Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:08 AM Oct 2015

CO2 not really responsible for climate change, says mathematician.

A 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.
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.
“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.


So, what is behind climate change?

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.

He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021.
The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.

http://www.ntnews.com.au/lifestyle/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnk0b1ks-1227555674611

23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CO2 not really responsible for climate change, says mathematician. (Original Post) dixiegrrrrl Oct 2015 OP
Hypotheses are welcome, even if nonsense. immoderate Oct 2015 #1
Have you read the pinned posts at the top of the EE group? kristopher Oct 2015 #7
Ah so. But consider the nature of hypotheses. immoderate Oct 2015 #9
What nature is that? OKIsItJustMe Oct 2015 #17
I don't think you can assign a validity value to something that is hypothetical. It's hypothetical. immoderate Oct 2015 #18
Sure you can… OKIsItJustMe Oct 2015 #21
But if glaciers were made of cotton candy, then they would taste good. immoderate Oct 2015 #22
Is he a mathematician or an electrical engineer? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Oct 2015 #2
"He has been summarising his results in a series of blog posts." DetlefK Oct 2015 #3
Have his discoveries been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed climatology journal? hatrack Oct 2015 #4
married to leading Aussie climate denier greenman3610 Oct 2015 #5
aha...... dixiegrrrrl Oct 2015 #14
This particular Gish Gallop pscot Oct 2015 #6
ty for the info. dixiegrrrrl Oct 2015 #15
My pleasure , ma'am. pscot Oct 2015 #16
There is nothing quite so foolish as a right wing engineer. BillZBubb Oct 2015 #8
Crazy! Everone knows global warming is caused by N-Rays interacting with Orgone energy. Binkie The Clown Oct 2015 #10
"He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued" NickB79 Oct 2015 #11
Denier JohnyCanuck posted this the other day Duppers Oct 2015 #12
Yeah...I did not know who the guy was at all....so got the feedback here. dixiegrrrrl Oct 2015 #19
Good idea! Duppers Oct 2015 #20
"He established Goldnerds, an information service for gold investors." hunter Oct 2015 #13
'Solar activity' again...... blackspade Oct 2015 #23

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
7. Have you read the pinned posts at the top of the EE group?
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:20 AM
Oct 2015

I wouldn't say such nonsense is welcome.

Poll: Should climate deniers be allowed to post in E&E?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112771413


The OP is the second time this garbage has circulated.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112791882

Here is a reply found and posted by murielvolestrangler.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112791882#post12


The "F" is for "fuckwit"

Force F from outer space
Posted by William M. Connolley on October 4, 2015

Most normal people would have been content to have produced one game-changing theory of climate but David Evans is not a normal person. No! He has squillions of degrees from Really Prestigious universities and has, on his own, invented entire new types of Fourier analysis. So it is with no surprise – rather, with a dull grey sense of the inevitable – that I note (thank you JM and ATTP) that his latest theory has thunked onto the doormat like junk mail. ATTP attempts to make some sense of DE’s confusion over partial derivatives – they’re the work of the devil I tell you – and I’ll try to point out the more obvious errors in New Science 7: Rerouting Feedback in Climate Models.

Let’s start with the first sentence: All the establishment models assume carbon dioxide warms the sky, which leads to the surface warming...
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2015/10/04/force-f-from-outer-space/

OKIsItJustMe

(19,933 posts)
17. What nature is that?
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 12:13 AM
Oct 2015

No, seriously... Are you suggesting that all hypotheses equally valid or something like that?

 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
18. I don't think you can assign a validity value to something that is hypothetical. It's hypothetical.
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 12:54 AM
Oct 2015

And science can't work without hypotheses. Don't confuse hypothesizing with validating.

Example: "If people could fly, (hypothesis) then roads would be less congested. (conclusion)"

The statement is true, but does not validate the premise. I am suggesting that in science, that nothing is automatic. But I'm not going abductive on you.

--imm

OKIsItJustMe

(19,933 posts)
21. Sure you can…
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 06:12 PM
Oct 2015

Your example is not valid. (The whole sentence would be the hypothesis, if… then…)

http://www.britannica.com/topic/scientific-hypothesis

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Scientific hypothesis[/font]

Written by: Kara Rogers

[font size=3]Scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If...then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation. The notion of the scientific hypothesis as both falsifiable and testable was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper.

The formulation and testing of a hypothesis is part of the scientific method, the approach scientists use when attempting to understand and test ideas about natural phenomena. The generation of a hypothesis frequently is described as a creative process and is based on existing scientific knowledge, intuition, or experience. Therefore, although scientific hypotheses commonly are described as educated guesses, they actually are more informed than a guess. In addition, scientists generally strive to develop simple hypotheses, since these are easier to test relative to hypotheses that involve many different variables and potential outcomes. Such complex hypotheses may be developed as scientific models (see scientific modeling).

Depending on the results of scientific evaluation, a hypothesis typically is either rejected as false or accepted as true. However, because a hypothesis inherently is falsifiable, even hypotheses supported by scientific evidence and accepted as true are susceptible to rejection later, when new evidence has become available. In some instances, rather than rejecting a hypothesis because it has been falsified by new evidence, scientists simply adapt the existing idea to accommodate the new information. In this sense a hypothesis is never incorrect but only incomplete.

The investigation of scientific hypotheses is an important component in the development of scientific theory. Hence, hypotheses differ fundamentally from theories; whereas the former is a specific tentative explanation and serves as the main tool by which scientists gather data, the latter is a broad general explanation that incorporates data from many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses.

…[/font][/font]



If a hypothesis is framed around something which is contrary to known fact (e.g. “If glaciers were made of cotton candy…”) then it is worthless.
 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
22. But if glaciers were made of cotton candy, then they would taste good.
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 09:15 PM
Oct 2015

Wouldn't they?

Hypothesis is not limited to the definition you provided. I'll admit to being a bit flippant, though.

--imm

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
2. Is he a mathematician or an electrical engineer?
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:18 AM
Oct 2015

And quite frankly, even if he's right, 20% is still a pretty big impact, and might mean the difference between an extinction event and continued survival of large species around the globe.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
3. "He has been summarising his results in a series of blog posts."
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:21 AM
Oct 2015
He is about half way through his series, with blog post 8, “Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth”, published on Friday. When it is completed his work will be published as two scientific papers. Both papers are undergoing peer review.

Translation: So far, he got nuthin'. He hasn't even finished writing the papers, which means, they can't be currently in peer-review.
He's. Got. Nothing.

1. There is no plateau in global temperatures.

2. Is he proposing a physical effect that causes this "albedo modulation"?

3. "There is a mathematical error and he fixed it." Yeah, that's really vague.

hatrack

(59,442 posts)
4. Have his discoveries been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed climatology journal?
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:28 AM
Oct 2015

It's OK, I'll wait.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
8. There is nothing quite so foolish as a right wing engineer.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:28 AM
Oct 2015

Maybe a fundy brain surgeon, but not much else.

Binkie The Clown

(7,911 posts)
10. Crazy! Everone knows global warming is caused by N-Rays interacting with Orgone energy.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 01:16 PM
Oct 2015

That was proven clear back in 1903, but establishment science hid the results from the public and silenced anyone who challenged their authority.

( in case anyone thought otherwise)

NickB79

(19,114 posts)
11. "He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued"
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:25 PM
Oct 2015
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-2015-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record-by-a-mile-experts-say-10477138.html

Climate scientists are predicting that 2015 will be the hottest year on record “by a mile”, with the increase in worldwide average temperatures dramatically undermining the idea that global warming has stopped – as some climate-change sceptics claim.

Even though there are still several months left in the year to gather temperature readings from around the world, climate researchers believe nothing short of a Krakatoa-sized volcanic eruption that cuts out sunlight for months on end can now stop last year’s record being beaten.


Mr. Evans is so full of shit, I can smell him all the way up here in Minnesota.

hunter

(38,264 posts)
13. "He established Goldnerds, an information service for gold investors."
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 06:07 PM
Oct 2015

That's all I need to get me

Here's his website.

http://sciencespeak.com/about.html

It's all a show at the circus, as the world burns.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»CO2 not really responsibl...