Climate of suspicion
in [Physics]
|
From: Unum on 23 Jan 2010 18:12 On 1/23/2010 1:33 PM, Androcles wrote: > "Unum"<noneof(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote in message > news:hjffo4$o7n$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> On 1/23/2010 10:57 AM, Androcles wrote: >>> "Unum"<noneof(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote in message >>> news:hjf5v9$q5h$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> On 1/23/2010 2:03 AM, oriel36 wrote: >>>>> On Jan 23, 12:32 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Climate of suspicion >>>>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >>>>>> >>>>>> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >>>>>> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. >>>>>> Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on >>>>>> issues >>>>>> such as climate change according to their personal values (see page >>>>>> 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more >>>>>> likely >>>>>> to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. >>>>>> And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People >>>>>> have more trust in experts � and scientists � when they sense that the >>>>>> speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus >>>>>> do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, >>>>>> when >>>>>> communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should >>>>>> be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a >>>>>> respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if >>>>>> they >>>>>> share something in common with that other side. >>>>> >>>>> Hah !,the wider population now know enough to recognize climate change >>>>> as a normal function of planetary processes be these processes >>>>> astronomical or terrestrial in origin,what these same people are >>>> >>>> Which specific processes are responsible for the current warming? >>> >>> Heat from the Sun. >>> 1) Sun heats ocean. >>> 2) Ocean evaporates and forms clouds. >>> 3) Clouds reflect sunlight into space, reduce evaporation. >>> If you doubt it, feel the sunlight on your skin when a cloud >>> obscures the sun. >>> 4) Less cloud forms, more heat is absorbed, more cloud forms, >>> less heat is absorbed; Earth's temperature remains constant. >>> If it gets warmer, it will cool. If it gets cooler, it will warm. >> >> And yet we do see evidence of considerable variation in Earth's >> temperature over geological time don't we. How do you explain that >> if everything is self-regulating and supposedly constant? >> >>> Positive feedback: >>> 5) Snow falls on land and polar ice fields. >>> 6) Snow/ice reflects sunlight into space, reduces heat absorption. >>> Water absorbs sunlight, increases energy intake. Ice reflects >>> sunlight, reduces energy intake. If you doubt it, take a swim >>> in the Gulf of Mexico and another in the Arctic Ocean. >>> 7) Earth cools as it radiates heat to space, more snow falls, >>> more sunlight is reflected, result is an Ice Age. The colder >>> it is, the colder it will get. The warmer it is, the warmer >>> it will get. >> >> Lol, what a revelation. "The colder it is, the colder it will get. >> The warmer it is, the warmer it will get." What happened to your >> "constancy" in the previous paragraph? And is the difference in >> the temperature of the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean really >> due to reflectivity of ice, you nutjob? >> >>> Changing the balance: >>> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/KeplerSunlight.jpg >>> 8) Earth's orbit is elliptical. >>> 9) Sunlight obeys the inverse square law. >>> 10) Earth is tilted. >>> 11) More sunlight reaches Earth at perihelion than at aphelion. >>> 12) Earth's Great White Spot, Antarctica, reflects sunlight at >>> aphelion (Southern summer). >>> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/earth_1_apollo17.gif >>> Result, positive feedback >>> predominates, Ice Age. >>> 13) Earth precesses. Earth's Great White Spot reflects sunlight >>> at perihelion (Northern summer). But Earth's Great White Spot >>> has no sunlight to reflect and the Northern Wet Spot (the Arctic >>> Ocean) has even more sunlight to melt its ice cap than it had >>> when it faced the Sun at aphelion. Water absorbs far more heat >>> than ice. Result: more sunlight absorbed, positive feedback, >>> natural global warming. >>> >>> >>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Gyroscope_precession.gif >>> >>> 14) But it is offset by more cloud, see negative feedback above. >>> Overall result - a small change in mean temperature as a function >>> of precession. >> >> All those words merely to describe the Milankovitch Cycles. >> >> Sorry but both the precession of the Earth's axial tilt (over a period >> of 40K years) and the eccentricity of the orbit (over a period of 100K >> years) do not in any way explain the very recent and pronounced warming. > > The recent very pronounced cooling is called "winter" where I live > and "summer" in Australia, where there is recent very pronounced > warming. So you are saying now that we have seasons on Earth. Amazing revelation. > Maybe CO2 is a bird that flies south for the winter... yes, that must > be why. > Eccentricity is a number less than 1 ( 0.016710219) and not > connected in any way to 100K years. Sorry to pop your CO2 balloon > but you need a gas that is lighter than air if you don't want to drag it > along in your little red wagon. Can I reglaze your daddy's greenhouse > for him? Glass is very good for letting in sunlight and trapping heat, > much better than CO2 on the floor. I 'll only charge him �100 an > hour. See, I want to make a buc... err... save the planet and I can > help your daddy grow things if he's as gullible as you. > > God and Son Ltd., Master builders and Architects. Worlds are > our specialty. We are a family business. What kind of tinfoil hat do you wear? Does god talk to you through the antenna?
From: Unum on 23 Jan 2010 18:17 On 1/23/2010 2:12 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:45:45 -0600, Unum<noneof(a)yourbusiness.com> > wrote: > >> On 1/23/2010 12:15 AM, Surfer wrote: >>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:10:21 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr >>> <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as >>>> proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you >>>> only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political >>>> objective. >>>> >>> There is a risk of that happening. >>> >>> However wouldn't the fossil fuel industry have more than enough money >>> to fund work that supports the opposing objective? >> >> >> Yes, and they do; >> >> Money the big oil companies are spending on lobbying; >> http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2010&ind=E01 >> >> They spent $35+ million in the 2008 election cycle and ~$8 million >> already in the 2010 cycle. > > > Compared to only $2000 million budgeted by one > agency of the US Government. No-so-good-guy makes yet another remark completely unrelated to the issue under discussion. > > Maybe the climate "scientists" need more so > they can all use jet airplanes to fly around the world. Maybe sour old men who have no lives other than the internet need to watch a little more TV instead. >> Many reports of additional donations to denialist junk scientists; >> http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets >> >> And extensive astroturfing; >> http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0819/energy-and-climate-rallies-real-or-astroturf > > > If it was up to the leftist control freaks, there > would be no money for any questioning, maybe > there wouldn't be any questioners free to question. If it was up to shriveled up old wastrels posting to the internet all day long nobody would know anything. And then they would post about it.
From: Bawana on 23 Jan 2010 19:18 On Jan 23, 3:18 pm, "Androretard" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote in messagenews:unlml5tr94jc6kr9d5mhagtssr8bvldv19(a)4ax.com... > > > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:45:45 -0600, Unum <non...(a)yourbusiness.com> > > wrote: > > >>On 1/23/2010 12:15 AM, Surfer wrote: > >>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:10:21 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr > >>> <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >>>> You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as > >>>> proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you > >>>> only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political > >>>> objective. > > >>> There is a risk of that happening. > > >>> However wouldn't the fossil fuel industry have more than enough money > >>> to fund work that supports the opposing objective? > > >>Yes, and they do; > > >>Money the big oil companies are spending on lobbying; > >>http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2010&ind=E01 > > >>They spent $35+ million in the 2008 election cycle and ~$8 million > >>already in the 2010 cycle. > > > Compared to only $2000 million budgeted by one > > agency of the US Government. > > > Maybe the climate "scientists" need more so > > they can all use jet airplanes to fly around the world. > > Well yeah, of course. They have to study CO2 where it's warm, > it's no good studying it in the cold. In Florida they are called > "snowbirds", they arrived every winter. You're called a retarded cornholer anywhere. It's a global thing.
From: I M on 23 Jan 2010 20:24 On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:13:13 -0800 (PST), oriel36 <kelleher.gerald(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jan 23, 9:52 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:34:48 -0800 (PST), oriel36 >> >> <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Jan 23, 3:50 pm, Unum <non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: >> >> On 1/23/2010 2:03 AM, oriel36 wrote: >> >> >> > On Jan 23, 12:32 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Climate of suspicion >> >> >> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >> >> >> >> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >> >> >> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. >> >> >> Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues >> >> >> such as climate change according to their personal values (see page >> >> >> 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely >> >> >> to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. >> >> >> And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People >> >> >> have more trust in experts and scientists when they sense that the >> >> >> speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus >> >> >> do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when >> >> >> communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should >> >> >> be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a >> >> >> respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they >> >> >> share something in common with that other side. >> >> >> > Hah !,the wider population now know enough to recognize climate change >> >> > as a normal function of planetary processes be these processes >> >> > astronomical or terrestrial in origin,what these same people are >> >> >> Which specific processes are responsible for the current warming? >> >> >> > cottoning on to is scientists trying to make people believe that there >> >> > are those out there who 'deny' climate change when verily these >> >> > people,at the very least,object to the idea that humans can control >> >> > global temperatures to within a certain range by some act of human >> >> > activity by doing something or leaving something undone.Even in that >> >> >> Man can have no effect on the earth? That's creationist talk isn't it. >> >> >> > loathsome commentary you present they link climate change with carbon >> >> > dioxide emissions demonstrating that far from any real contrition for >> >> > this intellectual holocaust,they seek to perpetuate it in such an >> >> > unintelligent way.Who they think they are fooling nowadays is anyone's >> >> > guess,more like thumbsucking as far as I can tell. >> >> >> There will always be the nutjob no-science fringe, unable or unwilling >> >> to examine the evidence or accept anything challenging their world view. >> >> >This business of turning a very minor atmospheric gas into a global >> >temperature dial is quaint for those who know no better but ultimately >> >it is a sideshow for the real curtain raiser - the validity of the >> >'scientific method' itself and its sudden emergence through Newton's >> >agenda.All those scattered opinions from both sides of the climate >> >argument disappear once the original empirical hoax is brought into >> >view where timekeeping averages of the equatorial coordinate system >> >were used as a bridge to connect experimental sciences with planetary >> >dynamics by attempting to obliterate genuine astronomical methods and >> >insights,up to and including the main argument for the Earth's daily >> >rotational and orbital motions.Not even the basic planetary fact of >> >daily rotation in 24 hours survived the empirical mangling of >> >astronomy in order to force through conclusions which are every bit as >> >crude as the idea that humans can keep temperatures within a certain >> >range,a sort of anti-King Canute ideology that is breathtaking in its >> >vacuousness. >> >> >The empirical language of absolute/relative time,space and motion >> >would seem to be a million miles from climate but that is the sound of >> >Newton trying to bypass interpretation and go straight to modelling >> >from observations in his attempt to make planetary dynamics look like >> >terrestrial ballistics.As you will quickly find out,few could handle >> >Newton's elaborate scheme woven around the Ra/Dec framework hence 3 >> >centuries later we have an entire race who think they can control >> >global temperatures,believe in time travel and any other junk they can >> >dump into the celestial arena. >> >> Is there anybody dumb enough to think the >> Earth rotates once in 24 hours? > >I can't imagine what is in your heads that you believe I am deranged >for promoting the fact that the Earth rotates once in 24 hours and the >history and reasoning that supports this value. I have an unlimited amount of time on my hands, but please don't waste my time. >If anything it is a >great gauge as to what the world can expect when faced with the more >immediate concern of global climate.The unintelligent idea of >modelling the planetary dynamic of daily rotation through 360 degrees >directly from the observation of the rotation of constellations >around Polaris far exceeds the unintelligent attempt to model global >climate using a minor atmospheric gas.It is as though the error is too >big or too obvious yet the hostility towards the great timekeeping >principles and the raw planetary dynamical cycles from which they are >drawn still amazes me in a disconsolate sort of way. > >Global climate is determined by 3 main components - the Sun and its >energy output,the distance from the Sun as compared to other planets >and the third main component is planetary dynamics and their >characteristics.People who can't even grasp the most basic >astronomical fact of daily rotation and the information on planetary >dimensions based on the 24 hour value organised around the Earth's >daily rotational characteristics should be nowhere near climate >studies. > >Here is a fairly handy outline of the link between the 24 hour cycle >and planetary dimensions and geography where the equatorial Earth >turns through 15 degrees/1037.55 miles per hour and an entire 360 >degrees/24,901.5 miles in 24 hours - > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF85O9SJCaE I didn't understand a work you said.
From: I M on 23 Jan 2010 20:27
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:33:59 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 1/23/10 3:52 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: > >> Why can't AGW alarmists agree that GHGs are >> what cool the atmosphere but that LWIR in the >> lower 50 meters helps hold the temperature >> from changing much unless weather fronts >> move into an area. > >Perhaps you suffer from one, or more of these common misconceptions: Perhaps you suffer from teacheritis, I look for truth, if the teacher is wrong, I can't help saying so even if it means harsher grading. |