Another Scientist critical of Global Warming

[RMNIXON]

Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.


It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".


He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.
The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.


United Press International - NewsTrack - Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth

__________________________________________________ ______________


He is talking physics. They tend to be much more disciplined than other sciences and I was hoping they will enter this debate!

[Scrum]

So he joined up with the two quacks who wrote that book? Woohoo.

From sourcewatch.com

Taken by Storm is a book by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick which argues there is no global warming.


No average temperature

In their own briefing, the book's authors say:

In the absence of physical guidance, any rule for averaging temperature is as good as any other. The folks who do the averaging happen to use the arithmetic mean over the field with specific sets of weights, rather than, say, the geometric mean or any other. But this is mere convention. [1]

This is false. If you connect two systems of different temperatures with a conductor, the temperatures of both systems will reach an equilibrium which is a weighted arithmetic mean. For example, imagine mixing a bucket of cold water and a bucket of warm water. The result will have the temperature of the weighted arithmetic mean of the two bucket's temperatures. This is why everyone uses the weighted arithmetic mean.

They go on to argue that if a geometric mean is used instead of an arithmetic one, a trend of global warming changes to a trend of global cooling. But Tim Lambert discovered that this was because they inconsistently treated missing data between the two calculations. When the missing data is corrected, both means show the same result: neither cooling nor warming.

When confronted, McKitrick claimed this helped his argument because it showed there were even more ways to calculate average temperature.

[Pro Street]

the ratio of scientists that state there is no GW happening is roughly the same as people who think the earth is flat.

highlighting the fact when 1 or 2 disagree only shows this more

[SoFlaJDM]

1 scientist? no wai?!?!?!

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

the ratio of scientists that state there is no GW happening is roughly the same as people who think the earth is flat.

highlighting the fact when 1 or 2 disagree only shows this more

So what flavor is the Kool-aid?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

the ratio of scientists that state there is no GW happening is roughly the same as people who think the earth is flat.

Right, cause people think the world is flat

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Right, cause people think the world is flat

there are people that do

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

there are people that do

The Flat Earth Society?

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Scrum

The Flat Earth Society?

and do you actually believe that there is a correlation?

hmmm, wonder why no one has bothered to actually discuss the science?

hmmm wonder why it is just character assasination?

Wonder why it is always proving a small pedantic point, then claiming victory in spite of the other data?

Wonder the majority of scientists who continue to espous AGW still dont, and refuse to publish their models, their code, and open themselves up to real critique...you know, like scientists without a hidden agenda?

Anyone else wonder why the "hockey stick" theory dude STILL has not made available his data, formula's and models? (FWIW, this is completely taboo in scientific circles)

Anyone else wonder why??


oh wait...I am the Flatlander (ridiculous post above) and the Nazi (according to this idiotic comment by Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers . . . ")


Yeah is it...We are the lunatics, and the fringe...hmmm wonder why there is such emotion over science? oh sorry, trying to be logical again...

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by MTdream

Anyone else wonder why the "hockey stick" theory dude STILL has not made available his data, formula's and models? (FWIW, this is completely taboo in scientific circles)

Anyone else wonder why??

Wahl-Ammann: Climatic Change, in press

I added that link because it is actually the supplemental data to support it.

however, most won't understand it so here's an explination

RealClimate » Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy Guide pratique pour comprendre la dernière controverse sur la « crosse de hockey »

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Wahl-Ammann: Climatic Change, in press

I added that link because it is actually the supplemental data to support it.

however, most won't understand it so here's an explination

RealClimate » Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy Guide pratique pour comprendre la dernière controverse sur la « crosse de hockey »

have you read your link...do you understand what was said?

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by MTdream

have you read your link...do you understand what was said?

yes, I did

and yes, I do.

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

yes, I did

and yes, I do.

OK, if you understand it, then you are either A.) not understanding it as well as you think...or B.) trying to mislead others who are not as informed...


Point 1. This "rebuttal/group hug" on MM is completely off base, as they were not even attempting to comment on paleo climatic reconstruction...they were pointing out obvious mistakes...here are MM's critiques

Here are the errors:

1. unjustified truncation of three time series
2. copying 1980 values from one series onto another
3. displacement of 18 series to one year earlier than apparently intended
4. Statistically unjustified extrapolations or interpolations to cover missing
entries in 19 series
5. geographical mislocations and missing identifiers of location
6. inconsistent use of seasonal temperature data where annual data is
available
7. obsolete data in at least 24 series, some of which may have been obsolete
at the time of the MBH98 study
8. listing of unused proxies
9. incorrect calculation on all 28 tree ring principal components.

BTW, Mann corrected these after the critique, but did not re-run the model...and others like amman, wahl etc. still hold to the conclusion despite the errors in fact...nothing like group think...

and BTW..posting an article from a contributor to the original Mann theory, and obvious friend (they blog together on realclimate) is not really all that credible...

[MTdream]

Point 2.

the rebuttal on the blog you post, is also very cleverly crafted to not point out that they have corrected the mistakes, but fail to give even a tacit mention of the corrections...instead they just tried to belittle them and write them off as two crazy canadians...you know like is done on this site...

[MTdream]

point 3

• Errors of Caluclation
• Errors of inconsistency
• Errors of using obsolete data
• Errors of unjustified extrapolation
• Errors of Geographical mislocation
• Errors of Omission
• Errors of displacement

but yet we are still supposed to believe the conclusion...yeah that passes the sniff test...

I am sorry teacher, I know I forgot stuff...I know I calculated it wrong...I know I omitted stuff...I know I misplaced stuff....I know I didnt use consistent formulas...but I still get an "A" dont I?

[Pro Street]

the accusations regarding errors are from?


point 1 is on page 8 of the PDF, it's the first answer.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by MTdream

So what flavor is the Kool-aid?

A friend of mine is Jim Jones JR who survived the massacre. I think of him everytime I see this statement.

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

the accusations regarding errors are from?


point 1 is on page 8 of the PDF, it's the first answer.

not quite...like you they forgot to mention the majority of the errors...merely addressed them behind the scenes...

you are confusing the PC model with the simplistic errors they made...

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit.
- Juvenal, xiv.321.

The cause of global warming has been much debated. The establishment view, supported by corporate-funded research (ExxonMobil), holds that global climate changes are cyclical, over which man, for all his science and invention applied to master the universe, has no control. Opposing this conventional wisdom, there is a growing, and increasingly vocal, opposition that point to pollution (specifically hydrocarbon emissions) in the atmosphere as the cause, and accuse the industrialized nations of "trashing the planet." And in the politics of the issue - which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with money - the establishment has thus far prevailed. Still, the evidence is mounting; and we cannot long afford to turn a blind eye to what can be plainly seen. The earth is speaking to us, and we should listen - "for wisdom ever echoes nature’s voice."

Anyone else feel like they entered a time continuum reading this post?

sorry, establishment is clearly not the exxonMobil view...depending upon who you talk to on here, they think there is as few as 2 scientists who believe the "establishment" view, and only up ot a small handful (which is ridiculous, but off topic and irrelevant)

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by Roonie