On 19/09/13 15:05, Terry Fields wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/09/13 09:08, Terry Fields wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
Nothing of interest.
For those of you who enjoy reading seriously scientific books, this lik
will provide much joy
http://heartland.org/media-library/p...CR-II-Full.pdf
The book should have been subttled 'Why the science has never been less
settled: the 1001 things the IPCC forgot to consider, written by the
1,000 or so scientists who have evidence that disagrees with the IPCCs
conclusions for the 100,000 scientists and intelleigent people who
actrually care about science and truth'
(Cue ad homimen from JJ to 'discredit it completely').
He can start here, perhaps:
"The IPCCs confidence in the models, however,
is likely considerably overstated. The magnitude of
the range of projected temperature responses to a
doubling of atmospheric CO2 itself suggests there are
large errors and limitations in the models that must be
overcome. To have any validity in terms of future
projections, GCMs must incorporate not only the
many physical processes described above but also the
chemical and biological processes that influence
climate over long time periods. In addition, current
computational errors resulting from finite grid
resolution must be overcome so as not to introduceent
growing biases. And as a final step, model output
must be compared with and evaluated against real-
world observations"
I said to JJ perhaps only yesterday, that the models credibility
would be enhanced if they could predict a past event, such as the
icing of Greenland or the Little Ice Age - and here we have a
heavyweight scientific publication saying much the same thing.
The best fit on geolgical scales comes via solar and galactic
periodicities: I.e. great coolings are associaited with the earth
crossing the galactic plane, with the inference that the increase in
comsic rays tends to increase cloudiness - lots of people working on
that inc. Svensmark, and the receint warm and cold periods assocaited
with solar variations in irradiance and in magnetic feld, which likewise
modulate the comsic ray field.
Some nice neo-astrology from IIRC scarfetta, showng how the tidal
effects of planets on the sun may coincide with solar activity
modulation, and this how interference between orbitng planets and ther
orbital harmonics can provide the periodicity and the irregulariy behind
such events.
Unfortunately, as the actual temperature falls out of the lower band
of the predicted levels, such an event has become a mere curiosity as
the models prove increasingly inadequate.
No: playing devils advocate here, the politicians need something to
justify U turns on policy such as Australia has undertaken (essentially
sacking their whole climate change unit and shutting it down)
This is the sort of heavyweight stuff that seems impressive enough to be
useful IF THEY DECIDE IT IS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT to to that.
AS far as politics is concerned, what counts is getting elected, and if
people are bored with climate change and green taxes, they dont actually
care whether AGW is true or not, they just need an excuse to dump it.
This is over a 1000 pages of excellent excuses. Littered with citations,
research summaries and the like.
All they have to do is say
1/. Renewable energy is not a successeful strategy to combat CO2
emissions, and if people care, they should support nuclear, which is.
2/. Even if it were, without the co-operation of the East, any attempts
to reduce emissions the West makes are simply cutting off our noses to
spite our faces for no tangible benefits and a lot of cost
3/. The science does not uniltaerrally support the contention that CO2
is a major driver of climate anyway.
4/. Climate change POLICY response would therefore better be 'be
prepared' that 'take specific precautions'.
Australia, and I suspect Canada will be the first to break ranks - we
shaclled to Europe, simplyy have to support UKIP as the main (politcal)
force advocatiing the above views, till they become mainstream enough
for it not to matter.
I suspect, and its a gut feeling, that by 2015, either climate change
will be simply not on anyones manifesto at all, or the main parties
will be more or less echoing UKIPs existing postion, or if not, they
will take a drubbing at the booths.
The Liberal Dimwits have already made friendly noises towards nuclear.
They dont mean it of course, but they have felt it necessary to make
those noises.
It is clear that climate science is in its infancy.
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.