The incredible repeating Climate fiasco .

By steven d keeler | Sep 19, 2013

 

Researchers claim satellite data proves global warming caused by humans .

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-satellite-global-humans.html#jCp


Well, the reviews are in :

So let me be sure I understand this. If we recreate the satellite data from 1860-1960, ie. assume it is constant because humans weren’t emitting CO2 yet. Then tune a model using natural forcings and a presumed CO2 effect to replicate the 1960-2010 data (omitting any of the new internal oscillation studies). Then we take out the CO2 and natural forcing data and the tuned model no longer fits the 1960-2010 data but does fit the 1860-1960 part where everything was assumed constant this proves CO2 forced warming. Really ? I mean Really ?

******

What’s wrong with what they are doing ?
I once pretended what it would be like to fly the space shuttle above Civil War battles. How is this ( the above ) any different ?

******

Well, since their model can’t even account for the recent and sustained pause in warming, why not extend the inaccuracy and uselessness over longer time spans? I will note that their model fails to include the effect of the decreasing number of pirates, a variable long hypothesized to account for global warming. Using global rum shipments from 1860 to 1880 as a proxy for the number of active pirates in the Caribbean, and using a corrected equation for the drift of the 57.95 Ghz microwave receiver on the MSU on the Army of the Potomac’s remote monitoring satellites, I find that 0.243 degree C of their “observed” lower tropospheric temperature anomaly is an artifact of their non-measurement process. Also, though they didn’t publish this particular result, while they were subjecting the CMIP-5 model to a variety of tortures, it confessed to being part of the plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln.

******

Shorter version: “Absent any data, and by assuming that the coefficients of all the other variables in our equation are nearly zero, we found that the coefficient of the remaining variable must be quite large. Using that equation, we can project what the data would have been had we collected it, and it would indeed confirm the correctness of our assumption.”

******

The only real good that came from their article…”And while many [worlds scientists] also support the notion that the increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is likely due to human emissions, few are willing to go on record claiming that global warming is due directly to human activities.

******

I guess they have disproved the 97 % ( or is it 95 % now ? )  consensus. We need to get this out quick to the media. Wonder what Cook et al think ?.

 

And just what what were the usual suspects up to back in the mid-nineties ?

 

http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

 

 

Comments (0)
If you wish to comment, please login.