I can’t promise to get back into blogging in the same way as before, but my absence does bear an explanation. It is a case of ‘what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger’. Oftentimes you have to take a few steps backwards before you can start to move forward again.
A journey of self-realisation can be a long one, and all the time you are trying to fulfill the expectations of others while trying to understand who you are and how you fit in. You have a job that seems to be everything you aspire to and a boss that everyone reveres, but it feels as if you are swimming in a current that you fight no matter what direction you chose to turn. You’re a fighter, not one who can sit still. Your response to stress is ‘a change is a good as a rest’ so blogging fills your evenings as a way to switch off after pressured days. Continue reading
While watching an old favourite last night, it occurred to me that, with small changes, one scene suited a modern take:
Man in Suit: Sir, your files say you’ve worked hard to align your business with our new global principles. Do you feel your business is now sustainable? Continue reading
Posted by Peter Morcombe, April 2014
“Climate Science” is a strange discipline that makes all kinds of claims that lack any valid mathematical basis. For example, the Arrhenius hypothesis:
“The selective absorption of the atmosphere is……………..not exerted by the chief mass of the air, but in a high degree by aqueous vapor and carbonic acid, which are present in the air in small quantities.”
I write about “Climate Science” because it is used to justify a political agenda that aims to “mitigate” CO2 regardless of negative impacts on billions of people. Even though most “Climate Scientists” get their pay checks from governments they are reluctant to engage with members of the public who express doubt about the need to reduce the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.
Before making a post I reach out to experts in the field. For example, Tom Peterson (GHCN), Albert Klein Tank (KNMI), Richard Alley (Penn State) and several scientists at the DMI helped with my posts on Greenland (here and here). When I wrote about the Unified Theory of Climate (here and here) Ned Nikolov provided many helpful comments. Scott Denning took an interest in my doubts about the Arrhenius theory (here and here). I think of these folks as “Good Sports” who don’t get offended when their ideas are challenged. They behave as real scientists should.
I was building a model of planetary atmospheres using FEA (Finite Element Analysis) when I came across this letter in “Nature”:
http://faculty.washington.edu/dcatling/Robinson2014_0.1bar_Tropopause.pdf Continue reading
An international team of astronomers has used telescopes at seven locations in South America to make a surprise discovery in the outer Solar System. h/t to Spaceweather.com
The announcement today was of the discovery of rings around the asteroid Chariklo is a surprise and it joins four other much larger bodies (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) in the solar system known to have rings.
Posted on behalf of Peter Morcombe
Consensus climate scientists contend that the GHE (Greenhouse Effect) amounts to 33oC. My definition of the GHE is the change in the average temperature of a planetary body that can be attributed to its atmosphere. In an earlier post the theories of respectable climate scientists such as Scott Denning were compared to the theories mavericks such as Nikolov & Zeller.
The two sides agree that Earth’s average temperature is ~288 Kelvin. However they can’t agree about the temperature of an airless Earth, so one says the GHE is 33 Kelvin while the other says 134 Kelvin. Both parties apply the same principles of physics so how can they arrive at such different answers? The explanation lies in the assumptions that they made in an attempt to simplify their analysis. Continue reading
On the ‘About’ thread new commenter Wyss Yim said:
An important key to understanding UK floods is what really drives the North Atlantic Oscillation. Natural or human-induced changes? For natural drivers we need to include submarine volcanic activity for switching on hot seawater. For example, the El Hierro submarine eruption off the Canary Archipelago from October 2011 to March 2012. See my article in Imperial Engineer Autumn 2013 issue.
Here’s the article written by him:
His hypothesis is:
Because sub-aerial volcanic eruptions and submarine volcanic eruptions are responsible for temperature, pressure and humidity changes, they may be important as triggers for weather-related events or patterns within the North Atlantic Basin.
It’s not unusual to be reading a book quite unrelated to weather, climate, politics or anything to do with to global warming, when a little light goes on in the back of your brain and you think ‘oh – that’s relevant to the CAGW debate’.
It happened again today. Continue reading
This news just in…
After harsh criticism of its seasonal forecasts, and faced with further government cutbacks, the Met Office has developed an inexpensive new forecasting method. Continue reading