Zombie Science

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Oct 17, 2010.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,440
    Elsevier

    Charlton was not talking about AGW but his observations fit many aspects of the warmists' version of climate science. Taboos, appeals to authority and distortion of data to support confirmation bias simply abound in the annals of CO2 caused global warming.

    Two quotes from R.P. Feynman-
    The main problem (as I see it) with AGW is that it does not describe reality by its main thesis, that small thermal increases caused by manmade CO2 set off a cascade of positive feedbacks which lead to large increases of temperature and eventual catastrophy. Computer models are their only 'proof', and the computer models totally fail at projecting where and how the warming is taking place. The imput for the models are loose approximations for the factors that they do consider, and ignorance (ignoring) of the factors that are too complex or poorly understood. Even their choice of considering water vapour and clouds as a positive feedback (only) is ridiculous at its face because water has been mediating force that has kept the earth at moderate temperatures since it formed!

    More study needs to be done on the other climate influences, such as the solar impact, cloud systems, etc. And it should be done as separate factors, not as peripheral to CO2.

    Hell, even the crazy hungarian Miskolczi has a better theory than the IPCC gang-
    DailyTech - Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"

    At least he can derive temperatures from first principles rather than needing to constantly recalibrate the input data to give a reasonable answer like they have to do with computer climate models.
     
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,436
    Thanks Received:
    5,407
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,287
  3. Greenbeard
    Online

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,199
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Boy, is he going to be excited when he finally gets around to looking at Venus.
     
  4. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,440
    There were no methane catastrophies in any of the other 'optimum' periods of this present interglacial period.

    from above-
    this is a very important concept! the large el nino event in 1998 pumped a lot of water vapour into the air, and yet there was no runaway warming. and according to the theory that there is a greenhouse gas maximum constant for the current incoming heat, that means that as CO2 increases there would be a concurrent decrease in water vapour to equilibrate. that matches the radiosonde data from the last 50 years.
     
  5. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,436
    Thanks Received:
    5,407
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,287
    Ian, there has been no time in the last 15 million years when the atmosphere has had as much CO2 in it as at present. The greatest amount of CO2 in the prior interglacials was 300 ppm, the CH4 was at less than 800 ppb. Today, CO2 is at 388 ppm, and the CH4, at 1800+ ppb. And then there are the industrial GHGs, many of which are thousands of times as effective as CO2.

    The current outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates is a heads up about what the future may hold.

    Plankton, from the last ice age to the year 3007 ? ICES J. Mar. Sci.

    Pielou, E. C. 2008. Plankton, from the last ice age to the year 3007. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 296–301.
    Climate forcing of the environment and biota has been happening since time immemorial, human forcing only for the past 200 years or so. This paper considers, first, climatic changes over the past 30 000 years, as indicated by plankton and their effects on plankton. Only fossilizable plankton can be observed: principally foraminifera, radiolaria, and pteropods in the zooplankton, and their food, principally coccolithophores, diatoms, and dinoflagellate cysts, in the phytoplankton. The soft-bodied zooplankton species—especially copepods—that lived with them can only be inferred. Large, abrupt climate changes took place, aided by positive feedback. Second, this paper attempts to predict how human forcing in the form of anthropogenic climate change is likely to affect marine ecosystems in the future. Past predictions have underestimated the speed at which warming is actually happening: positive feedback has been unexpectedly strong. Thus, the melting of snow and ice, by reducing the earth's albedo, has increased the amount of solar energy absorbed. Also, warming of the surface (water and land) has caused outgassing of methane from buried clathrates (hydrates), and methane is a strong greenhouse gas. Currently, predictions emphasize one or the other of two contrasted alternatives: abrupt cooling caused by a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (the “ocean conveyor”) or abrupt warming caused by copious outgassing of methane. Both arguments (the former from oceanographers and the latter from geophysicists) are equally persuasive, and I have chosen to explore the methane alternative, because I am familiar with an area (the Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Delta) where outgassing has recently (2007) been detected and is happening now: in the Arctic Ocean and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, where disappearance of the ice will affect currents, temperature, thermocline, salinity, upwelling, and nutrients, with consequent effects on the zooplankton.
     
  6. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,683



    Equals no proof and it has never happened in the past.

    EPIC FAIL...but then it's olfraud so of course its a fail....
     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,683




    Now that was a good laugh. They have no empirical data to support their predictions, just failed computer models. That's just great. These people actually get money to crank this crap out...and folks like olfraud actually believe it. Wow.
     

Share This Page