Errors and frauds of global warming science

[polarbear]

Errors and frauds of global warming science - English pravda.ru

Modern global warming science began in 1979 with the publication of Charney et al in response to a request from a U.S. governmental office to create a study group for answering questions about global warming. Charney et al modeled atmospheric effects and drew the conclusion that the average earth temperature would increase by about 3°C upon doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.
Charney et al did not have a known mechanism for global warming to base their modeling on. Their publication was total fakery stating deliberate absurdities, such as modeling "horizontal diffusive heat exchange," which doesn't exist.

In 1984 and 1988, Hansen et al did similar modeling but added a concept for heat produced by carbon dioxide, which they derived from assumed history. Over the previous century, a temperature increase of 0.6°C was assumed to have been caused by an increase in CO2 of 100 parts per million in the atmosphere. Their modeling then had the purpose of determining secondary effects, primarily caused by an assumed increase in water vapor. In other words, a primary effect was based upon the historical record, while secondary effects were modeled.

This is the approach taken to this day, while refinements are developed. There were major problems in using history for the primary effect. Firstly, the historical effect included secondary effects which could not be separated out, and no attempt was made to do so. This means the assumed primary effect included secondary effects. Secondly, there was no place for other effects in attributing the entire history to CO2.

Therefore, an attempt to determine the primary effect was made by Myhre et al in 1998 (4) by using radiative transfer equations. Those equations only show the rate of depletion of radiation as the concentration of a gas increases. They say nothing about heat. An impossibly complex analysis would be required to evaluate the resulting heat, but no such analysis was mentioned in the publication by Myhre et al. Even worse, Myhre et al added more atmospheric modeling in determining the primary effect including the effects of clouds.

These publications cannot be viewed as honest. They lack a consistent logic and fabricate conclusions with no scientific method at arriving at such conclusions. Furthermore, these publications are not science as the acquisition of evidence, since modeling is the projection of assumptions with no method of acquiring evidence. Modeling may be a tool for sociologists and politicians but has no place in science. Science attempts to verify through reproducible evidence, while modeling is nothing but an expression of opinions with no new evidence being acquired.

Even after Myhre et al supposedly determined the primary effect (said to be 5.35 times the natural log of final carbon dioxide concentration divided by prior concentration-a three component fudge factor) there was no known mechanism for carbon dioxide (or any greenhouse gas) creating global warming.

In 2001, three years after Myhre et al's publication, the IPCC described the mechanism this way: "Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm [sic] band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band's wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation..."

Saturation means all available radiation gets used up. Heinz Hug stated in his publication that saturation occurs in 10 meters at the center of the absorption curve for the 15µm band (The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact). On the shoulders of the absorption curves are molecules which have stretched bonds causing them to absorb at slightly altered wavelength. It is supposedly these molecules which do the heating for greenhouse gases, because they do not use up all available radiation; and therefore, more of the gases absorbs more radiation.

Scientists said that 5% of the CO2 molecules were effective on the shoulders for creating global warming. This roughly means that radiation would travel 20 times farther before being absorbed. But 20 times 10 meters is only 200 meters. Air mixes in such a short distance, which means there is no temperature change. Absorbing radiation in 200 meters is no different than absorbing it in 10 meters. In other words, the 5% claim was nothing but a fake statement for rationalizing. The shamelessness and gall of making up this subject on whim and then claiming it is science is unprecedented. Real scientists are not that way.

Since this mechanism would not stand up to criticism, scientists changed their mind about the mechanism a few years ago and said the real mechanism occurs about 9 kilometers up in the atmosphere. (The normal atmosphere, troposphere, goes up about 17 km average.) Trivial rationalizations were used, mainly that the absorption bands get narrower at lower air pressure, so they don't overlap with water vapor.

There are two major problems with the analysis for 9 km up. One, there is not much space left for adding heat. And two, the temperature increase required for radiating the heat back down to the surface is at least 24°C up there for each 1°C increase near the surface-not accounting for oceans (Saturation is the Demise of Global Warming Fakery.). Oceans will absorb the heat for centuries or millennia, which means 70% of the heat disappears during human influences. So the total would need to be 80°C at 9 km up to create the claimed 1°C near ground level. No temperature increase has been detected at 9 km up due to carbon dioxide.

Notice that the fakes didn't have a mechanism and didn't know where it was occurring 30 years after the first models were constructed in 1979 (said to be only off by 15%) and 10 years after the fudge factor was contrived for pinning down the primary effect, which the mechanism is supposed to represent. How could they get the primary effect (fudge factor) without knowing whether it was occurring at ground level or 9 km up?

Why do nonscientists assume it is self-evident that greenhouse gases create global warming, when scientists cannot describe a mechanism? Extreme over-simplification appears to be the reason. They assume that absorbing radiation is producing heat. Guess what. A jar of pickles absorbs radiation but it doesn't heat the kitchen. Total heat effects are complex, and they equilibrate.

What really happens is that the planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. Cooling results in an equilibrium temperature which is independent of how heat gets into the atmosphere. It means greenhouse gases have no influence upon the temperature of the planet.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so low that all biology is on the verge of becoming extinct due to a shortage of CO2 which is needed for photosynthesis. There was twenty times as much CO2 in the atmosphere when modern photosynthesis evolved. Oceans continuously absorb CO2 and convert it into calcium carbonate and limestone. The calcium never runs out, and the pH of the oceans never drops below 8.1 for this reason. It's the pH which calcium carbonate buffers at. If not, why hasn't four billion years been long enough to get there?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well at least it seems conservatives are showing an interest in science these days

 

[Billy_Bob]

Trenbreth is still looking fro his missing heat.. Its not in the mid troposphere and its not detectable at 700m in the deep oceans.. The great length these fools will go to try and prove fraud was real is stunning.. its like a Peter Glick felony moment over and over again..

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Well at least it seems conservatives are showing an interest in science these days

Yes, one of them is Dr. Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace and probably the most high profile environmental scientist on the planet, who's spent the last decade warning people against radical left-wing bullshit artists and their scam of "global warming"...which Moore calls"global fooling".

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well at least it seems conservatives are showing an interest in science these days

Yes, one of them is Dr. Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace and probably the most high profile environmental scientist on the planet, who's spent the last decade warning people against radical left-wing bullshit artists and their scam of "global warming"...which Moore calls"global fooling".

So you support Greenpeace? I think they have some good ideas how about you?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

So you support Greenpeace? I think they have some good ideas how about you?

I did in the beginning, when Moore and other environmental scientists concerned themselves with the state of the world's oceans and the creatures living within. They were a great organization at one point in their evolution. So they rattled a few chains now and then, and pissed off the establishment on occasion. How else do you get anyone's attention in this world? It was in the late 80's that environmental scientists started playing a subordinate role to political radicals within the organization, that Greenpeace went to hell. It's all about political agendas rather than science agendas now. And money of course.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well at least it seems conservatives are showing an interest in science these days

We don't subscribe to the same science you flout as fact. For it to be fact you don't have to tamper with HADCRUT4 forcings to make your argument. That hockey stick nonsense isn't fooling anyone. Numbers don't lie unless you make them.

 

[SSDD]

Well at least it seems conservatives are showing an interest in science these days

We don't subscribe to the same science you flout as fact. For it to be fact you don't have to tamper with HADCRUT4 forcings to make your argument. That hockey stick nonsense isn't fooling anyone. Numbers don't lie unless you make them.

Numbers are whores, they will actually say whatever you are paid to make them say....climate science has tons of numbers that say exactly what they want them to say...their shortfall is in actual observation, and repeatable experiment...in short, actual science.

 

[Crick]

Then why don't you put your numbers up here?

 

[flacaltenn]

It was only a matter of time before Pravda did better journalism than the US mainstream media.

 

[Crick]

Trenbreth is still looking fro his missing heat.. Its not in the mid troposphere and its not detectable at 700m in the deep oceans.. The great length these fools will go to try and prove fraud was real is stunning.. its like a Peter Glick felony moment over and over again..

It is in the mid troposphere and it is in the deep ocean. What makes you think it's not?

Is it generally your strategy to just make stuff up and assume no one will check you on it?

And, the man's name is spelled G-l-e-i-c-k.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Trenbreth is still looking fro his missing heat.. Its not in the mid troposphere and its not detectable at 700m in the deep oceans.. The great length these fools will go to try and prove fraud was real is stunning.. its like a Peter Glick felony moment over and over again..

It is in the mid troposphere and it is in the deep ocean. What makes you think it's not?

Is it generally your strategy to just make stuff up and assume no one will check you on it?

And, the man's name is spelled G-l-e-i-c-k.

What is the standard deviation for all temperature measuring devices currently in use in our oceans on NOAA, SOSUS, DART or US MILITARY bouys? Do you even know?

I do. Their margin of error is +/- one degree Celsius.

Our current system is incapable of the 0.08 rise in temp measurement that Trenbreth purports. The stations cited in his work are just off the oregon coast and near river outlets...What do you suppose could be wrong with that?

And you guys accuse me of making shit up.... then theres glieeeeeeck, a piece of shit of massive proportions...

 

[Crick]

As a matter of fact, I DO know how accurate a Sippican T-5 XBT probe is because I use them on a regular basis.

ABSTRACT Thirty-four near-simultaneous pairs of CTD and Sippican model T-5 XBT profiles were obtained during an experiment in the Sargasso Sea during the summer of 1991. The data were analyzed to assess the temperature and fall-rate accuracies of the T-5 probes. The XBT temperatures averaged 0.07 deg C warmer than CTD temperatures, with some suggestion that the offset might be different for different acquisition systems and that it might be slightly temperature or pressure dependent. When the offset was removed, the differences between CTD and XBT temperatures had a standard deviation of about 0.08 deg C over a temperature range of 30-20 deg C. An improved elapsed fall-time-to-depth conversion equation for Sippican T-5's in the Sargasso Sea was found to be z = 6.705t -0.0016192, with z the depth in meters and t the elapsed fall time of the probe in seconds. The standard deviation of depth was about 8 m over a depth range of 0 to approximately 1800 m. A cubic fit to the data was equally good or slightly better. Whether a geographically universal fall-rate equation can be devised for each model XBT is still unclear. In addition, now that a number of different manufacturers are introducing their versions of XBTs and XBT acquisition systems onto the market, unresolved questions exist regarding the differences in data taken with these different models.
The Temperature and Depth Accuracy of Sippican T-5 XBTs - ResearchGate

and

The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.005°C and depths are accurate to ± 5m. For salinity,there are two answers. The data delivered in real time are sometimes affected by sensor drift. For many floats this drift is small, and the uncorrected salinities are accurate to ± .01 psu. At a later stage, salinities arecorrected by expert examination, comparing older floats with newly deployed instruments and with ship-based data. Following this delayed-mode correction, salinity errors are reduced further and in most cases the data become good enough to detect subtle ocean change.

Argo FAQ

Now let's see YOUR reference that says they're only good to 1C.

Since, to this point, you have YET to provide a SINGLE reference for ANY claim you've made, yes, it DOES look as if you are MAKING SHIT UP.

 

[Billy_Bob]

As a matter of fact, I DO know how accurate a Sippican T-5 XBT probe is because I use them on a regular basis.

ABSTRACT Thirty-four near-simultaneous pairs of CTD and Sippican model T-5 XBT profiles were obtained during an experiment in the Sargasso Sea during the summer of 1991. The data were analyzed to assess the temperature and fall-rate accuracies of the T-5 probes. The XBT temperatures averaged 0.07 deg C warmer than CTD temperatures, with some suggestion that the offset might be different for different acquisition systems and that it might be slightly temperature or pressure dependent. When the offset was removed, the differences between CTD and XBT temperatures had a standard deviation of about 0.08 deg C over a temperature range of 30-20 deg C. An improved elapsed fall-time-to-depth conversion equation for Sippican T-5's in the Sargasso Sea was found to be z = 6.705t -0.0016192, with z the depth in meters and t the elapsed fall time of the probe in seconds. The standard deviation of depth was about 8 m over a depth range of 0 to approximately 1800 m. A cubic fit to the data was equally good or slightly better. Whether a geographically universal fall-rate equation can be devised for each model XBT is still unclear. In addition, now that a number of different manufacturers are introducing their versions of XBTs and XBT acquisition systems onto the market, unresolved questions exist regarding the differences in data taken with these different models.
The Temperature and Depth Accuracy of Sippican T-5 XBTs - ResearchGate

and

The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.005°C and depths are accurate to ± 5m. For salinity,there are two answers. The data delivered in real time are sometimes affected by sensor drift. For many floats this drift is small, and the uncorrected salinities are accurate to ± .01 psu. At a later stage, salinities arecorrected by expert examination, comparing older floats with newly deployed instruments and with ship-based data. Following this delayed-mode correction, salinity errors are reduced further and in most cases the data become good enough to detect subtle ocean change.

Argo FAQ

Now let's see YOUR reference that says they're only good to 1C.

Since, to this point, you have YET to provide a SINGLE reference for ANY claim you've made, yes, it DOES look as if you are MAKING SHIT UP.

Until the whole fleet are changed to T5 probes and we then get 100 years of data it may have some meaning. Until then the majority of the probes are 1 deg C error bars. You can not claim one hundredth of a degree until all of your data is that accurate.

Epic Fail..

 

[Crick]

The "whole fleet" has been using T5 probes for decades Billy Bob.

So, you have no reference for your made up number. So, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Got it.