Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate

Joanne Nova ^ | 4 Oct 2015 | Miranda Devine

[Sgt_Schultze]

A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says…

[az_gila]

An important part of the picture is clouds. Whether this fellow has better modeled them than the “warmist” models, I do not know, but an expected effect would be that if the air begins to retain more heat, more clouds will appear and in turn reflect sunlight, pushing the system back towards equilibrium.

---

The issue of positive vs. negative feedback is what the entire model long term predictions are based on.

If it's positive feedback (think putting your microphone too near to the speaker) then things get worse much faster (like the IPCC models) and it's a disaster.

Small number changes can make big differences in the models and this mathematical part never seems to get fully analyzed.

A somewhat biased view here -

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/feedbacks

And the UK Met Office saying how wonderful they are (in spite of there lousy short term predictions) -

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/explained/feedbacks

[laplata]

Right on!

[puppypusher]

It doesn’t matter.the left wing loonies will still be pushing climate change/global warming because they not only want the money that taxes from it will produce.they also need it to wreck the western economies.

[Dr.Deth]

It’s amazing how obviously defective-looking these Socialists are. Their Socialism is just a symptom of all the other stuff that’s wrong with ‘em.

[meatloaf]

Clouds are caused by particles from the Sun.

[smartyaz]

[Yashcheritsiy]

The guy needs to go to jail for being a climate denier.

/sarc

[Gay State Conservative]

You are a climate denier...you will be absorbed!

[Scrambler Bob]

Next, re-calculate deaths due to VW evil, cheating diesel exhaust.

[MattinNJ]

Shocking

[Tennessean4Bush]

Oops! (Channeling Bruce Willis in Die Hard when Hans Gruber pulls the trigger on an empty gun)

[rbg81]

This guy will be prosecuted as a “denier” and sent to a re-education camp. No good deed goes unpunished.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite. - Eisenhower’s Farewell Address

[ETL]

All that climate change ever was was an established, PC buzzword to secure unaccountable government funding

"Global Warming" = Global Governance

[ForYourChildren]

But this guy, and he has a Nobel Prize for being an expert on Global Warming, ....

Oh... who to believe...

[ETL]

But Gore was only off by a factor between FOUR and FIVE HUNDRED!
(several million vs 7230 degrees F)

Al Gore: Earth's Interior 'Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees'

By Noel Sheppard | November 18, 2009

[snip]

CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST: ...to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?

AL GORE: It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ...

[snip]

The physics and astronomy website Physlink contests Gore's absurd claim:

It is approximately 4000°C [7230°F] at the centre of the Earth.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/18/al-gore-earths-interior-extremely-hot-several-million-degrees

[ForYourChildren]

Thanks for posting the actual document(s).

Cool stuff... I enjoyed the discussion on PDEs. One of my main focus in school was computer methods of solving PDEs.

[Bob434]

[[A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate,]]

Nonsense

[[He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought. ]]

Facts will NEVER change the ‘settled debate”- The left are so heavily invested in this LIE that no amount of facts will cause them to ever admit they lied, or to back away from the LIE because that means admitting defeat AND losing trillions of dollars of confiscated money from hard working Americans

[Bob434]

exactly- They will brand him an outsider, a rebel who ‘ignores the consensus’ and a climate denier-

His report WILL be buried away somewhere ever to be seen or heard of again

[Bob434]

[[On the other hand, clouds, particularly at night, prevent heat radiating into space.]]

not so much

Clouds do not cover the entire atmosphere- there is always a vast amount of atmosphere cloud free (and CO2 free for that matter) where heat simply blows righto n out with nothing to stop it- Man’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere amounts to just 0.0037% of the total atmosphere- How much heat are we supposed to believe that just 0.0037% of the atmosphere is capturing? Not to mention that this insignificant amount doesn’t even back radiate all that heat, but only a tiny fraction of that piddly amount-

Man, throughout it’s whole history, has produced only 0.00022% of the CO2 that nature has, and nature’s current contribtion of CO2 amounts to just 0.04% of the atmosphere (man’s CO2 is 3.4% of that amount, meaning man’s total CO2 in atmosphere amounts to just 0.0037% of the atmosphere)

All we are really told by climate scientists is basically “CO2 is capable of capturing and back radiating heat, the earth is warmer, there is more CO2 in atmosphere than years ago (There’s actually MUCH less than way back when- but that’s another thread)- and therefore man is causing global climate change”

we are NEVER shown how just 0.0037% of the atmosphere can possibly be capturing enough heat, then back radiating a FRACTION of that captured heat, in an amount large enough to cause ANY changes whatsoever.

We’re NEVER told how even 0.04% of our atmosphere can capture enough outgoing heat

We’re not even told how scant cloud cover and isolated water vapour can do so on a global scale when MOST of the heat blows right on out past what little clouds there are-

If I light a match once a year in an enclosed football stadium, how long will it be before I cause catastrophic ‘climate change’ within that dome? (Or to be more precise, If I were to light enough matches to equal 0.0037% CO2 by volume of air in that dome, how long would it take to cause catastrophic climate change- keeping in mind that the % is not accumulative, )