Posted by: graemebird | June 1, 2011

From Whence Comes The Amplification That Starts And Ends “Ice Ages”?

  1. Ice ages is in quotes since we are in an ice age now, and what we are really talking about is what causes glacial periods to be locked in for such long periods of time? The different solar effects due to Malinkovitch cycles seem to some insufficient to explain the changes. So they have been incorrectly putting matters down to CO2-amplification.

    “Graeme, I’m not sure what would persuade you. Science is never about proof…”

    Science is definitely about proof. Science is always about proof. Or do you still defer to Galen, and not realise that the heart is a pump? Do you follow Ptolemy, and say that its an open question whether the earth orbits the sun, or that it could be the other way around?

    Science is in fact the search for proof. And proof is found through convergent evidence in the context of developing competing paradigms in parallel. You cannot persuade me since you are wrong. You have come in on the wrong side of this argument. You are doing rather better on the economics side because you are looking at matters through fresh eyes and are hammering the neoclassical consensus.

    You are perfectly capable of finding out, as I have found out, that the data is rigged. I assure you that this is the case. Its not rigged in subtle and hard to identify ways. So if you choose not to do, what for you would be very little work, and confirm this matter, well thats falling down on your calling.

    The physics of absorption is well established. This is really about the colour of CO2. Its just a gas colour. The question was whether what was found in the lab, translate to certain predictions made for the troposphere, or have those predictions turned out to be wrong? You cannot reinsert in the conclusion to the inference, that which was used to make the inference in the first place.

    The extrapolation of the colour of CO2, having these large effects on temperatures was a single inductive inference. You ought to know that such pieces of armchair thinking are the bread and butter of creativity in science. A good scientist ought to make three or four such inductive inferences before breakfast. A good scientist will also know that most of these examples of armchair thinking will turn out to be wrong, just as this one has.

    Now on the other hand, if you take my paradigm, and start looking at resistance to circulation, right on this very page on your very first diagram you will have evidence to see that I am on the right track, and need no rigged data to reinforce my inductive inference, an inference made straight from the Stefan Boltzmann law.

    Look to the younger Dryas. See the reversal of a warming trend which is held to have happened as a result of Lake Agassiz bursting and cold fresh water landing directly down onto the gulf stream. There we have a 1000 year reversal of the warming trend, until the Gulf Stream started up again, and not merely a redistribution of the available heat. To spread the joules out is to more successfully retain them.

    And this is a very important matter and not to be crowded out by bad science. People have began to use the Gulf Stream for energy generation. This is a worrying trend though the proponents will cause this trend “green”. Buying land for nature corridors is green. Impeding the Gulf Stream is courting disaster.

    Warming and cooling get locked in because colder water is more viscous, and because you get all this ice impeding matters off Hudson Bay. You will see this showing up in the record very clearly if you go looking for it.

    By: graemebird on June 1, 2011
    at 2:09 am

    Reply

LEAVE A REPLY

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Graeme, Ross Gittins’ piece today in the SMH is good and so is the commentary.

    I’m no great fan of his economics writing, a little too tepid for my taste, but at his best he is like a polite jc on speed.

    I do like the way he makes a mockery of bourgeois price theory.

    Well, we do have to be grateful for small mercies, from time to time.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/mouse-is-mightier-than-the-stores-20110531-1feee.html?comments=85#comments

  2. Well you know. Price theory is excellent stuff. But the price system is hurt by inflation and the various forms of phantom supply.

  3. No bourgeois price theory doesn’t make sense. Say’s law, supply and demand, it is all just so much counterfactual, tautological bs.

    The fact is the market is skewed by sellers, intermediaries. They will and do charge whatever price they can get away with. But globalisation is putting the spotlight on that subterfuge and market distortion and now people are empowered and know how to purchase commodities from the cheapest sources, which in Australia means primarily in many instances, and ironically, the US.

  4. Says law is a series of arguments that show why fiscal stimulus is ridiculous. Supply is its own demand. Yes this is tautological, but its also true. However Says law is no defense against phantom supply or fractional reserve banking. Banks conjure phantom supply into existence, and it can go right out of existence also. So fractional reserve makes a mockery of Says law. Say was writing at a time and in a country of very limited bank money creation. He died before the California gold rush. From that time on the continuing introduction of new metal into the banking system led banks to be overconfident and to pyramid up large amounts of phantom supply causing instability.

    But reacting to these dislocations with deficit spending is lunacy.

  5. I don’t believe supply is its own demand. That’s horseshit and I can think of countless examples of why that is so. Aside from the fact that the theory is ethically neutral about the nature of what is being supplied for human betterment.

    Pink clothes for girls. What is driving the demand for this? The girl babies and young children? Their parents? No, of course not. The market has imposed its unilateral decision and value – that girls should be dressed almost exclusively in cacky pink – and the parents who purchase this homogeneous crap and the poor girls who have to wear it because it’s the fashion all suffer from this market distortion and cruel blow to their innately catholic aesthetic sensibility.

  6. Here’s another example: boys who want dolls.

    Of course most if not all parents will not allow their boys to play with or receive as gifts or own or borrow their sisters’ dolls.

    Yet the record shows it is commonplace for very young boys to want to have and play with a doll in the same way as do young girls.

    The market for dolls is thus being artificially constrained – read distorted – by cultural taboos that negate desire and preference and choice making, once again, a mockery of supply and demand theory and the bourgeois “free market”.

  7. And speaking from personal experience, a boy whose parents deny him even one doll, very like the ones his sister has, will be driven to such destructive acts as chopping off the heads of all his sister’s dolls.

    I know this for a fact. And I have never completely forgiven this brother for this cruel and wanton act.

  8. The fundamental problem with Bird Flaps’ counterfactual about biological facts – aside from being leaden and dull – is that he is wrong, and secondly, that Graeme knows, for a fact, that he is wrong.

    La-de-da

    • Bird Flaps, your reliance on and faith in “evidence” is a form of religion as stultifying and undermining to human consciousness and ingenuity as is your obsession with myriad secondary matters that you don’t understand and never will.

      I feel sorry for you.

      My image of you conjures a centipede wrapped up and immobilised with cotton threads that prohibit it from movement. let alone the possibility of thought.

  9. Graeme, I have to say that I never really cared for dolls when I was a child.

    I think manufactured commodified toys are redundant and parents who buy that crap for their offspring and allow it to be strewn over the entire house and on all sit-able surfaces are misguided at best, pathetic if not tragic conformists and losers at worst.

  10. Flapz. How do you think planets are formed, other than from captured comets?

    And supposing Venus is not a captured comet? How do you imagine it stays so hot on its night-time side?

    • Planets are formed from the remnants of gas and dust during the process of solar system creation. A new star forms at the centre of the disk and the left over material forms planets through accretion of particles, then by the gravity of the increasing protoplanet mass.

      Comets and asteroids are what is left over after planetary formation. Venus is not a captured comet.

      The temperature uniformity is due to the very thick troposphere. The large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere together with water vapor and sulfur dioxide create a strong greenhouse effect.

      The atmosphere is in a state of vigorous circulation, circling the planet in just four Earth days. This circulation of trapped heat is why the surface temperature is fairly uniform. A low angle of axial tilt also reduces seasonal temperature variation over the planet.

      • Ridiculous. Now explain how that idiotic creation theory leads to ore-grade deposits.

      • Ore bodies are formed by a variety of geological processes.

        Take iron ore for example:

        Iron ores are overwhelmingly derived from ancient sediments known as banded iron formations. These sediments are composed of iron oxide minerals deposited on the sea floor. Particular environmental conditions are needed to transport enough iron in sea water to form these deposits, such as acidic and oxygen-poor atmospheres within the Proterozoic Era.

        Uranium:

        Uranium deposits are usually sourced from radioactive granites, where certain minerals such as monazite are leached during hydrothermal activity or during circulation of groundwater. The uranium is brought into solution by acidic conditions and is deposited when this acidity is neutralised. Generally this occurs in certain carbon-bearing sediments, within an unconformity in sedimentary strata. The majority of the world’s nuclear power is sourced from uranium in such deposits.

        ITS OBVIOUS THAT ORE GRADE DEPOSITS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE UNDER YOUR IRRATIONAL DUST-ACCRETION THEORY THAT YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR. OBVIOUSLY SUCH A CREATION THEORY WOULD LEAD TO HOMOGENISED ELEMENTS AND NEVER TO ORE GRADE COLLECTIONS.

      • So lets have the evidence for your just accretion theory. And explain how that could lead to ore grade deposits.

  11. Here you go Graeme. One of the crony capitalist shysters at Catallaxy gets his come-uppance:

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/06/02/great-news/

    • Yeah look I would try to listen to Noam every time I could. Like when he would show up on Phillip Adams. On the one hand he has some blood on his hands from back during the communist era. But thats a long time ago now, so you let bygones be bygones. He makes a lot more sense today now that the enemy is shadow government and not communism.

      • Graeme, I think Kevin 11 was referring on that blog thread to the evisceration by THR of right-liberal nutjob potty mark hill via THR’s spot-on character study and deconstruction of the depths to which a big bankers’ and corporate capitalist shill and shyster will descend.

        But seriously, with the right being fronted by such grovelling proto-fascist misogynist, woman-less grubs like Hill, it’s a free kick to the Left. So not complaining.

      • Well we always hope that people will reform and come over to the side of nuance and reason, from their cess-pool of tribalism. But with Mark there would have to be rigorous training in straight logic. If only he understood this? If he knew that this was where he was falling down he could effect a self-cure.

  12. Fantastic. I’ve just got to a bunch of books and CD’s in the mail. The most anticipated being:…… wait for it ……:

    PRINCIPIA METEOROLOGIA

    (The Physics Of Sun Earth Weather).

    It doesn’t take a great many people to do a lot of good science. But if they step on sacred cows they have to raise their own money and they may find themselves working alone. One of these independent scientists …. and one of the best and most eccentric …. is James McCanney. Years ahead of his time, and an authentic genius. But if you spent the last 30 years being 30 years ahead of the pack then there are likely to be some areas where you have stopped listening.

    I say this to warn people that you ought not write the fellow off just because you think he’s wrong on a few points:

    1. He may be right. You may be wrong.

    2. Thats only natural. Few people can be right in all subjects all of the time.

    But anyway he’s a genius. And I just got the core of his lifes-work in the mail for pennies. Wish someone had told me about him earlier and I wouldn’t have had to scratch some of this stuff out for myself in such a comparatively feeble way.

  13. NO YOU CANNOT JUST PASS ON GRUBBY NASA LIES HERE. COMETS ARE NOT SNOWBALLS. COMETS ARE NOT MADE OF ICE. NOR HAS THERE EVER EVER EVER BEEN EVEN A SCRAP OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE.

    DON’T BRING YOUR PIG-IGNORANT PHIL PLAIT SHIT-HEADEDNESS HERE.

    • NO STOP LYING. YOU CANNOT SEND A SENSOR TO WHACK INTO ONE PART OF A MASSIVE ENTITY AND SAY THAT YOU SAW SNOW. NO EVIDENCE FOR SNOW WAS FOUND AT ALL.

      • What about a photograph? If you say you saw snow then how about a fucking polaroid. Its about time everyone realised that NASA is full of shit.

  14. MCCANNEY SAYS THAT A SCIENTIFIC MATTER NEEDS THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION. HIS POSITION IS MORE NUANCED THAN YOU ARE MAKING IT OUT TO BE.

    NO I DON’T SUPPORT ALL JAMES’ POSITIONS. HE’S A GENIUS JUST THE SAME. HE DOESN’T NEED ME TO AGREE WITH EVERY LAST THING HE SAYS TO BE A GENIUS. ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING IN THE LAST 50 YEARS.

    • YOU IDIOT. HE SAYS THAT A SCIENTIFIC CLAIM NEEDS THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION. HE SAYS THAT IF NASA MAKES A CLAIM,THEN OTHERS OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO VERIFY IT. THE JAPANESE, THE EUROPEANS, THE INDIANS …. ALL HAVE HIGH QUALITY PICTURES OF THE MOON. SO HIS CLAIM IS NASA, NOW KNOWN FOR BEING COMPULSIVE LIARS…. OUGHT TO HAVE THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION.

      • There are special mirrors placed at the landing site that lasers can be aimed at.

        YOU IDIOT. THATS HARDLY THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION OF ANYTHIG. YOU DIPSHIT. YOU DIM BULB. YOU BRAINLESS USELESS PIECE OF POO. YOU FUCKING TOOL. YOU BLOCKHEAD.

        SPELL OUT WHAT YOU THINK (IN YOUR TINY TINY MIND)SPECIFICALLY, THAT THESE MIRRORS ARE THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION OF.

        AND LETS NOT DRIFT OFF THE SUBJECT HERE. THE SUBJECT IS THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION. ITS NOT BELIEF. ITS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. THE SUBJECT IS THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION AND NOTHING ELSE.

      • How is third party use of equipment put on the moon by……….

        LET ME GIVE YOU A CLUE. WHAT IS HARDER TO DO? PUT ROVERS ON MARS OR MIRRORS ON THE MOON?

        DO THE RUSSIANS CLAIM TO HAVE PUT MEN ON THE MOON? DO THE RUSSIANS CLAIM TO HAVE MOONROCKS?

        TO ME ONLY THE FIRST MANNED FLIGHT IS SUSPECT. ALL THE OTHERS SEEM AOK. BUT I WAS VERY YOUNG THEN AND HAVEN’T DONE DUE DILIGENCE. AND WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION.

        THE POINT IS WE NEED THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION FOR MANY REASONS. NOT JUST TO VERIFY A SPECIFIC CLAIM. BUT TO KEEP PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS HONEST MORE GENERALLY. WE MUST STOP THEM PLAYNG ROPE-A-DOPE AND HIDING INFORMATION. SO THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION IS IMPORTANT WELL BEYOND ME AND YOU PUTTING UP ODDS ON SPECIFIC CLAIMS.

        NASA HAS BECOME AN INSTITUTION DEDICATED TO HOARDING INFORMATION AND LYING ANY TIME ITS FEELNG DAFFY. THE WORST LIE OF ALL IS THE SNOWBALL CLAIM.

      • I DON’T RETAIN SUCH THINGS TO LONG-TERM MEMORY. YOU CAN EASILY FIND THESE DIFFICULTIES ON THE NET.

      • WELL FUCKING LOOK IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. FUCK YOU ARE A MORON. REVIEW IT. OR ARE YOU TOO FUCKING THICK TO EVEN DO THAT? FUCKING SHIT-FOR-BRAINS.

        TELL ME. WAS THERE WINDOWS ON THE LANDING CAPSULE?

      • THE PROBLEM IS WITH MORONS LIKE YOU WHO THINK YOU CAN HAVE A VALID OPINION ON A SUBJECT WITHOUT LOGIC, REASON OR KNOWLEDGE. THIS IS WHAT THE SKEPTIC MOVEMENT HAS DONE.

      • NO LYING ON THIS SITE. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION. AS I PREDICTED YOU BEGAN LYING AND CLAIMING THAT I HAD MADE SOME OTHER CLAIM.

      • To be a truther or a birther is pretty stupid

        THATS ALREADY GONE OVER THE LYING THRESHOLD. YOU CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE MOLTEN METAL IN ALL THREE BASEMENTS. NOR FOR THE RELATIVELY UNDAMAGED NATURE OF THE TWIN TOWERS BASEMENT. NOR FOR THE SURVIVAL OF PEOPLE ON THE THIRD FLOOR STAIRWELL WHO COULD SEE THE SKY, WHEN THEY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN UNDER MANY METRES OF RUBBLE. NOR HAVE YOU MANAGED TO FIND EVIDENCE FOR AN AMERICAN BIRTH OF THE USURPER. NOR FOR HIS REPATRIATION AFTER GAINING INDONESIAN CITIZENSHIP.NOR CAN YOU SHOW THAT HE DIDN’T APPLY TO COLUMBIA AS A FOREIGN STUDENT.

        IT IS UP TO THE USURPER TO PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY. THIS IS SOMETHING ELSE WEIRD ABOUT SKEPTICS. THEY HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF NORMAL BEHAVIOR. BARRY IS OBVIOUSLY NOT ELIGIBLE. BUT IF HE WERE ELIGIBLE, CLEARLY IT WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE FOR HIM TO FAIL TO PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY BEFORE CONTESTING THE ELECTION. EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THIS IN THEIR OWN LIFE.

        THE OTHER THING ABOUT SKEPTICS IS THEY ARE TOO DUMB TO REALISE THAT THERE MUST BE FURTHER IMPLICATIONS TO THIS. NO FOREIGN NATIONAL COULD GET TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER HIS OWN STEAM. AND NOW WE GET TO THE HEART OF THE SKEPTIC ….. “WHO CARES” IS WHAT HE WOULD BE THINKING AT THIS POINT. SKEPTICS ARE ENDLESSLY NIHILISTIC.

      • Your average person simply has no idea what a terrible terrible movement the skeptics have become. These are people who lie compulsively and all the time.

  15. From here on in I will refer to the Dyson-Harrop satellite as the James McCanney satellite with Dyson-Harrop in brackets. Because its really just a McCanney-esque artificial comet “discharging the solar capacitor” with a transformer inserted in it, then the electricity converted to laser. It might have well been taken straight from James McCanney’s work done in the late 70’s early 80’s.

  16. About bloody time.

    Without gospel music, there would not be Sam Cooke, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Ray Charles and a host of other great Black rhythm and blues musicians. And without these musicians, there would certainly not be rock-and-roll. Given its overarching significance for American popular culture, which after all is its greatest contribution to world civilisation, we can only rejoice over the arrival of “Rejoice and Shout” perhaps the definitive documentary to date on gospel music.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: