The AP and NASA report that more than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003. They say that this has raised global sea levels about one-fifth of an inch in the past five years. Holy Shmoly! Grab the kids and run for higher ground!

Actually this is disappointing news. I had hoped that my children might get to enjoy my “waterfront” property in a few years. It is now about 20 miles from and 200 feet above the Gulf of Mexico. At the rate given above it will take about 60,000 years for the gulf to reach my property. Sorry about that kids. (Well, they probably won’t mind since all their homes would be underwater long before my property becomes waterfront.)

The global warming alarmists would have us believe that mathematical climate models can accurately predict global temperatures in the year 2100. The several versions of GCMs (Global Climate Models) are predicting average temperature increases from about 2 to about 5 degrees Centigrade. Based on these predictions they want governments around the world to take drastic actions to decrease the production of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. These drastic actions could have significant negative effects on the world economies. All this because they think the globe might warm by as little as 2 degrees?

Notice that their models disagree by more than the smallest predicted temperature increase. If the models they used show a spread from 2 to 5, what is the chance that additional models would widen that spread? Perhaps one might even predict a temperature decrease. Based on my own experience with mathematical models I have little confidence in any model’s ability to accurately predict 93 years into the future.

During most of my career I developed and used mathematical models to estimate weapon system performance for the Air Force. The models I worked with did not operate on a global scale but they were quite complex and took hours to run on high-speed computers. Nevertheless I, and my colleagues, never pretended that our models could accurately predict future outcomes. That is, although the models estimated future outcomes, we knew that the outcomes were based completely on the system and environmental data that is input to the model, and we knew that data was never perfect. We understood that there is no way that we could know either the precise environmental conditions at the time the weapon might be used in actual combat or the precise system parameters for the specific weapon fired in actual combat. The models were primarily used to perform system design trade-off studies and to produce probability of success charts to guide the pilots in employing the weapons.

No model of a physical process can reliably predict an outcome very far into the realm of the unknown. Models are constructed based on what we know today about how a physical process works. Models are run using data that we have collected to date — or data that someone makes up for the future. So models essentially only model the past or the present. When their users move beyond the present they are just guessing. The only way the GCMs can be used to predict 93 years into the future is to make up 93 years worth of input data, including the levels of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. The models then are subject to not only the errors in the physical model itself but also the errors in the input data.

If you are still not convinced that the glowarm alarmists can’t know, with any real confidence, that average global temperatures are going to be 2 to 5 degrees warmer in 2100, consider the five-day weather forecast. Although it’s called a five-day forecast it often changes every day — and I don’t mean by just adding a new fifth day. Today’s fourth day forecast is often different from yesterday’s fifth day forecast despite the fact that they represent the same day. This is because — with the passing of one day — the forecasters have new and better data that allows them to make a more accurate forecast. It will be interesting to see how much the predicted average global temperature for the year 2100 has changed next year and five years from now.

Understand that I’m not arguing that climatologists should not use the GCMs in their global climate research. I’m confident that they understand the limitations of their models better than I do. I’m trying to make an argument against putting too much stock in the crusades of devious egomaniacs like Al Gore, who are prone to misinterpret the model results.

Can you imagine the embarrassment a father must feel to turn on his computer and learn that his son is interested in who Al Gore is wearing to the Academy Awards? The Washington Post has published a fawning article by William Booth about how Gore has become a rock star:

In the annals of vice presidential history, tonight will be something different. In his black tux, the man known to his most fervent fans as “The Goracle” will arrive by hybrid eco-limo and, surrounded by fellow Hollywood greenies Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio, will stroll down the red carpet at the Academy Awards to answer the immortal question: “Al, who are you wearing?”

It would be bad enough to learn that a son is interested in what Gore is wearing, but who!? Perhaps Booth is poking fun at Gore or the Oscars, but I don’t think so. Anyway, I’m embarrassed at what a sissy nation we’ve become. There was a time when men had better things to do than talk about clothes — especially what some other man is wearing.

No matter what he’s wearing I think that Al Gore strongly believes in what he’s doing. In fact, I think that is why he was chosen for the role. He is the global warming alarmists’ suicide bomber. Suicide bombers are chosen because they can be convinced that their mission is worth more than their life. Fortunately for Gore he only has to sacrifice his credibility for his mission. After a few years people will become bored with global warming, the climate will swing in another direction or another ‘crisis’ will take its place, and Gore will again be regarded as a dunce. There is the possibility that Gore is just doing it for the money. In that case he’s not dumb, just devious.

Booth mentions that Gore “is on first-name basis, for real, with Ludacris.” On first-name basis with a man with only one name? Perhaps he is poking fun at Gore.

Booth says that Gore is “totally carbon neutral.” How does that square with this?:

Gore worked the premieres in Edinburgh, Helsinki, Oslo, Stockholm, Sydney, Hong Kong, Amsterdam, Zurich, Brussels, Berlin and Tokyo. In France, he not only attended the film opening, but presented his 90-minute Apple Keynote lecture to the National Assembly. He did the slide show at the United Nations, the American Geophysical Union, and before conservative activist Grover Norquist’s regular Wednesday meeting.

Does his airplane produce no carbon? No, what they probably mean by ‘carbon neutral’ is that Gore is buying ‘carbon offsets’ to compensate for the carbon his transportation (and several large houses) are producing. To offset carbon one has to consume carbon equal to that produced. An example of a carbon offset is planting trees. It seems that a global warming prophet like Gore would want to do better than just carbon neutral. He could plant all those trees and still not burn all that jet fuel in the atmosphere. (Would that be carbon positive or carbon negative?)

Gore needs to plant a lot more trees than those needed to offset his carbon production because he wants to produce ethanol from wood chips instead of corn. Plant trees for one purpose, cut them down for another and make both seem like saving the planet. That Gore is a clever guy — at least he thinks he is.

I’ve been saying that there are scientists challenging the global warming alarmists so I thought I would start pointing out some of them.  John Marchese of the Philadelphia Magazine reports that Penn professor Bob Giegengack has a few quibbles with the former VP on his interpretation of the cause and threat of global warming.  If you want to consider a different perspective read the article.

Via BlackFlag and I Can Plainly See