Tuesday, 27 October 2015

THE BATTLE AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING IS A "COSTLY CRUSADE" SAY FRENCH MATHEMATICIANS

Here is a link to the paper written by some eminent French mathematicians. There conclusions are robustly expressed and a lot of people will agree with them. After the recent book by the French weather forecaster, we are beginning to see that even in Europe there are more people prepared to say what many are thinking. Bravo!


2 comments:

  1. E-Mail to The Société de Calcul Mathématique SA,:
    Part 1

    Dr Norman Page
    Houston

    Gentlemen
    The entire UNFCCC Global Warming Meme, based on CO2 as the main climate driver, has no foundation in empirical science and its current adoption as the basis for the worlds climate and energy policy should be exposed as the most colossally expensive failure of establishment science ever seen.
    I would be happy to collaborate with any further efforts you may undertake with view to destroying the scientific reputation of this house of cards.
    For my views see the series of posts on my blog at :
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

    Here is an E-mail exchange with Professor Freeman Dyson which summarizes the current situation.

    “Climate and CO2- Exchange with Freeman Dyson
    E-mail 4/7/15
    Dr Norman Page
    Houston
    Professor Dyson
    Saw your Vancouver Sun interview.
    I agree that CO2 is beneficial. This will be even more so in future because it is more likely than not that the earth has already entered a long term cooling trend following the recent temperature peak in the quasi-millennial solar driven periodicity .
    The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted.
    For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part 2
      The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the activity peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
      There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.
      The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.

      I would be very happy to discuss this with you by E-mail or phone .It is important that you use your position and visibility to influence United States government policy and also change the perceptions of the MSM and U.S public in this matter. If my forecast cooling actually occurs the policy of CO2 emission reduction will add to the increasing stress on global food production caused by a cooling and generally more arid climate.
      Best Regards
      Norman Page

      E-Mail 4/9/15
      Dear Norman Page,

      Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
      I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
      not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
      I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
      with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
      but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
      glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
      all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson.

      Email 4/9/15

      Professor Dyson Would you have any objection to my posting our email exchange on my blog?
      > Best Regards Norman Page

      E-Mail 4/9/15

      Yes, you are welcome to post this exchange any way you like. Thank you
      for asking. Yours, Freeman Dyson.”

      The UNFCCC,the consensus CAGW academic science establishment and their friends in the MSM are now producing a torrent of scary propaganda in advance of the Paris conference.
      It would be helpful if some organization or a group of empirical scientists could organize, and widely distribute in the media, a signed statement which calls into question the CAGW meme as a basis for climate and energy policy.

      Delete

Climate Science welcomes your views/messages.