Monday, February 22, 2010

SciAm: AGW is worse than IPCC thought

If you have strong nerves, you should look what has happened with once fine popular science magazine, Scientific American. The most recent four months have shown everyone that the IPCC has distorted the available evidence in order to claim that the climate change is going to be - or already is - scary.

Well, there's one magazine that has the balls to tell you that the IPCC is actually too conservative:
Despite Climategate, IPPC Mostly Underestimates Climate Change
Yes, to give you an additional hint about their competency, they put "IPPC" instead of "IPCC" in the title.

The article claims that the warming and sea level trends predicted by the IPCC in 1990, 1995, 2000 were exceeded in reality. Well, that's surely a bizarre statement given the fact that the trend since 2001 has been cooling and there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995, as Phil Jones recently admitted, while the IPCC has surely predicted a statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years. The story about the sea level rise is similar. Yesterday, The Guardian reported that an IPCC-consistent paper claiming up to an 80+ centimeter sea level rise in a century has been withdrawn due to major errors.

So you may ask: how did the folks in Scientific American justify such a strange claim? Well, they wouldn't find any sane person - and not even any climate scientist - who would say such a thing (perhaps James Hansen could also do the job, but his lack of sanity is already too well-known a fact). But they find the predetermined conclusions to be so important that the writers considered it appropriate or necessary to quote a guy from the Harvard Medical School!

To make things worse, his name is James McCarthy - at least it wasn't Joseph McCarthy. ;-)

Well, if you look at the affiliation, you will learn that the Harvard Medical School has its own center for "health and the global environment". In the recent years, the AGW cancer has become so widespread that separate units (or tumors) of global warming alarmism are growing - and are being funded - even in the medical schools.

Needless to say, not only McCarthy's propositions are manifest lies, but as his page shows, he also has no qualifications to make statements about this physical science. Since 1982 for 20 years, he's been the director of a museum of comparative biology, and he has been a member of most bureaucratic bodies trying to justify the carbon regulation policies with the plankton. His field was biological oceanography.

By the way, the oceans are doing very well and will be doing just fine even if the unlikely case that a significant warming would take place, see e.g. a new finding by the folks at the Penn State University about the diversity of coral reefs advertised by One India a few days ago. But this kind of research isn't what Scientific American likes: you have to go to India to learn about this research done in Pennsylvania. The rotten self-described science journalists in the U.S. prefer a non-research - deluded unjustified and unjustifiable opinions of an outsider twisted by his huge career interests.

An eleven-fold increase of the hurricanes

A guy called Robert Ehrlich has submitted a preprint to the arXiv, A Universal Hurricane Frequency Function, claiming to have a "model" that predicts that some warming will increase the hurricanes by a factor of eleven. ;-) Well, a higher temperature only increases motion at the atomic and mesoscopic level, not at the level of hundreds of miles. The latter is determined by the gradients which are expected to decrease in a warmer world. So the hurricane activity should go down if there would be a warming, and it's likely (although not inevitable) that this reduction will affect both their number and the average strength.

Via arXiv blog.

This crazy preprint appeared almost on the same today when the media were writing about another "consensus" concerning the hurricanes: there should be a fewer hurricanes but stronger ones. Obviously, Paul Ehrlich's namesake disagrees with the "consensus". The two sides only agree in their preference of a bad science - pseudoscience obsessed with "spectacular predictions" even if they're manifestly nonsensical (the same kind of bogus "predictions" hype that is preferred by the bad people who hate theoretical physics, too) - over a good, balanced, impartial science that simply admits that we know something but we don't know something else.

Richard Lindzen at Fermilab

You may watch a 85-minute talk by Richard Lindzen at Fermilab. There's a lot of politics and the media and the beginning and I am sure that the pressures that continued for decades had to be frustrating for Richard. And there have been lots of brainwashed biased types in the Fermilab, too: they don't know anything about the arguments but they're damn sure how the answers in climatology should look like (which is something that some of them explicitly admit if not boast). So annoying.

But Richard did say lots of interesting things, and gave great answers to many questions at the end. For example, he proposes geostationary satellites to observe the energy flows and temperatures in the microwave. He also emphasizes that the climate doesn't have to be equated with "long term": the key mechanisms that decide about the climate actually take from days to months - but people don't seem to be eager to study them in detail.


  1. For some reason, the idiotic tabloid "Scientific American" became champion of the climate pornography industry.

    A once trusted bridge to the scientific literature, this filth deteriorated to a class beyond sewerage within the course of three short years under the capable hands of a single watermelon named John Rennie.

    The entire thing is a complete joke, it used to be sold in many news stands here in the USA, virtually none carry it any longer because it has no readership.

    The reason is, it has absolutely no value. None.

  2. To me, ScAm lost its credibility somewhere in the 1980s or so. I used to be a subscriber. That was when Martin Gardner was there, and the delightful Amateur Scientist series existed.

    After noticing a decadence in article content quality, I completely trashed it when, in an article on probabilistic logic they said that the square of a number between 0 and 1 was bigger than the number. I pointed the error out to them, and they didn't even acknowledged the letter.

    As Brian says: "Absolutely no value. None." Zilch. Pulp magazine.

  3. Martin Gardner was contributor to the "Mathematical Games" essays for many years; he was replaced by Doug Hofstadter in about 1982 if I recall; the Sci Am was (under Gardner) no slouch critic of things like "Reaganomics" and "Star Wars," but when Hofstadter took over ("Metamagical Themas") the magazine started to become a different animal.

    It appeared that Hofstadter's premise was that "science" would one day recreate the world as Socialist Worker's Paradise; nevertheless, most of the articles were written by recognized authorities speaking to a literate audience, the only criticism leveled that the content was heavily weighted in biology and physics.

    When Rennie took over the magazine became a disaster, apparently because Rennie became convinced of a very near Erlich-like demise unless the world went "violently green" immediately.

    The new editorship at Sci Am makes Rennie look almost like a "skeptic" - I cannot even bear to look at this magazine any more

    (Recent cover story: "Did Global Warming forestall the Coming Ice Age?")