atw: Re: atw: Re: Very OT: Climate change and fossil fuels
- From: "swapnilogale@xxxxxxxxx" <swapnilogale@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 09:31:54 +1000
Well said Bill. I agree completely.
Swapnil
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: "Bill Parker" <bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: atw: Re: Very OT: Climate change and fossil fuels
Date: Wed, May 22, 2013 9:16 AM
I usually enjoy the information I get on ATW. But this pointless "he said she
said about GW" stuff has me about to leave. Its got NOTHING to do with TW, and
there are many other forums to indulge in the arguing.
Bill
On 21/05/2013, at 10:31 PM, Rafael Manory 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
basedhttp://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 StuartTo: austechwriter@freelists.orgSent:
Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:18 PMSubject: 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. <image002.png> 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:
- » atw: Re: atw: Re: Very OT: Climate change and fossil fuels - swapnilogale@xxxxxxxxx
