atw: Re: Very OT: Climate change and fossil fuels
- From: "Rafael Manory" <rafi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 00:31:40 +1000
Rod, while I don't believe in man-made global warming, I am convinced that
there is global warming overall, as evidenced (for example) by ice melting in
the Arctic region.
Having said that, the article you bring is not a journal article, it is a
commentary on an article. Moreover, the article on which is based
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
is a news item, not a peer-reviewed article. Nevertheless, the content is
interesting and it does contradict the theory of man-made global warming. Al
Gore would definitely not blame global warming on solar spots...
Rafael
----- Original Message -----
From: Rod Stuart
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:18 PM
Subject: atw: Re: Very OT: Climate change and fossil fuels
Terry, the accuracy of a NEW platinum wire instrument inside a BOM Stevenson
Screen is accurate to 1/10 of a degree. However, this drifts with time. It is
also adversely affected by the position of many of these stations. In computing
the global mean temperature, most of these are in the continental USA. The
globe is 70% ocean, where there are none. Do I need to tell why it is absurd to
speak of global mean surface temperatures in 1/10 degree values?
As for the NASA paper, here is a link
<http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html>
On 21 May 2013 21:06, Terry Dowling <Terrence.Dowling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I’m surprised to see someone with a science degree say that it’s difficult
to measure temperatures accurately. You might have heard that ice freezes/melts
at 0 degrees. That makes it very easy to determine – accurately – whether the
temperature is above or below 0 at points where ice and water exist.
I’m wondering which NASA site you look at, Rod. The NASA you use seems
different to the NASA available to everyone else.
I’ve long wondered what the scientists who believe in global warming have
to gain when it seems big industry is the place with money and the ones who
could pay folk to distort the evidence. No, that can’t be it. Maybe they want
to pay the extra taxes the government is imposing to discourage excessive
carbon pollution. I guess the scientists might want to avoid a warming climate
and enjoy cleaner air.
BTW, when a hypothesis or theorem is accepted as proved, they call it a
law. Among others, we have laws on thermodynamics and gravity, two key players
in the climate debate.
I was surprised that the graphs in the video clip look nothing like the
ones NASA produce, ostensibly from the same data. His below, and NASA’s
attached. Maybe it’s got something to do with the narrow time band he’s chosen
– but not simply that.
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rod Stuart
Now, in terms of this thing you call ‘global warming’, it is postulated
that global mean surface air temperatures have risen inordinately. There is no
evidence to support this theory.
See the evidence at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ - yes NASA.
Even the argument that the increase I the last two decades of the twentieth
century is bogus. The record of the period from 1920 to 1940 had not only
higher temperatures, but a greater rate of increase.
See http://climate.nasa.gov/warming_world/ where they say “NASA scientists
unveil their latest findings on our warming world: 2009 is tied as the second
warmest year since modern recordkeeping began, and 2000-2009 is the hottest
decade ever”
Since there is no evidence to disprove the null hypothesis, in this case
that the observed data is well within normal natural variations, to postulate
another hypothesis at all is an affront to science and the scientific method.
Again see http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence for how the cycle of
warming-cooling has been distorted. Then look at http://climate.nasa.gov/causes
to see how they describe CO2’s role in warming.
I particularly love the site Rod directed me to a while ago that said that
because the year after the hottest-ever-recorded-year was not as hot, then it
was evidence that the world was cooling, even though it was still in the top 10
ever hottest years.
So far as climate change is concerned, no one dares dispute the fact that
climates have been dynamic for about 4.5 billion years. What mechanism could
possibly relate what you call “human induced climate change” if it weren’t the
non-existent ‘global warming’?
This is what NASA say about proving it is not sun cycles causing the record
high temps:
How do we know that changes in the sun aren’t to blame for current global
warming trends?
Since 1978, a series of satellite instruments have measured the energy
output of the sun directly. The satellite data show a very slight drop in solar
irradiance (which is a measure of the amount of energy the sun gives off) over
this time period. So the sun doesn't appear to be responsible for the warming
trend observed over the past 30 years.
Longer-term estimates of solar irradiance have been made using sunspot
records and other so-called “proxy indicators,” such as the amount of carbon in
tree rings. The most recent analyses of these proxies indicate that solar
irradiance changes cannot plausibly account for more than 10 percent of the
20th century’s warming.
I particularly like David Evans’s description of who benefits from
believing in global warming:
“The supporters of the theory of manmade global warming are mainly
financial beneficiaries,7 believers in big government, or Greens. They are
usually university educated. They generally prefer the methods of government,
namely politics and coercion, rather than the voluntary transactions of the
marketplace—especially when it comes to setting their own remuneration.
They are an intellectual upper class of wordsmiths, who regulate and
pontificate rather than produce real stuff. There is little demand in the
economy for their skills, so they would command only modest rewards for their
labor in the marketplace.”
I guess the coal, energy and petro-chemical industries have no interest in
‘disproving’ the science. They’re all so poorly paid and there’s no
self-interest there. At least they can be happy that they’re not university
educated – like most of the people they have as followers.
--
Rod Stuart
6 Brickhill Drive
Dilston, TAS 7252, Australia
<rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6328 1543 
Other related posts:
