Archive for the ‘physics’ Category

Global warming and the Sun

February 17, 2007

Hey Grit

I have been told in the past that I should change the UK newspaper that I use to do research on the Global Warming issue, so this week I did just that, moving up to the highly respected UK Sunday Times, a broadsheet paper that prides itself on the educational, intellectual and scientific approach to most issues, and what did I find? Nothing less than another article dealing with a cautionary message to those in the IPCC who remain dogmatic regarding their findings.

I have to say from the outset that the author of the article, Nigil Calder, is also the co-author of the book that illustrates the cosmic ray effect on Global Warming, that I mentioned in an earlier post. However, he is also a former editor of the very prestigious publication “New Scientist.” Therefore, one has to take notice of his views. There are a number of aspects of the article that deserve attention.

Mr Calder mentions the potential error of taking a “90% certainty” as a basis for accurate action, drawing an analogy with the scientifice comment made in 1958 when it was said to be 90% certain that we could control nuclear fusion, a comment that has subsequently proven to be totally wrong. However, as we know, having start on the route of developing nuclear power no-one knows how to stop the effects of it. A similar situation could develop with controlling global warming. If we do not understand fully the implications of the problem, how the heck can we be sure that remedial actions are controlable? 

Mr Calder also confirms that the IPCC are paying too little regard to the sun as a contributory cause of Global Warming and that, if this is not taken into account, the planned man-made adjustments may be too much, causing the reverse of the result sought, in other words, too much cooling. There is a level of CO2 that is necessary to maintain the equilibruium of the planet. If we reduce our emissions by too great a level and then find that cosmic activity does have a significant impact, we may find ourselves sometime in the future yelling “light the fires again!”

What does seem strange to me is, that whilst many are just dismissing this as just a “denialist” view, it is being treated seriously enough in scientific circles for a major research study to be undertaken. Does this not suggest that it is something that those intent on proving man-made global warming have failed to take into account sufficiently in their own researches? It is this lop-sided and unbalanced approach to scientific research that always bothers me.

Unlike the politicians on Global Warming, Mr Calder does not claim to have all the answers, but he reasonably suggests that the issues should be approached with caution. I repeat my previous comment that the problem with mainstream research is the direction given within the original hypothesis. If you say to someone “I want to find out how much global warming is due to man” the sub-conscious inclination is to prove that fact and, to some degree, this tends to blind them to the opposite viewpoint. To get an accurate and balanced view one needs to research the positive and negative at the same time, then compare the findings.

The have been too many instances in past research where findings have been stated as being absolute facts and solutions, only to find later that either they were not, or the remedy produced was more harmful than the original problem. I fear that we are in danger of taking this same route with global warming unless we proceed with care.

the Brit

Global Warming, the real story

February 4, 2007

Hi Brit,

I’ve found a few bits and pieces of evidence that the Church of Climate Science rests on a hoax, but it’s difficult to tie them all together.  Fortunately, I found where someone else has had a go at that task, Statistics needed.  This is the first in a series of articles about Deniers of Global Warming, why the science put forth by the IPCC is wrong, what tactics are used within the scientific community to stifle any hint that the science of Climate Change is not settled, and points out some of the lies the UN has placed in the reports on the subject.  Links to the other 9 articles are included on that page.  Considering that this series contains enough evidence to seriously damage the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming, and we all know how angry people get when their religion is questioned, it would be best to read it soon, as I suspect the host will be brought under great pressure to remove it.

Oh, and I just found this, Researchers build lasers for NASA climate studies, which points out even more of the inadequacies in the current state of Climate Science.

 Oh, oh, and in case there is some question as to what other motives may be at work behind the scenes, 45 Countries Push for New Worldwide Environmental Body.

the Grit

Speaking of the Global Warming hoax…

January 23, 2007

Hi Brit,

I was doing some digging into Global Warming and Climate Change and got to wondering what it takes to become a “climate scientist.”  Apparently, it’s not an actual field, but rather, now that the research funds are flowing, any field that may touch on climate is now included in the broad category of “climate scientist.”  So, if you have a degree in atmospheric dynamics, you are now a “climate scientist.”  While thinking on this, I decided to look up the degrees of the pet “climate scientists” of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), you know, the stooge group for the UN that started this scheme, and, amazingly enough, in the actual report, Climate Change 2001, the contributors are only listed by last name and initials, plus where they actually work.  This, as you probably expect, made me rather suspicious, since academic types are usually all too eager to list their credentials.

Thus, I decided to work my way down the list, just to see who these “climate scientists” are.  Start at the top is usually a good strategy, so I looked up “D. L. Albritton NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory, USA.”  Ah, Doctor Albritton, famous for being the front person on the ozone hole fraud that cost the US billions of dollars for no real reason.  It would seem, in hindsight, that it was just practice for the real con, Global Warming.  Anyway, after searching through dozens and dozens of web pages, none of which bothered to give the good Doctor’s credentials beyond being a manager in NOAA, I finally found this, PROFESSIONAL EVENTS, in which we find:

In April 2004, AEES brought to Georgia Tech Dr. Daniel L. Albritton, director of the Aeronomy Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Boulder, Colorado. Dr. Albritton is one the world’s foremost experts on atmospheric science and in particular, global climate change. He is one of the Coordinating Lead Authors on the recent assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the science of the climate system. The IPCC provides scientific and technical assessments of the state of understanding for governments, industry, and the public. Dr. Albritton joined the Aeronomy Laboratory in 1967 and became Director in 1986. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and a Doctor’s degree in Physics, both from the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has received numerous awards and honors for his outstanding service to NOAA, the United States, and the international scientific community. Dr. Albritton has developed a reputation as an outstanding speaker who is able to very effectively explain complex scientific processes to audiences who may not possess extensive education in the atmospheric processes (for example, members of Congress).

Well, it seems that the lead mouth piece for the Global Warming sycophants isn’t a “climate scientist” at all.  He is a Doctor of physics.  And people wonder why I’m skeptical about Global Warming?

the Grit

Britney Spears, not just eye candy

December 20, 2006

Hi Brit,

I know you’re into statistics so, since this has a little math in it, let me point you to an interesting site:

Britney’s Guide to Semiconductor Physics


the Grit