FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Latest on Global Warming Bunk
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Shroom



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:29 pm    Post subject: Religion of Global Warming Reply with quote

Religion of Global Warming

The reason why science is getting to be like religion is because it wasn't supposed to happen to religion either; it is simply corruption. The study of matter was supposed to improve rationality based on objective realty.

Where the science was the most abstract is where it fell into corruption the soonest, as demonstrated by relativity, where the receiving point supposedly determines the velocity of light. Some physicists say that in 1925 the bureaucrats issued a decree saying any physics department which harbored a single physicist who did not accept relativity would cease to get funding. That's about what is happening with global warming.

In other words, global warming is a good example of what corruption is and how it is created and promoted. It shows the importance of correct logic, basic principles, openness and accountability.

Richard Lindzen, an MIT meteorologist, stated, "We are shifting away from science and into the realm of religious fanaticism, where the followers of the creed, brimming with self-righteous fury, believe that they are in possession of a higher truth."

I explain the basis of religion in terms of rationality on a religion web site here:

http://nov55.com/rel/contents.html

_________________
Global warming is caused by oceans heating, not greenhouse gasses.
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shroom wrote:
Religion of Global Warming
The reason why science is getting to be like religion is because it wasn't supposed to happen to religion either; it is simply corruption. The study of matter was supposed to improve rationality based on objective realty. [...] I explain the basis of religion in terms of rationality on a religion web site here: http://nov55.com/rel/contents.html

Not linked directly from the top page (not ready yet?) Is, should be. Your're an astounding thinker, as is Fintan and dilgert_g... and one twenty hundred million dozen people I should be thinking of now and should also have mentioned.

People out there who think "Christian Morality", or any 'kind' of morality, is some kind of blessed thingie in itself that was handed down to us... and not merely an abstract intersection set that becomes progressively populated with ideas and meme-orbits by a growing mass of godlike creatures who are writing their own laws, striving.

If it was meant to be anything other than an on-going process in which *we* are intimately involved, there would not be, could never have ever been an is that is as much an 'is' as this one is. There would only be a silly story told over a something like a campfire by some being, somewhere.

Things are way too issy around here.

The film "What the (bleep) do we know II: Rabbit Hole" begins with a great little romp on the 'Great Schism' The apparent-assumiated schism between faith and science was the greatest source of entertainment known to us, until we discovered how fascinating it is to watch popcorn evolve in the microwave with our (godly) finger on the button.

There may or not be a Schism but pretense is all, to avoid, as you say, corruption. Faith and science are worthy of their separate identities. The problem with GW is they're no longer pretending there is a Schism and their behavior reflects that, but it's not voluntary behavior. Which leads to wayward drunken suggestability and meme abuse. And that is not merely a bad idea, it infringes on the Constitution.

___
Irreverent, but only when God is watching.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
elbowdeep



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just shake my head...
http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

This guy really knows how to setup a false argument... He assumes that "acting" on global warming WILL prevent/stop/slow it.

Are you as angry as I am watching this shit?
Ed

On a side note:....
Today on the radio I heard the most hilarious thing... an "environmentalist" was on the radio protesting about a land-fill site that is being proposed in in the Simcoe area (Tiny, Ontario), and apparently all the "clay" studies they have conducted to make sure that the water tables couldn't be effected were done with "computer models". The computer models were claiming that the clay tables were SAFE, and that the dump could proceed... so what does the environmentalist say? ON AIR, HE SAYS "EVERYONE KNOWS YOU CAN'T TRUST COMPUTER MODELS".

SO. In one case these bozo's are saying, TRUST THE COMPUTER MODELS, they PROVE global warming is man-made, and we should ACT BY TAXATION ON CO2 (the least effective means to control it), and on the other hand DON'T trust them. It's fucking hilarious. Whatever suits their purpose.

_________________
One day the cows will sprout wings and fly away...
http://twitter.com/elbowdeep
http://elbowdeep.posterous.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Shroom



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:16 am    Post subject: Peer Review Reply with quote

Peer Review

Alexander Cockburn took up the subject of peer review, adding some nice twists, which only he could do. It's here (lower half of page):

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06162007.html


It's important for the public and rational critics to understand what a fraud peer review is. Its real significance is being demonstrated by the promoters of the carbon dioxide fraud. It is being used to block out criticism at the science level. Critics are not allowed to address the science of global warming, because they wouldn't be critics if they were representing peer reviewed science. Propagandists can take up the science, because they represent peer reviewed science. The net effect is to blackball criticism as illegitimate, while any brainless mockery can be represented as peer reviewed science.

This is not just a problem of application at the shouting level. It is also a problem for scientists who are shut out with their evidence opposing the official frauds. A highly significant example is a measurement by Heinz Hug showing that CO2 absorption of infrared radiation is so miniscule as to be irrelevant. He published on the internet, because peer reviewed journals would never allow such critical information to be published. It is here:

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

The same thing happened to me with my mushroom research. I showed a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled mushroom; but I couldn't publish, because I wasn't one of the boys. It's here:

http://nov55.com/mr/index.html

_________________
Global warming is caused by oceans heating, not greenhouse gasses.
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DrewTerry
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

elbowdeep wrote:
I just shake my head...
http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

This guy really knows how to setup a false argument... He assumes that "acting" on global warming WILL prevent/stop/slow it.

Are you as angry as I am watching this shit?
Ed

On a side note:....
Today on the radio I heard the most hilarious thing... an "environmentalist" was on the radio protesting about a land-fill site that is being proposed in in the Simcoe area (Tiny, Ontario), and apparently all the "clay" studies they have conducted to make sure that the water tables couldn't be effected were done with "computer models". The computer models were claiming that the clay tables were SAFE, and that the dump could proceed... so what does the environmentalist say? ON AIR, HE SAYS "EVERYONE KNOWS YOU CAN'T TRUST COMPUTER MODELS".

SO. In one case these bozo's are saying, TRUST THE COMPUTER MODELS, they PROVE global warming is man-made, and we should ACT BY TAXATION ON CO2 (the least effective means to control it), and on the other hand DON'T trust them. It's fucking hilarious. Whatever suits their purpose.

That is the essence of DOUBLETHINK:
Quote:
To know and not to know;

To be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies;

To hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them;

To use logic against logic;

To repudiate morality while laying claim to it;

To believe that democracy was impossible and that The Conservative Party was the guardian of democracy;

To forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again; and above all,

To apply the same process to the process itself.


That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.

Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.
Back to top
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a copy of a letter sent to the President of the National Academy of Sciences by one John Leplant. The letter concerns discrepancies in the results being derived by climatologists using computer models to predict what is commonly referred to as 'global warming' and results derived from laboratory testing of the thermal properties of CO2 gas and N2 (air) gas.

Basically: Given what is know about the thermal properties of the 2 gases, it is simply impossible to have the types of climatological effects being shown by the computer simulations derived by the climatologists. The letter discusses the laboratory data and possible errors in the applications of the computer models that would lead to the erroneous results.

The letter was lifted from replies from readers to an article on Reed Bryson published on madison.com 3 days ago.

Note: There are about 190 replies to the article, of which fewer than 10 are hostile to the idea that climate change is natural - the overwhelming majority of them generally support Bryson's view.

http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613


A RECONSIDERATION OF THE PROSPECT FOR
ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING BASED
ON A COMPARISON OF THE THERMAL CHARACTARISTICS
OF N2 AND CO2 GASES.



Currently there is a great deal of discussion about the
possibility of Anthropogenic Global Warming:

The theory, in a nutshell, is that Human Consumption of
Fossil Fuels: Oil, Coal and Natural Gas is increasing
the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 in turn, traps heat - it is a ' greenhouse ' gas,
and will cause the Earth to warm, with possibly
devastating effects: such as melting polar icecaps
with flooding, violent storms and droughts.

Personally, I complete reject this notion:

Here's Why:

We have excellent Laboratory work going back many
years which gives us the Thermal Charactaristics of
different gases, such as CO2.

Many Climatologists who advocate the notion of
Anthropogenic Global Warming say that it is impossible
to do a ' Laboratory Experiment ' to determine
if Anthropogenic, ie Human, Activity is causing
changes in the Global Climate as the Global
Climate is simply too complex a system for
Laboratory Work.


The real reason these folks don't want you looking
up data tables for the thermal charactaristics
of the various gases which comprise our
atmosphere is that when you do, and I sincerely
hope that you will, you will quickly come to
the same conclusions I did: there is virtually
NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of there ever
being any Anthropogenic Global Warming
caused by Human CO2 emissions.

Our Atmosphere is comprised mostly of Nitrogen,
N2, about 80%: Oxygen, O2 about 16%, Water
Vapor, about 3% and about 1% ' trace ' gases,
some of the ' trace ' gases are CO2.

The proponents of the Theory of Anthropogenic
Global Warming believe that our atmosphere
has increased its proportion of CO2 from about
250ppm ( thats 250 Parts Per Million: please
note, we are talking about PARTS PER
MILLION ) about 200 years ago to about
375ppm today.

Most databases put the current CO2 Levels
at about 320 - 340ppm, but the people promoting
the notion of Anthropogenic Global Warming
insist its higher: they may be right.

No one actually knows what the CO2 levels
in the atmosphere were 200 years ago: no
one at that time was capable of measuring
it -- they really wouldn't have known what
it was anyway. The levels for pre-1850
are based on scientifically determined
estimates, but they're not actual measurements.

Also, the notion that CO2 levels are about 375ppm
comes from measurements taken at the
Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. While
no one doubts atmospheric CO2 levels
have increased in Hawaii, there has
really been no measured increase in
atmospheric CO2 levels generally. Some
measurements, for example, at
Cambridge University are the same now
as when sampling began over 100 years
ago: about 320 - 340 ppm.

So, atmospheric CO2 levels may be increasing,
or not: we don't actually know for certain:
in any case, the increase is really quite
small, maybe 100 ppm over a 100 year
period.

If there has been an increase of 100ppm
over the past century, this may be the
result of Anthropogenic, ie, Human
Activity: or it could be a Natural Phenomenon:
Again, its not really known.

And again, if it is in fact Human Activity
causing the increased CO2 levels, we
can't yet be entirely certain WHICH
HUMAN ACTIVITY is the cause.

For example: Forests are a great CO2
consumer: they take vast quantities of
CO2 out of the atmosphere: Would
deforestation and the destruction of
Rain Forests be the Human Activity
at the root cause of the CO2 increase?

Or possibly the increased consumption of
Fossil Fuels?

Or a combination of both?

Or perhaps Human Activity has nothing at
all to do with it at all.

Again, the belief that CO2 levels in the
atmosphere are increasing is based
on measurements from different
regions of the globe.

The notion that CO2 levels prior
to the industrial revolution ( 1850 )
were 260ppm comes from air
samples taken from ice cores
in the arctic and antarctic regions.
Some of these samples are literally
thousands of years old.
These samples are then compared
to air samples from the Mauna
Loa Observatory in Hawaii which
are currently at about 380 ppm.

However, if you look at air samples
taken in the arctic regions today, you
find CO2 levels about 260 -280 ppm.
Basically, there has been no change
in the CO2 levels in the arctic for
thousands of years.

Furthermore, if you look at air samples
taken from the same place over time,
CO2 levels have simply not changed
for the past 100 years -- its about 320-
340 ppm in most places.

The only place where there has
been an increase is at the Mauna
Loa Observatory in Hawaii: an
interesting local phenomenon,
but not a Global phenomenon.

However lets assume an increase
in CO2 levels for the sake of
analysis.


In either case, whether from Human or Natural
Causes, we can still analyze the thermal effects
of an increase in the atmospheric levels of
CO2.

The data I am using here comes from my 1987
HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS:

If anyone out there has better data, please
feel free to Post It.

Taking the data for O2, N2, CO2 & H2O ( water )
at 25C degrees: about room temperature:

( I ignored the data for very cold temperatures:
at absolute zero water and carbon dioxide
are solid and oxygen and nitrogen are
liquids and have very different charactarists )

Taking cal/degree/mole:

For N2 = 6.96
For O2 = 7.01
For CO2 = 8.87
For H2O = 8.02

As the data is in cal/mole: lets calculate the thermal
charactaristics by volume: for N2 and CO2:

the amu for N is 14, so N2 is 28: 28 amu x 6.96 cal/mole = 194.88 cal.
the amu for C is 14 and for O is 16, so CO2 is 44: 44 amu x 8.87 cal/mole = 390.28

CO2 will capture about twice as much heat as N2.

Now, lets assume a change in the atmosphere where
1% of the atmosphere is CO2, or 10,000 ppm , and
lets substitute CO2 for Nitrogen exclusively, as it is
the predominant atmospheric gas.

That 1% of the atmosphere which was N2 and is now
CO2 would increase its thermal charactaristic from
194.88 cal to 390.28 cal/mole. We just about double
the heat capturing capacity of 1% of the air, or
the air will now hold 101% of the heat as it did
previously.

Assuming that the thermal charactarists of the air
are the ONLY DETERMINANT for temperature
( not a correct assumption, there are many factors,
but lets run with this for the sake of the analytical
construct )

Going from absolute zero to 25C is a change of about
400 degrees C: a change of 1% would be about
4 degrees C, or about 9 degrees Farenheit.

However, the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming
is not based on a change in the composition of the
atmosphere of 10,000 ppm CO2, it is based on a change
of 100 - 200 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Which would be about 1/100th or 1/50th the above effect:
or about 1/100th or 1/50th of 9 degrees Farenheit:
about 9/100th to 9/50th of a degree Farenheit.
About .1 - .2 degree F change.


Nothing to panic about: the ice-caps wouldn't melt,
or anything like that.

The effect would be so small, you couldn't even measure it.
Basically, there is really no scenario under which
Human Consumption of Fossil Fuels would produce
enough CO2 to sufficiently change the thermal
charactaristics of the air to cause changes in the
Climate.

Any changes we are observing are either due to
Natural Causes or other Human Activities.

And once again, I must stress that this analysis
assumes that the ONLY factor in temperatures
is CO2 levels: other factors, variations in
the Earths Orbit, solar activity, other gases,
changes in the Earths Atmosphere nothing
to do with CO2, all have a far, far greater
impact than such a relatively small amount
of CO2.

There is positively no reason whatsoever
to burden the American People or
Anyone Else on this Planet with measures
to reduce CO2 emissions: proposals
such as ' carbon taxes ' ' carbon caps ',
etc. are economically harmful and
completely unneeded.

The scientists to are promoting the Notion
of Anthropogenic Global Warming are
basing their proposition on flawed data
collection, flawed assumptions in the Models
and incorrect analytic methods.

Specifically: I referred earlier to the
flaws in the methodology used to
determine whether or not there has
been an increase in atmospheric
CO2 levels.

It is incorrect to compare CO2 levels
from the arctic regions to levels in
Hawaii: comparasons have to be made
within the same location over time.

One of the most serious flawed assumptions
in the computer models being used is
that CO2 is a ' determinant ' factor in
Climate wheras water vapor is a
' determined ' factor: any meterologist
will tell you otherwise: water vapor
drives weather, not CO2 levels.

As to analytical method: the climatologists
continue to make a rather rudimentary
mathematical error:

In these types of multi-variant multi-functional
matrices, there is a mathematical problem
of ' signifigance ': Basically, the least accurate
measurement or function sets the parameters
for all other inputs:

So .... if we measure ocean temperatures
with an accuracy of 97%: so that the
temperature readings lets say for the
sake of this construct are accurate to
within 1 degree F, then ALL OTHER
FACTORS INPUTTED INTO THE MATRIX
cannot have an accuracy GREATER
than the 3% deviation in this input.

So, even if we can measure land surface
temperatures with an accuracy of 99.9%,
the correct methodology requires
a 3% deviation.

So, we measure water temperatures
at 50.1 degree F, if we measure land
surface temperatures at 70.12345 degrees
F, we can only use the temperature
70.1 degree F as a factor in the function
of the Matrix.

If we utilize the 70.12345 data, we get
get what mathematicians call
' epsilonics ': it ruins the model.

This is one of the reasons why
all of the climatological
models currently being used overstate
temperatures when tested against
known historical data.

For example: we have no way to know
what temperatures will be from 2010 -
2100: However, we do know what
temperatures were from 1910 - 2000:

So, when we utilize the Climatological
Models and test for temperatures from
1910 - 2000, we discover that the Models
all overstate temperatures by about
3 - 7 degrees F, which incidentally,
is the amount of ' anthropogenic
global warming ' being predicted.

Correct methodology would require
Climatologists to adjust their predictions
based on the known propensity
of the Models to overstate temperatures;

If the Models overstate temperatures
when tested against the known data
by about 3 - 7 degrees F, then any
predicted future increase in temperatures
should be reduced by that amount:

This correction eliminates ' global
warming ': temperatures are
predicted to be normal using
this quite rudimentary corrective
procedure.


So, if you know a Chemist or Physicist and
want to ask him/her about all of this: please
do -- and if there is more Laboratory Data
out there, please post it. Then we can
all do a little more math and see what
results we get.

However, given the facts that there has
been no actual measured increase in
CO2 levels, and given the fact that
the comparative difference in the
thermal charactaristics of CO2 and
N2 gases is so small that a very slight
increase of only 100 ppm of CO2 in
the atmosphere would have an
effect so small it probably couldn't
even be measured, and given the
economic harm which measures
to reduce CO2 EMISSIONS would
do to the U.S. and Global Economies,
is it highly inadvisable and
scientifically unsound to adopt
those types of measures.


Most Kind Regards,

Sincerely,

John Lepant
Brighton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shroom



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:20 pm    Post subject: It's not Heat Capacity Reply with quote

It's not Heat Capacity

The problem with the analysis of John Lepant (above) is that he is talking about "heat capacity," which is irrelevant to the question. The data which he gets from the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics shows the cal/degree/mole. This is heat capacity. It states how much heat a material must absorb to increase its temperature by a degree. Usually, it is in terms of grams rather than moles, but those attributes are interchangeable.

Heat capacity is not relevant to global warming, because the heat is instantly transferred to all surrounding molecules. A slight change in total composition of the atmosphere does almost nothing to change the heat capacity of the atmosphere. And even if it did, the ability to hold more or less heat does not say how the heat gets there.

The heat gets there by absorbing infrared radiation. This radiation cannot come from the sun, because something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation, which greenhouse gasses absorb. So the sun's energy goes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gasses.

Infrared radiation from the earth's surface is miniscule. Propagandists create the false impression that the sun's energy is trapped by carbon dioxide, because people would realize that there is not significant radiation coming from the surface of the earth.

When properly representing what occurs, you get these numbers as upper limit estimates:

claimed heat due to atmosphere --- 33°C
95% due to various things --- 31.35°C
5% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 1.65°C
8% of infrared bandwidth available to CO2 --- 0.13°C
3% of CO2 produced by humans --- 0.004°C
5% of absorption "unsaturated" for global warming --- 0.0002°C

The quantities are too miniscule to be relevant. In fact, there are more factors which reduce the numbers, but they belabor the point.

_________________
Global warming is caused by oceans heating, not greenhouse gasses.
http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hugh Manatee



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 77
Location: In Context

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:23 am    Post subject: Warning kick. Reply with quote

Warning-

Just so readers know where they are, this is a Global Warming Denial website.

Realize that when deciding how much of your energy to give it. It needs your creds.
Idea

_________________
What shall we watch tonight?
Propaganda, social engineering, role modeling, conditioning, adrenalin markers, or desensitization?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rustyh



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 489
Location: A Wonderful World

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hugh Manatee wrote

Quote:
Warning-

Just so readers know where they are, this is a Global Warming Denial website.

Realize that when deciding how much of your energy to give it. It needs your creds.


Hey Hugh, does that mean if i use less energy by not reading here, that will give me carbon credits and that means someone somewhere will plant a tree for me?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
elbowdeep



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:45 am    Post subject: Re: Warning kick. Reply with quote

Hugh Manatee wrote:
Warning-

Just so readers know where they are, this is a Global Warming Denial website.

Realize that when deciding how much of your energy to give it. It needs your creds.
Idea


Please don't take this as a negative criticism.

I've been reading your posts Hugh, and the one common denominators with you is that you like your "boxes", or labels, or divisions (or whatever you want to call them).. I'll call them boxes for the sake of this comment.

Just a friendly hello, to ask you to please consider that not all things come in right and left, black/white, and this type of website or that. In fact, I think that all these little boxes have been carefully constructed to get us herded using groupthink.

My bet is that you have a label-maker on your desk as we speak, and you just LOOOOVE to label things. The problem is, once those sticky labels get peeled and stuck-on, it's just too damn difficult to physically (or mentally in your case), to remove them. So they stay stuck, and because those labels stay-put, you spend an awful lot of time justifying and defending why you put them there (using MORE labels)

I used to be like you, but with years of untraining (thanks to self-directed education (probably another "leftie" stereotype in your book)) I've come to a few life-altering conclusions... one of which is that people who keep reducing things to black and white, right/left, pro this must be con that, and fail to see the grey in everything, are really missing the point of this world.

The latest cliche is everyone talking about "thinking outside the box", with most people thinking "inside the box", I offer people to THINK ABOUT THE BOX, then everything becomes crystal clear.

It's all grey dude.

_________________
One day the cows will sprout wings and fly away...
http://twitter.com/elbowdeep
http://elbowdeep.posterous.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Peter



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 2459
Location: The Canadian shield

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CO2 and H2O (and methane CH4 is an even better example) are greenhouse gases because they absorb radiation which causes them to vibrate faster which relates to an increase in temperature. (O2 and N2 do not have the same intramolecular vibrations available to them, so they do not absorb light or heat radiation and therefore are not greenhouse gases.)

Like your microwave....the food you put in gets zapped by the microwave radiation (EM around the same wavelength as radar which is why the first ones were called radar ranges...lol) and the most susceptible molecules; hydrocarbons in fat, then water then proteins in meat then bone etc. absorb the radiation and vibrate more quickly and get "hotter" and with time the whole meal gets hot.

The various qualities of the molecules in question all have effects that should be considered but it is the end result that counts. Remember the global cooling that took place in the 70's, as we were told that the next ice age was on the way? How about the Maunder minimum and the mini ice age during the middle ages?

We need only look to the motivation of the individuals that propose "solutions" to our "problems"......if it involves taking away your freedom and money....

_________________
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming

· Study undermines climate sceptics' arguments
· Correlations 'inconsistent' with temperature rise

James Randerson, science correspondent
Wednesday July 11, 2007
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2123447,00.html

Lockwood paper
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/

The Propaganda Unraveled in 2 days flat!

Piers Corbyn on the Lockwood paper:

News 13th July from WeatherAction the Long Range Forecasters

“The Global warmers have played their last card. Professor Lockwood’s attack on solar activity as a driver of Climate is a two-legged stool”

Piers Corbyn astrophysicist, speaking on BBC Radio 5 and BBC TV News24 TV on 11 July, attacked Prof Mike Lockwood for his ridiculous claims of evidence that solar activity did not drive climate change and described Lockwood’s recent paper as “old news re-presented in a profoundly misleading manner”.

On Radio 5 he slammed Prof Lockwood and other protagonists of man-made Global warming for describing light variations from the sun as ’solar activity’ when the correct understanding of the term is the Sun’s particle and magnetic effects. “This changing of the meaning of words is typical of state-sponsored faith systems and Professor Lockwood should be ashamed of himself” he said, as Professor Lockwood tried to shout over him.

Piers pointed out that the solar particle activity based forecasting system he uses had for example correctly predicted (and also announced at the Institute of Physics on 7th June) the period of intense heavy rain and flooding 24th-26th June and he taunted Prof Lockwood with the question “What did you forecast, Professor?”

On BBC TV News 24 Piers explained in an interview with Tim Wilcox: “To understand the effect of solar activity on the Earth you must consider how solar charged particles get to the Earth and that is governed by the magnetic cycle of the sun which is 22 years long. This solar activity magnetic link is why world temperatures have a main cycle of 22 years and no CO2 based theory can explain that. Geomagnetic activity which is the measure of solar particles hitting the Earth’s magnetic field has been generally rising from 1910 to around 1990 or 2000 and rising temperatures over this period correlate very well with this ˆmuch better than they do with carbon dioxide.” Solar activity effect, measured and estimated in a proper way (not by light) and geomagnetic activity are now declining and this (assisted by modulations through magnetic connections) is causing the decline in world temperatures since 2002/3*.

[*2002/3 was the peak if 2year moving averages are considered; in terms of single years 1998 was the peak]

He said that present CO2 changes are of no importance whatsoever because feedback effects mean changes in CO2 have no net driving influence on world temperatures and there is no evidence that they ever had over the last 100,000 years. On request from Tim Wilcox, he forecast “that UK and World temperatures will continue to fall for the next few years even though CO2 may continue to rise”.

Nigel Calder who had appeared earlier on News24 also said that the reason for the present flatness or decline in world temperatures is the decrease in solar activity.

Later Piers said: “It is great that BBC Radio 5 and BBC TV News 24 carried our views, even briefly, but we are just tokens, the BBC is a Global warming hysteria brainwashing machine. It is totally unacceptable that their web site now carries floods of carefully prepared Global Warming pseudo-science yet not a peep or a link to the contributions from Nigel Calder or myself or anything critical*. It blandly claims that two scientists who would be critical of Prof Lockwood’s attacks on science—Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen ˆ ‘could not be reached for comment’. Strange the BBC Environment Correspondent Richard Black didn’t say ‘but Nigel Calder and Piers Corbyn were and this is what they said (etc)’!

(*site details later in this release).

“The BBC and certain newspapers—notably the misnamed Independent—are now the chief propagators of a state sponsored faith system based more on science fiction than science fact which like those under various totalitarian regimes changes the meaning of words in order to deceive the public. The ‘Global warmers’ replaced the term ‘global warming’ with ‘climate change’ because there isn’t global warming anymore and the phrase ‘climate change’ means they can claim any extreme weather event which happens naturally as evidence of their barmy theory. And now they rename things which are NOT properly Solar Activity as it could affect Earth as Solar Activity.

“This latest hysteria from the Global Warmers is alarming but it is their last card and to succeed depends on the construction of a two-legged stool.

“Their fraudulent production of the so-called hockey-stick of temperatures for the last 1,000 years failed.

“Their claim that CO2 is or has been the main controller of climate fails when past data is examined. They cannot deny the evidence that shows solar activity in the prpoer sense has been decisively controlling climate for hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of years.

“They are left with an astounding attempt to suggest Physics or something has somehow decisively changed over this last 20 years or lessˆ which is merely a fraction of a pixel blip in the known tapestry of time. They build a two-legged stool to do this:

(i) They claim that CO2 has never risen so fast as recently since this peak is higher than any in past data. This is absurd. Because CO2 is a gas it diffuses through centuries of layers in ice core data and all previous rapid rises and spikes are blurred out—just like this one will be in 1,000 years time. It is like looking through London on a foggy day and only seeing one tall building and declaring that therefore there is only one tall building in London.

(ii) This ‘Lockwood study’ which shows that over the last twenty years something which is NOT solar activity in the normal effective sense cannot explain temperature changes—which could normally be explained by properly assessed Solar activity effects in the past. This convenient disposal of observed physics is intended to leave ‘only Man’s CO2? as the possible cause of recent and/or future climate change despite the fact hat the CO2 driver theory explains nothing in the past and can predict nothing.

“The absurdity of the Lockwood paper becomes clear when you notice he talks about solar activity which under all normal definitions is about charged particles and magnetic fields but he does NOT talk about how these particles get to the Earth’s atmosphere. This is like having a theory that traffic jams in Birmingham are made worse by cars coming from London and testing it by watching changes in flow of all the cars leaving London without considering if they would actually reach Birmingham—by coming up the M1 or whatever.

“The ability of solar charged particles to reach and influence the Earth’s weather and climate depends on them actually getting here—far enough into the atmosphere to do something. Their effectiveness therefore depends on firstly how many reach the outer parts of the Earth’s magnetic filed and make shock waves in it. This is measured by Geomagnetic activity NOT primarily by counting sunspots or cosmic rays or radiation etc. Then this geomagnetic activity measure must be multiplied by a factor which is bigger or smaller when the Sun and Earth magnetic linkage is stronger or weaker.

“If things are averaged over periods longer than the magnetic cycle of the Sun then the linkage factor is smoothed out hence the excellent correlation observed over centuries between geomagnetic activity averaged over magnetic cycles of the Sun (or longer) and world temperatures averaged over the same periods. CO2 over the last century however does not track the ups and downs of the temperature which moves with geomagnetic activity smoothed over successive ‘22yr’ solar magnetic cycles.

“Attempts to test influences of solar activity on Earth in detail shorter than 22 years without considering the magnetic links prove nothing. This however is what Prof Lockwood does. Obviously since temperatures driven by solar activity follow a 22yr cycle and the measures of solar activity used by Prof Lockwood follow an 11year cycle they must move in opposite directions half the time. Professor Lockwood’s ‘finding’ of a period of ‘oppositely directed trends’ is just one such period. In fact Lockwood’s finding confirms the general hypothesis of the solar charged particle based theory! The theories he actually tests are something else—involving only 11yr cycles—and amount to ’straw men’ to be knocked down. The cosmic ray theory is one of these. Although its originators did excellent experiemnts which showed that charged particles do have weather and climate effects extra solar cosmic rays as such have no significant weather or climate impact.

(i) He does not mention any of the many observed and reported weather phenomena which follow the 22year magnetic cycle of the sun or the fact of successful current weather forecasting using solar activity. He fails to even mention the changing direction of the Sun’s magnetic field which switches direction from one 11-year solar cycle to the next.

(ii) He defines Solar activity and potential solar activity influence—by radiation, neutron and cosmic ray measurements which are not affected by the connectivity of charged particles coming from the Sun to the Earth and he ‘tests’ theories which ignore changing magnetic links.

“He shows—under his definitionsˆ that presumed solar activity influence declined between about 1987 and 1998 (or 2002/03) while temperatures were rising (he cannot fairly extend his argument beyond then because world temperatures have since declined). Now what was the magnetic link and related 22yr Earth temperature cycle doing in that time? One guess! Yes it was in the Earth WARMING rather than Earth relative cooling phase. The warming phase (matching it with previous cycles) was about 1990/91 to 2002/03 which pretty well fits Lockwood’s period of ‘temperature rises unexplained by solar activity’. Indeed the peak of observed world temperatures coincides with the standard peak of the solar magnetic driven temperature cycle.

“Of course there are other things going on such as more or less warming in some times than maybe expected but there are also other things going on not discussed in Lockwood’s paper such as global un-dimming (ie less soot in the atmosphere) in the 1990’s which has been used before by ‘Global warmers’ to explain some aspects of recent warming. Also the recent continuing rapid motion of the magnetic north pole towards the geographic north pole which is unprecedented for 1,000 years should be considered. Last time there was such motion (approx 950 AD to 1050 AD) was also a period of rapid warming in which Greenland was discovered by the Vikings and so named because it was relatively mild and green.

“It is a pity that Prof Lockwood’s well respected excellent work in the past should be undermined by this misleading paper. Integrity in science would be a good idea” Piers said.

FOOT COMMENTS

BRAINWASHING WEB PAGE: This bbc page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm is impossibly well-prepared for a response to a same-day science press Release which normally never get a mention. It has no less than 29 propaganda links/animations—every one another brainwashing tune. I challenge the BBC to put in balancing links. Biased BBC (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2007/07/according-to-bbc-views-online-third. html ) has further incisive comments.

STATE SPONSORED FAITH SYSTEMS: ***Piers elaborated his comments on Climate Change hysteria as a new sate sponsored faith system: “These systems of false beliefs whether this or an earlier one about the relationship between the Sun and Earth propagated by the Papal inquisition at the time of Galileo (and note the origin of the word propaganda comes from Papal ‘Propagation of the Faith’); or about ‘the Master Race’ propagated by Goebbels (rather than Gore-bels!) and Hitler; or about ‘The inheritance of acquired characteristics propagated under Stalin all have three things in common:

1. They set out to change the meaning of words in order to deceive. The ‘Global warmers’ replaced the term ‘global warming’ with ‘climate change’ because there isn’t global warming anymore and the phrase ‘climate change’ means they can claim any extreme weather event which happens naturally as evidence of their barmy theory. Using solar activity to mean NOT solar activity is Orwellian.

2. A tamed or coerced scientific community of scientific sheep who will come up with endless well-funded findings and try to suppress those who disagree as ‘climate change deniers’ who should be subject to ‘Nuremberg style courts’. The way the Royal Society colludes in this is shocking.

3. A self orchestrated hysterical media who use the new quasi religion status of ‘The scientists’ (Bishops in earlier times) to misguide and manipulate a genuine desire of most people to ‘pull together to save the Planet (or nation or whatever)’.


Copies of Piers Corbyn’s presentation material as made available at the Institute Of Physics on June 7th and also Prof Lockwood’s paper are available: request by email: piers AT weatheraction.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 17 of 24

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.