Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Wa****ngton
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.
CBS-TV, 60 Minutes, Burlington, Wa****ngton
March 30, 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
QUOTE: "DJE: Every year they recalibrate their computer model and put in
the observed temperature. So, as they go along, the curve that trails
behind is perfect. It's like predicting the morning's weather at
six-o'clock
in the evening.
KLC: They call it hind-casting. It's clever. Use the same model, but
reset the starting point each year."
KLC: The AGW crowd uses the same argument, CO2 rose and temperatures
increased. It happened.
DJE: Only in the last 30 years-before that you have the opposite of
correlation. There is correspondence between solar activity and global
climate. We don't understand the connection and the leverage and it
doesn't seem like it should be enough, but it is enough. The Little Ice
Age overlaps the Maunder Minimum low solar irradiance, not measured
directly because we don't have direct measurements of solar irradiance
from back then, but when you have a change in solar irradiance, you
change the amount of Beryllium-10 and radiocarbon produced in the upper
atmosphere, so you can use those measurements in ice cores as a proxy
for solar irradiance and sunspot cycles. Correlation over the known
period of observation establishes the linkage. Fluctuation in
radiocarbon and Beryllium-10 from the upper atmosphere shows the change
in the amount of solar radiation. The Dalton Minimum occurred in about
1830. 1890 had a TSI minimum and then here's 1945 to 1977, the
correlation is there too. No one argues that the LIA [Little Ice Age]
was not caused by a change in solar irradiance represented by the
Maunder Minimum. If that's certain, then why not the others, including
the current warming period? There is a strong case for solar control. At
a symposium in Oslo in August, a scientists will present papers spelling
out the relation****p between global climate change and solar changes. A
growing number of scientists, especially astrophysicists, are convinced
the climate driver is solar, not CO2.
The IPCC predictions are up to ten degrees hotter by the end of the
century. My predictions show a rise of about half a degree. Let's place
a checkpoint at 2011. IPCC needs to see another degree of increase or
they're wrong.
KLC: They'll move the prediction around.
DJE: Every year they recalibrate their computer model and put in the
observed temperature. So, as they go along, the curve that trails behind
is perfect. It's like predicting the morning's weather at six-o'clock in
the evening.
KLC: They call it hind-casting. It's clever. Use the same model, but
reset the starting point each year.
DJE: They published their projection, so I'll hold them to it.
KLC: They're slippery. I look at it from an engineering standpoint and
so much of it seems absurd. I don't understand how they get away with
it. Mass psychology and herd instinct?
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"From 1870 to 1900, we had global cooling, then we had significant
global warming from about 1910 to 1945. That global warming is not
accompanied by any significant rise in CO2, so you can't blame CO2. Then
CO2 increased while we had global cooling. You can't blame that on CO2.
It's only been the last 30 years there's been correlation between CO2
and global warming" Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology,
Western Wa****ngton University
|
