[LINK] Weekend Magazine - Remote Siberian Lake Holds Clues to Arctic--and Antarctic--Climate Change

[TKoltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [ailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Richard Chirgwin
> Sent: Monday, 25 June 2012 7:47 PM
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Weekend Magazine - Remote Siberian Lake 
> Holds Clues to Arctic--and Antarctic--Climate Change
> 
> 
> Alternatively, Tom, there's the 1981 paper that predicted current 
> conditions with remarkable accuracy:
> 
> ttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/04/1981_climate_paper/
> 
>

An excellent find Richard. 
Thank--you very much.

The author was also Hansen et al (Climate Impact of Increasing
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - 
J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G.
Russell) http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html 
which was almost the same crew as wrote the 1988 paper.

J.HANSEN, I. FUNG. A. LACIS. D. RIND. S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G.
RUSSELL
Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space
Studies three-dimensional model. 
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Goddard Institute Space Studies, New
York
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

The 1988 paper of course that was the basis for Hansen's evidence to the
US congress which is the pretty much when Global Warming became an "in
thing".

Following is Hansen's summary, blaming the primary causes to be
variations in Volcanic Aerosols and possibly solar luminosity.
He concludes by stipulating that "anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the
end of the Century"

Quote/
Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's
and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature
increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured
increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly
solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about
the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon
dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the
end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's.
Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone
regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones,
erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and
opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.
/quote

He was right, Global Warming peaked in 2003-2006 and then starting to
hide it's effects under particle induced global cooling.

The clues were in his Figure five, from the 1981 paper, the most
accurate modelling is the model that includes Solar and Volcanic
activity.

Which then means that his simple 1981 model was more accurate than the
later 1988 model (which was demonstratably wrong by an order of
magnitude of 250% AND was the "evidence" for the Global Warming" push.

Richard, in your reply, you then referred us to Quantum Physics and how
we are happy to accept it.
The String theory debate has used up more minds, paper, chalk and
computer time than almost any subject outside of climate change and to
date is yet to be proven outside the two dimensional existence of a
blackboard.

It appears that the more scientists questioned it the less "provable" it
became.
In fact String theory is an artificial simplified rule set that has only
12 parameters.

In other words, an AI database with only Twelve rules.

Any "string theory" concept outside those parameters fails because it
has not been parameterised according to the 12 number ruleset.

We are happy as a culture to accept that Quantum Physics is an emerging
science and sometimes we get things wrong.

On the other hand, all reason and rational has departed from the climate
change debate. 

GISS III and every other climate modelling software is based on the same
limited type of AI logic as the 12 rule pararameterised string theory
and therefore the possibility of error by ommission exists.

There is no allowance in GISS III for:
 the expansion of the earth;
 rapid undersea mountain building (displacing large volumes of water);
 solar waves, and solar wave affect of NEO's on Tectonic plates;
 the magnetosphere fluctuations;
 planetary tilt;
 solar precessional positioning;

Even though NASA spent billions on sending up data collecting satellites
(Ulysses, Pioneer 10/11) to explore exactly these topics.

Yet unlike Quantum Physics, we accept Global Warming and anyone that
questions the science or data is called a heretic, a denier.

Climate change has been removed from the realms of arguable and
questionable science to "blind obedience" most akin to 
Fanatical Religious observation...

I have a question for you Richard, and as a Journalist, no doubt you
will understand.

What other science are you aware of that has such deep religious
fanaticism attached to it ?

And I don’t have an axe to grind; I don't work for any mining company or
"anti" GW interests.

My qualifications for commenting on Global Warming ?

I'm glad you asked.

Being a long time Trekkie, from 1984 on I was intensely interested in
all aspects of Artificial Intelligence and became extremely familiar
with the complexities and practical limitations of modelling predictive
software. (ADA then LISP - ANSI/MIL 83)

Regrettably, the science of AI modelling still only has four dimensions
and although referred to as 5GL, is technically dumbed down 4GL with no
procedural directive capability.

Whilst 5GL brought us closer to natural learning models, it aint alive
and doesn’t have logic construct comprehension yet.
Therefore if you tell GIS III that Gravity actually exists, it doesn’t
know twenty years later, that gravity is now orbital velocity dependant
on planetary and solar system position.
  
So, Richard, you are now the fifth person in Link that has told me to
back off climate change. (Most were not as polite as you.)

I always thought Link was an open discussion forum on information flow
and management.

The (GISS) climate change predictive software is the largest software
project for management of data that has ever been written.

I have been told that I shouldn’t ever bring up the topic in Link again
or I will be "Got".

So much vigilante activity over what amounts to Hansen's own admission
only .4 of a degree warming over the last hundred years has me agog and
deeply suspicious. 

It smacks to me of deeply programmed fanaticism.

> So okay, argue against climate science. But first, prove you're up to 
> the task by proving why my DVD player doesn't actually work. 
> Otherwise, 
> quit this "I'm not a scientist but I know why all scientists 
> are wrong" 
> drivel.
> 
> RC

In closing, could I remind you that some of the greatest scientific
discoveries in the world were made by persons not qualified in the
field.

Do I believe that I have made a discovery ?

Yes. In relation to climate change, all reason, discussion and therefore
science has been banished... Apparently by self appointed bullies.

Disclaimer: I don’t believe in Global Warming being caused by CO2. I
believe the model is flawed.
I do believe in all particle pollutants creating an enormous problem for
mankind's healthy respiratory future.
I do believe we are heading back to an Ice age. (I'll take one hundred
years of Australian pan evaporation data over the GISS 5GL any day of
the week.)
http://biology.anu.edu.au/CMS/FileUploads/file/Farquhar/199Roderickpanpa
radox.pdf


TomK