Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Is EPA right about carbon dioxide?

As everyone knows, this blog does science the way the Browns play football, nevertheless, a reader sent me a link to:
On the Existence of a "Tropical Hot Spot" & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding
Abridged Research Report
Dr. James P. Wallace III
Dr. John R. Christy
Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo
August 2016

I link it here:
ABSTRACT
These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-things equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series analyzed.
Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate--13 times in fact--that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift.
Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work.
The temperature data measurements that were analyzed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible. 
As Richard Feynman said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Hmm. Maybe the Browns will win today.

UPDATE: Browns lost. But it was in overtime.

11 comments:

  1. I used to anger my lefty friends at work by telling them:

    The weather isn't your deal. It's God's deal.

    If He wanted to, He could shut off the sun tomorrow and zingo, we'd all freeze to death. But He doesn't, because he is a kind and loving Father...

    BEAUTIFUL crisp sunny morning out on the porch here in Hedgesville. Autumn has arrived. My favorite season. God is good, all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exactly. And He gave us anothergorgeous day in Poca.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another rhetorical question: How can you tell when the overreaching, watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) EPA is lying? Those boobs have zero credibility. See "Gold King Mine." - Elric

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lotsa people gonna be totally bummed by that report. Complaints will be made; attacks on it will be made. In the end, true believers will wail their terrible wails, and remain true believers in AlGoreBull Worming.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's all about globalization and one world power. Global warming is one of the vehicles used to get us to that point. Our kids are being lied to and manipulated to accept globalization without any questions asked.

    The left is pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Carbon dioxide is plant food. It increases agricultural production. It is present in very small quantities in the atmosphere, and there is not a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations, and average global surface temperature. The assertion that increasing CO2 levels caused by human activities will lead to global climate calamity is nonsense, and a lie. It is perpetrated by climate 'scientists' who rip off the taxpayer futzting around with climate models that always have sucked and will continue to suck and will continue to produce results with no meaning or value. Millions and millions go down this junk science rathole and we get stuck for the bill. I hope the Trump administration shuts down the National Science Foundation and the others that steal our money and give it to these carnival barker alarmists.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Carbon dioxide is plant food. It increases agricultural production. It is present in very small quantities in the atmosphere, and there is not a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations, and average global surface temperature. The assertion that increasing CO2 levels caused by human activities will lead to global climate calamity is nonsense, and a lie. It is perpetrated by climate 'scientists' who rip off the taxpayer futzting around with climate models that always have sucked and will continue to suck and will continue to produce results with no meaning or value. Millions and millions go down this junk science rathole and we get stuck for the bill. I hope the Trump administration shuts down the National Science Foundation and the others that steal our money and give it to these carnival barker alarmists.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What's the provenance of this document? Without that information, one should be careful to accept its conclusions unreservedly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably was written with an EPA-pen. Those suckers auto-inject all nearby Greenies with copious quantities of adrenaline.

      Delete
  9. NOAA and NASA keep telling us that every month is the hottest in history. This past summer was the hottest in history, they said. I kept my house at 72 degrees last year and this year. I have budget billing with Georgia Power. They just recalculated it and my electric bill dropped by $35 a month. After the hottest summer evah I expected it to go up. WTF? How did this happen? My house must be in a tropical cold spot. Yeah. That's the ticket.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Is EPA right about carbon dioxide?

    I am a scientist (R&D chemistry for ~3 decades), the answer is "no".

    The 1977 Pacific Shift is a facet of the ~60 year cycle in the oceans. You can see the cycle in global temperature, ENSO, the PDO in the Pacific, the AMO in the Atlantic and a number of other climate datasets like rainfall and sea level.

    The cycle is responsible for about a third of the temperature rise last century since it was at bottom in 1900 and at peak in 2000. So about 0.5 F of the global temperature rise is an artefact.

    Then when you add in the effect of the Sun through modulation of cloud cover via the Svensmark mechanism that is responsible for most of the rest of the temperature rise. Take those two components out and the amount left for CO2 is too small to be dangerous.

    I really hate what these people have been doing to my profession.

    ReplyDelete