Commentary on the Great Global Warming Debate

This article reflects one man's attempt to sort through all the various literature on global warming, climate change, ozone holes, and the like to determine whether we have a big problem.

http://lifehacker.com/replace-your-lawn-with-these-superior-alternatives-1795768174/amp

Conventional Wisdom in Support of Global Warming

• Intermediate Empirical Evidence in Favor
• Basic Empirical Evidence in Favor

Political Bodies

IPCC

Skeptics Key Questions

Some skeptics have asked:

• Can you identify which fabric of reality we exist in?
• Can you reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics?
• Do you know which is the correct theory of quantum gravity?
• Do you know HOW gravity works?
• Do you actually know what holds the atmosphere to the Earth?
• Do you know what causes barometric pressure?
• Do you know what creates atmosphere heat content?
• Do you understand the earth's energy budget?
• Can you predict the earth's climate?
• Is there anyone on this planet who has the answers to these questions?

Another skeptic wrote (reworded for question format):

• Do you understand that science involves picking holes in previous theories towards greater understanding?
• What do you do if your hypothesis is not predictive?
• Is the purpose of Science, explanation, or reliable long-term predictive capabilities?
• Is it possible to have predictive power in coupled non-linear chaotic systems?
• Is there a difference between statistical description, statistical prediction, and prescription?

One aspiring engineer on a facebook forum wrote:

• 1) How do you measure the average or mean temperature of the planet?
• 2) How do you determine the "certainty" or "margin for error", that is, how do you determine how accurate your results are ?
• 2A) How accurate is "good enough"? How accurate must I be for my findings to mean anything?
• 3) How many sampling locations is adequate to produce reliable, reproduce-able data?
• 4) If you increase the number of monitoring stations over time, how do you assure yourself that the addition of the extra monitoring stations does not sway the data?
• 5) If the increase in number of monitoring stations increases accuracy, how do you adjust the earlier results so as to show an accurate trend? That is, since adding stations increases accuracy (if it does) how does one adjust the data?
• 5A) How do I justify the fact that "adjusted data" is no longer data, but has become a manufactured product designed to support my assertions?
• 6) And if increasing the number of monitoring stations does NOT change the accuracy, (I say it does) does that mean that less stations would also be accurate?
• 7) If less stations still produce accurate results, then how far can I go? Can I do this with ONE station in my back yard? (Of course not, so how few stations will still give numbers that are accurate?) How far back can I trust the data?

I am told that, because I am an engineer and not a "climate expert", that my questions are irrelevant. What this tells me is that I/we must simply, blindly trust - and not verify. I've never lived or thought like that in any endeavor in my life, I won't do so now.

Key Drivers

Solar Cycle

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-undergoing-climate-change-ice-age-retrea/

Supporting Resources

Scientific Consensus?

[1] my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

Rebuttal Resources

Climate4You Wattsupwiththat [2]

Rebuttals

Excellent letter Mr. Lewis. Taking a stand takes guts and has the power of commitment to action in it.

Inspired by the above I posted the following to the Washington Post comments. It includes a Pro Alarmist Challenge to Michael Mann.

pwvl wrote: Investigating the Climate of Doom

1) Actual Science Data Correlations: 0.44 CO2 levels v.s. Temperature. 0.85 Pacific PDO + Atlantic AMO Ocean v.s. Temperature. 0.88 Linear+Cyclic Null Hypothesis v.s. Temperature. 0.96 Pacific PDO + Atlantic AMO Ocean + Solar Activity v.s. Temperature.

2) While CO2 has increased in the last 50 years the 130 yr temp linear+cyclic tiny upward tend remains unchanged based upon observational data.

2b) Put another way, for seventy or so years the temperature was rising slightly with a linear and cyclic trend, then as we pumped CO2 into the atmosphere in increasing amounts since after WWII that same slight linear and cyclic trend continued unchanged.

2c) As a result of this, Nature falsifies the alarmists claims, including their IPCC climate model predictions.

2d) Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections, by Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections

2e) A primer for disproving IPCC’s theory of man made global warming using observed temperature data, by Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/01/a-primer-for-disproving-ipcc%E2%80%99s-theory-of-man-made-global-warming-using-observed-temperature-data

3) If CO2 increased temperature as the alarmists claim with their doomsday predictions it would have shown up in the temperature data diverting the tiny linear+cyclic upward trend that started 130 years ago after the little ice age ended. It hasn’t diverted the temperature.

4) This is likely because CO2’s specific heat contribution is logarithmic and already has contributed it’s bulk of heat retention (the first ~20ppm of CO2 is half of it’s specific heat / green house effect capacity).

4b) The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide, by David Archibald, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

4c) Of particular interest: “Lo and behold, the first 20 ppm accounts for over half of the heating effect to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm, by which time carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas.” https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png

5) Natural causes of PDO+AMO+Solar clearly shown to a very high probability.

6) Based upon observed temperature and CO2 data Nature falsifies alarmist AGW hypothesis.

7) Thus alarmism over 0.44 not rational.

8) CO2 is an essential plant nutrient.

9) From 1980 to 1999 satellites measured a 6% increase in green plant life on the planet during a period of increasing CO2.

10) This is consistent with knowledge from biology and commercial greenhouse operations where CO2 levels of 900ppm to 1,200ppm are commonly used to grow plants faster and bigger.

11) Current atmospheric CO2 is at ~390ppm today. This indicates the potential expanded growth of many plants in the environment with more CO2 present.

12) More plants = more food for humans and for anyone who is pro human that is a good thing for we have an expanding population to feed.

13) CO2 will provide one of the key nutrients for the next green farming revolution.

14) Evidence of CO2 is life: http://youtu.be/P2qVNK6zFgE?hd=1.

N) …

The above is a good summary of some of the factual reasons to conclude that there is no problem with CO2 other than hysteria due to the soothsaying of alarmist doomsday scenarios by irresponsible agenda driven worrywarts such as Michael Mann.

If there is any evidence to actually support the alleged correlation of CO2 to temperature rise as the alarmists allege please provide it. Thanks. I’ve asked many hundreds of supporters of the alarmist AGW hypotheses for their evidence and so far no hard evidence at all and certainly nothing that does any better than their 0.44 correlation of CO2 to temperature.

I challenge Michael Mann to take The Pro AGW Hypothesis Challenge (which he has so far not met the full requirements of): Present a clearly written statement of your alleged alarmist AGW hypotheses along with all the alleged scientific claims made and any hard evidence that supports those claims, provide all data to support your claims (all raw data and all mannipulated data including the reasons for the mannipulations), plus mention all means to verify preferably by experiment the claims, and all means by which they would be refuted. Show your work or the work of others in full detail. 10/8/2010 7:58:49 PM

(Note if I’ve made any mistakes or if you have any links for me that would provide good references please let me know. Thanks, pwl).

http://pathstoknowledge.net/

[3]