Is Climate Change Real?


climate-change-melting-globe-615x345

Update 2016-01-22

This is too good! I must share this. I wanted to figure out how much energy hits the earth each day from the Sun, and compare that to how much energy humans produce, to see if they were close, so we could really try to understand whether humans are having an influence on “Global climate”. Turns out, it’s already been done.

http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/how-much-solar-energy-hits-earth.html

Summary of it is:

“With these assumptions, figuring out how much solar energy hits the entire planet is relatively simple. 12.2 trillion watt-hours converts to 12,211 gigawatt-hours, and based on 8,760 hours per year, and 197 million square miles of earth’s surface (including the oceans), the earth receives about 274 million gigawatt-years of solar energy, which translates to an astonishing 8.2 million “quads” of Btu energy per year.

“In case you haven’t heard, a “quad Btu” refers to one quadrillion British Thermal Units of energy, a common term used by energy economists. The entire human race currently uses about 400 quads of energy (in all forms) per year. Put another way, the solar energy hitting the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times.”

Whoa! 20,000 times as much energy from the Sun hits the earth – every single day! Even if that were off by a factor of 10, the amount of energy produced by humans is still less than 0.1% of the total that hits the earth each day from the Sun!

Have a nice day Al Gore!

==

Update 2015-05-23

I wrote this last year to combat what I feel is “Bad Science” as well as political pressure to silence opposition to the so-called “Human Caused Global Warming” theories.  The MSM has gotten so bad, they call it a “Fact” now and won’t allow open and honest debate any longer.

What has changed is the fact that recently (in the past few weeks) we passed the threshold at which the HCGW apologists said would cause “Global catastrophe” in that the polar ice caps would melt, and the oceans would be rising so fast we’d not be able to keep up with it.  That level was 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.  We are now over that limit, and I did an analysis of the polar ice extent on 5/11 and found that the total of south polar and north polar ice extents is 3% above normal or “Average”.

We are not, therefore, in some sort of “Global catastrophe” nor are we seeing any of the predicted results.  The only conclusion is either they were lying, or they were lying.  They were either lying on purpose mind you, or unintentionally, due to their “Bad Science”.  I tend to think it’s a little of both.  Al Gore, who is not a scientist, predicted all this so-called disaster and won a Nobel Prize for his work.  I just don’t get it, he was so wrong as to be totally wrong, since, if your theory doesn’t yield the predicted results, then it’s a bad theory.

Two years running, we had very cold winters in the United States, and we had over 90% ice coverage in the Great Lakes one year (2013) and near 90% the next year, and at one point I measured the total polar ice extent (as I did above, using measurements of ice extent from NOAA’s NSIDC.org lab, the National Snow and Ice Data Center) and found we were like 8% above normal!  This is insanity folks!  The fact they are still jerking us around with something that has clearly been proven WRONG!  This year, the Weather Channel at first (about 2 weeks ago) came out and predicted we were going to have a “Record” number of heat waves.  A couple days ago, they reversed that and said we’re going to have an unseasonably cool summer throughout most of the United States.

My point is, that all the evidence supports the articles I have linked below that say CO2 actually has little to do with “Climate” and that the sun is the major contributing factor, and that we are in a COOLING trend in solar cycles.

End update.

Article link:

http://www.livescience.com/44146-climate-change-initiative.html

No thinking person would deny that Climate Change is real. Of course it’s variable! The debate is whether it is caused by man’s activities.

Read this (and the linked articles):

https://sdebeaubien.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/global-warming-reconsidered/

Then come back and we can have a discussion about ways to really “Shepherd” our planet and take care of it. If all we’re interested in doing is saving cities, then your focus is too narrow. If you’re interested in reversing the trend towards deforestation of our planet, loss of precious rainforests and even temperate forests, if you want to see us start simply doing a better job at not making such a mess of our world, then you can invest in strategies that will help heal our land.

I recommend things like:

http://www.edenprojects.org/
http://www.singingrooster.org/

And for “Interesting” ideas about how the EPA in the United States is actually causing more global disasters than they are saving:

https://sdebeaubien.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/environmental-disaster/

All I’m saying is that the liberals think they have some sort of monopoly on “Scientific” thought, when in reality, most of their arguments are FUD oriented, and are backed with very little in the way of real science (theories that can be tested and proven over and over). What I’m saying is “True conservatism” is founded upon conservationism, or shepherding resources. There will always be the greedy and those who would simply do anything for profits, to line their pockets with the wealth raped from either the environment or the poor. A “Balanced” solution to all these things takes all of that into account, and seeks to provide resources at reasonable cost to those who consume them while providing justice and equitable share in profits to those who live in places where resources come from. In addition, in light of our environment and trying to shepherd it properly and take care of it for our grandchildren, we must be reasonable about how we go about doing these things.

Some people say “Fracking in California” is a bad thing. Well guess what, if we don’t, we may just be pushing oil production problems off on Third World countries where they have no EPA and we are actually causing ecological disasters that are many times worse than if we had simply bit the bullet and learned how to do it safely and wisely here in our own back yard.

The UN talks a lot about “Doing something.” The one organization above, Eden Reforestation Project, actually plants trees for $0.10 each. That’s right! Every $10 you invest there plants 100 trees! And those are in places already in disaster mode, where the damage is mostly already done. But you know what? After about 7 years of growth, the trees in Ethiopia have started to be large enough to make a difference. The people said: “The rivers are flowing again – year round! And the animals are returning!” With good teaching, and strong leadership, we can change our world and make it a better place. The only thing the US has done in terms of leadership for the past 50 years or so is to push the problem into somebody else’s back yard. That’s not real leadership, that’s just irresponsibility.

glsea20140307

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Is Climate Change Real?

  1. And we read today that Scientists are so “Sure” that Global Warming is real, and that it’s caused by man’s activities that they won’t even debate folks like us anymore. One fellow tried to tell me that the warming on the bottom of the ocean was caused by man. I simply replied, last time I checked, warm water rises, just like warm air does. It’s kind of the same thing as saying that “This year’s cold weather was caused by Global Warming – for sure!” They’re so sure, they can’t remember basic premise 101 in Science, that often times it’s not the observed that’s causing the result, but rather the opposite is the true case. That was the conclusion of an article I read a while back on TownHall.com, where they said that what’s actually causing more CO2 in the atmosphere is the warming, and not the CO2 causing the warming. It’s another one of those “Duh!” things that they are just so blinded to it makes me sad. Perhaps 100 years from now, or maybe even tomorrow it won’t matter anymore anyhow.

  2. Here’s a wonderful example of “Climate Variation” that happened without men being around.

    Just go and read this article and ask yourself how a tropical species of shark ever got so far north?

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/12/01/thousands-eocene-shark-teeth-found-in-canadian-arctic/?intcmp=features

    Ask yourself again after that, whether men really cause global warming or whether it’s natural or whether you could ever prove that man’s activities were causing variation?

  3. wow i didnt know we had a scientist peer review right here in the comment section….and linking to an article from a news source that has a direct vested interest in keeping climate change a “debate” get your science from scientists not from fox, not from pulling it out of your backside…

    • Did you read any of what I’ve written about Climate change? I’ve outlined my “Credentials” before. I am a Scientist, a Computer Scientist. I spent nearly 10 years in college, have multiple degrees. I worked for a year at a place called MeteoStar where they maintained the package that is still the “Defacto” standard for displaying and analyzing meteorological data (LEADS). I also worked at the University of Washington’s Polar Science Research Laboratory where I wrote applications that analyzed Satellite images.

      All that just to show you I am not an “Idiot” and that I too, have a vested voice in this discussion. I publish regularly, my findings when analyzing the Polar Ice extent data. What these past few years show is that we are actually in a cooling trend. It may be that the northern hemisphere has shown evidence that the ocean currents are warming the Arctic, but that is a short-term trend at best, since the Antarctic ice has seen record levels these same past few years!

      I am currently in a debate with the NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) folks to the point of we cannot simply talk about measuring one polar ice extent or the other and offer that as evidence of “Global” warming since that is misleading, and in fact lying. Both major oceans that in total cover more than 1/2 the globe, extend from the Antarctic to the Arctic (the Atlantic and the Pacific) and both are spoken of as having effects on “Global” climate, and therefore, you must talk about TOTAL polar ice extent if you are going to talk about it at all! This past January 1, the total polar ice extent for both poles was 8% above normal. Doesn’t sound like a “Dire” situation to me, nor is the earth melting down at an alarming rate.

      I’ve read and studied many journal articles on the subject, and I believe firmly that CO2 in the atmosphere is nowhere near as bad as Al Gore made it out to be (is that dude a scientist? and yet folks listened to him, and in fact they gave him a Nobel prize for Pete’s sake!). In fact, more recent research suggests that the influence of CO2 on the atmosphere may be less than the influence of temperature on the amount of CO2 that the atmosphere can hold! The relationship may in fact be the reverse of what Global Warming alarmists say that it is!

      Other research suggests that CO2 absorbs infrared (heat) radiation of a certain wavelength, and that the amount of heat that can be absorbed is already being totally absorbed. To put it another way, there is nothing left in that wavelength in fact to absorb that is not already being absorbed. The earth’s environment is “Saturated” in that wavelength in terms of the amount of absorption possible.

      Then there are facts such as two weeks ago off Nantucket Island (about 500 miles south of where the current polar ice extends) there was so much ice in the water that the waves were literally breaking like “Slushies”. No climate or meteorological models measure that, nor has it even been reported on by any lab anywhere! Why not? Because it makes their models and predictions and Global Warming alarmism look bad. Or take the case of the record cold on Mauna Kea this winter. The entire winter has seen record cold on those volcano peaks in Hawaii. Good news for skiers, bad news for Global Warming apologists.

      All I’m saying is simply that there are many more factors involved in “Climate” than what the Global Warming crowd would have us believe. Their models are obviously much too simplistic, otherwise why would NONE of them have predicted the record cold winters we’ve had in the United States these past two years? I don’t write models of that nature but I can recognize bad ones when I see them! Bad ones don’t fit the evidence, and NONE OF THOSE MODELS FIT THE EVIDENCE!

      Now, can you say DUH! If you can’t, then you’ve been brain-washed and are cutting off your own nose to spite your own face. Those who refuse to use logic to solve these things are being “Religious” in their own way and dogmatically refusing to use evidence to obtain a verdict. They are refusing to budge from their preconceived ideas in spite of the facts.

      That’s what I’m saying.

      • ” I’ve outlined my “Credentials” before. I am a Scientist, a Computer Scientist.”

        What clown you are. I’ve programmed for 50 years and have studied computer science in depth … and of course it has nothing to do with climate science, which you clearly know nothing about — and that’s aside from the fact that so-called “computer science” is a branch of mathematics with some engineering aspects; it’s not a scientific discipline.

        You don’t even know the difference between weather and climate. You don’t even understand what the word “global” means in “global warming” — it’s about the increase in the *average* temperature of the planetary system; talking about cold winters in the U.S. completely misses the point. Are you even aware that, when it’s winter in the northern hemisphere, it’s summer in the southern hemisphere?

        You know nothing about the greenhouse gas effect, science that was established by Arrhenius and Tyndall. You know nothing of the CO2 isotope ratios that establish the contribution of burning of fossil fuels to the increased CO2. You’ve never read any of the scientific literature on climate science and you’ve never spoken to a climate scientist. There are about 20,000 accredited climate scientists, and 100,000 scientists in related disciplines. You know nothing of any of their work or their views, you just blabber about Al Gore … who, while not a scientist, made a movie based on climate science.

        “I’ve read and studied many journal articles on the subject, and I believe firmly that CO2 in the atmosphere is nowhere near as bad as Al Gore made it out to be (is that dude a scientist? and yet folks listened to him, and in fact they gave him a Nobel prize for Pete’s sake!). In fact, more recent research suggests that the influence of CO2 on the atmosphere may be less than the influence of temperature on the amount of CO2 that the atmosphere can hold! The relationship may in fact be the reverse of what Global Warming alarmists say that it is!”

        All you have read is stuff written by other climate science deniers. Temperature affects how much water vapor (the most prevalent greenhouse gas) the atmosphere can hold, but it takes on average 100 years for CO2 to leave the atmosphere. And the issue isn’t CO2’s influence on the atmosphere, it’s the influence on infrared radiation leaving the Earth’s surface … again, you lack even the most basic understanding of the scientific issues. You start out saying “I believe firmly”, and then you back that up with supposed research that “suggests” what “may be” and “may in fact be”. Your firmness does not come from fact and evidence, it comes from an a priori ideology, and you seek out “journal articles” that back up your prior beliefs. That’s not what a scientist does.

        I dare you to go over to skepticalscience.com and read the articles there. When you find things you disagree with, leave comments asking questions or outlining what you see as counter evidence. If you do so maturely, people there will engage you. If you just spout off about Al Gore or make ignorant claims and accuse scientists of being frauds, they’ll treat you accordingly.

      • Hey – thanks for taking the time to write out a good reply!

        I’ve taken plenty of Chemistry, Physics, Calculus, BioChem, etc… courses over the years. And, at the bottom of it all, are basic chemical reactions, and interactions. All I’m saying is that in the long run, to base “Global” warming on the effects of a single molecule is not only irresponsible, it’s downright criminal! When we use the word “Global”, that means we’re talking about the effects of MANY factors that are obviously all of varying degrees of importance when it comes to warming. The articles I’ve cited show more preference for the activity of the Sun on weather, AND climate than anything else. The fact that we’ve had ice ages is also significant, as well as is the fact that we’ve had both cooling and warming in the past 200 years.

        All I’ve said repeatedly, is that “Climate” is variable, but tends towards some direction. It’s never static. We have many climate “Zones” around our world, and we also have many “Microclimes”. There’s been so much foo-fer-all coming out of the “Scientific” community about what is, and what is not “Climate Change” that it’s gotten so we trust none of it – at all – anymore. My favorite example is the Walrus gathering last summer. On a beach, on some Alaskan island, something like 10,000 walruses got together. They were obviously gathered for some purpose, known only to the walruses, but clearly it had nothing to do with “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” and yet so-called “Scientists” and the media got on the hysteria band-wagon and trumpeted that “Global Warming is killing the walruses!”

        See what I mean by it’s irresponsible? And do you understand why we trust none of the so-called “Science” behind it? Because the simple fact is, there’s no “Science” at all behind a proclamation like that, and I do mean none! Measurements prove only one thing: That “Climate” is variable over time. They don’t prove either “Climate Change” or “Global Warming” for two basic reasons: 1. Variation was always in the system to begin with; and 2. The data has clearly been messed with, and that’s been proven over and over again. You don’t need to be a “Climate” scientist to spot bad science. That’s probably fact #3 that should be in that set of principles above. Any decent scientist knows when he’s seeing “Junk” science. You can show me all the formulas in the world, and all your observations, and so on, and they prove absolutely squat. They are observations, that’s why. All the “Theories” that came out of those observations have been proved bad by the observations of the last few years.

        I have no “Emotional” stake in this – at all. I merely can spot a phony when I see one.

      • Right … you’re an ignorant moron. But I already knew that. Over and out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s