I still can't understand why anyone could possibly believe
that an increase
of (IPCC's number for all global warming since the
industrial revolution)
1.4 watts per square meter increase in warming since 1850,
is more powerful
on climate than the sun. How bright is the day at your
house? When the sun
is out is it brighter than a 1.4 watt bulb? If so where did
all that extra
light come from?
How powerful are all of the people on earth compared to the
sun? How
powerful is every source of energy on earth combined,
compared to the sun?
What effects the temperature at your house more the exhaust
from your car or
the distance the earth is from the sun and the cloud cover?
What influences
the earth more the people or the Sun? If you say it's man,
remember the sun
controls the orbit of mercury venus earth mars jupiter
saturn uranus neptune
pluto etc. Why would anyone possibly believe people effect
the climate more
than the sun?
Here is a quote from ABC weather man James Spann from
1/18/2007. He holds
the highest level of certification from the American
Meterological Society.
"I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists
all over the country.
Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up
with a public
weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a
single TV
meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming
hype. I know there
must be a few out there, but I can’t find them.
*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the
pockets of those on
the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global
warming, the money
dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it.
Always follow the
money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The
Weather Channel”
probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on
climate change. No
man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing
wrong with making
money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a
scientific
conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming
is a big cash
grab."
Many other U.S. scientists have voiced their opposition to
the U.N. Global
Climate Treaty ("What warming consensus?"
Commentary, Nov. 16). Since the
climate treaty was hatched in Rio de Janeiro in 1992,
scientists have shown
their dissent with four petitions: the 1992 "Statement
by Atmospheric
Scientists on Greenhouse Warming," with more than 100
signatures; the 1992
"Heidelberg Appeal," with more than 4,000
signatures; the 1996 "Leipzig
Declaration," signed by some 130 prominent U.S. climate
scientists,
including several who participated in the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC); and, this year, the "Oregon
Petition," which has been
signed thus far by 17,000 U.S. scientists. All the names
have been rechecked
and verified. Unlike Vice President Al Gore's
"consensus" of 2,500 United
Nations IPCC scientists, a complete fabrication, this
consensus is real.
Some say "I don't know that I buy the fact that most of
the global warming
from the industrial revolution happened before 1940."
It's odd that they
won't accept the hard factual emirical measurable facts such
as the
temperature records, but they are prepared to take wild
predictions based on
flawed models with admitted huge descrepancies when compared
to actual
measured evidence, such as all of the greenhouse models
predicting the
atmoshere will heat faster than the surface temperature when
the measurable
reality is exactly the opposite.
Some question "cosmic rays, huh. Interesting. But,
how come there hasn't
been more media attention to this?" Svensmark works for
the Centre for
Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Centre and
his work has
been published in the the mathematical, physical sciences
and engineering
journal of the venerable Royal Society of bond. How would
you explain the
media ignoring it, except that it doesn't fit their
"global warming/
greenhouse gas hype".
Remember James Spann warned "Always follow the money
trail and it tells a
story. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. Billions
of dollars of
grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the
man-made global
warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money
dries up".
Key Points:
1)The textbook derivation of globally averaged greenhouse,
using Stefan's
Constant, evaluates to roughly 33 °C and 150 Wm-2
2) The IPCC Third Assessment Report alt: Third Assessment
Report (Equation
6.1) states: "The climate sensitivity parameter (global
mean surface
temperature response ÄTs to the radiative forcing ÄF) is
defined as: ÄTs /
ÄF = ë"
3) A blackbody-equivalent Earth climate sensitivity
parameter (ë) would be
33 / 150 = 0.22 °C per Wm-2
4) Substituting the values from Earth’s Annual Global Mean
Energy Budget
(Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997) produces a ë value of ~0.1 K per
Wm-2, as does
using values derived by Professor Roger Pielke, Sr. and this
is in agreement
with the sensitivity derived by Idso in eight natural
experiments described
in CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential
climate change
5) Earth then responds at less than half the rate of a
perfect blackbody due
to a preponderance of negative feedbacks
6) Climate models use ë values of 0.75 ± 0.25 °C per Wm-2,
5-10 times
greater than empirical measures support
7) Hansen (and GISS model E) prematurely claimed support for
these extreme
values in Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and
Implications, releasing
Earth’s Energy Out of Balance: The Smoking Gun for Global
Warming
8) Continued measurement showed model E was incorrectly
dumping heat into
the modeled oceans at a rate of more than 0.8 Wm-2 when it
should have been
removing it at about -1.0 Wm-2, destroying the claim of
agreement between
model and real world.
9) Climate models produce excessive future climate warming
estimates due to
erroneously large ë values.
Consequently, a realistic value for estimated warming
induced by a doubling
of atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 0.4 °C.
Ron
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank e-mail from the
address you subscribed under to:
imagestream-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://gro
ups.yahoo.com/group/imagestream/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http:/
/groups.yahoo.com/group/imagestream/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:imagestream-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:imagestream-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
imagestream-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.c
om/info/terms/
|
