Those
who claim Climate Change/Global Warming is man made are causing trillions of
dollars to be spent fighting against man’s contributions. With all this capital being pulled from the
people while causing hardships to businesses, stripping freedoms and liberties
should we not be sure of our facts and conclusions? Climate Change/Global Warming is not the question; there may be
or maybe not, it’s a natural historic process. The concern is the studies
leading to the conclusion that this is a man made problem. Many studies use data that is highly suspect
having many problems with how the data is collected, calculated, used and not
used plus a distinct lack of historical knowledge. Some of the problems are as follows.
1) James Hansen’s (father of Global Warming) work is flawed with his numbers not being hit and the conditions he predicted not existing, yet still Global Warmer’s hearken back to it. His conclusions appear alarmist, lacking thorough thought and research. Hansen supporters torture his numbers to prove him, and still no results, just speculation. James Lovelock, father of the "Gaia" theory and Climate Change has reversed himself denouncing his earlier predictions. Lovelock called his own work “Alarmist”.
2) The use of the term Green House effect is misleading. A green house is only like the earths atmosphere as sunrays come in, warm, and some go back out. A green house is 99+% terra based while the earth 70% water. Green house has no winds while the earth has many levels of wind blowing to and fro. Green house has 1 atmosphere with a constant air gasses composition and a constant from the glass cover. Earth has 7 layers the thermosphere, exosphere, ionosphere, mesosphere, stratosphere, tropopause and troposphere with different compositions and interactions. Their theoretical models neglect and/or ignore many phenomena in nature. “Climate Changers” ignore Earth’s natural scrubbing of the atmosphere with chemical reactions, rains, winds, solar rays, gravity and counter chemical / physical reactions such as sulfur dioxide and dirt particles reflecting sunrays.
3) The United State in the late 1960’s thru the 80’s added stiff measures limiting pollutant output in industry and motor vehicles. The average auto in 1968 put out 894 grams of the 4 major pollutants while in 2010 put out only 331 grams. Although I find these numbers suspect as they are 3.5 to 4 times higher than the weight of the fuel used and do not trust the methodology to calculate fuel to carbon dioxide weight. We have lost an estimated 60% of our industrial base eliminating the vast majority of those pollutants through attrition, not to mention the rigid Government forced restrictions and cleaning processes. Why is our contribution to climate change/global warming vastly exaggerated? Of all the carbon dioxide in the atmospheres man contributes only 2 – 4% depending on which study you look at, with 96% - 98% naturally made. That works out to .08ppm to .16ppm of man made green house gas out of 4ppm. If man totally stopped polluting there would still be 3.84ppm to 3.92ppm. One step further the US contribution is only .0152ppm to 0.034ppm which changes absolutely nothing if we totally stop emitting carbon dioxide.
4) Locations of collection have changed over the years leaving room for discrepancies; e.g., Denver Colorado has had several locations with significantly different weather over the years. Temperatures at sea have been taken at different times, different locations. Changes in conditions of locations where information is collected.
Urban
areas such as cities have increased the terrain coverage with cement, stone,
brick, and pavement at an expediential rate.
All of which retain and radiate more heat. No subsequent historic comparison of desolate areas v. rural v.
urban changes.
Numbers of reporting stations in the 1970’s
was about 6000 and by 1990 there was a 63% decrease with a concentration of
poorly placed stations. In
historic analysis one needs to have consistency in data collection and
benchmarks or randomness kicks in skewing the results. This evokes the old coined phrase “comparing
apples to oranges”.
5) Methods of collection have changed. Ocean water at one time was collected by bucket thrown over the rail and measured. Now water is collected from sea vessels bilge water pumps and sea buoys. My own questioning of seawater temperature converted to air temperature. Temperature of the air can change so radically from 1 layer to the next plus winds can drive temperatures rapidly with the ocean water not having enough time to react. Throw water turnover in for an added twist. How valid is Water temperature relevance to air temperature?
7) In previous centuries fuel for millions of homes, tens of thousands of businesses and factories were all carbon base fuel pumping out mass quantities of carbon pollutants. Winter skies were flooded with heavy carbon smoke, no filtration or scrubbing. There was year around use of wood/coal for cooking, heating, and water heating by all. 1900 the earth had an estimated 1.6 billion people using coal, wood, petroleum, animal oils, and carbon vegetation plus animal waste as fuel. Carbon pollutants also from slash and burn of fields, horrendous fires from wars and man’s accidental fires. Historic numbers cited by Gregg Marland and Bob Andres (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) provided by (Marland, Boden, and Andres 2007), used by many for a historic look at carbon in the atmosphere, show a real lack of historic data. They severely underestimate what was being released into the atmosphere during the years they chart.
Here
is a photo from 1900 of one steel mill.
One city, 1857 Pittsburgh, factories were burning 880000 tons of coal
per day or an est. 3229600 tons of carbon dioxide in the air with an annual
yield of 1+ Billion tons with 6 day work week (many worked 7 days). Wood fireplaces - stoves produced about 5+
tons of pollutants annually multiplied by the est. 16000000 1900(yr) households
in the US = 80000000 + tons annually.
The Titanic burned some 825 tons of coal per day. Pundits claim each ton produces 3.67 tons of
carbon dioxide in the air, so by that the1ship spewed some 3028 tons of carbon
dioxide per day. On an annual basis
that is approx. 945000 tons per year, per ship. The Lusitanian (c. 1914) mentioned 1,100 of coal tons per day or
45 tons and hour. The "Kaiser
Wilhelm De Grosse (c. 1900) used 500 tons of coal per hour at 22.79 knots. Cunard steamship America in 1849 was rated
at 60 tons of coal per day at 10 knots. The Canada moving at 10 knots also used
60 tons of coal per day. Union Pacific
4-8-8-4 "Big Boy" Locomotives consumed approx. 9.66 tons of coal per
hour or near 40 tons per hour of gasses.
Start multiplying these numbers times the 10’s of 1000’s of ships,
factories, steam locomotives and add other “man” burnings, the pundits numbers
appear very light.
They erroneously assume a 100% conversion from coal to carbon
dioxide (3.67 the weight of carbon dioxide v. carbon) going into the air
ignoring the coal converted into heat energy, sulfur dioxide, Nitrogen oxide,
Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, ash, sludge, arsenic, lead, cadmium and others,
plus Free O2 and H2O. Carbon content of coal ranges from 60-80%, see http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html . This error
only gets worse with other carbon fuels.
This is a major flaw in the green house gas theory. Additionally, Marc
Morano in “CO2 Nears 400 ppm – Relax! It’s Not Global Warming ‘End Times’ — But
Only A ‘Big Yawn’ — Climate Depot Special Report” goes on to demonstrate
ancient temperatures similar to ours with ppm of Carbon up to 20 times higher
than current.
8) There is little discussion of the last 4-8 years reduction in severity of temperature patterns and the exaggeration of events such as tornados, hurricanes and floods. Common phrases heard in weather reporting and discussions; the worst ever, never seen anything like it, unheard of. These are exaggerated comments with out regard to actual historic events. 1 example Colorado 1/1/14-6/20/14 had 40 tornadoes with a yearly average of 53 but still the cry goes out “the worst years ever” “due to climate change”. Many meteorologists are openly denouncing the Man made Climate Change scenario.
9) Studies seem to disregard solar flare fluctuation, variation in earth wobbling axis rotation, changes in inner earth magma flow, changing celestial effects and many more natural factors. The sun is our external source of heat and has fluctuating radiant heat.
.
10) The Antarctic Ice Sheet breaking off into the ocean
was a hallmark poster child for global warming but was that correct? A study by various science organizations and
chronicled on the Discovery channel came to the conclusion the Antarctica Ice
Sheet was melting from below and sliding on 1/4 inch of water to the sea and
breaking off, not melting from the top.
Their conclusion was the ice sheet was breaking off due to underground
heating and not global warming. Since then the climate changers have been blaming melting ice with out proof that it has not been going on for centuries.
11)
The method that climate change/global warming claims vast support in the
scientific community is skewed as the major study uses two criteria. Stanford University took an approach that
forces the conclusion top scientist do support man made climate change. The university came to these
conclusions by analyzing the number of research papers published "by
more than 900 climate researchers" (out of 1000,s) and the number of times
these researchers' works were cited by other scientists. The expertise was
evaluated by citing the number of research papers written by scientists (with
the minimum number for inclusion being 20).
Conclusions: Scientific expertise lacking among 'doubters' of climate change. Problem here many scientists and researchers doubt man’s causing climate change not the existence of climate change. Stanford researchers totally ignore many sources due to their micro vision; support of the back patting syndrome and fear amongst other scientist of being “Burnt at the Stake” as did scientist who believed the earth was round or the earth revolved around the sun or those who do not care to make the effort. Continual reciting of material, in truth, does not make it so yet creates “common knowledge” which is often incorrect. Erroneous information, rumors and ½ truths are recited time and time again but they are still erroneous information, rumors and ½ truths, just as bad science in 1 paper is still bad science in another. An expert is not an expert because he is a prolific writer but rather what he knows and does. Steve Wozniak, a true expert in his field, was not concerned with publishing and would have been excluded in a study in his field. The claim of 97% of climate researchers support man made climate change is vastly exaggerated.
Conclusions: Scientific expertise lacking among 'doubters' of climate change. Problem here many scientists and researchers doubt man’s causing climate change not the existence of climate change. Stanford researchers totally ignore many sources due to their micro vision; support of the back patting syndrome and fear amongst other scientist of being “Burnt at the Stake” as did scientist who believed the earth was round or the earth revolved around the sun or those who do not care to make the effort. Continual reciting of material, in truth, does not make it so yet creates “common knowledge” which is often incorrect. Erroneous information, rumors and ½ truths are recited time and time again but they are still erroneous information, rumors and ½ truths, just as bad science in 1 paper is still bad science in another. An expert is not an expert because he is a prolific writer but rather what he knows and does. Steve Wozniak, a true expert in his field, was not concerned with publishing and would have been excluded in a study in his field. The claim of 97% of climate researchers support man made climate change is vastly exaggerated.
It
is my belief climate runs in cycles changing with time for many reasons and man
has temporarily changed weather locally but not globally. Further I believe many of those who ballyhoo
Global Warming/Climate
Change as a man made problem are mostly one or more of the following:
Change as a man made problem are mostly one or more of the following:
1)
Those
who see or hear, are spoon-fed, the conclusion of studies filtered through the
media or educational sources and never look to the internals or question the
motives or just do not have time.
2)
Those
that have not truly researched what the critics of Global Warming/Climate
Change have to say.
3)
Self-serving
profiteers that farm for capital and or power
4)
Investigators
that are lazy or ignorant and do not look at what lay right before them and or
practice sketchy science
5)
Ideological
zealots blinded by their mission or so arrogant as to discount others.
Clean
water and air with reasonable, rational efforts are desirable. Supporting the wholesale raping of Man’s
Wealth, Freedoms and Liberties without good clean science and rational
conclusions is unacceptable. Scientist,
Politicians and Activist who Ballyhoo Climate Change/Global Warming, need to
prove their science and conclusions properly addressing all of the above, and
not just a portion here and there, as they now do, allowing for and even
forcing their conclusions. Avoid the
temptation to hide behind catch phrases like “Limitations” and take an honest,
wide approach to the study.
Historically speaking, there is no recorded history more than some 6000
years ago, so anything the science community concludes is a non-provable
theory, a best guess. There are no witnesses or recorded event to use as
verification. Many known science
conclusions have been disproved time and time again so beware of holding too
tight as disproof looms around the corner.
Finally, reflect on 3 simple statements:
1st “The prospect of domination of the nation’s
scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is
ever present - and is gravely to be regarded.” — Dwight Eisenhower, 1961
Farewell Address to the Nation.
2nd "The only thing more dangerous than
ignorance is arrogance" Albert Einstein,
3rd the old adage “Follow the Money”