I’ve noticed an increasing trend of sceptics being reported in the news. So I was intrigued to find an article yesterday in a small Australia paper about the research of “Dr Evans” – not surprised to find he works in Fourier analysis because it was my knowledge in Fourier analysis that was key to making me a sceptic. And not surprised to find he is also an electrical engineer (as engineers understand how to deal with complex systems whereas academics are taught how to ignore all the real world complexity and focus on the bit they can model).
But then I thought I saw a familiar face:
Perth Edition, The Sunday Times
Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate
Photo: AustralianClimateMadnessA MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says…
Jo Nova’s where the series of articles are being published
I’ve been following this with interest on Jo Nova’s site. It potentially has huge implications, but I don’t imagine for one moment it will be reported by the BBC…
It was a difficult transition to make, but since I’ve stopped listening to the BBC or watching their programs, I’ve been much happier – not having their constant anti-industry, anti-engineering, anti-private sector, subliminal message pumping out on almost every channel and almost all programs.
Indeed, having detoxified myself, if my wife happens to leave the radio on I am all the more sensitive to the PC crap … and so far, my record for listening is about 10 minutes.
And as a result, I have absolutely no doubt that the single biggest reason for the failure of the UK economy and the dramatic decline of export earning industry was the BBC.
Thanks Mike, we’ve added a new post to the series, and this error is a big one…
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-9-error-3-all-radiation-imbalances-treated-the-same-the-ground-is-not-the-sky/#comment-1750497
Electrical Engineers will appreciate the circuit diagrams. The mistakes become pretty obvious…
I share your views on the BBC (10 minutes is usually about as long as I can manage to keep listening to radio news), but I keep checking it for bias. Mind you, it’s not good for my blood pressure.
Re not watching the BBC, I gave up TV permanently about 10 yrs ago. I don’t even have an old one in the house any more.
When I am curious about what is going on in the world, I’ll peek at Twitter to get an idea of what is current, hit a few news websites I have bookmarked or turn on a local radio station. I have found myself feeling a whole lot better when not bombarded by the continual biased attitudes of the main stream media. Looking and finding out what I need when I need to know it has made a big difference. Part of that difference is not relying on the so-called expertise of what ever talking head is reading off of their teleprompter. If I need back grounding on whatever the topic, I can spend as much time or as little looking into it as I need. I am not dependent upon the “reporter” knowing what they are talking about.
This has made me so much happier in my own day to day life.
Oh, as for TV’s other programming … I haven’t missed anything in ten years now. Don’t miss it a bit. As for what little I would like to watch (Superbowl, perhaps, for example), I can usually find it on the web, or find someplace I can go to watch.
Jo, I have been following this too. I agree pretty much with it, but I am still not so sure that all the chaotic elements of the environment will ever be able to be reduced to a circumstance that will enable modeling with any degree of effectiveness.
I am also convinced that there is more to the earth’s molten core heating and that it is being overlooked. This issue boils down to the fact that yes, the sun can heat the surface, atmosphere and the oceans, but with the temperature of the earth core being what it is, no amount of solar radiance can ever replace it. (Get the surface hot enough to re-melt the core, for example, and there will be no life anyway.)
If (a big IF admittedly) the earth core is cooling, all this AGW dogfight is for nothing. We do not know enough, near as I can tell, about the earth core to even begin to say one way or another.
Is the earth core temperature constant, or does it vary? Has it cooled some in the recent past (i.e. ice ages) and then warmed up some? Is there a connection between the Sun and the other planets which can modulate how much heat leaves the core of the earth?
As a possible example, can Eddy heating within the mantle alter the rate at which heat passes to the surface? When you have gigawatts of electrical energy flowing through various places in the core and possibly in the mantle (i.e. the cause of Earth’s magnetic field) you are going to have eddy currents. Eddy currents heat things up. They can move depending on how the magnetic field interacts with surrounding materials. (PDO? NAO? El Nino / La Nina?)
The planets molten core is not cooling , it is molten due to due our mass , our iron / magma core , the gravitational tidal forces of the Sun and to a lesser extent the moon , i.e. friction and pressure . You are probably aware of Earth’s axial tilt , elliptical orbit and axial precession , these act together with solar cycles to form cycles which affect Earth to varying degrees .The heat within is created within , we exist on the crust of of a ball of lava basically . If a celestial body accumulates enough mass , it will “ignite” and become a sun , If Jupiter were about 60 times bigger , it would reach fusion reaction point . You needn’t worry about the core cooling , not for a very , very long time .
Interestingly, one of the things that I thought was, how many average volcano’s, and other thermal events does it take to exceed all the CO2 output from human activities?, but I guess that the mathematicians and geologists should have that figured out, but I find it strange that the people spouting all this information, and disinformation never seem to mention it, apparently its all down to us bad, bad, humans and our nefarious activities, History and some very clever scientist who are looking at the evidence from Ice Cores, laid down over a very long period, tell us a completely different story from that being pushed by most authorities.
Like global temperature they only measure a small fraction of the gases being evolved, so they really have no clue of the total amount. And like global cooling, they don’t want to know it exists, so they absolutely refuse to fund research that would show it exists.
So, unless or until we stop having politically motivated science research we’ll never know.
Im sure it was intentional to begin with, time to build another model with the fix hidden better..