All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Saturday, 9 November 2013

IPCC Expert reviewer's perception of CLIMATE SCIENCE


by IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray

NOVEMBER 9th 2013


The beginnings of the scientific study of the climate can be traced back to ancient India in 3000 BC, and it has been developed by the Greeks, Arabs, Chinese and every subsequent generation.

Measurement instruments such as rain and wind gauges, barometer, thermometer, hygrometer were added over the years.

Networks of weather observations were set up in Italy as early as 1654. Joseph Henry at the Smithsonian Institute in the USA set up a United States network in 1849 .The first official Meteorological Office in the world was set up in London in 1854 under Admiral Robert Fitzroy. He had already sailed around the world with Darwin as captain of the “Beagle: and been the Second Governor of New Zealand, dismissed prematurely because he was too sympathetic to Maoris.

He published the first daily weather forecast in the “Times” in 1860.  The following year a system was introduced of hoisting storm warning cones at principal ports when a gale was expected. Fitzroy invented a barometer which still occasionally turns up on the Antiques Roadshow.

Soon most nations had an official weather service. The quantity of observations became so large that it was only with the advent of the computer in the 1950s that methods were developed to organise them and to use them to provide a reliable forecasting service.

This came about with the development of numerical computer models. They would begin with established climate systems like  atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns shown here.

Then the models were built up by adding a range of variables on a grid on and above the earth.

Even with the increasing power of supercomputers, the forecast skill of numerical weather models extends to about only six days.

Factors affecting the accuracy of numerical predictions include the density and quality of observations used as input to the forecasts, along with deficiencies in the numerical models themselves.

Although post-processing techniques such as model output statistics (MOS) have been developed to improve the handling of errors in numerical predictions, a more fundamental problem lies in the chaotic nature of the partial differential equations used to simulate the atmosphere and ocean currents where small errors grow with time (doubling about every five days).

In addition, the partial differential equations used in the model need to be supplemented with parameterizations for solar radiation, moist processes (clouds and precipitation), heat exchange, soil, vegetation, surface water, and the effects of terrain.

In an effort to quantify the large amount of inherent uncertainty remaining in numerical predictions, ensemble forecasts have been used since the 1990s to help gauge the confidence in the forecast, and to obtain useful results farther into the future than otherwise possible. This approach analyzes multiple forecasts.

It should be noticed that nowhere in this effective system is there any mention of carbon dioxide or of “greenhouse gases.” They have no place in a scientific study of the climate. Most meteorological organisations do not even bother to measure carbon dioxide over land territories.

The climate models favoured by “Climate Change” “scientists” completely ignore the scientific discoveries of genuine climate scientists since time immemorial. They promote completely different computer models based on the following absurd principles:
  • The earth can be considered flat;
  • The sun has a constant intensity, both day and night;
  • All energy exchanges are by radiation;
  • Energy entering the earth equals that leaving;
  • All change is caused by changes in:greenhouse gases;
  • Natural influences are merely ”variable.”
It is unsurprising that such a model has no value for future climate forecasting. The advocates prefer to provide “projections” far into the future. Successful simulation of past climate is proof of the models, while failure is due to “natural variability”. They emulate the Indian doctor who could forecast the sex of an unborn child with a money back guarantee if he was wrong.

If you want to know about climate science, switch on or read about the weather forecast.
 I would like to acknowledge the excellent articles on this subject at Wikipedia

Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035
New Zealand

No comments:

Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!