Tyndall Lecture

[Trakar]

Tyndall Lecture
A recent lecture by Ray PierreHumbert reviewing the record of successful predictions by climate science theories over the last 150 years or so.

The scientist selected to present this annual lecture, offers a historical perspective on global environmental change. The lecture is named in honor of John Tyndall, the physicist whose measurements in the late 1850s and early 1860s verified the importance of the greenhouse effect that had been proposed by Fourier in 1824. This lecture focuses on the development of the science underlying global environmental change and provide a historical perspective

http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/events/tyndall-lecture-gc43i-successful-predictions-video-on-demand/

 

[westwall]

What a farce. What "successful" predictions? That there would be snow or that there is too much of it? That drought would increase or decrease? That malaria would increase or decrease? You clowns havn't predicted anything.



"The MoS has campaigned tirelessly against the folly of Britain’s eco-obsessed energy policy. Now comes a game-changing intervention... from an expert respected by the green fanatics themselves

Last week, I was part of a group of academics who published a paper saying that the faster, more alarming, projections of the rate at which the globe is warming look less likely than previously thought.


That may mean we can afford to reduce carbon dioxide emissions slightly slower than some previously feared – but as almost everyone agrees, they still have to come down.


So the time has come to focus on something just as important: that 90 per cent of the measures adopted in Britain and elsewhere since the 1997 Kyoto agreement to cut global emissions are a waste of time and money – including windfarms in Scotland, carbon taxes and Byzantine carbon trading systems."


Read more: Why I think we're wasting billions on global warming, by top British climate scientist | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Old Rocks]

Listen to the lecture, you senile old fart.

 

[skookerasbil]

May 25, 2013......upstate New York =






Because reality is 95% perception s0ns!!!

 

[Trakar]

Listen to the lecture, you senile old fart.

Discussion and the exchange of ideas requires that all participants are open and eager to such interactions and exchanges. Those that demonstrate no interest in productive interactions and exchanges aren't worth the bandwidth of a retort.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Warmist Crusaders have zero interest in open idea's or healthy debate. If the stuff doesnt exactly fit their whole narrative, it is dismissed out of turn. Ever notice something? Al Gore never, ever debated a single person on global warming. He represents the whole lot of them.

For those who come into this forum, make no mistake about one thing. Every single board member who supports the "man-made" climate change narrative ALSO embraces a hidden agenda they never let on to: invariably, they want destruction of the capitalistic system and a world where complete wealth redistribution is the established economic system. No private property. Confiscatory levels of taxation. The government running all aspects of our lives. This is not even debatable......the UN even has a public training curriculum about it that I have posted up many times. To these people, they believe the government knows what is best for all of us......and they are more than eager to ceed it to them. So......if you want a green world, that is the tradeoff. No more freedoms. Your existence is simple: you live to benefit the collective. You are a sheep and nothing more. THAT is the utopia of the AGW crusaders.

 

[westwall]

Listen to the lecture, you senile old fart.

Why bother. It's the same old same old from the warmists trying like hell to support their failing religion.

It's nothing new. I recently attended a climate change forum held in Carson City with Brown and Dettinger and guess what it was just more of the same. What was hilarious is they had a deputy sheriff there in case of "violence' and they edited the questions from the audience so that no real questions were asked. It was quite sad....they were speaking to the choir as it were and still they couldn't let real questions be asked.

 

[westwall]

Listen to the lecture, you senile old fart.

Discussion and the exchange of ideas requires that all participants are open and eager to such interactions and exchanges. Those that demonstrate no interest in productive interactions and exchanges aren't worth the bandwidth of a retort.

When you clowns deal with the peer review corruption I will listen to you. Till then you have ZERO credibility.

 

[skookerasbil]

The peer review process.......always the automatic fallback of the climate crusaders........has been a rigged process for almost 500 years.


Here is a lengthy assessment.......ony for those who care not to keep their collective heads firmly planted in the sand!!!

What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of:?All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing??

 

[Old Rocks]

There are more scientists that deal with climate in the American Geophysical Union than in any other Scientfiic Society. And the policy statement of the American Geophysical Union is unequivical on the issue.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

It is remarkable that the GOP has chosen to take the side of ignorance on this issue. It is even more amazing that apparently sane people actually repeat their nonsense without any kind of research on their own.

 

[westwall]

There are more scientists that deal with climate in the American Geophysical Union than in any other Scientfiic Society. And the policy statement of the American Geophysical Union is unequivical on the issue.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

It is remarkable that the GOP has chosen to take the side of ignorance on this issue. It is even more amazing that apparently sane people actually repeat their nonsense without any kind of research on their own.

So what. Theirs is a political statement. Not a scientific viewpoint, they make nice broad statements but to date there isn't a shred of empirical data to support what they say.

 

[Trakar]

So what. Theirs is a political statement. Not a scientific viewpoint, they make nice broad statements but to date there isn't a shred of empirical data to support what they say.

This assertion is without compelling evidentiary support

 

[SSDD]

Tyndall made some very astute observations regarding CO2 and wrote them in his papers. For example:

“Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources.”

"carbonic acid gas is “extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate”.

 

[SSDD]

So what. Theirs is a political statement. Not a scientific viewpoint, they make nice broad statements but to date there isn't a shred of empirical data to support what they say.

This assertion is without compelling evidentiary support

The statement itself is compelling evidentiary support. Look at the first line:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.

First, when has the earth's climate ever been in balance? During what period of time has the climate been static for any appreciable time? The very nature of the climate is chaos. Secondly, there is no warming and has not been for going on two decades now.

including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

Look at that statement. Pure bullshit. Show me some evidence that anything, and I mean anything that is happening in the climate today is unprecedented in the climate history of the earth. What has happened within the past century in the climate that does not have a completely natural counterpart? Again, a statement made based on political feeling with absolutely no basis in science and in fact, a deliberate and outright lie.

I could go on but this in iteself is enough to demonstrate that the premise of the paper is not based on any sort of actual evidence whatsoever.

 

[skookerasbil]

Any alternative research is not allowed in the discussion........lets not forget that. Alternative research findings are routinely shunned at global climate conferences. In other words, if your research doesnt match the established "consensus", they tell you to take your bat and ball and go home. It is a closed society.......the entire thing is rigged.

 

[Trakar]

So what. Theirs is a political statement. Not a scientific viewpoint, they make nice broad statements but to date there isn't a shred of empirical data to support what they say.

This assertion is without compelling evidentiary support

The statement itself is compelling evidentiary support. Look at the first line:

This statement is inaccurate

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming.

First, when has the earth's climate ever been in balance? During what period of time has the climate been static for any appreciable time? The very nature of the climate is chaos. Secondly, there is no warming and has not been for going on two decades now.

These statements and implications are inaccurate and without compelling support in the geologic or historic records.

including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

Look at that statement. Pure bullshit. Show me some evidence that anything, and I mean anything that is happening in the climate today is unprecedented in the climate history of the earth. What has happened within the past century in the climate that does not have a completely natural counterpart? Again, a statement made based on political feeling with absolutely no basis in science and in fact, a deliberate and outright lie.

I could go on but this in iteself is enough to demonstrate that the premise of the paper is not based on any sort of actual evidence whatsoever.

"Going on" is not providing reasoned and compelling evidentiary support and reference for your assertions and beliefs. Your assertions are inaccurate, without compelling support, and contradicted by multiple lines of compelling supporting evidence and multiple fields of scientific understanding.

 

[SSDD]

This assertion is without compelling evidentiary support

The statement itself is compelling evidentiary support. Look at the first line:

This statement is inaccurate



These statements and implications are inaccurate and without compelling support in the geologic or historic records.

including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

Look at that statement. Pure bullshit. Show me some evidence that anything, and I mean anything that is happening in the climate today is unprecedented in the climate history of the earth. What has happened within the past century in the climate that does not have a completely natural counterpart? Again, a statement made based on political feeling with absolutely no basis in science and in fact, a deliberate and outright lie.

I could go on but this in iteself is enough to demonstrate that the premise of the paper is not based on any sort of actual evidence whatsoever.

"Going on" is not providing reasoned and compelling evidentiary support and reference for your assertions and beliefs. Your assertions are inaccurate, without compelling support, and contradicted by multiple lines of compelling supporting evidence and multiple fields of scientific understanding.

Prove it with observed, measured, empirical evidence.

 

[Trakar]

The statement itself is compelling evidentiary support. Look at the first line:

This statement is inaccurate

These statements and implications are inaccurate and without compelling support in the geologic or historic records.

Look at that statement. Pure bullshit. Show me some evidence that anything, and I mean anything that is happening in the climate today is unprecedented in the climate history of the earth. What has happened within the past century in the climate that does not have a completely natural counterpart? Again, a statement made based on political feeling with absolutely no basis in science and in fact, a deliberate and outright lie.

I could go on but this in iteself is enough to demonstrate that the premise of the paper is not based on any sort of actual evidence whatsoever.

"Going on" is not providing reasoned and compelling evidentiary support and reference for your assertions and beliefs. Your assertions are inaccurate, without compelling support, and contradicted by multiple lines of compelling supporting evidence and multiple fields of scientific understanding.

Prove it with observed, measured, empirical evidence.

Science does not "prove" things, it merely offers reasoned and tested explanations that account for, and are in accord with, all available evidences.

Rapid Climate Change - American Institute of Physics

Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U. S.

Chapter 21 Climate change: an unprecedented environmental challenge

 

[westwall]

This statement is inaccurate

These statements and implications are inaccurate and without compelling support in the geologic or historic records.



"Going on" is not providing reasoned and compelling evidentiary support and reference for your assertions and beliefs. Your assertions are inaccurate, without compelling support, and contradicted by multiple lines of compelling supporting evidence and multiple fields of scientific understanding.

Prove it with observed, measured, empirical evidence.

Science does not "prove" things, it merely offers reasoned and tested explanations that account for, and are in accord with, all available evidences.

Rapid Climate Change - American Institute of Physics

Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U. S.

Chapter 21 Climate change: an unprecedented environmental challenge

Those "papers" are laughable. They are all correlation equals causation based logic. Nowhere is there empirical data supporting what they say. They state that "X" is occuring because of AGW and then don't back it up with anything.

And now, with all the major warmist groups admitting that there has been no warming for at least a decade the supposed effects have no cause. Kind of a problem for you...

 

[Trakar]

Prove it with observed, measured, empirical evidence.

Science does not "prove" things, it merely offers reasoned and tested explanations that account for, and are in accord with, all available evidences.

Rapid Climate Change - American Institute of Physics

Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U. S.

Chapter 21 Climate change: an unprecedented environmental challenge

Those "papers" are laughable. They are all correlation equals causation based logic. Nowhere is there empirical data supporting what they say. They state that "X" is occuring because of AGW and then don't back it up with anything...

If your beliefs prevent you from reading and understanding what you are reading, then print references are unlikely help you improve your level of understanding.