Bookmark and Share ALB

Testing times for environmental law practices


By Ralph Grayden | Monday, 13 July 2009
Font size:


Bookmark and Share ALB
Font size:
Click here to close


Latest comments


What global warming? NucEngineer | 13/07/2009
There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved. None of the computer models replicate this fact.

The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20 different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements.

The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.

The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.
Report this comment | Hide
Global Warming is a long-term trend. It refers to Climate of decades not years..... Simon Nulty | 14/07/2009
Climate refers to a trend over decades, not years. Yes, there has been 'relative' cooling over the last 8 years or so, but this is insignificant.

Over the past 80 years or so there has been a marked increase in average temperatures. The increase in temperatures has also been determined to exceed natural events (such as sunspot activity and Milankovitch cycles).

Earth's climate has seen numerous radical and devastating changes over millions of years, all of which were the result of natural processes. The processes include negative and positive feedback systems (like CO2 dissolution in the oceans, thermal expansion, sea level change, reflection from polar caps, changes to weather that affect vegetation growth etc.) These processes are triggered fundamentally by independent forces such as the Earth's orbit, axis tilt, distance from the sun, and solar activity. And all of these processes have had impacts on the Earth's climate over thousands and millions of years.

Since the Industrial Revolution however, we have seen a NEW force that is affecting these natural processes. And that is the release of excess CO2 into the atmosphere, caused by human activity.

Yes, CO2 levels have changed naturally, and been higher - millions of years ago before humans could have survived - but this is the point, We are now increasing CO2 levels again to levels that preceded human existence.

Scientists by no means claim that human activity has caused 100% of the climate change directly. They only claim that the human activity (increased CO2) has enhanced natural processes which has triggered other natural runaway processes, resulting in climate change - change that would not have happened if humans hadn't triggered it by releasing excess CO2. Humans are thus responsible for the recent (last 80 years) climate change that has been in excess of natural processes.

Despite the trend of the last 8 years (insignificant), the trend of the last 80 years (significant) is concerning. The sudden change (over such a short time frame - time frame is important) in average temperatures is unprecedented over the last 800 thousand years. The best explanation is anthropogenic (human) acitvity that has unnaturally increased CO2 levels in excess of natural change, increasing the Greenhouse Effect, which has triggered and enhanced natural processes resulting in changes to the climate that exceed natural processes of change.
Report this comment | Hide

Leave your comment


Name *
Comment title
Comment *
Your IP address is 38.107.191.115 - this will not be published, but will be recorded in the event of a complaint about your posting.


Lawyer - EL 1 - 12/03/2010

Pitching for legal work - do we have to?
Ashley Balls commented: The whole cumbersome process of pitching for work is at one level ...
We love Mallies, say mid-tier lawyers
Mr Peanut commented: How does the impression of a person who has not worked at a parti ...
Alternative billing: the ball’s in our court, says GC
Marina Wilson commented: This is a topic I am very interested to hear more about from NSW ...
ANALYSIS: Alternative billing – a GFC phenomenon, or here to stay?
Natasha Scott commented: Some Australian firms have been using sophisticated tools to scop ...
Real estate practices to reap foreign windfall
USA Lending and Realty commented: Working with overseas client does not mean is gonna help stabiliz ...


RSS news feed