In previous papers in this series the smoothed particle hydrodynamics method SPH has been used to explore the conditions in which a major planetary collision may have been responsible for the formation of the Moon. In Paper II W. Benz, W. L. Slattery, and A. G. W. Cameron 1987, Icarus 71, 30–45 it was found that the. Professor Keven Trenberth once campaigned for the scientific world to accept the alarmist view of climate change as the “null hypothesis”, the baseline theory against which all other theories must be measured. As Professor Phil Jones of the CRU once admitted in an interview with the BBC, the instrumental record contains periods of warming which are statistically indistinguishable from the 1990s warming – periods of warming which cannot have been driven by anthropogenic CO2, because they occurred before humans had made a significant changes to global CO2 levels. Between 18, the world warmed for 21 years, at a similar rate to the 24 year period of warming which occurred between 19. There was simply not enough anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere to have driven the 1860s warming, so it must have been driven by natural variation. According to the definition in Wikipedia, the principle of Occam’s Razor states “that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.”“To understand why, consider that, for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect alternatives. This is so because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis. Ad hoc hypotheses are justifications that prevent theories from being falsified.
Sooooooooo we are talking “pseudoscience”? I’ve collected the following characteristics, and climate change AKA “AGW” fits every one of them Tim Ball – [Note: Some parts of this essay rely on a series of air sample chemical analysis done by Georg Beck of CO2 at the surface. I consider the air samplings as having poor quality control, and not necessarily representative of global CO2 levels at those times and locations. While the methods of chemical analysis used by Beck might have been reasonably accurate, I believe the measurements suffer from a location bias, and in atmospheric conditions that were not well mixed, and should be taken with skepticism. I offer this article for discussion, but I don’t endorse the Beck data. – Anthony] The failed predictions (projections) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are proof that there is something seriously wrong with the science.
Over the past twenty years, governments of the world have spent $100's of billions on “research” $50 to 60 billion in US alone expressly to validate the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW. This is in order to justify “the largest regulatory intervention in history the restricting of carbon emissions from all. Victor writes about the meme regularly used by the anti climate science campaign, often supported by some straw man arguments, that the science of human impacts on climate would not be falsifiable. And I don’t mean interesting in a rhetoric, suggestive way; I mean it is a well-written and well-reasoned article, worth reading. interesting piece on Variable Variability, Victor Venema’s blog: Interesting what the interesting Judith Curry finds interesting. He shows it’s nonsense, by giving some examples of how it could be falsified. Or, more likely, already would have been falsified, if the science would be wrong.
Dec 10, 2016. Brian Cox, the celebrity scientist, describes himself as a particle physicist. Will he believe the particle physicists from CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research who have cast doubt on the theory that man's fossil fuel use is driving disastrous global warming. MANKIND'S burning of fossil fuels. "A tour de force list of scientific papers..." - Robert M. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) or Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming (DAGW)]. Environmental Scientist "Wow, the list is pretty impressive ... General Antarctica Arctic Climate Sensitivity Clouds Coral Reefs Deaths Disease Ecological Glaciers Greenland Gulf Stream Hockey Stick Medieval Warm Period Roman Warm Period Ocean Acidification Permafrost Polar Bears Sea Level Species Extinctions Preface: The following papers support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or Alarmism [e.g. Pilkey Global Climate Change (Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Volume 113, Issue 3, pp. 105-121, January 2009)- Tom Quirk Earth's Temperature / CO2 Equilibrium Prior to 1850 (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. Cropp Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (PDF) (International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. Tscheuschner * Reply to "Comment on 'Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics' by Joshua B. Theoretical Physicist "I really appreciate your important effort in compiling the list." - Willie Soon, Ph. Astrophysicist and Geoscientist "An excellent place to start to take stock of the scientific diversity of positions on AGW." - Emil A. Thanks to the pop tech team." - Joanne Nova, Author of The Skeptics Handbook "I do confess a degree of fascination with Poptech's list..." - John Cook, Cartoonist at Skeptical Science † This resource has been cited over 100 times, including in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Sorokhtin The Spatial Pattern and Mechanisms of Heat-Content Change in the North Atlantic (PDF) (Science, Volume 319, Number 5864, pp. 470-479, March 2008)- Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, Orrin H. 87-98, July 2008)- John Stubbles Human population and carbon dioxide (Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 7, pp. Schaffer On the credibility of climate predictions (PDF) (Hydrological Sciences Journal, Volume 53, Number 4, pp. 101-104, January 2009)- Craig Loehle Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. Senior Research Scientist "...it's a very useful resource. 281-286, March 2008)- Klaus-Martin Schulte Evidence for "publication Bias" Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature (Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. Michaels Useless Arithmetic: Ten Points to Ponder When Using Mathematical Models in Environmental Decision Making (PDF) (Public Administration Review, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp. An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers (PDF) (Iron & Steel Technology, Volume 5, Number 7, pp. (PDF) (Economic Analysis and Policy, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp. 995-1011, December 2008)- Fred Goldberg Computer Study of Cluster Mechanism of Anti-greenhouse Effect (International Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering, Volume 1, Number 1, pp. Galashev Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. Kerton Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003 (PDF) (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 1-2, pp. Smith, Jorg Zimmermann" (PDF) (International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp. Tscheuschner Global warming and carbon dioxide through sciences (PDF) (Environment International, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp. Florides, Paul Christodoulides Oceanic influences on recent continental warming (PDF) (Climate Dynamics, Volume 32, Issue 2-3, pp. Please read the following introductory notes for more detailed information. Scott Armstrong Limits on climate sensitivity derived from recent satellite and surface observations (PDF) (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, December 2007)- Petr Chylek et al.
Page 2 of 13. This attempt at global climate control arises from the hypothesis of anthropogenic that is, man- made global warming AGW. AGW does not pose a global crisis but the policy of attempted global climate control does. AGW is a political issue. It is not a scientific issue. AGW induced the 'Earth Summit' in Rio de. The issues surrounding Global Warming or Anthropogenic Warming introduce several different hypotheses. One is the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypotheses which has become the most looked at theory. It supports the claim that climate change is due largely in part because of human activities. It also claims that human activity will eventually bring the world to an end. While the AGW is being argued there is also the issue of what is called the Kyoto Protocol which many scientists have urged the U. government “not to sign”, saying that the increase in Greenhouse Gases is a result of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide caused environmentally. These scientists have signed a petition to stop the Kyoto Protocol on the basis that there The real issue is how fast it is warming up and this creates debate on “what” is causing it to do so (Global Greenhouse 2011). One of the greatest arguments about global warming is the history of the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which show that the earth had warmed to a greater extent than we have seen so far. This was a period in which settlement had just begun and large industries had not even been brought into focus yet.
When the Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW hypothesis first arose, there was no data both accurate enough and collected over a long enough period of time to test its predicted effects. Since then, weather satellites have continuously collected data as the rise in anthropogenic CO2 levels has accelerated. The 25+. Kyoji Kimoto has asked me to post the following essay, which tells us leading climate sensitivity scientist Dr. Robert Cess admits the IPCC assumptions are erroneous. (Note: Because Word Press didn’t handle some of the scientific notation, I had to cut and paste parts of the text as images). Assessment Report (2007) as follows: Climate sensitivity = no-feedback sensitivity (Planck response) x feedbacks = 1.2°K x 2.5 = 3°K Here, feedbacks are water vapor, ice albedo, lapse rate and cloud feedback. In the AGW theory of the IPCC, the central assumption is that the Planck response is 1.2°K. Cess [2, 3] obtained the Planck feedback parameter lambda as follows: Coincidently, the Planck response of 1.2°K by eqn (3) is in very good agreement with the Planck response of 1.2 – 1.3°K obtained with one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) studies in the literature [4, 5, 6]. Therefore, the Cess method has been followed by many researchers, including the IPCC 1 Assessment Report (2007). It is the sole theoretical basis of the central assumption of the IPCC that the Planck response is 1.2°K at present time [7, 8, 9], because the 1 DRCM study is fudged due to its strong dependence on lapse rate used according to Hansen’s idea expressed in an interview with Spencer Weart held on 23 October, 2000 at NASA.
Oct 23, 2009. Most of the papers on the list come from a small amount of authors. Some authors on the list are funded by energy companies. Some authors on the list are not climate scientists. Some authors on the list are not scientists. Some authors on the list are not skeptics. AGW hypothesis is never used by scientists. In previous papers in this series the smoothed particle hydrodynamics method (SPH) has been used to explore the conditions in which a major planetary collision may have been responsible for the formation of the Moon. This confirms the conclusions of Paper II that gravitational torques, and not pressure gradients, inject the orbiting mass. These results indicate that the equation of state is not a critical factor in determining the amount of material thrown into orbit. Because of differences in these equations of state, including the fact that different types of rocks were used in association with each, it was not possible to prepare initial planetary models that were comparable in every respect, so several different simulations were necessary in which different planetary parameters were matched between the equations of state. The results reaffirmed the previous principal conclusions: the collisions produced a disk of rocky material in orbit, with most of the material derived from the impacting object. The two equations of state compared are the Tillotson (used in the previous papers) and the CHART D/CSQ ANEOS. In the present paper we investigate the importance of the equation of state by running this optimum case several times and varying the equation of state and other related parameters.
Dec 23, 2014. The full name for that hypothesis is “Anthropogenic Global Warming” “AGW”, and it is AGW that all too often has become shortened to the title of this question. With all of the above baggage, the answer is hypothesis. It is worth noting that it is only a hypothesis, however earnest its proponents are, and that there is another. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarm has been with us for a good while, now. The matter seems to become more contentious, rather than less, over time. Unhappily, as a result of the mediocre quality of science education, many people do not know how to evaluate either a scientific hypothesis in general, or AGW in particular -- and irrespective of whatever anyone might think, because of how it is framed and evaluated, AGW is no more than a hypothesis. Any good scientific hypothesis will make predictions about the natural world -- ideally, it will predict at least one natural effect whose existence cannot be caused by anything other than the hypothesis being tested. Observations are then made to acquire evidence, and the evidence is evaluated against the hypothesis’s predictions. Evidence can either rule the hypothesis out or not; if the evidence differs from the hypothesis’s predicted effects, then the hypothesis is wrong and is considered to be ruled out, or falsified.
Mar 13, 2017. Why do True-Believer Alarmists cling to the Falsified AGW hypothesis? Carolyn GregoireSourceIn a HuffPo piece, Carolyn Gregoire, wrote, under the heading and sub-headingWhy Some Conservatives Can't. In 1976, after several decades of relative stability, the Earth’s surface abruptly began to warm. According to AGW proponents the warming since then has been effectively straight-line, i.e. more or less what we would expect from increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, while the blips in the trend, such as the recent global warming “pause”, are just, well, blips. There is, however, another explanation that fits observations at least as well if not better – that the warming actually proceeded in a series of upward steps, with temperatures increasing only during major El Niño/La Niña events. Releases of surplus heat from the ocean during these Niño/Niña events. Here we review the evidence for this “Staircase Hypothesis”.
Nov 25, 2014. Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW alarm has been with us for a good while, now. The matter seems to become more contentious, rather than less, over time. Unhappily, as a result of the mediocre quality of science education, many people do not know how to evaluate either a scientific hypothesis in. The giant-impact hypothesis, sometimes called the Big Splash, or the Theia Impact suggests that the Moon formed out of the debris left over from a collision between Earth and an astronomical body the size of Mars, approximately 4.5 billion years ago, in the Hadean eon; about 20 to 100 million years after the solar system coalesced. The energy of such a giant impact is predicted to have heated Earth to produce a global magma ocean, and evidence of the resultant planetary differentiation of the heavier material sinking into Earth's mantle has been documented. there is no self-consistent model that starts with the giant-impact event and follows the evolution of the debris into a single moon. Other remaining questions include when the Moon lost its share of volatile elements and why Venus—which experienced giant impacts during its formation—does not host a similar moon. In 1898, George Darwin made the suggestion that the Earth and Moon were once a single body. Darwin's hypothesis was that a molten Moon had been spun from the Earth because of centrifugal forces, and this became the dominant academic explanation. Using Newtonian mechanics, he calculated that the Moon had orbited much more closely in the past and was drifting away from the Earth. This drifting was later confirmed by American and Soviet experiments, using laser ranging targets placed on the Moon.