Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic: Barry Moore
Posted by Barry Moore, September 21st, 2009 - under Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports are a collection of mind numbing statistics from which they claim “solid scientific proof” that man made CO2 is causing global warming. From these statistics empirical formula have been generated which form the basis of the computer programs that are then used to “prove” the empirical formula.
This is circular logic and the output of a computer cannot be used to prove the validity of its programming inputs.
The only way an empirical formula can be validated is by experimental results or by strict mathematical proof based on accepted scientific laws.
Not one of the predictions made by some 29 computer programs in the past 10 to 15 years even remotely resembles the climate of the past 10 years.
The IPCC assessment reports do not contain any mathematical analysis based on the laws of physics to support their formulae or hypothesis. We are reduced to statistical correlation between the CO2 content of the atmosphere and the average global temperature.
Yet consider the number of factors that can affect the global temperature:
1. The suns radiation entering the top of atmosphere (TOA)
2. Infrared radiation leaving the TOA.
3. Cloud cover which has 3 different components – high, mid and low level cloud. These three components have a distinctly different effect on the incoming and outgoing infrared and visible light energies.
4. Ocean surface temperature.
5. Volcanic ash suspension in the atmosphere.
6. Smoke from forest fires, human emissions and fly ash.
7. Carbon dioxide content.
8. Water vapour content.
9. Other trace gasses with resonant frequencies in the IR spectrum.
10. Cosmic radiation that influences low level cloud formation and stratospheric trace gases.
Listed above are 13 variables and this is not a complete list. But it does demonstrate that the average global temperature is a result of many different factors some of which vary significantly in a short period of time (weeks) some in a medium period of time (years) and some long term (decades). In addition many of these factors are interrelated.
In order to separate any one of the factors statistically and determine its effect one must be able to quantify all the others. Of course we are not even close to being able to do this, so to determine the effect of CO2 is mathematically impossible by statistical analysis.
In fact we only have data on some of the above variables since the weather satellites started to orbit the earth in 1979 and sea temperatures have only been accurately monitored worldwide since the Argo buoy programme became fully operational in 2003.
According to the satellite data, since 1979 there has been no significant increase in global temperature. We have had 20 years of increasing temperature and 10 years of decreasing temperature, while the CO2 content has shown a uniform increase. Hence there is no correlation. If there was, I would ask the question: “Is the CO2 causing a temperature change or is the temperature change causing a CO2 change?”
********************
Barry Moore lives in Calgary.
Originally from the UK, Mr Moore graduated in London in 1960 with an honours degree in mechanical engineering before working for 13 years in nuclear research in eastern Canada. In 1981 he moved west to Calgary and joined the oil industry becoming an instrumentation and controls specialist.
Mr Moore became interested in the Kyoto Accord about 12 years ago – just wanting to find out the truth. In the process he has read thousands of technical papers and articles covering the full range of technologies, political and economic aspects of this very diverse and complex subject.
Read more from Mr Moore here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/barry-moore/
[If you would like to tell us why you are an AGW Sceptic email me at jennifermarohasy at jennifermarohasy.com ]
A quote from “Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a
physicist ‘‘trio’’ supporting the backlash against global warming”
Myanna Lahsen:
“Human Dimensions Research in the area of global
environmental change tends to integrate a limited conceptualization
of culture. It commonly conceives of it as
just one factor among others, a non-pervasive factor
separate from central social processes associated with
environmental change, including scientific understanding.”
One things for sure, she’s got a PhD with honours in jargonization of language and meaning. This being the art of saying whatever it is you have to say in the most complicated, messy, bureau-ritualized and nonsensical way possible. She’ll go very well in organisations like the IPCC or whatever overpaid bureacratic position she may be applying for. Taxpayers don’t get a choice. They are forced to shell out good money for this sort of worthless tripe. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of similar PhD’s out there pumping out the same sort of garbage every day. Thats the modern world of nonsense for you.
Tahnks Pandanus,
When he is using the word ‘resolution’, he means…..resolution.
great SJT – I’ll read it and get back to you tomorrow {thumbsup!] as if.
as for Wiki – I don’t trust wiki on anything to do with climate.
Wiki was just describing the MODTRAN reference. You can read up on plenty of scientific papers and descriptions about it from other sources if you want. Wiki even has links to some.
You don’t want to read a free textbook that goes into all the physics behind climate.
You don’t want to know the science behind the case for AGW. That’s not scepticism, that’s bloody minded ignorance.
Jeremy C
Your last comment to me is a classic non sequitur – what are you attempting to out debate me with inanities?
I just posted the table to disprove your statement. Nothing more was stated. The rest of your post seems to be the output of an over excited mind.
Try valium and get a real job.
SJT,
we should call you Seagull – to identify you as one easily gulled. Don’t you recognise propaganda from Pierre Humbert? His physics falls simply on the assumption of plate tectonics and an Earth date of 4,500 Ma – both are fictions. Hence any thing deduced from a fiction is itself a fiction.
Try valium.
Wouldn’t bother SJT – Sinkers isn’t up to MODTRAN – leave him to his quack theories – remember he has “special knowledge” that the rest of us don’t.
Luke,
“…remember he has “special knowledge” that the rest of us don’t.”
Ahhh, you must be referring to his knowledge of physical facts instead of farcical, disproven hypothesis!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I just posted the table to disprove your statement. Nothing more was stated. The rest of your post seems to be the output of an over excited mind.
Exactly. You mentioned spending on climate. What portion is just on the standard administration and overheads. It also includes regular climate research that is going to be done regardless of AGW. The implication is that the money is just a big gravy train for scientists. How much goes into their pockets, and at what rate? Most are on salaries that they could easily better in the private sector. Nova has not produced anything of real use, but, as you have demonstrated, if you just put up a figure, with no references, and sit back and put a shocked look on your face… all of a sudden, we have those evil climate researchers greedily lining their pockets while they plot to bring capitalism and civilisation crashing down around them. It’s pretty easy, and it works. They fooled you.
we should call you Seagull – to identify you as one easily gulled. Don’t you recognise propaganda from Pierre Humbert? His physics falls simply on the assumption of plate tectonics and an Earth date of 4,500 Ma – both are fictions. Hence any thing deduced from a fiction is itself a fiction
Come on Louis. He shows the maths and the physics. Tell me where he is wrong. As for your lunatic ideas of science, god help us if that is what is behind the ’sceptics’ movement.
Good grief Dribble,
Do you mean to say that you don’t grasp the infinite complexities of deconstructed multidimensional postmodernist intellectual processes? You must be one of those eminent but elderly scientists who are trapped in the outdated modernist view of the contemporary simulatory intellectual greenhouse landscape, not to mention substantial fiscal stipends from the oil, tobacco, and armaments capitalist industrial enterprises. You simply fail to grasp that young bloods, such as me and Luke, are light years ahead of your cognitive ratiocinations on the unquantifiable, irreducible epistemological limits related to inductive reasoning and to the nature of model-based global science. We can’t help it if our testosterone breaks into a canter now and again, can we Luke?
Ahhh, you must be referring to his knowledge of physical facts instead of farcical, disproven hypothesis!!
Velikovsky as ‘physical fact’. That’s a new one. Louis believes some of the wackiest ideas you will come across.
SJT,
You, too, must be trapped in modernity, with irreducible epistemological limits surrounding the nexus of ecological, cultural, and gender studies ( I have just been invited to attend a conference in Delhi along these lines. Sadly, I cannot attend, due to failure of my stipend from Big Oil.)
But didn’t Mr. A. Einstein have a few whacky ideas? And how about Mr. I. Newton?
His physics falls simply on the assumption of plate tectonics and an Earth date of 4,500 Ma – both are fictions.
Every time you open your mouth, you come up with something even more amazing than the last time. Does the history of the earth involve someone called Xenu?
SJT
I could not possibly have opened my mouth here – I wrote a comment – the rest of your comments are ad homs, like Luke’s. Actually if both of you believe the earth is 4,500 Ma, then you are both creationists.
Velikovsky is a physical fact – he was a living human being. Are you implying he was a fiction?
Pierrehjumbert is wrong because there is no plausible physical mechanism for plate tectonics – ie mantle convection. The best example for a subduction zone is the Indonesian Arc but as Choi shows from seismic tomography, the subduction zone is not there.
And deducing geological evolution from Lyell’s shifting of biblical creation from its Ussherian date to some earlier one, remains a fiction deduced from a fiction. Prove the Earth is 4,500 Ma years old.
There, I just refuted him on first principles.
Now go into a paroxsym of apoplexy.
And I also read one post above confirming, again, you expertertise in the non sequitur – splendid Seagull, you excel yourself, again!
I could not possibly have opened my mouth here – I wrote a comment – the rest of your comments are ad homs, like Luke’s. Actually if both of you believe the earth is 4,500 Ma, then you are both creationists.
It is 4.5 billion yeas Louis. I can get more sense from talking to my dog.
Well u should trot off and talk to your dog SJT,
You don’t talk any sense here.
Um…..have I been in a coma or something? Since when is the Earth NOT 4.5 billion years old?
SJT,
The Earth is 4,500Ma old? OK, prove it.
Derek Smith,
“Since when is the Earth NOT 4.5 billion years old?”
When empiricism rules.