Posted on 04/26/2018 3:41:14 AM PDT by IBD editorial writer
A major scandal is currently brewing under the radar right nkw. (Lord) Christopher Monckton of Brenchley discovered a stunning problem with ALL models, involving control theory feedback science. It is complicated, but quite revolutionary. Hard to summarize, but appears to be quite correct. It proves what we all intuitively know: the Earth is self regulating, and future temperature increases MUST be very low. Incredible piece of work that will blow up the entire scam. Will be published soon.
Read here for partial preview (ery technical, with math):
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/24/did-official-climatology-know-its-predictions-were-nonsense/
That's an excellent point, but my concern is that they write their code to get the answer they want, and would either alter the input data or the code in this instance as well. The code they use was paid for by government grants, and should therefore be made public - where it can be suitably examined, and tested in the manner you suggest.
It is nice someone has the hard science behind this, but it is obvious on the face of it — simply logicial inference — that CO2 cannot cause runaway planetary warming.
We have had 5 major ice ages interspersed with temporary warm periods. If high atmospheric C02 concentrations resulted in runaway planetary warming as suggested by the comical IPCC models, then a return to an ice age would be physically impossible. The planet could never cool substantially. Temperatures would vary in the short term but would constantly rise in the long term. That we have had 5 protracted ice ages is sufficient evidence alone of the impossibility of the IPCC models that conclude high atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause catastrophic runaway planetary warming.
That is a beautiful chart.
It is obvious the earth has natural buffer systems to prevent catastrophic heating or cooling of the earth’s atmosphere, but keeps air temperatures in a fairly narrow band. The earth automatically reverses warming or cooling when temperatures get to extreme, either too hot or too cold.
More patently obvious is that the entire Globull Warming movement is nothing but a vast conspiracy to starve Western Nations of cheap energy necessary for economic prosperity, and to transfer wealth to 3rd world nations, in order to destroy Western influence and propagate New World Order global governance.
The sad part of this is all the useful idiots on the liberal side who buy into this hoax. I understand our masters attempt to control us with this hoax, and I understand the media is our enemy and is trying to help our masters control us. But I have a harder time seeing how 50 million liberals can throw their brains in the trash and be so blind to the obvious facts of this hoax that is pulling the wool over their eyes.
How can people lack logic so completely?
With AGW claims, I’e always wondered about the impacts of deforestation (America in the 1800’s and elsewhere later) then tilled bare dirt fields spring and fall, concrete and asphalt roads and parking lots, and asphalt roofs.
Then, many temperature stations placed in areas of asphalt development.
Above all, that gigantic nuclear fireball, Sol (which now is letting us cool, it appears, from a solar Grand Minimum).
I believe CO2 follows temps, doesn’t lead, and that AGW zealots are all about grant $$$ and tax grabbing.
They’ve tried that, and failed.
If they had succeeded, they would be shouting it from the rooftops.
:: The whole “global warming” scenario is based on a computer model. ::
And, that model has warming programmed into it from the start using today’s information.
My tagline...
In the study, authors Nic Lewis and Judith Curry
...
Both of them are retire and outside academia so they don’t have to worry about their careers being ruined by being truthful.
Not only do their models not work but in several instances the inputs have been shown to be wrong, biased, etc. eg NASA double inputting one month’s data and not putting in the next month’s data - which made it look warmer than it actually was. Using data from a study of bristle cone pines that was never intended for this purpose and which even the authors of that study said was not useful for long term temperature readings. For example using thermometer readings from “heat islands” ie cities which tend to be hotter than the surrounding countryside due to all the heat absorbing asphalt, for example using bilge pump water to get oceanic temperature readings which is expressly against the rules of the study because - you guessed it - it tends to be a little warmer than ambient oceanic temperature readings.
Then when their flawed models loaded with deliberately falsified data fail to produce accurate forecasts they admit that gee......there are things called “carbon sinks” (you and I call them “oceans”) which absorb a lot of carbon which they failed to account for before. Aka “the ocean ate my global warming”.
OK yes we cannot reproduce past data with our flawed models full of falsified data and we don’t understand the climate system to such a degree that we failed to account for the effect the oceans would have as recently as s few years ago.......but we just know it all.....now. Our models are perfect........now. Trust us! That why we need to implement socialist one world government.....errr, I mean that’s why we need to take steps to save earth mother Gaia...RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND! We mean it this time! Really!
And if you say no then you’re akin to a holocaust denier you greedy capitalist pig.
The other half of all computer models not ever mentioned is the fact that through photosynthesis world-wide the amount of CO2 is maintained to the level that directly correlates to the amount of plant-life existing to process it. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more plants will reproduce and compensate for the additional opportunity to exist and proliferate.
I agree.
That charts shows me two things very clearly.
One is that there’s NO correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
The other is that the earth is in a cooler than average period right now. The actual average temperature of the earth is normally far warmer than it is now.
So you could conclude that it’s going to self-correct to go back to what it should be, which is warmer.
The employed pseudo code:
If question is “what is temp 100 years ago”?
Then, output 20 degrees C.
Takes care of that nonsense. :-)
If you haven’t read it yet, check out “The Chilling Stars” by Svensmark and Calder.
The basis of their study is that during periods of solar minimums (like we’re in now), the solar winds slack allowing for more cosmic rays to reach our planet. Cosmic rays act as cloud seeding mechanisms which cause greater cloud cover overall. Greater cloud cover means cooler surface temperatures.
We’ve been through a very active solar period over the last 30 years, but I’d bet the farm that we’re about to embark on a period of global cooling not seen since the 17th century.
And the latest poll says 55% believe in the Global Warming with a 45% margin of error
1. The total atmosphere weighs 1,800,000 BILLION tons.
2. CO2 is .4% of that which is 720 billion tons.
3. The total typical whole planet Man produced CO2 is 6 billion tons. 6 billion tons sounds like a lot but in fact it is .83% of all the CO2 on the planet.
4. Man is responsible for .83% of the .4% of the CO2 that makes up the atmosphere. The impact of all Mankind comes to .0033% of the atmosphere.
5. All the plant life on the surface and in the oceans processes around 6 billion tons of CO2 every year into O2 through photosynthesis. This number reflects the plant-life sustaining amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 is not enough to permit more plant expansion. It’s not like radiation where it builds up. If there is more CO2 there will be more plants to process the CO2 and will lower it. If there is less CO2 there will be less plants to process CO2 so it will rise. The collective of all the world’s termite population puts out nearly 60 billion tons of CO2 every year. That’s 10X the entire race of Mankind.
6. Water vapor is scientific fact to be responsible for 95% of all solar radiation heating retention, reflection or radiation back into space.
All of Man is barely a pin prick on a mile wide, mile long beach in the scheme of things. We aren’t that important.
We have had 5 major ice ages interspersed with temporary warm periods. If high atmospheric C02 concentrations resulted in runaway planetary warming as suggested by the comical IPCC models, then a return to an ice age would be physically impossible. The planet could never cool substantially. Temperatures would vary in the short term but would constantly rise in the long term. That we have had 5 protracted ice ages is sufficient evidence alone of the impossibility of the IPCC models that conclude high atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause catastrophic runaway planetary warming.
What any increase in CO2 planet-wide will do is cause an explosive and sudden increase in plant life (food for us and to feed the animals we eat). If that happens, now how are we supposed to get to that Georgia Guidestones 500 million person planetary cap?
Money quote: "The resulting warming [under the status quo] would be below the target set at the Paris agreement."
Oh really? This whole multi-billion scam, even if cranked up to the max, would deliver "results" not effectively different than what's trending now?
Oh, good.
Now we can breathe again.
Folks, CO2 is not a pollutant. It's an atmospheric fertilizer. If it increased threefold it would bring us up much closer to the optimal levels they aim for in greenhouses. You know: to produce lush plant growth.
The ordinary, lifegiving process of organic decompositon produces robust amounts of the choicest of greenhouse gases: methane, water vapor, and CO2. I'm gonna take my life in my hands and triple my compost pile. Greenhouse optimization, here we come!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.