Clearing up the Mis and the Dis Information 205

You know the saying,” Two Steps Forward One Step Back.” No one likes to retrace their steps.  It seems like such a waste of time. But, if someone is allowed to print unsubstantiated information, without respectable references, running counter to science-based research, I am compelled to defend science, again.

Two weeks ago, in a Letter to the Editor, (LTE) with no reference to any reputable science organizations the author of the letter made unsupportable assertions. One was a roundabout argument that carbon dioxide is not the cause of the earth’s rising temperatures. For him to be right, 99% of thousands of brilliant science minds would have to be wrong.  Additionally, all reputable science organizations would have to be terribly misinformed.

The second assertion claimed climate models were wrong and was stated like this, “Garbage In, Garbage Out”.

I will approach this from two angles. One is common sense. We don’t need to reflect on the 30-year-old climate models because we know firsthand the globe is warming and we can all agree it is getting nasty.

While these older predictions varied by how much, they all said the earth’s temperature would rise and the weather would deteriorate. This is, as the old saying goes, “The Proof is in the Pudding”. The models were proven correct by observations telling us to expect increased temperatures and more violent weather.

If a denier wants to concoct a line of baloney, they only need to say all the models were wrong because none of them aced it. Of course, the only way any projection could be 100% accurate is if we had a time machine to fly forward in time to make an observation. Unfortunately, observations of the future are not observable at this time. If any prediction is spot on, it is an amazing feat. The science world gives these early computer climate forecasts high marks according to NASA*, and MIT*.

Just a note. If you start investigating climate models some of the graphs are a spiderweb of lines. This is because scientists do not know if mankind will come to its senses and stop pushing carbon pollution into the air. Scientists must make estimates for at least three scenarios. They must make an assumption of how much we will pollute. Then, they make an optimistic projection hoping we will quickly cease polluting. And finally, they must compute what will happen if we continue polluting. There are an unlimited number of projections, but they all vary based on different amounts of greenhouse gas man creates. Because of this some graphs look squirrelly. Deniers like to make fun of these multiline charts because it makes it appear the scientists look confused. They are not.  No scientist knows when we will pull our collective craniums out of our collective anal orifices and stop adding carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The takeaway from this is if we reduce carbon pollution the earth warms less and with less heat energy extreme weather has less power for destruction.

The LTE said balloon and satellite data conflicts with computer modeling. That’s a no brainer. Computer modeling is the best educated projection by the world’s best scientists. But it is still a forecast. The data collected by NASA and NOAA are direct observations. They will never be the same as the computer model. It is an impossible and unrealistic expectation. But even the early unsophisticated models made respectable forecasts.

And returning to climate models, I invite anyone to visit the website of UCAR* the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research where teachers, students, and curious adults can investigate climate modeling. Here is a paragraph directly from their website:

“Models use mathematical equations to describe the behavior of factors that impact climate. To study the climate as accurately as possible, a model must be a good representation of the whole Earth, known as an Earth System model. These models are very complex, made of hundreds of equations describing the processes of the atmosphere, sun, ocean, water cycle, land, and life, and require supercomputers to run.”

To sum this up “Models are absolutely fundamental to doing any kind of science, and so people that rag on models without being specific about what it is they are even talking about are just really betraying that they don’t understand how science works,” said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Reference search 1: “NASA Climate Study Confirms Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right.”

Reference search 2: from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: “MIT, EAPS Historical Climate Models Accurately Projected Global Warming”

 

Reference search 3: Go to skepticalscience.com and click on myth 6.

 

Reference educational search 4: Climate Modeling Center for Science Education (ucar.edu)