FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Posted on 01/06/2009 7:59:32 AM PST by Joiseydude
Consider the working hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It states "man-made CO2 causes global warming". The question now is does this hypothesis work? Is it true? Is it valid? Does it explain the climate observations and the data that are found in the real world?
First we need some crucial evidence. The Earth’s climate has always been warming and cooling. Singer and Avery discuss this in their book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years”. Over the past one million years there have been a nominal 600 periods of warming. We can surmise that there also have been 600 periods of cooling in between them. Why wouldn’t we expect these obviously natural cycles to continue? Obviously these warming periods result from variations in natural forces having little to do with human activities.
Atmospheric CO2 has varied as well during these times. The periods between the many ice ages were “interglacial periods”, when natural warming took place. We are currently in one of those interglacial periods and should expect slight warming. We also know that humans are currently putting about 8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. What is not widely known is that there are a nominal 40,000 billion tons of CO2 dissolved in sea water and captured in the biomass. The human contribution is negligible relative to what is available from natural sources.
(Excerpt) Read more at hawaiireporter.com ...
It’s just another money grab!
it’s a SCAM tomake you poorer through a fake crisis. Ideally you may also want to worship the earth.
Start with the know fact that CO2 absorbs infrared in a logarithmic fashion, and end with the fact that if there were positive feedbacks in the Earth's climate system, we all already be fried, or frozen solid.
Computer models are not science they are the tools of charlatans.
I laughed yesterday when I heard someone say that this is the fifth bad year in a row for the global warmists...
“Global Warming” has always been a liberal scam, created by thugs like Gore. Not only do the scientific facts prove this, but so does our known history.
GW is so typical of the libs. They are crooks and liars, always have been and always will be. They live on the ignorance and gullibility of the uneducated and uninformed masses. One has only to review the history and associations of our new “president” to reaffirm that fact.
Not always. Like any other tool, they can be misused.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Methane gas has increased 150% in the atmosphere since the mid 1700’s. (During the same time period, carbon dioxide has increased only 30 %.) A gram of methane gas has more than 25 times as much greenhouse gas impact as a gram carbon dioxide. As many know, flatulence, “farts,” are composed almost entirely of methane gas.
Therefore, Al Gore has developed a new program to combat this obviously increasing peril to our planet, and make a little money for himself at the same time.
It is called Fat Al’s Recycle Technology (F. A. R. T.).
Everyone will be required to wear a “F.A.R.T. meter,” (Cost $75, available only from Al Gore) which will record and automatically transmit to a new government agency (the Federal Automatic Recording Technology Department, The FART Dept.) the occasion of each fart and the volume thereof.
For an additional fee of $4,500, interested parties can purchase a fart capture device (available only from Al Gore). This 25 pound device can be conveniently worn under the special clothing available also from Al Gore in attractive shades of brown.
When full, the interested consumer can present his fart capture device to Al Gore’s recycling center, where for a fee of $0.10 per fart, the captured farts will be recycled into the US natural gas distribution system. Al Gore also will receive a modest fee of only $0.015 per fart for the energy content of the gas.
The interested consumer will also receive “fart credits” for the number of farts he recycles. These “fart credits” can be traded to other consumers, who elected not to purchase a fart capture device, through Al Gore’s Fart Trading Exchange. Al Gore will extract only a small commission of $0.01 per fart for each trade.
All Consumers will be required to be “fart neutral” by a “Cap and Trade” regulation, administered by the new Federal Automatic Recording Technology Department.
Legislation is being developed as we speak, by the concerned Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and her erstwhile compatriot in the Senate, Harry Reid.
Get ahead of the mandated stampede to control this growing threat to our planet. Get you fart capture device now.
Simply contact Al Gore and follow his instructions.
“It states “man-made CO2 causes global warming”.”
Perhaps a quibble. But the AGW thesis makes a much stronger claim than that. It claims that “man-made CO2 causes global warming that, because of positive feedback, is non-linear so that the increase in temperature caused by an increase in man-released C02 is much greater than the temperature increase that amount of CO2 would cause in the absence of feedback.”
Even the AGW nuts don’t claim that a linear response to CO2 would justify trashing the world’s economy. They need non-linear, positive feedback to get their socialist state.
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
A later article quoted Mr. C. Little:
"I am quite convinced that the sky is undoubtedtly falling."
“Computer models are not science they are the tools of charlatans.”
I’m in the business of computer modeling. Models can be extremely useful if properly designed and validated. The AGW guys have done very poorly in the validation phase. It’s almost as if they are uninterested in making predictions with their models and testing them against reality. They just want to make predictions. If they were in business, their customers would have fired them years ago.
What should NASA do next, they have made 4 consecutive predictions for solar cycle 24 start up, and in all cases blown the forecast big time. Kick the can, or admit their models have totally failed them, and the science contained therein. Want to bet against the can kicking?
It is with great trepidation that I then say the only way to get through is to say computer models are not science. Knowing full well that engineers who validate their models, use real data, and doing things like rolling back time and predict the past, will continue to do a reasonable job at attempting to predict future behavior. Or in fact behavior which cannot be easily simulated.
As an engineer for most of my adult life, I understand, BUT the public has clearly demonstrated they do not get it. Simplify. The last election proved it is very easy to make idiot voters out of ignorant people. It is high time we realize that for most of the American public, ignorant applies.
*IF* the standard for proof must be:
NON_LINEAR!
then does: "They need non-linear, positive feedback to get their socialist state."
Mean they need an
ALGORE-ITHYM?
My apologies to anyone studying English.
“It is with great trepidation that I then say the only way to get through is to say computer models are not science.”
In a sense you are correct. The AGW syllogism, if their models actually had predictive ability, would be:
1. Human CO2 causes non-linear warming.
2. Our computer models correctly predict the future using a non-linear CO2 model (not established)
Therefore Human CO2 causes linear warming.
But all number two proves is that the model correctly predicts. Not that CO2 is causative. To establish causation, any statistics 101 student can tell you that you have to manipulate the explanatory variable and measure the result of the manipulation. Then, if you manipulate the variable value and given that manipulation, the model correctly predicts the observed result, you can make valid statistical statements about causation (normally this occurs in the context of regression, not more complex models but the principle is the same).
So even if their models correctly predict using observed CO2 (not manipulated CO2), they have not performed any useful science regarding causation, only correlation via the model.
So I have three big problems with the AGW approach.
1. In modeling from observed data, you don’t really pretend that the inputs are causative. Only that they predict. If you are careful, you can put very reliable bounds around the accuracy of the predictions. But the AGW guys pretend they are establishing causation out of a process that by its nature CANNOT provide valid evidence of causation.
2. The real issue in modeling is whether model x is more predictive than model y. There are good information theoretic techniques that allow you to compare two models, one more complex and one less complex. The more complex the model, the less likely it is to be the correct model.
The AGW guys never compare their predictions to, say, using a ruler and drawing a trend line from the recent past (that technique did pretty well as a predictor—as well or better than the AGW models until 1998 and both have done equally poorly since then).
Nor do they compare their models’ predictions to, say, solar models, which are very simple—one input plus a smoothing and lagging parameter.
The AGW models are quite complex and require tuning a lot of parameters. So if the solar model (or the ruler model) produces results as good as the AGW models, you would always use the solar model in preference to the AGW model and that result is grounded solidly in information theory.
3. The nature of positive feedback is exponential growth. It looks to me like the AGW guys are forecasting short term in the linear portion of the exponential growth curve. If their models correctly predicted the short term, that is no evidence at all that the model should be regarded as useful in the exponential portion of the predictions (long term). Yet it is the long term predictions that get all the news.
Always remember to get a reciept when you poop.
“Forgive me for the mentally masturbatory nature of this post-to-arrive, but:
*IF* the standard for proof must be:
NON_LINEAR!
then does: “They need non-linear, positive feedback to get their socialist state.”
Mean they need an
ALGORE-ITHYM?
My apologies to anyone studying English. “
Al Gore is without doubt a non-linear ithym. And that’s the nicest thing I’ve said about him in months.
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.
