It's been awhile since my last post. I apologize for that. But I found this article that talks more about the impact of water vapor as a more significant GHG (greenhouse gas), and a lack of significance of CO2.
And it talks about warming trends occurring over densely populated areas, like in America, China and India. And that certainly makes sense.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Make their argument
I found an article, by Leonard Weinstein. In it, he addresses the global warming report by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This organization is the U.N.'s group whose job it is to tell the world about the world's climate changes.
Mr. Weinstein points out that the IPCC used models to explain the notion of man-made greenhouse gases (GHG's) causing global warming. He makes the case that these models are either inaccurate or greatly exaggerated. He makes points, based on natural climate processes, to support his argument. And he points out, with evidence, that water vapor, not CO2, is the most significant GHG. And it's naturally occurring.
A short biography of M. Weinstein is at the bottom of the article.
I didn't find the IPCC report he's talking about, but I found a report, very recently written, which covers global warming and says it's very likely man-made CO2 is the cause of observed rising temperatures on the planet. It's called the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. If you go to this page, and click on "full report", it will appear in pdf.
I think it's interesting that the phrase very likely appears in the IPCC report very often. On page 33, part 1.3, they say observations show that the earth is warming, Weinstein makes the argument that warming has been occurring naturally.
On page 38, in part 2.3, they say a positive feedback exists where water vapor is concerned, not CO2. In that way, it agrees with Weinstein. But they say water vapor is not a GHG that forces climate change.
The IPCC report does try to push the idea that it's man-made CO2 that's causing global warming.
It is an extremely long-winded article. But they go back again and again to their models.
In fairness, I'm pointing out the name of a lead writer on the IPCC article, Lenny Bernstein. You can see some of his history here. At the bottom of the page you can access powerpoint slides to a course he teaches, Energy Myths and Realities.
Also in fairness, I saw the slides, and I have to say they seem scientific in their presentation. There's one that deals with ethanol emissions being more toxic than gasoline. I thought that was significant. But, these seem to be lecture notes. I don't know if he believes this point or if he would disagree with it in his lecture.
But no matter how grounded in science he seems to be, I disagree with the notion of global warming.
Mr. Weinstein points out that the IPCC used models to explain the notion of man-made greenhouse gases (GHG's) causing global warming. He makes the case that these models are either inaccurate or greatly exaggerated. He makes points, based on natural climate processes, to support his argument. And he points out, with evidence, that water vapor, not CO2, is the most significant GHG. And it's naturally occurring.
A short biography of M. Weinstein is at the bottom of the article.
I didn't find the IPCC report he's talking about, but I found a report, very recently written, which covers global warming and says it's very likely man-made CO2 is the cause of observed rising temperatures on the planet. It's called the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. If you go to this page, and click on "full report", it will appear in pdf.
I think it's interesting that the phrase very likely appears in the IPCC report very often. On page 33, part 1.3, they say observations show that the earth is warming, Weinstein makes the argument that warming has been occurring naturally.
On page 38, in part 2.3, they say a positive feedback exists where water vapor is concerned, not CO2. In that way, it agrees with Weinstein. But they say water vapor is not a GHG that forces climate change.
The IPCC report does try to push the idea that it's man-made CO2 that's causing global warming.
It is an extremely long-winded article. But they go back again and again to their models.
In fairness, I'm pointing out the name of a lead writer on the IPCC article, Lenny Bernstein. You can see some of his history here. At the bottom of the page you can access powerpoint slides to a course he teaches, Energy Myths and Realities.
Also in fairness, I saw the slides, and I have to say they seem scientific in their presentation. There's one that deals with ethanol emissions being more toxic than gasoline. I thought that was significant. But, these seem to be lecture notes. I don't know if he believes this point or if he would disagree with it in his lecture.
But no matter how grounded in science he seems to be, I disagree with the notion of global warming.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Link to my Youtube
I can't seem to build a list of links on this blog page, so I'll have to post the link here.
I tried to use the same username on Youtube, but firingonall8 was already taken. So I had to compromise.
I tried to use the same username on Youtube, but firingonall8 was already taken. So I had to compromise.
Monday, July 6, 2009
The global warming hoax started early
I found an article by Richard S. Lindzen, a scientist who has been following the concept of global warming, and the lack of its credibility.
Sometimes I'm tempted to think that only the most recent information is the most useful. This was written in 1992. I remember that as the "hole in the ozone" era. Although it's old, I think it applies to the global warming agenda.
Although it's a long, detail-filled piece (if I didn't read every bit of it, does that make me as bad as the current Congress?), I can see where he points out flaws in the global warming agument, based on scientific criteria.
Starting at the paragraph next to Figure 2, he points out that the global warming idea is based on computer models that predict the future of the climate. And those models were wrong as far as what changes had already taken place.
And the paragraph below it points out the models' inaccuracy where the region next to the equator is concerned. If the models were correct, .... well, I'll just let you see for yourself.
Sometimes I'm tempted to think that only the most recent information is the most useful. This was written in 1992. I remember that as the "hole in the ozone" era. Although it's old, I think it applies to the global warming agenda.
Although it's a long, detail-filled piece (if I didn't read every bit of it, does that make me as bad as the current Congress?), I can see where he points out flaws in the global warming agument, based on scientific criteria.
Starting at the paragraph next to Figure 2, he points out that the global warming idea is based on computer models that predict the future of the climate. And those models were wrong as far as what changes had already taken place.
And the paragraph below it points out the models' inaccuracy where the region next to the equator is concerned. If the models were correct, .... well, I'll just let you see for yourself.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Tea Party 4th July 2009
I'll admit this image doesn't have much to do with the farce of global warming or forcing us into a socialized automotive industry, but I was at the Tea Party today, and given the great patriotic nature of the event, I just have to spread it around.The search for information
In my previous post, I listed a site that gave some information about the myth of man-made global warming. That site has many links to other articles that give more information. It also lists names of scientists who are standing up to the global warming myth.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
For Instance
Here's one site with some great information dealing with a consensus of scientists who disagree with the notion of man-made global warming.
Notice that the information is presented from a perspective of science, not emotion.
Notice that the information is presented from a perspective of science, not emotion.
The truth vs. the popular myth
The current administration has taken away the ability to drill and produce our own gasoline domestically, and has ruined domestic car companies with their fuel efficiency and low emissions standards.
They have forced these requirements on us and used man-made global warming as the justification.
I'm trying to present information that proves that man-made global warming is untrue.
They have forced these requirements on us and used man-made global warming as the justification.
I'm trying to present information that proves that man-made global warming is untrue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
