Re: [Vo]:New global warming curves show acceleration
Alain Sepeda, ### sorry for the syntactically/orthographically garbled reply ### this is a hopefully cleaned one: --- Von: Alain Sepeda An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 17:58 Freitag, 30.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:New global warming curves show acceleration >that explain both climastrology belief, and lenr denial. anyway both thery are right imho --- 'climastrology'? What do you mean by that? The overarching theme, by sensible observers, seems to be a disbelief in the methods and procedures of conventional science. Which rings a tiny bit true to me. There is a lot of dirty laundry to wash. But I'm not ready to throw out the baby out of the bathwater, as currently the US evangelicals do. Just the bums. Climate science as a whole is probably the most diverse collection of factoids via the scientific method, correctly applied, and by far surpasses anything in LENR or other fields. But maybe I misunderstood You. I get quite annoyed of any AGW deniers, which cross my trail, because they so not seem the scientific method, nor the delicate web of diverse methods, which hints to a common cause. He, who does not understand that in sufficient depth, understands nearly to nothing wrt the scientific 'ahem'- realm. 'Reality', and also 'feasibility', are very sensible constructs, which result from a diversity of perspectives, and are approved by an open discourse, and not priests of whatever profession, who keep the flame. Guenter (Btw, some 3 of my posts have been lost in the list. The list notified me. It concerns Axil, Ed Storm and Abdul Rahman Lomax. Not important enough to do a post mortem. Nevertheless, I enjoy the list, because of its substantial spectrum of opinions.) >
Re: [Vo]:New global warming curves show acceleration
the beginning discourse on science and pseudo science, look like the reflexion of Benoit Rittaud in french skeptic book "le mythe climatique". he says that young science begin with merged science and pseudo science, then expulse it like astronomy expulsed astrology. me I prefer the theory of rational denial, groupthink and collective dellusion of Roland Benabou http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40 that explain both climastrology belief, and lenr denial. anyway both thery are right imho 2012/3/30 linuxball > Dear Vortex-L readers: > > http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/ScientificHeresy.pdf > > Wolfgang Reimer > >
Re: [Vo]:New global warming curves show acceleration
Dear Vortex-L readers: Because this is my first post to this group I would like to introduce myself. My background is in communications, electrical engineering, systems theory, systems engineering, software architecture/engineering, and system integration. I got my degree (Dr.-Ing., a Doctorate in Engineering) at the Ilmenau University of Technology (http://www.tu-ilmenau.de/en/international/) in 1992, got a post-doc fellowship from the German government (DAAD http://www.daad.de/en/index.html) to carry out a one-year research project with the Computational Photonics group headed by Prof. Curtis Menyuk at UMBC (http://www.photonics.umbc.edu/) in 1996/1997. I am a co-founder of a company called VPI Systems (http://www.vpisystems.com/). I have a soft spot for new scientific discoveries and developments in science, technology and cosmology in general. I always keep a sound portion of scepticism with regard to my own findings as well as those of others. I am not a follower of any pseudoscience, however I am open-minded (e.g. scientific LENR publications show strong evidence of nuclear transmutations so this aspect of alchemy has become science IMHO). Models/theories always reflect only some part of the reality so they are incomplete per se. Also, they are man made and thus can contain errors. Thus models/theories cannot be claimed to prove something discovered in experiments (reality) is wrong or cannot exist. I started following the Vortex-L discussions after Rossi gave a public demonstration of his E-Cat in January of last year. When searching for background information on Rossi's E-Cat and Cold Fusion/LENR in general I came across this discussion round. NOW to the subject: The Angus Miller Lecture 2011 (31st Oct 2011) http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/ScientificHeresy.pdf was held by Matt Ridley (http://www.mattridley.co.uk/) at the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce) in Edinburgh. In this lecture he tells about six lessons on scientific heresy he learned which he is applying to the issue of *climate change* in the course of this lecture. If you prefer audio (about 56 minutes, unfortunately the quality is not very good) follow this link: http://www.theRSA.org/__data/assets/file/0005/559049/20111031MattRidley.mp3 Have a nice day Wolfgang Reimer
Re: [Vo]:New global warming curves show acceleration
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > The temperature have not increased since 13 years, and they succeed in > pretending it is accelerating (I imagine they use convenient averaging). > Comment on Ice seems to ignore recent analysis that couple the melting > planned with non observed past melting (one imply the other so, since it did > not happened, it won't happen)... No matter what you believe about climate change, it is important for humans to be able to control the earth's climate. There have been an enormous amount of extinction events in the past for this reason. If we have the ability to avert such disaster, we should do so. And I think it can be done... after all, we were successful at fixing the hole in the ozone layer. Even if the science is completely fraudulent (which I don't think it is), the policies that would be proposed as a way to combat climate change are all good: reduce emissions, invest in renewable energy, improve efficiency, etc. Actually, all of these things make good economic sense as well. So I'm not sure what there is to disagree with here. > Anyway we don't care, LENR solve the problem. it will avoid a battle, and > both camp will say "I was right". This is dangerous thinking. I wouldn't put all my money on LENR, at least yet. When people talk to you of silver bullets you should always be cautious. -X > 2012/3/28 Jed Rothwell >> >> Not good. See: >> >> >> thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/24/451239/manmade-climate-change-accelerated-in-2001-2010-world-meteorological-organization-reports >> >> This came to my attention because someone linked a response to >> LENR-CANR.org. >> >> - Jed >> >
Re: [Vo]:New global warming curves show acceleration
Beware of consensus in science. Bad memory. I hesitate between moaning and laughing. and funnily after a period of careful neutrality WMO seems to enter, late, the club of pathologic consensus... The temperature have not increased since 13 years, and they succeed in pretending it is accelerating (I imagine they use convenient averaging). Comment on Ice seems to ignore recent analysis that couple the melting planned with non observed past melting (one imply the other so, since it did not happened, it won't happen)... the melting of icecap have been recently dividend by 10 by reanalysing GRACE data planet-wide , avoiding boundary mistakes... last explanation for missing hot spot, fall apart... MWP is now confirmed from north pole to south pole... extreme alarmist sensibilities >3 have been found impossible... but in the official review, in the media, in the science tabloid, the "official truth" is spread despite inconvenient facts. The same denial of scientific papers, manipulation of peer review is proved in that domain, like it is now proven in CF domain... "AGW is proved true" is of the same vein as "CF is proved fraud". Eugene Mallove would be furious to see what happens to science... Anyway we don't care, LENR solve the problem. it will avoid a battle, and both camp will say "I was right". Maybe occidental countries will refuse to use LENR, but Asia, and Africa will, and no patent, no precaution principle, will prevent them to reinvent or copy... 2012/3/28 Jed Rothwell > Not good. See: > > > thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/24/451239/manmade-climate-change-accelerated-in-2001-2010-world-meteorological-organization-reports > > This came to my attention because someone linked a response to > LENR-CANR.org. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:New global warming curves show acceleration
Oh dear, Joe Romm again torturing the numbers until they confess. That graph employs the most advantageous manipulation available (a 10 year running average) to hide the fact that if you fit a line through the recent temperature record you have to go back more than a decade to show any warming trend, eg check out RSS and UAH satellite records (the least controversial global temperature records). http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/LT-UAH-versus-RSS.gif That is not to say that there is no warming or CO2 driven greenhouse effect, all indications and trends suggest that temperature is rising at about 0.8-1°C per century, and has been since the end of the little ice age 150-200 years ago (rather inconvenient since CO2 only started rising significantly after WW2), but there are also huge natural oceanic cyclic circulation variations (AMO+PDO) with roughly 60 year period that overwhelm that underlying trend so that there was rapid heating in 1920's-1940's (same rate as 80's-90's), followed by slight cooling 50's-70's (even as atmospheric CO2 levels started to rise rapidly), warming again 80's-90's followed by no change for last 10-15 years. Based on that underlying trend it will probably start to rise again in another 10-20 years, but by then the issue of CO2 thermaggedon will probably be long forgotten as a serious political issue. http://www.climate-skeptic.com/images/2008/09/18/pdo.gif The dirty secret of catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 warming is that it makes a massive assumption about the magnitude of water vapour feedbacks that are presumed to magnify CO2's effects by 3-5 times. Those assumptions developed on the basis that they produced the best model fits to the rapid warming of the late 90's, but since then there is mounting evidence and analysis (not to mention the ongoing and glaring predictive failures of those models) to suggest that this figure is more likely in the range of 1-2, which effectively negates the catastrophic scenarios touted. There are also a ton of other wild-assed guesses going into the models about the effects of other historical influences like soot and sulphur from dirty coal burning in the 20th century for which no actual data or means to test assumptions exists, and for which 'data' and magnitude of influence are first assumed then fiddled to try and match climate models to historical temperature data, all while ignoring the most massive and least understood component - oceanic circulation cycles. In effect it amounts to a modern re-hash of Astrology - trying to match observations to an assumed causative factor, without ever proving the strength of that causative link, and while ignoring other strongly correlated factors (like solar cycles, oceanic cycles, even orbital cycles that drive ice ages). This is the same mushy thinking that previously gave the world such scientific wonders as phrenology, homeopathy and religion. IPCC climate models also do not explain why the temperature was rising before CO2 started rising after WW2, nor why the world was at a similar temperature or hotter during the medieval warm period, the roman warm period and the minoan warm period, or why the dark ages cooling or 15-18th century little ice age occurred, or why temperatures have been (on average) gradually falling for the last 1 years since the start of the current inter-glacial period (the holocene). Climatology is a young science that has a very long way to go before we can rely upon the predictions it makes. There are myriad good reasons to cut down on fossil fuel use, but danger from climate change is not in that list. On 28 March 2012 14:28, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Not good. See: > > thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/24/451239/manmade-climate-change-accelerated-in-2001-2010-world-meteorological-organization-reports > > This came to my attention because someone linked a response to > LENR-CANR.org. > > - Jed >
