Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: While I would not say that science is driven by consensus, I think it is important to have some baseline to begin with, on which you can verify, criticize and improve. If you had for example a 100 equally supported competing theories instead of one widely accepted one it would be much harder to work out the truth, because not one scientist would be able to study them all in his lifetime.
There is a list of all the superseded theories here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
its interesting to see how they evolved.
Regarding the code or data analysis that is done by GW scientists I would not be surprised to learn that it was sloppy work, because they are not specialists in this area. It would be better if such work was left to the professionals – software engineers and data analysts, but that of course requires a different level of funding. Still sloppy work is better than no work IMHO, because you can criticize, improve and work out the issues.

What level of funding would be better than the billions which have been exclusively directed at pro-GW research? It is almost impossible to get funds for any dissenting or challenging investigations, and you risk getting blackballed or fired (as happened to the editors of Geophysical Review at the instigation of Mann et al.) The reason that there were no professionals involved in the modelling etc. at CRU was that they kept putting in caveats and contrary comments. Some had to take the Team to the very doors of the courthouse to get their names pulled from the list of authors after their contributions were gutted and distorted.

If you have the patience, read through the text portions, at least, of this 100-page dissection of the physics and math of the GW hypothesis: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4 . I’m on my third pass through it, and still learning. I’m even getting as much as I can this time from the math with my long-ago 1st-yr. calculus. Very much worth the effort.
There have been many (desperate) attempts to refute it, but here’s the core: the energy budget of an atmosphere (which encompasses MUCH more than radiative exchanges) is so far beyond the data collection, math, and physics capabilities of current or even conceivable theory and modelling that anyone claiming to be able to project the system’s state for any variables more than a very brief period is lying. That is, it is basic and obvious scientific fact that 4th order equations do not permit such analysis. You’d almost have to have precise data at some designated start point for every cubic foot of the atmosphere and oceans and land surface just to get started. And the computer required to process it wouldn’t be available even after a millennium of progress under Moore’s Law. The non-linear “butterfly effect” with nukes.

The hyper-simplified models used by the Team are nothing more than computer-game simulations (“scenarios”) illustrating the opinions of their composers. Even if one turned out to happen to match actual events for a year or two (none have come close, to date) it would mean nothing about the following month, year or day — much less the next century, as claimed. Worthless.

What can be shown is that the influence of CO2 is mathematically so miniscule and unpredictable that the Greenhouse hypothesis is utter nonsense. Atmospheres just don’t operate like that. BTW, as an example of the ludicrous over-reach of those pushing it, the “horrible example” of Venus as a “runaway” greenhouse is completely bogus. No solar radiation gets anywhere near the surface, and so cannot be “re-radiated” back into the atmosphere, which is the very essence of what is claimed as the mechanism. 😆