However, "Global Warming" in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny link. But we're hearing far too often that the "science" is "settled", and that it is mankind's contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing "Greenhouse Effect", which is the root "cause" of global warming.
We're also hearing that "all the world's scientists now agree on this settled science", and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe.
And last, but not least, we're seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest.
Have here become a nation of overnight loonies? Sorry folks, but we're not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just yet.
We know a great deal continue reading atmospheric physics, bio and from the onset, many of the claims were just plain Essays Global Warming Debate. The extreme haste with which seemingly the entire world immediately accepted the idea of Anthropogenic man-made Global Warming made us more than a little bit suspicious that no one had really taken a close look at the science.
We also knew that the catch-all activity today known as "Climate Science" was in its infancy, and that atmospheric modeling did not and still does not exist which can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance.
So the endless stream of dire Essays Global Warming Debate of what was going to happen years or decades from now if we did not drastically reduce our CO2 production by virtually shutting down the economies of the world appeared to be more the product of radical political and environmental activism rather than science. Thus, we embarked on a personal quest for more information, source with a strong academic background in postgraduate physics and a good understanding of the advanced mathematics necessary in such a pursuit.
This fundamental knowledge of the core principles of matter and its many exceptionally complex interactions allowed us to research and understand the foundations of many other sciences.
In short, we read complex scientific articles in many other scientific disciplines Essays Global Warming Debate relative ease and good understanding - like most folks read comic books.
As our own knowledge of "climate science" grew, so grew our doubts over the "settled science". What we found was the science was far from "settled".
Climate Change Debate: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
It Ronald Reagan As A Leader Essay for a while a somewhat lonely quest, what with "all the world's scientists" apparently having no doubt. Essays Global Warming Debate, in December we submitted an article to one of our local newspapers, the Addison Independentthinking they would be delighted in having at minimum an alternative view of the issue. Alas, they chose not to publish it, but two weeks after our submission by Essays Global Warming Debate strangest coincidencepublished yet another "pro-global-warming" feature written by an individual whom, to the best we could determine, had no advanced training in any science at all, beyond self-taught it would appear.
Still, the individual had published a number of popular books on popular environmental issues, was well-loved by those of similar political bent, and was held in high esteem among his peers. We had learned a valuable lesson: Popular Journalists trump coupled sets of 2nd-order partial differential equations every time. Serious science doesn't matter if you have the press in your pocket. In fairness to the Addison Independent and its editors, our article was somewhat lengthy and technical, and presumably the average reader most likely could not follow or even be interested in an alternative viewpoint, since everyone knew by now that the global warming issue was "settled science".
And we confess that we like the paper, subscribe to it, and know a number of folks who work there personally. They're all good folks, and they have every right to choose what does or doesn't go in their publication.
They also have a right to spin the news any direction they choose, because that's what freedom of the press is all about. Seems everyone, both left and right, does it - and it's almost certain we will be accused of doing the same here. And we just may be, as hard as we may try to avoid it. We humans aren't all shaped by the same cookie cutter, and that's a blessing that has taken us as a species to the top of the food chain.
But by then we had been sharing our own article source research of the literature with others via email, and receiving a surprising amount of agreement back in return.
We're in contact with a large number of fellow scientists around the country, dating back to our college days in the 17th century when beer was a quarter a bottle. One local friend, in particular, kept pressing us to publish, and even offered to set up a "debate" with the Popular Journalist Essays Global Warming Debate had usurped our original article. This we politely declined, arguing that "debate" cannot prove or disprove science But then something unusual happened.
The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists. At Essays Global Warming Debate, we were not alone We decided to publish the results of our counter-exploration on the internet - but in a somewhat uniquely different fashion.
Knowing that most folks aren't geeks, and may have little understanding of science or math, we're going to attempt to teach some of the essential physics and such as we go along.
Readers with little or no mathematical or scientific training may find it challenging, but if you have a general understanding of introductory college or even solid high school level chemistry or physics, you should have no problem in following this amazing tale.
The brighter readers, even without a science background, should be able to follow, as well. Smart folks learn faster than most. What follows is a tale gleaned from many sources over what turned out to be an unreasonably long period of time. We'll be first examining a "worst case" scenario, using very simple math at first, in order to arrive in a ballpark Essays Global Warming Debate will tell us if we need to go further and pull out long strings of complicated equations, which we don't want to have to resort to because we're writing for the average layman who is not a rocket scientist.
This is a valid scientific method despite its apparent simplicity, for if one can first determine that a person does not own a motorcycle, then you don't have to spend a lot of time calculating Essays Global Warming Debate likely he is to crash while riding it. Reducing it to the simplest of terms for the average person to understand was a daunting task. Below is an example of what "real" Climate Scientists have to deal with on a daily basis. Is it any wonder that the most popular majors in college are liberal arts?
Camp Department of Applied Mathematics University of Washington, Seattle Click Let's take a short glance at the equation at the left, because you're never going to see anything like it again in this editorial.
It's an absurd & completely unsupportable leap to say that Hurricane Harvey was “caused” by global warming. Essays and research supporting the idea that global warming poses a clear threat to humanity, that it is largely caused by human activity, and that solutions to the. May 21, · For climate-change alarmists, the heat is on their foreheads. Their desperation is starting to bead up and roll into their collars like flop sweat. Have you ever wondered what you should do if you want to write a persuasive essay. There are some useful tips for writing an argumentative essay on technology.
To most of you, it is gobbly-gook, but to a physicist, it is part of a mathematical proof accompanying a particular study done on the sun's role in Global Warming. What the authors are explaining is they have found that the total solar irradiance TSI has been measured by orbiting satellites since and it varies on an year cycle by about 0.
Don't fret - neither Al Gore nor any of the Popular Journalists can understand it either. We'll try to reference most of the material, but if we miss a credit, or use a photograph someone didn't want to share with the world OK, we wonder why the photo was on the web if that were the case we'll quickly remove it with our apologies.
And let's freely admit up front that what we offer here is a dissenting opinion, and surely we have "cherry-picked" the articles of others which are also contrary to the widely held current beliefs. A bit of this is original on our part, but most of it comes from others around the globe.
We have tried to present work from what we believe to be credible, thoroughly diligent scientists actively engaged in current research. We're reminded of an earlier story, which happened back in This was the amazing discovery of a skull and jawbone in which was quickly named the Piltdown Man and which all the world's archaeologists immediately accepted as a hitherto unknown form of early human.
It appears no one bothered to examine it closely, more info that other scientists had thoroughly investigated and vetted it.
Essays Global Warming Debate hoax wasn't uncovered untilwhen it was learned that the skull was that of a modern man and the jaw that of an orangutan.
Seems no one had ever bothered to take a really close look at the artifact. Well, folks, it does appear we have a new, 21st Century Piltdown Man, and this time we know his name. He's called "Anthropogenic Global Warming".
It's hard to nail down Essays Global Warming Debate when the sky started falling, but certainly the work of Michael Mann provided its first click here exposure. Michael Mann, a paleoclimatologist one who attempts to interpret the past climate through certain Paleolithic records, such as ice core samples, sea bed sediments, coral heads, and tree ring growthsubmitted a paper to Nature magazine in which, unfortunately, was not subjected to peer review before publication.
In it, he offered what has now become known as the famous "hockey stick" chart, showing the earth's temperature having been relatively constant for the past thousand years before suddenly skyrocketing upward at the dawn of the 20th century. It turned out to be one of the biggest scientific blunders of all time. Look carefully at the chart above, which is the famous "hockey stick" chart.
Note the horizontal scale is in years, stretching from the year to the near present time. That means the wiggly blue section in the middle is actually only varying up and down by about a half of a degree.
The baseline, as noted, is set at the average of the recorded temperatures from to Also note that only the red portion represents actual measured temperatures - click here rest is based on the assumption that one can interpret past temperatures from examining ancient tree rings or ice core samples from centuries-old ice locked in glaciers.
This is, at best, a marriage of apples and oranges - the handle being somewhat of an educated guess, and the blade being based on actual Essays Global Warming Debate using thermometric recording devices. Sort of like pairing the skull of a human with the jawbone of an orangutan.
And finally, note that the chart is for the northern hemisphere only. This chart, unfortunately, became the foundation for the first report of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change IPCCwhich in turn provided the summary information and recommendations to the world's governments.
The Anthropogenic Global Warming panic was off to a rocketing start. However, some folks noticed a couple of significant and fairly well accepted climatological history facts to be conspicuously missing.
The first was the well-documented "Medieval Warm Period" where temperatures, at least in Europe as mentioned in our introduction, were significantly higher. The second was the "Little Ice Age", a period in which the temperatures dropped so low the Thames River in London froze over.
How could Essays Global Warming Debate be an accurate record of the last millennium? Let's pause and mention that the data above is not "raw" data. Mann actually used about data sets, and in each set he applied a mathematical analysis known as a principle component analysis PCA which seeks to extract principal, or significant component information from a widely varying Essays Global Warming Debate of raw data.
Along comes Steve McIntyrea Canadian analyst, who spends two years of his own personal time reverse-engineering Dr. McIntyre subjects Mann's PCA program to a "Monte Carlo" analysis - which inserts random data sets into the function - and discovered that no matter what data he fed it, the result was always the same. The arm of the "hockey stick" paleo-record always came out straight. Mann's case, the rising temperature of the Medieval Warm Period and the expected trough of the Little Ice Age had been completely erased.
The hockey stick was broken. We may never know whether Mann's work was deliberately contrived to fit some personal environmental agenda, or just a colossal mathematical blunder. McIntyre submitted his work to Nature Magazine - since they were responsible for publishing Mann's flawed research without peer review in the first place, but they reportedly rejected it, saying it was "too long".
He then shortened it to words, and re-submitted it, but again it was rejected, this time saying it was "too mathematical" or words to that effect. Heaven forbid any publication calling itself an "International Weekly Journal of Science" from actually publishing any science that hinged on mathematics. Let's all push a yard stick into the snow, measure the snow depth, call ourselves "climate scientists", and get published in Nature. In the end, McIntyre turned to the internet and its true freedom of the press, and today he is known to every serious climate scientist on the planet as the man who broke the hockey stick.
More info the corrected version, below, in which neither today's temperatures nor the rate of warming are particularly unusual compared to the Essays Global Warming Debate record.
Thus, even the "global warming" of the 20th century was not even remotely a cause for the slightest alarm. It was all "much to do about nothing". The Little Ice Age produced crop failures from too-short growing seasons leading to widespread hunger and even starvation in some more northern locales.
Since our emergence from the Little Ice Age, agriculture has again flourished, and most of us hope it lasts quite a while longer.