Aplicación de la nueva tecnología llamada “red neuronal artificial” en la evaluación del paradigma actual del calentamiento global (parte III).

Para escuchar el episodio completo puede darle click al título “sensibilidad climática” que se encuentra en la sección “podcast” en este mismo sitio web

TRANSCRIPT OF THE EPISODE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE.

Presentation and introduction      0:00

Our prayers have been these days for the victims of Hurricane Ian that hit us a few days ago. The same for our brothers in Puerto Rico who recently suffered from Hurricane Fiona.

Hurricanes are common natural phenomena in our area. In this century, Florida has had about 79 major hurricanes, that is between categories 1 to 5. Of these, 52 have been related to deaths and great destruction. The number of deaths from the latter, which entered the State as category 4, is 77 so far. It is estimated that 40 billion dollars have been lost.

There is a lot of talk about this, which is really important. But what is not talked about is that in the last 9 years the population of Florida has grown by 16%, and it is known that in this last year it has grown enormously. The area of ​​Ft. Myers and surroundings that was the most affected had gone from being, in the last 5 years, an area with relatively few structures, to a huge tourism, structural and population development pole, at the time it was hit by the hurricane.

Sixty years ago and more, numerous hurricanes of equal or greater intensity had passed through the city where I live, but this did not exist, so the effects of these have not even been recorded. It was just a set of pastures and now it is a huge development pole. Hurricanes are components of a climate that by nature has cyclical and natural changes. These have always existed and will continue to exist, but their effects may be felt more and more as they come across more and more populated places.

For this reason, speaking of hurricanes and their growing effects as a product of global warming produced by human beings becomes misleading and even false, since numerous factors related to these events are omitted.

Hello, welcome to the 38th episode of our THE GREATEST  SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS podcast, and the 10th of our second season. I am your host, Dr. Esteban Morales van Kwartel.

In the last two episodes I have referred to the study carried out by 2 Australian scientists who, based on the temperatures of the last 10,000 years, concluded that climate change is cyclical and of natural origin; that the warming is due to natural forces and not anthropogenic, and that the rate of warming is much lower than that calculated by the IPCC. In the previous episode I delved into the first two. Today I refer to the third conclusion.

Topic 1      3:18

To put the issue in context, it is important to be clear that the IPCC paradigm not only attributes warming to greenhouse gases, especially CO2 produced by human activity, but also refers to dangerous warming that will lead to humanity to die in a fireball in a relatively short time. The issue of the intensity of warming is the component of the paradigm that arouses the most anxiety and terror in the population. The IPCC bases its paradigm on the calculation of an indicator called “climate sensitivity”.

To understand the rest of what I am going to talk about, it is necessary to explain this concept.

In an equilibrium state, there is a global mean air temperature near the earth’s surface. This temperature is sensitive to the action of certain factors, in this case, carbon dioxide, which causes this average temperature to vary due to variations in its concentrations. This degree of temperature variation produced by variations in its concentrations is known as “climatic sensitivity”. This is calculated using certain techniques, measuring the variation produced in this global average temperature by a sustained doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Well, IPCC using the same antiquated technique from the 1970s, which we described in a previous episode, known as the “general circulation model”, calculated this change in equilibrium as a rise of 3.2°C, and later recalculated it as 3.7 °C THIS IS AWESOMELY HIGH.

In the research paper I describe, the estimate for this “climate sensitivity” was 0.6°C; this means that doubling the CO2 concentrations produces an increase in the mean temperature rate of 0.6°C. This is obviously much lower than the IPCC estimate, which makes a difference between dangerous and non-dangerous warming.

There is also a huge difference between the two techniques used.

In the described study, as we said, the “artificial neural network” technique based on artificial intelligence was used. This was very accurately calculated because the model used could effectively reproduce historical temperature profiles, making this a “dynamic” technique. These historical profiles indicate that before industrialization the climate underwent oscillations of up to approximately 1 °C at both sides of a mean value, and that this pattern continued into the 20th century. This number indicates the existence of great climatic variability.

In other words, the climate varies greatly over time between hot and cold; therefore, it cannot be directed to the hot side only, but to both sides, meaning that the average heating rate cannot be directed to the hot side only. This was what gave rise to a mean or average rate of 0.6°C.

Topic 2      8:32

Numerous studies have suggested why the technique used by the IPCC was so flawed in calculating “climate sensitivity.” Remember that this is related to the relationship of CO2 with temperature.

According to some studies, this is perhaps because an important limitation of the IPCC techniques, which we recall are the “general circulation models (GCM)”, is that they do not adequately generate the necessary amplitude of the temperature oscillations that appear in historical records obtained by archaeological biological methods that are forensic methods and that go back several millennia. This affected the average rate calculated by them, giving rise to a higher value than it is.

Some other authors list the following as causes of these inaccuracies:

For these physical models, such as those used by the IPCC, to be valid, in terms of future projections, they would have to have incorporated not only the many physical processes involved in determining climate, but also all the important chemical and biological processes. And this was not so.

The aforementioned prevents these models from being dynamic. And it happens that for predictability to be possible, the models have to be dynamic, like the one used in the study I described. The IPCC models are purely passive.

Another of the most important problems of the models used by the IPCC is given by the fact that they do not allow adequate simulation of important elements of the climate system, such as pressure, wind, clouds, temperature, precipitation, ocean currents, sea ice, etc.

Conclusions and farewell      11:16

The analysis of all the above has led many authors to conclude that, since the great climatic variability observed since medieval times can only be correctly interpreted as the result of natural variations, such as solar variability and others, it means that climate models IPCC have underestimated these variables by a factor of 3 to 6 and simultaneously the effects of CO2 have been overestimated by at least a factor of 2.

Finally, it should be added that this calculation of climate sensitivity, presented in the study in reference, and its effects on the global temperature of the earth, largely coincide with what was calculated by numerous forensic methods, but even more importantly by the real measurements that have been made during the last two centuries.

What is presented today and what I will present in the future is in more detail in my book: THE TWO GREATEST SCIENTIFIC FRAUD OF THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURIES. This can be purchased as a physical book, or as an ebook through my website estebanmoralesvankwartel.com where you can also find a lot of interesting information, and to which I invite you to subscribe. Here you can also access our podcast.

IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE BEING WITH YOU. I HOPE I HAVE MET THE EXPECTATIONS THAT OUR RESPECTED LISTENERS HAVE FOR INFORMATION THAT IS HONEST AND USEFUL FOR THEIR OWN LIFE, FOR THEIR FAMILY AND FOR THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY WORK

See you soon and thank you for honoring us with your attention.