Death knell for AGW

June 23rd, 2008, 02:53 AM

So what your saying is that the models based on the theory you and Tonington hold so near and dear are, by your own admission, far worse than I stated? Yet you still cling to this terrible science?

LMAO!!!!!

This belongs to you Zzarchov:

June 23rd, 2008, 05:13 AM

What I'm saying is, whether or not the models or correct or incorrect:


You don't understand what they say. You don't know what your talking about. You could be preaching the truth of ages,

But you'd just be parroting it without any understanding of WHAT your saying. Your a mouthpiece.


And you've proven it, even now you ask me about if what you are saying is better or worse.


Enjoy your fail shipment. Its some truly epic fail as I understand it. Though I applaud you for waiting till you could start a new page to reply to it

Nothing says classy in failure like that

June 23rd, 2008, 05:39 AM

I find it humorous that you would be so in love with a theory that can't make predictions. Do you believe in pixies, faeries and god too?

June 23rd, 2008, 07:18 AM


I can play that way too, this game is far more fun, since Im pretty sure you understand how this one operates (its a shame you don't have anything to add to the global warming debate)

Cheers

June 23rd, 2008, 05:53 PM

Nothing to add except that it is a false theory because it can't make predictions!

A theory must be able to make predictions if it is true. If it can't make predictions then it is false. Just imagine if Relativity used this GW pseudo science?

June 23rd, 2008, 09:22 PM

uh...no, thats not how theories work. Theories allow you to predict the outcomes when you control the variables.

Your logic falls down because even established theories can't predict how 2 dice will fall without being able to control all of the variables. If outside forces keep slapping the dice as they roll around, it can't be predicted.

June 23rd, 2008, 11:03 PM

That is the purpose of modelling the environment. So you control the variables and the theory can make a prediction.

There is no problem predicting the most to least likely outcomes of your dice roll. Over time a very accurate bell curve can be made of likely rolls. You could even make a theory like: seven will be the most common result. A simple little test will prove the theory right.

Your GW theory can't even do that!

June 24th, 2008, 05:58 PM

Ouch.

July 7th, 2008, 06:27 AM

There is no evidence man-made CO2 causes climate change

Published: 4 Jul 08 - 0:00
During 2008, have we seen many stories in the newspapers about 2007 being particularly warm as a result of global warming? During 2006, the doomsters were predicting that 2007 would be the hottest year on record, so why have we seen no reports about this?
The answer is simple – 2007 turned out to be the coolest year for 30 years. It is also the case that there has been no global warming since 1998. In fact, since 1998, there has been steady cooling.
Even more dramatic is the fact that the most recent computer model predictions indicate that there will be no more global warming for the next ten years. But the doomsters say that, after this ten-year period, global warming will come back with a vengeance. Why?
Certainly, mankind's production of carbon dioxide (CO2) has continued to increase since 1998 and will continue to increase, particularly since countries such as China and India say that their economic growth comes first, so they do not intend worrying too much about CO2 production.
I have repeatedly pointed out that there is little or no link between CO2 production by mankind and a rise in global temperature. In fact, indications are that it is the opposite – an increased temperature causes more CO2 to be ejected into the atmosphere.
In the time of the Viking settlements on Greenland, about 1 000 years ago, there was a period of warming. That is why the Viking settlements flourished and they could grow grapes and maize, which puzzled the archaeologists.
Then it cooled, and the last Viking supply ship arrived at the settlements in 1410, after which it all froze up.
The world then experienced the Little Ice Age, during the time of Shakespeare and Jan van Riebeeck. The Thames froze over, and there was a period of economic decline, in comparison to the economic boom during the Medieval period of global warming.
There was also an earlier warming period, known as the Roman Warming, during the period of Roman economic prosperity.
All of this warming and cooling happened without any contribution from any man-made CO2. Indications in our modern times are that the warming observed up to the end of 2006 has been due to a natural cycle in the intensity of the sun.
This was, by all indications, the same source of warming of the Medieval and Roman Warming periods. But now South Africa wants to impose a carbon tax aimed at cutting South Africa's emission of greenhouse gases. I think this is wrong. The proposal is for a 2c/kWh tax to be imposed from September.
This is expected to generate R4-billion a year for the National Treasury. But the economics folks point out that this 2c tax translates into a 10% increase in the electricity cost.
One of the reasons why South Africa uses a large amount of electricity is that we have major exports whose production is energy intensive, such as gold, steel and aluminium. We do not export watches like the Swiss, or computer software like the Irish, so to quote our per capita production of CO2 is stupid.
The tax, I am told, is to incentivise the use of renewable sources of power, such as wind, solar and hydro. This is crazy too. I am all in favour of wind and solar, but only if such sources can stand on their own two feet in economic competition to our coal-fired power. To fake the economics is to do damage to our exports, and to the lifestyle of every citizen.
There is little or no indication that man-made CO2 is causing any climate change. There has been no global warming since 1998. The warming that did happen during the twentieth century happened mainly between 1920 and 1940. The year 2007 was the coolest year for 30 years.
For us to go with the flow, or dive into a panic mode, is crazy. Let us look after the health and welfare of our people first. This does not mean being irresponsible about any sources of pollution from industrial operations or any other activities. It means using genuine science, and not the scare tactics of world political manipulators, to come to really sensible conclusions.

July 7th, 2008, 02:17 PM


Actually your wrong. No predictive method can determine the likely outcome of 1 dice roll without controlling all the variables (size of dice, air pressure, temperature of surface) etc. You can't do that in real life to make the prediction come true.

And 7 is the most likely numerical value of adding 2 dice togethor. Its not the most likely way for the dice to fall.

Im just as likely to get boxcars as I am to get a 4 on the first die and a 3 on the second.

July 7th, 2008, 03:47 PM

Seven or eight billions tons may be insignifigant. Sub Jovian dust loads are 30 times higher than average and that stuff enters our atmosphere.

July 8th, 2008, 03:10 AM

You've changed the subject. The probability of rolling any single number on one die is exactly the same as any other number: 1:6. You were originally talking about the sum of two die rolls which is what I responded to. You have now changed the subject to the probability of a single number on one die.

The global warming theory is about predicting trends, however, in your metaphor (of dice) you now want the subject to be about predicting specific values. If we looked for specific values in GW then it is an utter and disastrous failure. GW is not about specific values but about trends. My original point was also about trends. Your latest argument is irrelevant to this conversation and just a blatant attempt to confuse the conversation.

I expect such tactics from people who support GW because it seems they don't care much for reality and fact. To them, it would seem, what they desire and want is of paramount importance.

July 8th, 2008, 09:20 PM

No Scott, he said "predict how two dice will fall." That's not at all the same things as what the sum of the two dice will be. That's just how you interpreted it, which was incorrect.

July 8th, 2008, 10:25 PM

July 8th, 2008, 11:49 PM

You're telling me!

July 17th, 2008, 05:55 PM

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate
"Considerable presence" of skeptics

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."
In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"
In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."
Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

July 17th, 2008, 09:49 PM

You really don't believe this tripe, do you? In 1967 Global Warming was a hot topic and agreed upon by the top scientists and meteorologists of the time. Now with the help of money from 'Roo lobbyists opinions have changed. I can smell the b.s. coming through my monitor.
Believe nothing of what you read, half of what you hear and all of what you can see!

July 18th, 2008, 06:38 AM

No smoking hot spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.