Does anyone at #ringberg have any relevent qualification, experience or expertise?

Looking down the list of speakers at Ringberg today, it struck me that not one of them was an engineer and none of them seemed to have any relevant qualifications or experience in feedback systems. So if they aren’t trained how to undestand such systems and don’t have any experience with such systems how can any of them claim any expertise that would be necessary for their views to have any credibility?

So, I thought I would ask some simple questions (not that I’m likely to get response):

1. Please tell me who present at RingBerg has ever had any formal training in analysing systems with feedback as you are discussing?

2. Please tell me who present has had any experience with systems with feedback? (Ideally ones with involving temperature such as temperature control – and your home central heating does not apply!)

3. Why were the policy makers misled about climate sensitivity and not told the “hard science” only supports CO2 warming of ~1C?

The only bit of the global warming propaganda that can even remotely be called “hard science” is the calculation of the effect of CO2 without feedbacks (which are the highly speculative subject of Ringberg). The direct effect of CO2 can be calculated based on spectral data, and it is the only reasonably confident figure available.

So why were policy makers never made aware of this figure? As far as I can tell the actual estimated impact of CO2 was only ever given once, using obscure language an in a footnote.

To my mind this is clear proof that the lack of “hard science” behind climate sensitivity was intentionally with-held from policy makers.

4. Why do the IPCC still use the 1998 HITRAN database for its CO2 calculations

As I understand the work of Professor Hermann Harde, the main reason his estimates of the effect of CO2 are around 30% lower than those given by the IPCC is simply that he alone is using the “latest” version of the HITRAN spectral database. However, this is not at all new having been around since 2007. In contrast, the IPCC are using 16 year old data from ~1998.

Put simply, this means all estimates of global warming would drop by 30% if the IPCC used the later HITRAN data for the CO2 spectral emissions and absorption.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>