[ RadSafe ] Global Stuff
Karen Street
Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net
Wed Apr 25 00:05:42 CDT 2012
Oops! that web site, sponsored by Heartland Institute, says that climate change is all wrong. Climate depot provides boucoup evidence from that other method of doing science (skip peer review and appeal directly to the public).
Has anyone else read Jonathan Haidt's excellent The Righteous Mind? Apparently the use of exploratory reasoning (look at the issues and try to understand them) isn't very common. Much more common, much, much more, is confirmatory reasoning: have a gut reaction in a fraction of a second, and then use your reasoning to confirm that your initial reaction is correct. That makes science hard, because Nature often produces different rules than the gut.
So science is hard. Finding web sites that agree with the gut, not so much.
> Oh My! 2010 tied for 'hottest' year?! Relax, it is 'purely a political
> statement' -- Even NASA's Hansen admits it is 'not particularly important'
> -- Prof. mocks 'hottest decade' claim as 'a joke'
> http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9435/Oh-My-2010-tied-for-hottest-year-Relax-it
> -is-purely-a-political-statement--Even-NASAs-Hansen-admits-it-is-not-particu
> larly-important--Prof-mocks-hottest-decade-claim-as-a-joke
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Street
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 8:50 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Stuff
>
> I always suggested to people that they not cite Lovelock as what he said did
> not overlap well with scientific consensus. So far as I can tell from the
> article, he is admitting to just that. But I doubt that any in science
> believe that climate consensus will collapse because one analyst who didn't
> participate in the process that begins with peer review admits he was wrong.
>
> Re Earth not warming as fast as had been predicted, there is a range of
> predictions. If Earth is heating at the 0.2°C/decade predicted, then the
> range of expected temperature increases over any particular decade actually
> includes some decades with cooling, because of weather (eg, lots of La
> Ninas). That said, 2010 is the hottest year on record, despite the sun being
> the coolest on record (since satellite measurements began in the 1970s) and
> despite the huge increase in particulates from coal and other fossil fuels
> which cool the Earth, temporarily. So IPCC's prediction, consensus
> predictions, look good; Lovelock's not so much.
>
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created to report scientific
> consensus, but it's a slow process. The most recent set of reports is 5
> years old, based on information that is >6 years old. For more recent
> understanding, you can go to NOAA or the lads in East Anglia.
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 5:03 AM, John R Johnson wrote:
>
>> Brad
>>
>> Thanks. That is closer to my view of reality.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Brad Keck <bradkeck at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> Lovelock has softened his view:
>>>
>>>
>>>
> http://www.huliq.com/3257/climate-scientist-james-lovelock-says-he-was-wrong
> -about-catastrophic-global-warming
>>>
>>> Something approaching the raw global temperature data can be had at NOAA:
>>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
>>>
>>> if you work at it a while :} But it is still always better to plot the
>>> data yourself than just listen to the lads in East Anglia! Also,
> insomnia
>>> just melts away..
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Brad Keck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 1:08 PM, JPreisig at aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> J.R. Johnson,
>>>>
>>>> Is there a reference referred to in the google news item??? I
>>> don't
>>>> know.
>>>> He seems to be an independent researcher. The gentleman has written
>>> books
>>>> on global warming.
>>>> Maybe his data source references are in one of his books???
>>>>
>>>> I suspect global warming data, in general, might be available from
>>>> NASA/Goddard Space Center,
>>>> US NOAA and its weather branches, etc. The British may have similar
>>>> meteorological agencies.
>>>>
>>>> I remember some of the global warming reports coming out of the
>>>> University of East Anglia
>>>> (Britain). A weather/atmospheric/meteorology professor out of Penn
>>> State
>>>> (Dr. Mann) was also the
>>>> source of some of the global warming articles.
>>>>
>>>> I guess a google search on global warming or earth AND temperature
>>>> might be a good source
>>>> of information. See also Wikipedia????
>>>>
>>>> Hope you find what you want. Joe Preisig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In a message dated 4/23/2012 1:56:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>>> idiasjrj at gmail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>> Isthere a reference to data that supports his opinion?
>>>>
>>>> J. R. Johnson
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, <JPreisig at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Radsafe:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: _jpreisig at aol.com_ (mailto:jpreisig at aol.com) .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope you are well. Google news today has a news item about one
>>>>> of the Global Warming gurus
>>>>> (Lovelock???) and describes how he is stepping back from his original
>>>> dire
>>>>> predictions for Earth
>>>>> Global Warming and the Earth's future. Seems temperature data for the
>>>>> Earth is indicating (over
>>>>> the last decade or so) that the Earth isn't getting as toasty/hot as
>>> he
>>>>> had predicted. Please read the news
>>>>> item if you so desire.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was it all just Earth polar motion (Chandler Wobble, Annual
>>>>> Wobble) or other things????
>>>>> Guess we'll see in the near future...
>>>>>
>>>>> Google news today also has a news item about the DARPA (not
>>>>> DAPRA!!!!!) hypersonic
>>>>> plane and recent tests trying to go MACH 20 (MACH 20, Geez, is that
>>>> really
>>>>> necessary; how much acceleration/velocity can a human or payload
>>>>> stand???). The news item
>>>>> addresses how the hypersonic plane/spacecraft failed.
>>>>>
>>>>> And for my friends in Pennsylvania, eastern Pennsylvania has
>>>>> natural gas and western
>>>>> Pennsylvania has coal. I'm sure USA power companies will be using
>>> both
>>>>> resources over the next
>>>>> 20 to 50 years. And when everything else is gone, the USA will still
>>>> have
>>>>> nuclear power and
>>>>> coal. I do remember there are a few nuclear plants in Pennsylvania.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it time for Atmospheric researchers to jump off the global
>>>>> warming bandwagon????
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe if DARPA can lower the MACH number a bit, one of us Health
>>>>> Physicists,
>>>>> Nuclear Engineers, Medical Physicists, Physicists etc. can take a trip
>>> on
>>>>> the hypersonic plane/
>>>>> spacecraft to Mars???!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Have a great week.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Joseph R. (Joe) Preisig
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Karen Street
> Friends Energy Project
> blog http://pathsoflight.us/musing/index.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
--
Best wishes,
Karen Street
Friends Energy Project
blog http://pathsoflight.us/musing/index.php
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list