Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

global warmign failures

Posts: 10,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 5:44:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1/2, dont post until post two!!

Did I spell the title right? Never knwo when I am writing...

Now, the majority of america now claims global warming exists and is man made yaddy yaddy da.

Lets first look into the methodological errors in how they got the famed data NASA uses all the time, and the things climatologists cite all the time.

First, we must look into the statistical mathematical equations they are using. They generally use complicated models called general circulation models, or CGM[s]. Now, one might ask and one needs to know if the equation is flawed, as if it is the statistical models proving global warming is inherently flawed, and therefore the data is false. The answer is yes, those equations are so complex there are large margins of error, it is hard to solve them without messing up or lying, and then this doubts the conclusions these equations create.

Also, CGM's involve a lot of assumptions, NOT FACTS. As the hoover institution states:

"Needless to say, the results of a GCM depend a lot on the assumptions you make. How big should each cell be? What is the effect of water vapor? How much heat and carbon dioxide does the ground absorb? Are there factors that have been previously ignored? Do these factors attenuate heating—for example, does airborne dust reflect a lot of sunlight into space? Or do they accentuate it—for example, do hydrocarbons absorb and retain heat?"

Now, this is flawed just as it involves question begging results and it also means that the extra variables can totally ruin the results if they are not fully accounted for, hence the famed data-sets we see are now flawed.

The more variables, and guessing one has to make the more data one needs to obtain to account for the variables, this may make a small study into a book size so to speak. CGM's use more data then designing nuclear weapons! CGM's are used more in older data (looking into the past), but without former data current data is flawed, hence we can assume the limited data we have does not reach any high academic bar.

Also, new investigations and facts are arising in global warming data being flawed. Many of the researchers actually hid and changed data. Many of the Chinese weather stations where troubled, corrupt, inaccurate etc, and should not have been published (data had many of these stations in it). But with this many studies are now being curbed on using this data, not all, but many are now hindered inaccurate.

Many surface stations are not reliable, if you look at it studies are underway on the credibility of that data. Many of the stations that saw increases near 2000 had man made problems with it. Ex: A old surface station, little huge increases in heat, but it began to see increases when urbanization encroached the area. It's common sense it will see an increase, asphalt heating it up, metal buildings, air conditioners emitting hot air. Many surface stations are, well, inaccurate. So much of the data is flawed.

Now, we must ask if the data might be flawed, how common is it? Very, 89% of then are flawed due to placement among other things.
"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose findings are often referred to by the news media and global warming alarmists, claims temperatures rose 0.74 degrees Celsius over the past century. However, Watts' survey of official U.S. temperature stations shows 89 percent are so poorly located and maintained—according to U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published standards—they have an error margin of greater than 1.00 degree Celsius."

Interesting, as the major "increases" are within a margin of error, this right here may or may not disprove warming, but does have a major shake on it reducing its credibility as a "fact".

The funny thing is also 69% of that data had a margin of 2 degrees Celsius, so even LARGER then the data of a rise, so this actually seals the deal on much of the data we see today.
"Some stations have been corrupted by land-use changes and urban development nearby, resulting in an artificial warming signal over time. Other stations were moved from uncorrupted sites to corrupted ones for the convenience of persons reading the temperatures. Still others are and always have been located in places that are just plain ridiculous, the study shows.:"

So this also proves the changes are flawed.

Here are some visuals and examples of the stations so it makes more sense.

Now another misconception by liberals is if the earth is warming, we need to hurry up and regulate things so we can curb it!! But the basic assuming the earth is warming and people are the cause is false, and quite funny. If it is a natural occurrence it would be naive and futile to regulate things on something we cannot control. So even if we assume the earth is heating (I dont think so), let us at least find the cause.

Now, sun cycles have an 11 year cycle, (this will help me later on the earth is cooling, the cycle is ending currently). Economic depressions mean less of the greenhouse gasses are emitted, as industrialization slows. But not one study looks into data trends in the larger depressions where factories are abandoned etc. So the data that is needed to fulfill CO2 causes global warming is not complete.

There is a correlation with volcanic activity and sun power controlling temperatures, this is a fact to everyone, I hope.
"So we ran the correlation. The results? The effects of solar activity and volcanoes were impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were less than one in a hundred. Yet, try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption, and changes in global temperatures. We tried adjusting for delayed effects. We tried adjusting for cumulative effects. Nothing— the relationship just wasn't there."

Essentially saying overall comparisons (global changes) do not correlate with CO2 emissions.

Further, global temperatures change a lot. This will be addressed later.

But lets look into CO2 in the atmosphere. How much of its there and is it man made? 3% of the atmosphere is CO2, and 6% of the 3% is man made. In other words:
"That means that less than 2/1,000 of all CO2 is produced by human activity. So even if we wiped out every car, power plant, jet liner, and human being from the face of the earth, there would be no noticeable effect on global CO2 levels."

So with this, even if CO2 causes warming, the consumption humans use would not likely result in any change, hence humans even if Al Gore is right cannot be a cause or any large cause of global warming. This means most cycles are natural through sun or volcanic activity.

Not to mention volcanoes emit more CO2 then all of the human race has ever, meaning mother nature does this to itself already, so how will a few cars do anything?

The logic used by people (generally liberals, hence my liberal usage of the word liberals) that advocate global warming is flawed, and CO2 and human usage unlikely causes much of a change. So we must ask are weather changes through temperature common? Yes, wait for next post!!
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Posts: 10,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 5:53:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Now, I have proven the logic of CO2 to be false, so assuming we're heating up is it natural? Yes, there are temperature fluctuations before we used a lot of CO2 all the time.

" As the graph below shows, the earth indeed has been warming . . . since about 1650 AD – centuries before factories belching CO2 and other greenhouse gases even existed. Even more important, the earth is not "the warmest it has ever been." In fact, the earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period when human agriculture flourished!"

Saying global warming/cooling is normal, dont get your panties in a twist.

Now we must ask is the earth heating up? Global temperatures aren't really increasing, trend barely upwards but average temperatures about the same.

Now, is the world cooling?

- Animals die in frosts
- feb 2011 coldest winter in 100 years
- March 2011 coldest march in a decade
- South america brutal winter
- January 2012 major frosts hit africa
- -Temperatures decreasing.
- solar activity down
- Might hit mini ice age

Now, is the ice "shrinking"? Nope.

Ice in the caps are one way both sides look at the global warming debacle. New data has come to light, we see the earth is no longer "warming", assuming those faulty data sets are correct, but cooling. Now if the things near metal buildings are seeing cooling, this means the earth must be REALLY cooling down to show a decrease.

"As Robert Felix just reported in his authoritative, on various days is June of 2009 there were record low temperatures in 18 states; record low temperatures in 15 states; record low temperatures in 24 states; record low temperatures in 11 states; record low max temperatures in 20 states; record low temperatures in seven states; and record low temperatures in 10 states."

The earth heating? No, cooling? Maybe, no change? Maybe.


GTG, be back later for responses.
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 11:13:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2012 5:51:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:

: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Posts: 10,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2012 11:50:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2012 11:22:27 PM, imabench wrote:

He thinks Gravity doesnt exist either.....

Damn I was trolling
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 1:41:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Good to see that the common practices of interpolation and extrapolation are now "assumptions".
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: