Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 03/12/2010 10:37:20 PM PST by neverdem
That was fun. Thanks.
This is a good one. :-)
Neverdem, thanks for finding and sharing this.
g_w
Hopefully, the recent rapid increase and release of dissenting articles will begin to fill in the huge gaps in the public knowledge. We need more articles like this one....however, even articles like this one still need the open scrutiny of legitimate peer review, heretofore stifled by the IPCC, NASA, AGW alarmists, economic opportunists and political mavens. We desperately need a moratorium on the drastic political and economic directions that have been prematurely foisted on an illiterate public.
We had stories just like this all through the global warming scare. They were largely ignored by the MSM just as they are now.
It was easy to discredit from the beginning all you had to do was follow the money.
I wish I understood Greek.
I read the whole thing. My head hurts now.
I think he’s saying climate change alarmists are fanatitards.
Put it another way:
The best climate model is the weather model. They have and use the latest satellite data from all over the world, and can predict, with better than chance, 10-17 days ahead. A year ahead? The well-known butterfly effect (a butterfly flapping its wings today will affect world weather in less than a month, in a thoroughly unpredictable way) prevents any further useful predictions.
Anyone saying otherwise in a climate model, is using garbage in, garbage out.
1. It’s clear that the most important part of weather is convection. The whole reason a greenhouse is warm during the daytime is not some magical feature of glass (like holding infrared in while letting visible light in), but simply that the air in a greenhouse stays in a greenhouse. Open the doors in a greenhouse to allow ventilation, and the effect is minimized.
2. From 1, the Moon gets hot during the day because there is no air to convect the heat away.
3. The concept of a global mean temperature is meaningless. There is only a large number of local temperatures
.
4. We have no idea of the magnitude of most of the feedback mechanisms. For instance, in retrospect, this winter’s snow is believed to be caused by warm weather in previous summers melting north polar ice, allowing more water to evaporate, etc. This is a negative feedback mechanism, and we can conceive of several other large negative feedback systems involving vegetation, rotting vegetation, animal gases, etc. However, there are some positive feedback mechanisms, such as chopping down trees in the Amazon, to be shipped to England, to be burnt as fuel, so the utilities can meet their quota of biofuels (yes, this actually happens).
I could quote silliness on and on, but will stop here for now.
Excellent.
The whole concept of calculating the earth’s temperature within a fraction of a degree is ludicrous. This article explains one of the main reasons. But to say so, you get ridiculed by scientists. I’ll say it anyway, “The emperor has no clothes.” Whatever trick is being used, whether with land-based temperatures, or with satellites, there must be far too many manipulations behind the scenes to consider the result reliable.
Anyone can see the problem here, they just need to do the calculations 288 times or 50,000 times or something.. they just need more computer time! More staff, more grants, more more more...
Which doesn't apply here, as the goal of the modellers is to prove something true that actually is false, all in the pursuit of an unrelated goal of 'sustainable' development - which is a far worse form of fanaticism - someone who has forgotten their aim can be reasoned with, but someone whose goal is dishonest cannot be.
Many thanks for the link.
I am no modeler, but one of the truly great desciptions of climate models and their limitations was written by Patrick Frank. http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html
It is a gem: Clear, precise, powerfully revealing and beautifully written. Dr. Frank spent a lot of time thinking about GCMs, likely counter-arguments and how to communicate the issues to us laymen and laywomen. Skeptic is not peer reviewed but this article was reviewed by some of the significant names in climatology. For those of you technically incline there is an SI as well.
Later
Much appreciated.
I read your post and in real layman's language, "If a group of people want to 'prove' a given result, start with lies and embellish upon them."
Climate changes and man can observe, comment and predict, but has no power to alter.
The end.
"Granularity, granularity!"
I suspect most of the climate modelers started out as naive but honest scientists--naive because they didn't understand the point I just made, and assumed the variability of weather was akin to statistical noise, rather than being a fundamental part of the underlying dynamics of the system they were trying to model--and turned into crooks through the blandishments of the herd-mentality grant-funding system and the attention their dire predictions drew from the media and the political class. A doctorate in a science is hardly a shield against the vices of avarice and vainglory. Defending a pet theory by making up excuses in the face of its falsification is a form of vainglory peculiar to scientists, and the "warmists" seem to exhibit it to a degree not seen since a transparent gaseous "planet" was proposed to explain the precession of the orbit of Mercury in an attempt to save Newtonian mechanics.
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.