Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Change Website and Legacy Project


Climate Change Website and Legacy Project22-12-2017 00:33
Ebanfigueroa
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
I am a high school student in South Carolina. I am in the process of creating a legacy product for our case study. I decided to research climate change, especially South Carolina climate change. I would really appreciate if anyone would stop by on my webpage raising awareness of the issue at hand. I am very fond of this topic especially since my family was impacted very hard by the past hurricanes and believe not enough attention has been brought to the issue. Thank You.

Find it here https://climatechangesc.weebly.com
23-12-2017 01:58
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Ebanfigueroa wrote:
I am a high school student in South Carolina. I am in the process of creating a legacy product for our case study. I decided to research climate change, especially South Carolina climate change. I would really appreciate if anyone would stop by on my webpage raising awareness of the issue at hand. I am very fond of this topic especially since my family was impacted very hard by the past hurricanes and believe not enough attention has been brought to the issue. Thank You.

Find it here https://climatechangesc.weebly.com


Here's the real word outside of the absolute lies of the global warmists:

Every 1000 years we have a warm period. They are perfectly normal and the Earth recovers from them usually without a Maunder Minimum (little ice age) as we did from the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago that was significantly warmer than today. Exactly WHY do you suppose all those Cathedrals and palaces had high ceilings? It was to allow those on floor level to be cool enough to prey or party.

We have rather complete records and you could look them up in Wikipedia under "List of periods and events in climate history" to suggest that this warm period, which started in 1886 and in which man could not generate large amounts of CO2 until 1940 or so is pretty funny. In the 1950's we STILL had horses and buggies in and around San Francisco and other major cities.

From 1886 until 1940 the warming was the same amount and the same speed as from 1970 to present and at the same speed. If man caused the latest heating why is it the same as the previous?

As someone that knows spectometry and chromatography I could have told you 30 years ago that CO2 was a harmless gas for many reasons.

Firstly because CO2 has only three very narrow absorption bands. Two of these really don't count. That is because H2O in it's three phases in the atmosphere are 100 times more common and absorb all but the last band. And the amount of energy in that band that is radiated from the Earth is so small that at CO2 levels of 200-250 ppm the band is totally absorbed. There is no more energy for CO2 to hold.

Secondly and more importantly - in the troposphere the atmosphere is so dense that all of the energy that is radiated from the ground after it has been absorbed from the sunlight is captured within 10 feet or so from the ground it radiated. Another paper I read estimated 100 feet but I believe them to be referring to 100% absorption and not a more real 90%.

What this means is that since this heat has been captured in the molecules close to the surface and that atmosphere at this point is so dense, the processes of conduction and convection carry this energy into the stratosphere where eventually it is radiated through a rather complex process.

So because the heat relieving process is really conduction it doesn't matter what the gases are in the atmosphere. In fact CO2 has a lower specific heat content than Nitrogen or Oxygen and hence is actually a coolant as much as anything else.

Moreover, NASA has doctored the real temperature data since 1980 or so in order to supply politicians with the ability to scare the people into demanding that the government protect them. To give the government more and ever more power.

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

If you read this paper you discover that three mathematicians analyzed the changes in "raw" temperature data that NASA has been passing out over the last 50 years and the changes in this data are consistently upwards. If you are simply correcting for errors from, say, improper calibration of thermometers it would NEVER be all in one direction almost as if you simply multiplied everything by 1.09.

To quote this paper: "Clearly, if the historical data adjustments that were made to the GAST data inappropriately removed this cyclical pattern, then all three of the current versions of GAST must be considered invalid."

And "The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA's GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings."

In short - NASA has quite plainly lied about warming. And those that quote NASA papers are doing nothing more than spreading the lies.

Even more importantly, honest scientists can easy come up with conclusions similar to NASA because of the doctored data. These are criminal acts and should be treated as such.

If you want to know WHY people and politicians would lie about this you need only read this article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#1072f9307ebb

There are trillions of dollars in the business of either AGW research or "methods of fixing the climate".

We should also cover more ground. With the levels of CO2 at the 280 ppm levels plants were on the very verge of dying. Take away a plant's food and it can't survive. And because plant life was so impacted so was the entire animal kingdom. With the increase in CO2 plants have bloomed as never in recent history.

We presently have three times as much population now as in the 1970's and never has there been fewer hungry in the world. What's more there are so many wild animals that they are being pushed into the cities.

https://en.rocketnews24.com/2014/07/25/naras-deer-continue-their-summertime-tradition-of-occupying-one-of-the-citys-streets/

Last summer when I got up early and looked out the window there was a group of over a dozen raccoons running down the streets in this city far from rural areas. We have reports of wildcats and mountain lions monthly. Wolves have attacked children. And this is the San Francisco bay area - one of the most populated areas in the country.

The largest increases from CO2 are ocean plankton and the many animals that feed upon it up to and including Blue Whales. The Pacific Blue Whale pods along the west coast are now larger than they though existed in the entire world just 40 years ago. The Humpbacks and Greys and others are so common that they often stop in San Francisco bay to rest from fighting the current on their yearly migrations to the Arctic regions. Of course on TV news they tell us that "naturalists say that they will get skin diseases from the brackish water and die. But it seems that the only whales that are dying are those run over by ships.

We hear that the oceans are rising and all the low lying island will flood and destroy the homes of the island occupants. The lowest lying group is the Marianas and rather than sinking they have actually grown in land area.

Tropical storms are caused by the temperature differentials between the polls and the tropics. In fact this shows up as a slight dwindling of major hurricanes and tropical storms. But the numbers are such that it is difficult to tell since the margin of errors in the chaos of weather is much larger than the difference in tropical storms count.

So the real story is that there is no such thing as man-made global warming. There is some climate change. What direction and how much is too difficult to tell now that NASA doctored the data.

As for increases in CO2 - this has been nothing but good. More plants, more animals and less hunger among humans.

Of course you could believe those that tell you that next weekend the world will burn up like a piece of coal.
23-12-2017 02:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Ebanfigueroa wrote:
I am a high school student in South Carolina. I am in the process of creating a legacy product for our case study. I decided to research climate change, especially South Carolina climate change. I would really appreciate if anyone would stop by on my webpage raising awareness of the issue at hand. I am very fond of this topic especially since my family was impacted very hard by the past hurricanes and believe not enough attention has been brought to the issue. Thank You.

Find it here https://climatechangesc.weebly.com


I suggest you begin by looking at the hurricane and tropical storm data stored at the National Hurricane Center. Another good place to look would be the historical weather station logs in your area (not the central NOAA site). These used to be available until recently in graphical form, but that site is undergoing reorganization. In any case, use the raw data, not 'cooked' data.

From there, you can start to build correlations against the CO2 content as measured at places like Mauna Loa.

I think you will find the correlation to be quite low.

Good luck with your research!


The Parrot Killer
23-12-2017 03:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Here's the real word outside of the absolute lies of the global warmists:

There's that buzzword 'real' again! Don't forget...YOU are a global warmist too!
Wake wrote:
Every 1000 years we have a warm period.

Not periodic.
Wake wrote:
They are perfectly normal and the Earth recovers from them usually without a Maunder Minimum (little ice age) as we did from the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago that was significantly warmer than today.

Both of these were conditions in Europe, not necessarily the world.
Wake wrote:
Exactly WHY do you suppose all those Cathedrals and palaces had high ceilings?

To inspire greatness in the king, or in God.
Wake wrote:
It was to allow those on floor level to be cool enough to prey or party.

A shade under a tree works better! You know, the way Jesus himself taught.
Wake wrote:
We have rather complete records and you could look them up in Wikipedia under "List of periods and events in climate history" to suggest that this warm period, which started in 1886 and in which man could not generate large amounts of CO2 until 1940 or so is pretty funny. In the 1950's we STILL had horses and buggies in and around San Francisco and other major cities.

There is no record of the temperature of the Earth at any time in history. There still isn't. It isn't possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. You still don't get statistical math, do you?
Wake wrote:
From 1886 until 1940 the warming was the same amount and the same speed as from 1970 to present and at the same speed. If man caused the latest heating why is it the same as the previous?

You don't know that. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
As someone that knows spectometry and chromatography

You don't. You have already shown this.
Wake wrote:
I could have told you 30 years ago that CO2 was a harmless gas for many reasons.

Spectrographs and chromatographs don't show this.
Wake wrote:
Firstly because CO2 has only three very narrow absorption bands.

Not true. The three bands you refer to happen to be in the rather wide infrared bands.
Wake wrote:
Two of these really don't count. That is because H2O in it's three phases in the atmosphere are 100 times more common and absorb all but the last band.

Is it greater than zero? It counts.
Wake wrote:
And the amount of energy in that band that is radiated from the Earth is so small that at CO2 levels of 200-250 ppm the band is totally absorbed. There is no more energy for CO2 to hold.

Why? Because water absorbed it all? Do you even realize what the effect of absorption of infrared light happens to be?
Wake wrote:
Secondly and more importantly - in the troposphere the atmosphere is so dense that all of the energy that is radiated from the ground after it has been absorbed from the sunlight is captured within 10 feet or so from the ground it radiated.

WRONG. The most energy radiated into space is from the surface itself...directly. It is the warmest and densest material.
Wake wrote:
Another paper I read estimated 100 feet but I believe them to be referring to 100% absorption and not a more real 90%.

Another paper full of hooey.
Wake wrote:
What this means is that since this heat has been captured

It is not possible to capture or trap heat.
Wake wrote:
in the molecules close to the surface and that atmosphere at this point is so dense, the processes of conduction and convection carry this energy into the stratosphere where eventually it is radiated through a rather complex process.

Nothing complex about radiance. Don't try to make it sound so mystical.

The atmosphere DOES help cool the surface, it also helps keep it warm. It is mass. It takes time to heat and cool it, same as the surface.

Conduction of surface heat to the atmosphere heats the air close to the surface It IS convected upward, since the atmosphere is an open fluid. This expands the air, making it act like a radiator as it loses heat to space through radiance. The cold air drops again, heating it again as it's compressed. The total energy is less than what went up, because that parcel of air has been radiating all the time. Warm air rising is seen as a 'low' on weather charts. Cold air falling is seen as a 'high' on weather charts. Round and round it goes, with wind moving it along.
Wake wrote:
So because the heat relieving process is really conduction

It is conduction, convection, and radiance. All three are in play.
Wake wrote:
it doesn't matter what the gases are in the atmosphere.

In the end, this is true. While CO2 and water both absorb infrared light, they convert it to thermal energy. This heats the CO2 or water slightly. They in turn heat the air around them. This is just another way for the surface to put energy into the atmosphere, cooling the surface.
Wake wrote:
In fact CO2 has a lower specific heat content than Nitrogen or Oxygen and hence is actually a coolant as much as anything else.

Specific heat has no effect in this regard. CO2 just follows what is around it, and may slightly add to it due to absorption. The whole parcel of air still radiates it away as it moves around in the sky.
Wake wrote:
Moreover, NASA has doctored the real temperature data

There is no global temperature data. There was nothing to doctor. That data is pure fabrication.
Wake wrote:
since 1980 or so in order to supply politicians with the ability to scare the people into demanding that the government protect them. To give the government more and ever more power.
...deleted redundant link...
If you read this paper you discover that three mathematicians analyzed the changes in "raw" temperature data that NASA has been passing out over the last 50 years and the changes in this data are consistently upwards. If you are simply correcting for errors from, say, improper calibration of thermometers it would NEVER be all in one direction almost as if you simply multiplied everything by 1.09.

All those thermometers that make up the doctored 'data' is not enough to determine anything like a global temperature. There isn't thermometers in the world to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.
Wake wrote:
To quote this paper: "Clearly, if the historical data adjustments that were made to the GAST data inappropriately removed this cyclical pattern, then all three of the current versions of GAST must be considered invalid."

GAST was already invalid as a global temperature.
Wake wrote:
And "The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality.

True.
Wake wrote:
In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.

NONE of it is global temperature data.
Wake wrote:
Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

These claims usually are about a global temperature. GAST is not a global temperature.
Wake wrote:
Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA's GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings."

True.
Wake wrote:
In short - NASA has quite plainly lied about warming. And those that quote NASA papers are doing nothing more than spreading the lies.

Yet you defend NASA. Curious.
Wake wrote:
Even more importantly, honest scientists can easy come up with conclusions similar to NASA because of the doctored data. These are criminal acts and should be treated as such.

What law has been broken?
Wake wrote:
If you want to know WHY people and politicians would lie about this you need only read this article:

...deleted redundant link...

There are trillions of dollars in the business of either AGW research or "methods of fixing the climate".

This is a valid argument. There's BIG money in the business of 'global warming' hysteria.
Wake wrote:
We should also cover more ground. With the levels of CO2 at the 280 ppm levels plants were on the very verge of dying. Take away a plant's food and it can't survive. And because plant life was so impacted so was the entire animal kingdom. With the increase in CO2 plants have bloomed as never in recent history.

CO2 is not a plant's food any more than oxygen is food for you.
Wake wrote:
We presently have three times as much population now as in the 1970's and never has there been fewer hungry in the world. What's more there are so many wild animals that they are being pushed into the cities.
...deleted redundant link...

Hunger in the world has more to do with theft, war, politics, and logistics than available food. Same with water.

Wild animals have always been part of our cities. Rats and mice are common, of course, but raccoons are well suited to cities. They have always lived in them. Deer are increasing in numbers, thanks to hunting programs that serve to protect them and others that think of them as pets. They have always been a hazard to cars, even in the urban core. Bears too will sometimes wander into cities and take up residence there. The trash bins are favorite sources of food for a bear.

Not only pigeons, but all kinds of predators that hunt them are found in the city. So are eagles and hawks, who typically go after the rats and mice (though they may catch a dog or cat at times).

Wake wrote:
Last summer when I got up early and looked out the window there was a group of over a dozen raccoons running down the streets in this city far from rural areas. We have reports of wildcats and mountain lions monthly. Wolves have attacked children. And this is the San Francisco bay area - one of the most populated areas in the country.

Nothing unusual. These critters have been part of city life there for as long as there have been cities there.
Wake wrote:
The largest increases from CO2 are ocean plankton and the many animals that feed upon it up to and including Blue Whales. The Pacific Blue Whale pods along the west coast are now larger than they though existed in the entire world just 40 years ago. The Humpbacks and Greys and others are so common that they often stop in San Francisco bay to rest from fighting the current on their yearly migrations to the Arctic regions. Of course on TV news they tell us that "naturalists say that they will get skin diseases from the brackish water and die. But it seems that the only whales that are dying are those run over by ships.

True.
Wake wrote:
We hear that the oceans are rising and all the low lying island will flood and destroy the homes of the island occupants. The lowest lying group is the Marianas and rather than sinking they have actually grown in land area.

True. Some land sinks, others rise. Land does not sit still.
Wake wrote:
Tropical storms are caused by the temperature differentials between the polls and the tropics.

I assume you mean 'poles'.
I doubt any tropical storm is going to care what the results of any poll is!

Tropical storms are caused by difference in temperature between upper and lower air, not by difference between the equator and the poles. Tropical storms stay localized for this reason.

Wake wrote:
In fact this shows up as a slight dwindling of major hurricanes and tropical storms.

There has been no slight dwindling. Go check out the National Hurricane Center historical data.
Wake wrote:
But the numbers are such that it is difficult to tell since the margin of errors in the chaos of weather is much larger than the difference in tropical storms count.

Generally true, but since you don't understand what the margin of error is or how its calculated, you don't know by how much.
Wake wrote:
So the real story is that there is no such thing as man-made global warming.

True. There may be no warming at all. We just don't know.
Wake wrote:
There is some climate change.

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.
Wake wrote:
What direction and how much is too difficult to tell now that NASA doctored the data.

It's impossible to tell. It's not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
As for increases in CO2 - this has been nothing but good. More plants, more animals and less hunger among humans.

Plants DO grow better under increased concentrations of CO2.
Wake wrote:
Of course you could believe those that tell you that next weekend the world will burn up like a piece of coal.

The Church of Global Warming does seem to go on and on about their version of the End of World.


The Parrot Killer
23-12-2017 07:50
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:


The normal meaningless drivel in which the high point was correcting a typo as if that was a real accomplishment. But I suppose for someone with a mind like his it was.




Join the debate Climate Change Website and Legacy Project:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Project Censored #21 Fossil Fuel Industry "Colonizing" US Universities2721-06-2018 15:31
Project Censored #17 Young Plaintiffs Invoke Constitutional Grounds for Climate Protection220-06-2018 00:25
Ecohypocrisy website - Your help is requested in expanding it029-05-2018 02:39
SCHOOL PROJECT208-12-2017 20:08
I will be creating a website on Climate Policy910-07-2017 21:49
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact