The Political Science of Global Warming? That's an Oxymoron!

Recently I reported that that there was a minor error in the US climate history data. Due to minor technical difficulties, the temperatures for 2000 to present were slightly higher than they should have been in the GISS data. They also appear to be higher in the NOAA data, but we will save that for another day. I just want to take this moment to assure everyone counting on Global Warming that nothing has changed.

The error of course has been blown completely out of proportion by the likes of Shawn Hannity which are clueless of the importance of the issue. It is not the iceberg Shawn, it's the tip! Chill and get back to immigration, leave anything science related to anyone else! There is significance to the error, but only with further proof of global significance.

Per Gavin Schmitt with realclimate.com, (he actually works for NASA GISS); "GCMs do not include surface temperature data." The GCM is short for Global Climate Models. That statement of course makes me look like an idiot, or does it?

The GCMs are developed and at some point compared to historical data to validate, oops bad word, prove the "skill" of the model. So since no one knows the future, the models have to predict the past to prove their "skill".

Since I as not as intelligent as the average climatologist, I would obviously assume that if the data used to prove the "skill" of a climate model is less accurate than reported, that possibly the accuracy of the GCM with "skill" based on the inaccurate data may be questioned. Luckily, that is not the case.

In order for the "skill" of the models to be questioned, the error of the historical data used to prove the "skill" of the models must be proven much less accurate. It is not sufficient to imply that the methodology used to compile and correct the data may need review, one has to prove the error beyond a shadow of doubt.

Building one's ethos by not being religiously affiliated, conservative or ever receiving contributions from non-liberal organizations, seems to help one be accepted by the climatologic community. That may seem an overstatement, but the comments on the internet tell the story. Even with sufficient ethos, the settled science will be difficult to challenge.

Edward Swartz recently published a paper stating that the CO2 forcing may impact global temperatures less than stated in the IPCC report. Dr. Swartz with the Brookhaven National Laboratory has received some funding from ExxonMobil so his work is suspect. Swartz is not the first to imply that CO2 contributes to warming, only at a lower rate that predicted by the IPCC. A rate that is within the margin of error noted in the IPCC's, AR4, if I am not mistaken.

Luckily for me, Steve McIntyre and others are reviewing the accuracy of Rest Of the World (ROW) temperature records. There are more questions about the accuracy of the raw data and tons of questions about the validity of the corrections applied to the raw data, for the entire temperature database. What will be the final results? I don't have a clue, but on first glance the corrections are less than state of the art.

The frustration I and many others feel is that the science is being lost in politics. Albedo change due to black carbon documented by James Hansen is nearly as significant as CO2. Albedo is loosely the reflectivity of the Earth, black carbon or soot on snow reduces albedo and increases snow melt because it converts more radiant energy into heat energy. Reducing black carbon is much less expensive and more quickly implemented than CO2 sequestering (storing CO2). Without regard to your scientific affiliation, reduction in soot pollution is something that should be more in the news. Coal scrubbing technology can be easily shared with India and China. Something I feel is a good first step for several reasons.

More efficient and cleaner uses of existing fossil fuels are also required in our future. Even James Hansen has mentioned this on is unofficial, maybe official blog at Columbia University. His dissemination of information puzzles me, luckily he doesn't work for me or he would be unemployed. Still I reference his work with all the confidence of referencing Wikipedia, to paraphrase, truly clean coal technology is acceptable, or words to that effect. Of course he wants CO2 sequestered coal use only.

Now if you will excuse me, I am running a few plots of T=0.75*c*ln(C/Co) on Excel , where T is the Temperature change in degree C, c is the constant for greenhouse forcing (w/m2), C is the CO2 concentration and Co is the initial CO2 concentration(both in PPM). So far it doesn't match prehistoric trends. I may have to review my partial differential equations. That 100K year cycle of glacial and interglacial periods should have some clue as to greenhouse gas influences on temperature. At least I don't have to worry about solar irradiance since the science is settled. Then if Mann's spaghetti charts didn't include the obviously divergent proxies the whole thing would be simpler. Heck, the science is settled, I may as well go fishing.

Note: That 0.75 constant for converting w/m2 to degrees C in the above equation may need a slight review if I get around to it. Where are all the unbiased science geeks when you need them.

This article was submitted for non-payment. Associated Content does not endorse the views of this author or have any clue what the heck he is talking about.