As you know, I'm not a believer in Anthropogenic Global warming, or climate change or what ever you want to call it these days. It saddens me that the person I will more than likely vote for does believe in it. Am I an expert on palio meteorology or do I have a doctorate in physics, no, but neither does John McCain or Al Gore for that matter. But I do read a lot on this subject, because even though I was educated in a public school, I never lost my ability for critical thinking. And all it takes to find out that global warming caused by man is a bunch of bunk is just a little research, looking at what the other side has discovered about the research that all the "warmers" use to back up their arguments.
For example; computer models used by the scientists that wrote the IPCC's most recent report, don't account for increases in rain from higher quantities of water vapor in the atmosphere. Their models just assume that the vapor hangs in the air and causes the earth to bake, increasing ocean temperatures and thereby releasing more CO2 from the water, causing a escalating cycle of warming. But recent studies of new satellite data shows that this is not the case. (please go to this link to see more about this study, http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/climate-change-confirmed-global-warming-cancelled . )
For global warming to occur, the mid levels of the atmosphere should be warming, and the models show this. One problem, the new data shows that this is not happening, and that rain is the culprit. It seems that with the warming of the earth, which I know has occurred, but not for the last 10 years, causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which, I know this is shocking, produces rain clouds. These clouds hang close to the ground, cooling the air and ground and oceans around them. And the ocean temperatures are not increasing as the models predict. It seems that as water evaporates, I know this is ground-breaking science, then heat is lost and the ocean cools. And with more rain, the water falling on the ocean is also cooler and thus, the surface temperature falls. Now if I'm going to fast for you please let me know.
It seems that this simple fact, more vapor = more rain clouds= cooling of lower and mid atmosphere, has not been accounted for in the IPCC models. In fact I have yet to see on palio metorlogical study or fact showing that a temperature rise of the earth's atmosphere was preceded by an increase in CO2. There maybe on out there but I have yet to see it.
Another embarrassment to the "Warmers" is that the Robins are now in upper Canada. Oh my, imagine the horror of see these hideous creatures in your back yard or flying over the vast elk herds. They say that there is no word for "Robin" in the language of the native peoples of this land. Why, they have never seen this creature before, it's a sign the end is ney. McCain even brought this up saying that "The Inuit language for 10,000 years never had a word for 'robin," McCain lamented, "and now there are robins all over their villages."
But according to Patrick Michaels of the CATO Institute, this is not true, and only a little research lays this falsehood to rest. He says, "It’s always instructive to consult the wisdom of our elders about climate change, and so I found an article, "The Naming of Birds by Nanamuit Eskimo," by Laurence Irving of the U.S. Public Health Service in Anchorage, Alaska, in a 1953 edition of the refereed journal Arctic.
He continues; "Irving describes his extensive visits with the people of Northern Alaska, residing in the Brooks Range — the most northerly mountain chain in the United States. He compared English names for birds with the Eskimo names of the ones they encountered." "Irving’s list brings us the Nanamuit word for "robin": "Koyapigaktoruk." While this may surprise Sen. McCain or the BBC, the Nanamuits saw robins, and this is their phonetic way of describing the tones of an arriving redbreast looking for a mate."
It just takes a little looking around and you too can find flaw after flaw in the IPCC reports and with almost anything "warmers" have to say. I say "almost" because I haven't heard it all, but I have confidence that I could easily find some big elephant in the room they had been blind to and had to walk around so they could yell their nonsense in my face.
For example; computer models used by the scientists that wrote the IPCC's most recent report, don't account for increases in rain from higher quantities of water vapor in the atmosphere. Their models just assume that the vapor hangs in the air and causes the earth to bake, increasing ocean temperatures and thereby releasing more CO2 from the water, causing a escalating cycle of warming. But recent studies of new satellite data shows that this is not the case. (please go to this link to see more about this study, http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/climate-change-confirmed-global-warming-cancelled . )
For global warming to occur, the mid levels of the atmosphere should be warming, and the models show this. One problem, the new data shows that this is not happening, and that rain is the culprit. It seems that with the warming of the earth, which I know has occurred, but not for the last 10 years, causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which, I know this is shocking, produces rain clouds. These clouds hang close to the ground, cooling the air and ground and oceans around them. And the ocean temperatures are not increasing as the models predict. It seems that as water evaporates, I know this is ground-breaking science, then heat is lost and the ocean cools. And with more rain, the water falling on the ocean is also cooler and thus, the surface temperature falls. Now if I'm going to fast for you please let me know.
It seems that this simple fact, more vapor = more rain clouds= cooling of lower and mid atmosphere, has not been accounted for in the IPCC models. In fact I have yet to see on palio metorlogical study or fact showing that a temperature rise of the earth's atmosphere was preceded by an increase in CO2. There maybe on out there but I have yet to see it.
Another embarrassment to the "Warmers" is that the Robins are now in upper Canada. Oh my, imagine the horror of see these hideous creatures in your back yard or flying over the vast elk herds. They say that there is no word for "Robin" in the language of the native peoples of this land. Why, they have never seen this creature before, it's a sign the end is ney. McCain even brought this up saying that "The Inuit language for 10,000 years never had a word for 'robin," McCain lamented, "and now there are robins all over their villages."
But according to Patrick Michaels of the CATO Institute, this is not true, and only a little research lays this falsehood to rest. He says, "It’s always instructive to consult the wisdom of our elders about climate change, and so I found an article, "The Naming of Birds by Nanamuit Eskimo," by Laurence Irving of the U.S. Public Health Service in Anchorage, Alaska, in a 1953 edition of the refereed journal Arctic.He continues; "Irving describes his extensive visits with the people of Northern Alaska, residing in the Brooks Range — the most northerly mountain chain in the United States. He compared English names for birds with the Eskimo names of the ones they encountered." "Irving’s list brings us the Nanamuit word for "robin": "Koyapigaktoruk." While this may surprise Sen. McCain or the BBC, the Nanamuits saw robins, and this is their phonetic way of describing the tones of an arriving redbreast looking for a mate."
It just takes a little looking around and you too can find flaw after flaw in the IPCC reports and with almost anything "warmers" have to say. I say "almost" because I haven't heard it all, but I have confidence that I could easily find some big elephant in the room they had been blind to and had to walk around so they could yell their nonsense in my face.
No comments:
Post a Comment