Old Glory Radio

8 responses so far ↓

• Tom Sebourn // Feb 22, 2009 at 11:24 pm

  So the miscalculations started this January. That explains why the stories about loss of sea ice stories before that were just…what? Are you saying that we aren’t loosing sea ice? Bloomberg didn’t say that. Still good news if things aren’t as bad as we thought for the last 50 days or so. It’s nice to know that we are back to the global climate change Arctic ice stories of December and future stories.

• oldgloryradio // Feb 23, 2009 at 7:53 am

  Here is the problem with you Global the earth is doomed guys. Science doesn’t back it up. Even the proponents a few years ago have backtracked. But let’s say you are right for a minute. One little volcano farting into the air once a century makes all the co2 produced for all time nothing more than an afterthought.

  Do you intend to stick a cork into volcano holes?

  I am sorry that the science isn’t there. Despite placing sensors next to heating ducts, things are quite normal as the earth goes. Bring back the Sun god worshipping and sacrifice a virgin or two to deliver us perfect solar sun spot activity.

  I would be happy of course to debate this issue with you on air in your studios and bring the light of day to your listeners. Perhaps a pledge drive for the Forest project. We could talk about the California sized sea ice that they forgot to add into the total.

  Now here is where you go wrong. Conservatives love solar power, we love the idea of getting rid of oil, but for national security reasons, not made up faux Gaia the earth mother religious reasons.

  Drop the mystical and embrace science and the end game is the same. You will have to deal with the leaders of your movement that want us all sitting naked scratching the dirt for acorns.

• Dan Pangburn // Feb 23, 2009 at 8:34 am

  The planet getting warmer is not what climate scientists got wrong it is their perception that added atmospheric carbon dioxide is a significant cause of increased average global temperature that is wrong. Nothing credible says that the planet has not warmed recently (well, except for the last decade) and it is not a theory, it is an observation although there has been some squabbling about the heat island effect. It is misleading, however, to say that recent years are the warmest on record since the ‘record’ that they are referring to starts at the depths of the Little Ice Age. Of course it is warmer now than it was then. There were times prior to the LIA (such as the Medieval Climate Optimum) that it was warmer than it is now.

  Climate scientists got it wrong because they are unaware of the science of Feedback Control. There is no academic requirement for them to learn about Control Theory. With knowledge of Feedback Control it is trivial to prove, using temperature data that is archived in Antarctic ice cores from the last and previous glacial periods, that net positive feedback from temperature does not exist in earth’s climate. Without net positive feedback, the climate models do not predict significant global warming.

• Tom Sebourn // Feb 23, 2009 at 11:04 pm

  So if we cut down all of the trees…we’re cool? No problemo? Volcano bad, coal and oil ok? The argument that a volcano can cause more harm to the planet than man, is like saying that you might get into a traffic accident anyway, so why not drive as fast as you can? I don’t pretend to be a scientist, but your arguments aren’t swaying the public. What do you suggest?

• Tom Sebourn // Feb 23, 2009 at 11:12 pm

  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For control theory in psychology and sociology, see control theory (sociology).

  The concept of the feedback loop to control the dynamic behavior of the system: this is negative feedback, because the sensed value is subtracted from the desired value to create the error signal which is amplified by the controller.Control theory is an interdisciplinary branch of engineering and mathematics, that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems. The desired output of a system is called the reference. When one or more output variables of a system need to follow a certain reference over time, a controller manipulates the inputs to a system to obtain the desired effect on the output of the system.

  I can see why this message isn’t connecting with the general public.

• Dan Pangburn // Feb 24, 2009 at 3:53 pm

  There is no academic requirement for Climate Scientists to learn about the science of Control Theory. It should be called Control Engineering since it is successfully applied in multiple common devices such as automobile cruise control, aircraft autopilots, rocket guidance systems, etc. Control Theory can also be applied to earth’s climate. Accepted temperature data determined from ice core proxies from the last and previous glacial periods show century or longer temperature up trends followed by century or longer down trends and vice versa. Control Theory requires that this could only happen if there is no significant net positive feedback from average global temperature in earth’s climate. Without net positive feedback, the climate models do not predict significant global warming. (Zero feedback results in 1.2°C from doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide per p631 of ch8 of IPCC AR4. This prediction is probably still high because of faulty cloud parameterization etc.). Unless overwhelmed by other factors the expected temperature increase from doubling atmospheric CO2 is less than a degree which would be insignificant.

• Tom Sebourn // Feb 26, 2009 at 11:14 am

  Darn sensors. Had they been working, scientists might have known about this sooner. Scientists Find Bigger than Expected Polar Ice Melt.

  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/25-3

• Dan Pangburn // Feb 27, 2009 at 10:18 am

  That link gets you a typical alarmist’s perception. To get unbiased info on Arctic ice extent go to

  http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  Knowledge of Control Theory is not required to realize that added atmospheric carbon dioxide does not have a significant influence on average global temperature (agt). Paleo temperature and carbon dioxide level were extracted from the Vostok and EPICA ice cores. The Vostok numerical data are available on line at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat for temperature and http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html for carbon dioxide. Google ‘Dan Pangburn global warming’ and select the Middlebury site (usually the first or second hit) to see this ‘official’ data plotted (on the second graph). Notice that, repeatedly during the last and previous glacial periods, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level higher during the temperature down-trend than it had been when the temperature trend was increasing. This proves that, at least then, atmospheric carbon dioxide did not drive agt.

  One of the well known observations in science is that added increments of carbon dioxide when atmospheric carbon dioxide level is higher have less influence on anything than adding the same size increments did when atmospheric carbon dioxide level was lower. Knowing this dictates that added atmospheric carbon dioxide level now has even less influence on agt than it did during the last (and previous) glacial periods when atmospheric carbon dioxide level was lower and did not drive agt. Thus added atmospheric carbon dioxide level does not now and never will cause a significant increase in agt. Doubling the atmospheric carbon dioxide from the pre-industrial-revolution level would not increase the agt more than about a degree C most of which has already taken place. Any action that is taken to reduce human produced carbon dioxide to reduce global warming is a mistake and puts freedom and prosperity at risk.

Leave a Comment