Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

[Gordon_R]

And Berry is by no means the only one challenging the Bern Mathematical models. I came across another rather humorous commentary of the Bern model : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/06/the-bern-model-puzzle/

with these quotes which are pretty spot on in my opinion:



It is all a bit of a joke really - a model with "fiddle factors" which can be "tuned" to generate whatever outcome you want. And they wonder why they have such a spread of rather incomprehensible scenarios (to laymen including Politicians), but not to critical scientist analysts more than capable of seeing through the mathematical gymnastics and smoke and mirror BS, and suspicious outcomes.

It always comes back to the suspicion that the UNFCCC and the IPCC defined a definition of AGW (now ACC) and are hell-bent on manipulating the data to get this pre-determined answer come hell or HiCO2.

There is nothing wrong with the IPCC carbon-cycle model, though it does contain uncertainties in the flux of carbon in various parts of the ocean and biosphere, each of which have different residence times. These are the subject of ongoing scientific research, and iIt would be very strange if new research did not come up with revised estimates the relative flux of carbon in the ocean and biosphere.

The partition percentages are not arbitrary numbers, but best estimates at the time of the report, of the various carbon fluxes. The wattsupwiththat.com article twists those uncertainties into some sort of conspiracy, and makes it sound as if they can be changed to meet some preconceived target.

The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is very well mixed, and can be measured quite precisely. Charts of these numbers have been available for 50 years, and are not in any doubt.

 

[Geoff.D]

Surely it must be an easy thing to provide? I mean GBM had "no doubt" in making the claim, I would just like to see some evidence of this principle being used anywhere else in any scientific research...

There is no real purpose in playing on this issue. Just go and read up on "The Equivalence Principle" for yourself. Then you would see that it was first postulated (or at least implied) by Galileo.

The modern usage of the Equivalence principle now includes 3 levels:

Three forms of the equivalence principle are in current use: weak (Galilean), Einsteinian, and strong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Modern_usage

And with lots of reading about where Galileo got the idea one finds HE ties it back to Aristotle's 3 Law's of Identity.

Enough for you?

The debate is about an article written by an advisor to the SA government about CC issues, which refers to a paper written by Ed Berry (a Scientist who is challenging the established views on Anthropogenic Climate Change)
using the "Equivalence Principle" to say that Natural processes involved in the Carbon Cycle are not able to distinguish between natural sources of CO2 and A CO2.

That is all. IF one changes the definition of the Equivalence Principle to the one that Ed Berry uses THEN it makes sense. But that implies that The Einstein definition is a subset of a more "General Equivalence Principle", which is not documented anywhere, that I can find. So Ed Berry is using a quasi Scientific Principle to shore up his argument which possibly gives his argument more credence than it deserves, regardless of whether he is right or wrong. This is an abuse of the Scientific Method and a known logical fallacy used to bamboozle the uninformed.
Whether Ed Berry did this deliberately or unconsciously will only be determined by direct correspondence with him. Ed Berry could have just as easily used the Laws of Identity as GBM has indicated.

 

[Geoff.D]

There is a much better easy to defend way in which Ed Berry could have argued his point with more credibility.
(I knew it was somewhere, just took me a while to find).

Identical Particles:

Identical particles, also called indistinguishable or indiscernible particles, are particles that cannot be distinguished from one another, even in principle. Species of identical particles include, but are not limited to elementary particles such as electrons, composite subatomic particles such as atomic nuclei, as well as atoms and molecules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles

BTW to complete the picture in direct relation to all the papers on Climate Change (whether for or against AGW (ACC), it is good practice to check what has been written in terms of the Gibb's Paradox,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_paradox
In statistical mechanics, a semi-classical derivation of the entropy that does not take into account the indistinguishability of particles, yields an expression for the entropy which is not extensive (is not proportional to the amount of substance in question). This leads to a paradox known as the Gibbs paradox.
The paradox allows for the entropy of closed systems to decrease, violating the second law of thermodynamics. A related paradox is the "mixing paradox". If one takes the perspective that the definition of entropy must be changed so as to ignore particle permutation, the paradox is averted.

which is directly applicable as an example where Climate studies can easily abuse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, either in the development of their theories or in their conclusions. In reality, it is generalised "Mixing Paradox" that so many papers on CC may be violating. The CC bunch are always careful to use the term "well mixed" in an attempt to give their analyses credence. When quite a few papers have been written that the differences in the atmosphere over the Globe point to the AGHGs NOT being "well mixed" into the atmosphere and thus the current models may be violating the Mixing Paradox.

A closely related paradox to the Gibbs paradox is the mixing paradox. In fact the Gibb's paradox is a special case of the "mixing paradox" which contains all the salient features. The difference is that the mixing paradox deals with arbitrary distinctions in the two gases, not just distinctions in particle ordering as Gibbs had considered. In this sense, it is a straightforward generalization to the argument laid out by Gibbs. Again take a box with a partition in it, with gas A on one side, gas B on the other side, and both gases are at the same temperature and pressure. If gas A and B are different gases, there is an entropy that arises once the gases are mixed. If the gases are the same, no additional entropy is calculated. The additional entropy from mixing does not depend on the character of the gases; it only depends on the fact that the gases are different. The two gases may be arbitrarily similar, but the entropy from mixing does not disappear unless they are the same gas - a paradoxical discontinuity.

GHGs are more than two and then the CC lot choose to divide CO2 into at least 3 types arbitrarily similar (The IPCC originally had 6 CO2 "boxes", then 5 and now 3), supposedly different because the CO2 "sinks" supposedly absorb these arbitrarily different forms of CO2 at different rates.

Makes on think one H of a lot about the base model used by the CC lobby, the Bern Model which has its basis in a "box" model, with arbitrary "partitions" in the atmosphere.

 

[Gordon_R]

This is he a much better easy to defend the way in which Ed Berry could have argued his point with more credibility.
( I knew it was somewhere, just took me a while to find).

Identical Particles:



BTW to complete the picture in direct relation to all the papers on Climate Change (whether for or against AGW (ACC), it is good practice to check what has been written in terms of the GIBB Paradox, which is directly applicable as an example where Climate studies can easily abuse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, either in the development of their theories or in their conclusions.

Throwing around scientific jargon doesn't enhance your argument. This is an obscure theory about the definition of entropy, and has nothing to do with climate change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_paradox

In statistical mechanics, a semi-classical derivation of the entropy that does not take into account the indistinguishability of particles, yields an expression for the entropy which is not extensive (is not proportional to the amount of substance in question). This leads to a paradox known as the Gibbs paradox, after Josiah Willard Gibbs who proposed this thought experiment in 1874‒1875. The paradox allows for the entropy of closed systems to decrease, violating the second law of thermodynamics. A related paradox is the "mixing paradox". If one takes the perspective that the definition of entropy must be changed so as to ignore particle permutation, the paradox is averted.

 

[Geoff.D]

Throwing around scientific jargon doesn't enhance your argument. This is an obscure theory about the definition of entropy, and has nothing to do with climate change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_paradox

Read my post again, admittedly after I finished it after being interrupted. I am not throwing around obscure theories at all but real challenges that very few CC scientists are currently prepared to address.

The Gibbs paradox is a special case of the Mixing paradox which is directly applicable to the atmosphere.

 

[Geoff.D]

This Thread started its life about a paper that referred to a controversial interpretation of the temperature records as reported in the IPCC AR5 report. Picture below:

The post elicited an immediate response about "fake news" which has been followed up with more such posts (with a few) deviations along the way.

Then towards the end, another article appeared by a different Physicist paper basically challenging exactly the same temperature record, and in checking that out I came across the whatsupwiththat website. Again this has elicited another claim that this site is distorting the info into some or other Conspiracy Theory.

THEN I find this:

The Hockey Stick debate (ironically about the same temperature record), and soon after this site about the ClimateGate debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
which anyone interested can read for themselves.

Following up on links in the whatsupwiththat site one finds LOTS of stuff about ClimateGate, and how Scientists in support of CC handle the "deniers" which again is very informative to read.

Here are a few links:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ --- links dealing with ClimateGate, some of them pretty damming even if only partly true.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/ -- How the CC lot deal with "deniers" and how they should deal with denier's.

1. Retreat into the ivory tower
2. Circle the wagons/point guns outward: ad hominem/appeal to motive attacks; appeal to authority; isolate the enemy through lack of access to data; peer review process
3. Take the “high ground:” engage the skeptics on our own terms (conferences, blogosphere); make data/methods available/transparent; clarify the uncertainties; openly declare our values

Which one of these strategies is Gordon-R following?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/the-curry-letter-a-word-about-deniers/
And a blast thrown back at the CC lot:

When those who support the AGW position fail to categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, fail to categorically reject activist scams, fail to categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.
You may know a lot about science. You understand precious little about public perception.

And then the piece de resistance: Where the CRU and the IPCC have been exposed for manipulating or at best incorrectly reporting the actual temperature record data, the very same data that was used to derive the picture the subject of the first post in this thread.

Read this: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/

One of the claims in this hacked CRU email saga goes something like “Well, the scientists acted like jerks, but that doesn’t affect the results, it’s still warming.”

CRU/IPCC denying access to their data: - Why? That is the essence of the peer review process

Note that around the globe, temperatures are shown as rising from 1900 to about 1930, falling or staying level until the mid ’70s, and then rising sharply after that.
So these are the curves that Professor Karlen is attempting to reconstruct. Note that the IPCC chapter identifies these as “sub-continental regions” and shows separate data for ocean regions.

I cannot find the NORDKLIM graphic he refers to, so I have calculated it myself. I used the NORDKLIM dataset available at http://www.smhi.se/hfa_coord/nordklim/data/Nordklim_data_set_v1_0_2002.xls. I removed the one marine record from “Ship M”. To avoid infilling where there are missing records, I took the “first difference” of all of the available records for each year and averaged them. Then I used a running sum to calculate the average anomaly. I did not remove cities or adjust for the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. Here is the result:
You can see that, as Professor Karlen said, this does not show what the “Northern Europe” part of the IPCC graph shows. It is exactly as Professor Karlen stated, in the NORDKLIM data it rises until 1930, there is a drop from 1930 to 1970, followed by an increase after the 1970s to a temperature slightly lower than the 1930s. (In fact, the rise from 1880 until 1930 dwarfs the recent rise since the 1970’s).

Professor Karlen was quite correct. The claims made by the CRU, and repeated in the IPCC document, were false. Karlen was looking at the evidence.

So no, that excuse won’t wash. Once again Professor Karlan is quite correct. The observations simply don’t match the CRU/IPCC claims. Phil Jones’ story about the regions including the ocean is false.

Now, I have not taken a stand on whether the machinations of the CRU extended to actually altering the global temperature figures. It seems quite clear from Professor Karlen’s observations, however, that they have gotten it very wrong in at least the Fennoscandian region. Since this region has very good records and a lot of them, this does not bode well for the rest of the globe …

So, Even IF we want to believe the CC lobby and accept their statement that ACC is the cause of global warming, why should we when at least one scientist is on record as showing that the CRU and the IPCC have got it wrong about the temperature rise record.

No, It is absolutely right to challenge the status quo. It is always right to do so, and it is wrong to simply write off all challenges about the issue as "Fake News". The IPCC and UNFCCC have a hidden agenda and that may or may not be in the best interests of the World.

 

[lumeer]

It's a legitimate qeustion. What point are you trying to make that wasn't addressed in #566. You don't have something here, and you are wondering down a path blindly arguing semantics.

Shut your hole, boy!

 

[Gordon_R]

@Geoff.D The site you are quoting is a known climate denialist, and its content is the usual mix of pseudo-science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That?

Following those links just takes you deeper down the rabbit-hole, and does nothing to advance your argument.

 

[rietrot]

@Geoff.D The site you are quoting is a known climate denialist, and its content is the usual mix of pseudo-science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That?

Following those links just takes you deeper down the rabbit-hole, and does nothing to advance your argument.

Lol, Back to outright dismissing sources without addressing the points made.

 

[Gordon_R]

Lol, Back to outright dismissing sources without addressing the points made.

You didn't read the quotation in my previous post:

People: if your claim does not agree with the consensus claims honed over a century, the chances are overwhelming that you are mistaken and not thousands of scientists. You'd think someone who once did science would know that.

Given the source of that link, there is a > 99% probability that it contains multiple logic flaws and scientific errors. There are millions of wrong answers, and multiple ways in which data and theories can be misrepresented, and only a few right ones. Thanks to the miracle of the internet, the wrong theories get more coverage than the right ones.

The aim of science is to work towards that goal, not to repeatedly disprove the junk theories. It would need 100 lifetimes to debunk all the points raised. I don't have the time or patience to do that...

 

[Geoff.D]

Be that as it may. Climategate happened. The CRU was caught in the act so to speak. They went further and are believed to have destroyed source data records, leaving only the massaged records behind. All of this is enough to cast doubt, lots of it.
But IF we are to believe everything we read, then by the end of 2020, we will know If the World will reach agreement on what it needs to do to keep the temperature rise below 1.5 degrees.

Al I am really doing is saying keep your mind open and critically evaluate things before summarily dismissing them if you are truly interested in the subject matter.

And no. that site is not just about alternative views. It also publishes articles and papers by ACC scientists.

 

[rietrot]

You didn't read the quotation in my previous post:


Given the source of that link, there is a > 99% probability that it contains multiple logic flaws and scientific errors. There are millions of wrong answers, and multiple ways in which data and theories can be misrepresented, and only a few right ones. Thanks to the miracle of the internet, the wrong theories get more coverage than the right ones.

The aim of science is to work towards that goal, not to repeatedly disprove the junk theories. It would need 100 lifetimes to debunk all the points raised. I don't have the time or patience to do that...

Lol you can't make this shît up. Your comeback is "consensus" BS. I give up.

 

[Gordon_R]

Be that as it may. Climategate happened. The CRU was caught in the act so to speak. They went further and are believed to have destroyed source data records, leaving only the massaged records behind. All of this is enough to cast doubt, lots of it.
But IF we are to believe everything we read, then by the end of 2020, we will know If the World will reach agreement on what it needs to do to keep the temperature rise below 1.5 degrees.

Al I am really doing is saying keep your mind open and critically evaluate things before summarily dismissing them if you are truly interested in the subject matter.

And no. that site is not just about alternative views. It also publishes articles and papers by ACC scientists.

Sigh, more misinformation. Climategate didn't "happen", it was a manipulated controversy designed to smear climate scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

 

[Geoff.D]

Sigh, more misinformation. Climategate didn't "happen", it was a manipulated controversy designed to smear climate scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Same link I provided -------

The hack did happen, the emails were "leaked" and some of the mails turned out to be contentious. After investigations, most were found to be a pretty normal exchange of ideas amongst interested Scientists.

So, you can't say it did not happen that is wrong. I said all can go and read it for themselves and did not comment in support or otherwise of the claims. It is about keeping an open mind both ways ...

I was not planning to comment but it seems now necessary to do. In the above reference, the following sums up the incident the best in my opinion.

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[16] However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data – right down to the computer codes they use – to allow their findings to be properly verified". Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science

The UK investigation did, however, have this to say about the CRU:

The report added that "scientists could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by aggressively publishing all their data instead of worrying about how to stonewall their critics." The committee criticised the university for the way that freedom of information requests were handled, and for failing to give adequate support to the scientists to deal with such requests.

So, the outcome had positives in the end, that is if the Climate scientists honour their pledge.

 

[Jabulani22]

If you only develop tech that uses natural conversion of naturally occuring molecules which nature has been converting on a scale 1000 times your contribution every second since its birth then you should not be surprised that you mean nothing for doing it over 5 seconds.
Also

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Lol, Back to outright dismissing sources without addressing the points made.

yup, blinkers set to 150% blackout tint mode, combat strength denial engaged

 

[Gordon_R]

Lol, Back to outright dismissing sources without addressing the points made.

yup, blinkers set to 150% blackout tint mode, combat strength denial engaged

I already said its not worth my time and effort to address the points:

Given the source of that link, there is a > 99% probability that it contains multiple logic flaws and scientific errors. There are millions of wrong answers, and multiple ways in which data and theories can be misrepresented, and only a few right ones. Thanks to the miracle of the internet, the wrong theories get more coverage than the right ones.

The aim of science is to work towards that goal, not to repeatedly disprove the junk theories. It would need 100 lifetimes to debunk all the points raised. I don't have the time or patience to do that...

I'm sure that you aren't actually interested in the answers, but I already dealt with some of these earlier in the thread, and quoted one link that addresses some of the points in the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
Another is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

So here is a list of the "facts" as contained in the latest "fake news" article.

Please, anyone, challenge any of the statements and tell us why any of the statements are wrong.

Scientific facts:

1. A little recognised fact known by most experts in the world is that CO2’s heat absorption capacity diminishes logarithmically so that doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere from 0.04% to 0.08% (which would take probably 200 years) would add about 1 degree of warming and so on…not more.
2. The concentration of CO2 is so small that it constitutes only 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere and accounts for only 3.6% of greenhouse gasses.

Sentence #1 is debatable on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin:
It diminishes logarithmically is correct in a narrow technical sense, but misleading over the scale of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is already included in the calculation for radiative forcing, and is not little known:

There is the claim of a relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, at concentrations up to around eight times the current value, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

The climate sensitivity to a rise in CO2 depends both on transient absorption by the ocean, as well as feedbacks in the system:

the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback.

The total climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is not known exactly, but is estimated to be between 1.5C and 4.5C:

"there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C".

Sentence #2 is correct in a narrow sense, but completely misleading:
The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour, but it is not man-made, and has a short lifetime in the atmosphere. Of the remaining greenhouse gases, CO2 and CH4 (methane) are the largest components, with rather different lifetimes. The increase in CO2 has come to dominate all of the other anthropogenic sources:

BTW, The plural of gas is gases. Not that spelling is critical, but it does indicate a lack of attention to detail in a scientific paper.

That lengthy post only begins to discuss the first two points in the article. The rest would take even longer, and be even more pointless.

 

[Techne]

Sorry, but given what we know about Wiki editing nobody should use Wikipedia for anything. It is a flawed model used for propaganda.

 

[Gordon_R]

Sorry, but given what we know about Wiki editing nobody should use Wikipedia for anything. It is a flawed model used for propaganda.

So we should use wattsupwiththat.com as a source instead?

I don't have time to read the IPCC reports in detail, but my knowledge of physics, chemistry and engineering is consistent with all of the Wikipedia articles that I have quoted. I also follow the story extensively in News Scientist, Scientific American, and other sources. I don't have reason to doubt the consensus view of the basic science.

 

[rietrot]

So we should use wattsupwiththat.com as a source instead?

I don't have time to read the IPCC reports in detail, but my knowledge of physics, chemistry and engineering is consistent with all of the Wikipedia articles that I have quoted. I also follow the story extensively in News Scientist, Scientific American, and other sources. I don't have reason to doubt the consensus view of the basic science.

It goes both ways. You can't knock the sources you don't like and then complain when someone does the same to you.