Here is a PDF presentation sent to me by e-mail.

The one assumption of the
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) “theory”
(or, so called Man made climate change)
modeling you should understand.
The 10 degrees celcius / 280ppm CO2,
and 1 tenth per doubling thereafter assumption.

By Derek Alker

EXCERPT:

What this piece is about.
“We” have been told (and told again, and again, and again..) that “our” carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are helping create a “blanket” that is warming the planet, and that this will inevitably lead to disastrous climate change.

Further we are seemingly constantly emplored that Anthropogenic (ie man made) Climate Change is our fault and we should act to stop it now.
These fears are based on computer climate models and their predictions, or rather projections of the planet‟s near future climate, and how it will (supposedly) change.

The main assumption of the models regarding how this so called man made warming “is” occurring relies on a positive feedback water vapour heating mechanism (“blanket”). Sound experimental evidence in the form of a repeatable and verifiable experiment shows there is now no trigger mechanism for the assumed water vapour heating mechanism.
Quite simply, there is no observable heating mechanism as assumed by the AGW “theory”, and modeled by computer climate models known as General Circulation Models (GCMs).

In point of fact observations show the exact opposite is actually happening as compared to what has been assumed to be happening in the upper troposphere.

But, but...

it has to be CO2 - Al Gore said!



Good data there, Derek.


BTW - I talked to my plants this morning and they say they really appreciate the increased CO2 level.

Hi All,
Thank you SST for putting this piece on your site.

I'm interested to know how people see the piece overall.
Has it described the assumption, has it helped you understand it better, etc, etc.

Does anyone agree or disagree with the "timeline" and main events in the "A little relevant history." section.

I would also hope that some major names who have effectively sacrificed their careers in the pursuit of real climate science might get more recognition,
as well as hopefully having explained a little better how some have built careers on an assumed sham, yet are still regarded as "scientists" at present..

Does this relate to Dr. Lindzen's recent paper which showed, based on 20 years of observational data, that the transfer of heat into space DOES NOT decrease with increasing temperature as all of the computer models have assumed?

There now seems to be so much incontrovertible evidence that demolishes most of the assumptions of these computer models, which, when combined with the recent revelations of IPCC scientisits "cooking" the data ( ha ha), the whole issue of AGW should be dead or at least on its way to the grave. I am sure the Copenhagen conference will somehow spin all of this and proceed onward as if nothing has changed. President Clueless has already publicly announced that the US and China have reached some kind of agreement on Climate Change that will be formalized in Copenhagen.

If I remember correctly Dr. Lindzen stated that the transfer of "heat" INCREASES with increasing lower Troposphere temperatures.

recent news broadcast on CBC claims that if we don't reduce our emissions in 100 years the world will warm up by 6 degrees.

*raise the BS flag*

LOL,

more scaremongering attempt.

I wonder if they know about the logarithmic curve of CO2 warm forcing effect?

Did they mention it?

LOL indeed.

I did not mention Lindzen because his work is more related to the processes of movement that the models just simply do not model.
The pdf here is more about my attempt to check what the "experts" say, or rather model is assumed to be happening,
by employing the scientific method, to their assumptions using what experimental and observational data there is available, in my own idiosyncratic way..

Patently what AGW assumed is not happening, and
there are many processes such as described by Lindzen, that are not modeled.
I thought that was beyond the scope of this pdf, as it had got a bit long in the first place,
but neccesarily so in my opinion.
I hope I explained that understandably..

Nice one Derek. I've added your pdf to my collection.

Do have a look at WUWT:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an.../#comments

See the video posted by Cromagnum (21:59:49) :

The title is Global warming Urban heat effect and I am very impressed. Lasts just under six minutes. I would love to copy it to my harddrive but don't know how. Anyone?

Thank you Richard111, and thank you for the help along the way.

(11-28-2009 07:05 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  I would love to copy it to my harddrive but don't know how. Anyone?

How to Capture YouTube FLV Streaming Videos for Free

Thanks John. Looks like more than I need. Will examine in detail.

I have been using Firefox + Download Helper http://www.downloadhelper.net/ + Flashgot http://flashgot.net/

(There seems a proliferation of downloaders out there now.)

Point to a page with a FLV and the spinning ball icon in the navigation toolbar reveals a menu with filenames that can be downloaded

Hi All,
Rather pleasingly for myself, I have to admit that....
I ended the attached version of the piece with a comment that HADcrut had
never released the raw data that many of the plots I used had been compiled from.
That is exactly the data, and how it was stored / collected / collated / processed much "discussed"
in the CRU climategate emails and ensueing "public investigations" or rather whitewashes.........

Derek:
I will read and comment after my Dr appt today. I had not seen this yet. I may have suggestions of names to investigate!