Friday, July 10, 2009
Battle of the Graphs
Here is the infamous Mann, et al. "Hockey Stick" graph, which is total bunk, completely debunked, yet cited still by Warmies like Al Gore and the IPCC. Below that is the truth.
How can I be so sure it is true? The independent source rule. When two or more people, without any connection, say the same thing, the chances of it being true are at least tripled. When unconnected hundreds say it after careful analysis of the real world, it is true to a moral certainty.
Let's go back. The reason I have an interest in climate is the paper I wrote in Old Norse class at UVA in 1977. Back then there was no easy investigation with computers--you had to go to the library and look up and then find dusty old magazine articles. I was looking for the reason why Icelandic culture started about 950, peaked about 1150, and between 1000 and the society collapse at 1400, Icelandic scribes put out tons of very readable accounts of extended families, which accounts are called Sagas, almost all of them set in the first period 1000 to 1150. Why was the time of literary vigor so concentrated during that 450 year period?
Something like the lower graph in an old magazine, called Paleoclimatology, hit me like a hammer. Of course the climate was the answer. I got a A - as I recall, but later heard my professor, who knew I was listening, repeat my thesis and some of the details during a lecture.
When I saw the Hockey Stick graph in the first decade of our new millennium, I said to myself, what happened to the Little Optimum (that's what we called the Medieval Warm Period 30 years ago)? There had been no doubt in the dozens of peer reviewed articles and papers I had read back then that the Medieval Warm Period existed and indeed was much warmer than it is now. Now, in the Mann graph, it was gone.
That bit of scientific legerdemain sparked my interest in the Global Warming Hoax, and perhaps set my bias and filters about it, so that I have evolved into an active, proselytizing Denier.
Oh and here is a non visual representation of a visual model for our atmosphere. Consider that 100,000 beach balls half filling up a football stadium represent the various gasses in our planet's dry atmosphere.
78,080 of them are nitrogen, not a greenhouse gas
20,850 of them are oxygen, not a greenhouse gas
930 of them are argon, not a greenhouse gas
38 of them are CO2, a greenhouse gas
2 of them represent all the rest of the trace gasses in the atmosphere, some of which are greenhouse gasses.
Most of the 38 CO2 beach balls are naturally occurring so the Warmie theory is that between 2 and 10 of the 100,000 beach balls are causing a rapid and alarming warming.
I think it's the Sun, which has gently and normally been warming us since the last global cooling in the 60s and early 70s. That gentle and normal warming lasted until 2001, when the graph began to trend to cooler again.
Oh, and the atmosphere is not dry and adds to the stadium between 2,000 and 4,000 beach balls representing water vapor, which is a week greenhouse gas, but very powerful because it has such a heavy presence in the atmosphere. I have to ask, which do you think would have a greater effect, 38 or 3,000?
The question answers itself. Water vapor overlaps all but one of the frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum that excites CO2 molecules and water vapor does about 95% of the global warming.
Labels: Global Warming
<< Home
