Global warming

Introduce yourself, talk about beer, crocs, headlines, dugongs or Paris Hilton.
Post Reply
ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2087
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by ronje » Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:46 pm

Climate change is an indisputable fact. The symptoms support that.

All the argument is about the cause AND that's where science has let the world down.

The discussion has been hijacked with the result that few people trust the science anymore.

The ratbag green element's doom and gloom rhetoric has been rejected by "quiet" Australians.

Their biggest supporter (the ALP machine) is still in a state of shock and trying to work out how to disentangle themselves from the greens.

Despite being handed a golden opportunity to sort the country out (infrastructure, energy, employment, economic), the Morrison Govt hasn't done anything.

With the ALP still skipping along the yellow brick road hand-in-hand with Di Natale (looking for a turn-off to part ways), they have yet to find one.

The thing to be remembered is that the very same people who managed to get rid of Comrade Turnbull, are all still there (with the exception of Pine and Bishop). ALL of them.

To me, that indicates that the current Govt got in because it promised not go down the green path.

Unfortunately, it didn't say what path it DID want to go down.

And that's where we are currently stuck. Nobody is offering up a direction for Aus.

A pox on both of their houses.


Regards
Ronje

ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2087
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by ronje » Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:22 pm

Ever had a look at a cycle of something?

A tide cycle? A radio frequency cycle? A magnetic cycle?

There are 2 peaks. One being positive and one being negative (in the opposite direction). That's where the peaks occur but the rate of change of amplitude over time is minimum.

There are also 2 nulls where the amplitude is zero and where the cycle is going in the opposite direction.

Guess where the rate of change is greatest?

At the nulls.

Thinking about Milankovich, the 41,000 years represents 1 cycle of obliquity change.

The amount of sun's radiation hitting the earth varies in terms of where the peaks occur in sympathy with the position of the tropics which are both changing.

The Tropic of Capricorn goes from Bundaberg (0 years) to Clairview (20,500 years) and back to Bundaberg (41,000 years).

At the moment the Tropic is at Rockhampton (year 10,250) and travelling north at 11 metres per year at full speed.

As it nears Clairview, it slows down because the cycle is now reversing direction. Now the Tropic is only travelling north at 1 metre per year. Soon it will stop (at year 20,500) and become stationary.

Then head back south towards Bundaberg picking up speed towards 11 metres per year.


At year 30,750 it passes through Rockhampton again (heading south this time) at max speed.

So when are we going to see max rate of change of climate in the 41,000 year cycle?

At cycle years 10,250 and 30,750.

That's when the Tropic will be at Rocky but at 20,500 years apart.

So when do we think that we can expect to see max rate of climate change?

Right about now (2019) and again in about 20,500 years time.

Ditto with the Tropic of Cancer.

I'll put up a little drawing which shows it more clearly.
Regards
Ronje

ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2087
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by ronje » Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:17 am

The most annoying thing about this climate change discussion was/is the claim that "The science is settled" intended to exclude any discussion to the contrary. That's when the mad rush to blame mankind's generation of CO2 started.

The science is far from settled.

A couple of posts ago I used the term exculpatory.

To prove that something is a fact, ALL evidence must be looked at including any evidence that shows that the facts provided are NOT the only explanation.

That type of evidence is called exculpatory.

Failure by a gung-ho police officer to look for exculpatory evidence ( even when told) almost caused the case against Ivan Milat to fail.

Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant (man's relationship with CO2 in this case) that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to present guilt.

The proponents of the CO2 theory only presented inculpatory evidence (favourable to present guilt) and did NOT present exculpatory evidence (favourable to present innocence).

THEN the claim was made that the science was settled which is a load of rubbish.

Milankovich's findings (not just about earth's obliquity changes) clearly needed to be considered publicly and weren't.

"An inconvenient truth" as Al Gore said about inculpatory presentations about CO2.

Milankovich's exculpatory evidence was NOT presented by the scientific community. Only inculpatory evidence was presented.

There may very well be other exculpatory reasons for climate change that the scientists are aware of but won't now present or discuss in this toxic middle ages mentality of intolerance towards free thinking.

To be honest, THAT silence is what has destroyed the reputation of the world's scientific community (in my view).

Look for the diagram of cyclic change wrt rate of change coming soon.
Regards
Ronje

ronje
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 2087
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Global warming

Post by ronje » Thu Aug 29, 2019 6:18 am

Screenshot (134).png
The top screenshot shows where the Tropic of Capricorn will be over the next 41,000 years. Its currently over Rockhampton and heading north at a great rate of knots.
IMG_20190828_0001.jpg
This screenshot is the image of 1 cycle of obliquity change over 41,000 years.

The points A,C and E are those at which the fastest rate of change in position is occurring. A is at Rocky (heading north), B is at Clairview (slowly turning around), C is at Rocky again (heading south), D is near Bundaberg (slowly turning around) and E is back at Rocky (heading north again at a great rate of knots).

The greatest rate of change is at points A,C and E over that 41,000 year period. Rate of change is indicated by the distance along the X (horizontal axis) travelled compared to the distance along the Y (vertical axis) travelled in that same time period.

The greater the slope of the line denoting path travelled indicates rate of change. Mathematical smoke and mirrors shows that the TAN of the angle (slope of the line) shows rate of change. TAN angle is greater at A,C and E. TAN angle is zero at B and D (so long term climate stability at those points on the cycle. Might not be pleasant climate but at least it'll be stable).

The cycle graph only shows what happens to the 2 tropics (Capricorn AND Cancer). They are actually heading towards each other at TWICE the rate of that exhibited by each as they head towards the equator.

So...is it a surprise that the changes being rung in seem to be happening faster? Considering what's happening with the Tropics, it'd be surprising if there wasn't rapid indicator change.

A similar graph can be drawn for ANY place on the earth's surface thus showing areas where the amount of radiation from sun changes as the distance from the sun changes in sympathy with the cycle.

Change in the amount of radiation on the earth's surface at any point will introduce a change in climate at that point (climatic change because it happens for a long period).

What I've pointed out in respect of Milankovitch's cycle of obliquity change is but one of THREE orbital changes going on simultaneously. Orbital eccentricity change introduces a second player and precession change introduces a third player.

I'll settle for looking at one at a time because of the orbital change interactions and the octopus making love to bagpipes analogy.

The 3 changes reinforce or degrade the effects of each other and influence the amount of radiation hitting the earth and forming climate.

ANY of those three cycles introduces climate change. If all three happen to line up at the same time the results can be pretty devastating on climate on the earth's surface.

A classic case of the saying we've all heard before " When the planets align...……".

The cycle diagram depicting rate of change vs position is a simple exercise in mathematics and can apply to ANYTHING involving change of 2 variables. In this case the variables are time (horizontal X axis) and position (vertical Y axis).


The science is settled? In a pig's eye.

The maths isn't even settled but then that's an inconvenient truth...…………. (according to Al Gore).

Here's the link to Milankovitch's 3 cycles for those who want to have a look. There are plenty more.

You guys will make up your own minds about the causes of climate change. I'm just presenting a alternative (exculpatory) explanation which I believe carries more evidence than that presented by Al Gore and some others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GUcn07enz4

Either way, I hope its all over by summer so I can go fishing.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Regards
Ronje

Post Reply

Return to “Barramundi Banter”