Posted by: graemebird | December 1, 2007

Empirical Evidence/WPSM Models: NEVER THE TWAIN

BROUGHT TO THE FRONT END OF 2009 NOW THAT THE UTTER MENACE THAT IS THE INCOMPETENT WILLIAM CONNELLY, IS FINALLY BEING DISCOVERED BY OTHER PEOPLE.
The Watts Per Square Metre Climate Paradigm is self-evidently ridiculous. All the empirical evidence contradicts this paradigm. But with enough tweaking and enough computer power the paradigm still seems capable of keeping science workers, presumably utterly useless for any other activity, in this welfare job of theirs.

The WPSM climate paradigm, will underestimate the effects of aerosols, overestimate the effects of CO2, and underestimate the effects of solar variation. It will do this because of its very nature, and the assumptions inherent to the paradigm itself.

But whats most sinister now is that the welfare recipients who “work” on these models have decided that when the empirical evidence contradicts their models (which is all the time) they are to cast doubt on the empirical evidence and not the models.

We have already demonstrated their rejection of the data on this forum with the Goddard Institutes decision to arbitrarily downgrade the Snowball earth. It didn’t happen they reckon. It didn’t happen because their computer disagrees with the empirical evidence.

But now they seek to overthrow the entire CLIMAP (Climate Long Range Investigation Mapping And Prediction) Data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate:_Long_range_Investigation%2C_Mapping%2C_and_Prediction

“The cited estimates of 3.0 °C implies a climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide changes at the low end of the range proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [1].”

Meaning that the data shows nil or almost no effect of reduced CO2.

“However, CLIMAP also suggested that some of the tropics and in particular much of the Pacific Ocean were warmer than they are today.”

Of course some of the tropics were warmer in the ice age then today. The oceanic currents are unable to distribute their heat up North because of ice obstruction to the flow. As well its not surprising at all that some of the Pacific would be warmer. Since what causes glaciation is the orbital cycles which leads to cooler Northern Summers. Which also means of course that the Southern Summers have more solar energy delivered to them. There is more sea ice near Antarctica during the glaciations and that could inhibit the circulation of warm water in the Pacific.

There is nothing surprising about this in the least. Less flow of warm water from the tropics. Yet the solar energy to the equator is the same.

“To date, no climate model has been able to reproduce the proposed warming in the Pacific (Yin and Battisti 2001), with most preferring a several degree cooling.”

There you have it. The empirical evidence has proved these ridiculous models wrong. But thats not the conclusion of these idiots.

“These factors suggest that CLIMAP systematically overestimated the temperatures in the tropical oceans during the last glacial though there is at present no consistent explanation for why or how this should have happened.”

There it is. A rejection of the empirical evidence in favour of their outrageously moronic models.

Well I wasn’t putting up with this unscience even for one minute. I went straight to the discussion page to complain. And who should I see there?

Fucking STOAT. Fucking Maths-Boy 101 STOAT. Prominent blogger of the Science-Fraud crowd. Fucking Stoat aka William Connelly. Latter-day hippy and science incompetent Stoat. He is the author of this rank confession don’t doubt it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate:_Long_range_Investigation%2C_Mapping%2C_and_Prediction

So I told them how stupid they all were.

But there we have them busted. Not only are most of their models wrong. ALL OF THEIR MODELS ARE WRONG. For this to be the case, after all that money and man-hours….. the PARADIGM ITSELF must be wrong.

Prior to this I had spent most of my time trying to explain why the VERY LOGIC behind the paradigm was horribly flawed. But now its clear that not only do the models NOT WORK…. they cannot be made to work. They miss the mark and in exactly the way my critique would have predicted.

And its not just the Climap model data that contradicts them. Wall to wall the empirical evidence goes against the watts-per-square-metre paradigm.

This is a science fraud. The only way to defeat them is to cut off their funds.

Make no mistake about it. This is a total refutation of the alarmist case we have here.

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

FOR THE PERMANENT RECORD.

When Stoat and his coterie of latter-day revolutionaries realise that they’ve actually made a mindblowing confession in this wiki-page, they will seek to eliminate or massage this message. Therefore I have no real choice but to copy the Wiki page for the permanent record.

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

Climate: Long range Investigation, Mapping, and Prediction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CLIMAP map of ice sheets, sea temperature changes, and changes in the outline of coastal regions during the last glacial.

Climate: Long range Investigation, Mapping, and Prediction, known as CLIMAP, was a major research project of the 1970s and 80s to produce a map of climate conditions during the last glacial maximum.

The project was funded by the National Science Foundation as part of the International Decade of Ocean Exploration (1970s) and is based in large part of the collection and analysis of a very large number of sediment cores to create a snapshot of conditions across the oceans.

The CLIMAP project also resulted in maps of vegetative zones across the continents and the estimated extent of glaciation at the time. Most CLIMAP results aim to describe the Earth as it was 18 thousand years ago, but there was also an analysis to look at conditions during the previous interglacial – 120 thousand years ago (CLIMAP 1981).

CLIMAP has been a cornerstone of paleoclimate research and remains the most used sea surface temperature reconstruction of the global ocean during the last glacial maximum (Yin and Battisti 2001), but it has also been persistently controversial.

CLIMAP resulted in estimates of global cooling of only 3.0 ± 0.6°C relative to the modern day (Hoffert and Covey 1992). The climate change during an ice age that occurs far from the continental ice sheets themselves is believed to be primarily controlled by changes in greenhouse gases, hence the conditions during the last glacial maximum provide a natural experiment for measuring the impact of changes in greenhouse gases on climate. The cited estimates of 3.0 °C implies a climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide changes at the low end of the range proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [1].

However, CLIMAP also suggested that some of the tropics and in particular much of the Pacific Ocean were warmer than they are today. To date, no climate model has been able to reproduce the proposed warming in the Pacific (Yin and Battisti 2001), with most preferring a several degree cooling. Also, it appears that climate models which are forced to match the CLIMAP sea surface measurements are too warm to match estimates for changes at continental locations (Pinot et al. 1999).

These factors suggest that CLIMAP systematically overestimated the temperatures in the tropical oceans during the last glacial though there is at present no consistent explanation for why or how this should have happened.

Unfortunately cost and difficulty of collecting sediment cores from the open Pacific has limited the availability of samples that might help to confirm or disprove these observations. If the Pacific reconstruction is assumed to be in error, it would result in a larger climate sensitivity to changes in greenhouse gases.

References

Hoffert, M.I. and C. Covey (1992). “Deriving global climate sensitivity from paleoclimate reconstructions”. Nature 360: 573-576.
Jeffrey H. Yin and David S. Battisti (2001). “The Importance of Tropical Sea Surface Temperature Patterns in Simulations of Last Glacial Maximum Climate”. Journal of Climate 14 (4): 565–581.
Pinot, S., G. Ramstein, S.P. Harrison, I.C. Prentice, J. Guiot, M. Stute, S. Joussaume and PMIP-participating-groups (1999). “Tropical paleoclimates at the Last Glacial Maximum: comparison of Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) simulations and paleodata”. Climate Dynamics 15: 857-874.
CLIMAP (1981). Seasonal reconstructions of the Earth’s surface at the last glacial maximum in Map Series, Technical Report MC-36. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. My discussion page comments have been lovingly preserved from two years ago:

    Seems like a good start and covers the only bit of it I know anything about – the how-cool-was-it controversy. William M. Connolley 08:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

    “These factors suggest that CLIMAP systematically overestimated the temperatures in the tropical oceans during the last glacial though there is at present no consistent explanation for why or how this should have happened.”

    This is the most idiotic conclusion imagineable. Its the models that are wrong. When you are constructing models you don’t, for fucksakes, turf out the empirical evidence in favour of the models.

    Can we have some real scientists here?
    Instead of alarmist idiots pretending to be scientists?

    This is all people like Connolley do. Fit a square peg in a round hole. This is science fraud.
    Its come to my attention that William Connelly has basically been on an obsessive crusade to warp the Wikipedia as propaganda for the “global warming” science fraud.

    Its not any sort of one-off with this guy but an intentional crusade to co-opt Wikipedia as an instrument of propaganda.

    There is no use invoking the “There is no conspiracy” bullshitartistry. Thats just more dishonesty. Connelly’s entire activity on the wiki ought to be investigated and his dishonest warping of topics ought to be mitigated. He’s not a scientist. He’s a maths and software guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


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: