[IamsSon]

by Richard Boren

Quote

There is new research (review of it here) which you may want to pass along to anyone who has been persuaded that
(1) humans are causing the planet to warm,
(2) this will have a disastrous effect, and
(3) we should try to do something about it such as passing Cap and Trade legislation, installing subsidized wind and solar power plants, buying hybrid cars, CFL bulbs and so forth.

The more scientifically-oriented of you can go right to the attachment. The article begins at the bottom of the first page. Others may choose to read the rest of this e-mail.

Everyone should understand that it is NOT a proven fact that humans have any effect on the climate. However, the media and some politicians treat it that way. Those who say that "the science is settled" are just plain wrong. Even Mr. Gore, if pressed, would have to admit that the predictions of warming are 100% the result of computer models. That's right, 100%. It's all a prediction somewhat like predicting the weather, only much, much, harder.

The people making these computer models insert the known facts. They also insert various assumptions of how these facts will interact with one another, coming up with what they hope will be a model of the climate that will produce accurate predictions. Those assumptions mean everything, and now the research proves that they are wrong. And not just a little wrong. It turns out that the assumptions are exactly backwards. At the risk of using a dated computer expression, don't forget that it's still true that Garbage In = Garbage Out (GIGO).

Have you ever worked with a computer spreadsheet? Have you ever inserted your estimates of future revenue and expenses and seen how a few little changes here and there can result in either huge profits or devastating losses? You might, for example, realize that at 3% revenue growth you'll go broke in four years, but at 7% you'll be a billionaire in six years. It's hard to be objective in those circumstances, especially if you have investors. In the case of the climate modelers, virtually all of them are funded by grants designed to study the climate "problem." No problem, no grant. No fame either. No political power. Objectivity can be difficult to maintain.

The computer models on which all of the fears are based rely on the assumption that carbon dioxide (CO2), a weak greenhouse gas, will trigger something called positive feedback which will amplify its weak effect, causing the effect to grow and grow. (Positive feedback here is not the same thing as getting compliments about your job performance. In this case, it means that when more of something happens it triggers even more of it to happen, with a snowballing effect.) The climate models on which the current fears are based all assume that this positive feedback will occur. Without this assumed positive feedback, no human-caused global warming will occur. Without the positive feedback assumption, the predictions of the models wouldn't scare anyone. The good news for the planet is that instead of having to make feedback assumptions there is now real data, and it shows that in the real world the feedback is negative. This means that the warming effect of CO2 triggers an effect that offsets it.

Full article

Gee, how shocking, models of extremely complex events can be wrong, and people who get money from organizations who want research to support their views may make sure the research does support those views. Who'd a thought.

This post has been edited by IamsSon: 05 November 2009 - 02:57 PM

[Mattshark]

Where is the research? All I see is a political article. There is no scientific work attach (that little PDF would not even be classed as science for a 1st year undergrad).

This doesn't belong in a science section.

If you want to argue science don't use politically motivated crap this this, actually use some science. This proves nothing except your general wilful ignorance of science.

And if you think the scientists who make these models get money out it your even more foolish and even more lacking in scientific knowledge than ever. Well done on failing in science.

This post has been edited by Mattshark: 05 November 2009 - 03:08 PM

[questionmark]

Right, Access to Energy, sponsored by the same gang as certified quacks, such as Monckton (or should I say Baron Monckton?) and the known data bender Richard Lindzen.

Guys, why don't you quote once reliable science to disprove climate change instead of guys getting $2500 a day from big oil to deny the evident?

[keithisco]

IamsSon, on 05 November 2009 - 03:56 PM, said:

by Richard Boren
Full article

Gee, how shocking, models of extremely complex events can be wrong, and people who get money from organizations who want research to support their views may make sure the research does support those views. Who'd a thought.

You sad MUPPET!!! There is no science here

This post has been edited by keithisco: 05 November 2009 - 03:57 PM

[The Silver Thong]

The article is 100% correct global warming is not happening. Look at this equation and tell me it doesn't point to global warming scam. 2+7-9=0 see it's all fake.


Can I please have my $2500.00 now................. anyone? LOL

[questionmark]

The Silver Thong, on 05 November 2009 - 06:03 PM, said:

The article is 100% correct global warming is not happening. Look at this equation and tell me it doesn't point to global warming scam. 2+7-9=0 see it's all fake.


Can I please have my $2500.00 now................. anyone? LOL

Coming to think of it...maybe..hmmm...

[IamsSon]

Don't worry too much guys, I'm sure Al Gore will spend a few of his green millions to fund research that opposes this.

[The Silver Thong]

IamsSon, on 05 November 2009 - 10:02 AM, said:

Don't worry too much guys, I'm sure Al Gore will spend a few of his green millions to fund research that opposes this.

At least Gore didn't take a nation into two wars to get his agenda rolling Green is the future to get mad becuase some see this as oppertunity is silly. Its business and it ain't going away.


LOL QM I'm still waiting for my $2500.00 but I think I'v been scammed LOL

[questionmark]

IamsSon, on 05 November 2009 - 07:02 PM, said:

Don't worry too much guys, I'm sure Al Gore will spend a few of his green millions to fund research that opposes this.

Gore is just parroting what he has heard from reliable scientists. If you want to disprove climate change you have to start with James Hansen of NASA. His predictions made in '88 so far have come true. Not so the denials from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation, George Mason University's Law and Economics Center, and the Independent Institute. But then again, all these are funded mainly by ExxonMobil.

This post has been edited by questionmark: 05 November 2009 - 05:50 PM

[Mistydawn]

The Silver Thong, on 05 November 2009 - 10:03 AM, said:

The article is 100% correct global warming is not happening. Look at this equation and tell me it doesn't point to global warming scam. 2+7-9=0 see it's all fake.


Can I please have my $2500.00 now................. anyone? LOL

Well Thongy, I hope you are correct. I don't know how old you are, or if you have produced offspring that will produce offspring, who somewhere ahead may have to deal with, live with the effects of global warming because of our ignorance, but hey, nothing for you to worry about really is there.

[Dr Alien]

The Silver Thong, on 05 November 2009 - 04:03 PM, said:

The article is 100% correct global warming is not happening. Look at this equation and tell me it doesn't point to global warming scam. 2+7-9=0 see it's all fake.


Can I please have my $2500.00 now................. anyone? LOL

and dont forget 3--4+2-9=0 in theory

can i have my 2/5 share (tax) of that $2500 now?

This post has been edited by Dr Alien: 05 November 2009 - 05:40 PM

[The Silver Thong]

Mistydawn, on 05 November 2009 - 10:21 AM, said:

Well Thongy, I hope you are correct. I don't know how old you are, or if you have produced offspring that will produce offspring, who somewhere ahead may have to deal with, live with the effects of global warming because of our ignorance, but hey, nothing for you to worry about really is there.

Ummm nope no kids and I'm 37 with no intention of having kids. See I have done a my part in helping the planets future LOL

Hun I think you missed my point. I was making fun of the people claiming global warming is a scam. I know global warming or climate change is taking place. It's easy enough to see that it's happening. However we don't know the exact impact or role man plays in it.

[Dr Alien]

The Silver Thong, on 05 November 2009 - 05:58 PM, said:

Hun I think you missed my point. I was making fun of the people claiming global warming is a scam. I know global warming or climate change is taking place. It's easy enough to see that it's happening. However we don't know the exact impact or role man plays in it.

well, do you know what the welsh people will tell you about climate change and global warming?
"bring it on!"

and the people who claim they can talk to the dead will tell you "is it with us, or has it gone?"

[Ginger]

Mattshark, on 05 November 2009 - 09:59 AM, said:

Where is the research? All I see is a political article. There is no scientific work attach (that little PDF would not even be classed as science for a 1st year undergrad).

This doesn't belong in a science section.

If you want to argue science don't use politically motivated crap this this, actually use some science. This proves nothing except your general wilful ignorance of science.

And if you think the scientists who make these models get money out it your even more foolish and even more lacking in scientific knowledge than ever. Well done on failing in science.

I swear every thread that has to deal with this, you always say almost exactly what I would have said. So I don't even bother posting. Just wanted to give you kudo's for knowing what you are talking about, while most have no idea. They pretend to like the OP, but just look foolish.

Edit: To the OP IamsSon- Sorry for calling you foolish, I have seen that you are generally a good person so I mean no offense. You just were with this research, you're not like a lot of others who make the same mistake 20 times and refuse to learn from them.

This post has been edited by Ginger: 06 November 2009 - 11:06 AM

[SQLserver]

IamsSon-
Stop attacking Gore: Gore is simply parroting what the vast majority of the scientific community.
Anyway, let's cut to the chase here.
What we have here is this:
A Bunch of People Who Don't Understand Science quoting another Bunch of People Who Don't Understand Science quoting two scientists who DO understand Science.
Thus, it all comes down to this:
Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs.

Lindzen is a respectable scientist.
However, quite frankly, his research does not stand to scrutiny: He has been debunked here, and here.
At the same time, other research strongly, strongly suggests that he is simply wrong.

Comment #219 herefound the following errors in Lindzen's paper:

Quote

I looked at the Lindzen and Choi paper in detail. I’m not a climate
expert, so I may be wrong here, but I found what seems to be a
fundamental error in reasoning in the paper.

Lindzen did a correlation between changes in outbound radiation (OLW +
SW) from ERBE, against natural changes in sea-surface temperature. He
found a reasonable correlation that shows that total outbound
radiation goes up at about 4 W/m^2 per K increase in sea surface
temperature.
In Figure 3 of the paper, Lindzen shows that the measured 4 W/m^2/K is
almost exclusively caused by an increase in long-wave (OLW) radiation.
The the flux for SW is virtually independent of sea-surface
temperatures (delta-flux/delta-SST is close to 0 W/m^2/K for SW).

Stephan Boltzmann’s law says this (increase of OLW radiation at a
slope of 4 W/m^2/K) is exactly what you would expect from a planet
radiating at around 255 K, as long as there is no feedback mechanism
in place.

Still, somehow Lindzen claims that this finding implies a strong
negative feedback, and even claims that the ‘models’ predict a
negative slope (a decrease in radiation if sea surface temperatures go
up). To obtain a reduction in radiation after an increase in Sea
Surface Temperatures is essentially physically unreal, as it implies infinite positive feedback.

I think the cause of this error is that he misrepresents the radiative
“forcing” (such as from CO2) with natural changes in surface
temperatures. That confusion leads to an incorrect feedback factor
scale in figure 3 in his paper. In that figure, the SW (short-wave)
graph is off-set by 4 W/m^2. All models, and the right scale (feedback
factor) should move up by 4 W/m^2, so that the 0 W/m^2/K on the left
scale lines up with a feedback factor of 0.

The same problem also shows up in the formula’s, and again, very subtle,
and hard to spot the error. But here it is : Paragraph [13] :

“When considering LW and SW fluxes separately, F is replaced by FLW + FSW.
In the observed DOLR/DSST, the nonfeedback change of 4 W /m^2 /K is
included. ”

So far so good (that non-feedback factor of 4 W/m^2/K applies to OLW only
since Stephan Boltzmann deals with OLW only). But then :

“Also DSWR/DSST needs to be balanced with DOLR/DSST.
From the consideration, FLW = -DOLR/DSST + 4 and
FSW = – DSWR/DSST – 4.”

Right there : He subtracted 4 W/m^2/K from the FSW ! No explanation for
that, and absolutely incorrect.
That’s how he got a feedback factor of -1 for SW while SW is not affected by
SST changes.

The deception was hidden, but it is exactly there in the plots and in the
formula.

Of course, after correcting this error, the conclusions of his paper
would need to be adjusted as well. Not only is the ERBE data
essentially is in line with the model predictions, but also the ERBE
data shows that there is NO feedback (feedback factor 0) at least for
short-term (months) sea surface temperature changes.

Also, another rebuttal of the paper is here.

Conclusion?
A. Lindzen is well-known for erroneous climate change work.
B. The paper's findings have been contradicted clearly by other firm findings.
C. The paper's claims are disputed.

Still, this is a step up for someone like IamsSon. Lindzen is a Real Scientist who publishes in actual journals: While he is considered to be wrong by the vast majority, what we have here is a legitimate scientific debate.

Of course, I highly suspect that IamsSon actually read Lindzen's paper, or understood his argument. More than likely, he nabbed this from his favorite political blog after seeing something like: "LOLZ CLIMATE CHANGE IS EVIIIIL!!! AL GORE ROFL!!"

-SQLserver