AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
YouTube - Admiral David Titley: I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic
Bio:
Admiral Titley’s education includes a B.S. in Meteorology from the Pennsylvania State University, a M.S. in Meteorology and Physical Oceanography and Ph.D. in Meteorology, both from the Naval Postgraduate School. He attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seminar XXI on Foreign Politics, International Relations and National Interest, and is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
In 2009, Titley assumed duties as oceanographer and navigator of the Navy and director, Task Force Climate Change.
Additional Information:
YouTube - Climate Change Impacts on Naval Operations: Admiral David Titley
Bio:
Admiral Titley’s education includes a B.S. in Meteorology from the Pennsylvania State University, a M.S. in Meteorology and Physical Oceanography and Ph.D. in Meteorology, both from the Naval Postgraduate School. He attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seminar XXI on Foreign Politics, International Relations and National Interest, and is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
In 2009, Titley assumed duties as oceanographer and navigator of the Navy and director, Task Force Climate Change.
Additional Information:
- Rear Admiral David W. Titley Oceanographer and Navigator of the Navy
- navy.mil: Oceanographer Helping Navy Understand, Deal and Respond to Arctic Changes
- navy.mil: Navy Official Discusses Climate Change Investment Strategy
- Armed with Science: VIDEO: Climate Change and National Security
YouTube - Climate Change Impacts on Naval Operations: Admiral David Titley
15 Dec 2004 … Lavoisier group member Louis Hissink has a response to my post and John Quiggin’s on the Lavoisier group. A summary cannot do it justice, …
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/12/hissink.php –http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...=1&sa=X&ei=Ah9yTeK5PMi3cO772PgC&ved=0CDcQHzAE
But if memory serves me, then I suggested that climate change over the last couple of thousand years might be partially explained by slight re-orientations of the Earth’s axis of spin as a result of an external force. This careening would reposition land masses that were once in the temperate or tropical regions into colder ones, and of course, colder ones into warmer ones. This had nothing to do with movements of tectonic plates but as simply a re-orientation of the spinning earth in tippe-toppe fashion, maybe changing its axis of spin with respect to the plane of the ecliptic by a degree or so.
Tim Lambert asserted that this was impossible due to inertial factors and of course correct if the only force in the cosmos was gravitational. Then human recorded instances of “incorrect” earthly or planetary motion could be dismissed as errors or, if far enough back in time, as “myths”. But one thing this view, (Lambert’s), isn’t is scientific, for a scientific mind, on learning of this data would realise the possibility that the existing theories might be incomplete. Only a religious mind would reject empirical data that contradicted litany.
However if we add the insights of plasma physics to the mix, then the onset of the Little Ice Age might be better explained. At present three possibilities for the LIA are proposed – cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity and changes in ocean circulation.
1. Solar radiation changes – hotly disputed even today as affecting the climate.
2. Volcanic Activity – hard to quantify but it had to be a global phenomenon to have any effect, and experience from recent eruptions suggests that the effect is minimal.
3. Changes in Oceanic Circulation – probably related to the Gulf-Stream but again no hard data to say one way or the other. So what else could explain the LIA?
The plasma connection is fairly straight foward – in this model of the solar system, and indeed the galaxy, it is assumed that electro-magnetic forces operating in plasma are responsible for celestial dynamics. In the case here the Earth is considered to be an electrically charged sphere immersed in the local plasma of the solar system. The solar system itself can be likened to a quasi – homopolar motor mechanism in which Birkeland currents supply the observed rotational motion.
Now for a little bit of physics.
The mining industry uses many geophysical techniques to measure earth properties and a common method is to use proton precession magnetometers to measure the geomagnetic field. A proton precession magnetometer is simply a proton source (kerosene) in a cylindrical container around which is wrapped a copper wire coil attached electronically to a computer. The container containing the proton source is usually a small cylindrical shaped one positioned at the end of a pole, (see below).
Operation is pretty simple – an initial electrical current is put into the cylindrical coil that causes the proton source to become aligned to the applied magnetic field of the coil. On turning the current off, the protons then precess and align themselves with the ambient geomagnetic field at the measuring location. This precession is then recorded. The machine is based on the fact that protons “spin” and that the axis of proton spin is aligned to the ambient geomagnetic field, and the change in voltage induced in the coil as the protons re-align themselves to the ambient geomagnetic field is proportional to the strength of the ambient geomagnetic field.
What it means here is that an external electro-dynamic field can affect the rotational alignment of an object.
One might argue, as Tim Lambert, that protons cannot have their axes of spin spatially re-oriented due to inertial contraints, but the fact is, they can, because, while the physics of inertia are indeed valid, inertial constraints becomes irrelevant when electrical magnetic forces are 10^39 greater in magnitude. If Lambert’s ideas are right, then proton precession magnetometers cannot work.
I have made previous references to the annals of the Korean Choson dynasty, in which the annals describe climate catastrophes for the far east. Gavin Menzies, in his thought provoking books 1421 and 1436, notes the precipitous demise of the Chinese Ming Dynasty at the time. Ted Bryant, of Wollongong University, writes of a possible meteorite impact between New Zealand and Australia causing immense destruction from a tidal wave, or tsunami, of Australia’s eastern coast. Mungo Jupp relates that the Australian Aboriginals recall a recent period when the Aurora Australis caused immense fear and human loss.
What might have happened is that the earth passed through a meteorite swarm that electromagnetically affected, as well as bombarding, it. It is likely that this meteorite swarm caused the earth to re-align itself in terms of the solar ecliptic so that land masses that were in the temperate regions, (why those lands were part of the MWP) suddenly found themselves in arctic or near arctic climates. It is a fact that Greenland has not returned to its MWP climate state.
Why?
The religious mind clings to its litany as its psychological anchor while the scientific mind adapts. The climate carbon war is yet another one between the two mindsets.
The highlighted is once again me pointing out your obvious bias in your discourse. The term deniers is often used by greenies because it draws a relation between the "awful horrible people" that deny the holocaust (or even question certain ridiculous claims made about the holocaust that escalade every year since it happened) and the people that deny global warming. It is basically inferring a relation with Nazism and people that don't believe the politici.... er uh scientists of today and their clear politi.... er uh educational agenda.
They are desperate times Avro. No doubt about it. As you can see field shift effects the climate. That field shifts climate effect is real and observable. CO2 is not. If you don't address the pole shift and the electromotive facts of the earth then you essentially have nothing worth posting.
My bodies radiated heat is slowed by conduction through the blanket from the radiating zone (my side of the blanket) no heat is transferred from the blanket back to me ever as the best I can do is raise the blanket to body temperature and no further. So the temperature gradient is normal hot to cold through the blanket with no radiated heat going back to the the hot body at all. The body heat is slowed only when it reaches the conduction dependent zone (blanket) and has to conduct through the wool.
Right. Your body cannot radiate as much heat away from it's body, so it warms. Less energy is escaping to space, the greenhouses gases prevent the escape of heat, so the planet warms. That is not violating thermodynamics anymore than your blanket which keeps you warm by retaining heat next to your body.
A blanket is a signifigant percentage of the human bodies mass the atmosphere is an insignifigant percentage of the planets mass.
So what?
I'll remember that when I put a solar blanket over my pool to trap heat and pretend it dosen't work.:roll:
Oh those 'skeptics'. Witness the contortions to this bit of news:
U.S. experiences warmest and second most extreme weather year ever recorded in 2012 - Capital Weather Gang - The Washington Post
Awkward...as for the impact of adjustments? See for yourself:
Oh those skeptics. We deserve better.
U.S. experiences warmest and second most extreme weather year ever recorded in 2012 - Capital Weather Gang - The Washington Post
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) officially crowned 2012 the warm weather king today for the Lower 48 states, and by a lofty margin. The chart-busting average temperature was 55.3 degrees F, one full degree above the previous record set in 1998 and 3.2 degrees F above the 20th century average.
Here, Fox News quotes Dr. Roy Spencer:
"2012 [wasn't] necessarily warmer than it was back in the 1930s ... NOAA has made so many adjustments to the data it's ridiculous," Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
That is some awkward twisting. Dr. Spencer works on the UAH temperature dataset, which has been adjusted, many times:
Awkward...as for the impact of adjustments? See for yourself:
Oh those skeptics. We deserve better.
The real issue is not about climate change the climate changes all the time
throughout the history of the world. The issue is, is man responsible for an
abnormal change and my personal belief is likely not. We might contribute
to a small amount and what ever we do won't change anything. In BC if we
controlled carbon levels to a minimum one forest fire would set back our
efforts in less than a week.
throughout the history of the world. The issue is, is man responsible for an
abnormal change and my personal belief is likely not. We might contribute
to a small amount and what ever we do won't change anything. In BC if we
controlled carbon levels to a minimum one forest fire would set back our
efforts in less than a week.
lol
And as for some regions of the northern hemisphere experiencing unusual cold climate extremes, there's this stuff:
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Australia adds new colour to temperature maps as heat soars | Environment | The Guardian
So, what does all this mean? https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php#anomalies
A little bit about adjustments:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/...chnical Report NCDC No12-02-3.2.0-29Aug12.pdf
Keep posting stuff about weird cold periods and there's a some region on the planet that's also experiencing weird hot periods.
Oh, hell. It's bluddy frigid in my freezer, too, so I guess global warming is a hoax.
And as for some regions of the northern hemisphere experiencing unusual cold climate extremes, there's this stuff:
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Australia adds new colour to temperature maps as heat soars | Environment | The Guardian
So, what does all this mean? https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php#anomalies
A little bit about adjustments:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/...chnical Report NCDC No12-02-3.2.0-29Aug12.pdf
So? Didja see what I just posted about Australia's extreme heat wave?
Keep posting stuff about weird cold periods and there's a some region on the planet that's also experiencing weird hot periods.
Oh, hell. It's bluddy frigid in my freezer, too, so I guess global warming is a hoax.