Ad hominem
This link has been bookmarked by 33 people . It was first bookmarked on 17 Jun 2008, by liveinfreedom ..
-
11 Jan 14
-
The Middlebury Community Network
-
-
30 Oct 12
-
extreme haste with which seemingly the entire world immediately accepted the idea of Anthropogenic
-
-
22 Oct 12
Dan FerrierGreat source of evidence, graphs, what the hockey stick method is, and how the methods are flawed.
-
And last, but not least, we're seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing.
-
So the endless stream of dire predictions of what was going to happen years or decades from now if we did not drastically reduce our CO2 production by virtually shutting down the economies of the world appeared to be more the product of radical political and environmental activism rather than science.
-
-
01 Oct 12
stephfontNot sure if Lagit?
-
20 Mar 12
Rufo BondanzaThings about Global Warming. Read it! Is interesting!
-
14 Mar 12
rlhalbertAn argument AGAINST the idea of global warming.
-
10 Feb 12
-
12 Aug 11
-
29 Jun 11
-
And last, but not least, we're seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really
-
On Dec. 13, 2007, 100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping mankind better prepare for natural disasters. The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists
-
-
07 Jun 11
-
18 May 11
-
01 Mar 11
-
but we're not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric physics, (bio) and from the onset, many of the claims were just plain fishy. The extreme haste with which seemingly the entire world immediately accepted the idea of Anthropogenic ( man-made ) Global Warming made us more than a little bit suspicious that no one had really taken a close look at the science. We also knew that the catch-all activity today known as "Climate Science" was in its infancy, and that atmospheric modeling did not and still does not exist which can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance.
-
dire predictions of what was going to happen years or decades from now if we did not drastically reduce our CO2 production by virtually shutting down the economies of the world appeared to be more the product of radical political and environmental activism rather than science. Thus, we embarked on a personal quest for more information, armed with a strong academic background in postgraduate physics and a good understanding of the advanced mathematics necessary in such a pursuit
-
100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping mankind better prepare for natural disasters. The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists.
-
It's hard to nail down exactly when the sky started falling, but certainly the work of Michael Mann provided its first global exposure. Michael Mann, a paleoclimatologist ( one who attempts to interpret the past climate through certain Paleolithic records, such as ice core samples, sea bed sediments, coral heads, and tree ring growth ), submitted a paper to Nature magazine in 1998 which, unfortunately, was not subjected to peer review before publication. In it, he offered what has now become known as the famous "hockey stick" chart, showing the earth's temperature having been relatively constant for the past thousand years before suddenly skyrocketing upward at the dawn of the 20th century. His interpretation was that man's production of CO2 in the modern age was obviously responsible for the sudden increase. It turned out to be one of the biggest scientific blunders of all time.
-
In our highly simplified drawing above, a radiation source is beamed through a glass container containing a gas sample. As the radiation passes through, a portion of it is absorbed at particular narrow bandwidths (often more than one ) so the end result are some "missing" sections of the whole spectrum coming from the source, which show up as dark lines. They're missing because they were absorbed by the sample in the chamber. They are called absorption lines, or absorption spectra, and when analyzed by a knowledgeable person, can tell one what the gas or gas mixture is in the sample chamber based on a catalog of known spectra. It's a wonderful tool for analyzing unknown gas samples.
Let's look at a real result, below - the absorption spectrum for pure carbon dioxide plus an amount of water vapor equal to that in our current atmosphere as the sample and infrared radiation from a black body spectrum as the source. This is part of the so-called "greenhouse effect"
-
To give you a feeling for how little CO2 there actually is in the atmosphere, let's note that atoms and molecules are very tiny things, and the distances between them are therefore also very small. Physicists like to use a unit of measure called an Angstrom, which is 0.1 of a nano-meter, or a 0.1 billionth of a meter, (i.e. 10-10 of a meter or 10-7 of a mm). A molecule like CO2 has a size of around two Angstroms (2 x 10-7 mm). The density of the gas is 10 to the 24th power number of molecules occupying a space of about 22 liters (i.e. 4.55 x 1022 molecules per liter) at a pressure of 760mm of mercury and 273 degrees Kelvin (i.e. 32 degrees Fahrenheit or zero degrees Celsius) – called the "standard temperature and pressure". You can almost think of all this as just the normal temperature and pressure around you right now. A simple calculation shows that in a 3-dimensional tetrahedron array, as shown in the diagram below (for the closest possible packing with an equal distance between molecules), the spacing between molecules is approximately 28 Angstroms.
-
Man-made CO2 doesn't appear physically capable of absorbing much more than
two-thousandths of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.And, if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won't matter a bit.
In short, the laws of physics don't seem to allow CO2 it's currently assumed place as a significant "greenhouse gas
-
Both Oxygen and Nitrogen don't like to live alone. They prefer to find another and stick together into a diatomic ( 2 atom ) molecule. Thus the molecular weight of atmospheric oxygen or nitrogen is approximately twice that of one of them alone. We say "approximately", because it takes energy to bind them together, and mass and energy are equivalent stuff, as our good friend Dr. Einstein explained with his famous equation E=MC2.
Now, you can sit back and give yourself a pat on the back, because you now know more pure physics of the atmosphere than a lot of so-called "climate scientists", and likely know more than almost all of the non-scientist Popular Journalists and other writers churning out panic-stricken books and newspaper articles on the subject.
And for sure, you now know a lot more than Al Gore.
-
of knowledge needs sit the fundamental laws of physics - for no matter what others may determine, the final results must obey the fundamental, established principles which determine the nature of all elemental matter. Unfortunately, many "environmental scientists" actually study very little physics, chemistry or biology in depth. And many of the "lower" sciences involve little mathematics beyond introductory calculus. Before the greater body of scientists out there start beating on us, we'll admit that very few physicists had a time slot to study organic chemistry and beyond in college - and the truth of the matter is, there aren't enough semester hours available for everyone to be cross-trained in other disciplines to any competent depth. This makes becoming a highly skilled "Climate Scientist" very challenging, for this extremely complex field requires a very large tool kit. Thus, we trust others to deliver meaningful results from their specific disciplines. If a geologist tells us a particular rock is from the Devonian Period, we have little choice but to believe him. So in what follows, we're going to have to trust we have chosen good, solid scientists from other disciplines as our guide.
-
if it isn't a constantly changing "Greenhouse Effect" - with man to blame? Man wasn't producing much CO2 in the past million years, so he hasn't simply been turning the greenhouse up and down at will. Just look up - one of the most likely culprits is our old friend, the Sun.
-
1,500-year climate cycle while studying cycles in fish numbers on Canada's West Coast. Since the Canadian West had no long-term written fishery records, Patterson's research team drilled sediment cores in the deep local fjords to get 5,000-year climate profiles from the mud. The mud showed the past climate conditions: Warm summers left layers thick with one-celled fossils and fish scales. Cold, wet periods showed dark sediments, mostly dirt washed from the surrounding land. Patterson's fishing profiles clearly revealed the sun's 87 and 210-year solar cycles—and the longer, 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles found since the 1980s in ice cores, tree rings, and fossil pollen.
"Even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not
-
"Even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate changes. Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered," says Patterson.
"In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2000, Vizer, Shaviv, Carslaw and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies ... varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system... These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation, which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet."
"When the sun is less bright, more cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form and the planet cools... This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere ... was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age."
The Canadian expert concludes, "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales. Instead, Earth's sea surface temperatures show a massive 95 percent lagged correlation with the sunspot index." We'll talk about what a "correlation" means in a couple of minutes.
So what does this all mean? It means, in the simplest of terms, that it is the Sun which is warming the oceans, not an increased "Greenhouse Effect" caused by human activity.
-
Let's get back to our own science project.
The above chart shows two things we immediately recognize as very similar. In fact they seem to match each other very well. We would say they have a strong correlation, and with a little mathematics, we could compare each one point-by-point on the graph and come up with a number that would tell us just how well they match each other, called a correlation coefficient. In fact, a glance at the above suggests a perfect, 100% correlation, because in fact one is an exact copy of the other. We know this because we made the chart.
Now suppose the blue one represents changing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the red one represents changing global temperatures over the same time frame. The above is a gross exaggeration, of course, but we wanted to make sure no one doubted there is a strong correlation between the two. Is there any doubt that CO2 is causing the global temperature to change? Any doubt at all? None? Zero doubt, right?
-
So, what's the approximate molecular mass of the different gasses? That's simple addition:
Water (H2O) 1 +1+16 = 18 amu
Nitrogen (N2) 14 + 14 = 28 amu
Oxygen (O2) 16 + 16 = 32 amu
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 12 + 16 + 16 = 44 amu
Remember, we're rounding off to the nearest whole number, and amu means Atomic Mass Units.
Do you see something significant? Think like a scientist. Yes, CO2 is by far the heaviest of the major constituents, and the law of gravity applies to it as well. It sinks to the ground.. in fact, into the ground, and into the oceans, as well, because CO2 is very water-soluble and that's what puts the fizz in Ginger Ale.
-
Now our puzzle is complete, and we can visualize the whole thing.
1. The sun heats the earth, repository of most of the CO2 on the planet.
2. Some stored CO2 comes out by a process known as outgassing ( from the soil ) and the champagne effect ( from the oceans ). The oceans are by far the largest source.
3. Sloppy "scientists" see the warming, and the CO2, but overlook the changes in the sun, don't see the fine differences in timing... and proceed to blame the increasing temperature on CO2 and mankind as the culprit in a classic knee-jerk reaction.
Funny, any 1st Grader would have told us that if we had asked them "What makes the earth warm, Susie?" Nobody ever said science had to be "hard". You can demonstrate this with a simple kitchen experiment. Pour a glass of ginger ale, sit it on the table, and see how long it takes to go "flat" at room temperature. Now pour an equal glass into a pan and put it on the stove on low heat, then time how long it takes to go flat. That's your homework experiment - to demonstrate that extra heat really releases CO2 a lot faster :-)>
Our satellites are pretty good at measuring overall ocean temperatures from afar, and CO2 measurements are being taken daily around the globe. The best results we have been able to turn up so far is that measurable CO2 increases appear about 9 months after an upswing in ocean temperatures. The data is messed up a bit every time a volcano decides to blow its top, because that's the mother of CO2 producers, bar none. And a buffalo emits about the same amount of methane (CH4) as driving your automobile about 8,000 miles - which can combine with O2 in a highly exothermic reaction ( gives off heat ) to produce CO2 and H2O as end products.
-
-
11 Jan 10
-
23 Jul 09
-
15 Jul 09
-
However, "Global Warming" in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.
-
Add Sticky NoteAnd last, but not least, we're seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest. Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?
-
-
It turned out to be one of the biggest scientific blunders of all time.
-
The first was the well-documented "Medieval Warm Period" where temperatures, at least in Europe as mentioned in our introduction, were significantly higher. The second was the "Little Ice Age", a period in which the temperatures dropped so low the Thames River in London froze over.
-
Add Sticky Note“a validation skill not significantly different from zero”
-
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/von_Storch/pressrelease_vonStorch_NAS_report.html
With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.
Except it doesn't say that, see....
http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?page=111&record_id=11676
http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?page=91&record_id=11676
-
-
Add Sticky NoteThe Medieval Warm Period, of which the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming don't want you to be aware, was a period in which agriculture flourished, helping Europe emerge from the Dark Ages.
-
Having trashed Mans results for the whole northern hemisphere, they throw up a study using the same methodologies as evidence because this smaller local study shows differences.
The Medieval warm study is accepted by IPCC so is Mann. They do not condtradict each other.
-
-
Since our emergence from the Little Ice Age, agriculture has again flourished, and most of us hope it lasts quite a while longer. This is certainly no cause for panic, and a few of us think being comfortably warm and having plenty to eat is actually good.
-
Add Sticky NoteAnd Tom Nelson has a few more graphs the AGW folks don't want you to see posted
-
Ten different studies (the red one is the original H. H. Lamb study showing the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age periods - This is considered to be a regional effect).
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Another Ten different studies, this time Manns famous hockey stick graph is gone. There is still a Mann graph in this bunch but it includes all the recommendations of the National Accademy which investigated the original Hockey Stick Graph.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
-
-
-
11 Jul 09
Summary:
1. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.
2. Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.
3. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.
4. Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.
5. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.
6. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.
7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.
8. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.
9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.
10. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat... particularly the North Slope oil fields.
11. There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes a -
29 Jun 09
-
22 Nov 08
-
11 Jul 08
-
17 Jun 08
liveinfreedom .Read about the fraud in declaring that human activity is causing global warming.
-
09 Jun 08
-
18 Apr 08
Laureen UrquiagaThus, we embarked on a personal quest for more information, armed with a strong academic background in postgraduate physics and a good understanding of the advanced mathematics necessary in such a pursuit. This fundamental knowledge of the core principles
-
21 Mar 08
G WA well-researched article suggesting Anthropomorphic Global Warming may be a hoax.
Environmentalism&Leftism globalwarming anthropogenic models climate
Public Stiky Notes
With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.
Except it doesn't say that, see....
http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?page=111&record_id=11676
http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?page=91&record_id=11676
The Medieval warm study is accepted by IPCC so is Mann. They do not condtradict each other.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Another Ten different studies, this time Manns famous hockey stick graph is gone. There is still a Mann graph in this bunch but it includes all the recommendations of the National Accademy which investigated the original Hockey Stick Graph.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.