Posted by: graemebird | May 20, 2007

The Goddard Institute: The Curse Of The Lone Paradigm.

FROM MAY 2007. BROUGHT TO THE FRONT NOVEMBER 2009. TO SHOW HOW GODDARD/REALCLIMATE FRAUDSTERS WORK. THEY HAVE THEIR IDEOLOGICAL MODEL. WHEN THE DATA DOES NOT FIT IT THE DATA IS ASSUMED TO BE WRONG AND NOT THEIR MODEL. THIS IS SCIENCE FRAUD.

“Geologically, the Neoproterozoic is thought to comprise a time of complex continental motion as a supercontinent called Rodinia broke up into perhaps as many as eight pieces. Possibly as a consequence of continental rifting, several massive worldwide glaciations occurred during the Era including the Sturtian and Marinoan glaciations, the most severe the Earth has ever known. These are believed to have been so severe as to bring icecaps to the equator, leading to a state known as the “Snowball Earth”.

So sayeth wiki.

Yet the computer modellers at the Goddard Institute know better. Since their computer model doesn’t work and so therefore cannot reproduce the results implied by the empirical evidence these dumb science workers have decided that the computer knows best.

“The Cryogenian Period (from Greek cryos “ice” and genesis “birth”) is the second geologic period of the Neoproterozoic Era, followed by the Ediacaran Period.

The Cryogenian includes the Sturtian and Marinoan (formerly considered together as the Varanger) glaciations, and lasted from 850 Ma (as defined by the ICS based on radiometric chronometry) to approximately 635 Ma.

The name is derived from the glacial deposits characteristic of the period, indicating that at this time, the Earth suffered the most severe ice ages in its history, with glaciers extending to the equator, in a series of rhythmical pulses.”

Wiki again.

But the computer at the Goddard Institute has spoken. And so Gavin Schmidts crowd at Goddard WILL NOT RECOGNISE THAT THEIR PARADIGM IS WRONG and instead have updated reality to suit the paradigm.

“The Sturtian glaciation persisted from 750 to 700 Ma and the Marinoan/Varanger glaciation terminated at ca. 635 Ma.”

50 million years of near total ice cover in the first (Sturtian) example. But Goddard has downgraded this snowball earth, on the basis of their paradigm, which hasn’t been shown to work ever and certainly not in the present…. they’ve downgraded it to a SLUSHBALL earth.

We have to do something about this socialised science dysfunction. This faux-falsification anti-science smugness of dumb-leftist-field-workers posing as scientists.

Here is the actual link:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/sohl_01/

“In order to better understand the climatic processes that may have been responsible for producing the snowball Earth intervals and the subsequent recovery, we used the GISS GCM to conduct a series of climate simulations of the Varanger glaciation.”

See that. These taxeaters too busy spending your money subverting science to use WHOLE WORDS so many things are often reduced to letters. I have to presume that GISS GCM means:

THE GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL.

One of the many global climate models that don’t work (as we shall see).

“Other climate forcings such as the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide are not well constrained by the geologic record, and so for the major climate forcings we wanted to examine, we selected arbitrary values based upon other climatological or geological considerations.”

So far so good. But here is one of the arbitrary assumptions they made.

“Atmospheric CO2: The extreme nature of the snowball Earth intervals suggests that these periods were times of reduced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. We ran simulations with atmospheric CO2 levels set to 315 parts per million (the value measured in 1958), 140 ppm (half the pre-industrial value), and 40 ppm (an extreme example).”

Now its fine to make such arbitrary assumptions. But when the results come back negative one must question the assumptions of their computer-model AND THEIR CORE PARADIGM themselves.

>>>>>>>>>

HOW WOULD CO2-WARMING MANIFEST ITSELF IF INDEED IT COULD BE FOUND?

If we could even find evidence of CO2-warming we might expect some tiny shadow of what we see with water vapour. Water vapour effects the lapse rate. That is to say the rate at which the temperature cools as you go up in the troposphere.

To make matters confusing there is more than one phenomenon that climate scientists apply the term “lapse rate” to.

Here I speak of the “environmental lapse rate” which is a measure of how the temperature drops sort of “AS IS”… in any snapshot of a given place on earth.

There is another “lapse rate” and thats to do with a parcel of air moving upwards but we won’t deal with that here.

“As an average the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) defines an international standard atmosphere with a temperature lapse rate of + 6.5 °C per km (+ 3.57 °F/1000 ft or + 1.99°C/1000 ft) from sea level to 11 km.”

If there was more water vapour in the air we would expect that average lapse rate to be less. We would also expect the ground average temperature to be higher.

But the average temperature at 9, 10 and 11 kilometres we would expect to be MUCH higher. Because supposing the average lapse rate was reduced to 5.5 °C per km and the average temperature on the ground was 10 degrees higher then you would expect the average temperature at 10 kilometres to be 20 degrees warmer and not just 10 degrees warmer.

But what could possibly cause such extra warmth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

WATER VAPOUR AS THE OCEANS SWEATING.

I would say that we need a massive increase in the planetary heat budget. Since I view water vapour as akin the the oceans “sweating”.

So we don’t want a static picture of spectroscopy to tell us why the water vapour goes up and down. Rather we want a narrative which explains why the earth itself, right down to the core, starts gaining and losing energy. And it is the upper oceans specifically, that we need to be warm in order to produce all this water vapour.

If massive amounts of CO2 only effected this lapse rate (lets say) 0.1 °C per km, than in order for that to increase the planetary heat budget we’d likely not be willing to consider this as being the least bit plausible unless it was a consistent thing that was working over millions of years or at least over very long time periods.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

MAYBE DEEP-THOUGHT WOULD TELL US THE OCEAN OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN BOILING.

Funnily enough, somewhat contrary to the Goddard institutes arbitrary assumption, we find evidence for very high CO2 levels, in at least one ancient glacial period. Which kind of backs up what I’m saying above but makes the Goddard computer look like a pretty stupid machine.

“In the last 500 million years, there have been two ice ages at the same time that vastly higher carbon dioxide levels prevailed in the earth’s atmosphere—up to 16 times the present level.

This remarkable finding, along with others, was reported in yesterday’s (November 7, 2006) New York Times. For details, see the article by William Broad, “In Ancient Fossils, Seeds of a New Debate on Warming.”

Unfortunately the original article that this statement is based on is no longer freely available at the New York Times. Later I may try and find out if its been cached somewhere.

But we can only wonder what the Goddard Institutes “Big Blue” would predict for that glacial period. Maybe it would tell us the water ought to have been boiling.

Now bear in mind that I’m not ruling out the idea that sustained high levels of Methane and CO2 in the pre-Oxygen periods may have been able to sustain and/or build a high planetary heat-budget if working over millions of years and compensating for the weaker sun of the time. I wouldn’t want to get into that side of things here.

But as you read down the Goddard institute site we see with horror that the tax-eaters only consider a snapshot model, not based around the building and dropping of the joules contained in the planet itself…..

…. But instead, almost purely on the light characteristics of the atmosphere. That is to say on the colour of CO2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

ISN’T IT AMAZING WHEN YOU RIG THINGS TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU KNEW IN THE FIRST PLACE?

“Atmospheric CO2: The extreme nature of the snowball Earth intervals suggests that these periods were times of reduced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. We ran simulations with atmospheric CO2 levels set to 315 parts per million (the value measured in 1958), 140 ppm (half the pre-industrial value), and 40 ppm (an extreme example).”

YOU GET IT!!!!!

NEVER LEAVE THE LONE PARADIGM. They don’t have any evidence that CO2 was this low. And they don’t even attempt to run the model with CO2 vastly higher than today.

“Ocean Heat Transport: We simulated the potential effects of decreased and increased heat transports by the ocean from the tropics toward the poles using values 50% less and 50% greater than the modern global average.”

Whats going on here is that they don’t care how a greater resistance-to-circulation would CUMULATIVELY reduce the global heat budget and then indirectly cool the atmosphere.

In their one-eyed spectroscopy model… which really is only a glorified armchair speculation with billions of dollars added to it… all that matters is the radiative heat balance. So they have a snapshot of the circulating water moving some of the heat from the equator.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

MY OWN IMPLICIT MODEL.

Now you might discern here that I have my own implicit model that would probably quite easily explain whats going on here. I don’t find others often talking about cumulative planetary heat budgets and the like. Thats more my gig to try and explain whats out there in the geological record. So its a bit nasty of me to be angrily deriding them for their more static model.

But they would clearly have tested a model more like the mental model that I have going on if they’d only have assumed it was their job THEIR JOB!!!!!! to build several hypotheses in parallel at all times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CONTINUALLY DEVELOPING, RANKING AND RE-RANKING SEVERAL HYPOTHESES IN PARALLEL.

This is the key. The scientific process ought to be one of building hypotheses in parallel and ranking and re-ranking these hypotheses as the new data comes in.

For example we ought never have thrown out Newtons model. We should have accepted Einsteins model and tried to modify Newtons to fit the data. And we could then have brought on other hypotheses as well. Like a revamped Lorentzian relativity. Or Newtons paradigm with push-gravity instead of the occult action-at-a-distance.

Having a half-dozen hypotheses would have informed the construction of experiments to see which model came out on top (for the moment). Its parallel models that can inform experimental design and save pot-loads of Gold and thousands of man-hours in time.

You don’t spend money to shore up a lone paradigm. Rather the money is spent with an experimental design that resolves the different predictions between the different paradigms in parallel.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A DOWN-UP MODEL BASED AROUND VARIOUS STRATA.

In my own mental model I see things in terms of various strata. And a computer model of this implied-model would have the simplifying assumption that when the energy escapes to a higher strata it is lost for good……

…..Lost in space or at best the extra warmth in the upper strata can SLOW the heat rising up from the strata below.

So whereas the current spectroscopy model works with Watts-Per-Square-Metre my own focus would be about joules being pushed down and joules going up.

So 100 joules that can get punched 50 metres into the ocean will be far more important than 500 joules that gets attenuated in the stratosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

THE DISTANCE TRAVELLED THROUGH THE VARIOUS STRATA IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS BEING IGNORED. (DISTANCE-AND-ANGLE: DOUBLE-WHAMMY ATTENUATION)

What must be understood is that while the stratosphere might start at 50 kilometres above the ground….. this is not the distance travelled by a typical “ray” of light from the top of the stratosphere TO the ground. In fact the only time electro-magnetic radiation gets to benefit from such a short trip is at the equator and even then only at high noon.

The rest of the time and in every other place this radiation has to travel far further and will be attenuated in accordance to what sort of mix of radiation this energy represents.

But the models they have going seem to suggest that what matters is only the amount of radiation per square meter.

Since the radiation further away from the equator, and at different times, hits the ground at less-then 90 degrees than that radiation is spread out over a greater area and is therefore attenuated in that way….

… Now this type of reduction in the strength of the radiation is-in-fact being taken into account. The energy spread out over a bigger area because of the angle of it hitting the atmosphere.

….But I haven’t seen any indication that these guys take into account the extra distance travelled as well.

They may agree that a lot of this energy might be attenuated in the stratosphere. But they would consider that this is part of the climate system. Since they are not dividing things into various strata and assuming that once the energy moves upward to a new strata level than it can be considered prertty much LOST to the strata-level below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have no doubt that we could put together a model based on my implicit assumptions and quite quickly be able to replicate the empirical evidence AS IT STANDS rather then try and second-guess reality.

The assumptions, models, attitudes and bad habits of the Goddard Institute comprises a summary of the nonsensical non-science that the energy-deprivation crusade is using to predict magnificent global warming for the end of the current century. They don’t give a damn about the data and will contradict it if it doesn’t gel with their paradigm…… as that paradigm plays itself out in a computer model.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

REMEMBERING THAT DISNEY DUCK WITH AN AUSTRIAN/GERMAN ACCENT THAT ALWAYS SAID…. “WELL ITS BACK TO THE OLD DRAWING-BOARD”.

“We found that no single one of these forcings yielded surface air temperatures and snowfall rates that would allow snow to accumulate on low-latitude continents, as the geologic record indicates.”

Right….. But does that mean the empirical evidence is right and your model is wrong???? NNNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Perish-the-thought.

NEVER DOUBT THE PARADIGM…… THE COMPUTER HAS SPOKEN.

Not so long ago when things went wrong the idea was that it was “back to the drawing-board”. Not with Gavin Schmidts crowd.

Not with Annan. Not with anyone at realclimate. Not with Dessling. Or the non-scientists Quiggin and Lambert. Not with any of those jerks at Gristmill.

None of them will reconsider their paradigms even when the data gives them the thumbs-down.

“The reduced solar luminosity and 40 ppm carbon dioxide simulations did, however, show that snow and ice accumulations on land in mid-latitudes could have occurred during a snowball Earth interval if either of these conditions actually existed.”

This amounts to proof that their paradigm is wrong. Even with 40ppm… they cannot reproduce the empirical results. THEY HAVE PROVED THEIR OWN PARADIGM WRONG.

Nowhere is there any evidence that CO2 levels got to be this low. And even if they did their own model STILL SAYS that this wouldn’t reproduce the evidence in the geological record.

These are very very unscientific people. And this is where realclimate.orgs (fuckthedata.coms) GAVIN SCHMIDT hangs out. These are NOT scientists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

TO HELL IT DIDN’T.

“With atmospheric CO2, solar luminosity and ocean heat transports all reduced together, sea ice never completely covered the tropical oceans. With as much as 30% of the oceans remaining ice-free, the snowball Earth may instead have been more of a slushball.”

Look at their wording. “….SEA ICE NEVER COMPLETELY COVERED THE TROPICAL OCEANS…”.

To hell it didn’t.

Its as if already they’ve confused their model and reality. It didn’t happen they say. The empirical evidence says it DID happen. But the energy-deprivation-crusaders at the Goddard Institute say it never happened. It isn’t true. You weren’t there. You can’t prove anything.

The Goddard Institute does everything it can to force a square peg into a round hole. But they never question their spectroscopy paradigm. They do everything they can to torture their computer-pal “DEEP THOUGHT” into spitting out the results that they want but he still won’t do it. And so they conclude that the fossil record is wrong.

These are stupid people I tell you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
THE DAYDREAM OF OFFERING ALTERNATE PARADIGMS.

I’d really want to work with someone with the modelling skills and try and produce an alternative paradigm. Its not like we’d even need a lot of computer power. Its not computer power thats needed. Its getting the paradigm right. And to do that we’d have to have 3 or 4 different models on the go at all times.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

THE FEAR THAT THE DATA ITSELF IS BEING BUGGERED.

Matters may be worse then I am painting them. Now here we have seen the Goddard Institute throwing doubt on what the fossil record is telling us. Throwing static into the scientific process. Throwing sand into the motor of science.

But its likely worse than that since energy-deprivation-crusading nutballs are everywhere on the net, trying to stretch and warp the empirical picture to suit the hoax.

The other day I tried to look into the “Holocene Maximum” and you see evidence of the global warmers forcing the picture in order to squeeze their JIVE into it.

One link was saying that the heat maximum wasn’t all that much warmer than today. And it might have even been colder in the winter.

The misinformation is starting to get cross-referenced. That is to say its as if the overall picture you get is being altered as these morons push their case on every related subject.

It used to be that the Holocene-Heat-Maximum was (from memory) about 8000 to 5000 years ago. It was warmer then the medieval warm period and it lasted uninterupted for a very long time.

And it did so even though the Laurentide ice sheet was still receding over North America at the beginning of this period. So this peak was sustained even though we’d have expected a great deal of this energy to be sunk into melting the ice.

But now you start to look into it and the fraudsters have their fingerprints all over it. Spreading their misinformation far and wide.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A HARD RAIN IS GOING TO HAVE TO FALL.

Do what you can to stop this horse-shit and corruption of science. We need to cut all non-defense research funding and instead take independent scientific research institutes out of the tax system.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Graeme, obviously you aren’t a geologist. If you were you would know that the Glaciation you speak of and the Snowball Earth hypothesis is just that. A hypothesis. The biggest problem is that if you get there it is almost impossible for the Earth to ‘unglaciate’ itself. To prove this hypothesis you need to demonstrate that ice was at the equator, very difficult as it is hard to model where the various plates have been, you can use paleomagnetism but as you go back in time it gets harder and often the rocks have since been re-magnetized to a different location. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY.
    And please read more about milankovitch cycles. We are not imminently due for another ice age.

  2. I knew it was an hypothesis.

    And not thats not true. The planet could indeed unglaciate itself since ice is the great insulator and sea-ice is the greenhouse substance par-excellence.

    What do you mean I’m not a geologist?

    All things are grist to my mill.

    But tell me something. Were you not shocked by the total unscience of Goddard?

    You are not fucking agreeing with these lunatics are you?

    No there is no problem with the data. And Goddard had no cause whatsoever to doubt the data without having more plausible data of their own.

    Your stupid comment about unfreezing simply means that you too are living under THE CURSE OF THE LONE PARADIGM.

    “The biggest problem is that if you get there it is almost impossible for the Earth to ‘unglaciate’ itself.”

    That is just SO not true.

    Now remember what your bogus spectroscopy paradigm is commie.

    And then we have my righteous paradigm. Your paradigm says you cannot unfreeze because of spectroscopy and albedo.

    My paradigm predicts that you will unfreeze beause of strata and heat budgets.

    YOUR PARADIGM HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG BY THE DATA. BECAUSE WE DID FUCKING UNFREEZE.

    MY PARADIGM IS LOOKING LIKE THE BEST THING THERE IS.

    But the point of this thread was the curse of the lone paradigm. Do you see how you were blinded by it?

    Have the scales fallen from your eyes yet?

  3. The point is there is no PROOF of snowball Earth. The only evidence is from a few places including South Australia (hence Sturtian).
    All this rambling about paradigms makes no sense.
    No I am not agreeing with you or Goddard.

  4. We in science aren’t interested in PROOF.

    When you say “WHERE IS THE PROOF….?” or “THERE IS NO PROOF THAT….” immediately we know that your communist committment is overiding your committment to science.

    What you have done here is substituted the word “PROOF” for the word “EVIDENCE” which is a modern Marxists trick.

    You see you are trying to tell a lie. But in order to get away with lying you substitute a word which allows you to lie-like-a-lawyer.

    If you were to say there is no “EVIDENCE” for snowball earth then you would be lying. Your intention is precisely the same but more filthy.

    Its like making a Frankenstein monster from the spare parts of Alger Hiss and Willaim Clinton. Its like lying like a lawyer. Its a filthy thing that you tried on here. And its a betrayal of your proffession and your scientific credibility to your communist religion.

    Hang out fella.

    But be aware that I suspect you are filth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: