Global Warming?
With the new president elect naming Steven Chu as his person in charge of Energy considerations, we have a new game in town. Chu comes equipped with a bias towards the consensus approach to global warming issues meaning that he considers it is a forgone conclusion that global warming is a real event. There are many scientists who have taken the position that the issue is not settled and that further study is required before we commit this nation to a misguided path. This is not to say that pollution is not a problem, the two issues can be dealt with pretty much independently.
To consider global warming clearly, one must examine historical weather records and provide evidence that the weather models used to predict the future weather can reasonably well replicate the historical data. Models that I have run, provided by the University of Edinborough, have not replicated recorded history very well at all. Evidence from the Australians indicate that the sunspot activity is at a low ebb and has not correlated with the 11 year common cycle. Since the sun is the source of our energy and historical data has shown a strong correlation between sunspot inactivity and cooling cycles, it is reasonable to infer that we are entering a cooling not warming period. Alternative evidence of another sort is presented by the fact that the Arctic ice pack has grown substantially this year after years of recession. A companion fact is that a sailor attempting a Northwest Passage because of the receded ice pack has been trapped in the ice. Satellite data has not demonstrated the warming trend created by the land based observatories thereby bringing into question the validity of terrestrial measurements.
Another note on consensus science is that fact that the consensus was developed by a group of perhaps 50 scientists whereas the consensus is opposed by in excess of 30,000 scientists who believe that the issue is not clear.
My hope is that Chu is scientist enough to realize that the position he will hold carries an enormous burden to be correct in it's judgment. If not, he can be placing the US in a position where stupendous capital will be squandered at a time when it cannot afford to be all thing to all people.
To consider global warming clearly, one must examine historical weather records and provide evidence that the weather models used to predict the future weather can reasonably well replicate the historical data. Models that I have run, provided by the University of Edinborough, have not replicated recorded history very well at all. Evidence from the Australians indicate that the sunspot activity is at a low ebb and has not correlated with the 11 year common cycle. Since the sun is the source of our energy and historical data has shown a strong correlation between sunspot inactivity and cooling cycles, it is reasonable to infer that we are entering a cooling not warming period. Alternative evidence of another sort is presented by the fact that the Arctic ice pack has grown substantially this year after years of recession. A companion fact is that a sailor attempting a Northwest Passage because of the receded ice pack has been trapped in the ice. Satellite data has not demonstrated the warming trend created by the land based observatories thereby bringing into question the validity of terrestrial measurements.
Another note on consensus science is that fact that the consensus was developed by a group of perhaps 50 scientists whereas the consensus is opposed by in excess of 30,000 scientists who believe that the issue is not clear.
My hope is that Chu is scientist enough to realize that the position he will hold carries an enormous burden to be correct in it's judgment. If not, he can be placing the US in a position where stupendous capital will be squandered at a time when it cannot afford to be all thing to all people.
posted by retiredphysicist at 12:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home