[ RadSafe ] Global Stuff

Wed Apr 25 19:53:58 CDT 2012

Brian, geez, it was in the news. And I live in the same town as Muller, so perhaps we locals notice this more. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/richard-muller/8682/

Er, The Telegraph? Christopher Booker? 

> He then accepted Koch money for the explicit purpose of finding problems
> with the data used by climatologists around the world???????
> 
> Wow! Show me the proof of your political statement!  I was taking you
> seriously until you wrote the above.
> 
> Speaking of money
> 
> A writer for the U.K. Telegraph wrote
> 
> None of the lobbying has been more telling than a statement issued by 259
> investment organisations, controlling ‘collective assets totalling over $15
> trillion’ — including major banks, insurance companies and pension funds.
> These are the bodies calling most stridently for “government action on
> climate change”, because they are the ones who hope to make vast sums of
> money out of it,” wrote Christopher Booker. “They are desperate for a treaty
> of the type they failed to get at Copenhagen — even more so since the
> collapse of the US cap and trade bill — because they see their chance of
> turning global warming into the most lucrative fruit machine in history
> dwindling by the month.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8165189/Ther
> e-are-black-days-ahead-for-the-carbon-industry.html
> 
> As for climate data
> 
> Last year, Phil Jones, one of the foremost proponents of man-made global
> warming, admitted there has been no global warming since 1995
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishm
> ent-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
> 
> 
> and a few days ago one of the Guru of man-made global warming, climate
> scientist  Lovelock, admitted that he made a mistake.  
> 
> 		“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We
> thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine
> included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock
> said.
> 		“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much
> really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world
> now,” he said.
> 		“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium.
> Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost
> constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no
> question about that,” he added.
> Bottom Line: For the past 15 years man has increased CO2 significantly, but
> the global temperatures have remained approximately constant.  Therefore,
> all the models that predicted man-made global warming if there is a
> significant increase in man-made CO2 are wrong.   
> 
> I
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Street
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 9:42 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Stuff
> 
> Rich Muller embarrassed himself by making exactly some of these claims in a
> very public way before checking. He then accepted Koch money for the
> explicit purpose of finding problems with the data used by climatologists
> around the world. Here are the findings of his group:
> http://berkeleyearth.org/
> 
> Bottom line: the data used by climatologists are just fine.
> 
>> Hi Group:
>> 
>> Quite a lively discussion! I wanted to throw my 2 cents in.  The global
>> temperature is quite sensitive to a number of factors including dust
>> shrouding from volcanic explosions. There was a the significant global
>> temperature drop caused by Krakatoa in the late 19th Century which
> amounted
>> to an average 1 degree C drop for several years. "Average global
>> temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius in the year following
>> the eruption. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years and
>> temperatures did not return to normal until 1888." From:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
>> 
>> I remember the early portions of the climate debate being rather sane
> until
>> it became a political debate, and then there was "Fact" with no
> discussion.
>> As a geologist, I hate having "facts" crammed down my throat before I have
>> a chance to look at the data. Being a geologist, it is impossible to
>> imagine an Earth that does not have very significant changes in climate on
>> a regular or irregular basis.
>> 
>> Dan ii
>> 
>> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
>> 108 Sherwood Blvd
>> Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
>> +1-505-672-2014 (Home – New Mexico)
>> +1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
>> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Karen Street
> <Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net>wrote:
>> 
>>> 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