[geocentrism] on topic and off topic.
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:44:54 +1000
ON TOPIC.. Maybe Paul has an answer.. I think this question was asked before
by Bernie.. If the world is racing towards the east, and if I say the
atmosphere has to be dragged around with it, then it seems logical to expect to
find this drag either at the same speed, or maybe a bit slower.. dragging
behind so to speak.. Now this would mean that the atmosphere would be seen to
slowly move westwards from the east..
But this is not the case.. All our weather fronts move from the west towards
the east at relatively great speed.. Why.. ?
Now back to off topic.. I shouldn't be wasting my time with the defunct Global
warming scam, but I am irritated by the continued irrational Media blitz and
even school education programs perpetuating the lie. So here is another piece
of evidence from one on the inside..
As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do
you do, sir?"
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999
to 2005.
David Evans | July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian
Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting
model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol,
in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural
products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite
data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused
global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core
data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it
appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community
were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We
scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we
felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were
working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon
emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was
pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main
cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the
facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most
of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient
facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for
years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the
planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased
greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the
tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes:
weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the
balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of
global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant
cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I
would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC
report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde
thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had
gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so
statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers,
but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind
shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the
temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the
presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause
significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global
warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise
temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no
observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause
of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming
trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the
past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are
corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on
thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to
vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only
temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only
land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The
other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land
measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a
recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past
half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years
before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something
important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with
them, though they would dispute their relevance.
Al Gore, made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason
for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other
political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have
called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of
little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global
warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand to show
evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the
implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
The evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the
alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely
asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming,
don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not
found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence
consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea
that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical
calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue
not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in
order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus,
the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time.
When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the
ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for
not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of
their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for
why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to
have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before
wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999
to 2005.
Other related posts:
