Page 2 of 31 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 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. #16
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    CO2 is a trace gas. Its only claim to fame is it can cause short wave radiation to bounce back to earth which happens during the day. Its other balancing effect is that long wave black body radiation slips easily through it which occurs at night releasing the accumulated increase from the day. In day time instances the increase is logarithmic. At night the increase allows faster escape of long-wave radiation that water vapor would have reflected back to earth.


    The graph below shows a laboratory experiment and reality seen in earths atmosphere at exactly the same levels of CO2.

    Log CO2.jpg

    As the trace gas increases, the potential increase in temp increases. This however has a rate of diminishing return or a logarithmic function. CO2 takes 2 times the rise in CO2 to obtain 1 deg C in warming. At 400ppm it would take a further increase of 800ppm to obtain that 1 degree of warming. Thus by the time we reach 500ppm further doubling would essentially be a flat line in temperature rise.

    Essentially we have seen the warming that is capable with CO2 alone already. The question now becomes how will other systems react to that warming? As we have seen in the last 17 years and 9 months since the peak of temp rise and peak of solar maximum the earth responds by many variables and those variables mitigate the temp rise.

    17 years 8 months No Global Warming.JPG
    Source : WUWT

    Even the IPCC is now acknowledging that their own climate sensitivity predictions were way to high and that it is much closer to the one to one relationship number than to their high end one to six that has been shown falsified.. CO2 isn't driving anything.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; June 8th, 2014 at 9:37 pm.

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. #17
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Now lets explore mans contribution to CO2.

    An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2” The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.
    Source

    The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature (pay walled)


    Essentially this paper goes through many of the reasoning's I have placed above and touches on many processes that models do not even consider.

    And today it is noted that CO2 increase levels are slowing considerably even though China and others are pumping out CO2 at massive rates. The rate of increase is following Sea Surface Temperature drop and slowing. As the ocean cools CO2 uptake increases.


    CO2 MaunaLoa Last12months-previous12monthsGrowthRateSince1958.jpg

    http://www.climate4you.com

    Source
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 20th, 2014 at 8:59 pm.

  6. Sponsored Links


  7. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    On to calculating mans contribution..



    human-global-warming.jpg


    This is how simple the calculation is..

    Source

    Of 388ppm just 3.4% is mans contribution. 388 * 0.034 = 13.59 ppm

    Consider that over half (63%) is sequestered naturally and you get the rise of around 4.999 ppm that is mans contribution. And when you consider natures part we are nothing but a nat on a horse's tail..

    One thing I forgot to mention is that 4.999ppm is the ongoing total/year thus 0.0028% of the global mean.

    When you consider that a 1.5% increase in water vapor would render CO2 mute you begin to understand why cloud cover/ water vapor is extremely important in models.. It raises significant concerns when they try to use static numbers in their programs when rapid change due to Forests, Oceans and Galactic radiation can foster that level of change in minuets.

    1.5% of the 2% of GHG's is a very small change in global water content.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; July 4th, 2014 at 1:15 pm.

  8. Sponsored Links


  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    PA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    5,232
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    I'll add this table to provide a little more perspective. And by the way, nice concise detailed thread Billy.


    Gas Volume Molecular Weight
    Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%) 28.0134
    Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%) 31.9988
    Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%) 39.948
    Carbon dioxide (CO2) 397 ppmv (0.0397%) 44.01
    Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%) 20.179
    Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%) 4.002602
    Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%) 16.044
    Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%) 83.8
    Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%) 2.016
    Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.325 ppmv (0.0000325%) 44.012
    Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv (0.00001%) 28.011
    Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9◊10-6%) (0.000009%) 131.3
    Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7◊10-6%) 47.998
    Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2◊10-6%) (0.000002%) 44.012
    Iodine (I2) 0.01 ppmv (1◊10-6%) (0.000001%)
    Ammonia (NH3) trace 17.02
    Not included in above dry atmosphere:
    Water vapor (H2O) ~0.25% by mass over full atmosphere. 18.02
    Last edited by sideview; May 20th, 2014 at 3:12 pm.

  10. Sponsored Links


  11. May 20th, 2014, 9:11 pm

    Reason
    Off Topic. Stick to the subject at hand. Leave the peanuts and all the rest at the door.

  12. May 20th, 2014, 10:13 pm

    Reason
    Off Topic. Stick to the subject at hand. Leave the peanuts and all the rest at the door.

  13. #20
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    The EPA's CO2 endangerment finding is nothing more than bureaucratic overreach without scientific justification. Even the Untied States Navy understands that CO2 levels of upward of 6000ppm do not cause adverse affects in humans. The USN has levels of 4000-6000ppm in their submarine fleet on an ongoing bases for very long periods of time.

    These people know that there is very little to no danger yet they make and endangerment finding in an effort to command and control economies. It really is rather disgusting what these bureaucrats are doing.. I would go as far as calling it tyrannical or traitorous as it destroys American abilities to be self sufficient and pursue happiness thus creating conditions which violate our unalienable rights.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 21st, 2014 at 8:12 am.

  14. Sponsored Links


  15. #21
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    How did i miss this? The Obama Admin statement on global warming is shredded in the rebuttal to the assessment report. All of the administrations claims are false and are shown in the document with the associated scientific data to refute the position (funny to see that the admin fails to provide any proof whatsoever, yet those who challenge them show ample amounts).

    Here we address the administration’s basic thesis and the essential evidence that they claim support extreme concern.

    The theory of ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (CAGW) is based on a string of inferences that begins with the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a ‘greenhouse gas’ and that we are slowly driving up the atmospheric concentration by burning fossil fuels. It is therefore claimed as self-evident that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) has already risen significantly and will continue to do so. Higher GAST is then presumed to lead to all sorts of negative consequences, especially Extreme Weather. They promote their ‘Climate Models’ as a reliable way to predict the future climate. But these models dramatically fail basic verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to believe that their climate models are close to perfection.
    I'm Going to have to look closely at the report and rebuttal tonight.. They dont show any evidence for their claims..

    Source

  16. Sponsored Links


  17. May 21st, 2014, 9:57 am

    Reason
    Off Topic. Stick to the subject at hand. Leave the peanuts and all the rest at the door.

  18. May 21st, 2014, 12:28 pm

    Reason
    Off Topic. Stick to the subject at hand. Leave the peanuts and all the rest at the door.

  19. May 21st, 2014, 2:49 pm

    Reason
    Off Topic. Stick to the subject at hand. Leave the peanuts and all the rest at the door.

  20. May 21st, 2014, 3:01 pm

    Reason
    Off Topic. Stick to the subject at hand. Leave the peanuts and all the rest at the door.

  21. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Age
    52
    Posts
    33,056
    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?
    The reason they are flawed is that they cannot account for every variable in the system. If you know that then why would you advance the idea that you could do any better at a prediction? Computer models don't have enough data and context to make accurate predictions of such a complex system. Whether it is to prove warming or something else.
    In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds the timid join him for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. -- Mark Twain(1886)

  22. Sponsored Links


  23. May 21st, 2014, 3:58 pm

    Reason
    Off Topic. Stick to the subject at hand. Leave the peanuts and all the rest at the door.

  24. May 21st, 2014, 6:55 pm

    Reason
    Off Topic. Stick to the subject at hand. Leave the peanuts and all the rest at the door.

  25. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    54,192
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Official Moderator Post: This forum is heavily moderated. Stick to the subject at hand. No peanuts, insults, jabs, or attacks.

  26. Sponsored Links


  27. #24
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    NCA CLAIM #3: Third LOE – “The Climate Models”

    The third line of evidence comes from using climate models to simulate the climate of the past century, separating the human and natural factors that influence climate. (NCA, Page 24)

    RESPONSE: The Administration relied upon Climate Models, all predicated on the GHG Hot Spot Theory, that all fail standard model validation and forecast reliability tests.

    These Climate Models are simulations of reality and far from exact solutions of the fundamental physics. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although the GAST trend has recently been flat. See the figure below. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests. The government’s hugely expensive climate models are monumental failures.

    I do not know how to explain this any better than they did. Scientific Process was purposely ignored by the EPA. Just reading the whole in context on Anthony Watts site pretty much mirrors my review of CAGW. The links to the writers works and refuting data are a good source of information. They even show the arctic warming and spike to be statistically the same as 1940.

    The majority of the Admins Document is pure conjecture and baseless.

    What I find rather interesting is the National Academy of Sciences and the IPCC are backpedaling fast on the climate sensitivity issue and they have both reduced there ratings to 1-1/1-1.3 while the Obama Administration and the EPA are still touting a 1-6 sensitivity.

    The Obama Admin and EPA have lost all credibility..


    Source

  28. Sponsored Links


  29. #25
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    In reading the comments, throughout them, many people do not know what the Null Hypothesis is and why it is important in science. After reading the description below think about how we have not warmed in 17 Years and 10 Months yet CO2 has increased. The system has not responded to the change, therefore the hypothesis is incorrect. IF you look to the last 114 years and note the natural variation there has been no shift globally in temps that can not be explained by natural variation with or without CO2.

    The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.

    The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.

    In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.

    Source

  30. Sponsored Links


  31. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    27,000
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy_Bob View Post
    In reading the comments, throughout them, many people do not know what the Null Hypothesis is and why it is important in science. After reading the description below think about how we have not warmed in 17 Years and 10 Months yet CO2 has increased. The system has not responded to the change, therefore the hypothesis is incorrect. IF you look to the last 114 years and note the natural variation there has been no shift globally in temps that can not be explained by natural variation with or without CO2.
    First of all, as "skeptics" loudly assert the global atmospheric system is complex, and interacts in complex fashion with the oceans. To assert that this alleged "pause" (which itself isn't even a fact, but that's another story) means the hypothesis fails is nonsense, because there are many reasons that the rise in global surface temperatures may fall at the lower end of the predicted range, for the extremely short time frame of a dozen years.

    Second, climate models don't predict a simple year-over-year linear increase in global surface temperatures, so the proposal that that was the hypothesis is complete nonsense. There is a measure of uncertainty in any model.

    Genuine scientists have been busy attempting to figure out the physical system reasons underlying this less-than-average increase. The Economist had a good overview of these efforts a few weeks ago ["Who pressed the pause button? The slowdown in rising temperatures over the past 15 years goes from being unexplained to overexplained" Mar 6 2014]. Among a few possible simultaneous mechanisms, one key factor may be the La Nina / El Nino oscillation; the prevalence of La Nina condition since the huge El Nino of 1997/8 may have trapped a great deal of the increased global heat in the ocean, at relatively deep levels. Predictions are looking stronger for a change to a significant El Nino this fall, with warm ocean water upwelling, which would very likely in turn cause a spike in global surface temperatures. 2015 could be an interesting year for "skeptics" - time will tell.

    Meanwhile the talk of strawman hypothesis being nullified is already nonsense, and the best "skeptics" have to offer.
    Last edited by BigBear; May 22nd, 2014 at 1:56 pm.

  32. Sponsored Links


  33. #27
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBear View Post
    First of all, as "skeptics" loudly assert the global atmospheric system is complex, and interacts in complex fashion with the oceans. To assert that this alleged "pause" (which itself isn't even a fact, but that's another story) means the hypothesis fails is nonsense, because there are many reasons that the rise in global surface temperatures may fall at the lower end of the predicted range, for the extremely short time frame of a dozen years.
    The Global system is highly complex. So much so that every one of the climate models the alarmist tout as 'truth' fails even basic scientific scrutiny. Ever single model fails without question. I see the Trenbreths missing heat is something that no one can find but some still believe. (Notably those reviewers showed that there was no missing heat)

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBear View Post
    Second, climate models don't predict a simple year-over-year linear increase in global surface temperatures, so the proposal that that was the hypothesis is complete nonsense. There is a measure of uncertainty in any model.
    This is an incorrect assumption. Without being able to predict year over year the model is essentially useless. If the models can not make these basic year to year changes then they are totally incapable of long term forecasting. (just like shooting a gun, if you cant aim properly the bullet wont land where you want it too.) The last stage of any hypothesis falsification test is prediction and observation. The CAGW models have failed at a rate of 100%. I wonder if their measure of uncertainty was as good as their measure of Climate Sensitivity? 600% to high!

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBear View Post
    Genuine scientists have been busy attempting to figure out the physical system reasons underlying this less-than-average increase. The Economist had a good overview of these efforts a few weeks ago ["Who pressed the pause button? The slowdown in rising temperatures over the past 15 years goes from being unexplained to overexplained" Mar 6 2014]. Among a few possible simultaneous mechanisms, one key factor may be the La Nina / El Nino oscillation; the prevalence of La Nina condition since the huge El Nino of 1997/8 may have trapped a great deal of the increased global heat in the ocean, at relatively deep levels. Predictions are looking stronger for a change to a significant El Nino this fall, with warm ocean water upwelling, which would very likely in turn cause a spike in global surface temperatures. 2015 could be an interesting year for "skeptics" - time will tell.
    I expected this assertion and its a baseless premiss. True science allows all disciplines to look at the hypothesis and evaluate it. This is how we learn that things have been missed or misinterpreted. Yet you fail to address even the simplest of facts I have presented.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBear View Post
    Meanwhile the talk of strawman hypothesis being nullified is already nonsense, and the best "skeptics" have to offer.
    IT was the EPA and the IPCC who stated that all warming prior to 1950 was Natural Variation. It was the EPA and the IPCC who stated that all warming post 1950 was ALL MAN MADE. Please explain to me how they stopped natural variation and then created all that 'massive' rise of 0.5 Deg C. http://forums.hannity.com/showthread...#post103628716

    All I see is the attacking of those who do not hold your views and not a shred of evidence to support them.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 22nd, 2014 at 11:13 pm. Reason: spelling

  34. Sponsored Links


  35. #28
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    And by the way the ENSO will not make much more than a moderate El Nino. The warm pools have been depleted by the Arctic and Antarctic wind patterns over the oceans. The polar jets have slowed the collection of warm water which is needed to drive this kind of event.

    The Kelvin wave was destroyed about 2 weeks ago by the polar jet intrusion into the Equatorial jets.. It has not resumed.


    As I see it today the chances for a super El Nino that the alarmists want isn't going to happen for about three years now.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 22nd, 2014 at 8:21 pm.

  36. Sponsored Links


  37. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    PA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    5,232
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBear View Post
    First of all, as "skeptics" loudly assert the global atmospheric system is complex, and interacts in complex fashion with the oceans. To assert that this alleged "pause" (which itself isn't even a fact, but that's another story) means the hypothesis fails is nonsense, because there are many reasons that the rise in global surface temperatures may fall at the lower end of the predicted range, for the extremely short time frame of a dozen years.

    Second, climate models don't predict a simple year-over-year linear increase in global surface temperatures, so the proposal that that was the hypothesis is complete nonsense. There is a measure of uncertainty in any model.

    Genuine scientists have been busy attempting to figure out the physical system reasons underlying this less-than-average increase. The Economist had a good overview of these efforts a few weeks ago ["Who pressed the pause button? The slowdown in rising temperatures over the past 15 years goes from being unexplained to overexplained" Mar 6 2014]. Among a few possible simultaneous mechanisms, one key factor may be the La Nina / El Nino oscillation; the prevalence of La Nina condition since the huge El Nino of 1997/8 may have trapped a great deal of the increased global heat in the ocean, at relatively deep levels. Predictions are looking stronger for a change to a significant El Nino this fall, with warm ocean water upwelling, which would very likely in turn cause a spike in global surface temperatures. 2015 could be an interesting year for "skeptics" - time will tell.

    Meanwhile the talk of strawman hypothesis being nullified is already nonsense, and the best "skeptics" have to offer.
    Your logic escapes me. On one hand you assert that because the ecosystem is so complex (as skeptics claim) we can't determine the cause of an event that 'has happened', yet at the same time you suggest these so-called scientist's can create models that predict the 'future' of that extremely complex ecosystem.

    The recorded numbers say there is a pause. How long the pause may last or whether temps will rise or fall after it ends, is debatable. It is perfectly valid to point to events that 'have occurred', then to factors in coincidence as possible causes.

    It would seem less than reasonable to suggest the future of such complex systems can be predicted without understanding how such systems work.

    To suggest that one factor within such a complex system will cause a significant change in it, without understanding its relationship to the other components in the system, is less then scientific to say the least. To completely ignore those relationships, is incompetent.

    The claims of these, so-called, scientist would not only seem less then credible, but on the verge of ridiculous.
    Best Planet I've Been On So Far.

  38. Sponsored Links


  39. Likes Billy_Bob liked this post
  40. #30
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sideview View Post
    Your logic escapes me. On one hand you assert that because the ecosystem is so complex (as skeptics claim) we can't determine the cause of an event that 'has happened', yet at the same time you suggest these so-called scientist's can create models that predict the 'future' of that extremely complex ecosystem.

    The recorded numbers say there is a pause. How long the pause may last or whether temps will rise or fall after it ends, is debatable. It is perfectly valid to point to events that 'have occurred', then to factors in coincidence as possible causes.

    It would seem less than reasonable to suggest the future of such complex systems can be predicted without understanding how such systems work.

    To suggest that one factor within such a complex system will cause a significant change in it, without understanding its relationship to the other components in the system, is less then scientific to say the least. To completely ignore those relationships, is incompetent.

    The claims of these, so-called, scientist would not only seem less then credible, but on the verge of ridiculous.
    The Null Hypothesis is a perfect example of this failure as it applies to Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    We have TWO statistically insignificant from one another rates of warming. In one the EPA and IPCC state it is primarily Natural Variation. In the second they state that rate of warming is all man made. Here in lies the disconnect. It is shown that CO2 was input into the system at higher rates yet the system, when you consider natural variation in both segments, had no significant change. NO RISE in slope over the term.

    There is only one result that can be shown by empirical evidence. The hypothesis is FALSE. The relationships between forcings should have been observable, but there was no change noticed.

    When you consider the IPCC models indicate a 6X level of base CO2 warming we should have had 2 deg C minimum increase in slope. The slope is a one to Zero ratio. Models vs reality...
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 22nd, 2014 at 11:54 pm.

  41. Sponsored Links


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
  •