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 ]
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Huh!!
“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.”
What a silly statement! Prove it, perhaps by ‘revealing’ some of these empirical formula and comparing them to some of the physics used in these programs and show how they work together.
Jennifer. Where, where do you dig these people up from?!?
JC, any pro-AGW paper demonstrates Barry’s point; my favourite is Sherwood and Allen’s classic about wind-shear.
OK Cohenite,
Give me the full title of the paper and author plus waht adatbase it is on and I will download it, print it, read it and then ask you to give evidence for your assertion….otherwise you are just being inadequate.
Notice that the AGW true believer response is to tell the skeptic he is an idiot.
Note especially the true believer does not actually address the issue, but simply tells everyone else they are not only wrong, but stupid.
I dare say Mr. Moore’s CV, honours in ME, nucelar industry experience and active in intruments and controls really sounds like a lot of ignorance compared to the well established accomplishments of JeremyC.
Arrogance, thy name is AGW.
Most of the public believe in AGW because the CO2 greenhouse effect were taught to them for decades in school. In addition, it stems from the UN IPCC proclamations and the media hype. If he is from Calgary, he knows full well that the CBC’s The National was selling AGW stories almost every night during 2008. It was the same ol’ story each time, they would show images of melting glaciers and polar bears or melting permafrost, and claim that humans were responsible. Even though they knew that these are merely evidence of climate change, not evidence that humans are the cause. The CBC simply assumed that humans are the cause. And the public trusts the reporting of Peter Mansbridge, they don’t understand that he is an AGW crusader rather than an unbiased observer. So if it’s on TV it must be true, no matter what the science says.
Jeremy C:
Barry is right, the models are not resembling the full complexity of the earth. Therefore, Models cannot be used to prove anything. Using Statistics on flawed models is nothing more than a circular argument.
Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation
Kevin E. Trenberth National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
John T. Fasullo
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
“……We considered all 24 models but some have incomplete information, some apparently do not conserve energy, and some have artificial ‘‘flux adjustments’’ of
energy, and these were excluded. Thirteen models were
retained but computations were made for all. “
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/2009GL037527.pdf
Best regards
Guenter
You can wish all you want that the climate models stink. But here is a short summary of climate models and some of the results accomplished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_models
The most talked-about models of recent years have been those relating temperature to emissions of carbon dioxide (see greenhouse gas). These models project an upward trend in the surface temperature record, as well as a more rapid increase in temperature at higher altitudes.
Models can range from relatively simple to quite complex:
A simple radiant heat transfer model that treats the earth as a single point and averages outgoing energy
this can be expanded vertically (radiative-convective models), or horizontally
finally, (coupled) atmosphere–ocean–sea ice global climate models discretise and solve the full equations for mass and energy transfer and radiant exchange.
This is not a full list; for example “box models” can be written to treat flows across and within ocean basins. Furthermore, other types of modelling can be interlinked, such as land use, allowing researchers to predict the interaction between climate and ecosystems.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Other results successfully predicted and reconstructed by models
•Cooling of the stratosphere
•Warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere
•Warming of ocean surface waters (Cane 1997)
•Trends in ocean heat content (Hansen 2005)
•An energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation (Hansen 2005)
•Amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region (NASA observations)
Jeremy could you please post the references to the IPCC’s mathematical analysis to support their hypothesis I have searched for 12 years and been unable to find any. The closest I have come is the derivation of the logrithmic equation which does not reference any laws of physics and has many unsubstantiated assumptions. This plus the amplification factor due to increased high level clouds is the IPCC’s basis for predicting increased temperatures. The high level cloud effect has been proven wrong by Dr. Spencer of UAH using the satellite data and confirms Dr. Lindzen’s theory of increased low level cloud with increased temperature thus reducing temperatures.
I know I have mentioned it before but Dr. John Nicol’s analysis of the effect of increasing CO2 is a classic and he is a Professor Emiritus of Physics.
guenter,
The paper is more complex than the piece you quoted (not part of the conclusions and discussion), for example it notes the many papers refuting Lindzen’s ‘iris’ hypothesis elswhere.
It was this guy’s logic that I was pointing out. Sweeping generalisation with nothing to back it up. Quoting one bit of one paper doesn’t back him up. as Joanne Nova would say, “try harder”.
Barry,
Read what I wrote….which included quoting you.
““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.”
What a silly statement! Prove it, perhaps by ‘revealing’ some of these empirical formula and comparing them to some of the physics used in these programs and show how they work together.”
Its up to you to substantiate your assertions sucha s the one above or else they will remain groundless.
Barry,
You are treating Jeremy C with far more respect than he deserves.
The circular nature of the AGW community, along with their reliance on models over data, is just one of hte many reasons why the AGW theory of climate science is not holding up.
Notice also that JeremyC could not be bothered to actually answer your question, except in a circular fashion.
Your points are well made and clear, to all but the AGW true believer.
JC; click on cohenite as an author and you will see my 2 lists of the 10 worst AGW papers; Sherwood and Allen are in the first list.
The paper is more complex than the piece you quoted (not part of the conclusions and discussion), for example it notes the many papers refuting Lindzen’s ‘iris’ hypothesis elswhere.
I read Lindzen’s own paper on his “Iris”. His own conclusion was that he hadn’t proven anything about it. Weird paper.
JC; click on cohenite as an author and you will see my 2 lists of the 10 worst AGW papers; Sherwood and Allen are in the first list.
You just don’t understand what they are talking about, you mean. Like I said earlier, measuring the temperature of the upper troposphere is difficult. The satellites have a problem with the cooling stratosphere being close to it, it’s a moving target as it’s growing, the radiosondes also have problems. Using wind speeds as a proxy is a sensible approach. They aren’t ‘proof’, but they support the research.
Jeremy – don’t bother with Coho’s paid for sceptic party rat dirt. Pls look here at this sensible science discussion.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/
BTW – one doesn’t need to resort to stunts like 10th worst papers with our faux sceptic chums – as almost all sceptic papers are utter crap. So many to choose from – all with their little eccentric ideas, almost never published anywhere serious. Basically indulgent non-scientific voodoo. Or even worse – all stats – no mechanisms.
Lukey, do you even read the pro-AGW tripe you post?
And the word of an engineer over a bunch bureaucratic sock puppets like you? No contest.
You AGW twits think you can claim ‘settled science’ whenever you can contrive a spin on the data that supports your predictions. But when there are data problems, it is becuase the instruments are not doing it right.
Such credible arguments leave no question as to why ‘AGW’ and ‘scam’ are becomin synonyms for most people.
Anyway I guess Jen is probably about to have a whole series of “why I am a sceptic” posts featuring a range of tedious old codgers.
If you want to get us to convert you’ll need to get some attractive young ladies giving us the drum. As an example after reading JoNova’s site I feel much less AGW sympathetic.
Gee Hunt’s bum – I scanned your devastating rebuttal for a point but alas it came up short. Nice sledging though.
Perhaps we should label JC, SJT and Luke as the Goebbels Trio ?
SJT – as a self admitted scientific ignoramus, your comments here suggest you are newly qualified – what, finally got your qualifications from the back of the weeties box? Splendid, so that puts you on par with Luke in one sense but you are no patch Luke’s url skills – so much work to do to catch up, what?
JC – you sound very much as if you should be in some public park on a soap box preaching the message but shooting messengers seems the easier task – at least here you cannot be hit with rotten eggs or tomatoes.
Well guys,
All I want is for Barry to justify his assertions as per my first post.
As for Cohenite, he has to provide me with a link rather than just pointing me to his list because i don’t want to waste too much energy.
Sooo Barry, you up for proving your assertions?
Barry
The temperature changes are causing CO2 changes. There is an additional factor not mentioned in your list – Methane – that is continually exuded from earth fractures etc. Methane spontaneously oxidises to CO2 and has a residency of about 10 years in the atmosphere. This source of CO2 seems omitted from the modeling.
It just gets worse.
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.
Your basic problem is that you just don’t understand the case for AGW. Go back, find out some more, when you understand it better, you will have some valid criticisms to make.
SJT – as a self admitted scientific ignoramus, your comments here suggest you are newly qualified – what, finally got your qualifications from the back of the weeties box? Splendid, so that puts you on par with Luke in one sense but you are no patch Luke’s url skills – so much work to do to catch up, what?
LOL.
Jeremy C wrote:
Checking here:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-1.3.html
we see that they say:
“Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earth’s surface would be below the freezing point of water.”
Which is completely untrue.
If Earth had no atmosphere at all, the surface temperature would be below the freezing point of water – on the dark side, anyway. We can be certain of this from looking at the Earth’s moon. However, if we perform the calculations of what the surface temperature would be if the Earths atmosphere contained no radiationally interactive gases (GHG’s) – say, nitrogen, or hydrogen – then based solely on the physics of how gasses behave in a gravity field (using the ideal gas law – the lapse rate, IOW), the surface temperature would NOT be below the freezing point of water – as shown by this published paper:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2003/00000014/F0020002/art00011
OK, it’s paywalled, but essentially it demonstrates what I said above – that is, that the majority of warming over and above the theoretical temperature of earth (ie like the moon) is due to ideal gas law not GHG – this physical affect, which does not take into account any IR interactions, explains why surface temperature is approximately 33C above the radiational temperature of earth (temperature of the earth as seen from, say, Mars).
Now, I don’t know about you JC, but to me the information at the above links seems to suggest that IPCC believes that the 33C is because of GHG – and it’s not. We know from very basic, well confirmed physics (at greater than 6 sigma levels) that the ideal gas law is “solid”. If we add a material that changes from solid to liquid to gas and back again, and has a fairly large thermal mass – oh, let’s say WATER – and give the planet a nice comfortable (for us) rotation, the situation of course becomes much more complicated and we would expect to see variations in surface temperature depending on stochastic processes that would be very hard to predict. That’s weather, right? Long term, we would expect some average to emerge, but there’s no reason to expect that any one place would be predictable, even if we had a perfect sphere – which of course, we don’t. Nor is there any reason to suspect that such a system is not subject to the normal effects of a “random walk” – including what look like significant trends at short time scales. At what time scale(s) should we look to determine the “average”? Climate science appears to suggest 30 years is the minimum, but there does not appear to be any empirical derivation of this number – from what I can tell, this is “convention”; IOW it’s what we’ve always done. Yet historical evidence seems to suggest that we see variations (deviations from the average at a particular site, or area) that last longer than this – as much as 10 times longer or more. It looks to me like we could fool ourselves very easily – and perhaps we have!
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.
You need to read the references. Then the references to those papers. They work on the assumption people will not be climate scientists, and hence unable to understand the detail, or climate scientists, who do understand the details.
There is a free, online climate textbook. It contains much of the fundamental physics and science you were wondering about.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html
Happy reading.
Thanks for these “Why I am A Sceptic” posts Jennifer. I have commented before on this but point out again, that even organs such as the UK New Scientist are hedging their bets and now discussing climate change in philosophical rather than scientific terms. A clear sign that we are winning…
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327241.000-climate-change-no-eden-no-apocalypse.html?page=2
Jeremy, when a group such as the IPCC present a hypothesis the onus is on them to present the proof. No such proof is ever offered by the IPCC. There are a large number of claims that anthropogenic CO2 is a major factor in the global temperature statistic, particularly in the summary for policy makers, however no logic or justification is ever presented. Thus your hysterical ranting for chapter and verse of every little detail of criticism is of course a standard diversionary technique of the AGW cult and opposing statements can be simply rebutted by presenting the IPCC “solid scientific proof” as requested which of course you always refuse or can not do.
I have mentioned this before but go to page 515 of the 4th AR and try to do a mass balance calculation on the global carbon flux diagram it is complete and utter rubbish which I believe puts the entire report into perspective.
Once again the IPCC must present proof of their hypothesis and supporters should be able to quote chapter and verse of this proof so where is it?
Thanks for these “Why I am A Sceptic” posts Jennifer. I have commented before on this but point out again, that even organs such as the UK New Scientist are hedging their bets and now discussing climate change in philosophical rather than scientific terms. A clear sign that we are winning…
New Scientist is not hedging anything, they just published an article. The author seems to have become a fatalist. Given the complete lack of progress to date on actually doing anything about AGW, I can understand that point of view.
Another interesting post. Perhaps it highlights the fundamental that a model is only a hypothesis, and it can never generate its own supporting evidence.
Just as interesting is the frenetic tone of the warmist brigade when reason is presented – an alarm pheromone thrown into a colony of ants could not excite more frenzy. The usual expectorating responses are all there, he he.
SJT:
“You need to read the references. Then the references to those papers. They work on the assumption people will not be climate scientists, and hence unable to understand the detail, or climate scientists, who do understand the details.
There is a free, online climate textbook. It contains much of the fundamental physics and science you were wondering about.”
Resorting to Argument from authority – but you seem singularly incapable of countering any criticism levelled at AGW by refuting the point with fact – all you can do it point to the IPCC tome and suggest we read it.
And if the issue is so complex that only climate scientists would understand it, (climate science, the science of an abstraction), then that suggests you are again appealing to authority to state your case. This is done when the science is absent.
What has always worried me about the IPCC is their original charter.
http://www.ipccfacts.org/history.html
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations Organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme to assess “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” Review by experts and governments is an essential part of the IPCC process. For its first task, the IPCC was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies.
From the above, it would appear that the UN had already made up its mind on ‘the risk of human-induced climate change’. The IPCC were not tasked to see if there _was_ AGW … they were tasked to highlight the risks of AGW. They were operating under a foregone conclusion in 1988.
The IPCC is a political organization. It was told, in effect, “this is the argument we need to make, find something to support it.”
“Fatalistic” SJT ? Not at all. I’d say he’s thrown in the towel, and for the NS. to publish it acknowledges their wavering position too.
“…The world’s climates will keep on changing, with human influences now inextricably entangled with those of nature. So too will the idea of climate change keep changing as we find new ways of using it to meet our needs. We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilise these stories in support of our projects. Whereas a modernist reading of climate may once have regarded it as merely a physical condition for human action, we must now come to terms with climate change operating simultaneously as an overlying, but more fluid, imaginative condition of human existence…”
little will, you are unreasonable, the cooling stratosphere has been rebutted just like the THS but you continue to recycle this claptrap; here is what I said about the cooling stratosphere nearly a year ago;
“In regard to John Pittman’s comments about stratospheric cooling; I must say this cooling, as noted primarily by satellites, has given me pause; it is a supposed AGW fingerprint because the AGW model says that ACO2 layer trapping of SU, upward LW, will not only create a THS, but also extend the photosphere, or CEL. vertically into the stratosphere where the accumulating ACO2, due to a lack of a LTE, can unload its LW into space and by doing so have an energy deplenishing effect and cooling at that level. There has been no THS so a stratosphere cooling spot (SCS) was at least 1/2 a result. This is where it becomes a bit complicated and I will ignore the Fu et al study which merged troposphere and stratosphere temperatures because it has been adequately dealt with by Christy and Spencer. Volcanoes have a complex effect on the atmosphere’s temperature both at different levels and over different timespans; as I understand it, the orthodoxy is that volcanoes cause troposphere cooling because of particulate reflection of SW and stratosphere warming because the particulate absorb the high energy wavelength radiation; here is a graph of the lower stratosphere temprature after El Chichon in ‘82 and Pinatubo in ‘92;
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Stratosphere1278-1204.gif
Both the eruptions show an immediate heating effect consistent with the theory but then there is a drastic dropping off; is this due to the resumption of the AGW effect or is it due to another effect of the eruption, namely SO2 ozone-destruction? This ozone depletion has been well documented with extra UV reaching the ground and enhanced photosynthesis as a result; some other factors to consider; Lucia has done a couple of posts about the duration of volcanic effects, and 7-9 years is likely; this dovetails with Pinutubo because since 2001 stratosphere temperatures have been moving back up while surface temperatures have been declining (with the exception of GISS, of course); since 2000 there has been a decline in solar activity and PDO phase has changed but ACO2 is still increasing; at the very least it shows that AGW is of far less consequence than natural factors, which is contrary to AGW”
luke says;
“If you want to get us to convert you’ll need to get some attractive young ladies giving us the drum. As an example after reading JoNova’s site I feel much less AGW sympathetic”
luke, I’ll wear a bikini if it means you’ll come to your senses.
NS: “We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilise these stories in support of our projects. Whereas a modernist reading of climate may once have regarded it as merely a physical condition for human action, we must now come to terms with climate change operating simultaneously as an overlying, but more fluid, imaginative condition of human existence…”
Sounds like a plea for a job for life.
But wretched aparachicks like SJT and Luke should be careful what they wish for. They have been wasting our taxes for only a few short years on this blog and already they are showing signs of stress, paranoia and obsessive compulsive disorder. This is not an honorable career, boys. Give it away before it eats you up. Man up; turn in the ill-gotten silver; get real jobs. Change your names if you need to. Everyone deserves a second chance. Act now before Copenhagen is on your heads too.
But wretched aparachicks like SJT and Luke should be careful what they wish for. They have been wasting our taxes for only a few short years on this blog and already they are showing signs of stress, paranoia and obsessive compulsive disorder. This is not an honorable career, boys. Give it away before it eats you up. Man up; turn in the ill-gotten silver; get real jobs. Change your names if you need to. Everyone deserves a second chance. Act now before Copenhagen is on your heads too.
LOL.
Luke,
With reference to your post some distance back, have a look at Dr Myanna Lahsen’s web page. I don’t know if Myanna is for or against AGW. Her publications are couched in post-modern-speak, so it is hard to understand exactly what she thinks. She does not seem to like old, eminent physicists, nor models come to that. Both too modernist?
Nevertheless, I warm to her point of view, and I am sure you will too.
Luky: “– as almost all sceptic papers are utter crap. So many to choose from – all with their little eccentric ideas, almost never published anywhere serious. Basically indulgent non-scientific voodoo. Or even worse – all stats – no mechanisms”
As indeed are all the self-indulgent official greenhouse gas paradigm approved AGW papers, utter crap all of them. Have anyone actually seen a real climate paper worthy of the name? Where have all the real scientists gone? They have been replaced by corrupted shonks.
Jeremy C” Jennifer. Where, where do you dig these people up from?!?”
Indeed, coming from a self-confessed Christian evangelist, the classic epitome of brain-dead.
SjT’s answers everbody with same stock replies…
1) You don’t understand the case for AGW.
2) You haven’t read the IPCC report.
3) ie nothing
4) LOL.
That’s no. 3 for me isn’t it SJT? Ahahahaha.
Mack,
4) LOL (ie involuntary manic laughter)
Mack
Re. sjt,
Sorry to say but it’s our fault, if we only ignored him he’d go away.
Marcus
Luke and SJT were here from the start – so I would not feel too sorry – both seem to have bolted from the Long Paddock in QLD Climate Centre and are running amok here. At our expense.
Dribble – well clearly you haven’t read any – as evident by your own disclosure and ongoing pig ignorant hillbilly comments.
But hey let’s reflect on what you have just said – essentially there are dozens of journals with 1000s of papers which are subject to no scrutiny and are actually party of a huge conspiracy.
uh-huh ! well gee that’s incisive Dribbler. What do you reckon folks ?
On the other hand might someone be just having a big sook. Who’s a little bit silly then. Kitchy kitchy koo.
Get off the blog you content-free clown.
Sorry Davey – I was just trolling around insulting the usuals waiting for Coho to come up with something half challenging worthy of my keyboard. Bored bored bored.
I just checked out Myanna Lahsen’s page. Must say I am in total agreement with whatever she is trying to say. Sigh. Even her address is charismatic.
Maybe a new thread idea for Coho – the 10 sexiest sceptics ? Sceptic pinups? Ms Denial ?
Or a new question for Rove McManus show “Who would you turn AGW for?”
Sorry Barry, Your above post don’t cut it, its just a diversion from what you originally wrote.
Lets go back to your orginal statement, the 2nd sentence of your post.
“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.”
Its up to you matey to show this that this assertion is true. Set it out, put the empirical algorithms side by side with the formula and their context otherwise you are just blustering.
Are you up for it?
Neillllll……….
the reference in your post to ‘sigma 6’. Are you the Neil Fisher who was posting all over the place about sigma 6 or was 6 sigma the GE process for manufacturing quality control?
I don’t have a clue how stuff on comparing the av temp of the earth with the moon has any bearings on barry’s assertions…… but its making me laugh sop thanks for that.
BTW. Whats th av temp of the moon?
Lukey: “But hey let’s reflect on what you have just said – essentially there are dozens of journals with 1000s of papers which are subject to no scrutiny and are actually party of a huge conspiracy.”
Of course they are subject to scrutiny, silly boy. If they do not follow the approved greenhouse gas party line they are not published. What planet are you living on Lukey?
Lukey: “I just checked out Myanna Lahsen’s page. Must say I am in total agreement with whatever she is trying to say. Sigh. Even her address is charismatic. ”
Gee Lukey, at times you really sound as if you are sexually desperate. Are you another one of these adolescent pimply faced AGW believers looking for a root? Why not leave your keyboard for a while and try trolling the meat markets instead of skeptic blogs. Some of the moles might, and I say might, appreciate your sweaty attentions. We don’t.
Jeremy C
No, an hypothesis has to be falsified, not proven. You do not understand the scientific method, hence the pseudoscience that is AGW. It has been falsified many times from observation and measurement. Hence Barry is not required to prove his hypothesis but for you to falsiify it.
Not a lawyer by any chance?
Dribble
I read her abstract – then started on the introduction and its basically nonsense. If Luke is in agreement with something he doesn’t understand then the correct conclusion is that Luke is quite gullible and that he is convinced by how a message is delivered and not on its content.
A few points on the great IPCC fraud from John Ray’s Greenie Watch.
“Regardless of whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 have any measurable on global climate the true deceit of the IPCC is clearly shown by the statement that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are the source of observed 20th century global warming. Twentieth century global warming did not start until 1910. By that time CO2 emissions had already risen from the expanded use of coal that had powered the industrial revolution, and emissions only increased slowly from 3.5gigatonnes in 1910 to under 4gigatonnes by the end of the Second World War.
“It was the post war industrialization that caused the rapid rise in global CO2 emissions, but by 1945 when this began, the Earth was already in a cooling phase that started around 1942 and continued until 1975. With 32 years of rapidly increasing global temperatures and only a minor increase in global CO2 emissions, followed by 33years of slowly cooling global temperatures with rapid increases in global CO2 emissions, it was deceitful for the IPCC to make any claim that CO2 emissions were primarily responsible for observed 20th century global warming.
“Today, two decades later, they are still making this claim with incontrovertible evidence that the Earth has been cooling since 2002 in spite of the continued rapid increase in global CO2 emissions, clearly demonstrated in the IPCC’s own reports. There is absolutely no rational basis for the claim that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are causing or have caused causing global warming, and anyone making this claim under the guise of “consensus science” is guilty of committing scientific fraud.
“This fraud is not trivial. It has been perpetuated for so long that it is now accepted as fact and forms the basis for government programs worldwide, and these programs have had nothing but detrimental effects on the world population and world economy.
“Polar bears, arctic ice thickness, Katrina, wildfires in California, droughts in Africa, and changes to the pH level of the oceans have absolutely nothing to do with the environmentally beneficial CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, but because of this fraud, costly emissions reduction programs are being put in place to address these issues. Before any more suffering is inflicted on the world, we have to put an end to this fraud and hold the perpetrators accountable.”
“Regardless of whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 have any measurable on global climate the true deceit of the IPCC is clearly shown by the statement that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are the source of observed 20th century global warming. Twentieth century global warming did not start until 1910. By that time CO2 emissions had already risen from the expanded use of coal that had powered the industrial revolution, and emissions only increased slowly from 3.5gigatonnes in 1910 to under 4gigatonnes by the end of the Second World War.
Ignorance. Time lag, other natural climate drivers, playing with statistics. While rate had gone up, the actual change in level was still quite low. Like if you drive from Melbourne to Sydney and rapidly get up to 100km/h, there is still quite a drive to get to the destination.
Louis,
I’m sorry what you wrote is wrong. Barry made some assertions – he didn’t put forward any hypothesis. His assertions were about data and formulas. I’m asking him to show how they are wrong.
In a couple of hours he will be up and I am waiting for him to answer my posts
You are back to front in the way you comprehend things!?!? (e.g. me not a lawyer)
Yes Dribble whatever – a massive global conspircacy – keep tossing off. Dribbles – try making a point or leading the discussion – instead of trailing around in my wake trying to latch on. But I forgot – you’re a vacuous moron. hahahahahahahaha
Louis – shaddup – Davey and I are in total agreement with Myanna – you leave her alone – she’s simply – sigh – swoon – wonderful. And you’re not … And don’t pick on her research.
Spanglers quotes “Greenie Watch” as source. hahahahahahahahahahaha
Luke,
Stupid is as stupid does.
sooooo Luke,
Whats this babe’s url and other oh, so vital stats??
OK, I’ve got a theory, well actually more of a hypothesis…….to tell the truth, really the futile musings of a boor but anyway. while pondering the close correlation between temp and CO2 from ice cores over the last 600k years and why there was very little correlation for the rest of earth’s history, I remembered the old music cassette tapes and how they had a poor signal to noise ratio compared to CD’s. The point here is that when you have a strong signal, you can’t hear the background noise but in the space between songs there was a hiss.
Now what if there has always been a background correlation between temp fluctuations and CO2 levels due to changing CO2 solubility with changes in ocean temp, but it was drowned out by the high CO2 concentrations that dominated the distant past. What if we can only see a direct correlation in recent millennia because the CO2 levels are critically low.
If anybody’s listening you can shoot me down in flames now.
Lukey: “Yes Dribble whatever – a massive global conspircacy – keep tossing off. Dribbles – try making a point or leading the discussion – instead of trailing around in my wake trying to latch on. But I forgot – you’re a vacuous moron. hahahahahahahaha”
What point is there for rational discussion with AGW believer trolls? One might as well have a laugh while waiting for the next AGW shonk to appear. With the Copenhagen farce coming up next we can be sure of many laughs to come.
Of course there is a massive global conspiracy, for the following reasons:
1. They all have their hands in the till. They dont get paid unless they produce AGW product.
2. They all believe in the same religion. They are all self-appointed, self-deluded pious frauds puffed up with their desire to prove themselves mini-messiahs on a world-saving jihad. Look at that hysterical pious fraud Raupach and his fraudulent cohorts. You can’t tell me they don’t regard themselves as the next big thing since Jesus. What a pack of wankers.
3. None of them have any evidence. They have never provided any evidence for greenhouse gas warming except computer modelling. But no matter, that the sort of pretend evidence that Gen XYZ dullards like yourself and the venal pollies like.
Toss yourself off you silly bastard.
Why do you waste your time here Lukey? You are never going to convert anybody here to AGW except the trolls that already believe anyway. Why don’t you go out and get a life, you sure sound like you need one. I’m serious Lukey, you really should get out more and try your luck with real chicks instead of Internet pics.
I’m amazed that you hang around here month after month, year after year, banging on with the same old crap about AGW to those who are not listening to you at all. Is it the sport you are after? Are you bored with the bland piousness and the hand-wringing blather of the believer blogs? Do you hope to learn something here? What might that be? Can we help you in any way?
The time honoured method for validating a hypothesis is to build a test facility in which the various parameters can be measured and controlled then run a series of tests varying one parameter at a time to determine its effect. As explained in the original post observations from the natural environment are being affected by numerous and often interactive variable parameters thus the effect of each one is impossible to determine. This point being totally ignored by the alarmists.
I suggest a cylindrical chamber 20 meters high and about 20 m2 area, spot lights focussed on the floor isolated by glass windows in the roof to simulate the sun, a matt black floor with embedded temperature sensors, a circulation system to measure and control the atmospheric components and a recirculation system to control the temperature. Radiation monitors to measure the spectrum of IR would be placed at frequent intervals up the chamber.
A series of tests could be run with only O2, N2, and CO2 at various concentrations, then increase the humidity to a prescribed ppm level and repeat the run for a series of humidity levels.
The power to the spot lights could also be varied to determine its effect. Thus the variables could be separated and a series of spectra showing the rate of absorption of the outgoing IR with height above the surface would be obtained for all the conditions simulated. The temperature of the surface would also be monitored to determine the changes in it.
Considering the fact that some $50 billion has been spent over the past 10 years not including the NASA and NOAA funds on research to justify the AGW hypothesis I would think such a test facility would be a drop in the bucket and would yield definitive answers to today’s questions on this subject, perhaps that is why the governments have not funded such a program because they are afraid the results will invalidate their tax swindle.
Barry,
Your post doesn’t answer my question.
Let me again set out what you wrote down….
“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”
Thats what I have been asking for you to prove. Take us through the data, equations, the algorithms and show us why they are inaccurate.
Mate, any of us could suggest a large experiment like yours.
I want to know if you know what you are talking about. Until then your suggestions of large physixcal experiments are just a diversion from what you originally stated.
Barry,
You stated in the above post
“Considering the fact that some $50 billion has been spent over the past 10 years not including the NASA and NOAA funds on research to justify the AGW hypothesis ”
Give us a break down of this figure, e.g. dose it include loo roles.
This 50 billion has become yet another proposaganda meme regularly trotted out. It could be true, but, but no one has pointed me to a break down of this figure with evidence to back it up.
So, matey yet more assertions…………..
Barry’s point about circular reasoning is important. And I’d like to expand on it.
The political logic of climate change computer modeling is analogous to money-laundering. Drug dealers pump their ill-gotten gains through legitimate-appearing enterprises that they control. Voila! The drug money is magically transformed into business income.
Climate ‘scientists’ do essentially the same thing. I call it conjecture laundering. The AGW hypothesis is expressed in the form of various computer models. Never mind the fact that these models have had zero predictive power in the real world. The *existence* of these computer models is taken as evidence for their validity. The fact that these computer models paint the picture of an unpleasant future if we don’t get a handle on GHG emissions is supposed to be cause for concern.
But what if the computer models turn out to be correct in the long term? Isn’t it better to err on the side of caution?
If the Precautionary Principle has general validity, then it must legitimize religious scare tactics as well. Or should one apply the PP only when it suits one’s political agenda?
The fact that well-trained computer jockeys spend thousands of hours and a huge chunk of money masturbating with silicon may impress people with a mental age of 12. It does not impress me. Climate change computer modeling has all of the trappings of science, but it has completely forgotten that real science is evidence-based. Climate change computer modeling is Cargo Cult Science, at its worst.
I would think such a test facility would be a drop in the bucket and would yield definitive answers to today’s questions on this subject, perhaps that is why the governments have not funded such a program because they are afraid the results will invalidate their tax swindle.
Fantasy. I am sure the deniers could come up with the dollars if they feel like doing it, but the basic physical properties are already well known and understood.
jeremy C – Joanne Nova has listed all the 50 billion expenditure in her book
http://joannenova.com.au/
No matter how much fact you feed the warmers, their faith always wins out.
In Luke’s case, being a natural heathen, a bit of blonde hair and cleavage spoils his aim particularly while he is sweating and hyperventilating.
But a few bon mots? Never!
The best news is that the American public is getting bored by the AGW hype:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/bloomberg_poll_092209.png
The hysterics, as so well represented by SJT, Jeremy C, and of course my pals at Luke, are simply not getting the message through. Not only is their take on climate science not working out, their boorishness is turning people off.
Is it not fascinating that when confronted with specifics, like the costs of AGW propmotion so far, the true believers turn true to form and deny, dissemble and dodge?
Janama,
Ummm…… just where is the 50 Billion figure in Joane Nova’s handbook?
Have I missed it. She has this on page 12.
“From 1989 – 2007 US Government budgets include a total of $30 billion for pure scientific climate research vs Exxon: 23 milion, at last count”
30 billion, not 50?
18 years, 30/18 = 1.67 billion per year. Its not broken down as far as I can see for example dioes it include programs such as Landsat and its sucessors etc? How does she define,’pure scientific research’, how is it broken down?
Then there is this funny comparison of 23 million spent by Exxon. what does that figure mean, does Exxon finance ‘pure climate research’ against what time period, what are the measurables?
Thats a very odd thing to do to compare this figure against expenditure by an energy company? Very strange.
Have I misread her Sceptics Handbook. I’m happy to be corrected.
jeremy, you really are beginning to sound like a broken record, first of all there is not enough space to publish what you are asking, then you would nit pick ad nasium and also you would not be able to understand it if it were posted. so what is the point of trying to educate narrow minded morons like you that can not even begin to justify your position with any kind of defence except to ask for more and more proof from our side when you offer nothing. If my statements are invalid prove it by posting what you are asking for.
Jeremy C
Published on Jo Nova’s site – note climate related expenditure is something like +60 billion. Readers can make up their own minds about your inability to discern truth from fiction.
Fiscal Year . Climate Science . Climate Technology . Foreign Assistance . Tax Breaks . Annual Total .
1989 134 $134
1990 659 $659
1991 954 $954
1992 1,110 $1,110
1993 1,326 845 201 $2,372
1994 1,444 1,038 186 $2,668
1995 1,760 1,283 228 $3,271
1996 1,654 1,106 192 $2,952
1997 1,656 1,056 164 $2,876
1998 1,677 1,251 186 $3,114
1999 1,657 1,694 325 $3,676
2000 1,687 1,793 177 $3,657
2001 1,728 1,675 218 $3,621
2002 1,667 1,637 224 $3,528
2003 1,766 2,533 270 580 $4,569
2004 1,975 2,870 252 500 $5,097
2005 1,865 2,808 234 369 $4,907
2006 1,691 2,789 249 1160 $4,729
2007 1,825 3,441 188 1730 $5,454
2008 1,832 3,917 212 * 1420 * $5,961
2009 2,441 * 4,400 * 579 * 1160 * $7,420
TOTAL $32,508 + $36,136 + $3,506 + $6,919 = $79,069
*Estimate or Request.………..Annual Spending totals (right hand col) do not include Tax breaks.
jc, the cost of the measures proposed to ‘solve’ AGW in the US is $200 billion pa;
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml
In Australia, a 5% reduction in emissions refereable to 2000 will cost $50 billion pa;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25243345-601,00.html
There is no doubt AGW will financially destroy the world economy; Lomborg showed this in his second book, “Cool It’; but it doesn’t matter, listening to the abc this morning, ratcheting up the sense of impending doom [and thanks nature for the timely dust-storm, that’ll have the apocalyptics frothing at the mouth], it’s a done deal and the whole gamut of doom merchants will brook no back-down; who do you work for jc, Goldman Sachs, some other bank, some ‘green energy’ entrepreneur, one of the big law or accounting firms spruiking their carbon trading schemes, maybe one of the burgening bureaucracies, the wonderful UN even? Or are you just an ideologue? Well done, whatever you are.
Barry,
All I want is for you to justify what you asserted. What do you mean by not enough space?. Why would I nit pick, aren’t you confident of what you have stated?
All I’m doing, as a simple double E, is to ask questions of what you wrote.
C’mon mate, I’m a supposed ‘believer’ in AGW so you should be able to knock me intellectually for six…… or am I to conclude there is nothing behind your assertions.
(BTW…. Are these things, “sound like a broken record”, “you would not be able to understand it if it were posted”, “narrow minded morons like you ” Ad Homms that people such as Joanne Nova get so angry about?)
Louis, do you have a link to those figures from Jo Nova?
Barry Moore,
Your suggestion of a test posted above, seems to be so simple conceptually to put together I wonder why No University in the world has given it a go..even as a student exercise.
As an Engineer why dont you knock up some working drawings,parts list and protocols for doing the test, post them on a web site and dare them to do it, and if funds are the problem send them to me via Jennifer, and I will find a sponsor.
Plenty of coal companies in this part of the world would love to know the truth of the matter rather than the b/s and exaggerations coming from the politically tainted academics and government funded research establishments.
What is there to lose.
“There is no doubt AGW will financially destroy the world economy” ho ho ho ho ho ho ho – what alarmist denialist crap. No that’s what lawyers do with bankers ! Or the military.
Yes indeed ponder the dust storm and another El Nino indeed – hahahahahahahahahaha
you denialist scum. You climate sell outs. Shonksters.
“The fact that well-trained computer jockeys spend thousands of hours and a huge chunk of money masturbating with silicon may impress people with a mental age of 12.”
ha – you wouldn’t have a clue you dopey moron ! Denialist filth just love to rant.
URL for above table
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
Cohenite, this is the final act for the Fabian socialists in their goal – world socialism – they have succeeded and as I have often written, here and elsewhere, it is time to step back, head for cover to survive and re-emerge when it all collapses as it will. The socialists control the public service, education, and the military as well, judging by the motto HMAS Adelaide had “For the Common Good”, but let’s hope once the ETS is in that we are not despatched, as George Bernard Shaw wrote, “amiably”. They control the money supply and with the stimulus efforts from last year debauched the money yet again by the printing press. It is the first scenario Keynes advocated to destroy an economy. Notice that all are Keynesians, and Fabian socialism was always advertised as Keynesianism.
The Fabians seem to be proud of the fact that they achieved their goal by stealth, incrementally edging us closer to the socialist ideal without most of us realising it. Some of us did, but for the most part, the mob remain unaware. The UN was set up by them, as was the league of nations.
Early Fabians like the Webbs, Sidney and Beatrice, conceived the idea of a minimum wage so that the less able in society would become unemployed, and hence subservient to the state – really a modern form of slavery. The Fabians are also tied in with the eugenic movement, and that is another issue which Richard Lindzen only touched on in his essay of 1995 – but which remains a potent force. The Greens are quite content to cull the planet of excess humanity, having publicly stated so on many occasions. I have personally experienced this attitude from having to deal with WA EPA staffers.
I expect capitalists, or those who oppose socialism, to have a hard time for quite a few years to come and given the virulence of the posting here, and the ill-will directed to sceptics in general by the the AGW crowd here, that some will probably become our jailers.
Hopefully the Americans will rebel and reverse this trend, but I doubt it. Wall Street is no longer the home of capitalism since the banks have now become public utilities.
It isn’t so much AGW destroying the world economy as socialism destroying it.
“ponder the dust storm”
I am – it’s very pretty at the moment as it’s placed a yellow glow through our fog.
Not as spectacular as the one I witnessed in Melbourne in 82.
Louis,
If you did a bit more digging you would find where some of the money is going. Joanne Nova has done the linikng work for you so you have no excuse.
For example using her links it took me five minutes to get this stuff below. Its the recent research and plans for fiscal Y 2009 from the US climate Science change program
# Atmospheric Composition
# Climate Variability and Change
# Global Water Cycle
# Land-Use and Land-Cover Change
# Global Carbon Cycle
# Ecosystems
# Human Contributions and Responses and Decision-Support Resources Development
# Observing and Monitoring the Climate System
# Communications
# International Research and Cooperation.
This work is across some 13 government agencies.
(see http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2009/)
The funding request is for just over 2 billion as per the table you copied from Joanne Nova’s site.
Why are you saying this is wasted money? How have you audited it?
Dig deeper as Joanne has done for example this piece from the GAO on how reproting on Climate cgange programs should be clearer and more complete
“Federal funding for climate change, as reported by OMB, increased from
$2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (116 percent), or from $3.28
billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for inflation, and funding
increased for three of the four categories between 1993 and 2004. However,
changes in reporting methods limit the comparability of funding data over
time, and therefore it is unclear whether total funding actually increased as
much as reported. We were unable to compare changes in the fourth
category–climate-related tax expenditures–because OMB reported
estimates for proposed but not existing tax expenditures from 1993
through 2004.”
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05461.pdf
Note two things that this is different from Joannes figures and that it perhaps relates to administrative and reporting methods rather than work undertaken. The GAO has long and honourable history of uncovering inefficiency in US government departments.
Also don’t forget that Joanne Nova has gone into this with an agenda – we all know that but she has given links to all documents so get into these documents and prove that deviant practices in science are going on to fleece the Us taxpayer…..
Cohenite,
Don’t you ever question what you read……………………………………………………..
Cohenite,
Why do you believe that what lomborg writes is accurate?
Cohenite,
“luke, I’ll wear a bikini if it means you’ll come to your senses.”
Something the rest of us don’t know about the collective Lukey??
SJT says
“, but the basic physical properties are already well known and understood.”
so why dont the IPCC publish them in their report, Quote me one page of the 4th AR which contains this type of information I have read all 1000 pages and it is not there because it does not exist.
You have by this statement alone demonstrated your complete and utter ignorance of this subject since no climate scientist has ever made such a claim, in fact all admit that we are only just scratching the surface of this subject.
You have also demonstrated that you are totally ignorant of the scientific method of validation since experimental results from test facilities are mandatory for proof. so if they are available please publish the reports.
The $50 billion is a world wide figure and is well documented and generally accepted.
With regard to the uncertainty of the inputs to the computer models one does not have to look any further than tha IPCC report itself try page 114 where the uncertainty of the effects of clouds is discussed, then take a look at the NASA cloud study web site http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal1.html
Check out the resolution of the models compared to the resolution require by NASA to understand their impact.
From the NASA web site; Such variations are referred to as “natural” variability, that is the climate varies naturally for reasons that are not fully understood. The problem for understanding climate changes that might be produced by human activities is that the predicted changes are similar in magnitude to those shown here. The difference between natural and human-induced climate change will only appear clearly in much longer ( >= 50 years) data records.
Also check out the computer predictions compared to actual data particularly from the satellites
Have you ever researched http://www.climate4you.com/ it has a wealth of data from all the accredited sources that you can compare to the computer predictions.
jc; do I question what I read; there is no parity between the promulgation of each side of the AGW debate because the pro-AGW side has repeatedly announced that it is ok to lie and exaggerate;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_licence_to_tell_warming_lies/#commentsmore
I think Lomborg has integrity but I am struggling to think of one pro-AGW scientist/spokesperson who is trustworthy; who would you pick as an honest proponent of AGW?
Jeremy C,
you are the one doubting Joanne’s research. Hows about y’all pointing out where the money has been well spent??
NASA is still studying Magnetic Reconnection and the Kuyper belt, not to mention the primary here ACC…
“ponder the dust storm”
That says it all really.
Dust storms have been conspicuous by their absence for the last few decades due to better land practices.
But it’s so easy to use a bit of adverse weather to promote AGW.
“Gaze upon my alarmist predictions, O ye mighty, and despair”.
Eventually you warm wacker wankers will also go the way of Ozymandias.
Dribble and others, Luke hangs around here because he’s aware of the impact of this blog and he’s shit scared of it.
Whooops!! Typo from my last post
“and prove that deviant practices in science are going on to fleece the Us taxpayer…..”
That was meant to read, So Louis you go and prove that deviant practices are going on to fleece the US taxpayer.
Barry,
“The $50 billion is a world wide figure and is well documented and generally accepted”
But Barry, I’ve asked the others here to break it down and have given you Joanne Nova’s leads to explain it so break it down for us. I’ve started the process. Don’t just repeat it like liturgy.
“Check out the resolution of the models compared to the resolution require by NASA to understand their impact.” Excuse my ignorance but whats the issue with resolution and how does it back up what you are saying?
“such variations are referred to as “natural” variability, that is the climate varies naturally for reasons that are not fully understood” Can you back this satement up please.
“From the NASA web site; Such variations are referred to as “natural” variability, that is the climate varies naturally for reasons that are not fully understood. The problem for understanding climate changes that might be produced by human activities is that the predicted changes are similar in magnitude to those shown here. The difference between natural and human-induced climate change will only appear clearly in much longer ( >= 50 years) data records.
Also check out the computer predictions compared to actual data particularly from the satellites
Have you ever researched http://www.climate4you.com/ it has a wealth of data from all the accredited sources that you can compare to the computer predictions.”
Thats started the process to try and justify your post but it doesn’t go far enough as it really just waters down your original assertion about formula and how they are deployed in modelling. Lay it out more completely Barry instead of resorting to Ad Homms and talking around the subject (e.g. 50 billion)
Jeremy C – here’s the second para from Obamas latest speach
“No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change.
1. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.
2. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.
3. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.
4. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees”
The itemization is mine.
all items 1- 4 are false and are designed to fleece the US Taxpayer..
Rising sea levels are not going to happen anytime soon, as global cooling takes hold. We can expect more extreme events in the mid-latitudes, but hurricanes and cyclones should diminish in the tropics.
Early conflict resolution in the form of food aid will become the norm, but there will still be conflict.
With a cool phase PDO, inactive sun and ‘still born’ El Nino, we should be preparing for increased precipitation in south-east Australia.
you are the one doubting Joanne’s research. Hows about y’all pointing out where the money has been well spent??
She’s the one who has to prove it. Every year there will be money spent on climate research regardless of AGW. The money does not go to the scientists, they just get their basic salary. They don’t get retention bonuses, share options, and the rest of the perks that business executives get.
“The money does not go to the scientists, they just get their basic salary”
SJT – If they don’t get the research grant by applying for AGW research their department will be closed down. Where do you think all these departments with “climate change” in their titles came from?
Luke,
I don’t know how far you got on Myanna’s website, possibly not far past the photograph. If you click around, you will find a paper called ‘Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models’.
The abstract begins ‘This paper discusses the distribution of certainty around General Circulation Models (GCMs) – computer models used to project possible global climatic changes due to human emissions of greenhouse gases’ and ends with ‘the study discusses how modelers, and to some extent knowledge producers in general, are sometimes less able than some users to identify shortcomings of their models.’
I assume you agree with this. If not, I am going to tell Myanna.
Ref: Lahsen, M. (2005) Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distributions Around Climate Models. Social Studies of Science 35/6: 895-922.
P.S. Have you considered the trope of distance underpinning Donald MacKenzie’s concept of ‘certainty trough’, and the more multi-dimensional and dynamic conceptualization of how uncertainty is distributed around technology? Perhaps we can hand this one over to SJT for deconstruction.
Yes, Dr Lahsen is a fair lass; possessed of some wit too;
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2590-2008.05.pdf
Never underestimate the ego of a nerd or ponce, which is what most of the AGW boys are;
Handing over anything to little will to deconstruct reminds me of Greene’s “The Destructors”. The irony with the gang of the alarmist destructors is that they have not gone through any crisis such as WW11, nor is Western society decadent except to the extent that it tolerates those who live within who would tear down the social structure in the name of AGW/nature. Still, the commentary on human nature is similar even though nihilism has been partially replaced with cognitive dissonance.
I’m just a simple fellow, unhindered by technical knowledge of anything more complicated than how to flick a light switch. As such, I approach things in a simple way.
The proposition was put that “some $50 billion has been spent over the past 10 years not including the NASA and NOAA funds on research to justify the AGW hypothesis”.
Quite plainly that assertion is either true or it is false. The proponent has been challenged to justify the figure, but I have seen nothing to show whether the challenger denies the figure.
Does he?
Jeremy C, you said “Excuse my ignorance but whats the issue with resolution and how does it back up what you are saying?”
As a rule of thumb, the greater the model resolution the better the output. Essentially if more input data is available then the output should be improved. For example the difference between early landsat images (80km resolution) to say Quickbird or Ikonos imagery, sub metre to 4 metre resolution. The sub metre resolution provides far more information than the 80Km resolution and for the construction of say a digital elevation model (DEM) the DEM will be far superior as it will have much greater detail. This is the same as comparing a Quickbird derived DEM with the terrain model derived through the use of LIDAR. The gain from the lidar is due to the higher resolution and the subsequent increase in information about the terrain that is modelled.
In climate models any increase in resolution will also result in an increase in the quality and usability of the output. Remember that a model is just an abstraction of reality. When the resolution is increased we move an incremental step closer to understanding that reality. Currently GCM’s are very coarse and unreliable as a result of that coarseness. However they do offer some insights into the climate system especially in demonstrating the areas where our knowledge is lacking.
“, but the basic physical properties are already well known and understood.”
so why dont the IPCC publish them in their report, Quote me one page of the 4th AR which contains this type of information I have read all 1000 pages and it is not there because it does not exist.
You have by this statement alone demonstrated your complete and utter ignorance of this subject since no climate scientist has ever made such a claim, in fact all admit that we are only just scratching the surface of this subject.
You are confusing yourself trying to understand a very complex subject that has an unusually wide scope. I’m quite prepared to accept my limitations in understanding the complexities.
However, if you want to read a free, online climate textbook, please do.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html
The radiative properties of gases are well known and understood, and verified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MODTRAN
However, if you want to read a free, online climate textbook, please do.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html
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.
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.