cancel2 2022
Canceled
I wonder if McAwful's dad knows some of these people. Of course they aren't allowed any opinion on CO2 climate forcing, according to him and Spruce, because they are not trained climatologists. Well guess what they went ahead and calculated the likely temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 anyway.
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project
THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President
Bounding the Fear:
Last week’s TWTW discussed a presentation by Hal Doiron of The Right Climate Stuff Team (TRCS). TRCS is a group of retired and highly experienced engineers and scientists from the Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle and International Space Station eras who have volunteered their time and effort to conduct an objective, independent assessment of the carbon dioxide (CO2)-caused global warming to assess the reality of the actual threat, and separate that from unnecessary alarm. They have applied the techniques they learned for space missions to this task.
A rough engineering analogy is: How can they be confident that an astronaut will not cook or freeze in a space station or a space suit?
As a young engineer, Doiron approached the modelling of the lunar lander by bounding the risks. Similarly, he approached the problem of what would happen, in the worst case, with a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) by establishing an upper bound. The team created a simple, rigorous earth surface model using principles established in Conservation of Energy. He shows how the model is validated using 165 years of atmospheric greenhouse gas data and HadCRUT surface temperature data.
The worst-case scenario is that if all the temperature rise since 1850 is from CO2 increase in the atmosphere, then doubling would result in an increase of temperatures no greater than 1.8 degrees C, and may be far less. Given the extent of the data and conservation of energy principles, the digit to the right of the decimal point is significant. [Last week, this number was omitted from the TWTW text.] From today, the net increase the estimate is no greater than 1 degree C.
With Doiron’s approach, there is no need to be bogged down in the Kiehl – Trenberth general model, for which there are no accurate measurements for some of the key energy flows. For example, with the Kiehl – Trenberth model, we cannot guess with sufficient accuracy the values of all the energy flows needed to produce meaningful result. After 37 years, the failure to significantly narrow the range given for a doubling of CO2 in the Charney Report shows that Kiehl – Trenberth approach is futile, though used by the climate establishment.
The TRCS approach is empirical, based on the best long-term surface temperature data available. One must realize that the surface data has issues, such as human change in land use, influences by changes the oceans, changes in solar activity, etc. There may be reasons to continue to monitor the temperature trends, but no reason to fear the influence of CO2.
###################################################
Quote of the Week. “As usual, nature’s imagination far surpasses our own, as we have seen from the other theories which are subtle and deep”― Richard Feynman
###################################################
Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project
THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President
Bounding the Fear:
Last week’s TWTW discussed a presentation by Hal Doiron of The Right Climate Stuff Team (TRCS). TRCS is a group of retired and highly experienced engineers and scientists from the Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle and International Space Station eras who have volunteered their time and effort to conduct an objective, independent assessment of the carbon dioxide (CO2)-caused global warming to assess the reality of the actual threat, and separate that from unnecessary alarm. They have applied the techniques they learned for space missions to this task.
A rough engineering analogy is: How can they be confident that an astronaut will not cook or freeze in a space station or a space suit?
As a young engineer, Doiron approached the modelling of the lunar lander by bounding the risks. Similarly, he approached the problem of what would happen, in the worst case, with a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) by establishing an upper bound. The team created a simple, rigorous earth surface model using principles established in Conservation of Energy. He shows how the model is validated using 165 years of atmospheric greenhouse gas data and HadCRUT surface temperature data.
The worst-case scenario is that if all the temperature rise since 1850 is from CO2 increase in the atmosphere, then doubling would result in an increase of temperatures no greater than 1.8 degrees C, and may be far less. Given the extent of the data and conservation of energy principles, the digit to the right of the decimal point is significant. [Last week, this number was omitted from the TWTW text.] From today, the net increase the estimate is no greater than 1 degree C.
With Doiron’s approach, there is no need to be bogged down in the Kiehl – Trenberth general model, for which there are no accurate measurements for some of the key energy flows. For example, with the Kiehl – Trenberth model, we cannot guess with sufficient accuracy the values of all the energy flows needed to produce meaningful result. After 37 years, the failure to significantly narrow the range given for a doubling of CO2 in the Charney Report shows that Kiehl – Trenberth approach is futile, though used by the climate establishment.
The TRCS approach is empirical, based on the best long-term surface temperature data available. One must realize that the surface data has issues, such as human change in land use, influences by changes the oceans, changes in solar activity, etc. There may be reasons to continue to monitor the temperature trends, but no reason to fear the influence of CO2.
###################################################
Quote of the Week. “As usual, nature’s imagination far surpasses our own, as we have seen from the other theories which are subtle and deep”― Richard Feynman
###################################################
Thank you!!!!