Climate of suspicion
in [Physics]
|
From: Mike Jr on 23 Jan 2010 14:13 On Jan 23, 12:33 pm, Unum <non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: > On 1/23/2010 9:55 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > > > > > On Jan 22, 10:22 pm, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: > >> On 1/22/2010 8:10 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > > >>> On Jan 22, 8:06 pm, Peter Franks<n...(a)none.com> wrote: > >>>> Sam Wormley 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. > > >>>> That's just common human decency. > > >>>> The problem with a 'scientist' is that by and large they are driven to > >>>> prove their hypothesis. If the data don't agree, then they conclude > >>>> that the data are wrong and go about proving it a different way. After > >>>> all, they don't get fame and fortune proving their hypotheses wrong, do > >>>> they?. > > >>> 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. That isn't science, that is advocacy. > > >> I think you need to prove your hypothesis. > > >>> Decide; are you a scientist or a politician? Nature's editors have.. > > >> Unsubstantiated bullshit. > > > How eloquent.~ > > Additional lack of substantiation noted. I was commenting on your coarse language. What? You REALLY mean it? Substantiation? "[Exxon gave the] odd but specific sum of $76,106 to the Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory, " Give me a break! LOL. http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/George_Soros.php --Mike Jr.
From: I M on 23 Jan 2010 14:16 On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:07:16 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: >"I M @ good guy" <I_m(a)good.guy> wrote in message >news:nfoll51gao1fctgont5ju2mdqgtcdebcf8(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:55:29 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>On 1/22/10 11:50 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: >>>> On Jan 22, 4:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Climate of suspicion >>>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >>>>> >>>>> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >>>>> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately for the AGW alarmists the public is beginning to accept >>>> the facts. >>> >>> >>> The public, very unfortunately, is rarely very informed about science. >> >> >> And Sam is going to educate them? >> >Well yeah, he's an adjunct professor of astronomy, or so he claims ( a >part-time position with a teaching load below the minimum required to earn >benefits). That qualifies him to name the planets in the correct order and >spout nonsense on the imaginary heating effects of atmospheric CO2 >(0.0038%). Sorry to mention, that number is not correct, I just put 1000000 * .0038 in GWBASIC with a ? in front of it and got 3800. So, in percent, it might be called .038 percent, but that is misleading, the number to use to get 380 PPMV is .00038 times one million. Should I ask somebody with an advanced math degree how to calculate percent?
From: Androcles on 23 Jan 2010 14:33 "Unum" <noneof(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote in message news:hjffo4$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. 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.
From: Javi on 23 Jan 2010 14:46 Unum 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 >> 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? Among other things, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, increase the greenhouse effect and warms the planet. When the planet warms, more water is evaporated, and water is also a greenhouse effect. So the effect of a small increase in CO2 concentration is multiplied. > >> 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. There's no relation with creationism. Where do you see 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. You are describing the AGW denialism movement.
From: Javi on 23 Jan 2010 14:52
Mike Jr wrote: > On Jan 23, 12:55 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 1/22/10 11:50 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: >> >> > On Jan 22, 4:32 pm, 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. >> >> > Unfortunately for the AGW alarmists the public is beginning to accept >> > the facts. >> > *> The public, very unfortunately, is rarely very informed about > science. > > This is a very elitist statement. We the people are doing just fine > thank you. That isn't elitist. You can make a simple survey in your neighbourhood. How many people would know Leibniz, Gauss or Dirac among others? How many people know if electrons have a positive or negative charge? How many would be able to solve a simple second degree equation? And so on... |