go to powells website... look at the papers you will see that most had nothing to do with the consensus and very few supported the idea of man made co2 causing warming. And you will note... no one here has linked to a a single peer reviewed paper stating man made co2 is causing warming. Why... very few if any exist.
Q http://www.jamespowell.org/Hug/hug.html Hug 2013 The one-page article "The Climate Models are Failing," by Heinz Hug, appeared in the February 2013 issue of the German journal NACHRICHTEN AUS DER CHEMIE, Volume 61, Issue 2, page 132. WOS:000325946300008. An English translation is here. http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-climate-models-are-failing.html The title of the journal, or magazine, translates as Chemistry News. Perhaps it is like our American Chemical and Engineering News. Even though the Web of Science lists these two among its peer-reviewed journals, much of what they contain does not appear to be peer-reviewed. For example, Hug's article appears on a page headed "Pro und Contra." Nothing is said there about it being peer-reviewed and I suspect it was not, but instead is an opinion piece. But since the Web of Science counted it, so did I. Here is the opening paragraph from the translation: “According to our calculations, in the coming years, it should get warmer by leaps. But we do not trust that prognosis. Because the simulations should also have been able to predict the current standstill of the temperature increase – which did not happen.” That according to the climate researcher Jochen Marotzke of MPI-M in Hamburg, according to the Spiegel [magazine] of 9/2012. The reasons why climate models fail are obvious. Hug goes on to repeat the long-debunked argument that "There is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere, that in many areas of the spectrum the absorption [Aufnahme] by CO2 is nearly complete, and additional CO2 does not play any role,"[ref. 4] The final paragraph reads, "It is quite evident that there is no correlation between the atmospheric CO2 concentration and water evaporation. The latter does not depend on CO2 but on the water temperature. That, in turn, depends primarily on the screening by clouds which depends on the incoming cosmic radiation which varies with the rhythm of the solar magnetic field, [ref. 7]. This also explains why, without the action of IR-active trace gases there was both a Roman and Medieval climate optimum, [ref.8]." Thus Hug attributes global warming to cosmic radiation, another claim that has been roundly debunked, see here. http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-climate-a-cluttered-story-of-little-success/ UQ
Q http://principia-scientific.org/the-climate-models-are-failing.html/ The Climate Models are Failing Published on February 13, 2013 Written by Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser By Heinz Hug (Nachrichten aus der Chemie, 61: 132 [2013) Translated by Klaus L.E. Kaiser, 12 Feb. 2013 [sub-title] Heinz Hug questions the importance of CO2 for climate change SJR journal cover“According to our calculations, in the coming years, it should get warmer by leaps. But we do not trust that prognosis. Because the simulations should also have been able to predict the current standstill of the temperature increase – which did not happen.” That according to the climate researcher Jochen Marotzke of MPI-M in Hamburg, according to the Spiegel [magazine] of 9/2012. The reasons why climate models fail are obvious. It is to be emphasized that the [discussion about the] greenhouse gas effect does not concern the absorption by IR-trace gases (CO2, CH4, H2O, and similar) but their emission, which warms the earth’s surface via “back-radiation” [Ruckstrahlung], [ref. 1]. In fact, satellite spectra of 667 cm-1 show an impressive “funnel within the Planck curve” which is based on the impediment of the warmth-radiation from the earths body by the ν[nu]2-band of CO2, [ref. 2]. As the rotation-quantum-number is J = 0, 1, 2, 3… infinite, quantum-mechanical reasons –calculated on paper – produce no “saturation” of the greenhouse gas effect. But, if one looks at the centre of the CO2-band, the transmission within the troposphere is only τ[tau] = 10-210.The IPCC writes that “At the centre of the 15micro-m band, the increase in CO2 concentration has almost no effect” and rounds out, however on the margins [rims] there are always unsaturated areas, which results in an increasing greenhouse gas effect. I do not contradict that. But the rotations-oscillation-bands for example from J > 20 (τ[tau]troposphere < [equal-less than] 10-3) are sparsely occupied. The Nobel Prize Laureate Paul J. Crutzen puts that to the point: “There is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere, that in many areas of the spectrum the absorption [Aufnahme] by CO2 is nearly complete, and additional CO2 does not play any role,”[ref. 4]. What is the amount here? Taking into account the albedo and earth geometry, the average global temperature without IR-active trace gases is TE = 255 K. According to the –arbitrary –convention of 1957, the period of 1901 to 1930 is taken as a climate normal period with TE = 288 K, [ref. 5]. The difference between 288 K and 255 K, namely 33 K is accorded to the greenhouse gases. At this temperature, the emission of the earth surface is 390 W m-2, [ref. 6]. With 100% (!) more CO2, the greenhouse gas effect increases by 1.2%, namely 3.7 W m-2. According to the law of constant energy the value of ME rises to 393.7 W m-2. Using that value as input to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation one gets as the average surface temperature TE = [for detailed formula see original] = 288.7 K. This is a temperature increase of 0.7 K. Why then are much larger values being claimed? Computer models with freely variable parameters start with the premise that this small temperature increase is more the result of the greenhouse gas water vapor (water vapor back-coupling according to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation). This most important basis of all models can be shown as wrong. According to a paper by Hermann Flohn the amount of water evaporated from the Atlantic between 1950 and 1973 was wildly varying by 25% around its mean at the same time as atmospheric CO2 was steadily increasing by 10%, [ref. 5]. It is quite evident that there is no correlation between the atmospheric CO2 concentration and water evaporation. The latter does not depend on CO2 but on the water temperature. That, in turn, depends primarily on the screening by clouds which depends on the incoming cosmic radiation which varies with the rhythm of the solar magnetic field, [ref. 7]. This also explains why, without the action of IR-active trace gases there was both a Roman and Medieval climate optimum, [ref.8]. [For formula details and references, see original text]. Related posts: Latest: Climate Models Ignored Effects of Wind on Climate The climate models sensitivity to carbon is overrated Why Climate Models are Unscientific Fabrications Analysis Of Climate Models Show Albedo Not The Number One Arctic Amplifier After All! UQ
Q Humans are causing global warming. Case closed. http://www.jamespowell.org/Ourfault/Ourfault.html Humans are Causing Global Warming: Here's How We Know Until recently, even the most hard-core global warming deniers had to admit that the earth is warming. Then they adopted a new party line, that "global warming ended in 1998," which would be wonderful news if true. But for it to be true, some unknown process would have had to cancel the greenhouse effect. After all, according to the International Energy Agency, in this century atmospheric CO2 has grown by 400,000 million metric tons. (Actually, as explained onThink Progress, total "global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.") One year soon, perhaps 2014, global temperatures will set a new record and the deniers will once again have to admit that the earth is warming. Then they will fall back on their other false claim: that the rise in CO2 is not due to human activities. But we know with certainty that it is. How? In the same way that cycling officials knew that biker Floyd Landis doped with synthetic testosterone while winning the 2006 Tour de France. With serial liar and doper Lance Armstrong retired and most of the other top riders expelled for illegal drug use, Landis had become one of the favorites to win the tour that year. He was leading until, in stage 16, he dropped to eleventh place. Then, just as his chances of winning seemed slim, Landis won the next stage going away and went on to ride the Champs-Élysées in the winner’s yellow jersey. A few days later, Landis’s team announced he had failed a test for banned steroids, including testosterone. Landis appealed the ban, raised an estimated $1M for his defense, and wrote a 300-page book titled, “Positively False: the Real Story of how I won the Tour de France.” After years of denial, in 2010 Landis reversed himself and admitted that from 2002 through 2006 he had used a grab-bag of banned substances and methods. Why did he finally have to give up his denial? Because the carbon isotope test nailed him. People lie, but isotopes do not. Testosterone is mostly carbon. Synthetic testosterone is made entirely from plants, which have a different carbon isotope ratio than our environment overall. The carbon in Landis’s body revealed the presence of plant carbon, proving beyond reasonable doubt that he had doped with synthetic testosterone. So how do scientists use the method to confirm that humans are causing global warming? Since 1800, CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere has risen 40%. The obvious source of the added carbon is the 330 billion tons that we know fossil fuel combustion has added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Yet global warming deniers deny the obvious cause-and-effect connection. Well then, let’s prove it. First, coal, oil, and natural gas also come from plants and have the distinctive carbon isotope ratio of plants. As CO2 in the atmosphere has built up steadily, the isotopic composition of carbon in the atmosphere, indicated by "Del C13," has shifted just as steadily in the direction of plant carbon, as shown in the chart below. Stacks Image 989 The increase in carbon emissions (black line) vs. the relative abundance of C13 (red line). The red scale is negative and gets more negative upward. The more carbon we emit, the more the carbon in the atmosphere shifts in the direction of plant carbon. So we know the added carbon in the atmosphere is coming from plants, but which plants? To answer that question, we use another isotope of carbon: C14. it is radioactive and dies away to undetectable levels in 50,000 years or so. Fossil fuels, being millions of years old, have no C14 left. Adding ancient carbon should have lowered the proportion of C14 in the atmosphere—and it has, as the charts below show. Stacks Image 980 This chart, based on measurements of C14 from tree rings, shows how its relative abundance among the carbon isotopes was declining with the advance of the Industrial Revolution until about 1950, when it suddenly shot up. The reasons is because C14 is a byproduct of atomic bomb explosions. Stacks Image 984 This chart picks up the story after 1950. C14 continued to build up until the ban on above-ground atomic bomb tests went into effect in the 1960s. Then C14 began to decline again. The only conclusion from these two slides is that if we take away the C14 produced by atomic explosions, some process has been diluting the carbon in the atmosphere with C14-free carbon. That means ancient carbon, and the only known source of ancient carbon in the amounts required to explain the data is fossil fuel combustion. The two animated charts below show how closely the isotope trends follow the overall amount of carbon dioxide emitted. Download the charts here. Humans are causing global warming. Case closed. UQ
Q Research comprises "creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humans, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications."[1] It is used to establish or confirm facts, reaffirm the results of previous work, solve new or existing problems, support theorems, or develop new theories. A research project may also be an expansion on past work in the field. To test the validity of instruments, procedures, or experiments, research may replicate elements of prior projects, or the project as a whole. The primary purposes of basic research (as opposed to applied research) are documentation, discovery, interpretation, or the research and development (R&D) of methods and systems for the advancement of human knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researcher Steps in conducting research Research is often conducted using the hourglass model structure of research.[7] The hourglass model starts with a broad spectrum for research, focusing in on the required information through the method of the project (like the neck of the hourglass), then expands the research in the form of discussion and results. The major steps in conducting research are:[8] Identification of research problem Literature review Specifying the purpose of research Determine specific research questions Specification of a Conceptual framework - Usually a set of hypotheses [9] Choice of a methodology (for data collection) Data collection Analyzing and interpreting the data Reporting and evaluating research Communicating the research findings and, possibly, recommendations The steps generally represent the overall process, however they should be viewed as an ever-changing iterative process rather than a fixed set of steps.[10] Most research begins with a general statement of the problem, or rather, the purpose for engaging in the study.[11] The literature review identifies flaws or holes in previous research which provides justification for the study. Often, a literature review is conducted in a given subject area before a research question is identified. A gap in the current literature, as identified by a researcher, then engenders a research question. The research question may be parallel to the hypothesis. The hypothesis is the supposition to be tested. The researcher(s) collects data to test the hypothesis. The researcher(s) then analyzes and interprets the data via a variety of statistical methods, engaging in what is known as Empirical research. The results of the data analysis in confirming or failing to reject the Null hypothesis are then reported and evaluated. At the end, the researcher may discuss avenues for further research. However, some researchers advocate for the flip approach: starting with articulating findings and discussion of them, moving "up" to identification research problem that emerging in the findings and literature review introducing the findings. The flip approach is justified by the transactional nature of the research endeavor where research inquiry, research questions, research method, relevant research literature, and so on are not fully known until the findings fully emerged and interpreted. Rudolph Rummel says, "... no researcher should accept any one or two tests as definitive. It is only when a range of tests are consistent over many kinds of data, researchers, and methods can one have confidence in the results."[12] Plato in Meno talks about an inherent difficulty, if not a paradox, of doing research that can be paraphrase in the following way, "If you know what you're searching for, why do you search for it?! [i.e., you have already found it] If you don't know what you're searching for, what are you searching for?!"[13] Scientific research Main article: Scientific method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Primary scientific research being carried out at the Microscopy Laboratory of the Idaho National Laboratory. Scientific research equipment at MIT. Generally, research is understood to follow a certain structural process. Though step order may vary depending on the subject matter and researcher, the following steps are usually part of most formal research, both basic and applied: Observations and Formation of the topic: Consists of the subject area of ones interest and following that subject area to conduct subject related research. The subject area should not be randomly chosen since it requires reading a vast amount of literature on the topic to determine the gap in the literature the researcher intends to narrow. A keen interest in the chosen subject area is advisable. The research will have to be justified by linking its importance to already existing knowledge about the topic. Hypothesis: A testable prediction which designates the relationship between two or more variables. Conceptual definition: Description of a concept by relating it to other concepts. Operational definition: Details in regards to defining the variables and how they will be measured/assessed in the study. Gathering of data: Consists of identifying a population and selecting samples, gathering information from and/or about these samples by using specific research instruments. The instruments used for data collection must be valid and reliable. Analysis of data: Involves breaking down the individual pieces of data in order to draw conclusions about it. Data Interpretation: This can be represented through tables, figures and pictures, and then described in words. Test, revising of hypothesis Conclusion, reiteration if necessary A common misconception is that a hypothesis will be proven (see, rather, Null hypothesis). Generally a hypothesis is used to make predictions that can be tested by observing the outcome of an experiment. If the outcome is inconsistent with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is rejected (see falsifiability). However, if the outcome is consistent with the hypothesis, the experiment is said to support the hypothesis. This careful language is used because researchers recognize that alternative hypotheses may also be consistent with the observations. In this sense, a hypothesis can never be proven, but rather only supported by surviving rounds of scientific testing and, eventually, becoming widely thought of as true. A useful hypothesis allows prediction and within the accuracy of observation of the time, the prediction will be verified. As the accuracy of observation improves with time, the hypothesis may no longer provide an accurate prediction. In this case, a new hypothesis will arise to challenge the old, and to the extent that the new hypothesis makes more accurate predictions than the old, the new will supplant it. Researchers can also use a null hypothesis, which state no relationship or difference between the independent or dependent variables. A null hypothesis uses a sample of all possible people to make a conclusion about the population.[14] UQ
A climate researcher that could prove that that man made global warming is not happening would be famous. They could make thousands giving talks. There are none. Zero. This is what Powell's research shows. The consensus among respected publishing climatologists that man is causing global warming by the release of greenhouse gasses is actually higher than 97%, more like 99.9%
https://www.facebook.com/Space-and-Science-Research-Corporation-154141198110219/?_fb_noscript=1 Q http://www.cosmostv.org/2014/11/the-dark-winter30-year-cold-spell-will.html Casey tells Newsmax, "All you have to do is trust natural cycles and follow the facts, and that leads you to the inevitable conclusion that the sun controls the climate, and that a new cold era has begun." Casey is president of the Space and Science Research Corp., an Orlando, Fla., climate research firm. ... Food riots will break out, demand for heating oil will spike, and the failure of the corn crop will put the squeeze on ethanol. He even predicts the United States will ban agricultural exports to feed its own citizens. When Casey developed his theories in 2007, he emerged with several predictions. Rising temperatures would begin to reverse themselves within three years. The sun would enter a phase of reduced activity he called "solar hibernation." And oceanic and atmospheric temperatures would enter a long decline. So far, all of Casey's predictions have come true. He says, "My theory tells you when it will be cold ... and it is the cold that kills." Casey also suggests that a long-term cold spell will have dire effects on the earth's geology. As air and ocean temperatures cool, the earth's crust begins changing, leading to more volcanic activity and earthquakes. Casey notes that the worst earthquake to strike the continental U.S. in modern times was in 1812 in New Madrid, Missouri — during the last great solar minimum. UQ
Q http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/05/15/hoft-runs-with-global-cooling-warning-from-scam/164798 In a separate post on Casey ("Looks like a hoax to me"), Nelson notes climate skeptic Leif Svalgaard's comments on Caey: The 'Space and Science Research Center' and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate. He has tried to recruit even me into his band of 'experts'. I would not place any value on the ramblings of the press release. At least one climate skeptic does take Casey seriously: Casey is listed in Sen. Jim Inhofe's (R-OK) report on "700 International Scientists [Who] Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." Inhofe has called global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," and compared Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" to Hitler's Mein Kampf. Inhofe's lists of scientists are famous for being light on the climate scientists, and heavy on "economists and other social scientists, mathematicians, TV weathermen, retired scientists and amateurs, as well as scientists who have received support for their work from fossil fuel industries." The sad part is, channeling "research" from someone like Casey is a step up for Hoft. Usually, he's parroting the arguments of a "hate group." UQ