. That is, researchers become attached to their models, both psychologically and professionally, and typically will tweak their model in whatever way is necessary in order to get it to fit data that does not really match the model, and in order to continue to get funding from their regular sources.
The classic example of this was the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. The model assumed that the Earth was the center of the solar system. At first glance, this model makes a lot of sense. On the Earth, it feels like we are stationary. And we see the Sun come up and go down. "Obviously", the Sun goes around the Earth. So the model was born. But then, as the planets were observed more closely, problems began to arise in the model.
There are then two paths the scientists can follow. The rational path would be to abandon the model, and look for one that fits the facts better. However, the path that was followed instead was tweaking the model, in this case due to Church dogmas. The tweaking involved inventing an imaginary mechanism: epicycles. Epicycles, although they had no scientific basis, enabled the model-believers to hold on to their assumption that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Once it became politically possible to drop this assumption, and recognize the Sun as the center, it was possible to develop a simple (Copernican & Newtonian) model, that matched the data, without bringing in imaginary mechanisms.
In the case of the climate models being used by the IPCC, the assumption is that Co2 is a primary driver of climate. There is an intuitive basis for this assumption, given that Co2 is a greenhouse gas. But as with the Ptolemaic model, the climatologists have needed to bring all sorts of imaginary mechanisms into their model, in order to get it to fit data that doesn't really match the model. This enables scientists, and their political backers – who have positioned themselves to make billions from cap-and-trade – to hold onto their assumption of Co2 causality.
Let's look at the actual temperature measurements over the course of civilization – the past 6,000 years – based on ice-core data. I downloaded this data from the official http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov website, and constructed the graphs myself. Ice-core data is universally recognized as a very reliable indicator of temperature. Let's first look at the Northern Hemisphere, as shown by the Greenland ice cores:
See figure 1, below.
Here we see that over the past 3,000 years there have been 4 peaks of temperature, each peak lower than the previous one. Leading up to 1909 we see the beginning of a new peak, as we emerged from the Little Ice Age. This new peak began long before human-generated Co2 became significant, and is well within the pattern of diminishing peaks. In 1909 the temperature was very low compared to temperatures over the course of civilization. Overall, in the Northern Hemisphere, temperatures have been on a downward trend for the past 3,000 years.
Now let's look at temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere over the same period, based on the Vostok ice cores:
See figure 2, below.
For the Southern Hemisphere we see a quite different pattern. This difference is understandable as most of the Earth's land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere, while the Southern Hemisphere is dominated by the oceans. Instead of a decline over the past 3,000 years, we see oscillations around an average base line for the whole 6,000 year period. Currently we are a bit above the average for the period.
These two temperature records cannot be averaged. The Northern and Southern temperature records must be treated separately. Because of the different balances of land vs. ocean, there are clearly different dynamics at work in the two hemispheres. Although the patterns are different, neither one shows any kind of unusual or alarming warming.
Despite the fact that these records must be treated separately, the IPCC crowd goes ahead and averages them anyway, together with other records from various places. By assigning arbitrary weights to the different records, they can come up with almost any average result they want to come up with. Here's what they show for the past 2,000 years:
See figure 3, below.
End of introduction. For complete article as PDF, click HERE.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3