The New Exchange

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



2/26/2015 7:32 am  #1


Is climate change really that dangerous? Predictions are 'very greatly

Sorry, CS.
I tried to reply to your post and it got entered on top of your post.

Darn machines!
Goose

Last edited by Goose (2/26/2015 8:21 am)


 “We hold these truths to be self-evident,”  former vice president Biden said during a campaign event in Texas on Monday. "All men and women created by — you know, you know, the thing.”

 
 

2/26/2015 9:00 am  #2


Re: Is climate change really that dangerous? Predictions are 'very greatly

Layered posts, how novel ! 
 


"Do not confuse motion and progress, A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress"
 
 

2/26/2015 5:08 pm  #3


Re: Is climate change really that dangerous? Predictions are 'very greatly

Eureka. I have located the article that CS shared with us about a study.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2920311/Is-climate-change-really-dangerous-Predictions-greatly-exaggerated-claims-study.html

Is climate change really that dangerous? Predictions are 'very greatly exaggerated', claims study

[size=100]Excerpts:
[/size]

Since 1990, scientists have used complex models to predict how climate change and manmade greenhouse emissions will affect the world.
But a team of experts - including an astrophysicist, statistician, and geography professor – has claimed these models ‘very greatly exaggerate’ the effects of global warming.
Using a simpler, solar-based model, the researchers arrived at figures that are more than half those previously predicted.

The paper, ‘Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model’, was written by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware David Legates, and statistician Dr Matt Briggs.
It has been peer reviewed and is published in the journal Science Bulletin.

Mathematical equations used for large climate model typically require supercomputers that perform calculations quickly - some make more than 80 million calculations an hour.

Sophisticated climate models take into account the amounts of animals and plants, or biosphere, the hydrosphere’s oceans and other bodies of water, sea ice and ice sheets in the cryosphere, and the geosphere, that measures tectonic variations such as volcanic eruptions and moving continents.

By comparison, the team’s simple model looked at temperatures caused by so-called anthropogenic radiative forcings and consequent ‘temperature feedbacks’ over a given timeframe.

The researchers tested their so-called ‘simple’ model and its global warming predictions against the complex models used by climate scientists.

In particular, those complex models involved in the UN and World Meteorological Organisation’s (WMO) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
They also compared their predictions against real-world temperature changes.

The paper claims that the measured, real-world rate of global warming over the past 25 years, equivalent to less than 1.4° C per century, is ‘half the IPCC's central prediction in 1990.’
 

Last edited by Goose (2/26/2015 5:10 pm)


We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists. 
 

2/26/2015 5:24 pm  #4


Re: Is climate change really that dangerous? Predictions are 'very greatly

I find this study very troubling.

From the article:


Sophisticated climate models take into account the amounts of animals and plants, or biosphere, the hydrosphere’s oceans and other bodies of water, sea ice and ice sheets in the cryosphere, and the geosphere, that measures tectonic variations such as volcanic eruptions and moving continents.

By comparison, the team’s simple model looked at temperatures caused by so-called anthropogenic radiative forcings and consequent ‘temperature feedbacks’ over a given timeframe.


Wait a second. 70% of the world's surface is covered with water. I find a study of global climate highly suspect if it removes the oceans, sea ice, and ice sheets from analysis. Why would investigators do such a thing?

Well, let's look at the authors of the study. 
Lord Christopher Monckton is a long standing conservative writer and climate change denier. 
Monckton was educated at Harrow School and Churchill College, Cambridge, where he received a B.A. (Classics, 1974,), and at University College, Cardiff, where he obtained a diploma in journalism studies. 

"Astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon" was recently exposed by the NYT for failing to disclose over $1.2 million that he has received from the fossil fuel industry to fund his "research".  He refers to his papers as "deliverables" to his sponsors. Also,  Soon is also NOT an astrophysicist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

Now, I wonder. If you are a climate change skeptic who offers a "simplified" study that confirms what you've already concluded, is that scientifically valid, or just an effort to exclude measuring things until you get the data that you want?

I mean, I could do my own climate change study. Let's say that I "simplify" it to the point where I exclude everything except temperatures on my porch in western Massachusetts, in Feb 2015.
Hey I didn't find any global warming.
Yikes,  I think we've got a new ice age!

 

Last edited by Goose (2/26/2015 7:11 pm)


We live in a time in which decent and otherwise sensible people are surrendering too easily to the hectoring of morons or extremists. 
 

2/26/2015 5:42 pm  #5


Re: Is climate change really that dangerous? Predictions are 'very greatly

I have this terrible feeling we're going to find out.


If you make yourself miserable trying to make others happy that means everyone is miserable.

-Me again

---------------------------------------------
 

2/26/2015 6:26 pm  #6


Re: Is climate change really that dangerous? Predictions are 'very greatly

"Astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon" was recently exposed by the NYT for failing to disclose over $1.2 million that he has received from the fossil fuel industry to fund his "research".  He refers to his papers as "deliverables" to his sponsors. Also,  Soon is also NOT an astrophysicist.

Well, what the hell.  I've got a BS degree in biology and a Master's degree in art.  But, hey, I think I'll label myself as an astrophysicist for the right price and tell you anything you want to hear.

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum