Posted on 04/18/2007 12:34:40 PM PDT by CedarDave
The three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic, is discussed and rejected: CO2 measurements from ice cores; CO2 measurements in air; and carbon isotope data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling. It is shown why the ice core method and its results must be rejected; and that current air CO2 measurements are not validated and their results subjectively “edited”.
Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear ocean evasion “buffer” correction factors constructed from a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.
(Excerpt) Read more at icecap.us ...
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Excellent PowerPoint presentation here:
Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma.
“Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear ocean evasion “buffer” correction factors constructed from a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.”
Sounds like the good old Finagle factor in action.
*****************
The following is from: http://www.totse.com/en/ego/no_laughing_matter/finagle.html
Years ago - when the universe was relatively easy to understand -
the Finagle factor consisted of a simple additive constant
(sometimes known as a variable constant) in the form:
X’ = Kf + X.
where any measured variable, X, could be made to agree with theory,
X’, by simple addition of the Finagle factor, Kf.
Later difficulties couldn’t be solved so easily and so a fudge
factor, Kb, was added.
X’ = Kf + KbX.
Powerful as this adjustment was, World War II studies in servo
theory indicated a need for a still-stronger influence. The diddle
factor, Kd, was born and made to multiply the quadratic term.
X’ = Kf + KbX + dX*X.
It is felt that, at least at present, reality can be made to conform
to mathematical theory with reasonable agreement on the basis of
these three factors.
In the interest of complete disclosure, it appears the reference work is dated July 1997. Whether it is just now getting noticed or subsequent work has validated the research, I don’t know. Maybe others with more expertise can comment on it.
In 1974, a friend of mine in Greensboro, NC embedded this theory in the middle of a difficult AP Physics test (not the AP exam). His last name was Swann and he called it Swann’s Constant (which, of course, is usually expressed as a variable...)
The teacher did not read the test very carefully and gave him an “A”. The later uproar really embarrassed the teacher.
Swann went on to earn several engineering degrees and a MBA. Haven’t seen him in years, though.
bump
In my college days I tried to use various statistical models to explain my empirical test results. I found you could find any number of models (polynomial, exponential, etc.) that you could fit to the observed data. Whether any of them were any good in predicting future experimental results was another matter. They couldn’t. And I picked another line of work.
right on. RealClimate is a deceptive site. Their primary goal is to show that ONLY man is the problem. Anyone who reads and believes the lies at realclimate are fools and hate humanity. The purpose of realclimate is to assist the left's brainwashing of the public thereby making it easier to impose totalitarian control the US and wrecking our standard of living. People who are envious of others and who are naturally pessimistic about life would find reassurance at realclimate. A pathetic group of despicable people.
The most famous ice core, the Vostok (Antarctica) core, with air inclusions allegedly representing the global paleoatmospheres over the last 160,000 years, show CO2 levels below 200 ppmv for many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to 110,000 years BP (Barnola et al., 1987). "Most geochemists were convinced that changes such as these could not occur", says Sarmiento (1991) about these low alleged paleoatmospheric CO2 levels. Such low atmospheric CO2 levels below approximately 250 ppmv (McKay et al., 1991) would have led to extinction of certain plant species. This has not been recorded by paleobotanists, showing clearly that the ice core CO2 results are not representative of paleoatmospheres (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b), hence the CO2-ice-core-method and its results must be rejected.Well, no, that isn't a necessary conclusion. For example, CO2 below 250ppm might not lead to the extinction of "certain plant species." Or the paleobotanists may be mistaken that there were not such extinctions.
Ping
How can something so necessary to life ever be called a pollutant???
ping list material, and thanks for your work!
I watched the power point presentation, read the paper, then watched the PP again yesterday. I have a vague understanding that the IPCC is saying it takes 50-100 years for the oceans to absorb co2, but this is rediculous as soda pop makers put co2 in water all the time. Also, the IPCC’s model ocean is pure water without any biological factors or calcium. But I can’t sit here and articulate the “missing sink” problem so that anyone could understand it. Besides, it made me think of Bill Clinton, and maybe that turned me off. So, back to the drawing board, as they say.
Here is what I understood him to say: the co2 was trapped between snowflakes. As more snowflakes fell, they compressed the first layer, squeezing out the co2. With each successive snowfall, more co2 was squeezed out of the underlying layers. By the time the ice cores were dug out, they were devoid of a representitive level of co2, thereby giving a false negative or co2 floor from which more modern co2 levels are compared. Also, one of the ice cores partically melted during transportation. This was not mentioned in the studies that came out of it, or the studies tried to compensate by throwing in a random variable.
That’s no more logical than the other I quoted. By what mechanism does the pressure change the concentration of CO2 in the residual trapped gas? Or, equivalently, how does it preferentially retain the oxygen+nitrogen? How is gas (any gas, not just CO2) expelled through the overlying feet of ice?
I think the main thing for us non-climate scientists to get out of all this is that the science is still not completely understood and to conclude that humans are the cause of most global warming is way premature. So if that is the case, we are taking action that may not do anything but empty our pocketbooks and force unnecessary and unwanted changes in our lifestyle.
I forgot to mention that the “ICECAP” site is a good one for information. It was set up by skeptical scientists who do not believe that current climate science is definitive.
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.