Re: Climate documentary 'broke rules'
- From: Weatherlawyer <Weatherlawyer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 21, 5:38 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 21, 11:51 am, Steve Loft <st...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Channel 4 in trouble with Ofcom for "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7517101.stm
"Channel 4 will have to broadcast a summary of the Ofcom findings."
What would be fun is for them to wrap it in a plaint aimed at the
BBC's penchant for spin and misrepresentation. How about a Channel 4
programme on those?
One like this maybe:
for anyone not familiar with the "state of the science" there may be a
couple of surprises in Monckton's paper.
One is how small the field of "experts" really is. The UN's IPCC is
tasked with producing a summary of the "scientific consensus" and
claims to process the contributions of some 2,500 scientists. But as
Monckton writes:
"It is of no little significance that the IPCCʼs value for the
coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in
the literature;
that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-
thirds of humankindʼs effect on global temperatures are likewise taken
from only one paper;
and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon
only two papers,
one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in
question,
and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical
justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted."
Another eye-opener is his explanation of how the believers' climate
models are verified:
"Since we cannot measure any individual forcing directly in the
atmosphere,
the models draw upon results of laboratory experiments in passing
sunlight through chambers in which atmospheric constituents are
artificially varied,"
"Such experiments are of limited value when translated into the real
atmosphere, where radiative transfers and non-radiative transports, as
well as altitudinal and latitudinal asymmetries, greatly complicate
the picture."
In other words, an unproven hypothesis is fed into a computer but it
can only be verified against experiments that have no resemblance to
the chaotic system of the Earth's climate.
It is not hard to see how the scientists could produce an immaculate
"model" that's theoretically perfect in every respect which has no
practical predictive value at all.
Since 8 per cent of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the planet's
biomass every year, notes Dyson, the average lifespan of a carbon
molecule in the atmosphere is about 12 years.
His observation leaves the "climate scientists" models as immaculate
as they were before, but suggests a very different course of policy
action.
It suggests our stewardship of land should be at the forefront of CO2
mitigation strategies. That's not something we hear from politicians,
pressure groups and, yes ... climate scientists. >
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/page2.html
££stewardship of land should be at the forefront of CO2 mitigation
strategies.$$
This chappie sounds a bit like yrs tooly.
.
- References:
- Climate documentary 'broke rules'
- From: Steve Loft
- Re: Climate documentary 'broke rules'
- From: Weatherlawyer
- Climate documentary 'broke rules'
- Prev by Date: Re: Summer, at last.....but for how long?
- Next by Date: Today's model interpretation (22/07/08)
- Previous by thread: Re: Climate documentary 'broke rules'
- Next by thread: Tropical Storm?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
