From: Larry VictorDate: 15 December 2009 00:47:21 GMTTo: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>Subject: Re: re-4: global warming – science & sources
Richard, I understand your problem, but you MUST provide, somewhere, access to ALL the info your receive. I understand the awesome volume of replies, but you cannot censor this, or you lose your credibility. You might want to categorize your responses, but make access to everything!I sent you a recent email making this distinction.
“Just had a simple physics insight that might clarify issues about temperature changes re global warming.
Warming involves heat input, which can result in temp change, phase changes or both. The exemplar is a pot of ice cold water with much ice floating in it on a stove. As the water heats, the temp doesn’t change until all the ice melts. This may be a real factor in the glacier and ice cap melting today – holding back temp increases. What other phase changes may also be occurring that reduces the temp increase?
Also, there are many processes also underway that result in cooling – such as cloud cover – another phase change example. These mask the fact that the planet is warming, even though the overall temperature may not be increasing as much as it might. It is only in pseudo-scientific discourse that temperature rise is identified with warming. Once the ice is gone and the cloud cover at maximum, then the temperature can begin to climb. This is why the greenhouse gas content is more relevant than temperature. Climate scientists are well aware of this but probably have been trapped into the temperature metaphor by the media and in a naive attempt to communicate with the public.”
See above. It was sent recently, by email.
As to the two graphs. The data at the contemporary end must be tentative, probably the result of extrapolation by the data presenters. The “numbers” may be “correct”, but have not yet had the chance of being “corrected” by data collection and other factors. There are SO MANY different ways of measuring these variables that it takes time to work out the problems.
Richard, I have LONG been a severe critic of establishment science. The issues are very complex. A source for the social/economic/political influence on all professional activity, read Steve Fuller. I was introduced to him serendipitously through his SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY (1988) at a $2.99 sale at Borders. I may never had discovered Fuller if not by this. I have since read most of Fuller, which as for every mind, I have some critiques..
I am now reading THE EDUCATED MIND by Egan Kieran. I am in my 4th library renewal. I can read only a few pages before I have to stop and contemplate. He is shocking my basic assumptions: yet Egan provides a template for me to comprehend my madness. Older books retain relevance. Recency vs Relevancy is a critical issue. Please read this! His views on the “Philosophic’ paradigm may clarify “our” critique of establishment science.
Richard, WHY are you doing as you are doing? PLEASE stop and ask this of yourself !!!!!
Richard, The COSMOS, GAIA, HUMANITY are at stake! Why are the most able to take on this challenge on so competitive?
I am not at all “stable” in my thinking, but I am far from ready to submit to the dictates of others.
Weekly I am shocked by new insights, some internally and some from new information. MY WORLD is undergoing rapid change, most of which I cannot fully comprehend. But, we must quickly learn to do what we can do.
How OFTEN do you have shocking insights? If you have few, please self evaluate.
Truly, THE most critical issue today is how the BEST MIND can be facilitated!!!!!!!
Larry
________