Sunday, November 29, 2015

more fan mail

As mentioned earlier, Jim Diamond's recent opinion piece in the local newspaper ("Climate change is the world's most pressing issue”) got the usual sort of online comments.

Plus some exciting fan mail. He got some more.  Boy, is he excited!

To: Jim Diamond
From: Ray d'Alonzo
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 04:05:08 -0800
Re: Our Ever-Changing Climate


You might what to take a look at a couple of things that I wrote and a presentation that Dick Lindzen from MIT gave to the House of Commons.  


OG: Here are links to what I could find online

fan mail

Jim Diamond's recent opinion piece in the local newspaper ("Climate change is the world's most pressing issue”) got the usual sort of online comments.

Plus some exciting fan mail.

To: Jim Diamond
From: Daniel W Nebert
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:46:16 -0800

Dear James Diamond,

I found your recent 'Opinion' article in The Oregonian appalling and naïve.  Also, I am disgusted and find it disgraceful that a college chemistry professor can "develop a course for nonscience majors"––in order to feed such Global Warming propaganda, purely of a political-agenda nature, and pretend that it's "science", to a bunch of young minds.  A science teacher should be truthful about science and present only facts.  However, I realize, and have seen (with my own six children), that political indoctination by teachers, from kindergarten through college, has been increasingly on the rise since ~1980. 

My own career includes being author or coauthor of 640+ scientific publications to date, in which I've used The Scientific Method thousands of times.  As a PhD in chemisty, you should learn about this method.

I've also learned sufficiently (from coursework and also from my late son) about the complexity of "Climate Cycles".  As anyone knowledgeable in climatology, meteorology, paleontology and/or geology knows––numerous climate cycles have been taking place for hundreds of thousands of years.  There are more than a dozen cycles that have been most thoroughly identified and characterized:

Glacial Cycles, approximately every 110,000 years, detected in ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica––going back more than 800,000 years.

North African Climate Cycles, occuring every 30,000 to 50,000 years, due to continuous slow changes in orientation of Earth's rotational axis.

Precession Cycles (every ~26,000 years), driven by tidal forces caused by the Sun and Moon. Earth is actually not perfectly spherical, so gravitational pull tugs the axis over time, creating "wobble" cycles.

North Atlantic climate fluctuations ("Bond events"), correlated perhaps with ~1,800-year Lunar Tidal Cycles.

Sixty-Year Climate Cycles. U.S. senior citizens today might recall that the 1930s-40s were warmer than the 1980s-90s.

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations, happening every ~50-70 years.

Interdecadal Pacific Oscillations (15-30 years), distinct from Pacific Decadal Oscillations (8-12 years).

Hale Cycles, representing sunspot activity, occurring every ~11 years.

El Niño Southern Oscillations (every 2-7 years) and the opposite La Niñas, typically lasting 9-12 months, but sometimes extending for years.

Quasi-Biennial Oscillations (~30 months)––along with Arctic Oscillations, North Atlantic Oscillations, and North Pacific Oscillations.

The natural causes contributing to these (more-than-a-dozen) listed climate cycles remain mostly obscure, but include: solar activity (frequency, strength of sun flares); geothermal vents and underwater volcanoes; cosmic ray flux; orbital eccentricity, axial tilt and precession of Earth's orbit (together called "Milankovitch Cycles"); magnetic effects of the Sun and other planets; heat distribution between oceanic and atmospheric systems; and changes in "radiative forcing" (balance between solar radiation energy absorbed by Earth's surfaces and energy radiated back into space).  Furthermore, Earth is closest in distance to the Sun in January and farthest in July, and there is a vast difference between land-water ratios between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

Natural climate cycles can of course be disrupted at any time by a massive volcanic eruption or meteorite impact.  Within the next 100 years, Earth is predicted to enter into another 300-year period of cooling––similar to what happened between the "Medieval Warm Period" (950-1,250 A.D.) and "Little Ice Age" (1550-1850).  Because cycles occur within cycles, one can see how naïve it is, to predict global temperatures with any certainty––even 10 or 20 years from now. 

In fact, think of our local weathermen's forecasts; accuracy even three days in advance may differ by 20 degrees Fahrenheit.  In fact, last evening, the online prediction was that my community would have a temperature of 30 oF or less, from midnight through 8:00 am; turns out the temperatures did not fall below 35 oF in my yard!  Yet, global warming alarmists can pretend to know changes in worldwide temperatures down to as little as 0.10 oF?  That the Earth has remained in remarkable equilibrium, for many thousands of years, seems nothing short of a miracle.

Serious climate changes are well documented.  The earliest Peruvian civilizations (4,000-1,800 BC)––populated with millions of people and preceding the Incan and Aztec empires––perished, in large part, because of severe droughts, many lasting several hundred years.

"Climate" is measured in centuries (with 30-year segments).  Conversely, "weather" is described in days, weeks and months.  If one compares the previous ten centuries with our most recent 100 years, there is no credible evidence for any detectable "man-made global warming"; despite all the media hype and political agenda––the natural cycles described above are scientific facts.

The reason for placing our global-temperature-sensing satellites into orbit in late 1977––is specifically to be on the lookout for future significant changes in worldwide temperatures, and so far no statistically significant changes in temperature have been recorded.  For 30+ years, my late son spearheaded the metadata analysis of concomitant global temperatures recorded by these satellites for the U.S. Government.  Although a staunch Democrat, he knew the difference between scientific FACT (measured data) and PREDICTIONS and OPINIONS (speculations derived from computer-modeling).  He also felt that he could not "speak out" against government policy because of the Hatch Act.

In conclusion, the more one looks into the intricacies of Earth's extraordinarily complex climate system, the more apparent it is how little we really know.


Sorry: I meant to attach [not included - OG] this (Mar 15 2o15) article by Charles Anderson. [link added by OG]

Also, please note this graph below [from a colleague of mine, who also sits on the Nobel Prize Committee], showing that "correlation does not always implicate causation".

Please give this information to all your nonscience students and ask for their "opinions" as to "how CO2 is warming our planet".



Guest commentary "Climate change is the world's most pressing issue"
--> The world climate widget.
  The local paper - The Oregonian - recently printed an article (“Is 'climate change' really the world's most pressing problem?”) by Gordon Fulks, who Gish-galloped through distortion, misrepresentation, and outright scientific error, all attempting to persuade the reader that there is no substance to the easy-to-observe relationship between increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and increased surface temperatures.

Urban dictionary says this about the Gish gallop:
Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bulls&*t in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it. To make matters worse a Gish Gallop will often have one or more 'talking points' that has a tiny core of truth to it, making the person rebutting it spend even more time debunking it in order to explain that, yes, it's not totally false but the Galloper is distorting/misusing/misstating the actual situation. 
This seems the right appellation for Fulks, except that in Fulks’ case, it is very difficult to identify that “tiny core of truth”. His initial statement has a germ of truth in it - "Famed Nobel laureate in physics Richard Feynman".

Fulks does have a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago's Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research. In other settings, Fulks has compared himself to James Hansen, former head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia. He wrote “…The fact that I have the same background in Astrophysics as the Great Global Warming Guru James Hansen, PhD should suggest to them that I might have something intelligent to say…”

Here is the difference: James Hansen has published hundreds of articles on climate science in the peer-review literature. And what of Fulks? Zero. Not a single article on climate science in the peer-reviewed literature. Some expert.

Here are some of Fulks' howlers - I call them "Fulks-tales"
  • “In fact the robust data show no link between man-made CO2 and global temperature.” 
  • “The Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than the Modern Warm Period and had nothing to do with our ancestors pulling their chariots with Hummers.” 
  • “…It soon became apparent that [Jagadish] Shukla had diverted a portion of his $63 million in government contract funds to his family.” [OG- This was apparently gleaned from right wing blogs reverberating through the nutosphere, born from a Pielke, Jr. misinterpretation.] 
  • “One can only hope that Paris will finally mark the unraveling of the vast and greedy climate cartel. The world must move on to far more pressing — and real — problems.” 
Here is Jim Diamond's commentary, with figures not included in the published version.
Note: the published article had minor revisions.

Thanks for the commentary, Jim!
- OnymousGuy