Friday, December 28, 2012

Why no really believes in man made global warming

Some dude who is ashamed to reveal his moniker wrote this in response to my post, “Snowy weather comes from global warming” posted on 12/28.
“UK tabloids and Tim Ball, the former geography professor (not a climatologist)? Do you actually know who you're citing? If so, why would you cite them? is that really the best you can do for an "expert"?”

He takes the bait beautifully, eh??

A geography professor???
Why he is almost as qualified as the rail road engineer who run's the UN's IPCC...lol

"Pachauri was born in Nainital, India. He was educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow[4] and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He belongs to the Special Class Railway Apprentices, 1958 Batch, an elite scheme which heralded the beginning of mechanical engineering education in India.[5] He began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[6]  and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment.[8]"


What does Ball say?

"Everyone knows that information is power, but it’s exploitation of power that has allowed a few to control and exploit people. Exploitation can be financial, but more disturbing and controlling is the exploitation of power"

"The other issue I discussed was that climatology is a generalist discipline in a world of specialization. Even a basic understanding requires integration of everything from cosmic radiation from space to volcanic heat on the bottom of the ocean and everything in between.
Knowledge is valuable but only if it improves the human condition. As a consequence, beyond understanding the generalist nature of climate I am especially interested in how it affects all aspects of human existence. This website will examine a wide variety of topics about the way the environment affects humans and the way humans affect the environment."

Now, I have no way of knowing if CO2 leads, lags or just hold hands.


So let's look further...

"Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming."

So we get an excuse, eh?? You know, every time this shit gets exposed a bit, there's another excuse as to why it stinks. Why not just say, “It’s shit and it stinks!”
We all know why. Money and power.

This time the excuse is  changes in the earth's orbit with amplification… except know one knows what the real amplification factor is… if it is actually the cause…
Jan. 28, 2010 — A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 records spanning the past millennium.

The result, which is based on more than 200,000 individual comparisons, implies that the amplification of current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly less than recent work has suggested.

Climate warming causes many changes in the global carbon cycle, with the net effect generally considered to be an increase in atmospheric CO2 with increasing temperature -- in other words, a positive feedback between temperature and CO2. Uncertainty in the magnitude of this feedback has led to a wide range in projections of current global warming: about 40% of the uncertainty in these projections comes from this source.

Recent attempts to quantify the feedback by examining the co-variation of pre-industrial climate and CO2 records yielded estimates of about 40 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) CO2 per degree Celsius, which would imply significant amplification of current warming trends.

In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7.

The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming."


Get that??? Instead of 40 the figure is 7.7...with a 95% confidence factor.

 Now, what does this explain? Well, it is possible that it tells us why the increase has stopped and been level for the past 15 years or so.

 "The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

 Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.


May I point out that Georgia Tech ain’t a two  year state junior college?? And may I point out that Dr Jones, who admitted in an email that man made global warming had not happened, says they don’t understand??? But he has an OPINION.
An opinion?? That’s damned thin gruel to base a public policy on that has resulted in sky high energy prices and plans to make them go even higher so that Obama’s crony capitalist friends can get rich!

So color me as an unbeliever of the first order, dear dude.
And next time grow a set of balls and tell us who you are.





"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper

“It’s the presumption that Obama knows how all these industries ought to be operating better than people who have spent their lives in those industries, and a general cockiness going back to before he was president, and the fact that he has no experience whatever in managing anything. Only someone who has never had the responsibility for managing anything could believe he could manage just about everything.” - Thomas Sowell in Reason Magazine

No comments:

Post a Comment