; The Problems with Global Warming..... - Page 3

Page 3 of 31 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 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. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    PA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    5,232
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy_Bob View Post
    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...
    CO2 in an actual working ecosystem does not appear to cause any warming. It doesn't even seem to be able to get into a position where it could retain enough heat to cause warming.
    Best Planet I've Been On So Far.

  4. Sponsored Links


  5. #32
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sideview View Post
    CO2 in an actual working ecosystem does not appear to cause any warming. It doesn't even seem to be able to get into a position where it could retain enough heat to cause warming.
    Two words..: Water Vapor


    Water renders the CO2 inactive and removes it from the atmosphere. CO2 can not retain heat, it can only reflect short wave radiation back to earth. Water vapor can retain heat. The process of evaporation carry's this heat to the upper atmosphere where that heat is lost to space and water re-nucleates and becomes a droplet again.

    CO2 can not displace enough water vapor to act as a blanket stopping this convection. Levels above 12,000ppm is where this might start to affect water vapors ability to counteract it. At that level the side of the earth not facing the sun would be an ice ball due to long wave radiation escape.

    The CAGW premise is full of this type of nonsense if you follow it through to a logical end.

  6. Sponsored Links


  7. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    PA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    5,232
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy_Bob View Post
    Two words..: Water Vapor


    Water renders the CO2 inactive and removes it from the atmosphere. CO2 can not retain heat, it can only reflect short wave radiation back to earth. Water vapor can retain heat. The process of evaporation carry's this heat to the upper atmosphere where that heat is lost to space and water re-nucleates and becomes a droplet again.

    CO2 can not displace enough water vapor to act as a blanket stopping this convection. Levels above 12,000ppm is where this might start to affect water vapors ability to counteract it. At that level the side of the earth not facing the sun would be an ice ball due to long wave radiation escape.

    The CAGW premise is full of this type of nonsense if you follow it through to a logical end.
    Which is my point. In their models CO2 blankets the earth at a certain level and thickness then reflects radiation back to earth. Well if the CO2 isn't even doing that, then they're SOL for any of their predictions coming true, and their models are obviously worthless. But they still claim CO2 will some how magically warm things up.

    Reflecting radiation at various wave lengths is detectable.
    Last edited by sideview; May 23rd, 2014 at 1:05 pm.
    Best Planet I've Been On So Far.

  8. Sponsored Links


  9. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Hearthland
    Posts
    29,892
    Blog Entries
    18
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    You know what the biggest problem we "deniers" have with man-made global warming? The fact that for every study cited- evidence and all- in support of the man-made theory, there's a study that can be found- evidence and all- in opposition to the theory.

    Because of this, and the encroachment of politics and their lobbies into the issue, the science has been utterly corrupted by incomplete opinions (and nothing more). There is no solid proof. I have faith only in God. The rest, I require absolute proof before following as a believer.

  10. Sponsored Links


  11. #35
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SixFoot View Post
    You know what the biggest problem we "deniers" have with man-made global warming? The fact that for every study cited- evidence and all- in support of the man-made theory, there's a study that can be found- evidence and all- in opposition to the theory.

    Because of this, and the encroachment of politics and their lobbies into the issue, the science has been utterly corrupted by incomplete opinions (and nothing more). There is no solid proof. I have faith only in God. The rest, I require absolute proof before following as a believer.
    But our studies are of empirical earth, tangible observed evidence... Their evidence is born out of fantasy contrived models....... which bear no resemblance of reality.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 23rd, 2014 at 5:31 pm.

  12. Sponsored Links


  13. #36
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sideview View Post
    Which is my point. In their models CO2 blankets the earth at a certain level and thickness then reflects radiation back to earth. Well if the CO2 isn't even doing that, then they're SOL for any of their predictions coming true, and their models are obviously worthless. But they still claim CO2 will some how magically warm things up.

    Reflecting radiation at various wave lengths is detectable.
    This is one point I wanted to expand on as we have identified trends in UV/Visible/IR wave length intensity. This is important as a shift in intensity from one wave length (or band) to another can significantly change the earths energy budget. When the earth no longer receives the intensity in a band which creates heat the energy budget changes.

    As I said before, we have been looking for a trigger which operated totally outside of CO2/GHG influence as geological history tells us that glaciation has occurred many times with high levels of CO2. What is it that can totally ignore earths gases, vapors, and their presence?

    The Sun.

    CO2 IR Wave Passage.JPG

    When we look at the spectrum of energy transfer we see how the major one around 1um has certain areas where water vapor totally scatters or absorbs the down welling radiation. What we are observing is a shift from 0.1um to 1.2um wave lengths (left side of graph is high frequency, to long wave low frequency on the right) Its a minor shift in the suns output but the earths atmosphere then blocks, scatters, or absorbs the energy in the areas of these increasing in intensity wavelengths.

    Energy budget change. When it was higher frequency it was in an area that had little interference with earths atmosphere. Now that energy has moved to areas where earths gases and water vapor diminish the ground registered W/m^2 in those respective wavelengths. Total TSI remains unchanged but the effect at ground level and lower troposphere has changed. It is only about a total of 1.4 W/M^2 but significant enough to change the Arctic and Antarctic weather patterns. It has also increased cloud cover globally centered in forests and green foliage jungle areas.

    This kind of simple shift can undoubtedly cause glaciation irrespective of CO2 levels and it is an area we are just beginning to understand.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 24th, 2014 at 8:18 am. Reason: spell/gramer

  14. Sponsored Links


  15. #37
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Many Solar researchers have noted the sun and its waning sun spots. They keep getting weaker and weaker in intensity and some say that they will totally disappear soon. I think we are are seeing that not only is the face of the sun changing but so is its invisible side.

    Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory says the strength of magnetic field in sunspots in waning, and the sunspot cycle may disappear altogether.

    “If this trend continues, there will be almost no spots in Cycle 25, and we might be going into another Maunder Minimum,” he said.
    Source

    Given the sun and its fire ball grandeur the fact that little changes can cause major changes on earth should come as no surprise, but it does as we do not expect them from something that for centuries was thought to be the one constant along with God in our universe which is unchanging.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 24th, 2014 at 8:24 am.

  16. Sponsored Links


  17. #38
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    So far:

    I have outlined the problems with temperature and CO2 correlation. Natural variation trumps as there is no statistical difference in slope and no rise when Natural Variation is used as a baseline in the 1951-2000 sample.

    We have shown how climate models are nowhere near reality and thus their outputs are useless. Yet Government wants to use them as a bible for their cause.

    We have shown that the sensitivity to CO2 has been grossly over stated and how water vapor can systematically stop it.

    We have shown that CO2's warming effect is essentially spent already.

    Now I have described an ongoing investigation about solar output and how a simple change in energy output could have long lasting and significant effects long term, despite CO2 or any other GHG on earth, to include long term glaciation.


    This is just the icing of the cake (and the problem cake is huge).. More to come.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 23rd, 2014 at 10:32 pm.

  18. Sponsored Links


  19. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SixFoot View Post
    You know what the biggest problem we "deniers" have with man-made global warming? The fact that for every study cited- evidence and all- in support of the man-made theory, there's a study that can be found- evidence and all- in opposition to the theory.

    Because of this, and the encroachment of politics and their lobbies into the issue, the science has been utterly corrupted by incomplete opinions (and nothing more). There is no solid proof. I have faith only in God. The rest, I require absolute proof before following as a believer.
    That is right. It is hard to take a person seriously, that believes global warming is man made. As you have said there is simply no proof to support that position. I also wanted to comment on your pic in the bottom of your sig. That movie was one of my all time favorite. Clint Eastwood did a remarkable job and your pic is cool.

  20. Sponsored Links


  21. #40
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coolidge View Post
    That is right. It is hard to take a person seriously, that believes global warming is man made. As you have said there is simply no proof to support that position. I also wanted to comment on your pic in the bottom of your sig. That movie was one of my all time favorite. Clint Eastwood did a remarkable job and your pic is cool.
    There is a small problem in this statement. We must have an effect even if it is a very minor one. As I have attempted to point out, that effect is not from CO2 per say, but in an area that we have not yet touched on, Land Use. (Where is Lee when you need him) Lee Kington did a very good explanation of how land use affects localized climate over time in the Global Warming Watch thread. I will try and find a link to his work.

    Another area of concern is pollution vs GHG. Most Man Made alarmists confuse the two as being one in the same. They are related but the blurring of the line has placed huge amounts of confusion and allowed the EPA to grab power it is not entitled by this intentional misdirection.

    Which brings us to the CO2 Endangerment finding. I will outline why CO2 is not in any way a pollutant and how the EPA has twisted its mandate to become law writer, cop, judge, jury, and executioner WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT and seized upon by the Executive as a club in my next post. IMHO the EPA needs to be disbanded and the states allowed agency to police their own and the big dog only has equal protections clause authority to ensure state to state encroachment doesn't happen with tight Congressional control.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 24th, 2014 at 11:41 pm. Reason: spelling/grammer

  22. Sponsored Links


  23. #41
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    13,339
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    It saddens my heart that science is currently entangled in politics.

    TRUMP WON 2016

  24. Sponsored Links


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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cygnus X-1 View Post
    It saddens my heart that science is currently entangled in politics.

    Another key point why Global Warming is what it is today. Grant funding!

    When a group wants funding for a specific item they look to see what the current agenda is before grant writing. (I hated this class in college) They then use terms and conclusions they wish to confirm in the proposal.(these terms are incorporated into the grant proposal in an effort to sway the decision making process. Those items which fall into the current agenda of the administration are the ones which generally get funded)

    SO those seeking grants have already placed a preconceived end to their research in order to obtain the grant. This is not how science works. Instead of looking for the potential causes using the scientific method and letting the chips fall where they may, they always dial back to something that states they need further funding as they were unable to confirm their stated grant goal.

    This behavior has induced all kind of shenanigans to keep the money flowing.. The Models are a prime example. The massive 1.7 terraflop computer where I live was made for modeling. it is still not enough to drive most GCM's and those creating those GCM's refuse to (or are incapable of) modeling water vapor. We need more money! hand goes out..

    If someone from your school does research that disproves your hypothesis and millions of dollars of grant money are at stake guess what goes out the window or into the round file..

    The grant system was created by those in government who want to deceive and have an agenda. And those who take money from them are under the masters thumb to do exactly what they say.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 25th, 2014 at 3:59 pm.

  26. Sponsored Links


  27. #43
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    On to the Endangerment Finding...

    In order to take control of the nations economy (after congress has explicitly said no) the current administration has taken its out of control agency club and now used it's unfettered control of rule making to find CO2 a danger to man. In doing so they can now control every aspect of human life.

    Lets Review the Amicus Brief to the SCOTUS (PDF Here)which challenges the EPA's finding.

    SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
    In the midst of an unsettled and vigorous international debate regarding the existence of purported global warming and the role—if any—of human-emitted greenhouse gases (GHGs) in contributing to that alleged warming, EPA concluded with near absolute certainty that temperatures in the second half of the twentieth century were “unusually” high because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. 74 Fed. Reg. 66518 (2009). That sweeping conclusion was a critical component of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, and so was an impetus for the most significant and far-reaching regulatory program ever devised by a federal agency.

    Amici urge the Court to grant petitioners’ request for certiorari because the three “lines of evidence” from the administrative record that EPA relied on do not support the conclusion that manmade greenhouse gas emissions have caused climate warming in the latter half of the twentiethcentury. Indeed, each line of evidence is demonstrably invalid.

    EPA’s first line of evidence, its purported basic physical understanding of the effect of GHGs and other factors on climate, is invalid because it relies on the existence of an atmospheric “hot spot” or “fingerprint” that simply does not exist in the real world’s temperature data. Its second line of evidence, the assertion that temperatures around the globe rose to unusual and dangerously high levels over the last fifty years, is also demonstrably false using the best temperature data available. Likewise, EPA’s third line of evidence, involving computerized climate models, is also invalid. It can be shown that those models, premised on faulty assumptions, just do not produce forecasts that match up with the real world.

    No specialized scientific education or previous experience with climate science is needed to see that those facts are true. Each of EPA’s lines of evidence requires that the most relevant and credible temperature data available show upward-sloping trends in temperature. That is true for the Hot Spot or GHG Fingerprint theory, the assertion that worldwide temperatures have been anomalous, and for actual data to conform to EPA’s model forecasts of rising global average surface temperature (GAST). In science, theories must be validated against the most credible evidence will be shown to be invalid via such easy to understand hypothesis testing.

    EPA reached its invalid conclusions through a highly deficient process. EPA refused to examine “relevant data,” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513 (2009) (quoting Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Assn. of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)), and made other procedural errors. EPA’s Endangerment Finding is not “rational,” but arbitrary and capricious. Fox, 556 U.S., at 516. Amici therefore respectfully request that this Court grant petitioners’ request for certiorari in this case.
    Now that we have set the table lets discuss the lines of evidence (LoE). The fact is, I have already shown all three of their LoE as demonstrably falsified. But we shall revisit them.
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 26th, 2014 at 7:56 am.

  28. Sponsored Links


  29. #44
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    One more point of contention is the EPA failed to follow their own policy on determining endangerment and refused to hold open and on the record hearings to discuss the science. This breach of their own policy should result in the over turn of the finding but the lower courts (liberal packed of course) failed to even deal with this very basic failure.

    .... On October 7, 2009, before EPA issued its Endangerment Finding, a group of independent scientists, including some of amici, submitted a letter to EPA. In that letter, the scientists urged EPA to consider (1) whether the earth’s climate is changing in an unusual or anomalous fashion; (2) whether the science permits rejection of thehypothesis that CO2 only has a minor effect on the earth’s climate; (3) whether climate models that assume CO2is a key determinant of climate change can provide accurate forecasts of future conditions; and (4) whether natural (non-anthropogenic) forces and internal climate variability are the primary drivers of the earth’s climate. Comment submitted by Dr. David R. Legates, C.C.M., Assoc. Professor of Climatology, Univ. of Del., to Hon. Lisa P. Jackson, Adm’r, EPA (Oct. 7, 2009), docketed as EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-11465 (Oct. 21, 2009), available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...009-0171-11465 (hereinafter “Comment by Legates”); see 74 Fed. Reg. 18886 (2009). Essentially, EPA was expressly urged to consider the facts discussed above. The scientists also urged EPA to use the Scientific Advisory Board process, permitting an on-the-record hearing, in which it could draw on analysis from qualified scientists in different fields of knowledge. See Comment submitted by Legates. But EPA ignored these comments, glossed over these fundamental scientific questions, and relied on adjusted, unreliable data.

    EPA’s own Inspector General, in a procedural review issued in September 2011, faulted EPA for procedural deficiencies including the refusal to use the Scientific Advisory Board process. EPA, Office of Inspector General, Procedural ReviewData Quality Processes, Report No. 11-P-0702, at 36 (Sept. 26, 2011), available at www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2011/20110926-11-P-07 02.pdf (hereinafter “Inspector General’s Report”); Non-State Petitioners’ Request for Judicial Notice, Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, Case No. 09-1322 (CADC Sept. 30, 2011), ECF No. 1332845. In particular, the Inspector General criticized EPA for failing to follow all recommended steps for an external peer review by independent experts. See Inspector General’s Report, at 36. .....
    This why the endangerment finding was purely political agenda. Why else would you bypass real science?
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 26th, 2014 at 8:34 am.

  30. Sponsored Links


  31. #45
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wild-Windy Wyoming
    Age
    54
    Posts
    42,186
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    The Amicus Brief however tells me why Trenbreth is still looking for his missing hot spot, why the EPA refuses to admit its CO2 sensitivity was 600% to high, and that models are total failures..

    To Admit these in any way would give the SCOTUS clear path to throw out the Endangerment Finding. However there are several other agencies which have abandoned the lies and thus the EPA has no where to hide. Even the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences have abandoned the lie..

    Great Britain and many EU states threw out the green party in yesterdays election. The rabid enviro-wackos lost all power. I hope this is an indicator for what liberals face in the US as well.

    The United Kingdom Independence Party, the only climate-skeptical party in Britain, has scored a crushing victory in Sunday’s elections to the Duma of the European Union.

    Britain’s most true-believing party, the Greens, won one or two new seats, but the second most true-believing party and junior partner in the Children’s Coalition that currently governs at Westminster, the “Liberal” “Democrats” (who are neither), were all but wiped off the map.
    Source
    Last edited by Billy_Bob; May 26th, 2014 at 8:57 am.

  32. 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
  •