Anthroprogenic Global Warming

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate

A peer-reviewed and proven constant, empirically so, of the limits of the climate response to GHG's and a basic physical proof of how CO2 cannot increase the temperature of the Earth to dangerous levels. Warning, this is basic science, not computer "models" that arbitrarily add or multiply data sets to match a belief. This is based on observed evidence and it has yet to be disproven. Any one is welcome to try. As of yet, there has been no actual proof that CO2 creates any advanced warming or "positive" feedback chain. Only suppositions based on a loose grasp of causality. Much like assuming that wearing Nike shoes makes you fit and trim, when it just happens that trained, paid athletes were seen wearing Nike shoes.

Oh yeah, spank that ass ...

Scientists have stated that there has been no real increase in the earth's temperartue for quite a vast amount of time.

True. And right now, with Michael Mann and Penn State under investigation, there is a call for him to return the stimulus money granted by the Fed if it turns out that he has been dishonest. I think he's having a bad day, as well as Phil Jones.

John Holdren, science csar for Obama, has not yet faced a true investigation for his emails in the climategate scandal where he conspired to discredit Soon for providing evidence that the solar flare cycles of the sun actually have a stronger effect, equaled somewhat by the oceanic oscillations of temperature (PDO and MDO).

Scientists will use any means necessary to credit or protect their own theories.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/40749822.html

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, is now the weather forecaster in San Diego, Ca. He has put together a 1 hour special showing the other side of the debate in AGW. On this page, he shows how the work of programmer Smith and meteorologist D'Aleo have uncovered manipulated US temperature data sets. When you hear that a certain year was the warmest on record and within the last 10 years, it is a lie.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

On this page, you can view segment 4 of the documentary. Basically, in the 70's, there were approximately 6,000 temp stations around the world. By the 90's, the NCDC (Natl Climate Data Center) was using only temps from 1,500 locations and all those from the warmer places on the planet, places that are usually warm.

So, the NASA/GISS records are botched. And the averaging programs were assuming a temp in a non-measured location by averaging in temps from locations that were hundreds of miles upto 1,200 miles away from the target locations. And the pattern shows this was not accidental. Even if it was, that is just sloppy work. But a concerted pattern shows up and it was for a political agenda.

Also. CO2 levels go up after temperature goes up, often lagging by 800 years approximately. The Med. Warm Period ended in 1300 AD, about 700 years ago. And that's an established pattern through data collection in the Vostok Ice Core data set, which has stayed intact because it is independent of the CRU at UEA and NASA/GISS and NCDC.

And you raise another good point, 1916. It is human nature to defend your position. For some of the scientists, it is also defense of the funding they receive. They were paid to prove AGW and would do anything to prove it and earn that grant money and qualify for more and it fit in with their politics and the politics of their benefactors.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/16/history-in-a-hurry-the-first-book-about-climategate-is-published/

A notice of a new book, just published, about the climategate scandal and how skeptics of the AGW theory were treated and viewed by the main players in the CRU at the University of East Anglia, Michael Mann of Penn State Uni, et al.

It's almost like the "Middle Ages" where the work of Galen could not be debated or challenged. Now, the scientists will uphold their own theories even if it holds back development, it's all about claiming glory instead of trying to make progress. Scientists almost threaten anyone else not to dare question their work.

1916 wrote:It's almost like the "Middle Ages" where the work of Galen could not be debated or challenged. Now, the scientists will uphold their own theories even if it holds back development, it's all about claiming glory instead of trying to make progress. Scientists almost threaten anyone else not to dare question their work.

And it happens again and again. Einstein encountered much resistance. Until people accepted his theories because they fit some descriptions nicely. Then, later, as other scientists have found problems with his theories, find themselves battling against the ensconced Einstein "consensus." What still marks Einstein apart from other scientists, both contemporaries and modern, was his humility. He had assumed his stuff would proven wrong and he did find his own problems with his theories when he stepped off into Quantum Mechanics as well as when he did actual experiments with sub-atomic particles. In QM, the EPR Event, which is partly named for him, shows an effect that happens simultaneously, which violates the speed of light limit. And, in sub-atomic particles, the only way to describe the results of collisions is with vector sums even though his own theory had led him to believe that large velocities were non-additive. Yet, there is a major industry in experimental research to "prove" Einstein correct. Otherwise, they couldn't qualify for the funding of supercolliders.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/23/breaking-un-wrongly-linked-global-warming-natural-disasters

Not only has the UN had to remove the himalayan glacier melt bit from it's report, it is having to admit that it has wrongly linked global warming, in general, to natural disasters. And, aside from basic science, the empirical evidence that CO2 is not causing any catastrophes. Read 'em and weep.

Another related article,
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/23/tv-newsers-ignore-un-apology-himalayan-glacier-error

As some of you may know from my posts at the gnr forum, I am an electrician. I have a master license and I am now an electrical instructor at a program for disadvantaged and "at-risk" young people, ages 16-24. I started doing electrical work in 1983 and I have been studying electricity and electronics and science and math since 1974. My step-grandfather had given me books on the stuff and even got me a primer book on Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity. By the time I was 11, he had taught me how to do single variable differential and integral calculus. Later on, I learned multi-variable calculus, differential equations, linear algebra (set theory run through a pretzel maker), n-space geometry, and topology (set theory on steroids). I may not know how to operate a Microsoft network but I can tell you what the computer is doing in a sub-atomic level. I have been to college a few times, mostly majoring in Electrical Engineering but I ran out of money and couldn't finish college.

I am not a professional scientist but do consider myself an amateur or "arm-chair" scientist in that I enjoy reading science and talking about it. I even have a telescope and look at the stars. And I think Einstein was wrong, but that's another thread.

What I want to do is go over some of the physics and math involved in CO2.

CO2 is a gas made up of one atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen. It, like some other gases, responds mainly in the infrared (long wave) range of radiation. The other gases that respond in the IR are water vapor and methane. Primarily because carbon is a component of two and hydrogen is a component of one. Carbon Dioxide absorbs and re-emits IR at 3 distinct frequencies, the most prominent of which are 2.5 microns and 15.7 microns. At those wavelengths exactly, creating an incredibly narrow frequency response. Because of the translucence of CO2, this happens rapidly. Thompson, a scientist quoted by Al Gore in his film, "An Inconvenient Truth," came up with a graph to show temp response in the stratosphere, which is the layer of atmosphere above what we breathe, which is the troposphere. The crux of the Anthroprogenic Global Warming theory (AGW) is that CO2 is trapping heat in the troposphere, which would cause cool spots in the stratosphere. Thompson's own graph shows stratospheric warming at 2.5 and 15.7 microns, when it should have been cool, per AGW. There is a wide bandwidth that show fleeting, momentary moving stratospheric cooling. As in heat being momentarily trapped in the troposphere, our breathing air. That broad frequency response is at 6.5 microns. I won't make you guess. 6.5 microns is water vapor, such as clouds. In addition to that, the white nature of clouds also reflects heat back out into space, as well as holding some heat underneath it momentarily. This is called negative feedback. Also, when a cloud rains, the mass of the water droplets pulls cold air down with it, creating a temporary cooling effect in the lower atmosphere. A rainstorm can drop the temps by 15 F easily and I have experienced it myself, working on a construction site and getting caught in the rain.

So, an AGW scientist's own data disproves his own CO2 theory.

Secondly, basic physics includes a few principles called the Laws of Thermodynamics. One of the laws, easily provable until you die of boredom, is that energy moves from high to low states (in particle physics, this is called entropy), from hot to cold. Hot to cold is also called convection. Heat is high energy and cold is low energy. A heated particle or substance will not, cannot, release its heat to something the same temperature or hotter. It must release to something cooler. That is undeniable. It is why a pot of water boils. It is why a hot air balloon works. It is why your air conditioner works. So, a heated CO2 particle cannot release heat to a lower part of the atmosphere that may be warmer, it will release to an upper layer that is cooler. This has been scientifically and empirically proven by Prof. Richard Lindzen in his 20 year (I said 20 year) study of the Earth's radiation into space. Earth is still radiating as it always has. In so many words, CO2 is nearly transparent to heat radiation.

CO2 has a limited response per concentration. Though not proven, by calculation (regarding mean average concentration in atmosphere), the most that CO2 could provide in "heating" is .3 C. This is slightly less than 3 degrees F. By the way, the heating is not true heating, it is simply a factor in the heat exchange rate in the atmospheric convection from hot to cold. CO2 cannot stop the heat radiation, it can only alter the rate by a few moments, literally. If you could liken greenhouse gases to blankets, water vapor is like a blanket, which still releases heat at a certain rate and CO2 is like a fisherman's net, i.e., not hardly a blanket. And adding another fishnet produces no additional measurable warning. How much CO2 causes .3 C warming effect by means of momentarily delaying heat exchange? Somewhere between 20 and 50 parts per million (ppm). What was Nature's CO2 output before the modern CO2 by man (circa 1940)? 280 ppm. That is, all the warming CO2 could provide was already provided by nature if Man never existed.

More in the next post.

Many calculate the current concentration at about 380 ppm (no telling how they can measure that but assume a certain amount of output from industry) and want to limit it to 350, which is what many people estimate was the concentration around 1910. Yeah, really.

The atmosphere is mostly nitrogen. Aprrox. 78 percent. Oxygen is 21 percent. Of the remaining one percent, there is argon and a few other odd elements. CO2, in total, is .038 percent of the atmosphere. Man's contribution, by the calculation of the most rabid AGW believers is .03 percent of the total CO2 load. That is, we produce .03 percent of .038 percent of the total atmosphere. Or, .00113 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. And they want us to believe that our .00113 percent of the atmosphere is going to raise temperature by 20 degrees F?

A gas does not warm anything. It merely transfers heat, according to its frequency response. And it must transmit to something cooler. What raises temperature? A heat source. Such as the burner under your pot of water. In the case of the planet, it is the Sun, an uncontrolled nuclear reactor approx 93 million miles away that puts incredible amounts of energy.

Here's how an air conditioner works. And I have worked on my own, so I know the principles involved, as well. A compressor pressurizes a gas and this pressure is carried until it gets to the evaporator coil in your central air handler. When it enters it is cold. Air, drawn by the circulating fan in the air handler, is drawn in through what is called a return air plenum. The warm air from your house is drawn across the evaporator, which is cold. Heat moves from hot to cold. The air, as it leaves the evaporator, is now cooler. The heated refrigerant gas is then pushed along to the outside unit and through another coil called the condenser, which is lower in pressure. When a gas goes from high to low pressure, it releases heat rapidly and this is dissipated through coils and drawn out by the blower motor or condenser motor, as some techs call it and it blow to the surrounding air, where it can dissipate in an upward fashion.

In this same principle, gas, such as water vapor or CO2 does the same thing. They can't hold on to heat and they can't give it up to a surrounding that is warmer.

How's about evidence. The evidence is that the globe warmed a few degrees F between 1979 and 1998, with 1998 being a hot year and fully atrributed to a strong El Nino which even the IPCC and other alarmists do not attribute to CO2. Then the temp stabilized a few years and then has dropped dramatically since 2007. The winter of 2009-2010 has broken 25 year old records and in the case of Houston, Texas, broke a record for early snowfall that stood for at least 100 years. AGW believers often say that weather is not climate. Yes, it is, actually. I leave that as an exercise of logic for others.

Again, to evidence. Climategate descended Nov 17, 2009. Emails and computer code were uploaded through a russian server. This collection (approx 63 MB) showed the wrongdoings of the CRU at University of East Anglia in Great Britain and associated scientists, including Obama's science csar, John P. Holdren, and their manipulations of cherry-picking data sets, altering that data even further, ignoring other data, in some cases, apparently destroying raw data, trying to control scientific journals, indeed controlling the peer review process for the IPCC, threatening bodily harm to a dissenting scientist, trying to discredit others, how to keep from paying taxes on the federal grant money they received, how to disobey freedom of information act requests for data sets and modelling methods.

And now the american version of climategate is unravelling, with the deletion of entire data sets, such as those from the ARGO buoys, by NASA/GISS, headed by Jim Hansen, as well as NOAA.

So, what evidence? A programmer for the CRU had to make notes in the program to differentiate between raw data and expected output and labelled it "fudge factor" (not my words) in order to keep track of what the code was doing.

'So, Ron, are you saying that some scientists have lied?"

Short answer, yes. Why? Money, politics, power, religion, you name it, or any combination thereof.

I'm not alone. 32,000 scientists, including the founder of the Weather Channel, have filed lawsuit against Al Gore. Over 750, at last count, scientists have stated their dissent in the US Senate Minority Report. Senator James Inhofe (republican - Oklahoma) has opened investigations against John Holdren (Obama's science csar, for his emails in the CRU climategate email scandal. There are emails directly from him trying to discredit Soon's work on solar activity, which conflicts against the CRU's theories) and the director of NOAA.

Canada is now also saying how their data collection was ignored by NASA/GISS and the CRU. Michael Mann, the creator of the now thoroughly discredited Hockey Stick graph that Al Gore used in his movie, is now under investigation, as well as his employer, Penn State, and how they may have to return the govt money given to them as it has become apparent that he "cooked the books" to get the result he wanted. Phil Jones, director of the CRU, is on "administrative leave" while the investigation, which started out as a university investigation, is now being picked up by the british government.

Google shied away from it for a while but they put it back into their auto-suggest, trying to salvage some of their credibility as the lead search engine for the world. Google and Bing - if you type in clim, before you can finish, you will get the auto-suggest of climategate.

Happy reading.

So, the cap-n-trade bill in the US and the COP15 (Copenhagen) conference were and are desires to restructure the world's economy and politics, and the US's economy and politics and way of life to "solve" a problem that doesn't actually exist. Why? Money and power. For some of the less educated, it is something of a religious believe that happens to coincide with some political movements. Did you know that the founder of Greenpeace left the org when socialists join the ranks and took over policy. That's a fact, Jack.

And Obama was and is all for it, another reason I don't trust him and disagree with him on these policies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUx6pwXe

Here's a report by the daily mail in the UK. Smack that UN ass.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/23/nasa-hide-this-after-jim-checks-it/

NASA/GISS, primarily director James Hansen and associate Gavin Schmidt, cause literally millions of raw temp data to be averaged upward to cover a discrepancy in the their change of method in collecting temp data. Even if you could get raw data from GISS, it has been altered and is no longer raw. This is in addition to the deletion of entire data sets that didn't show warming, so that GISS could continue to say that any year since 2000 was the warmest year on record for any period they wish to describe. The CRU climategate was just the beginning. Now NASA/GISS emails are being released through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. NASA is publically funded and any data such as global temp data is a matter of public record, to be viewed by anyone that requests it. The problem, they can't resist messing with it.
I couldn't make any of this up and would certainly have been accused of lying to support a political position since I am open about my politics. But the major contributors to the IPCC, the orgs that supposedly collect temp data from around the world, the CRU at UEA in the UK, NASA/ GISS, and NOAA all have been found to be manipulating data and hiding things that discredit their pre-supposed theories. Yes, the american version of climategate includes a "hide it" email. When a discrepancy was pointed out to them, the email says to get this info to James Hansen at NASA, and then hide the data, the email, etc. So, there's not even legitimate "consensus" within the communities of researchers, and certainly not in the field research of data collectors. A collection org in Canada is noting that some of their data sets have been ignored in total.

Who decides there was a "consensus"? Al Gore, whoever leads the IPCC (the current director is not a scientist), and the mainstream media, who have been Obama's cheerleaders, champion a political view and no longer practice the ideal of objective journalism. Once in a while, they try.

Jim Hansen, of NASA/GISS advocates terrorism in his praise of a book that prescribes terrorist activities to "stop global warming."

http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/dr-venus-dr-venus-its-medication-time/