05-10-2008, 08:28 AM
|
 |
Sr. Correspondent
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New England
Age: 57
Posts: 749
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Peabody
Quote:
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – 4:44 PM ET
Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
“Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol..
|
|
You do realize how Schwartz came to those conclusions. right. Let me give you a hint: It's a method you've been ranting about its inaccuracies.
Priceless
And there's already a rebuttal with 4 authors:
Quote:
6. Conclusions
S07 has proposed an analysis method based on approximating the climate system as a linear trend plus an autoregressive process of order 1, forced by random noise. There are strong physical arguments why this approach is likely to be an oversimplification, and as we have shown, the data contradict this hypothesis. The S07 analysis method generates strongly biased results when applied to a climate model of known sensitivity, and even when applied to the simple energy balance model S07 invokes to justify the approach. In fact the S07 method for estimating the time scale of an AR(1) process is strongly biased for realistic parameter values, and we have provided a simple demonstration and explanation of this effect. We suggest that such credibility checks, which are not difficult
|
We'll see how you're linked study holds up to further invesigation.
__________________
Divide and rule, the politician cries;
unite and lead, is watchword of the wise.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
|