OT: Global warming

http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnii5thn-1227555674611

A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government's Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
Miranda Devine. Picture: Peter Brew-Bevan


It turns out the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

"Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it's about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades".

Dr Evans says his discovery "ought to change the world".

"But the political obstacles are massive," he said.

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

On 10/5/15 6:17 PM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
>
> A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
>
> A former climate modeller for the Government's Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
>
> He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
>
> He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

i would like to see these "two errors" explained concisely.

the ppm of CO2 rises steadily since 1800 and, like the shower 
temperature problem, the effect is much delayed.  but now it is being felt.

even if we human beings were able to stop the rise in CO2 ppm tomorrow, 
it would be decades or centuries before any benefit would be felt.  that 
CO2 (and methane and other greenhouse gases) is "in the bank" and 
collecting interest.

>
> Dr Evans says his [alleged] discovery "ought to change the world".

for the worser.

>
> "But the political obstacles are massive," he said.

there are massive political obstacles, but not in the direction this guy 
means.  the obstacles for change are preventing the world governments 
and economical structures from taking climate change seriously.

>
> His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

i haven't noticed much of a pause.  and 18 years is a very small sample 
set to derive any statistical conclusions.


needless to say, i am very skeptical of this guy's conclusions.  and the 
Tea-Partiers will, no doubt, make use of it.


-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

My own model of Prediction is based on:
if it followed my theory then you see how clever I am.
if it doesn't I still can explain it.

applies to all cases, weather forcast, shares, economy, politics.

Kaz
---------------------------------------
Posted through http://www.DSPRelated.com

robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/15 6:17 PM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:

>> A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer 
>> Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, 
>> on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

(snip)

>> He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model 
>> is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

>> He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the 
>> climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much 
>> lower than was thought.
 
> i would like to see these "two errors" explained concisely.

Yes. Maybe it is right, but one person's theory doesn't
instantly invalidate all the previous work. 
 
> the ppm of CO2 rises steadily since 1800 and, like the shower 
> temperature problem, the effect is much delayed.  
> but now it is being felt.

One of the more complicated parts of the model is the equilibrium
between atmosphere and ocean. Much CO2 goes each way, and tiny
differences in the model can make large differences in the end.

But even more, the effect of CO2 on the ocean isn't well
understood. 
 
> even if we human beings were able to stop the rise in CO2 ppm tomorrow, 
> it would be decades or centuries before any benefit would be felt.  that 
> CO2 (and methane and other greenhouse gases) is "in the bank" and 
> collecting interest.
 
>> Dr Evans says his [alleged] discovery "ought to change the world".
 
> for the worser.
 
>> "But the political obstacles are massive," he said.
 
> there are massive political obstacles, but not in the direction this guy 
> means.  the obstacles for change are preventing the world governments 
> and economical structures from taking climate change seriously.

Anytime a new theory overthrows a previous one, it takes some time
to understand the change, verify it, and integrate it with everything
else.

And without a leveling of population growth, it won't be long
before the increasing population, and increasing CO2 per person,
means even more CO2.
 
>> His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by 
>> the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. 
>> The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming 
>> which has been going on for 18 years and counting.
 
> i haven't noticed much of a pause.  and 18 years is a very small sample 
> set to derive any statistical conclusions.
 
> needless to say, i am very skeptical of this guy's conclusions.  and the 
> Tea-Partiers will, no doubt, make use of it.

-- glen

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 9:51:40 PM UTC-4, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
> > On 10/5/15 6:17 PM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >> A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer 
> >> Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, 
> >> on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> >> He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model 
> >> is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
> 
> >> He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the 
> >> climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much 
> >> lower than was thought.
>  
> > i would like to see these "two errors" explained concisely.
> 
> Yes. Maybe it is right, but one person's theory doesn't
> instantly invalidate all the previous work. 
>  
> > the ppm of CO2 rises steadily since 1800 and, like the shower 
> > temperature problem, the effect is much delayed.  
> > but now it is being felt.
> 
> One of the more complicated parts of the model is the equilibrium
> between atmosphere and ocean. Much CO2 goes each way, and tiny
> differences in the model can make large differences in the end.
> 
> But even more, the effect of CO2 on the ocean isn't well
> understood. 
>  
> > even if we human beings were able to stop the rise in CO2 ppm tomorrow, 
> > it would be decades or centuries before any benefit would be felt.  that 
> > CO2 (and methane and other greenhouse gases) is "in the bank" and 
> > collecting interest.
>  
> >> Dr Evans says his [alleged] discovery "ought to change the world".
>  
> > for the worser.
>  
> >> "But the political obstacles are massive," he said.
>  
> > there are massive political obstacles, but not in the direction this guy 
> > means.  the obstacles for change are preventing the world governments 
> > and economical structures from taking climate change seriously.
> 
> Anytime a new theory overthrows a previous one, it takes some time
> to understand the change, verify it, and integrate it with everything
> else.
> 
> And without a leveling of population growth, it won't be long
> before the increasing population, and increasing CO2 per person,
> means even more CO2.
>  
> >> His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by 
> >> the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. 
> >> The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming 
> >> which has been going on for 18 years and counting.
>  
> > i haven't noticed much of a pause.  and 18 years is a very small sample 
> > set to derive any statistical conclusions.
>  
> > needless to say, i am very skeptical of this guy's conclusions.  and the 
> > Tea-Partiers will, no doubt, make use of it.
> 
> -- glen

The controversies over climate change and global warming are interesting, but the one number that often gets lost in the shuffle is the 7.3 billion (and counting) inhabitants on the planet.  And that number drives everything else.  And there's controversy about just how fast it's going to grow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Kevin

> 
> One of the more complicated parts of the model is the equilibrium
> between atmosphere and ocean. Much CO2 goes each way, and tiny
> differences in the model can make large differences in the end.
> 
> But even more, the effect of CO2 on the ocean isn't well
> understood. 
>

then at the very least you have to agree

the "science __isn't__ settled"

Mark

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:22:09 -0700 (PDT), kevinjmcee
<kevinjmcgee@netscape.net> wrote:

>On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 9:51:40 PM UTC-4, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>> > On 10/5/15 6:17 PM, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
>>=20
>> >> A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer=20
>> >> Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate,=20
>> >> on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
>>=20
>> (snip)
>>=20
>> >> He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model=20
>> >> is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
>>=20
>> >> He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the=20
>> >> climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much=20
>> >> lower than was thought.
>> =20
>> > i would like to see these "two errors" explained concisely.
>>=20
>> Yes. Maybe it is right, but one person's theory doesn't
>> instantly invalidate all the previous work.=20
>> =20
>> > the ppm of CO2 rises steadily since 1800 and, like the shower=20
>> > temperature problem, the effect is much delayed. =20
>> > but now it is being felt.
>>=20
>> One of the more complicated parts of the model is the equilibrium
>> between atmosphere and ocean. Much CO2 goes each way, and tiny
>> differences in the model can make large differences in the end.
>>=20
>> But even more, the effect of CO2 on the ocean isn't well
>> understood.=20
>> =20
>> > even if we human beings were able to stop the rise in CO2 ppm tomorrow,=
>=20
>> > it would be decades or centuries before any benefit would be felt.  tha=
>t=20
>> > CO2 (and methane and other greenhouse gases) is "in the bank" and=20
>> > collecting interest.
>> =20
>> >> Dr Evans says his [alleged] discovery "ought to change the world".
>> =20
>> > for the worser.
>> =20
>> >> "But the political obstacles are massive," he said.
>> =20
>> > there are massive political obstacles, but not in the direction this gu=
>y=20
>> > means.  the obstacles for change are preventing the world governments=
>=20
>> > and economical structures from taking climate change seriously.
>>=20
>> Anytime a new theory overthrows a previous one, it takes some time
>> to understand the change, verify it, and integrate it with everything
>> else.
>>=20
>> And without a leveling of population growth, it won't be long
>> before the increasing population, and increasing CO2 per person,
>> means even more CO2.
>> =20
>> >> His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by=20
>> >> the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures.=20
>> >> The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming=20
>> >> which has been going on for 18 years and counting.
>> =20
>> > i haven't noticed much of a pause.  and 18 years is a very small sample=
>=20
>> > set to derive any statistical conclusions.
>> =20
>> > needless to say, i am very skeptical of this guy's conclusions.  and th=
>e=20
>> > Tea-Partiers will, no doubt, make use of it.
>>=20
>> -- glen
>
>The controversies over climate change and global warming are interesting, b=
>ut the one number that often gets lost in the shuffle is the 7.3 billion (a=
>nd counting) inhabitants on the planet.  And that number drives everything =
>else.  And there's controversy about just how fast it's going to grow:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
>
>Kevin

Once in a while I'll try to inject into a conversation that the real
problem is population, but it seldom gets traction.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
http://www.anchorhill.com

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 05:58:25 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>> 
>> One of the more complicated parts of the model is the equilibrium
>> between atmosphere and ocean. Much CO2 goes each way, and tiny
>> differences in the model can make large differences in the end.
>> 
>> But even more, the effect of CO2 on the ocean isn't well
>> understood. 
>>
>
>then at the very least you have to agree
>
>the "science __isn't__ settled"
>
>Mark

Last winter there was a conference here of climate/weather people and
a buddy was attending, so I met him for drinks, etc.   One of our
local radio stations was interviewing a researcher there who was
talking about the topic in one of the sessions, which was the
temperature of the currents in the pacific, and how it affected the
currents and the weather.   He indicated that the temperatures of
these currents are important because they have a big impact on the
weather in the western and southwest US.  There was a lot of
discussion about some significant  warming in some of the flows was
becoming evident, and the interviewee went well out his way to explain
that the best theories they had on why that was happening was it just
part of the natural fluctuations of the earth.

Many of us here know how easy it is to get a numerical model wrong,
especially for a complex, multi-variate system with feedback, so
whenever I hear about this stuff with people pointing to the models as
evidence I take it with a grain of salt.   How can you calibrate such
a thing against the historical climate when you don't have the data
for that?   There's no reliable calibration method to make long-term
predictions, even if the model were correct, which it may likely not
be since there's no way to calibrate it.

It seems like a lot of political hand waving to me, especially when
there's not a lot of effort to curb methane, which is worse than CO2
for warming effects.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
http://www.anchorhill.com

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 7:13:47 AM UTC+13, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 05:58:25 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
> >
> >> 
> >> One of the more complicated parts of the model is the equilibrium
> >> between atmosphere and ocean. Much CO2 goes each way, and tiny
> >> differences in the model can make large differences in the end.
> >> 
> >> But even more, the effect of CO2 on the ocean isn't well
> >> understood. 
> >>
> >
> >then at the very least you have to agree
> >
> >the "science __isn't__ settled"
> >
> >Mark
> 
> Last winter there was a conference here of climate/weather people and
> a buddy was attending, so I met him for drinks, etc.   One of our
> local radio stations was interviewing a researcher there who was
> talking about the topic in one of the sessions, which was the
> temperature of the currents in the pacific, and how it affected the
> currents and the weather.   He indicated that the temperatures of
> these currents are important because they have a big impact on the
> weather in the western and southwest US.  There was a lot of
> discussion about some significant  warming in some of the flows was
> becoming evident, and the interviewee went well out his way to explain
> that the best theories they had on why that was happening was it just
> part of the natural fluctuations of the earth.
> 
> Many of us here know how easy it is to get a numerical model wrong,
> especially for a complex, multi-variate system with feedback, so
> whenever I hear about this stuff with people pointing to the models as
> evidence I take it with a grain of salt.   How can you calibrate such
> a thing against the historical climate when you don't have the data
> for that?   There's no reliable calibration method to make long-term
> predictions, even if the model were correct, which it may likely not
> be since there's no way to calibrate it.
> 
> It seems like a lot of political hand waving to me, especially when
> there's not a lot of effort to curb methane, which is worse than CO2
> for warming effects.
> 
> 
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communications
> http://www.anchorhill.com

Well, for one thing they lowered the historic data temperatures so that they would fit in with the current theory! They have a long justification for this one which if most of us tried similar in our field we would be kicked out!
They call it historic bias and conveniently it is too high so we have to lower it! A pile of maths and stats justifies it.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:37:21 -0700 (PDT), gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 7:13:47 AM UTC+13, Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 05:58:25 -0700 (PDT), makolber@yahoo.com wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> One of the more complicated parts of the model is the equilibrium
>> >> between atmosphere and ocean. Much CO2 goes each way, and tiny
>> >> differences in the model can make large differences in the end.
>> >> 
>> >> But even more, the effect of CO2 on the ocean isn't well
>> >> understood. 
>> >>
>> >
>> >then at the very least you have to agree
>> >
>> >the "science __isn't__ settled"
>> >
>> >Mark
>> 
>> Last winter there was a conference here of climate/weather people and
>> a buddy was attending, so I met him for drinks, etc.   One of our
>> local radio stations was interviewing a researcher there who was
>> talking about the topic in one of the sessions, which was the
>> temperature of the currents in the pacific, and how it affected the
>> currents and the weather.   He indicated that the temperatures of
>> these currents are important because they have a big impact on the
>> weather in the western and southwest US.  There was a lot of
>> discussion about some significant  warming in some of the flows was
>> becoming evident, and the interviewee went well out his way to explain
>> that the best theories they had on why that was happening was it just
>> part of the natural fluctuations of the earth.
>> 
>> Many of us here know how easy it is to get a numerical model wrong,
>> especially for a complex, multi-variate system with feedback, so
>> whenever I hear about this stuff with people pointing to the models as
>> evidence I take it with a grain of salt.   How can you calibrate such
>> a thing against the historical climate when you don't have the data
>> for that?   There's no reliable calibration method to make long-term
>> predictions, even if the model were correct, which it may likely not
>> be since there's no way to calibrate it.
>> 
>> It seems like a lot of political hand waving to me, especially when
>> there's not a lot of effort to curb methane, which is worse than CO2
>> for warming effects.
>> 
>> 
>> Eric Jacobsen
>> Anchor Hill Communications
>> http://www.anchorhill.com
>
>Well, for one thing they lowered the historic data temperatures so that they would fit in with the current theory! They have a long justification for this one which if most of us tried similar in our field we would be kicked out!
>They call it historic bias and conveniently it is too high so we have to lower it! A pile of maths and stats justifies it.

And, sadly, I think the proliferation of data and models and
techniques is so big now that probably nobody really understands it
all.   I suspect that many of the people in this area are trying to do
right and it's just a slog through the swamp.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
http://www.anchorhill.com