# Articles Tagged "Letters@ClimateRealists.Com"

Sorted by: Date Posted | Views
Tuesday, June 15th 2010, 2:30 AM EDT
Does human emission of CO2 cause global warming?

This is a scientific question and can be answered using the scientific method with observed global mean temperature data.

A graph of global mean temperature from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia is shown in the above graph [1].

The first period is from 1910 to 1940 & the second period is 60-years latter from 1970 to 2000. After human emission of CO2 for 60-years, the rate of change of global mean temperature of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1970 to 2000 is nearly identical to that of 0.16 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940. That is, after a 5-times increase in human emission of CO2, there was no increase in the rate of increase of global mean temperature. This data contradicts the theory that human emission of CO2 causes global warming.
Wednesday, June 9th 2010, 4:25 PM EDT
Abstract:

By applying generally accepted algorithms on radiative heat transfer, verified through experimentation by Hottel, Leckner(1) and other contemporary scientists and engineers(2)(3)(4), I demonstrate that carbon dioxide molecules do not possess the thermal properties to be able to cause global warming or climate change here on Earth.

Introduction:

The formula applied by several authors on anthropogenic climate change for calculating the atmospheric temperature anomaly caused by carbon dioxide is as follows:

ΔT = α (ln ([ga] ∞ / [ga]st) / 4 (σ) (T)3
Monday, May 24th 2010, 8:47 AM EDT
INTRODUCTION

The analysis at Reference 1 presents a method and equation that accurately calculates average global temperatures since 1895 without considering any influence from change to the level of carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The coefficient of determination, R2, for that calculation is 0.8686 (all of those digits are as calculated and are shown only to reveal the tiny differences between calculated values.

There is no presumption that real-world precision is this close) which means that the equation explains 86.86% of the measured average global temperature (agt) anomalies.

This is far better than has been achieved by any Global Climate Model. The agt anomaly identified in Ref 1 as a prediction is more correctly called a calculation up to the present and a projection (for the condition of no sunspots) thereafter.

The present paper includes a determination of the contribution that added atmospheric CO2 makes to average global temperature. It is a refinement of the previous work which was presented in Ref 1. The present work produced the rather startling discovery that, although assuming no effect of added atmospheric CO2 produced an excellent correlation with measured agt, when a significant contribution from added atmospheric CO2 is
included, an excellent correlation was also produced, in fact, a tiny bit better.

Click to download "Effect of Change to Atmospheric CO2 Level on Average Global Temperature" by Dan Pangburn
Sunday, May 16th 2010, 3:10 PM EDT
Image source

The Holy Grail of science for the almost a century is to find the ‘Unified Field Theory’ to explain the inconsistencies of three branches of science. Isaac Newton published his Principia de Mathematica in 1686 and his ‘theory’ was so accepted that it became ‘Law’ throughout the scientific world.

This ‘settled science’ was challenged on the micro and macro scales by Einstein, Planck and Hubbell at the start of the twentieth century. Neither particles within atoms, nor the expanding universe, behaved according to classical Newtonian physics. The hunt for the single formula that did explain all these disparate forces was on in earnest.

Long before ‘unexpected consequences’ was a recognized political phenomenon it was recognized by science. More often than not, scientists discovered things far different than they expected. Forced to think in a new direction then allowed major refinements in other, non-related branches of science. Such is the case in this author’s quest for the truth about human caused climate change.

Geo-nuclear Climate Forcing Theory

The Carbon Dioxide Climate Forcing Hypothesis is the most transparent fraud in all of human history. To truly understand climate variations science requires that you first identify the extreme boundaries. The Earth has been far warmer and far colder, with slightly less, but far higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is some evidence of slight correlation, but NO EVIDENCE OF CAUSATION.
Wednesday, May 12th 2010, 2:10 PM EDT
“How else do you explain it?”

I would like to offer a common-sense climate driver theory that you have hopefully heard at least parts of before. But then I would like to offer an investigative method that I suspect you haven’t heard before; and one that you may become interested in promoting – the investigation, that is. Call it an easily tested prediction. I’m a career Engineer/Manager and would like to share some simple perspectives on the issue of Global Warming.

I believe that it is obvious that the prime climate driver is not CO2 and that it is also not the Sun. The issue with the Sun as not being the prime driver is, I believe, perfectly understandable at the highest and most salient levels (i.e. not buried in some immense depth-of-detail confusion).

The variability of the Sun apparently does have its significant high-frequency but low-amplitude signature on climate (by solar variability, I mean all of its many variants: mean brightness, mean solar distance, sun-spot cycles, coronal discharge events, etc.). However, the Sun operates on the Earth with huge positive feedbacks. And this simple fact all but eliminates it as the prime-driver. When I say prime, I’m talking about the prime-driver-force that accounts for the repeated low-frequency but high-amplitude major transitions from glaciation to interglacial and visa versa.

Updated below in the comments section by Piers Corbyn
Thursday, April 29th 2010, 1:46 PM EDT
The infamous Madoff Ponzi scheme cost \$50 billion. Now put this into context with what the U.S. government has blown on policies related to climate change - over \$79 billion since 1989. Madoff is in jail, Michael Mann isn’t-yet. So let's look at the latest legal hullabaloo.

The Climategate scandal is a Ponzi scheme with far greater global ramifications for us all. But how are we dealing with the willfully corrupt acts of a few key individuals in the most senior posts?

The two lead scientists in this most grotesque scam, Michael Mann of Penn. State University and British Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research (CRU), discussed manipulation of data to 'hide the decline' in global temperatures. Both men and their employers benefited to the tune of tens of millions of dollars for their complicity in this scam.

Jones, rather than be convicted of fraud, stymied Freedom of Information requests then destroyed his data. He avoided criminal prosecution on a mere technicality- the British government conceded the statute of limitations had expired.
Wednesday, April 28th 2010, 8:54 AM EDT
The observed yearly Global Mean Temperature from the Climate Research Unit can be modelled by a combination of linear and sinusoidal functions as shown in chart above.

As shown in the chart above, if the global mean temperature cycle behaves the way it behaved for the last 130 years, there will be global cooling until 2030. In contrast, the IPCC projections that started its divergence away from observed temperature about 2005 will continue its imaginary trajectory towards its exaggerated target temperature.

For detailed discussion of the model, please visit the WUWT website: Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections
Tuesday, April 27th 2010, 4:30 PM EDT
Image source

Did you ever wonder where those clockwork CO2 spikes come from? After all, they accompany every interglacial.

See: Physorg.com -Even soil feels the heat: Soils release more carbon dioxide as globe warms for a helpful hint - 99.5% comes from natural sources.

In the above referenced web-article, these scientists have bumped their estimated current microbial contribution to atmospheric CO2 from 85 to 98 petagrams. Our anthropogenic contribution is less than a tenth of that at ~6-7 petagrams. The total of all natural emissions is estimated at some 2,000 - 2,200 petagrams. Now in this article they seem to suggest that our 6-7 petagram (sub 0.5%) contribution has unfortunately and deleteriously triggered this microbial increase of 13 petagrams (from 85 to 98). In fact, most all studies regarding Soil Respiration engage the very same broken blame-game.

However, if we humans were never here at all, the consequently expanded microbial contribution can be roughly estimated to become 127 petagrams. Microbes would have geometrically filled our void for an increase of ~42 petagrams. And expanded proliferations of insects and mammalia would have contributed to a yet much larger delta. So what would these Theologians suggest this far greater contribution would have “unfortunately and deleteriously triggered?”
Sunday, April 18th 2010, 4:51 PM EDT
It is claimed that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a temperature increase of 1.2°C and the only question is how much increase will be due to forcing effects, mostly by water vapor. Computer models are used to evaluate the forcing.

There is an equation for calculating the 1.2°C temperature increase; and it is such a simple equation that it seems to never be questioned. The problem is, it is too simple. It is a three component equation.

The equation is this: Heat increase = 5.35 ln C/C0. Temperature increase = 0.75 times heat increase. C sub zero is the starting concentration of CO2 and C is the final amount. Since the question is doubling, this ratio is two. The natural log of two is multiplied times the constant 5.35. Then the heat increase is multiplied times 0.75 to get the temperature increase. If only seventh grade general science were so simple.

Determining where this equation came from is no easy task. Steve McIntyre tried to trace down the citations for it in the IPCC documents and failed (1). All of the references led to no real explanation. The citation problem wasn't just glaciergate, Amazongate ad infinitum; it was also in the claimed, unquestionable physics.
Friday, April 16th 2010, 4:59 PM EDT
Image source
It has only been about 5 years since we did a high-temporal resolution analysis of the ice cores, during which time the Eco-Theology has boomed. That is when we first discovered that only after it gets warm, does atmospheric CO2 spike up; and that only after it gets cold, does atmospheric CO2 crash down – like geologic clockwork every time. We found the same results in Greenland as we found in Antarctica. There is no dispute about this being an every-time, cause and effect, global phenomena. There is no doubt; no challenge that this might be a flawed or dubious analysis. It has been repeatedly verified by the Russians, Americans, Europeans, Japanese, Australians and Afrikaners.

So here is the obvious assertion defended immediately below: When the globe gets warmer, atmospheric CO2 is driven up, as a direct consequence of that temperature rise. And conversely, when the globe gets colder, atmospheric CO2 is driven down, as a direct consequence of that temperature fall.

Here are the primary sources of natural CO2 release in decreasing order of quantity of CO2 emitted: oceanic release, rock erosion, microbial decay (newly estimated at 98 petagrams), insect activity, frozen terrestrial release; volcanic release; forest fire and then mammalia exhalations and emissions - summing to a total of ~2000-2200 petagrams.

Click PDF file to read the latest essay from Ronald D. Voisin
File attachment: 2010/Wake Up to the Facts.pdf
43 articles found
showing page 2 of 5
« previous    1 2 3 4 5    next »
Articles Recently Viewed

4,265

Donations
• » Please support the site by making a donation. No matter how big or small, your contribution helps to support the cause.
See Stephen Wilde's Latest Article

All Time Most Read
Climate Depot Feed
• » Feed Error