The New Scientific Method: When You Don’t Have The Data, Fudge It
The headlines are the stuff of biblical plagues: Expect More Droughts, Heavy Downpours, Excessive Heat, And Intense Hurricanes Due To Global Warming, NOAA
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research has released a scientific assessment that provides the first comprehensive analysis of observed and projected changes in weather and climate extremes in North America and U.S. territories. Among the major findings reported in this assessment are that droughts, heavy downpours, excessive heat, and intense hurricanes are likely to become more commonplace as humans continue to increase the atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
I've said it once, I'll say it again; Ohmygod…we are all going to die!
Or not.
The thing is, wasn't Anthropogenic Global Warming (TM) supposed to be an ongoing process were are now caught in the middle of, and not some theoretical possibility in a far off future? If that is true we should have seen some evidence of these increases in extreme weather. Well, what is the evidence in the report for that? Turns out there isn't any, as Roger Pielke has helpfully outlined:
The report contains several remarkable conclusions, that somehow did not seem to make it into the official press release.
1. Over the long-term U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.
2. Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought.
3. Despite increases in some measures of precipitation (pp. 46-50, pp. 130-131), there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows (high flows above 90th percentile).
4. There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms
5. There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters.
6. There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record.
(Pielke has extended commentary on each of these findings, and you should head over to Prometheus to read it all.)
So what scientific evidence do we have that Global Warming is leading to extreme weather events? Well, we don't have any, not in the sense of actual observed weather events. Shouldn't that give someone pause? Normal people probably would taken aback by the lack of evidence. But we are not dealing with normal people.
"Well the things is," we are told, "we scientists have these absolutely fabulous computer models which predict future extreme weather events."
How do you know they are accurate? Have you used them to replicate the known incidences of extreme weather of the past?
"Well, no, we haven't been able to do that exactly. But we are totally confident we can predict the future."
Why is that?
"Because theses are computer models. You can't argue with computers! They are, like, totally high-tech."
The amazing thing is, the press is largely swayed by this argument. The complete lack of evidence doesn't bother them in the least. We generally have names for things people believe despite the absence of supporting evidence. "Science" isn't one of the names.
Junk Science | Rich Horton Friday, 20 June , 2008
By Mockinbird, Friday, 20 June , 2008 @ 12:30 pm
More evidence of cattle nearby funded by grant money.
By Larry Sheldon, Friday, 20 June , 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Anybody else noticing the growing similarity between Science and plug-in-the-name-of -the-grocery-store you use?Used tp be there were several kinds of soup–a whole aisle full maybe.Lots of different kinds of canned vegetables. Lots of different kinds of meats. (About the only thing there is still lots of choices for is sugar-heavy, poisonously-colored "breakfast foods".)Used to be there were a lot of laws of science that you had to remember the details for, depending on what you wanted to predict, or to understand.Now we have the Law of Global Warming: predicts all possible outcomes. Has no meaningful rules to understand. Doesn’t require any inputs like all the "ready-to-eat(tm) stuff in the cold cases now. Don’t even have to add water.
By crosspatch, Friday, 20 June , 2008 @ 2:20 pm
1. Damage is increasing because of inflation and urban growth. If hurricane hit a given spot on the coast in 1935, it would have caused some amount of damage as measured in dollars. If a storm of the same intensity and size hit the same spot today, the cost of damaging would be much, much higher so there you have the answer for "more damaging storms". It isn’t that the storms are any different, just that there is more expensive stuff in the path. That is what I believe the answer to " And it does not clearly say why damage has been steadily increasing." is.
By Rich Horton, Friday, 20 June , 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Crosspatch: Yes, that is what Pielke’s research has consistently shown. It is worth while to read Pielke’s take on the report’s attempt to minimize his work (without pointing to any actually research themselves). IN that way the report borders on academic fraud.
Larry: I agree. Of course, we have seen this before. Remember when everything was blamed either on El Nino, or on the lack of El Nino?
By Bleepless, Friday, 20 June , 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Liberals: keep your children and voters from noticing that the average world temperature has remained stable for the last decade. Ssshhhh!
By crosspatch, Friday, 20 June , 2008 @ 10:33 pm
And I still don’t believe that land use change is given enough credit for warming. In my area (the Santa Clara Valley) most of the land was in orchards as late as only 30 years ago. Then Silicon Valley happened and all the orchards were cut down and housing developments were built. Where you had thousands of trees you now have thousands of asphalt shingle roofs and asphalt and concrete streets to serve those people and millions of cars baking in the sun. Cities such as Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and Los Gatos should show considerable warming since then.
By Rich Horton, Saturday, 21 June , 2008 @ 8:49 am
Crosspath: You are probably correct. The claim has always been that the "heat island" effect is properly accounted for, but several studies have brought that into question. There has also been questions raised about the validty of much of the temp measures from improperly placed weather stations (usually those in urban areas.)
Hey, but "data" isn’t important when you have moral certainty!