Climate models, the tools used to carve up the economy to suit the socialist dreamers, aren’t as reliable as they told us they were.
The BBC admits…..
Climate change: Models ‘underplay plant CO2 absorption’
Remember that the BBC has in effect banned Lord Lawson from the BBC on the basis that ‘ Lord Lawson’s views on climate change: “are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research and I don’t believe this was made sufficiently clear to the audience.”
As the science writer and Conservative peer Matt Ridley made clear this week in The Times, linking the words “evidence” and “computer-modelling” in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Computer models try to predict the future and can only be tested as potential evidence when they are proved to be correct.
The article from the BBC reports that…..
Global climate models have underestimated the amount of CO2 being absorbed by plants, according to new research.
Scientists say that between 1901 and 2010, living things absorbed 16% more of the gas than previously thought.
Despite telling us that…..‘Working out the amount of carbon dioxide that lingers in the atmosphere is critical to estimating the future impacts of global warming on temperatures. ‘
…they ‘reassure’ us that…..
‘…experts believe the new calculation is unlikely to make a difference to global warming predictions.’
And….
‘…it may not mean any great delay in global warming as a result of increased concentrations of the gas.’
And….
Many experts agree that the effect is interesting and may require a recalibration of models – but it doesn’t change the need for long-term emissions cuts to limit the impact of carbon dioxide.
And….
“This new research implies it will be slightly easier to fulfil the target of keeping global warming below two degrees – but with a big emphasis on ‘slightly’,”
“Overall, the cuts in CO2 emissions over the next few decades will still have to be very large if we want to keep warming below two degrees.”
Four times in one report the BBC tries to subtly rubbish this study and downplay any significance to the clmate.
Can’t have you getting the idea that climate modelling is mostly nonsense.
The BBC quotes the researchers who produced the study asking just how big an error is there in the modelling…and then rushed in its ‘other researchers’ to pour cold water on any suggestion that the models are seriously wrong….
‘The researchers believe that Earth systems models have over estimated the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by about 17%, and think their new evaluation of plant absorption explains the gap…. If we are going to predict future CO2 concentration increases for hundreds of years, how big would that bias be?”‘
The BBC’s counter….
‘Other researchers believe the new work could help clarify our models but it may not mean any great delay in global warming as a result of increased concentrations of the gas.’
There may be global warming, or not, but the science hasn’t proved man is responsible.
The BBC is pushing propaganda not science.
So the more plant food there is in the atmosphere, the better plants do? Now that really is shocking news. Where would we be without “climate scientists” to point this out?
The present use of computer modelling to support a belief in climate change is about as scientific as the use of computers to assist with astrological forecasts. When they can reliably forecast the weather for next week then we might take them seriously when they talk about what might happen in 50 years time (and yes, I do understand the difference between weather and climate).
Anyone heard about any Cat 4 or 5 Hurricanes off the eastern seaboard of the USA & Gulf of Mexico ? `Its all gone rather quiet over there`. More & more Cat 4 & 5 Hurricanes were predicted ,& even more generally , but I think one headed towards Mexico ,& we had the remainder of an Atlantic one, a few weeks ago .
Either the science is not settled or this scientific paper does not exist.
This paper does exist.
Therefore the science is not settled.
So the BBC should start giving the sceptical side of the argument in line with their charter obligations to impartiality.
97% of the people I surveyed agree with that statement.
What we really need is for an Islamic scholar to issue a fatwa to the effect that belief in man made global warming is un-Islamic. That would present the BBC with a bit of a dilemma…
I heard that America nearly got so far as making Carbon Dioxide a toxic gas! The fact that the Sun has a far stronger input on the Earth’s climate is never debated but obvious according to older and wiser independent Scientists.. Natural variability is what makes the Weather an interesting subject to study but its not a ‘Science’ any more than Astrology predictions (which may be more accurate).
That toxic gas is loved by Trees and Carbon life forms. Nobody at the BBC would say that ‘Oxygen’ is a poisonous gas but you can die of Oxygen poisoning. Ask any deep sea diver. Jacques Cousteau invented the divers ‘Aqua lung’ and nearly died inhaling Oxygen under deep sea pressures. This led to changes in deep sea air mixtures approved today. Nitrogen bubbles can also cause death if not ‘depressurised’ correctly often called the ‘bends’ on returning to the surface. All this is public knowledge and does not cause panic.
The Earth’s temperature is still perfectly normal and totally dependent on Sun oscillation and cycles. As this chart proves. Co2 is a BBC pet ‘vehicle’ to peddle alarm to rather stupid politicians who give them more funds to exploit a a ‘dangerous’ gas that is essential to life on Earth..
http://antigreen.blogspot.co.uk/
Astrology started out as a science, many of the great Astronomers of the past where Astrologers, so obviously Astrology must have had some scientific substance to it.
Amazingly it seems that the substance in Astrology, is the cause of Climate Change. Scientists such as Ed Fix, Carlo Tosti, Nicola Scafetta, Paul Vaughan and Ian Wilson use the Planetary movements to predict the length of the Solar Cycle, which correlates with Climate Change.
The speed of the centre of the Sun relative to the centre of mass or barycentre of the Solar System determines the length of the solar cycle, this in turn is caused by the orbits and masses of the Planets. Short Solar Cycles have higher Solar Magnetic activity due to the increase in the speed of plasma within the Sun, and therefore a larger number of Sun spots. Long Solar Cycles have lower Solar Magnetic activity and therefore a smaller number of Sun spots.
Between 1913 and 1996, only one of eight Solar Cycles was longer than the mean Solar Cycle length of 11.04 years, the last of these was the shortest Solar Cycle for more than 200 years, the strength of the Suns magnetic field more than doubled, the cosmic ray flux fell by 11 percent and there was a 8.6 percent reduction in clouds.
Climate Models based on CO2, only need CO2 level observations, the models show warming at the surface and double that six miles up, but observations show no increase on the surface since 1997, nor any increase six miles up since never and ever, because the Arrhenius method in which all these IPCC approved models are based on are to put it mildly, Bullshit. But the fault is not that of the Computer programmers or Modellers, it’s the fault of, not letting causational climate scientists like Gerhard Gerlich, correct the mistakes in the models (Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Gerhard Gerlich, 2009). And then correcting the models with (Unified Theory of Climate, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller, 2011) as Piers Corbyn would agree, but I think he does not put it more clearly or politely than I do.
It sounds moronically bonkers to me.
This is nothing to do with Climate Change other than evidence for the amount of Solar energy reaching the Earths surface increased a warming Ocean which then absorbs less CO2. But that makes it unclear if between 1901 and 2010, living things absorbed 16% more of the gas than previously thought by previous thinkers, whoever they where.
And ‘Working out the amount of carbon dioxide that lingers in the atmosphere’ is at present 400 ppm of which only 4 percent could be Man-made. Man-made and Volcanic CO2 does not have the Carbon-14 Isotope. Levels of this Isotope show that 4 percent or 16ppm of the increase in CO2 in over 100 years is due to Man-made or Volcanic CO2, this is also confirmed by the ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 in the Atmosphere. So if you use facts instead of assumptions, then only 16 percent of the increase in CO2 was man-made. This is not a surprise if you realise that ice core data shows that CO2 levels rise about 800 years after a warming and that the Medieval Warm period peaked about 800 years ago. The reason for this is that there is a 800 year thermal lag in the deep oceans and that the Oceans dominate the system with a mass 275 times that of the Atmosphere, so the ratio of CO2 in the Atmosphere/Oceans is dependent upon the heat in the Oceans.
The CO2 levels in the Atmosphere have and always will reflect what the temperature in the Oceans was 800 years ago, and have nothing to do with the present Climate, and will also start to fall by 2200 or 2100 or earlier, as is indicated by the fuzzy correlations in Ice cores.
Great info there Richard. Thank you for your clear description in all the above posts. Now if only……………………..
Yes thanks for that Richard – good posts – all three!. There are so many things the BBC will never ever recognise as ‘causal effects’ – interesting that ‘Newtonian Astro-Physics’ may well account for natural sun cycle variability. That’s new to me, I wouldn’t discount it.
Co2 is also not the big bad gas the BBC claims either (as it’s the most common gas in fizzy lemonade, beer and baking Cakes (baking soda) and making Bread (yeast). Another common chemical reaction of every day things is in setting ‘concrete’. It creates a lot of CO2. (Yes, those ghastly Romans were at fault for inventing a new building material). I know many old English buildings used ‘Lime-set’ mortar (as I understand it), it sets slower and gives off minimal Co2 gasses.
But that is NOT what the BBC wants to hear!, it has no intention of letting ‘facts’ get in the way of a good story.
Fridges containing CFC’s I do remember were a big problem solved (1980’s) by international treaty based on urgent ‘demonstrable Science’ and internationally banned outright – as this was proven to effect Ozone layer and hence ‘Ultra-Violet’ Sun emissions on Earth. That worked. True Science can be demonstrated and should be open to debate and challenges. No room for silly false IPCC politics or UN secret Agendas. That is where the BBC sits stifling debate. (Banning Lord lawson is a good example of the BBC being not really interested in Science at all – just the popular Brain Cox bits to entertain). BBC Horizon is lot less than it was once Scientifically.
There was a ridiculous picture in one of the newspapers last week with a picture of a Cow (in Austria or Germany) forced to wear ‘Nappies’ to prevent EU Climate Change to avoid ‘ground water’ contamination. How many of these GREEN idiots would have realised that before the outbreak of the World War, the vital source of Nitrogen was sourced from ‘Bat pooh’ (GUANO) in vast quantities right up to the point of where the Germans invented an pure chemical alternative Haber Bosch process to create ‘Nitrogen fertilizers’, (the same stuff later used in making bombs). The French are still particularly bad in overuse of Nitrogen Phosphates in all French Agriculture that continues to pollute Rivers), they are somehow EU ‘safe’ from pollution. But EUthe daft legislation so enabled solves the problem by making Alpine Cow wear ‘nappies’.
Picture found: (here)
We can laugh or cry at the prospect. The BBC in it’s wisdom will take it seriously and they will wonder if the Cow nappies are Scientifically made from recyclable materials and demand urgent legislation to prevent ‘leaks’. The Mindset of the BBC is relentless on the trivial.
“Costly, ineffective and ugly: It is time to confront wind power.
Energy sources should be cheap and reliable but wind power is neither.”
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/522937/Daily-Express-wind-power-tax-cutting-Tories-English-devolution
Madness: At a cost of £1 Billion: ‘Thousands of dirty diesel generators are being secretly prepared all over Britain to provide emergency back-up to prevent the National Grid collapsing when wind power fails. ‘
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2362762/The-dirty-secret-Britains-power-madness-Polluting-diesel-generators-built-secret-foreign-companies-kick-theres-wind-turbines–insane-true-eco-scandals.html
Power Cuts!
Is Owen Patterson heading for UKIP?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/11156113/Scrap-the-Climate-Change-Act-to-keep-the-lights-on-says-Owen-Paterson.html
And the odd wind mill catches fire when the wind is bit too ‘variable’ or/and too strong. Not that unusual (to break down).
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/12/why-did-a-wind-turbine-self-co.html
> Val Martin on April 20, 2012 6:12 PM
‘According to dutch physicist C Le Pair . And the Bentek studies . Wind turbines require so much back up that they are no benefit . Turbines draw power from the grid just as factories & homes do . That power is used for several purposes including shutting it down in high winds . It is likely the power supply to this turbine was interupted with the result that it was not shut down . The resulting surge in power burned the windings allowing the blades to spin out of control. One solution would be to build a coal burning power station in the middle of the wind farm to reduce the danger of a power cut to the turbines’. (!)