Climate of suspicion
in [Physics]
|
From: I M on 23 Jan 2010 16:52 On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:34:48 -0800 (PST), oriel36 <kelleher.gerald(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? Is there any evidence that LWIR from above the tropopause ever reaches the surface? 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. But the spectacular thing in AGW alarmism is the alarmist Mourning Dove parrots all recite almost exact wording when they accuse any skeptic of having denied cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer.
From: oriel36 on 23 Jan 2010 17:13 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.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
From: Androcles on 23 Jan 2010 17:18 "I M @ good guy" <I_m(a)good.guy> wrote in message news:f8rml5dmcqqsq44rub0ggi8k3sm1rjgutf(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:34:48 -0800 (PST), oriel36 > <kelleher.gerald(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? Yeah, Kellerher does. He's no concept of a sidereal day.
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Jan 2010 17:33 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: > Realities vs. Misconceptions about the Science of Climate Change > Science FAQ > August 2009 > > http://www.pewclimate.org/science-impacts/realities-vs-misconceptions > > http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/misconceptions-realities-climate-science-10-29-09.pdf > > "The issue of climate change has received so much attention in recent years that it has become difficult for interested citizens and policymakers to separate facts from fiction. Climate change is one of the most cutting edge research fields in modern science, but the field has existed for more than a century and much knowledge has been established with high certainty and confidence. This page clears up some of the most common misconceptions about the science of climate change". > > > >> >> >> The Misconception: Recent global warming is caused by the sun. >> The Reality: The output of energy from the sun has been monitored by satellites for thirty years and has not increased during this period of rapid global warming. >> >> The Misconception: Climate has changed many times in the distant past, before humans began burning coal and oil, so the current warming cannot be caused by humans burning fossil fuels. >> The Reality: There are several drivers that cause climate to change, and some of the key drivers have both natural and human sources. Recent increases in global temperatures result mostly from higher levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, which have been increasing because of human activities. >> >> The Misconceptions: The last few years have been cooler, so global warming can't be real; >> or, Global warming stopped in 1998; >> or, The world has been cooling for the past decade. >> The Reality: The climate is defined by long-term averages in global temperatures and other climate metrics, and those are still increasing. >> >> The Misconception: There is no scientific consensus on the existence or causes of global climate change. >> The Reality: A recent poll of earth scientists demonstrated that there is strong agreement that emissions of heat-trapping gases from the burning of fossil fuels make a significant contribution to global warming. >> >> The Misconception: Scientists predicted global cooling in the 1970s. >> The Reality: When the next ice age might occur became a topic of debate during the 1970s, but there was no concensus on the topic and most of the debate was already focused on global warming. >> >> The Misconception: Atmospheric water vapor is the heat-trapping gas that is primarily responsible for global warming. >> The Reality: Water vapor is increasing in the atmosphere in response to rising CO2 concentrations, amplifying the warming effect of manmade CO2 emissions. > >> The Misconception: >> >> Recent global warming is caused by the sun. >> The Reality: The output of energy from the sun has been monitored by satellites for thirty years and has not increased during this period of rapid global warming. >> >> >>
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Jan 2010 17:46
On 1/23/10 3:49 PM, oriel36 wrote: >> >> 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. Gerald, you should point out to Androcles that mismatch between sundial and civil time is also a factor of one's longitude. Here is your chance to actually correct an error. > > Go back to sci.relativity where you all live off the fumes of your own > misery but be under no illusion that you are all part of the same > charade Newton created for you,the thing is that not even that guy > realized the error Flamsteed created by linking daily rotation with > celestial sphere geometry,even poor Albert doesn't know that Isaac > infected his own agenda with the dreaded celestial sphere geometry. > > The climate mess which amounts to an attempt to model climate using a > minor atmospheric gas is merely a symptom of the original hoax which > tried to model solar system structure and planetary dynamics using > timekeeping averages and that puts you and Wormley on the same side as > minions of Newton. > |