Proved: There is No Climate Crisis

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Oct 2, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    Written by Robert Ferguson
    Tuesday, 15 July 2008

    WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.
    Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

    Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –

    “… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”
    Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:

    “I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.‘

    “To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

    Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

    * The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
    * CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
    * Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
    * The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
    * The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
    * “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
    * Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
    * The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
    * It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
    * Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
    * In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/Press-Release_No-Climate-Crisis.pdf
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    “Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over

    "It is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus” was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change."

    More Here

     
  3. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Talk about spin.

    Here is the actual paper by Christopher Monckton published in the Forum on Physics & Society. Also, the paper has not undergone any peer review.

    What the commentary that you cited failed to mention is that he only analyzed data from 2001 to 2008 to say that the average global temperature has not risen dramatically, something that NASA and the Climatic Research Unit data has also stated.

    Christopher Monckton is correct that current models do not account for the relative plateau we have seen over the last 8 years. But it needs to be kept in perspective that those last 8 years were 8 of the hottest years on record and dramatically above the averages since data was collected in the 1800s.
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790

    And where is your source that it was not peer reviewed. We don't want to rely on opinion.

    Are you aware that we actually have been cooling since 1998?
     
  5. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    It says so in the first paragraph where the journal makes the following statement.

    The Climatic Research Unit data suggests that hottest temperature on record is 1998 the years since then have been among the 10 hottest on record, but below 1998. NASA's data suggest that 2005 was the hottest year with 1998 and 2007 tied for second. I would not call that cooling but plateau might is an accurate description. I have suggested this in the past 3 or 4 threads on this topic.
     
  6. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    I gave the wrong name for the group which is the American Physics Society. I also found out it is not a scientific journal but a newsletter, making this statement by Robert Ferguson an outright lie.

     
    #6 Gold Dragon, Oct 2, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 2, 2008
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    It is not helpful to tell me about previous threads I have not read. Is recent solar activity considered? And can we really measure anything other than local temps? The scientist in the video on this link doesn't believe so:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/videos/
     
  8. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yep, the NASA analysis includes solar irradiation which is currently on a down side of the cycle. This is the paper they base their solar irradiation model on.

    Even local temperatures aren't measured. All you measure is the local temperature at a specific point in time. The rest are calculations using models. The average temperature of a local area and then the average of all the local temperatures around the globe. Understanding the mathematical concept of an average is necessary to understanding this.
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790

    And what produces these models?
     
  10. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    He says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming.

    He says that humans do impact the climate globally but suggests it may be cooling rather than warming.

    Do you agree with those statements?
     
  11. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    NASA lets you download their model if you are interested in reverse-engineering it to find a flaw.
     
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790

    No he said we do impact climate locally and since the global temps cannot be reliably measured it cannot be said we impact it globally. He also said the the CO3 impact is minimal. Let's place his statements in context.
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790

    I dont have to. The models are widely disputed. There seems to be a difference in the results of the flawed models and the satellite data which is openly known for years.
     
  14. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    I suggest you listen again. He says the impact is global but challenges that the impact can actually be measured.

    Yes, he said it was minimal but acknowledges that it is a greenhouse gas that causes warming.

    He also does not deny that the earth is warming but says that CO2 does not account for all of it and that the human component of that could be warming or cooling.
     
  15. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Of course you can show us more of your "evidence" to defend your statements. ;)
     
  16. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    No, he says it is local and even then it changes based on changing conditions throughout history.
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
  18. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Those all criticize the models used to predict future global average temperatures. I already said a few posts above that those models do not account for the plateau we are currently seeing.

    They are not criticisms of models to calculate current average global temperature.

    Different models.
     
  19. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    790
    And?............
     
  20. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    All of my statements have been about current and past data.

    If you wish to criticize future projections, I have no problems with that. Those models are guesses, some of the best guesses we can make but still guesses.

    The stuff I have been talking about is hard and fast data that has already happened. Deny that and I will keep showing you the data.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...