This video shows how real science is actually conducted. This is real science and applied mathematical physics applied to the climate problem, something that should have been done 20 years ago and never was, and was instead covered up. It totally exposes the fraud and lack of any sort of scientific analysis that should have been done by the IPCC, and that all of the alarmism was fabricated outside of any true scientific process.
The only thing would be to get this guy to look at the energy budget he cites and think about if it actually makes sense (it doesn’t!). Then, get him to read my paper and do the appropriate math to solve the local real-time heat flow problem etc.
Enjoy the next hour, I promise it will be worth it:
This should have been rewarding for mathematical ontologists 🙂
As I have commented elsewhere, he started well fell at the last post. He exposes the CO2 rubbish and then ends using the same model that started it all. His lecture tecnique needs to be improved as well those pregnant pauses were too long.
This is a great presentation, however, I am still put off by it a little in that it seems Salby still believes there is a GHE. Isn’t he just in the same camp as Watt’s et al? ie: There is a GHE, just not as much warming as alarmists claim, kind of thing.
I would also add, he is definitely spot on in regard to so-called “climate models” … they are pure junk!
This has shut them all up good and proper, Joe! I’ve never seen one of your posts go so long without a comment.
I did see this clip on Goddard’s No Tricks Zone site and not having much time then, took his advice to view just the last ten minutes. I’ve now watched the lot and am glad I did. Of course the maths are beyond me but do not prevent me from following the very clear discourse.
And of course you won’t get no ontology from me… Semantics, maybe.
A glaring case of the “truth as we see it”:
in presenting the proxy (ice core) record (about14min 40″ into the clip, Salby seems to visualise the ice in the core as “having descended”, whereas what would logically seem to have happened is accumulation of fresh snow on top, as he says, more or less porous leading to loss of some trapped air including CO2. Thus, as more snow and compacted snow accumulated (piling up on top, more than sinking down), that would have compressed the lower layers until they would have reached the limit of compression.
In a quite different field, some years ago I studied the evolution of musical string tensions in order to find optimum calibres for various pitches for gut strings of a fixed length (32cm), i.e. various aspect ratios. I found that for a fine chanterelle string of .058 mm, a limit of stretch, (or “saturation” level in resistance to tension increase) came at around 6 kg; the pitch of the note refusing to rise was a corresponding indication. Beyond that point, added tension had no effect on stretch/pitch-of-note until the string snapped at around 7kg. So I can well imagine a similar phenomenon applying to maximum pressure possible where compression would reach a “saturation” level and then would cease to increase.
I don’t know if that would influence the conclusions Salby reaches… probably not but I have always believed in a multi-facetted approach to any given problem. Richard Feynman talks about that towards the end of his lecture on “Seeking new laws” :Feynman http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/#data=4%7C4dbfe549-e795-47a0-bda2-9597fe5bb344%7C%7C – (16 minutes in approx.)
And yes, Salby’s energy budget just reproduces the same old fallacy. You should send him one or two of your articles and see how he reacts
Excellent presentation by Professor Salby. Some of the math was over my head. But the logic and the implications were not. I hope this video receives a wide distribution.
Toward the end: when he quotes Feynman:
If it DISAGREES with OBSERVATIONS:
That’s all there is to it.
Here’s another one.
This guy’s an Italian.
He doesn’t speak native English.
Nevertheless I tell you, this is a must watch presentation too.
He is talking about “OSCillations” – it sounds like ‘isolations.’
When he says ‘CURVE’ it’s hard to make out,
when he says INDUCED it’s hard to make out he says ‘in dew sed’
When he says “Heliosphere” he’s coming again from Latin he says “AY-LEE-Yos-feer”
At 20:00 MINUTES, get ready for these words: “You get… THIS BLACK LINE.”
It’s 28 minutes long
on the effect of, the total weight at a given instant,
of the rest of the solar system, and it’s pull on, the internal, mass-driven gravitational center,
of the sun.
Particularly when a couple of gas giants are close to the sun, this guy says, we’re affected.
He states 9, 10-11, 20-22 30, 60, 200, and 1000 year intervals drive the earth global climate, having to do with the moon (9 year)
and then the other gas giants, with the SIXTY year cycle, being one of the most easy to check since we have multiples of sixty years, many times in the earth’s known-decent instrumental record.
He shows how he drops the sixty year phase back a single interval and can overlap, then goes on to his “You get THIS…black line” crescendo. Woa.
It’s pretty impressive. Warning: lull time for the first 18 minutes or so – as he develops his setup.
Do NOT be fooled.
You will NOT want your 28 minutes back, I guarantee you that.
Your film shows how many ways he CO2 fantasy can be shown just plain wrong,
“The Climate Oscillations: Analysis, Implications, and Their Astronomical Origins”
I hope you enjoy this one Joseph.
A. B. Eltor
By the way I’m not really what you could call a sun cycles guy, I came across Scafetta over at Twerk’s place. I knew a long long time ago, when the Al Gore come back tour kicked off and he started talking all that crazy stuff about thuH saMARTISTT MINN in thuH WERLd, FOW’LKS!”
that everybody who checked around agreed, the sun guys were the hardest to bet against but that they didn’t have really defined cycles down.
I see above at Scafetta’s talk they’ve progressed just skads and skads.
Scafetta is at Duke University, I don’t have the original link from Twerk’s site; it was a paper Scafetta wrote, about how, three frequencies were the smallest number of cycles (derived from gravitational moment of celestial bodies within the solar system) that one can consistently use, to simply project the global temp within a close range of observed reality.
The paper was okay but watching him deal with his frequencies I could see he’s a real analyst so I scanned down his home page and the very first one I chose, was the one above.
Turned out that all the rest were much less to the point OR, they were in Italian, OR, the sound quality was abysmal, OR they were just PDFs that didn’t have the same sizzle.
If I’d have selected a couple of other links by chance – I just hunted and went *THIS* one first –
I’d have left his page thinking “Yeah, whatever.”
Hope you enjoy his talk.
[JP: Thanks, I will!]
Not sure where else to put this, but I figured you’d appreciate it: http://worrydream.com/KillMath/
[JP: Nice. That fellow may be able to help me :)]
Very nice!! Esp. his closing statements regarding “cult science” and the requirement for the science to match the observations!
Admittedly, the finer details of the mathematical equations would take me some time to decipher, however, the main point is very compelling. In particular, that CO2 levels lag with temperature changes. The fact that there is quadratic phase lag in CO2 levels to Temperature should convince anyone who thinks it’s the other way around to change their mind. Unfortunately, I think it may be too far gone. They have already drank the IPCC cool-aid!!!
In any case, based on the idea of phase lag for CO2 levels, I was wondering if anyone has ever correlated the Sun’s output record with Earth’s temperature record. I imagine there might be a slight phase lag involved with this too but it would be great to see if it all cues up and further proves that the Sun heats the earth!
Sun Increases output > Earths Temperature Increases > CO2 levels increase >Earth actually cools as a result!
That’s a system that seems intuitive! That CO2 levels increase and decrease naturally as a result of Earth’s temperature and NATURAL CO2 levels (i.e. not the negligible 4% of human emissions) increase or decrease to regulate temperature. Acting as sort of a thermostat in a car. ( I hope that statement does not induce a 5million word debate on car thermostats and radiators! lol!)
[JP: Yes indeed that is how a natural system operates. Indeed the Earth temperatures do follow solar activity of VARIOUS types of its activity; also including orbital variations in the Earth about the Sun…the orbit isn’t perfectly static or fixed, it wiggles around a bit. This is something that the greenhouse people and climate science tries desperately to deny and cover up. In fact, their initial starting point for everything they did afterwards was to literally say that the Sun had no influence on the climate at all! In their models, the AIR provides twice as much heat as the Sun…lol. IDIOTS. Disgusting idiots.]
I can’t believe that the idea of the sun heating the earth needs to be proved………….
Yeah Bart, I can’t either, but the sad fact is, it evidently does. … To quote a prominent scientist that frequents this blog “Disgusting idiots” …
Allen Eltor, Thanks for the Scafetta link
My pleasure John
How is this for showing how much the anti-science people at a university fear what Murry Salby has to say …
The opposite of diversity is university.
Wow. Universities are bastions of the walking dead. Literally, the whole modern academic enterprise is based on the premise that humans have neither minds nor souls, and so, quite directly, they represent the front-lines of the zombie hordes.