PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

No more below zero F temperatures at Minneapolis
by pat Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 9:32 PM

Winter ain't happening in Minneapolis this year. There'd need to be at least a half dozen below zero F daily lows to claim winter was here.

Minneapolis hasn't been below zero yet this year.

It's looking like there will be no below zero temperatures for the rest of this month, this year, this decade ...

That's all she wrote.

Abandoned
by pat n Wednesday, Feb. 08, 2006 at 9:35 PM

I've abandoned "Winter not coming".

Irrelevance of Temperature Plots
by Peter K Anderson Monday, Feb. 20, 2006 at 7:04 AM
hartlod@bigpond.com

The 'greenhouse theory' is immediately **REVERSING** the known SCIENCE of the situation, and this WAS known in the THREE FAILED attempts in the 20th Century to have validated the 'greenhouse concepts'. It should have been very clear at least after the THIRD FAILURE. Satellites are NOT, for example, taking a 'temperature reading' of the atmosphere OR the surface, But are 'measuring' the energy of RADIATION presented in the Photons that are escaping the atmospheric Photonic cascade, representing energy that was NOT converted to kinetic energy (expressed as the kinetic velocity of the molecules 'left behind'), and cannot be VALIDLY be regarded as a providing a 'measure of temperature'. "Heat" cannot enter or move through a vacuum and the satellites are in orbit.
See also http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 (with slides also.)

There seems to be a real lack of understanding within a small community of 'climate science' that avoids notice of how irrelevant numerous measures of temperature can be in developing any climate model that is VALID and functional when those measures are made for such small time frames compared to the overall process purported to be under study.

This fetish for 'temperature' plots is not able to validate opinions of 'global warming' due to inadequate statistical methods being employed. One million data points in the last 30 years is only defining a statistically insignificant time-frame of the overall climate oscillation. 100 Million data points in 50, or 100 years, is of no more help in validating either model or opinion.

If one observes an actual curve in too fine a detail, one might think that one is looking at a linear plot. This is the basis of what if happening; the 'global warmers' have taken a little bit of a curve within an oscillation and made it to be a 'styled' relationship that does not notice the actual process. They instead overplay the secondary (short term) oscillations as being of primary import, hence every next day we all need to tolerate more 'doom and gloom' prophesy, or we can all tell the small community if 'climate science' that after 20 years we are no longer listening to their 'fractured tale'.

In relation to 'Global Warming' by numbers, it seems any understanding of the concept of CONVIENIENT NUMERACY is not part of 'climate science' studies. I imagine if they considered such there would not be much of the 'numbers' left to platform upon. What these 'experts' have looked at is the interactions of secondary oscillators, mistaking the importance as their 'numeracy' has exaggerated such and PREDETERMINATION on the part of the 'SCIENTIST' has led to convenient acceptance of such to become factualised assumptions then platformed as 'fact'.

What the 'global greenhouse warmers' still have not done is show HOW CO2 can warm the atmosphere, they have failed THREE Times already and so now simply try to talk as IF they have done so. Citing images of ice melting has been done for decades and is still ALL you hear in the platforming of 'DOOM and WOE'.

To quote from a link I have given often enough:-

["Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time. Instead, they are concentrated into four time intervals."]

["During each of these intervals, many glacial advances and retreats occurred. For example, over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years."]

["If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today."]

***["Our modern climate represents a very short,]***
***[ warm period between glacial advances."] ***

The climate 'waveform' carrying these events into reality does not need to be considered uniformly periodic; it need not be considered a 'pure harmonic form', like a sinusoidal wave might represent in mathematics and appearance.

It will have a base 'carrier wave' with overlaying sub harmonics producing (from interaction with 'secondary' oscillators) an 'interference pattern' that wobbles along the path of the basal form, which is it self produced in the interaction of 'primary' oscillators.

These two sets of oscillators interact, although separated in overall 'time frame' of action, and are sometimes doing so in an 'additive' manner, sometimes in a 'subtractive' manner, as an attempt a description for an 'image' of the 'waveform'.

The logic applied to suggest that we are near a real 'peak' of the basal form is seen in the actions within the mini warming-cooling-warming of the last 100 years. The basal wave would be cresting, 'flattening', else the swings would be more pronounced, either as declines into cold (on a 'down slope') or increases into warmth (on an up slope), within that short period.

The 'gentleness' in what was and is still being observed is the actual resultant interaction brought into reality of the secondary oscillators 'breaking free', as a manner of description, to be observed 'independent' for a short time of their 'bigger siblings'. This is not to be confused with specific regional weather, as seen in the Gulf of Mexico or outside your window.

The concepts applied are NOT trying to determine the exact waveform; even if such was done it would not be known. The observational timescale would simply be too 'long', thousands of years, hundreds at least. Otherwise you cannot readily differentiate secondary from primary actions. 'WE' simply need to realise 'WHERE' in the oscillation 'we are now' to begin to work towards the oscillations 'form'. It is not a 'simple sound' is the climate of this planet.

It seems that indoctrination of belief in a concept, as is tried in relation to 'greenhouse warming' concepts, produces irrational behaviors, with unreasonable aggression in those who consider the 'belief' to be threatened. But little real justification for their belief or any comprehension of the realities beneath the situations our society presents. Oil is no only used for fuel, apart from eating it, Humanity has become near totally reliant on 'fossil' derivatives for everything from hosiery to carpet, cloths to cars, and furniture to homes. Look for the word 'synthetic' and begin to realise. The situation is that ALL the other products derived form fossil oils will STILL be needed, so the diffraction of fossil oils WILL continue, and so there WILL be fossil oil based fuel products, but maybe not in the same volume, which will be supplemented with bio-fuel oil volume and be combustible in present technology engine designs near immediately often with little alteration. 'Kyoto offers the environment nothing'', is the concise form.

Consider the extract from an outline of the 'greenhouse effect':-
-----
[" CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat (outgoing infrared radiation). (Incoming sun rays are in the ultraviolet spectrum.) Without this layer of insulation, the "natural greenhouse effect', temperatures on Earth would be about -17degree Celsius. Thus, increased CO2 in the inner atmosphere (or troposphere, ~6 miles up) is exaggerating the natural greenhouse effect and increasing heat trapped in the troposphere."]
-----
-: then realise that
(1) The first mistake in the 'greenhouse concepts' is that 'HEAT' (the measure of the average KINETIC ENERGY of the atoms molecules of the sample' cannot be trapped, it cannot escape to the Vacuum of space to begin with once it is generated.
This is WHY the 'quoted version' of the 'greenhouse effect' has mentioned that: - ["Over the past several decades the troposphere has actually swollen by several hundred feet due to the warming and thermal expansion of the air."]
-: as the PRESSURE (related to the average KINETIC VELOCITY of the molecules/atoms of the sample) is increasing. Realise that the only constraint OF the atmosphere is GRAVITY.

(2) This is NOT insulation, "Heat", measured on a scale as a 'temperature', is the average kinetic energy of the molecules/atoms of the sample, and is unable to leave the biosphere to open space. The KINETIC VELOCITY of the molecules/atoms comprising the atmosphere is the expression of the KINETIC ENERGY they possess. This can only leave the atmosphere if the MOLECULES/ATOMS actually LEAVE.
The mistake with 'greenhouse science' is to link with attempts to present PHOTONIC REEMITTENCE by these molecules as 'blackbody radiation' then infer a 'temperature' from the 'readings'. However, the energy reemitted as Secondary Photons after interaction of a molecule and incident Photon is infact the realisation of the energy involved in AND released by the interaction as NOT being 'converted to heat', that is increasing the kinetic velocity of the molecule.

At this point the 'greenhouse theory' is immediately **REVERSING** the known SCIENCE of the situation, and this WAS known in the THREE FAILED attempts in the 20th Century to have validated the 'greenhouse concepts'. It should have been very clear at least after the THIRD FAILURE. As such, satellites are NOT taking a temperature reading of the atmosphere OR the surface, these 'measurements' are of RADIATION and the Photons OF this radiation that are escaping the Photonic cascade, representing energy that was NOT converted to kinetic energy, and cannot be VALIDLY regarded as a providing a 'measure of temperature'.

Also note figure 1vs.jpg again in:- http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312

-: and note WHY only energy in the lower third of the UV Spectrum, and also the upper and lower Visible spectrum (consumed by Photosynthesis) becomes surface incident. Note also the H2O is constrained below its ice and condensation altitudes by GRAVITY.

There is a problem, it is just NOT involving any supposed 'greenhouse effect'.
See link http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 .

Lastly, there are still some trying to infer that tose who do not 'believe' in 'greenhouse' suffer from "Cognitive Dissonance", especially whne is raised points the 'few' find impossible to counter with their 'science'.

As the basis of the formation of Cognitive Dissonance in any population, the initial step is to produce 'experts', 'talking heads' whose 'fame' is more by constant mention than ability or deed. These 'experts' produce scenarios of 'danger, doom and woe' if their words are not heeded.

You see the style and platform of imposing nomenclature, names for 'processes' that are 'specialised', used within the 'special area' of knowledge known to the 'experts, in a manner of 'seeming' to be scientific', but are only covering contents of little validatable 'science'. That is why only the 'experts' are platformed to be the ONLY Ones to listen to. Such a label seen about is "Polar Amplification".

The attempt is to try to produce an attitude of a 'closed shop' and only the OPINIONS of these few are platformed as 'relevant'. This returns to the 'history' trailing behind the 'greenhouse concepts', its failures within the arena of SCIENCE and motion into the arena of Politics.

One example is the production of 'Anti Communist' sentiments, which where garnered in the 1950s USA, with the institutionalisation of processes to combat 'dangerous communism and its practitioners'. The internet is good at allowing such activity, hence the number of inconspicuously censored sites where 'unwanted' comment is removed, accompanied by ridicule of the author, as the censorship cannot be justified simply by quotation of the 'belief' system platformed.

Another would be labeling a media stunt as the 'Worlds biggest science conference', when there is little valid SCIENCE presented. Just a lot of 'hoopla'.

Your's
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
Member of the Public, NSW, Australia.
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312