![Redirection[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/redirection1.jpg?quality=83)
Guest essay by Viv Forbes
Governments are running huge deficits, but still spend billions on “climate research” especially trying to model the effect of the atmosphere and its trace of carbon dioxide on surface temperature. Benefits are hard to find. It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the main driver of weather or climate.
“What is referred to reverently as “climate research” is mainly just grubby advocacy supporting the political war on carbon. Why are we still funding scientists who believe that “the science is settled”? If they believe that they know the answers, what are they are doing with their research funds?”
Around the world there are five official weather data-bases, about 14 weather satellites (some say there are 88 of them!), 73 climate computer models, at least 30 research groups and thousands of academics receiving grants and attending never-ending climate conferences. Much of this torrent of public money is now focussed on trying to torture a climate confession out of one normally un-noticed and totally innocent trace gas in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide.
The major determinants of surface weather are latitude, earth’s rotation, the seasons, the sun with its variable radiations and orbital changes; and nearness to the oceans which maintain the water cycle, moderate temperatures and house massive volcanic chains.
Earth’s mighty oceans cover 70% of the surface. Evaporation of water and convection in the atmosphere transfer large quantities of solar heat from the surface to the stratosphere. This process creates clouds, rain and snow and also forms low pressure zones which are the birthplace for cyclones and hurricanes. Wind direction and strength are related to sun-generated convection in the atmosphere, the transfer of solar heat from the equator to the poles, and the Coriolis effect of the rotation of the earth. Carbon dioxide plays no significant part in these processes.
Oceans also conceal most of the volcanic ring-of-fire and are home to huge numbers of volcanoes, many of which are active. The mighty weather-changing ENSO/El Nino starts with a pool of warm water in the eastern Pacific. Carbon dioxide plays no part in creating such hot-spots, but periodic eruption of undersea volcanoes may do it. We know less about the floor of the oceans and their volcanoes than we do about the surface of Mars.
The community is getting little benefit from much atmospheric research and most climate modelling, and that money should be redirected to more productive areas.
Half of “climate research” money should be spent on improving the ability of public infrastructure to survive natural disasters.
The remaining funds should be spent on real climate research – mapping the floor of the oceans, with particular reference to locating active volcanoes; and investigating how volcanism, solar variations and cycles of the sun, moon, planets and solar system impact long-term weather forecasts and future climate. This work should preferably be done by contracting private operators; and the climate models in public hands should be handed over to practising meteorologists to see if they are useful for short-term weather forecasting.
For those who would like to read more:
73 UN Climate models are wrong:
Where Was Climate Research Before Computer Models?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/22/where-was-climate-research-before-computer-models/
Why are there so many climate models:
http://climate.calcommons.org/article/why-so-many-climate-models
Oceans important in past Climate Changes:
Super volcanos forming beneath Pacific Ocean:
Massive Hot Spot in Iceland:
” … I’m as skeptical as one can get but even I acknowledge that all of the increase of CO2 from pre-industrial levels are from anthropological sources, until proven otherwise.”
This amazes me. How can a rational man just up and believe that all of the rise in CO2 is because of human activities? Science has told us that CO2 has ranged from 180 ppm to 7000 ppm all before the rise of man’s industrial activities and someone really believes that all the rise in CO2 is due to man’s activities over the last century or so? Damn.
What if warming drives the rise in CO2 concentrations and not the other way around? What if other factors are involved?
It is a trait of modern “science” that speculation trumps observation and if we don’t really know then we can’t admit it — have to make up some answer and go with it. We have come to the “science” of Mikey Mann.
Damn, damn, damn.
markstovel, sigh somewhere along the way these people missed 7-8 grade science. They extrapolated CO2 rise to predict temperature change result crash and burn. Next as you state CO2 has fluctuated in the past, this means it can fluctuate in the present. Now if you want to verify is Co2 has any effect on temperature you need to do a controlled experiment. First with a atmosphere sample with no CO2. exposed to a predetermined level of TSI equivalent. Now you have a starting point, a base line. Next add 250 PPM of CO2 repeat in increments say up to 2000 PPM. Now look for changes of heat and duration of exposure . Will this get you need? Nope but it’s 7th grade level; and there has not even been that level of experimentation done.
Sorry I know I appear silly but if they can’t hit 7th grade standards for proving AGW .. I have 16 year old and 6 year old My 16 is a TAG student, Talented and Gifted. What do I tell them??
You may have misunderstood me. My position is, it might be possible that all of the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere may be a result of natural processes, having nothing to do with mans burning of fossil fuels. But I find it more likely that most if not all of the rise is from the burning of fossil fuels (and maybe cement making). The time frame is too short for Henry’s Law to explain for the current rise. Half of the CO2 from fossil burning gets absorbed each year.
Just when I thought your mind couldn’t be any smaller….
Roy, this is odd. A Dr of philosophy working as an engineer? Now I’m Scared I work in the machine tool industry.
Some clowns amuse us easier than others. Keep up the good work!
Khwarizmi I did not assert the Scorcher was evidence of global warming.
Since that is your entire belief system, you didn’t have to.
Absolute rubbish
It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years.
And there you have it. This is like game design and development. Meteorologists “model” from the bottom to top — because they can. It works. The climatologists think they can do this. They cannot. That sort of long-term job requires a top-down approach, starting with a pencil and the back of an old envelope, not a zillion-dollar baby.
‘suburbs’ – HOW ‘BOUT THAT UHI!
Ok, I didn’t read the first post, my bad. YES! It is warmer 10kms and more from the coast. I am sure you know why that is?
Ashfield, Sydney, NSW, Jan 1st 2006. ~10% humidity, 47c temp! Why do I post this? Because I was there!
Not sure what this “Tea Party” is, or what it means in politics. All I see in Aussie MSM is pro-ALP/Green/Left bias and complete anti-LNP support. You have only to go to the SMH website to see the muber of anti-Abbott, anti-LNP Govn’t and pro-AGW articles. Abbott does not have much time and I think an ALP/Green coalition will be returned to “power” at the next general election. States are going through their elections, Victoria, that state will be pro-left leaning. The next federal election will result in a left leaning Govn’t. I hope Abbott will lay the path to sensibility…unfortunately, far too many Aussies are dumbfu*ks and only interested in KFC/McD’s, AFL and NRL.
“The major determinants of surface weather are latitude, earth’s rotation, the seasons, the sun with its variable radiations and orbital changes; and nearness to the oceans which maintain the water cycle, moderate temperatures and house massive volcanic chains.”
argument by assertion with no scientific argument whatsoever.
C02 is not a trace gas. The problem is you have chosen the wrong demoninator.
As a percentage of the whole, it is small. But that is not the right denominator.
Since the earth cools by long wave radiation, you have to look at the value of c02 in the
correct atmospheric window and you have to look at concentrations where it matters: above the ERL
Finally, if you run a weather model without the c02 effects, the results are horribly wrong. If you include the effects of c02, your forecast accuracy improves. EVERY weather model uses a raditaive physics core. That model, developed by science funded by republicans and the military, is ESSENTIAL to getting better forecasts. Why? because the weather depends in part on the radiation entering the system and leaving the system, and together h2o and c02 modulate the radiation leaving the system.
The guesses are getting better ?
No, Faster.
Geography determines climate, not CO2.
The role of the trace gas CO2 is vastly exaggerated. The late warming trend circa 1977-97 was due to increased insolation, as observation confirms.
Dear Steven – Firstly, as a scientist (geologist), I fully support the continued funding and development of models that help us understand the weather – however your first paragraph makes it impossible to take you seriously. That is Meteorology 101 my friend (we all took it at Uni, it was an easy course) – weather is a physical system – not a chemical one.
So that might partly explain why you think that human kind can currently run a “weather model” that spits out something other than garbage.
The Earths atmosphere, when looked at in total, is probably the largest “chaotic” system that humans have ever tried to get theie collective minds around – and, to be fair, the meterological scientist population is extremely small compared to other disciplines. But it beggars belief that so many people genuinely believe that we currently have the capacity to model weather on a global scale – because we don’t, we aren’t even close.
However, the real problem with climate change is this – its a social dogma now, not a scientific debate. We are a rudely self obsessed society now – we like to believe we have the power to change things – and we love to blame others. Developed world society has never had such an extended period of peace, security & wealth – so now we have generations of people who have never been under threat from anything. We jump at shadows and we can throw money at the problem. If we believe that there is an oncoming catastrophe then it should be rapidly identified and eliminated – so this isnt a scientific issue – its a populist movement. We need to accept that the Earth is a dynamic planet that changes everyday – with or without us – and we need to understand the changes that occur naturally before we can ever hope to understand the anthropological effect. Let me put it another way – assume the simple equation x+y=z, where x is the natural climate change, y is anthropological climate change and z is the total change. How have all you climate change experts worked out what z is going to be when no one has a clue what x is?
Finally, most people have one no concept Geologic time – which is crucial when formulating a hypothesis about the earth or its atmosphere.natural science. Without that understanding of time it is ridiculously irrelevant to mention a recent weather event or data point (I’ll leave you to work out what “recent” means!) in support of your argument but ignore the last 10 million years. Let me use a “very rough” analogy to show how ridiculous this is – if this was an argument about evolution in goldfish, its like espousing that the goldfish is going to evolve the ability to walk on land in the next 30 years – based on 50 years of previous goldfish observations. I’ll give you leeway here too – you can use 1000 years of goldfish observations – its still a short period of time!
I don’t argue against anthropological climate change – I argue that it is impossible to work out how anyone with a simple understanding of scientific error, significant numbers (taught in year 10) and time, can seriously promote it with a straight face.
But I’m sick of being insulted at dinner parties by so called “progressive thinkers” – I might have to keep my thoughts to myself – like Copernicus.
(ps: I’m not comparing myself to Copernicus!!)
I’m lucky to write a coherent sentence, and wouldn’t know a “possessive pronoun” if it bit me on the ass.
So, what were you trying to say ?
I think it’s you. Prove me wrong.
Viv Forbes speaks the truth … and for the common folk out there who have never had an opportunity to get a decent understanding about what all the fuss has been about, so does this book published last year:
http://www.punchdrunkonco2.com
Mr. Grace, please check your email. Please also refrain from further comment at WUWT.