Tuesday, 8 March 2011

Unsettled science ...

The climate is certainly undergoing some change, but are the models reliable and is the 'science' real, or the 'spin' and 'selective' stuff 'cherry-picked' and intended to prise funds from governments or serve the ideologies of various eco-terror groups or Marxist Socialists intending to destroy capitalism and impose their idea of Utopia? Sadly, on both sides of the debate there are those who will not accept any argument other than their own and once you add in the vested interests of the likes of the CRU at East Anglia University, Greenpeace, Fiends of the Earth and numerous other University "Climatology Faculties" and the UN's IPCC, the picture gets even more muddied.

The fact is that statistics are very tricky things to interpret and though they can show trends, they are NOT predictive - especially when fed into 'models' designed to deal with real hard data and show what has happened rather than what will happen.

I have taken the following from the Blogs "Watt's Up With That" and "Climate etc." both run by Climate Scietists, probably best described as not subscribing to the IPCC/Greenpeace vision of an Earth drowning in fabulous sea level rises due to melted polar ice or a planet roasting in a toxic superheated atmosphere like that of Venus. These comments are extremely informative and both from scientists ...

And the posts to which they are responding are very well worth the reading time.

Jeff Glassman

Epistemic level grading is a multi-pronged distraction.

It is nominated to be an official distraction for certified climatologists who may apply it to safely ignore external criticism. It’s a softer version of CRU ridiculing the quality of non-conforming journals, or conspiring to shun a journal that published a heretical article and suggesting the journal be stripped of its peer-reviewed status.

The levels are intended to distract the policymakers who fund climatologists and their labs, and who are supposed to restrict carbon emissions. The distraction is from those deemed not qualified to object, reducing science to selected expert testimony. Only the Preacher may interpret the Word — the others are heretics or the unwashed indigenous for the harvest of cultural imperialism.

The four levels are also a distraction from the fact that climatologists do not actually sit atop the tree of epistemology. In the epistemological hierarchy, climatology is subservient to the laws of physics, to thermodynamics, to system science, to science in general, and to ethics.

Putting on a Level 0 hat, here are some particular ripe examples:

Laws of physics: IPCC disregards the Beer-Lambert Law, which governs radiative transfer. It disregards Henry’s Law of solubility, governing CO2 flux, to make natural CO2 more soluble than the anthropogenic variety.

Thermodynamics: IPCC models the surface layer of the ocean in thermodynamic equilibrium, essential to the manufacture of its false bottleneck for human CO2 emissions.

System science: IPCC thinks feedback, which it adapted from system science, is either an illusory relation between correlated processes or a computer parameter calculated at run time. Feedback actually is the transfer of material, energy, displacement, potential, or information from within a system that modifies the system’s inputs. As a result, IPCC models climate open-loop, as, for example, with cloud albedo, and is unable to calculate any closed-loop gain.

Science: IPCC models climate without accounting for the known, dominant climate events of the past (e.g., the ice ages, the interglacial epochs, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, sudden changes in the slope of temperature instrument record), and predicting only an unverifiable catastrophe. By inference, its models predict a near term trend in temperature, which has failed validation. IPCC models, which don’t even pretend to work in the long run of past epochs, nor in the short run of weather, are advertised to predict a looming, mid-term catastrophe. It’s like accounting with the least significant [and] the most significant figures obliterated, leaving just the middle, insignificant figures.

Duty & Ethics: IPCC violates its public trust by employing chartjunk to create faux fingerprints of human activity on atmospheric CO2. IPCC in its quest for recognition, control, and profit relies on an unvalidated model, at best a hypothesis, to foster public panic.

Peter Taylor says:
March 6, 2011 at 6:18 am

Joel Shore is concerned about propaganda and significance over the quotes from Phil Jones – up until that admission, the BBC had been totally propaganderised to believe that global warming had accelerated. Then behind the scenes, their key people read my book ‘Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory’ – which you might do also if you truly believe in applying the rigours of science – I would be glad to have your criticisms too. I also briefed their chief interviewer over the phone before the interview.

So then you get less propaganda and more science – such as how much statistically significant warming has their been – and Jones proffered the none since 1995 date. I would have said 1998, but have less acess to the statistics than he.

As for trends – the real science shows that there was an even steeper warming trend from 1920-1940, especially in the northern hemisphere but also global. And another trend from 1945-1975 that was also global and cooling (and not, as the modellers thought for 30 years, due to human emissions of sulphur – but they have not publicised that new science). Thirty year trends can be very misleading.

There is nothing new in the late 20th century warming signal – not the rate nor the amplitude and indeed the centennial trend is a continuation of a longer term recovery from the trough of 200 years ago – and it would be equally foolish to expect this trend to continue, since there is a larger cycle at play.

This IS the science, Joel, that the propaganda machine of AGW does not want to admit to. And by the way – there is a quiet revolution going on in the calculations of CO2's warming potential. Hitherto, the radiative forcing factor (RF) was calculated according to offline data codes largely within the private sector and spawned by NASA – it is a complex business and the paper trail of references eventually leads to some very grey literature. This is about to change. The writing on the wall says that the RFs have been way over-estimated. That means CO2 does not have the power the earlier modellers assumed – by the time it reaches 200 ppmv, its greenhouse work is all but done. That is why you find no evidence for either initiation or amplification of temperarure changes in the ice-cores. The effect of CO2 is not only too late (time lagged) but not enough to register statistically in the correlations. This was a mystery until now – and the simple answer is, CO2 has very little extra power to heat the atmosphere or surface at the levels that are relevant (from 200ppmv upwards).

Good science and statistical analysis will eventually show this and all of these models will be history. Climate change, however, will still be a major issue – which is why people like the sceptical Global Warming Foundation and others, do not embrace my work – because there are natural cycles and they could be heading downward – putting billions of lives at risk from extreme weather and food shortages. Mitigation remedies were always hopelessly misdirected – but adaptation strategies will require a lot of sound thinking and cooperation, maybe even some better modelling.

Skeptically Yours,
Brian Hall

No comments:

Post a Comment