Climate of suspicion
in [Physics]
|
From: Eric Gisin on 23 Jan 2010 12:52 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:n66dnUZh2rwb3sfWnZ2dnUVZ_uti4p2d(a)mchsi.com... > 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 Correction: individualism over collectivism. The former are always going to be more skeptical than the latter. > 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.
From: Androcles on 23 Jan 2010 13:01 Another fuckin' net nazi arsehole. Some simple facts about climate. Negative feedback: 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. 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. 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. "Eric Gisin" <ericg(a)nospammail.net> wrote in message news:hjfdc3$9hc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:n66dnUZh2rwb3sfWnZ2dnUVZ_uti4p2d(a)mchsi.com... >> 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 > > Correction: individualism over collectivism. > The former are always going to be more skeptical than the latter. > >> 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. >
From: oriel36 on 23 Jan 2010 13:34 On Jan 23, 5:41 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > "oriel36" <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c46eb374-6209-4c2f-9715-f01a57ac9cb1(a)e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > Not even the basic planetary fact of > daily rotation in 24 hours > ============================== > Fact? > This a fact, Kellerher. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time > Right now, late January until early March, a sundial is running ~15 minutes > out of synch with your wristwatch. Go and check, each day. > > 'Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in > their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their > having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, > impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of > their heads.'- Galileo Galilei > > This a fact, Kellerher. > YOU are mentally deranged! You call me deranged for explaining that the Earth rotates at a rate of 15 degrees or 1037.55 miles per hour at the equator and a full equatorial circumference of 24,901 miles in 24 hours.I wouldn't even beg the question as to what you think the Earth turns through 15 degrees with that dumb 'sidereal time' idea but at the core of all the empirical 'predictive' junk is that mistake by Flamsteed in trying to do something no astronomer would ever do - try to explain planetary dynamics using the rotation of the constellations around Polaris for you would end up with a monumental mess that ends in 'big bang'. The flat Earthers have more substance than empiricists following Newton but that is your unfortunate choice.If you doubt that 15 degrees of geographical separation corresponds to both 1037.5 miles and 1 hour at the equator,I suggest you get to a globe and you will discover this most basic fact which serves all inventors, adventurers and people of intelligence - http://dl.screenaustralia.gov.au/module/1318/ The root of the problem is Newton's 'predictive' agenda based on trying to fit the 365 day 5 hour 49 minute orbital motion of the Earth into the calendar based Ra/Dec system of 365/366 days.Don't worry John,few have the necessary level of intelligence to handle Newton's elaborate scheme,many have tried (the closest was Mach) but all have failed because they are not astronomers. If you or anyone else calls me a madman for explaining that the Earth rotates once in 24 hours with the large history behind it,what does that make you and the others who subscribe to 'sidereal time' for daily rotation.
From: Unum on 23 Jan 2010 13:37 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.
From: Unum on 23 Jan 2010 13:48
On 1/23/2010 11:44 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > On Jan 23, 12:35 pm, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: >> On 1/23/2010 10:01 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jan 23, 10:45 am, 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. >> >>>> Many reports of additional donations to denialist junk scientists;http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exx... >> >>>> And extensive astroturfing;http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0819/energy-an... >> >>>>> cf >> >>>>> The Temperature of Science >>>>> James Hansen >>>>> http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfS... >> >>>>> <Start extract> >> >>>>> The input data for global temperature analyses are widely available, >>>>> on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made to >>>>> yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians >>>>> would certainly have done that but they have not. >> >>>>> <End extract> >> >>>>> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ >> >>> And who is donating to greenpeace? >> >> I don't know, but who cares? > > Oh how one sided of you. Thank you for demolishing your own > argument. You guys are making this too easy. :-) Let's take inventory here. We see that the big oil companies do in fact spend $10's of millions on lobbying, junk science, and astroturfing but, lol, suddenly its all about greenpeace. I guess if you don't bother with making any sense it is pretty easy! Wouldn't want to strain you! |