Main Menu
Google Search
Google
Current GWH News
Global Warming Hoax News From Around the Web

World Climate Report

» A Classic Tale of Global Warming Alarmism

» More Evidence Against a Methane Time Bomb

» Agriculture: Tropical Cyclones are Welcome Visitors

» Sea Level Acceleration: Not so Fast

» Hansen Is Wrong

» Earth’s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing

» Wild Speculation on Climate and Polar Bears

» Illiteracy at NASA

» The Heat Was On—Before Urbanization and Greenhouse Gases

» What’s to Blame for the Rains on the Plains?

***
NewsBusters - Global Warming

» CNN's Blitzer: 'I Don't Remember' Biden's Law School Plagiarism

» CNN's Chetry: 'Please Tell Me It's Not Lipstick Again'

» MRC Report Asks: Why No Fairness Doctrine for PBS?

***

***

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group

» Roger Pielke Sr. is now on Twitter!

» 2012 Climate Science Weblog in Review by Dallas Jean Staley – A Guest Post

» The Weblog Is Retiring

» Publication Of “Reply to “Comment On ‘Ocean Heat Content And Earth’s Radiation Imbalance. II. Relation To Climate Shifts’ ” by Nuccitelli Et Al. By Douglass and Knox 2012

» Q&A From A Group Of Retired NASA Personnel And Associates

» The Importance of Land Use/Land Practices On Climate – A Perspective From Jon Foley

» Interview With James Wynn In The English Department At Carnegie Mellon University

» University Of Alabama At Huntsville October 2012 Lower Tropospheric Temperature Analysis

» USA Election Day 2012

» New Paper “Climatic Variability Over Time Scales Spanning Nine Orders of Magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch Cycles With Hurst–Kolmogorov Dynamics” By Markonis And Koutsoyiannis

***


» Marvel et al. – Gavin Schmidt admits key error but disputes everything else

» A Return to Polar Urals: Wilson et al 2016

» Picking Cherries in the Gulf of Alaska

» Cherry-Picking by D’Arrigo

» Marvel et al.: Implications of forcing efficacies for climate sensitivity estimates – update

» Bob Carter

» Appraising Marvel et al.: Implications of forcing efficacies for climate sensitivity estimates

» Update of Model-Observation Comparisons

» COP21 Emission Projections

» Balascio et al and the Baffin Island Inconsistency

***

***

Global Warming News

» The Motion that Won the Stay

» CEI Rolling Out New “Richard Windsor” Revelations

» Satellites and Global Warming: Dr. Christy Sets the Record Straight

» UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat Announces Steps for Signing and Ratifying the Paris Climate Treaty. The Next Step Is Up To the Senate.

» Robert M. Carter, RIP

» Mandating 100% Renewable Energy: It’s About Jobs?

» Paris Agreement: Recycled “Process” Socialism

» Paris Agreement Is a Real Tiger: Lock and Load

» Climate Change Hearing: Lessons from Data vs. Dogma

» Is the Paris Climate Agreement a Treaty?

***

***


***


***


***


***


***

More Global Warming Hoax News Feeds

---
Since Exxon Hasn't Sent Us Our First Million Dollars Yet You're Welcome To Help Pay Our Bills Until They Do.









Headlines

»Rush Limbaugh: Libs Come Up with Reason Algore’s Prediction Didn’t Come True
»NOAA worries about impact of ‘climate change’ on Valentines Day – Federal science agency frets about how chocolate ‘is affected by climate’
Federal science agency addresses "helping chocolate cope with climate change" for Valentines Day. 
»EPA Was Not Always Confident Regulating CO2 Would Be A Legal Slam Dunk
»Analysis: It’s ‘game over’ for global warming activists after Supreme Court EPA ruling
'This could be the proverbial string which causes Paris to unravel,' The New York Times reported
»Arctic Sea Ice Trend May Have Turned The Corner As Ice Volume Picks Up Over Past 5 Years
»NASA Study Concludes ‘Global Warming’ Is Actually Slowing Sea Level Rise
»Oops: Obama administration repeatedly told UN EPA ‘climate regs’ were ‘legally bulletproof’
»Al Gore’s global warming doomsday passes uneventfully
»Flashback 1987: ‘Global Warming’ Causes Sea Levels to Fall — 2016: ‘Global Warming’ Causes Slowdown In Sea Level Rise
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: "Before 'global warming' caused sea level INCREASES, 'global warm ...
»Flashback: Prominent Dutch Scientist: ‘I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a 6m sea level rise, 15 times IPCC number — entirely without merit’
Featured on page 168 of the 2010 Special Report updated from U.S. Senate Report: SPECIAL REPORT: Mo ...


Date published: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 07:42:00 +0000
Details

»UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for January, 2016: +0.54 deg C
NOTE: This is the tenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old ...
»After the Snowstorm: Color Satellite Views
The VIIRS color imager on the Suomi/NPP satellite provided nice views yesterday of the heavy blanket ...
»On that 2015 Record Warmest Claim
We now have the official NOAA-NASA report that 2015 was the warmest year by far in the surface therm ...
»75 Million to Get Snowblasted
The snowstorm expected to begin in earnest on Friday is still looking like one for the record books, ...
»Frost Flowers: The Frost Awakens
It’s been over a year since I first found “frost flowers” growing in our backyard ...
»UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for Dec. 2015: +0.44 deg. C
NOTE: This is the ninth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old ...
»Sierra Expecting 10 Feet of Snow in Next 10 Days
With the Sierra Nevada snowpack above normal in this El Nino-fueled winter, we now enter what is usu ...
»What Causes El Nino Warmth?
Dick Lindzen suggested to me recently that this might be a good time to address the general question ...
»No Snow for Christmas? That’s OK…Snow is Racist Anyway
As reported yesterday, an enterprising fellow actually got college students to sign a petition to st ...
»Who Will Get a White Christmas?
El Nino is really doing a number on December winter weather this year, and as a result most of the e ...


Date published: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 19:43:34 +0000
Details

»US Average Temperature Trends in Context
Cross-posted from Coyoteblog. There was some debate a while back around about a temperature chart so ...
»Revisiting (Yet Again) Hansen’s 1998 Forecast on Global Warming to Congress
I want to briefly revisit Hansen’s 1998 Congressional forecast.  Yes, I and many others have c ...
»Matt Ridley: What the Climate Wars Did to Science
I cannot recommend Matt Ridley’s new article strongly enough.  It covers a lot of ground be he ...
»Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record
I have been getting inquiries from folks asking me what I think about stories like this one, where P ...
»Mistaking Cyclical Variations for the Trend
I titled my very first climate video “What is Normal,” alluding to the fact that climate ...
»Typhoons and Hurricanes
(Cross-posted from Coyoteblog) The science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes some warming is h ...
»Those Who Follow Climate Will Definitely Recognize This
This issue will be familiar to anyone who has spent time with temperature graphs.  We can ask oursel ...
»Layman’s Primer on the Climate Skeptic Position
I am a “lukewarmer”, which means a skeptic that agrees that man-made CO2 is incrementall ...
»When Climate Alarmism Limits Environmental Progress
One of my favorite sayings is that “years from now, environmentalists will look back on the cu ...
»Why We Are Exaggerating “Extreme Weather”
I have written in article at Forbes.com called Summer of the Shark, Global Warming Edition.  It desc ...


Date published: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 20:07:17 +0000
Details

»Why I like Obama’s Oil Tax With Just A Few Tweaks
By Elmer Beauregard Obama is proposing a $10 tax on oil to do 2 things, stop the use of fossil fuels ...
»Reprieve! Binding Paris treaty now voluntary mush
But Obama still wants to send US energy use and living standards backward CFACT.org Paris climate ta ...
»Why Bother? John Kerry Admits American CO2 Cuts Would Be Pointless
by Steve Milloy It’s 40 seconds that should turn the global warming world upside down. Secretary of ...
»UN Releases Slimmed Down Draft Outcome at COP 21
CFACT (France, Le Bourget) French Foreign Minister and COP 21 President Laurent Fabius, a Socialist, ...
»New Report: The Truth About China
Global Warming Policy Foundation China will talk a good game at the UN Climate Conference in Paris b ...


Date published: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 05:33:51 +0000
Details

»Marvel et al. – Gavin Schmidt admits key error but disputes everything else
A guest article by Nicholas Lewis Introduction Gavin Schmidt has finally provided, at the GISS websi ...
»A Return to Polar Urals: Wilson et al 2016
Wilson et al 2016, like D’Arrigo et al 2006, includes a ‘Polar Urals’ chronology a ...
»Picking Cherries in the Gulf of Alaska
The bias arising from ex post selection of sites for regional tree ring chronologies has been a long ...
»Cherry-Picking by D’Arrigo
One of the longest standing Climate Audit issues with paleoclimate reconstructions is ex post decisi ...
»Marvel et al.: Implications of forcing efficacies for climate sensitivity estimates – update
A guest article by Nicholas Lewis Introduction In a recent article I discussed the December 2015 Mar ...
»Bob Carter
I was very saddened to learn of the sudden death of Bob Carter ( here here).   He was one of the few ...
»Appraising Marvel et al.: Implications of forcing efficacies for climate sensitivity estimates
A guest article by Nicholas Lewis Note: This is a long article: a summary is available here. Introdu ...
»Update of Model-Observation Comparisons
The strong El Nino has obviously caused great excitement in the warmist community.  It should also c ...
»COP21 Emission Projections
In the wake of COP21, I thought that it would be interesting to compare the respective pathways of C ...
»Balascio et al and the Baffin Island Inconsistency
There was some publicity this week on a paper by Young et al (Science Advances, 2015), which, accord ...


Date published: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 04:59:17 +0000
Details




Date published: not known
Details

»Wind power is useless across Australia today
Scanning news headlines I discovered that the fault in the BASSLINK cable has not been found yet so ...
»So who gave the CFMEU $847,000
This is a weird story uncovered by ABC researchers but now that we know the Tasmanian businesswoman ...
»Perth 4 days over 40°C heatwave nothing out of the ordinary for Perth heatwaves
We have all seen the media beat ups about the “Great Four day Perth heatwave 7th to 10th Feb 2016” – never a mention that that the ever expanding Perth urban heat island UHI might contribute to this event. Credit where credit is due though, the original BoM forecast was pretty good. Unlike their Brisbane […]
»High-altitude water vapour, critical for Greenhouse, is not well measured
New paper – The Forgotten Water Vapor at High Altitudes – Scientists find that estimatio ...
»New climate book ‘Mirrors and Mazes: a guide to the climate debate’ by Dr Howard Brady
Read the review by Emeritus Professor Peter G Flood PhD (Qld), MAusIMM, IEM (Harvard) – let me ...
»Two years ago I reported UAH satellites were reading too warm at times over Australia
From Dec 2013 – Warming departure in UAH lower troposphere satellite temperatures compared to ...
»Paper gold goes nuts in New York afternoon – could global warming be affecting the gold price?
While the slapdown in price just after 8am NY time is stock standard normal I can not recall a jump ...
»Another exaggerated BoM Brisbane heat forecast – turns out a one day wonder
What is it with the BoM – so Brisbane has a humid and hot day last Tuesday – for heavens ...
»Perth region breaks cold night records two mornings in a row
On 1st & 2nd Feb 2016 the Perth region has had record breaking cold mornings. See comments by U ...
»Another failed Bureau of Meteorology daytime temperature Outlook
Poor old BoM seldom takes a trick – make your own temperature maps – make your own Outlo ...


Date published: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 05:42:17 +0000
Details
Latest Forum Posts
Posted by Jesson Liu
[ REQUIRES ADMIN APPROVAL ]
01/26 06:03

Posted by Jesson Liu
HI, can you help me? I deleted some text messages [more ...]
01/24 05:34

Posted by PhilipSmith
Is that a jade? You can confirm that by a jade exp[more ...]
01/13 01:22

Posted by Hank Liu
Have you lost your data? Unable to retrieve it or [more ...]
01/09 01:07

Posted by anonymous
Studying this info! From the beginning to the end,[more ...]
01/07 15:23

Posted by PhilipSmith
Huge discount on Tank007 PT40 Flashlight torchTank007 PT40 is the most powerful flashlightHow big should the flashlight I select be?. With the high power LED, it is best for hunting, riding, etc.; If you love hunting, this flashlight is the best choice.Key featuresBrand & Model: USA Cree XM-L U2LED Lifespan: above 100,000 hoursMax Brightness: 1000 lumensThrow Beam: 300mNow it is only 59.99USD, orgiignally 99.99USD.If you are looking for a high power LED flashlight at low price, Tank007 PT12 should be a good choice. Bright, waterproof, and high power. With a 18650 battery, you are able to use it for about 1.5 hours at high light mode, which allows you to work in emergency.Christmas is coming. DO you need some gift for your parents or children? Do you need a mini flashlight as gift? Here is a good choice for you. Tank007 ES12 stainless steel flashlight is a perfect gift. It is cute, exquisite, and durable. Among mini flashlights, this one is the best. And the good news is, now, it is on sale, 50% off, so what are you waiting for? Why not get one now?UV LEd flashlightNow, rechargeable flashlight is popular. Considering our environment, used-batteries can make our earth worse. Rechargeable batteries solve this problem. To those who need flashlights, battery cost is large if they just use one-time battery. Here, Tank007 TR01 is a good rechargeable flashlight that can directly charge the battey inside, which saves much trouble.best EDC flashlightbest pocket flashlight
12/31 02:00

Posted by PhilipSmith
Cudgel, tool compartment and EDC flashlight are im[more ...]
12/24 00:21

Posted by Anonymous
If you delete photos on your iPhone, you need an i[more ...]
12/09 18:40

Posted by Anonymous
If you lose data on your Samsung phone, you can tr[more ...]
12/08 18:49

Posted by Anonymous
[ REQUIRES ADMIN APPROVAL ]
12/07 06:52

Relevant Sponsors

Donations
Any Amount helps support improvements





* or *


Advertise on this site

Road Gear

License Plate Frames
Support the Truth

Skeptic License Plate Frame
"SKEPTIC"

It's Natural License Plate Frame
"It`s Natural"

Liberty License Plate Frame
"Liberty"

* MORE *
Strong and durable metal license plate holder. Uses full color high resolution images. UV and Water Protection. Satisfaction Guaranteed
RSS Feeds
Our news can be syndicated by using these rss feeds.
rss1.0
rss2.0
rdf
Welcome
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
Mobile Version
e107mobileYou can now visit us on your mobile phone! Simply goto http://GlobalWarmingHoax.com on your mobile phone or PDA to get started!

Forums
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>   
Layman's science

Author Post
ron
Fri Jun 19 2009, 09:13PM
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
Often is the time where the common man, such as myself, is disenfranchised from scientific debate because we lack the creds, such as a BS, MS, or PhD addended to our name.

That's never stopped me. I've been to college a few times. I am an electrician and started doing electrical work in March of 1983. I have been studying electricity, electrical theory, electronics, physics, and math since about Ocotber of 1974. It was a pivotal year. We moved from California to Texas and my step-grandfather began giving me books and introducing me to that most wonderous treasure, the public libray. You can read about anything you want to learn and no one can stop you.

In organized education and on my own, I have also studied particle physics, linear algebra, n-space geometry, topology, mult0-variable calculus. I've studied a few years of german and have read Einstein's notes in English and the original German. And I have studied basic physics. For the most part, most of us can get by with Newton. When it comes to electrical work, the Bohr model is accurate enough to do what we do. Quantum Mechanics offers some interesting interpretations but if you are an electrician working on an energized circuit, you are safer viewing it from the Bohr perspective.

Anyway, my lack of credentials has not stopped me from reading and trying to understand topics such as global climate. And my background of science and math studies makes it hard for me to ignore the glaring inconsistencies and faults of what I see in the AGW mindset. Granted, we can influence our local environment greatly. I know I have. At times, I've had an attack of gas that ran everyone off. Now, that's influencing the local environment. But it doesn't change the world, at large.

At the basis of science is the practice of observation and the use of the scientific method in testing theories and hypotheses. Collect evidence and make a theory. Test the theory. It may hold until other evidence comes along. If evidence invalidates the theory, either adjust the theory or scrap it all together and make a new theory that accounts for the new evidence, as well as the old evidence. That is science. To adjust data to fit a theory is fantasy. And I see that happening with AGW. It doesn't matter what the evidence is, it is interpreted as supporting AGW. All they have to do is adjust their equations or dream a new causality and their theory is safe, once again. Well, that's just fantasy. Ordinarily, it would be something to chuckle at. The scary thing, is that is has become political and an industry.
Back to top
ron
Sat Jun 20 2009, 08:46AM
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
Many people do not understand the process of feedback, nor have they been studying electron behavior for as long as I have. There are essentially two types of feed back. Positive feedback and negative feedback. In electronics, the feedback is set by how a transistor is biased for operation. It is often used to modulate a waveform or action. In a transistor operating as an amplifier, the source and the collector are operating at a power factor larger than the input. All the input does is introduce changes of charge in the gate or grid. The change of a few microvolts creates changes in what conducts across the junction. This is negative feedback. In positive feedback the junctions would conduct into saturation, such as the old flip-flop circuits upon which modern computers are based. Those are actually basic simple processes to understand.

In climate, however, there are more factors at play. Clouds are a great example of negative feedback. A cloudy day does several things. The cloud cover holds in some heat from the ground but it also reflects heat back into space from the topside. So, it may not get too hot but it will also not get too cold. That is, the response to one stimulus creates another response that has a remediating or sometimes opposite effect that prevents something from cycling out of control. To the greatest extent, that is how nature works. Concepts of physics and thermodynamics can most easily be described as whether or not something is acted upon by an outside force. The mistake most often made by some people in considering what the climate does is that they do not consider the most powerful outside source, an uncontrolled nuclear reactor 94 million miles above our heads. The ones who say that it doesn't influence us much are simply wrong. That's not an insult or a political point, they are simply wrong. The eruption of one volcano in the effect of reflective aerosols reflecting heat back to space can create a temporary climate change here simply by reducing the amount of sunlight that gets through.

But feedback has a modulating effect. A particular warm season can cause more ice to melt, which changes temp and salinity in the ocean which changes currents and evaporation rates which changes could formation, rain events, cloud cover. And those are mechanisms that have moderating effects. More cloud cover equals more temp equilibrium, more rain, more precipitation in cold climates, which creates more snow and ice that reflect more heat away creating even colder temperatures. Negative feedback.
Back to top
Denny
Sat Jun 20 2009, 06:58PM
Registered Member #140
Joined: Sun May 11 2008, 12:38PM
Posts: 2178
Ron, great posts, both of them...keep it up! We appreciate the input!

Denny
Back to top
ron
Sun Jun 21 2009, 07:54AM
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
Thanks, Denny. I think if I can explain in layman terms, others can understand it easier. Much of actual evidence is displayed in dot graphs and mathematical concepts, which is a language all it's own, but I try to keep things simple, at least for myself.

One of the biggest mistakes in the AGW is a difference of pardigm that does, in fact, ignore the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. AGW believers treat the Earth as a closed system, which it is not. Yes, we have an atmosphere and magnetic belt, but those don't seal us off from the universe at large. Changes in the Sun's behavior do have an effect here. To deny that is to close your eyes and say the sun is not shining. Doing that is like the kid who plugs his ears and says "nanner nanner" so he doesn't have to hear what the adults are saying. Pretending something doesn't exist does not actually make it go away.

Along with the cessation of sunspot activity, there is also precession of orbits. Earth's orbit is not a perfect circle and it varies from slight eliptic to more eliptic. Also, the sun has it's own orbit and does not spin in one exact geometric spot. So, there will be times when the sun is farther away and we are farther and the sunpost cycle is low. And this will have an effect on the weather. It will get colder and all the coal-fired power plants in the world can't stop it. In the not too distant future, we will be praying for some global warming.

Changes may not happen right away. It's June here in Texas. The jetstream has set a ridge over us so the warm air comes from the south and the high pressure and temp inversion knocks down any storms. So, we have highs in the 90's. But summers could drop off gradually. We usually get days and weeks of 100 + F and we call that August. At first, we may only get a few number of days over 100. But year after year a pattern will develope. So, some might say, yeah right. Time will tell. We've already had colder than average winters recently.

Warming is not the problem. Plants grow like crazy when you give them sun, CO2, and water. They don't grow much at all when covered in snow or in temps that don't get above 65 F. That's why people build solariums and hot houses. So they can grow plants in winter, by trapping heat.

Something interesting I have read. Most every knows that CO2 only absorbs and re-emits readiation at a few distinct frequencies. Furthermore, it reaches a saturation point, for lack of a better description. It only absorbs and re-emits to a certain level and is incapable of absorbing more heat or radiation more heat. As a "greenhouse gas," it leaves much to be desired. Or, in other words, at a certain point, it is transparent to heat. It cannot contribute much of anything to global warming.

No, the CO2 scare is thanks to Gore, who didn't get to be president but is still hell-bent on power.
Back to top
Denny
Sun Jun 21 2009, 03:31PM
Registered Member #140
Joined: Sun May 11 2008, 12:38PM
Posts: 2178
Say AMEN! I like your Common Sense! Stick around, we need you here!
Back to top
ron
Tue Jun 23 2009, 07:23PM
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
A question was raised and not answered in the chatbox. The Med Warm period was much warmer than today and more CO2 was in much more abundance, in spite of the current AGW desire to re-align graphs and show that we are near that now. Anyway, the question was asked, how come much higher levels of CO2 did not cause runaway warming and why did the globe, in fact, cool from that? The short answer is that CO2 is not the greenhouse gas that many imagine it to be. And that the sun has more effect than some can admit. And that nature operates on negative feedback. To argue against the past of nature is foolish and unscientific. But you can't hardly stop religious frenzy that wishes to believe one thing regardless of all evidence.
Back to top
ron
Tue Jun 23 2009, 07:33PM
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
I suppose I can make these layman viewpoints because if someone can, with no doubt, a serious face, contend that CO2 precedes temp, i.e., make statements of fantasy (statements that may or may not coincide with science) then I can certainly put my two cents in there.

Simple fact of the matter is that despite theories that the polar cap sea ice could melt, Caps are growing thicker, glaciers are growing thicker, we have had two record breaking winters in a row. Snow in Iraq? Normally, one could read something like that in science fiction, like that movie with Dennis Quaid where it is snowing in the desert. But now, that actually happened just recently. Snow in North Dakota in June? Don't be silly. Oops, that happened a few weeks ago.

And incredibly cold and nasty weather down under. Normally, Christchurch, New Zealand is the last port of call before going to Antarctica. But sometimes, it's to cold in the southern hemisphere's winter to accomplish much.

The signs are ripe for an ice age. The sun, the cycles of ice ages, the signs, here and there. I do not see cold, snowy winters as a sign of global warming. That's like saying that it's night time because the sun is out. Then again, if it is a matter of faith, one coud say just about anything and justify it.

The other problem I have is with the use of math to support a theory rather than describe an effect. What happens modernly, is that the evidence doesn't fit the theory so the math is adjusted until it does fit. That isn't science. That is fiction, fantasy. And math's weakness is that you can use it to state anything. The Rev. Billy Graham once used the equation 1^3 to show how God could be a trinity. The problem is, the general function is 1^n, which would also prove polytheism, which was not his intent but there you go. Just because someone can use an equation to describe something doesn't mean the equation reflects reality.
Back to top
ron
Wed Jun 24 2009, 05:51AM
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
CO2 is a gas excreted by any number of processes, from composting of dead vegetable matter to the waste product of an mammal and some other animals. And it is the most stable food source for plants, who give off waste product in the form of oxygen. So, more CO2 means more plants producing more oxygen. No, I fear that we could alter local environment by continuing to produce engines that, more and more, release water vapor as a waste product. But I could be worrying about nothing. Water vapor creates clouds which have a mediating effect. But, of all the gases, it is water vapor that can have an effect. From basic chemistry water is H2O. That's the fluid to watch.
Back to top
ron
Sat Jun 27 2009, 07:20PM
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
In the crawling news links on the left, there was a study showing that meso cycles of wind flow are also due to landscape differentials.

Specifically, between snow fields and non-snow fields. I think I can explain it different terms.

In physics, energy moves from high state to low state, unless acted upon by an outside force, which is usually another high energy state. Conservation of mass and energy, basic physics, found in both newtonian and quantum theories. Anyway, land without snow is often warmer and so wind would flow from there to the snow fields. In doing so, this creates a low pressure in the warm area, which allows other wind to flow into it, and the wind rushing over snowfields is cooled and flows on until it runs into warmer areas. Nature's air conditioning. These effects have more to do with snow melt or snow accumulation than anything that could possibly be attributed to CO2 or even methane.
Back to top
ron
Sat Jul 18 2009, 08:02AM
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
The practice of adjusting math and results to support a theory is not new nor specific to AGW. It has been done before, most specifically, with Einstein's theories of relativity and also Quantum Mechanics, as based on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

These theories, such as the Special Theory of Relativity, were based on legitimate problems of perception. The problem was how does one measure the true speed of light since there is no final frame of reference to measure it from? From Newton, velocities were additive. If two cars are moving toward each other at 30 mph the impact should be a combination of both velocities or the effect of one car hitting an immobile object at 60 mph. And, in accident investigations, this is exactly what they do. The new smart radar that police have is able to subtract the motion of the police car and determine the speed of your car. But according to Einstein, velocities are non-additive.

A little history. Clerk Maxwell successfully combined the theories of magnetism and electricity and came up with field-effect equations and a theoretical calculation of the speed of electromagnetic behavior, of which light is often associated. Roughly, 186,282 miles per second. This was supported experimentally later on by measuring to one frame of reference, the sun. Some light leaves the sun and takes, on average, 8 minutes and 43 seconds to reach the Earth. Many physicists, such as FitzGerald and Lorentz believed there was an aether, a sub-space sort of fabric against which objects of mass would encounter friction or other effects. FitzGerald thought length and time measurements would elongate or contract in contact with this aether and Lorentz came up with equations to describe this, known as the Lorentzian Transforms.

Michelson and Morely tested for the aether and could find none. Shining lights due east and due west, with the direction of the earth's spinning, the addition of velocities against and with the aether should have produced lines of intereference as the light is accelerated in one direction and decelerated in the other direction. No such evidence was found. This experiment led Einstein to say that there was no aether.
Back to top
ron
Sat Jul 18 2009, 08:09AM
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
But Einstein felt that light must be the same speed regardless of frame of reference because it had been measure to be so, right here, in spite of the movement of the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe itselt. Therefore, for some reason, the speed of light is the same every where and should be measured as such, whether you are in motion or at rest because there is no final frame of reference where you are one or the other. That's all fair enough. But others asked, if nothing could travel faster than light, what about light? Einstein said light was a particle without mass as gravity acts on objects of mass. Yet, we can see light bending it's trajectory around an object such as the moon.

That's what led to the General Theory, brought on by Einstein's use of the Lorentzian Transforms. That's right, Einstein used aether math to describe his general theory. That objects of math bend space and time in their vicinity. Light follows in this time-space fabric and follows the contortions of it, such as the gravity well of a planet. It does describe the effect of it nicely and many took this as proof of the theory. But that doesn't mean the theory is correct. It's not much better than saying the sun orbits around the earth because it does appear that way and that theory worked for eons.
Back to top
ron
Sat Jul 18 2009, 08:22AM
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
So, let's go with the idea that light is a special particle, not subject to the same laws as everything else. That it is massless, per Einstein's earliest summations. And that light cannot be measured at any speed greater than c. Why should that rule affect objects that have mass? And how do you know that you are not travelling faster than the speed of light? What are you measuring from? Relativity works both ways. To be fair, Einstein, by his own admission, was lousy at math, experience particular difficulty with algebra.

He got hoisted by his own petard in when studying particle physics. In an analysis similar to Poincare's 3-body problem, the only solution that made sense with the evidence was a vector analysis that was the result of the addition of velocities of both particles. Velocities of high speed particles were additive. Einstein said so in his own notes, in the original german.

Then there is his work in QM with Rosen and Podolsky in what became known as the EPR Event.

Due to the conservation of mass and energy in QM, there is a glitch that disproves the limit of the speed of light. Electrons have "spin", a direction of alignment. Usually noted as spin up or spin down for clarity's sake. Whatever the spin is on the nearest electron, the electron on the opposite side of the orbit must have the opposite spin. Always.

If you place an electron micropscope to look at the spin of the electron, the field of the microscope will exert a field effect and it will align the spin up or down. The spin of the opposite side electron must have the other spin. And this happens simultaneously, as in zero time elapsed in synchronization. How can this happen if nothing travels faster than light? This would happen in a microscopic atom, it would happen in an atom the size of the solar system. Darn that Heisenberg, hang him from the highest tree.

Essentially, Einstein falsified his own theory through Quantum Mechanics.

Einstein himself assumed much of his work would be proven wrong and it is only the Einstein faithful that keep the theory alive. They do so with math. They keep adding transforms until the evidence matches the theory. I've seen the Lorentz Group treatment in topology where a hyperbolic trig function is constructed to reflect the transforms, but that's simply another way of using the math to alter data to fit a theory. Like Rev. Billy Graham using 1^3 to show how God is a trinity of personalities. That's fine as long as you ignore the general function of 1^n where n is any number, which proves polytheism, rather than judeo-christianity.
Back to top
ron
Sat Jul 18 2009, 08:23AM
Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
So, I see the same thing in AGW. Where they are constantly making "adjustments" until whatever data presented is altered and fits the original theory. That is not science, that is religion. 1^3
Back to top
Moderators: Admin, Kristen Byrnes, R.Danneskjöld, MMulligan

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System
Translate to: French German Italian Spanish Portuguese GTM_LAN_DUTCH Russian Chinese Arabic Korean English