atw: Re: Very OT: Climate change and fossil fuels
- From: Rod Stuart <rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 01:41:30 +1000
For some strange reason, the polar ice caps play turn about in melting and
forming. Melting in the Arctic is not new. In the 1930's an RCMP boat was
able to negotiate the fabled Northwest Passage. There is a news article in
one of the Australian newspapers from the 1870's expressing the concern of
the British Admiralty for the apparent melting in the Arctic. When that is
the case, ice forms at a fantastic rate in the Antarctic. The cyclical
nature of temperatures has recently been studied by Ludeck using Fourier
transforms, there are cycles with periods of 11 years, 60 years, 250 years,
1000 years impressed one upon the other. It should come as no
surprise that there is an apparent correlation of these cycles with solar
and planetary cycles. Of course there is another cycle of about 100,000 in
which the planet alternates between glaciation and an interglacial. We are
indeed fortunate to live in an interglacial period.
As for your other comment, could I recommend "The Delinquent Teenager" by
Donna Laframboise for an expose of the way in which the IPCC has
bastardised the peer review process. You don't have to take her word for
it. She directs the reader to look for themselves into the footnotes and
references of so-called "peer reviewed" papers.
On 22 May 2013 00:31, Rafael Manory <rafi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> **
> 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 <rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
> *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
>
>
--
Rod Stuart
6 Brickhill Drive
Dilston, TAS 7252, Australia
<rod.stuart@xxxxxxxxx>
M((040) 184 6575 V(03) 6328 1543
Other related posts:
