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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.