Global Warming Truth

[Pirate88179]

Well, we can see that Paul once again avoids any of the points of my post.

I stand on my reputation Paul, good luck with yours.  Calling me a liar does not boost your credibility here at all.  In fact, it does just the opposite so, keep it up. 

I see you just went back and changed another post of yours. (Two posts back) Nice job.  See, if you tell the truth to begin with, you would not need to do that.

Bill

PS Everyone here knows Ed Begley Jr. is an environmentalist wacko. He, like Paul, claims if you do not believe in the global warming scam, then you are for pollution.  This is their twisted logic.

[PaulLowrance]

If anyone sees anything that Pirate88179 writes that I should read, then please let me know. Until then it's a waste of time to read his posts. Same thing goes for the other liars in this thread.

I have spent a lot of time addressing his attacks, and the last one is final where he went so low as to take my extremely positive public statement web page, spin a portion of my sentence leaving out key words and out right lied about what I was saying, and he failed to give my link so everyone could see how he lied about my public statement. Sorry, but that guy is sick. He's thrown rocks at Steorn. He has continued to support the Joule Thief devices, which I and others have shown are well below 100% efficient.

Now lets try to post positive stuff and forget about the liars.

[PaulLowrance]

Important article here just published today,

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100110/OPINION/1100347/-1/NEWSMAP

That's science, not claims. Global warming is still here, and as stated many times it caused wicked weather. Global warming means more water molecules evaporate, and such molecules must collect and fall somewhere. During the winters it causes massive snow storms. A big year in snow storms does *not* mean global cooling. Not by a long shot. Global warming is alive & well.

Also, lets not forget that global temperature fluctuations have always exists. We can see in the graphs going back to the mid 1800's that the global temperature has significant fluctuations that during those periods one might think there's global cooling, but nothing could be further from the truth. The global warming trend is still here. You cannot take a few years average and see the trend.

[tak22]

A snippet from a letter sent from the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/03/climate-change-proposed-personal-briefing/#more-14778

The questions I address are a) whether there is a climate problem at all; and b) even if there is one, and even if per impossibile it is of the hilariously-overblown magnitude imagined by the IPCC, whether waiting and adapting as and if necessary is more cost-effective than attempting to mitigate the supposed problem by trying to reduce the carbon dioxide our industries and enterprises emit.

Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.

We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming Î"T at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,

Î"T = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0)                           | Celsius degrees

We are looking at the IPCC’s maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write â€"

Î"T = 5.7 ln(C/C0)                                      | Celsius degrees

Armed with this function telling us the maximum equilibrium warming that the IPCC predicts from any given change in CO2 concentration, we can now determine, robustly, the maximum equilibrium warming that is likely to be forestalled by any proposed cut in the current upward path of CO2 emissions. Let me demonstrate.

By the end of this month, according to the Copenhagen Accord, all parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to report what cuts in emissions they will make by 2020. Broadly speaking, the Annex 1 parties, who will account for about half of global emissions over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by 2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020.

Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.

We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv â€"

Business as usual:                              Î"T = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29  C°

â€"          Copenhagen Accord:           Î"T = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) =  0.27  C°

=          “Global warming” forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°


One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve. Yet the cost of achieving this result â€" an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it â€" would run into trillions of dollars.

That's a lot of wasted money and resultant deaths and misery just to make the rich get richer. Spin the 'science' by the 'experts' all you like, AGW is just another invented religion to acquire power and wealth by the useless greedy ones of the world. Just my opinion until proven otherwise. Just remember that even 'scientists' act like sheep ...

tak

[Pirate88179]

So Newsmax, Drudge, Fox, Worldnet Daily, British Telegraph, and the British Royal Society are not credible sources but...capecodonline is??????????

This pretty much says it all folks.

The only 2 credible sources for Paul: capecodonline and wiki.

Bill

PS  Paul was unable to build a successful joule thief so now he blames the design while hundreds of other folks have been able to make them just fine.