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.
I wasn’t saying that we’re adding water to the atmosphere. I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to be worried about Carbon dioxide and the amount of it being put in the atmosphere by human activity when water vapor is something we DON’T put add to the atmosphere, makes up far more of our atmosphere, and more of a greenhouse gas.
Not only is everything I posted scientifically accurate but also punches wholes in the theory that global warming is caused by humans spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.
How can that be when water vapor is much more of an important heat trapping greenhouse gas? That was my reason for bringing up water vapor.
No, he will be done and another will arise. I'm betting on asteroids or aliens, but they could try pandemic again. I think most are currently hoping oil will go to $400.00, but I don't think America will put up with it.
wholes = holes........I have no idea why my brain did that.
Only if one excludes water vapor.
Reports like this are going to cause Cogitator to stay in his hole ‘til Groundhog Day or at least long enough to cobble together some more of his “proof” that us humans are roasting/killing the planet.
In parts of Europe, the results of this study will be called (and maybe tried as) a hate crime.
“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 havent been enough reason.”
He already is moving on to the “Energy Crisis” as of today.
Time to check those instruments.
Depends on how one defines "environment".
In a number of locales there is a lot of irrigation coming from aquifers that have long time constants for refreshing - that could be influencing local temperatures though I haven't seen any real studies. Plus water in air concentrations are affected by air temperature and could be a major feedback to be considered.
I didn’t realize that. Thank-you.
I recently also read that CO2 only absorbs select frequencies of infrared radation. As you increase atmospheric concentrations of CO2, each increment traps less and less heat until it levels off logarithmically.
Another thing that the GW people are not answering (that I can find anywhere) is why temperatures have dropped since 1998 even as CO2 production has continued to increase. There are so many holes in their theory that their credibility drops by the day and yet politicians are setting policies that require all of us to reduce our quality of life based on this junk science.
That is an effect, not the cause.
AGW causes increased solar output...for awhile. Then it gets even worse.
The decreased albedo (result of cleaning particulate & aerosol pollution out of the air) and increased greenhouse gases combine to suck more heat out of the sun.
The solar wind forms a direct link between the earth's atmosphere and the solar surface, and that allows a heat sink effect to operate, with the cooler (but AGW-caused warmer) earth drawing energy in, causing the sun to cool off, which allows it to contract, which increases core pressure, hence rekindling & increasing solar activity.
Naturally, that increased activity causes a concommitant re-expansion & cooling.
That sets up a negative feedback system that will evenventually destroy the sun.
AGW causes supernovas in otherwise stable, Main Sequencce stars!
Do I really need to add a tag?
Um, statistics is a branch of mathematics...
“Ive 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.”
Yup, it’s a mental disorder called “cognitive dissonance,” and it VERY common among libs and econuts. Seriously, not kidding one bit.
Ping for later.
“I recently also read that CO2 only absorbs select frequencies of infrared radation. As you increase atmospheric concentrations of CO2, each increment traps less and less heat until it levels off logarithmically.”
It’s worse (better) than that. CO2 absorbs only a few frequencies of IR radiation (i.e., radiated heat). The kicker is that the CO2 in the first 10 or so meters of air absorbs close to 100% of the heat radiated by the ground in those fequencies. So if you doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere, THE SAME AMOUNT OF HEAT WOULD BE TRAPPED, just a little closer to the ground. In fact, you could increase the CO2 in the atmosphere by 100 times, and THE SAME AMOUNT OF HEAT WOULD BE TRAPPED, just closer to the ground.
So is trapping the heat closer to the ground a problem? Nope — the atmosphere at ground level is active enough (even on a seemingly still air day) that convection, wind, etc. spread the heat out immediately.
Now, the AGW nuts either (1) don’t have enough science background to understand this or (2) create some hand-wavey theories to explain it away. Most (all?) of those theories blatantly violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but they are hand-wavey enough to fool the scientifically illiterate (i.e., politicians and most voters).
The only way to get people to stop believing in Global Warming (tm) would be to have Bush come out strongly in favor of the theory.
Statistics (real statistics, as in the number crunching, not issue-drive “statistics” i.e. “there are lies, d### lies, and statistics”) is a branch of mathematics, as are calculus, set theory, geometry, etc. Now, if you mean the “lies, d### lies, and statistics” type of statistics, I have to concede the point...
Yup. Go to www.spaceweather.com STILL NO SUNSPOTS. Not good, not good at all...
Let’s be serious. We have 3/4 of the earth’s surface composed of water, often miles deep, directly exposed to the air and able to evaporate whenever the conditions allow it. On a worldwide scale we aren’t capable of increasing the amount of water in the atmosphere. Although if global warming kicks in there could be a slight increase, as warmer air is able to hold more water vapor.
Local humidity conditions can certainly change due to human influence. Phoenix is well known for having higher humidity than it used to, due to all the irrigation in the valley.
No sh*t sherlock :-)))
Computer science was housed in the math dept for a while. They finally escaped and are free to design database indices using their own secret and unprovable methods. Statistical mechanics is in the physics dept and the math dept doesn’t want them since they have taken to overt waving of hands rather than pretending to objectively prove everything. Bookkeeping uses numbers, too, but nobody ever thought of stashing them in the math dept or if they did it never got beyond thinking about it. Math is in a lot of things. Statistics has a proof of an exponential function integral that even in Calc III was said to be unprovable at that level; they are different people.
Albore and several other leading Demagogues should be put in stocks for public humiliation...... locate the stocks on the DC Mall just in front of the US Capitol bldg. Invite schoolchildren to taunt and ridicule these worthless dinosaurs.
Remember “The Scarlett Letter”?? Instead of the scarlett “A” this will need to be a Scarlett “L” for “LIAR”..... or maybe “A” would do just fine for “A-hole”......
What could be the implications of a solar minimum and are they temporary or more lasting?
Science has facts and figures. All the followers of the environmental religion will get out of it is the idea that independent scientists who speak the truth are dangerous heretics who should be silenced.
>>>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!<<<
The irony is that once most of humanity lives at present day levels of affluence and comfort, the birth rate everywhere will be going down below the “replacement level.” (The population is already in decline in many places on Earth right now - a process which started in many developed countries a while ago - and even the third world is experiencing a decline in the birth rate. It does look like human population will reach a peak, perhaps in the middle of this century, and then start a sharp decline.) In a few generations, the population of the planet might just be at 500 million - naturally, comfortably, performed without coercion and without the heavy hand of the environmental socialists.
In other words, my great-great-grandchildren will have a little more than 10 times the amount of open space that I currently experience. Housing should be cheap. Resources will be plentiful. Animals and forests will have plenty of room. Looking at it from a realistic environmental perspective, it’s almost as if the Earth’s human population is naturally moving toward an equalibrium with the planet.
This won’t stop the tendency of some people to try and take control of others, though. In our day we call them leftists and environmentalists. They’ll have different names 100 years from now, but the motive will remain the same.
Thank you for keeping me up to date on this. I just sent it out to everyone in our school who told me that “An Inconvenient Truth” was hard science. I expect grimaces when the school year begins. LOL
So THAT'S what he is up to...
“What could be the implications of a solar minimum and are they temporary or more lasting?”
“Could be” a lot of things, and also depends on a lot of other things. Short version: Less sunspots = indication of weaker magnetic field from sun = more cosmic rays reach earth = more clouds = more sunlight deflected away from earth = cooling. That’s the theory at least, with some good science (NOT modeling) to back it. How much cooling? A little? Maybe. A lot? Maybe. If you get a BIG volcano or a lot of volcanic activity (which drarfs what man makes), the SO2 (I think) ejected into the atmosphere can increase clouds’ reflectivity, and you can get a “year without a summer” as in 1816. It’s a one-two punch that we’ve seen before. That would be very bad, obivously.
My bet is that if the sun’s activity doesn’t increase in the next few months, we’re going to get our collective rears kicked by this winter. Think “long, cold, lotsa snow.” After that, who knows?
Then again, I could be wrong. The climate is a VERY complex system.
I hope you are being sarcastic. You must know that the byproducts of burning any hydrocarbon are co2 and h2o...that’s high school chemistry man
There's no global warming, no Club of Rome, No Population Bomb.
Wrong on Welfare Reform, wrong on Communism being Utopian, wrong on Iraq, wrong on nuclear power, wrong on drilling in Alaska - wrong on almost everything.
Oh dang it. I knew I forgot something...
Interesting comments. You’re probably right.
Well, something akin to this needs to take place, even if it is a concerted effort to simply reveal the truth about ozone layers, and global warming. It’s all a hand wringing frenzy of giberish.
Is it the atmosphere temp ~ 5ft above ground level (~ where most of the land based thermometers are located)? Why is the temperature of the air 5 ft above the oceans not measured? If we measure the temperature of the oceans slightly below the surface, why not measure the temperature of the earth just below the surface a similar distance? How about the temperature of the Earth's core? The temperature where people live? Where people don't live? The temperature of the the oceans at all depths? Lake water temperatures?
Everyone seems to use a different "system" when they jabber on. Why is it the average temperature rather than the max and min? Time averaged readings? Why don't they account for leap years when calculating annual averages at a given station? Why adjust the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa when the wind blows from the forests below? Everyone is arguing about an elephant that none can see but only touch one appendage.
Um..We are not adding carbon either. We may be taking carbon that is already in the environment and putting it into another form when we burn carbon containing fuels, but then all those hydrocarbons were once living and therefore once came from carbon dioxide aspirated by a plant. Unless we find a way to mine the moon or Mars, we can’t add anything to the environment here on earth. We got a well stocked planet.
Bookkeeping is two simple math equations.
1. Assets minus liabilities = equity.
2. Income = current year equity minus prior year equity
The rest is terminology.
Audits are like a cake recipe where the evidence and statistics vary based on the cake and the baker.
Stick a fork in AGW; it’s done!
That’s going to leave a mark.
Yeah, it will be just like the tempature of Venus some day. I bet the alarmists will argue this because it is true, in about 2 billion years from now when the sun expands. During that time, the tempature will be 400 degrees. We had better tax Americans 10 trillion dollars to prevent it. Gee, maybe someone has figured out it will ten trillion dollars to support the boomer generation’s social security and medicaid. Gee, what age are most politicians?
Yeah, funny things those variables are, aren’t they?
If we invented, say.....powdered global warming — “what would we add.”