Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A bit of a waffle, for later reference..
#1
Ok, time for a bit of a waffle / get it all noted down for later reference...

My understanding of how we ended up with greenhouse effect "theory" based computer modelled Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). From the quotes contained in the attached word document I compiled from reading Ashford's biography of LFR titled "Prophet or Professor?" it should come across LFR was a religious nut. He was a well intending man as far as I can tell, but, when he was convinced about something, nothing could or would shift him. He was convinced of "Radiation theory". He also thought he had a religious duty to do what he thought best for all. A dangerous combination.. One of the most famous quotes of LFR is how he wanted to go and work somewhere else where there were less people milling around. This is a misquote, or rather it is a quote taken out of context. He wanted away from those who despised him and his work. Namely, an empirically trained scientist whom despised him, Rutherford at Manchester University.

Before going to Manchester University as a teacher, LFR had worked on his famous stresses in dams paper, in which, whilst under the employ of the father of Eugenics, LFR had applied differential equations in a new way to a new subject area (in this case stresses in masonry dams). LFR was convinced his methods could be used in other subject areas. He decided he would apply his methods to weather prediction. It is noteworthy that later LFR did do quite a bit of work in the Eugenics field. He also became noted and noticed for his war (peace) studies, and how he applied his mathematical methods to that subject area, which remain very influential in that field to this day.

LFR was an extremely committed Quaker, it governed almost all his life, to not understand this is to not understand the man. And, the wife, Dorothy, whom also was an extremely devout Quaker. This belief, way of life was sadly all the more strengthened by the very sad series of miscarriages that Dorothy had. Ten or more. The Richardson's desperately wanted children, but it was much much later, when it was no longer a realistic possibility that they found out they were incompatible (for child bearing) due to Rhesus.

Manchester University was one of only two none religious Universities in Britain at the time, which may well have been why Ernest Rutherford, an empirically trained scientist, went there. Manchester Uni was built in a mock religious style as a marketing ploy, that is how influential in learning religion was at the time. It is probably not much less influential now.. This is exampled by the fact it did not have any theological content / exam in every course, as was required at all other universities, other than Kings in London at the time.

LFR wrote that his maths / methods were interesting, suggestive, but that they were also abhorrent to those trained in the exact sciences. And, that is when he said he would rather be somewhere else away from others, to get on with his work. One has to wonder had Rutherford seen his early attempts to model weather? LFR stated Rutherford despised him. Did Rutherford despise the religious man, or was it the empirically trained scientist that despised the (unscientific) mathematical approach / method LFR was developing in regards of weather prediction. I suspect both. One would suspect there must be some record of the discord between Rutherford and LFR in the records at Manchester Uni...

LFR took Bjerknes's incomplete modelling approach and made it a completely mathematical one. This was a massive change. Most importantly there were things that Bjerknes could not calculate, he simply did not know how to, and admitted such. In these areas Bjerknes used plots and graphs from observations to fill in the missing figures. LFR came up with a mathematical method and "theory" to fill in what HE THOUGHT happened in the atmosphere. That is a massive difference, LFR used his own "radiation theory" to help him complete a fully mathematical model. He was actually modelling a different paradigm basis to the Bergen School model approach. The Bergen School model in this respect was based upon observations rather than a paradigm. This is a difference, between the Bergen School model and LFR's ("Radiation theory based) model very few people realised at the time, or have realised since. LFR's model  is nothing less than a model based upon a new (unproven at the time, but roundly rejected by many at the time  and that has been since falsified) paradigm. Differences could not be much bigger.. This is what later became known as greenhouse effect "theory". LFR had left Manchester and gone to Eskdalemuir to be Superintendent of the Observatory, AND to finish off his work that had intrigued some, such as Sir Napier Shaw. In effect Shaw financed LFR to complete his mathematical approach to weather prediction. Shaw closely followed, and was kept informed by LFR, of how his approach / work was developing.

Soon after 1912 LFR had all but completed his first version of his book, titled Weather Prediction by Arthimetical Differences (if memory serves me correctly), he was given some money towards publication costs by the Royal Society, with a lot of encouragement / support from Shaw (and Dines). But, this first version of his book was never published. It was completely rewritten, with much removed, changed, as well as much fine detail added before it was eventually published in 1922. The two books it appears are quite different.... One has to wonder WHY. Shaw's review of the second (published) book gives strong clues to the main differences, and omissions (done by {other} reference... ie, Dines 1917 and Dines 1920), AND that LFR may be using a paradigm basis that one would have to be quite sure is the right "jabberwocky" first. Plainly, Shaw was not convinced....

LFR went to France during WW1, but being a (on religious grounds) Pacifist he served in an ambulance unit.

Supposedly LFR did not really work on developing his approach (other than completing some labourious calculations) until he was again employed by Shaw at Benson. YET, W. H. Dines published a paper in 1917, in which Dines states the methods described ("radiation theory") were LFR's, not his... Given there was a world war going on at the time few people even noticed Dines paper....

LFR's 1922 book was published and then forgotten by almost all....

Von Newman first put LFR's model on to a computer, whilst chasing funding to develop computers / computing... Charney was involved at a very early stage. Both reduced the number of modelled atmospheric layers from six to one or two. Could they (both) have missed "radiation theory" basis of the modelling approach???

Charney orchestrated the modelling of water vapour as a positive feedback in the late 1960s, when the models were only showing cooling. Was this to slow cooling? Water vapour was considered a negative feedback at the time!!!!

"Radiation theory" had little effect whilst water vapour was a negative feedback, but once that was changed to a positive feedback, the "greenhouse effect" made the globe warm...
Did Charney know this???

1972 Strong / first earth summit in Stockholm. Speech, UN needed a new poster child, over population fears were not working. Environmental concerns seemed a good way forward. Did Strong / Gore / Charney decide upon the new direction, AGW?

1973 "Ad Hoc" UN group, headed by Charney.

1979 Ad Hoc group report. Two part report, first part "the science" second part "the maths".. Interesting reading, NOT...
In effect. a global announcement to those that knew what they were reading of "the science", and that global warming fears were to be the new "hot potato".

Hansen had made a name for himself fudging aerosols in computer models. He also took Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi to NASA. WHY??? It seems Hansen did not know what was "in" the models, and although he could tinker with them, he did not know "what made them tick". It seems very plausible that Miskolczi told him.. I suspect that is why Miskolczi left NASA, he was trying to remain true to science and would take no further part in what he knew to be wrong. But, he could not say so, and knew he could not say so...

Strong / Gore / Hansen all rushed to meet the 1992 Rio (First!!!) earth summit deadline... It has to be said they did a fantastic job and met the deadline beautifully, mores the pity.....

So, it was not LFR, it was probably not Von Newman, Charney played a part, definitely. But, how much did he really know? Hansen certainly did help launch (computer modelled) AGW, but was it Miskolczi who told him what was actually being calculated, or did he already know, care of Charney?

For my money "IT" was Charney / Strong / Gore behind the scenes at the 1972 Stockholm summit. Hansen just had to do a lot of work to polish the, errr, modelling approach, he had been handed. Hansen (with the help of Gore, ie financing of the Real Climate blog) then enlisted Schmidt and a few select others.

LFR, Von Newman were simply just wrong, well intentioned, but wrong all the same.

To be expanded upon / continued...


Attached Files
.docx   LFR AOM quotes 2017.docx (Size: 35.34 KB / Downloads: 11)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)