Climate Change

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Climate Change

Post by John »

OLD1953 wrote: > I'm sure a selective culling of Strauss's or Howe's emails for 20
> years, or John's for that matter, could be used to induce doubt
> about generational dynamics.
With regard to myself, I totally disagree. Over the years, I
answered many e-mail messages, anything that challenged me in any
meaningful way was posted as part of a "Questions from web site
readers" article in the web log.

Then I set up this forum last year, and anyone who wants to challenge
me can post anything he wants on this forum. And just in case
anyone's wondering, I've never deleted any postings from this forum
(not counting a few viagra-type spam postings), though I have four or
five times moved off-topic postings to other threads.

So no, what you say isn't true. If you were to look at all my
private e-mail messages for the last seven years since I first set up
this web site, you would not find anything remotely like the fraud and
deception exposed by the climategate e-mail messages.

Sincerely,

John

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by gerald »

a different perspective on climate change
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... ulence.htm
after all it is due to windmills

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Climate Change

Post by John »

I've moved two postings on the Singularity to the thread

Information and Evidence of the Singularity
http://generationaldynamics.com/forum/v ... =161#p4496

I'll respond to them there.

John

dan123
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:09 pm

The great global warming swindle

Post by dan123 »

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... ocumentary

In 8 parts the full film. Personally I get weary when polititans start raising taxes on such thin and shaky scientific evidence. Especially when there are such huge powerful lobbies waiting for a free lunch on all this tax money.

There's also a critical review of the film on Wikipedia here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_ ... ng_Swindle

One thing I'm fairly sure of, mankind will never manage to control the sun, and anyway I think we have plenty of other problems we could solve where we do not need to have such religious discussions.

regards Daniel

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: The great global warming swindle

Post by gerald »

dan123 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... ocumentary

In 8 parts the full film. Personally I get weary when polititans start raising taxes on such thin and shaky scientific evidence. Especially when there are such huge powerful lobbies waiting for a free lunch on all this tax money.

There's also a critical review of the film on Wikipedia here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_ ... ng_Swindle

One thing I'm fairly sure of, mankind will never manage to control the sun, and anyway I think we have plenty of other problems we could solve where we do not need to have such religious discussions.

regards Daniel
Very true,

I do not want to sound alarmist, but the following links might be interesting.

We appear to be getting into the next sunspot cycle http://www.spaceweather.com/

And if the big event occurs ( a Carrington Event) all of our planning and projections will be for naught.

It should be noted that NASA has said the next solar cycle could be interesting, the following link also mentions the relationship of the sun to Earth's temperature. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009 ... iction.htm

Note "class X storms"
http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/fl ... 65g5p6os90

A Carrington like event to day, would not be good
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006079.html

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by gerald »

Man and climate change?
This 6 part video describes some scientific research into climate change and puts a different spin on things.
It gets into cloud cover, the influence of cosmic rays on their formation , the suns effect on cloud cover and climate, the influence of our sun's location in the galactic arms of our milky way, scientific data suppression, and that our environment is influenced by the galactic environment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRrkitPezhI&NR=1 Yup, all we have to do is pass some more laws, and our problems will be solved.

OLD1953
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:16 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by OLD1953 »

The problem lies in the difference between what scientists actually publish and what politicians and "interested parties" claim.

Reliable data on worldwide temps has been available from the 1970's on, and that's all satellite data. Prior to that, any data is suspect. Much of the ground based data is highly suspect even now, because many/most of the little data gathering units are improperly placed. There have been audits of the placement and problems with the data units, many are too close to buildings (buildings are warmer in the winter) and many more have problems with insect invasions or dirt on the instruments, etc.

The reliable (satellite) data says we've been in a general warming trend since it was first gathered. That's just a fact. This trend is not some absolute straight line, it varies up and down year over year, the trend is established by least mean square averaging, same as the trends in the stock market or the GDP over time.

Data before 1850 or so is estimated. Accuracy of this data is suspect, however, there is no reason I'm aware of to believe it has a bias established over time that would cause older data to show lower temps than newer data. IOW, yes, it's accurate to within 2% or 5% or what have you, but it's inaccuracy is random, not somehow biased to lower temps the older it is.

And those are the facts. The general warming trend is supported by the increased melting in the Arctic, and in the Antarctic. Nearly 30 years ago, the flat statement was made that several of the Antarctic ice shelves would break up if warming trends did not reverse. The trend did not reverse, and they did indeed break up. It is a basic principle of the scientific method that a theory that makes a successful prediction must be accepted as more valid than theories that did not make this prediction, therefore, I am forced to either abandon the scientific method (for what?) or accept this trend for higher temps in the polar regions as fact.

And those are the facts.

The percentage of this warming due to solar variability, the percentage due to human activity, and the percentage due to unknown causes are all highly disputable. The CO2 causing warming theory has some problems, fairly serious ones in my opinion (though I've not calculated anything to do with atmospherics on any planet for a good 35 years, so that's just an educated opinion, not an expert opinion). That said, some of the alternative stuff is simply off the wall, such as the paper that was published claiming high altitude generation of cosmic ray tracks was causing enough mist at that altitude to cause reflection of heat back to the surface. The total energy input of cosmic rays is about equal to that of starlight. I'm just not going further with that.

And few to none of the published papers give any account of the dark particles human activity put into the low atmosphere. A few have mentioned diesel soot particles, which is good and certainly a contributer to warming trends, but I've seen nothing mentioning the studies on coal micro flaking (a total of about 3-4% of all coal mined is lost in transit between minehead and furnace due to coal flaking off the surface as it dries - these flakes are nano sized particles that are nearly collidal in air and don't even start to settle out for over fifty miles - the study on that was done by one of the agencies involved in mining or transportation and published about 1990 - as you can imagine it was a bone of contention in the coal fields for many years as to where a billion tons of coal per year were going) and hundreds of millions of tons of black particles downwind of every coal mine and rail line HAVE to have an effect, but nobody is adding that into calculations about why the lower atmosphere is warmer. At least I can't find it, and I've looked.

Now, from the above, we get the current panic that "the end is near". As I said earlier, I'm not panicked, because the panic is far larger than anything we could muster to support this kind of reaction. Moreover, again, it's just not that hard to control the incoming sunlight, surely some country would say "enough" and take action to do just that if we started having constant category five hurricanes. Or, as John has pointed out, the machines that control things will do so in thirty years or so (very likely as part of an orbital solar power generation program, IMHO).

So we get interesting things like a scientist confronting Gore immediately after a panicked statement saying "I never made any prediction like that", and similar items. And Gore is identified in the public mind as a "global warming scientist" for heavens sake. He's a (former) politician with an interest in the matter, but he doesn't know even as much as I do about atmospherics, and most of the panickers know even less.

Yeah, the conference was a farce.

But then, the notion that we've got an infinite garbage sink in the atmosphere is pretty obviously farcial as well. And so it goes, on planet Earth.

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by gerald »

the Earth's upper atmosphere is cooling off due to changing solar activity.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... 1timed.htm

OLD1953
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:16 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by OLD1953 »

Solar activity over the long term will increase (IOW, the sun will become hotter at the surface and expand slowly) as it does for every yellow dwarf main sequence star. In fact, some calculations show the earth has less than 100 million years left, before the sun heats up enough to start boiling water at the equator, and then it's a very short time before the planet looks like Venus, unless technology intervenes. Solar influx could decrease over a limited period, but the overall trend there has to always be to increase slowly, until the sun drops off the main sequence and becomes a red giant.

gerald
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:34 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by gerald »

OLD1953 wrote:Solar activity over the long term will increase (IOW, the sun will become hotter at the surface and expand slowly) as it does for every yellow dwarf main sequence star. In fact, some calculations show the earth has less than 100 million years left, before the sun heats up enough to start boiling water at the equator, and then it's a very short time before the planet looks like Venus, unless technology intervenes. Solar influx could decrease over a limited period, but the overall trend there has to always be to increase slowly, until the sun drops off the main sequence and becomes a red giant.


From a different perspective, our sun will shine as long as the Galatic Birkeland currents feed it. Also, it should also be noted our sun is a variable
x-ray star.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?art ... dwarf#dest

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests