Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Facial, Jul 11, 2014.
and, brucep, you need to work on your attitude
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
this runaway global warming seems to be non-sense and NOT BACKED by scientific research
I've been reading a book by Tim Ball , called " The Deliberate CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE Science , just new , a 2014 publishing ( ISBN# 978-0-9888777-4-0 )
And what do you know about Timothy Ball, eh??? Check this out: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball
of course typical , nothing worse than someone who relies on others to form their so called opinion upon others
what we need to do is read the book
Nope. You NEED to know WHO you are dealing with - AND relying on!! (The guy is a *proven* liar.)
by whom ?
here is Tim Ball's website
if your interested
Of course. Typical , nothing worse than someone who relies on others to foist their so called "opinion" upon others.
no their isn't
what's your uniformed opinion ?
And this is a typical blog entry by the guy. This is not somebody making fun of him, this is the guy's own essay: http://drtimball.com/2014/all-rain-is-acid-rain/
If you think you can figure out what he's trying to argue, try posting a summary here - as far as I can tell, he is blaming the IPCC for the Prime Minister of Canada's poor understanding of maple syrup production factors, and presenting the fact that rain absorbs CO2 and there is a lot of rain as evidence the IPCC doesn't know what it's doing. Along the way he seems to be denying the existence of acid rain problems, or something (what he wrote actually reads as a claim that one of the effects of global warming - the polar vortex wandering south - was the real reason for the maple syrup troubles, not acid rain. But that cannot be his argument, can it?)
All Rain Is Acid Rain by Dr. Tim Ball on August 19, 2014 in Atmosphere,Biology,Data,Government,Political,Theory The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline luggage. Mike Russell Lack of Data Is The Fundamental Problem My first involvement with the Acid Rain scare was indirect, but added to awareness of the limitations of data and understanding of atmospheric and ocean mechanisms. It also heightened awareness of the political nature of environmental science. I knew the extents because of membership in the Canadian Committee on Climate Fluctuation and Man (CCCFM). It was part of the National Museum of Natural Sciences Project on Climate Change in Canada During the Past 20,000 years. The committee was funded jointly by the National Museum of Natural Sciences and Environment Canada. It met yearly for several years, bringing together a wide range of specialists to focus on a region, time period, or area of study. Papers were published in Syllogeus, edited by Dr C.R.Harington of the Paleobiology Division. A review of them underlines how much the IPCC sidelined progress in climatology. My election to Chair of the CCCFM likely caused its demise. In my acceptance speech I urged people not to rush to judgment on the recent anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. I was unaware at the time of the involvement of Environment Canada (EC) in the promotion of the hypothesis and the work of the IPCC. Gordon McBean, was Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM, second highest bureaucrat) at Environment Canada and Chaired the IPCC foundation meeting in Villach Austria in 1985. Within a few months of my election, EC withdrew funding and the Museum could not sustain it alone. One of the last projects was a detailed study of the global impact of the eruption of Mount Tambora, Indonesia in 1815. The conference proceedings were published in C.R.Harington (ed) The Year Without a Summer? World Climate in 1816. 1992, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa. Environment Canada’s actions were part of the suppression of people and data that continues to this day. Dangers of Bureaucrats Doing Research At the one annual conference under my chair, an Environment Canada researcher approached me to talk about a problem with the issue of Acid Rain. His dilemma underscored my argument that bureaucratic researchers are almost automatically compromised. He was so nervous that he wouldn’t talk about it at the museum; instead, we met at the airport coffee shop. He was directed to prove US coal burning plants were causing the Acid Rain causing demise of the Quebec Maple Syrup industry. Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was already, publicly saying they were to blame. The problem was his research showed the decline in Maple Syrup production was not caused by Acid Rain, but two natural cyclical events. The major one was a drought. The other, was due to a period of Meridional flow (the dreaded “polar vortex”) resulting in a very early spring warming that caused the tree to start leafing, followed by leaf destroying “black” frosts. Both events cause “dieback”, that is a loss of leaves. Trees, like all vegetation, have recovery and catch-up mechanisms that drive them to seed production. They will grow new leaves and go through a shortened and reduced production cycle. This includes the amount of sap flowing. His dilemma was how to tell his bosses at Environment Canada that evidence didn’t support the Prime Ministers accusations. He even talked of publishing under an assumed name. I pointed out that he might then be fired because he hadn’t done anything for two years, although that is no guarantee in a bureaucracy. The solution was obvious; he had to retain his scientific integrity and present his evidence. It was not his job to determine what happened to the results. His job was to do thorough, well-documented, research. He was not paid to make political decisions. The report would go up the bureaucratic ladder until somebody, holding a job for political reasons, would put it on a shelf. Later, a joint investigation by three US and three Canadian investigators, confirmed that Acid Rain was not the cause of the decline in Maple Syrup. After climate conditions changed again, yields exceeded previous records. There is no question that Acid Rain occurred in concentrations sufficient to destroy plants. I lived in Sudbury Ontario for a year, with its smoke stack, identified as the source of 10 percent of North American Acid Rain, and saw the effects. Town leaders were proud of the fact NASA chose the region as most like the moon for astronaut training. At that time, the philosophy was ‘the solution to pollution is dilution’, so they built the smokestacks higher to disperse the sulfur further downwind. Ironically, after scrubbers were put on the stacks, reports appeared of reduced tree growth downwind because small amounts of sulfur were a fertilizer enhancing growth. This appears to support Paracelsus’ 16th century observation that the toxicity is in the dosage. Types of Acid Rain And Chemical Variations Water vapor condenses on to particles called condensation nuclei (CN), most of them are clay or salt particles. The CN influences the chemical nature of the liquid water drop created. For example, salt particles change the freezing temperature so the droplet becomes super-cooled and remain liquid below the freezing point. If it is a sulfur particle, the water droplet becomes a mild sulfuric acid droplet and that became the Acid Rain of environmental focus. Most people don’t know that all rain is acid rain, but not because of the CN. Water, whether in the form of water droplets that take an estimated 1 million to form a medium-sized raindrop, absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Droplets have a very high ratio of surface area to volume and absorb CO2 at a known rate. The chemical formula is CO2 + H2O H2CO3, which results in a weak, approximately 10 percent, carbonic acid in chemical equilibrium. How much water is there in the atmosphere and how much does it vary regionally and over time? Two comments give an idea of the lack of accurate information. One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3). At any moment, the atmosphere contains an astounding 37.5 million billion gallons of water, in the invisible vapor phase. This is enough water to cover the entire surface of the Earth (land and ocean) with one inch of rain. Combine these with the extremely poor precipitation data for the entire globe and you have another example of climate science being a modern equivalent of the number of angels on the head of a pin. One-person claims …the approximate rate of washout of carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere via rainwater can be determined from the known ocean evaporation rate and from the known solubility of CO2 in distilled water as a function of temperature and CO2 partial pressure. Fine, but what is the figure? I understand estimates of evaporation are very crude, if not essentially meaningless. In the early atmosphere/ocean computer models they simply assumed a “swamp” approach of 100 percent evaporation. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report says, The spatial resolution of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used in the IPCC assessment is generally not high enough to resolve tropical cyclones, and especially to simulate their intensity. Carol Anne Clayson of Woods Hole explains the difficulties. The air-sea interface “is typically the most turbulent part of the ocean,” Clayson said. A dizzying mix of interrelated factors—waves, winds, water temperature and salinity, bubbles and spray, solar radiation, and others—each adds a layer of complexity that occurs over wide ranges of time (seconds to seasons) and space (millimeters to miles). [See illustration above.] “Getting observations of what’s going on at the air-sea interface is not trivial, especially in extreme conditions such as high winds,” Clayson said. “It’s also difficult to simulate the air-sea interactions, especially in extreme conditions, in laboratory experiments in a wave tank. Current computers don’t have enough computational capacity to incorporate all the processes occurring, on all the spatial and temporal scales involved, to produce realistic simulations.” So we don’t know and can’t do anything with it. IPCC know the limits, but also know few read or understand the science reports. Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes (see Supplementary Material, Figure S8.14) are not well observed. For models to simulate accurately the seasonally varying pattern of precipitation, they must correctly simulate a number of processes (e.g., evapotranspiration, condensation, transport) that are difficult to evaluate at a global scale. How much CO2 is absorbed in the atmosphere by moisture? How much does it vary spatially with changing temperature of the water droplets and raindrops? How much does it vary with changing air temperature and saturation vapor pressure? How much does it vary with wind speed? How do the quantities relate to human additions of CO2? All we can do is ask questions to help the public realize the inadequacy of the data and lack of understanding of the mechanisms behind IPCC claims. - See more at: http://drtimball.com/2014/all-rain-is-acid-rain/#sthash.yGxCOoaF.dpuf
the last sentence is crucial
Yeah but did you read the prequel, The Deliberate CORRUPTION OF TIM BALL?
Garbage in, garbage out. Why not try to figure out how the greenhouse effect works, at the simplest level of analysis anyway? And if you have no interest in the science, why bother to remind the science-literate folks here of the scale of anti-science crankdom? That serves no purpose other than to incite everyone to tell you to get off the gas. :shrug:
always the same thing on this site , don't read the book , but I know better , rely on others opinion
science-literate ONLY which what suites you , and/or can comprehend
but really are you that dumbed down , really ?
Uniforms are overrated. Never liked em. Prefer dressing (and thinking) for myself.
and before CO2 levels rise , the temperature rises first
the book by Tim Ball is so informative that all arguments for global warming and then changed to " climate change " because the Global temperatures have declining , despite CO2 rise
further , ON PAGE 216
SUMMARY of PEER REVIEWED ACTIVITIES
- Control of the peer reviewed process by reviewing each other's work
-Control by having a list of favorable reviewers provided to editors
- Control of peer review by threatening , isolating or even eliminating journal editors
- Control of peer review by serving as editors of a significant climate journal
- Control of peer review by blocking publication of articles that question or reject their " science "
- Control of peer review , by PR campaign to suggest only they , as " working climatologists " had credibility
- Ridiculed journals they considered inferior that published articles they didn't like
and a Phil Jones comment :
" I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will help keep them out somehow ---even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! "
What a pity that runaway global warming cannot (has not?) run all the way back to the climate of mis11 when the arctic was up to 15 degrees C warmer, and the arctic ocean's shores were forrested, and south african homo heidelbergensis grew to over 7 feet tall while feasting on the abundance.
If a runaway takes us that far, it will kill most of the human beings on this planet. Rate is everything - if the rock mass that killed the dinosaurs had hit the earth a ton at a time over a million years, we'd probably be living among dinos now.
All of the good stuff from a warmer planet happens gradually, over tens of thousands of years minimum, as the planet gradually warms. What we are risking now is catastrophe. The question is: what are the odds? How big a risk are we actually taking, for Exxon's short term benefit?
Why haven't you followed up on the links and information given you, that demonstrate Tim Ball to be an incompetent and his writings fraudulent marketing schemes designed to mislead the ignorant and confuse the gullible?
Not this time. This time the CO2 has been boosted in some other way, first, and its warming effect follows.
Actually, it seems that prior climate change has been very rapid, especially, the warming phases.
Look at bog and pond studies of pollen changes. eg: one in wisconsin showed a change from a pine to an oak forest in under a century.
We ain't nowhere near those warming speeds(yet).
Mis11 started much as the holocene with rapid warmth, then a cold snap, then rapid rewarming which then lasted 27,000 years(plus or minus 8). The biom was more verdant and richer then.
Separate names with a comma.