Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumCO2 not really responsible for climate change, says mathematician.
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 climates sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
Yes, CO2 has an effect, but its 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?
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
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
kristopher
(29,798 posts)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"
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 DEs confusion over partial derivatives theyre the work of the devil I tell you and Ill try to point out the more obvious errors in New Science 7: Rerouting Feedback in Climate Models.
Lets start with the first sentence: All the establishment models assume carbon dioxide warms the sky, which leads to the surface warming...
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
OKIsItJustMe
(19,933 posts)No, seriously... Are you suggesting that all hypotheses equally valid or something like that?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)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)Your example is not valid. (The whole sentence would be the hypothesis, if
then
)
http://www.britannica.com/topic/scientific-hypothesis
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)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)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)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)It's OK, I'll wait.
greenman3610
(3,947 posts)Jo Nova
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)THAT is interesting.
pscot
(21,023 posts)has been out there for 5 years, at least, and it's been thoroughly debunked.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)pscot
(21,023 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Maybe a fundy brain surgeon, but not much else.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)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)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 years record being beaten.
Mr. Evans is so full of shit, I can smell him all the way up here in Minnesota.
Duppers
(28,094 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Duppers
(28,094 posts)Some put it to him straight though.
hunter
(38,264 posts)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.