Skip to comments.Mathematically Confirmed: There Is No Climate Change Crisis
Posted on 07/17/2008 2:03:05 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Here's something unlikely to make the cover of Time. From the Science & Public Policy Institute:
WASHINGTON (7-15-08) — Mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis" appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.
Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F.
The paper reveals the following:
• The IPCC's 2007 climate summary overstated CO2's impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
• CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
• Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
• The IPCC's values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
• The IPCC's values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
• "Global warming" halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
• Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
• The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists' draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
• It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
• Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
• In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
Someone had better get this news to Al Gore, since he won't be seeing it on TV. I'm sure he'll want to apologize for causing a lot of senseless hysteria over nothing.
Climate Change Tenet number 42,781:
Global Warming will eventually cause people with impressive degrees to become hysterical and publish reports that Global Warming is not really happening at all. When this happens, Al Glore will have to take over and protect the global populace from itself.
Facts and figures mean nothing/sarc
W knew! (but has since forgotten)
When Prophecy Fails.....watch for some rally crazy stuff from the Global Warming crowd. Really weird stuff.
Algore will now have to come up with another scam to get awards and stupid people to pay him for speeches. As if the facts that have been there all along haven’t been enough reason.
That looks more like statistics than mathematics.
Gorebull Squirming debunked!
Blasphemy! May the tribulations of Jabba the Gore be upon you!
Unfortunately for leftists, there is no /sarc tage at the end of that statement. Of course is they actually they thought, they’d be conservatives.
Blinded by science again. I hate when facts get in the way of the AGW crowds ‘good intentions’... After all, isn’t ‘saving the planet’ a noble thing to want, even if the planet does not need to be saved?
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Mark my words, some clown will figure in the solar data and state that the increased solar activity will be more pronounced in effects upon the Earth due to increased green house gas emissions as opposed to what the effects would have been without the man-made gasses!
Look the greenies want their kumbaya world of half naked folk ruled by a “guiding” elite at no more than 500 million souls upon the planet. They will even fudge the data if they have to to get their “new Eden”! Nothing but ultimately armed revolution will stop them!
I understand a very small portion of it...the parts in English not in mathematics...oh and the charts I understand mostly.
Summary at the end:
In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCCs estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCCs estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no climate crisis at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.
Hello John McCain and McCainiacs, are you listening?
My son works in a Natl. Lab that keeps very close track of the weather for Natl. Security purposes and has done so for more than 60 years. He told me last year that their records absolutely showed no appreciable change.
That ending is sure solid. Nice landing! 9.65 9.72 8.87 10.0 9.42...
Thanks for the post. I building up courage as I type.
Isn't he trying that with his "get off carbon based fuel by 2018" BS?
Ekofreeks will believe this report and the MSM will report on it when...
Obama produces birth certificate and other records
J F'n K produces his SF-180
And so, since vegetation thrives on CO2, the models show the Earth becoming a verdant paradise of overflowing greens wherever the eye can see, right?
I’ve posted the below question on several political forums and still no answer from the alarmists. They see and hear what they want to believe and ignore anything that contradicts what they believe.
At one point in An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore references a set of line charts which depict global temperature(Blue) and global CO2 levels (red) one above another for the past 650,000 years. His first point is that they parallel closely thereby showing the direct relation between them. His next point is a relationship shown during the recent (last ice age until present day) portion of the chart. He points to the high peak at the end of the temperature line and says it would indicate a pleasant day. He then points to the low point in temperature and say this would be a place where you would have a mile of Ice over your head. At this point he moves up to the CO2 line and the chart animates forward in time to the present day. The CO2 for present day is a nearly vertical line with about double the length of the CO2 change shown from mile of ice to pleasant day. Here is where the problem arises. If I am to believe Als first assertion that the CO2 and temp are directly related (and the lines do indeed show almost identical changes in direction and magnitude), and I ascribe a reasonable temperature difference to the unit Mile of Ice to Pleasant day like 80 degrees F, then the present day temp For places like Detroit and Cleveland would have to be 240 degrees F (80 + 2 X 80). Al then goes on to show the predictions for the next 50 years on the CO2 line, about another 2 of my units. This would mean that the corresponding temperature would have to be 400 degrees (240 +2 X 80).
There a couple of inconvenient (for poor Al) truths left out in the movie at this point. 1. The temperature scale is never continued to present day because it would have shown a gross flattening not corresponding to the CO2 line (Weather channel showing significantly below 240 this time of year). And 2. Since the graph is on the 650,000 year scale it fails to show the 100-200 year nuance that temperature precedes CO2 levels indicating increased CO2 is a result not a cause of naturally caused global climate change.
that would make an excellent tag line, if someone is looking for one, OR a fantastic bumper sticker.
Don’t you know the debate is over??
The Left is way ahead of this. It’s now ‘Climate Change’ instead of ‘Global Warming’. We have to stay current!
Yes, they are taught as separate classes in college, aren't they? However, statistics is a subset of mathematics, not the other way around.
Must be the French judge
Liberals will simply claim its ‘fuzzy math’...
I have said this 1000 times.
It applies to many things in life, including most if not all liberal "crises."
Except that there is no positive correlation between climate change and increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
According to a graph on NASA, between 1880 and 1938, there was an obvious warming trend that was concurrent with an atmospheric CO2 increase of +20 ppmv.
Between 1938 and 2004, there was a cooling and recovery and there has been no net warming since 1938. This cooling was concurrent with an increase in atmospheric CO2 of +60 ppmv.
The temp increase over the last 100 years is .6 degrees.
Pre-industrial CO2 levels made up .028% of all components in the atmosphere.
Present day CO2 levels constitute .0384% of the atmosphere. CO2 accounts for 72% of greenhouse gases but even if it were to double, it would still make up less than .01% of our atmosphere. Water vapor makes up far more of our atmosphere than CO2 does and is far more efficient at absorbing and trapping heat from the sun.
Did Al Gore approve those numbers....
Lefties and regular Americans who got sucked into this fraud will be deeply saddened ;)
Gore declared months ago that the facts were in and the debate was over. This won’t dissuade him from his mission as savior of planet earth.
We used to call “Climate Change” “the weather” as it changes all the time.
chill, oops, read later
Climate change covers everything; from -100% to 100%. Just one of those convenient terms that they like to use (instead of Global Warming which only covers positive temp changes). That’s all my post was meant to illustrate. :)
While accurate, this is irrelevant. We're not adding water to the environment. In fact, we have no way to add water. There's already just about more water than anything else.
We are adding carbon. Doesn't mean the warmists are right, but we should try to be scientifically accurate.
Sensitivity derivatives are known to be, um, sensitive...
Now that the tide is turning — a lot of young scientists will want to make their mark, by showing how wrong their theses advisers were.
There are probably tens of thousands of academic scientists, who are anxious to shake off the shackles of oppression (so to speak) and finally be allowed to publish the “truth”, as they see it. They will be further motivated by vengeance against the academic fascists, and bureaucrats that have held them down. Reparations will be demanded. (Only slightly exaggerating, here.) It will be fun to watch.
I write software for a living - I laugh when I read that ‘the computer models say”
the computer models only say whatever you tell them to say
I still think it is all Bush’s fault (sarc)
“When Prophecy Fails.....watch for some rally crazy stuff from the Global Warming crowd. Really weird stuff”
Hello John McCain and McCainiacs, are you listening?
Only to La Raza and Al Gore.