; The Problems with Global Warming.....

Page 1 of 31 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 451
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Lightbulb The Problems with Global Warming.....

    I created this thread here simply because greater control is necessary to debate this critical issue. One of the main problems, which causes the debate to cease, is the use of generic terms which include subsets of other items which may or may not be root causes.

    Lets take the Term "Global Warming". The term insinuates that the earth is warming but what it does not do is determine what the individual or cumulative causes are for it. For the purposes of this thread this term is not acceptable as it fails to identify whether the cause in warming is attributed to man or attributed to natural process.

    As you can see the choice of terms is ambiguous and leaves open the problems of misinterpretation or outright deceitful misdirection.

    Natural Variation = Processes which are natural and occur without mans influence.

    Natural Forcing = Specific definable processes which triggers warming or cooling.

    Man Created Forcing = The specific contribution which results in warming or cooling. (Also known as Anthropogenic Forcing) and may enhance/mute natural ones

    Land Use Induced = Changes in local areas which are due to the lands use. (roads, buildings, etc which result in the Urban Heat Island or other potential changes from the natural state of the area)

    Pollution = Man created products which cause harm to the natural environment. Naturally occurring gasses and those items which occur through the natural cycles of the earth are not considered pollutants. (CO2 can be both but be prepared to show how you determined what was naturally caused and what is man created.) [Negative impacts on health do not occur below 6,000ppm - United States Navy determination on long term submarine operations].

    Consensus = Is not a scientific term and alludes to the possibility that there is no other meaning, process or reason for what we observe. It is inherently anti-science and political (mob rule).

    With the majority of the troublesome terms well defined lets try this one again..

    The IPCC makes the claim that all of the warming post 1950 is man caused due to the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. So lets see just what the natural process was prior to 1950 and compare it to that time span.

    Lets define the most recent natural rate of warming which I will do in my next post and then we will try to hash this out..
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 20th, 2014 at 9:48 pm.

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    27,000
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy_Bob View Post
    I created this thread here simply because greater control is necessary to debate this critical issue. One of the main problems, which causes the debate to cease, is the use of generic terms which include subsets of other items which may or may not be root causes.

    Lets take the Term "Global Warming". The term insinuates that the earth is warming but what it does not do is determine what the individual or cumulative causes are for it. For the purposes of this thread this term is not acceptable as it fails to identify whether the cause in warming is attributed to man or attributed to natural process.

    As you can see the choice of terms is ambiguous and leaves open the problems of misinterpretation or outright deceitful misdirection.

    Natural Variation = Processes which are natural and occur with or with out mans influence.

    Natural Forcing = Specific definable processes which triggers warming or cooling.

    Man Created Forcing = The specific contribution which results in warming or cooling. (Also known as Anthropogenic Forcing)

    Land Use Induced = Changes in local areas which are due to the lands use. (roads, buildings, etc which result in the Urban Heat Island or other potential changes from the natural state of the area)

    Pollution = Man created products which cause harm to the natural environment. Naturally occurring gasses and those items which occur through the natural cycles of the earth are not considered pollutants. (CO2 can be both but be prepared to show how you determined what was naturally caused and what is man created).

    Consensus = Is not a scientific term and alludes to the possibility that there is no other meaning, process or reason for what we observe. It is inherently anti-science and political (mob rule)

    With the majority of the troublesome terms well defined lets try this one again..

    The IPCC makes the claim that all of the warming post 1950 is man caused due to the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. So lets see just what the natural process was prior to 1950 and compare it to that time span.

    Lets define the most recent natural rate of warming which I will do in my next post and then we will try to has this out..
    Since you've started a new thread on the topic, I'll ask a question that's been on my mind. Criticism from "skeptics" on AGW theory always seems to be in form of picking at one aspect or another of modeling, but what never seems to be offered is a coherent, cohesive alternate theory. My question: is there some alternate model developed by skeptics which predicts energy distribution and corresponding temperatures in the short term, meaning the 100 year or less time horizon? In other words, skeptics say that climate scientists' models are flawed, but have any developed a comprehensive model of their own?

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBear View Post
    Since you've started a new thread on the topic, I'll ask a question that's been on my mind. Criticism from "skeptics" on AGW theory always seems to be in form of picking at one aspect or another of modeling, but what never seems to be offered is a coherent, cohesive alternate theory. My question: is there some alternate model developed by skeptics which predicts energy distribution and corresponding temperatures in the short term, meaning the 100 year or less time horizon? In other words, skeptics say that climate scientists' models are flawed, but have any developed a comprehensive model of their own?
    It's already known that it would take a long period of time to try and start from scratch and capture all this information. The problem with the information already taken is that it is not consistent due to many factors. (location, reliability of equipment, calibration...etc.).

    We just went through a recent event with the sun going through a polarity switch. This was considered one of the weakest of these events in nearly a century, I believe. There were stories I had read (and posted links to on the forum) as to this event playing a part in the cold winter we just had. Yet, I don't seem to see this being brought about within the AGW debate and just how much more influence the sun may or may not have over mankind's impact on climate change. I think it should have just flowed right into this if those of scientific minds wanted to get down to the reality of what has the major affect on this. Just sayin'.......
    "Finding the right solution, is usually a function of asking the right questions." Al Einstein........"outcomes" are not "solutions".

  6. Sponsored Links


  7. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    27,000
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesgtr44 View Post
    It's already known that it would take a long period of time to try and start from scratch and capture all this information. The problem with the information already taken is that it is not consistent due to many factors. (location, reliability of equipment, calibration...etc.).

    We just went through a recent event with the sun going through a polarity switch. This was considered one of the weakest of these events in nearly a century, I believe. There were stories I had read (and posted links to on the forum) as to this event playing a part in the cold winter we just had. Yet, I don't seem to see this being brought about within the AGW debate and just how much more influence the sun may or may not have over mankind's impact on climate change. I think it should have just flowed right into this if those of scientific minds wanted to get down to the reality of what has the major affect on this. Just sayin'.......
    Thanks, and to my question: Is there some alternate model developed by skeptics which predicts [global] energy distribution and corresponding temperatures in the short term, meaning the 100 year or less time horizon? , I'll put that answer in the category "NO."

  8. Sponsored Links


  9. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    I wish I could claim this work but I can not. It is a culmination of papers I have read and presentations I have seen or been a part of. Several persons and institutions are included in the presentation of the material below. I apologize in advance if I miss attribution to specific individuals. I will make every attempt to properly attribute sources.

    Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.



    The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

    This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

    The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

    Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..



    So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 18th, 2014 at 5:14 pm. Reason: mathmatical correction

  10. Sponsored Links


  11. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBear View Post
    Since you've started a new thread on the topic, I'll ask a question that's been on my mind. Criticism from "skeptics" on AGW theory always seems to be in form of picking at one aspect or another of modeling, but what never seems to be offered is a coherent, cohesive alternate theory. My question: is there some alternate model developed by skeptics which predicts energy distribution and corresponding temperatures in the short term, meaning the 100 year or less time horizon? In other words, skeptics say that climate scientists' models are flawed, but have any developed a comprehensive model of their own?
    First off; models can only be predictive of data that is founded on a sound working knowledge of the system. No one has a sound working knowledge of the system. Current models fail 100% of the time.. all 126 of them..

    Our time is better spent understanding the system. Until this is understood any model we might create will fail. GCM (Global Circulation Models) use known Fluid Dynamics, Atmospheric dynamics of gases and water vapors, and heat transfer theory's but lack specific interactions at very minute levels to be accurate. We simply can not predict a chaotic state of small areas and minute changes which have the drastic long term effect of creating major failure. (kind of like shooting a rifle long range. a millionth of a degree in missed aim will result in hundreds of feet of missed target in rather short order). This lack of aim is the primary reason all model fail.



    Source;Midtroposheric Warming-Dr.J Christy

    At this point assisting in finding flaws and helping the current models become more accurate is the best course of action. But most government paid for projects have specific agendas and will not act in the best scientific practice.

    Models vs Reality - The Skeptics Case.jpg

    Source: Dr David M.W. Evans
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 18th, 2014 at 10:18 pm. Reason: adding images, spelling

  12. Sponsored Links


  13. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    PA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    5,232
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBear View Post
    Thanks, and to my question: Is there some alternate model developed by skeptics which predicts [global] energy distribution and corresponding temperatures in the short term, meaning the 100 year or less time horizon? , I'll put that answer in the category "NO."
    Anyone who says they can model a large ecosystem is lying or fooling themselves. Try modeling the powerball lottery. You only have to predict the draw of five balls out of 59 plus the powerball. Modeling an ecosystem would be like trying to pick a thousand numbers out of a billion possibilities, yet some how the so-called environmental scientists claim to have done that. And of course none of their models have predicted anything correctly.

  14. Sponsored Links


  15. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluesgtr44 View Post
    It's already known that it would take a long period of time to try and start from scratch and capture all this information. The problem with the information already taken is that it is not consistent due to many factors. (location, reliability of equipment, calibration...etc.).

    We just went through a recent event with the sun going through a polarity switch. This was considered one of the weakest of these events in nearly a century, I believe. There were stories I had read (and posted links to on the forum) as to this event playing a part in the cold winter we just had. Yet, I don't seem to see this being brought about within the AGW debate and just how much more influence the sun may or may not have over mankind's impact on climate change. I think it should have just flowed right into this if those of scientific minds wanted to get down to the reality of what has the major affect on this. Just sayin'.......
    This is one area that is a hot topic today. While the suns Total Solar Irradiance (TSI defined in Watts/meter^2) is relatively stable, the way in which the sun emits its energy is changing. The Infrared bands (IR) of light are what carry a very good portion of heat onto the earths surface and heats the molecules in our atmosphere.(note that IR causes excitement of other molecules and therefore heat) During the day we have high energy and high frequency input. At night we have Low frequency black body radiation to space.

    During the day the energy is pushed through the atmosphere colliding with everything, reflecting and absorption. CO2's primary roll is during the day when it reflects back to earth some of the heat it allows to pass through our atmosphere in the high frequency bands. At night the low frequency bands are actually allowed to escape faster back into space with higher concentrations of CO2.

    As the suns power bands change it can affect the earths warm up time in the sun. The current active bands are of much lower frequency so it easily passes through the atmosphere and loses much of its heat to space. The net result is cooling. The poles will be the areas most affected as the atmosphere is thin. Today we have major polar lows (2 to 3 times the size) than just 10 years ago. This loss of heat can be directly traced to solar output and resulting solar wind decline.

    A sun nearing a time of slumber would be a rapid cool down. The last ten years of observations are very interesting as we watched the shift in IR bands and the resulting shift on the earth while TSI remained constant.

    The shift occurred just before the ADO and PDO went cold. So there is yet to be more discussion on what the effects of both did and by how much. This shift can also explain why we have had periods of Glaciation in conjunction with high levels of CO2 throughout geological history.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; June 8th, 2014 at 7:09 pm. Reason: clarity

  16. Sponsored Links


  17. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy_Bob View Post
    First off models can only be predictive of data that is founded on a sound working knowledge of the system. No one has a sound working knowledge of the system. Current models fail 100% of the time.. all 126 of them..

    Our time is better spent understanding the system. Until this is understood any model we might create will fail. GCM (Global Circulation Models) use known Fluid Dynamics, Atmospheric dynamics of gases and water vapors, and heat transfer theory's but lack specific interactions at very minute levels to be accurate. We simply can not predict a chaotic state of small areas and minute changes which have the drastic long term effect of creating major failure. (kind of like shooting a rifle long range. a millionth of a degree in missed aim will result in hundreds of feet of missed target in rather short order). This lack of aim is the primary reason all model fail.




    Source;Midtroposheric Warming-Dr.J Christy

    At this point assisting in finding flaws and helping the current models become more accurate is the best course of action. But most government paid for projects have specific agendas and will not act in the best scientific practice.

    (I'm not sure why this forum will not let me use files I have already uploaded to Hannity)
    TO add insult to injury the current crop of GCM's uses static numbers for water vapor which is 95% of the GHG forcings. by using static numbers they can not mimic the earths changing humidity levels which are key composites to why GCM's fail. The major heat transfer mechanism of earths atmosphere is locked into a position which prevents hitting the target.

    Tweaking these models means adjusting that metric. While it might gain correlation to the past for a short duration, it will deviate once the level change becomes out of sync with natural variation. This is the reason they can not hind-cast the Mid-evil Warm periods and periods of glaciation.

    In order to precast you must know what the chaotic systems of the planet are going to do..
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 18th, 2014 at 2:03 pm.

  18. Sponsored Links


  19. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Holecen.JPG

    One of my biggest gripes about the misuse of scientific process is the snippet view of what the IPCC calls Catastrophic Warming. The EPA today uses the same misdirection (or as i believe intentional misrepresentation) of what is occurring.

    Anthony Watts uses many of these snippets to show just how disingenuous the science of our EPA and the the UN's IPCC bureaucratic bodies are. When you use just minor snippets in time you lose context. as the above graph illustrates we have been cooling since we exited the last ice age. The rates of warming have been seen before as have rapid rates of cooling within the larger context and we are nowhere near a catastrophic man induced event.


    In this case the callout shows current trends today and the larger times span shows how reality dwarfs what today's bureaucrats call an emergency.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 19th, 2014 at 8:28 pm.

  20. Sponsored Links


  21. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    So what exactly is mans contribution to CO2 in our atmosphere and what effect if any will it have?

    And again we must look to pre-industrialized times and long term to see what effect ocean oscillations and natural variation have done.

    In my next post I will define and show mathematically how I came to my conclusions of 0.0000004999 parts of total atmosphere. An amount which is totally insignificant.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 21st, 2014 at 7:51 am. Reason: math

  22. Sponsored Links


  23. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    97,669
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBear View Post
    Thanks, and to my question: Is there some alternate model developed by skeptics which predicts [global] energy distribution and corresponding temperatures in the short term, meaning the 100 year or less time horizon? , I'll put that answer in the category "NO."
    My question to you is: If all of the current models failed to predict the temperature trend of the last 15 years or so, why is it necessary for those pointing that out (the skeptics) to have produced a model to show it when empirical data shows it?

    "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." - Saul Bellow

  24. Sponsored Links


  25. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The Bluegrass State
    Posts
    30,560
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBear View Post
    Since you've started a new thread on the topic, I'll ask a question that's been on my mind. Criticism from "skeptics" on AGW theory always seems to be in form of picking at one aspect or another of modeling, but what never seems to be offered is a coherent, cohesive alternate theory. My question: is there some alternate model developed by skeptics which predicts energy distribution and corresponding temperatures in the short term, meaning the 100 year or less time horizon? In other words, skeptics say that climate scientists' models are flawed, but have any developed a comprehensive model of their own?
    How about the possibility, because of all the disparate variables present, that no accurate model can be created?
    RWReaganfan
    Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. - Ronald Reagan

  26. Sponsored Links


  27. Likes Billy_Bob liked this post
  28. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samm View Post
    My question to you is: If all of the current models failed to predict the temperature trend of the last 15 years or so, why is it necessary for those pointing that out (the skeptics) to have produced a model to show it when empirical data shows it?
    More precisely, Why would we want to? The model is 'predictive' and thus necessary to complete theroy validation or falsification. The fact that they have failed is primafacia evidence that portions of the hypothesis and the assumptions there in are incorrect.

    Wanting us to play the 'model' game tends to give credence to the failed hypothesis.

  29. Sponsored Links


  30. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    PA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    5,232
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    In an ecosystem, everything has an affect on everything else; the issue is what are the controlling factors. Earths ecosystem is primary based on an Oxygen and Carbon exchange cycle. When CO2 goes up, organisms that absorb CO2 increase to produce Oxygen and vise-versa.

    In static lab experiments, CO2 has been shown to be a minor green house gas compared to other components in the atmosphere but because there is so much of it produced, it became the perfect boogeyman for the environmentalist to scare people with.

    If we look at the relationship between temperature and CO2, it's tenuous at best. CO2 does appear to follow some spikes in warming but trailing, not leading them.

    The so-called peer reviewed papers purported to support the global warming theory, to date seem to be so much B.S. when examined by actual scientists who haven't an axe to grind.

    The models offered so far, have not only not predicted anything correctly but much of the data they are based upon has long since been discredited as junk science. Some of these models, when closely examined, generated warming even when the historical input was zero.

    We've seen any opposing research ignored and suppressed by the AGW proponents which blatantly continues today. The fraud and lies of the global warming alarmist have been exposed repeatedly yet the media continues to support them, backed by a government agenda seeking to increase its power.

    Man does produce CO2, sometimes by the boatload, which is happening in China and other Asian countries as they go through their own period of industrial development.

    Europe and America went through the same process, burning coal with abandoned without the ability to do so cleanly. Yet, the world did not end, temperatures did not sky rocket and cities weren't flooded with the rising of the oceans.

    The global warming movement is a fraud and it has nothing to do with the environment. The leaders of the movement have been caught repeatedly admitting to each other it's about control, power and money.

    But independent of the AGW nonsense, is it possible man's activity could at some point affect the natural balance of earth's ecosystem? Well, it is possible but extremely unlikely since the controlling forces out weigh almost anything man can do to permanently affect the earth's natural balance. To do anything serious would likely require an active effort to do so.

    It is true that when everything is in perfect balance, any factor, no matter how small, could tip that balance but earth's environmental balance is not static, it's built on forces in constant opposition and constant motion, often with wide long ranging swings as cycles pile on cycles. Something as minor as a fraction of a degree change in tilt could have major ramifications because the change would be long lasting and felt globally. Most anything man can do is fleeting. A stream of CO2 from China can wrap around the world but its impact is relatively brief and localized to the areas it crosses. The actual change in energy upon the ecosystem from it is negligible, especially when compared to everything else at play.

    The reality is, man is no more than a flea on an elephant's butt, yes at some point we might be able to get ourselves noticed but only barely.

  31. Sponsored Links


  32. Likes Billy_Bob, nunyadb liked this post

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •