Those
who claim Climate Change and Global Warming are man made cause 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 sun rays.
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 A Challenge to Those Who Ballyhoo "Man-made Climate Change/Global Warming"
Bill Miller ©
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?
6) Changes in technology for collecting data lead to uncertain comparisons.
One example ozone data collection leading to the declaration that the Ozone Layer is
disappearing and needs for radical protection. Truth, NASA recognized a problem with
technological differences and commissioned Ball Aero Space to develop bridge technology to try
and accurately compare 1970's –80’s data to current data (pre ‘77 no data). Before 1977 (Pawan
Bhartia with NASA) it was an unknown condition. At last I knew Ball was still unsuccessfully
trying to figure it out. Further question, why are areas with hole in the ozone not destroyed by the
lack of ozone as the pundits depict in their Ozone Hole Warnings?
7) Lack of real recognition of historic accounts for past centuries and the warming and cooling
within those periods. Past change periods: Holocene Warming 1(11,600-8,500bp), Egyptian
Cooling (8,500-8,000bp), Holocene Warming 2(8,000-5,600bp), Akkadian Cooling (5,600-
3,500AD), Minoan Warming (3,500-3,200bp), Bronze Age Cooling (3,200-2,500bp), Roman
Warming (500BC-535AD), Dark Ages (535-900AD), Medieval Warming (900AD-1300 AD),
Little Ice Age (1300AD-1850AD). Critics claim change is happening without discussion of time
frame differences past v. present. They claim vast time frames for historic changes and discuss
current changes in decade framing. Changes within era / century framework are like a roller
coaster run, not static, not straight up and not straight down, rather many ups and downs. The
change being discussed is currently in decade time framing. It appears we have crested in a cycle
going back 4 decades even with ever increasing mass pollution from Africa, the East and Far
East. We are still in the next era that started approximately 1850AD and will go on for some
time. Here are 2 charts from NASA and EPA often ignored because of their inconvenience to the
argument for Global warming & Man Made Climate Change arguments.
8) 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 carbon converted into heat energy, sulfur dioxide,
Nitrogen oxide, Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, ash, sludge, arsenic, lead, cadmium and
others, plus Free O2 and H2O. 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.
9) 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 “one of the worst
years ever” “due to climate change”. Many meteorologists are openly denouncing the Man made
Climate Change scenario.
10) 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.
Magma is our internal source of heat, which also fluctuates as paths change and/or become more
active. The Chinese have long studied solar activity and when charted, world temperatures
follow a similar line to solar activity or lack of such as Coronal holes. Chart from Tattoo this:
‘It’s the Sun, stupid!’ By Willie Soon and William M. Briggs plotting solar activity with
temperatures.
11) 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 that was unveiled proponents try to blame it on melting ice with out any proof
that it has not been going on for centuries.
12) 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.
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:
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.
1) Self-serving profiteers that farm for capital and or power
2) Investigators that are lazy or ignorant and do not look at what lay right before them and
or practice sketchy science
3) 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”. rate. All of which retain and radiate more heat. No subsequent historic comparison of desolate areas v. rural v. urban changes.
Bill Miller ©
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?
6) Changes in technology for collecting data lead to uncertain comparisons.
One example ozone data collection leading to the declaration that the Ozone Layer is
disappearing and needs for radical protection. Truth, NASA recognized a problem with
technological differences and commissioned Ball Aero Space to develop bridge technology to try
and accurately compare 1970's –80’s data to current data (pre ‘77 no data). Before 1977 (Pawan
Bhartia with NASA) it was an unknown condition. At last I knew Ball was still unsuccessfully
trying to figure it out. Further question, why are areas with hole in the ozone not destroyed by the
lack of ozone as the pundits depict in their Ozone Hole Warnings?
7) Lack of real recognition of historic accounts for past centuries and the warming and cooling
within those periods. Past change periods: Holocene Warming 1(11,600-8,500bp), Egyptian
Cooling (8,500-8,000bp), Holocene Warming 2(8,000-5,600bp), Akkadian Cooling (5,600-
3,500AD), Minoan Warming (3,500-3,200bp), Bronze Age Cooling (3,200-2,500bp), Roman
Warming (500BC-535AD), Dark Ages (535-900AD), Medieval Warming (900AD-1300 AD),
Little Ice Age (1300AD-1850AD). Critics claim change is happening without discussion of time
frame differences past v. present. They claim vast time frames for historic changes and discuss
current changes in decade framing. Changes within era / century framework are like a roller
coaster run, not static, not straight up and not straight down, rather many ups and downs. The
change being discussed is currently in decade time framing. It appears we have crested in a cycle
going back 4 decades even with ever increasing mass pollution from Africa, the East and Far
East. We are still in the next era that started approximately 1850AD and will go on for some
time. Here are 2 charts from NASA and EPA often ignored because of their inconvenience to the
argument for Global warming & Man Made Climate Change arguments.
8) 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 carbon converted into heat energy, sulfur dioxide,
Nitrogen oxide, Carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, ash, sludge, arsenic, lead, cadmium and
others, plus Free O2 and H2O. 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.
9) 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 “one of the worst
years ever” “due to climate change”. Many meteorologists are openly denouncing the Man made
Climate Change scenario.
10) 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.
Magma is our internal source of heat, which also fluctuates as paths change and/or become more
active. The Chinese have long studied solar activity and when charted, world temperatures
follow a similar line to solar activity or lack of such as Coronal holes. Chart from Tattoo this:
‘It’s the Sun, stupid!’ By Willie Soon and William M. Briggs plotting solar activity with
temperatures.
11) 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 that was unveiled proponents try to blame it on melting ice with out any proof
that it has not been going on for centuries.
12) 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.
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:
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.
1) Self-serving profiteers that farm for capital and or power
2) Investigators that are lazy or ignorant and do not look at what lay right before them and
or practice sketchy science
3) 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”. 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.
Magma is our internal source of heat, which also
fluctuates as paths change and/or become more active. The Chinese have long studied solar activity and when charted,
world temperatures follow a similar line to solar activity or lack of such as Coronal holes. Chart from Tattoo this: ‘It’s
the Sun, stupid!’ By Willie Soon and William M. Briggs plotting solar activity
with temperatures. .
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 that was unveiled proponents try to blame it on melting ice with out any 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.
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:
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”.
(c)
(c)
No comments:
Post a Comment