NC State Global Warming Professor accused of "recklessly falsified work"
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
True, its sad the left got on those committees and politicized that prize so badly.
I dunno jem, they gave one to Gore. And all he's got is hot air.
I think you will indeed read this description of the model in some of the online definitions that are attempting to make a short statement or explanation. From what I have learned this is an inaccurate explanation of the Bern Model, an early model going back to at least 1994.
I took the time to look it up, the actual equation that is. Sorry I'm not good at typing equations without special scientific software so I won't attempt. What I concluded after examining the equation for the Bern Model is that it's E(t) term is defined such that one attributes all of the increase in CO2 to anthropomorphic CO2 since a baseline concentration was reached in the recent pre-industrial era . This is an assumption not inherent in the model, but in the way it is being applied and interpreted. No terms are present to take into account additional sources which also add to the baseline, i.e., the constant pre-industiral value. These additional terms could be added to the model however.
The Bern model can be used to model the rates of disappearance of a pulse of CO2 by partitioning the pulse. In the common case, the partitioning is between various sinks which have been assigned time constants. In one application, all of the increase of CO2 is assumed to be instantaneously added to the atmosphere. Then one calculates how much of the additional CO2 from the pulse is left after time "t" has elapsed. (This is valid for the case where the pulse addition is over a time period short compared to the time constants of the sinks.) If the time constants are wrong than the result is wrong.
It is obvious to me now why the Bern model fit the scenario of the Bombtest era C-14 emission. And why Pettersson chose to use the Bern model to model disappearance of bomb C-14 (I asume he used the IPCC's time constants) and then compare the model's prediction of the disappearance of the C-14 pulse to the actual disappearance that could be very accurately followed by C-14 counting.
The Bern Model is wrong of course, like all the other present day climate models that seek to make valid predictions about the distant future. Petterssons analysis shows Bern to not be merely wrong, but wrong in the extreme! Bern was an early attempt to simplify a very complex problem. Nothing wrong with that, but now it is time to jettison it and move on to more realistic, less wrong models. The IPCC should not use this model any longer. Obviously its predictions of residence time for CO2 in the atmosphere are wrong and its assumption that all the additional CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age is anthropomorphic in origin is way off target, as are the current IPCC time constants for the various CO2 sinks. Pettersson, with his elegant analysis of the C-14 counting data, shows us that.
Furthermore i could not find where the model takes into account any possible concentration dependence of the sinking reactions. It looks to me like it is assumed that all of these sinking paths are treated as though they were zeroth order, i.e. have no concentration dependence. I seriously doubt this is the case for all the reactions.
Another thing i've noticed in my recent exploration of the climate fiasco is that it is very common to see obviously imprecise experimental values expressed with three and four significant figures. To scientists, this is comical and reminds me of that anecdote about Dulong (of DuLong and Petit) who gave experimental results in a 19th century discussion of specific heat capacity to seven decimal places. When questioned whether this was warranted, he responded that he saw no reason that if the first few decimal places were wrong why the others could not all be correct! Of course that was before the development of statistics and the concept of significant figures.
...The 97 Percent Problem and âControversialâ Science
Curry used the 97 percent consensus figure without letting on at all that the statistic is misleading.
The most recent origin of that claim is from geologist James Powell, who presented it in a study in January 2014, but even he admitted that his methods were subjective. Marc Morano of the website Climate Depot criticized Powell for failing to define what âaccepts man-made global warmingâ meant, making his characterizations of scientific studies meaningless.
In fact, thousands of peer-reviewed studies cast doubt on man-made climate change and many scientists have differing views. In 2010, Marc Morano released a collection of more than 1000 scientists who âchallenged man-made global warming claims.â Similarly the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change aggregated âthousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not supportâ man-made climate change...
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-l...97-percent-agree-climate-change#ixzz2yLg5MxhV
Curry used the 97 percent consensus figure without letting on at all that the statistic is misleading.
The most recent origin of that claim is from geologist James Powell, who presented it in a study in January 2014, but even he admitted that his methods were subjective. Marc Morano of the website Climate Depot criticized Powell for failing to define what âaccepts man-made global warmingâ meant, making his characterizations of scientific studies meaningless.
In fact, thousands of peer-reviewed studies cast doubt on man-made climate change and many scientists have differing views. In 2010, Marc Morano released a collection of more than 1000 scientists who âchallenged man-made global warming claims.â Similarly the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change aggregated âthousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not supportâ man-made climate change...
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-l...97-percent-agree-climate-change#ixzz2yLg5MxhV
So let's get this straight. You are saying attributing all increases of CO2 as anthropomorphic is NOT inherent in the Bern Model. Yet the keystone of what Patterson asserts relies on the opposite of that and worse, it bases his own conclusions on the faulty assumption that the Bern Model does attribute increasing CO2 levels exclusively from anthropogenic emissions. Based on that you think it reasonable to elevate Patterson to almost hero-worship status by the way he has applied and interpreted the Bern Model. Really!!? How are you being in any way serious?
Using the Bern Model for studying the presence of bomb test C14 CO2 also requires separate support from scientific areas of study such as dendrochronology, oceanography and organic chemistry. Unfortunately for your hero, when that is done, the Bern Model is seen correctly as part of the overall confirmation that the bomb analysis is one of various methods of how C14 is quantified throughout the whole carbon cycle.
As I say, this is a side show, a diversion deflecting from the fact that man-made CO2 C14 is precisely measured throughout both atmosphere and carbon cycle.
âThe whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCCâs Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.â -- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
from http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf
There's money to be gained by denying AGW, too.
Not inherent means not inherent. You could redefine E(t) to include all contributions to atmospheric CO2 above the pre-industrial baseline, and not assume they are all anthro contributions. You could, in fact, define E(t) as you wish. If you could sort out the various contributions and knew their values you could add additional terms. This would not inherently change the model, but adding time dependence of the CO2 addition(s) would make calculating the sinking terms very much more complicated. As a necessary simplification, a CO2 pulse was assumed because that allowed simplified sinking terms, i.e., you could assume all of the CO2 that was going to be there was present at time = 0. This simplification was thought to be allowed by the assumption that additions were much more rapid then sinking.
The model assumes instantaneous addition of CO2 and looks at how fast this addition disappears by the various assumed sinking routes. The assumption that sinking is very slow compared to the rate of addition has now been shown to be incorrect by Petterssons work, and I think, Salby's work, when looked at in detail, also requires that the sinking rates be more rapid then the Bern Model assumed.
Pettersson tested the model by comparing the actual rate of net sinking of CO2 with the Model's prediction. That's a legitimate test of the Bern Model. All Pettersson did was to used the model as it had been used to look at the disappearance of a pulse of CO2. The Bern Model failed the test. Certainly the time constants used in the Bern Model and assumed by the IPCC must be incorrect, but it is also likely, from my perspective, that the form of the sinking terms in the model are also incorrect, because none of them take any concentration dependence into account. I think it is unlikely that all of the sinking reactions are zeroth order. They can be pseudo zeroth order if the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is high compared with its sinking rate, but the recent work makes that problematical too.
because in part as oceans warm that off gas co2.
what warms the oceans? the sun and underwater volcanoes seem to be the top candidates.
what warms the oceans? the sun and underwater volcanoes seem to be the top candidates.