tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post856820668388133538..comments2013-01-03T05:53:29.294-08:00Comments on Left Right Across and Hold: Colors of the WindBernardo de la Pazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13311733730523945450noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-47817657064173560282010-12-15T11:40:27.594-08:002010-12-15T11:40:27.594-08:00Others can/do explain this situation better than I...Others can/do explain this situation better than I, but I'll try...<br /><br /><br />One premise of AGW is that the actions of mankind are directly impacting (increasing) the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is presumed to be *the* critical component of greenhouse gasses (GHG), and human-caused impact on GHG are the proximate cause of planetary warming (or "climate change").<br /><br />According to the computer models upon which the AGW premise depends... if GHG are directly responsible for excessive warming, there would be a detectable "hotpsot" showing a specific, defined range of temperature levels about 5-7 miles up over the equator. This is based on over 20 climate MODEL simulations of atmospheric temperature levels which are all used to support AGW. The models predict (require) temperature changes which are caused due to feedback from water vapor, creating a hotspot region over the topics. Note that water vapor makes up apx. 95% of all GHG and CO2 is apx. 4%; the rest are statistical trace amounts.<br /><br />This distinctly identifiable environmental condition (the "hotspot") must exist according to the AGW theory. However, this warming is not supported by comparative analysis against the model predictions using Real World temperature records spanning multiple decades. I do note there have been reports (e.g., Santer and Sherwood) the hot-spot *was* supported by the data, but those claims appear to be statistical *possibilities* at best, not adequate to be considered Scientific Proof. Thus, having been falsified by observation, a significant prediction/requirement of the theory is not supported experimentally.<br /><br />With *ANY* scientific premise, if it can be proven by experimentation and observation, that a hypothesis - or a key/critical aspect of it - is shown to be provably FALSE, it is reasonable to call into question the conclusions of the theory as a whole, up to and including discarding it as "unacceptable". QED.<br /><br />Short form: Clearly, there are serious issues with the models upon which the AGW theory is based, which more than indicate there are likely to be problems with the theory as a whole.<br /><br /><br />...I'm simplifying things here greatly. (You did say 'briefly'.) Others can/have done a more complete job discussing this aspect of AGW, as I am sure you are aware. I tried.<br /><br />- SteveSteve Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11281228341784551551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3288462925756379716.post-82763035637961015072010-12-13T13:34:49.937-08:002010-12-13T13:34:49.937-08:00Steve, I'm putting together a post in response...Steve, I'm putting together a post in response to this. But while we're waiting for that, I believe I would like you to explain why JoAnne Nova's "missing hot spots" constitute a "logical flaw" in the theory of AGW. You should be able to do this easily, since this is your conclusion. Would you mind sharing with me, however briefly, the train of logic which led you to it?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02107206395412209448noreply@blogger.com