Thursday, November 20, 2008

How Barycentric Orbits Influence Climate

The barycentre is the centre of gravity of the solar system, which varies with the positions of the planets, the gas giants in particular. The barycentre is not always inside the sun

The newly appointed [New Zealand] Minister for Climate Change, who strongly espouses the conventional IPCC view and also emissions trading, will be placed in a very invidious position long before the conclusion of this new Parliamentary term, says Dr Jim Sprott, OBE, MSc, PhD, FNZIC, a consulting chemist and forensic scientist of Auckland.

"But he has been warned. The projections of the IPCC are simplistic, superficial, and now proven wrong. The whole issue requires a fresh start, based on the mass of irrefutable data which has been assembled. Certainly New Zealand should not incur any expenditure based on the fallacious IPCC Report. Indeed, New Zealand should take a lead internationally to publicise the barycentric science, demonstrating how it explains the recent finding of low sun-spot activity, the very cold winter in Europe, and thereby destroys the whole `conventional wisdom' of so-called global warming. Here is a real opportunity for New Zealand to lead the world," said Dr Sprott.

In his paper on barycentric science, submitted to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, Dr Sprott writes: It is an axiom of science that if the outcome of an experiment or event does not accord with that predicted by a theory, the theory must be discarded, no matter how attractive it may have appeared initially. That very situation now exists in relation to the projections of world climate as published by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC prediction of increasing concentration of so-called greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere causing atmospheric temperatures to increase, dubbed "Global Warming", seemed to have some merit, and there was widespread acceptance of it. However more recent impeccable data demonstrates that atmospheric temperatures are falling, and in fact have been falling for some years. The postulated connection between atmospheric temperature and atmospheric CO2 has broken down, and therefore the "greenhouse gas" proposition has failed. The disparity between the IPCC prediction and observed data continues to widen, and no amount of rhetoric can alter this. The tests on which IPCC relies now contradict its scenario, and therefore its proposition is discredited.

It also follows, as an axiom, that if there is some other theory which accords with observed data, that proposition must be given serious consideration, especially if the alternate theory also accords with and explains past factual data.

There is such a theory; that propounded by the late Professor Rhodes Fairbridge of Australia and others. Decades of scientific research and observational data, both recent and historical, have gone into this study, as detailed in the meticulous summary published in Australia by Dr Richard Mackey in 2007; "Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth's climate".

It is usually believed that the planets orbit around the sun, but this is not so - the sun and the planets orbit around the centre of mass of the solar system (termed the barycentre) in so-called "barycentric orbits". Sometimes the barycentre is inside the sun, and at other times well away from the sun, depending on the juxtapositions of the planets especially Saturn, Jupiter and Neptune. The orbit path of the sun as the locations of barycentre and planets alter is complex, as demonstrated by Fairbridge. This divergent behavior causes widely varying outputs of energy from the sun on a regular basis, and these variations in the interactions between the sun and the planets have been assessed by various geological and related studies. The variations in energy correlate with uncanny precision with past vagaries of the Earth's climate on a cyclical basis, the periodicity being about 179 years. The correlations with recurring periods of very cold weather, as evidenced by historical data, can only be described as irrefutable.

Some years ago Fairbridge predicted that the next cooling period would commence in about 2006, and would be evident by 2011; and his prediction thus conforms with recent atmospheric temperature data, i.e. the Fairbridge hypothesis conforms with the observed data, and its predictions conform with the outcome. Like it or not, the barycentric orbit explanation for climate supplants the IPCC projections. Anyone who reads Mackey's summary could not fail to come to this conclusion.

So what of the IPPC and their publication; "Climate Change 2007 : Summary for Policymakers"? At first sight an impressive document; however closer study reveals that it comprises no fewer than six "scenarios"; and there are wide variations between the "projections" of the six. Clearly there cannot be more than one correct prediction, so it follows that at least five of the scenarios are wrong. But which five? And if the IPCC is unable to discern between the reliability or otherwise of the six, how can we be expected to have any faith in any one of the six?

The short answer is that we cannot. And that conclusion is completely justified by Fairbridge's research, Mackey's summary of parallel research (109 references); correlation with and explanation of undeniable experimental data which is totally at variance with the multiple IPCC scenarios; and all in accord with the prime data.

To use the vernacular, it is no contest. The much-vaunted IPCC scenarios are patently wrong. The man-made climate change proposition fails. And with it fails the whole panjandrum of carbon trading; the Government's Emission Trading Bill; Mr Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" which does not live up to its title. More to the point - the world's climate will be cold and harsh for decades. And it's started already!

So what effects will this inescapable cold period have on New Zealand? In a word, catastrophe. Space does not permit a detailed assessment of the many adverse effects, but the dire condition of our electricity supply must be mentioned. It simply will not cope. There must be a complete re-evaluation of policy as regards electricity, and a rejection of policies based on the now-discredited IPCC fantasy.

Then there is the matter of so-called sea level change, with claims usually based on apparent rise in sea level at some almost-submerged islands. But this proposition assumes that the shape of the earth is rigid and that changes in apparent sea levels constitute proof of rising water levels. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Earth is not a rigid solid - it is a plastic solid, and its shape is continually altering. A graphic recent example is the upwards lift of northern Canada as this large land mass continues to rebound upwards from downward distortion caused by the huge compression force of the kilometres-thick layer of ice which covered the continent during the last ice age. Distortions of the type in one region cause compensating distortions elsewhere, and it is illogical to ascribe a rise in sea level as being due to an increased volume of water. And this is especially so given the irrefutable research of Professor Morner (Sweden) that no such change is occurring.

Furthermore, the centre of mass of the world's oceans are affected by the location of the barycentre, and as this alters due the planetary effect outlined above so will be sea level appear to alter.

In summary, the projections of the IPCC and simplistic, subjective and proven wrong. The whole issue requires a fresh start, based on the mass of irrefutable data which has been assembled. Certainly New Zealand should not incur massive costs based on the puerile IPCC data, and indeed should take a lead internationally to refute the whole of the "conventional wisdom". Here is a REAL opportunity to "lead the world".


Cold, Hard Facts

Despite record snows and low temperatures around the world last month, a major Al Gore supporter says October was the hottest on record. The only thing being cooked here is not the Earth, but the books. James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and global warming alarmist, is Al Gore's favorite scientist, part of that mythical global warming "consensus" that says we are doomed and man is the culprit. On Nov. 10 he announced that last month was the hottest October on record and we were still doomed.

Dr. Hansen has not only become global warming's Robin to Al Gore's Batman, he has also been a critic of the "deniers," those who dare to insist that the debate is far from over, and that the computer models used can't even predict the past, much less the future. Hansen has said in the past that "heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be 'tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.' " They pay for self-serving studies, and any scientist who disagrees with Gore is obviously on the take.

Christopher Booker, writing in the U.K. Telegraph, reports that Hansen apparently has been spreading disinformation all his own to come up with a conclusion that flies in the face of empirical evidence we can see with our own eyes. Hansen's claim of the hottest October ever came after reports of unseasonal snow and record low temperatures. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever." The Swiss lowlands last month got the most snow for any October since records began. Zurich received 20 centimeters, breaking the record of 14 cm set in 1939. Ocala, Fla., experienced the second-lowest temperature recorded for October since 1850.

Elsewhere in the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th warmest October in 114 years. So how did Hansen claim it was the warmest? Booker writes: "The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running."

As Booker reports, the glaring error was picked up by two intrepid climate bloggers - U.S. meteorologist Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That and Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit. McIntyre is the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the infamous "hockey stick" graph that purported to show Earth's temperature as stable until man started building SUVs, causing a sharp upward spike.

Caught with its pants down, the Goddard Institute started juggling its books. To compensate for the carrying over of the bogus temperature readings, it claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice 30% more extensive than at the same time last year. Ooops. If Dr. Hansen thinks oil company executives should be tried for crimes against humanity for being skeptical about global warming claims and seeking the truth, what should the penalty be for him and his ilk? He is yelling fire in a crowded planet.

The Goddard now says it got the data from another body and didn't have the resources to verify the data. In the computer world, there's a phrase for this - garbage in, garbage out. The institute's figures are one of four data sets used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to come up with its doomsday scenarios.

We took a little, er, heat recently when we wrote that major agencies tracking earth's temperature (including the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the Christy group at the University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems Inc. in California) had reported "the earth cooled 0.7C in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the earth was in 1930." Others, we were told, were claiming it wasn't so. They'd better check their numbers.



Italy and Germany agree that measures to cut greenhouse gases shouldn't weigh on the economy, Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel said at a press conference Tuesday, indicating government support for tough new measures in Europe is waning. Any new European Union decisions on climate change and energy "must be taken in such a way as to not weigh on industry" in Europe, she said at a press conference televised live by Sky Italia.

Italy, Poland and a few other nations in mid-October threatened to veto ambitious new E.U. goals to fight climate change slated to be approved at the end of this year, saying that the measures were expensive. Italy asked for a new assessment of costs, and for more flexibility in their implementation. Germany's public support of Italy's position means that E.U. leaders may find it harder to get the package approved this year, as scheduled.

Merkel said the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 20% in 2020 remains an important goal, but that a "compromise that respects principles" must be found. "Italy and Germany have grown nearer" on energy issues in recent months. Italy and Germany will hold a series of technical meetings to discuss climate change package, she said.



Excerpt from a speech in the House of Lords by the Right Honourable Lord Lawson of Blaby, on 17 November 2008

My Lords, the Minister has given an excellent summary of what we have to discuss here. Let me say just two things. The first is that, as many noble Lords may know, I have taken an interest in this issue for some time. Indeed, I have even written a book on the subject which, I am glad to say, has already been translated into two European languages and three more foreign editions are on the way. It is possible that I have had slightly more influence in that way on affairs than by speaking in this House.

That is not the only reason why I have not spoken previously in this House on the Bill. The other reason is that I felt that it was unbecoming for an unbeliever to take part in a religious service, which is what all this is really about.

Nevertheless, we have the amendments that come back from the Commons to us today. The Bill will go down in history, and future generations will see it, as the most absurd Bill that this House and Parliament as a whole as ever had to examine, and it has now become more absurd with the increase from 60 per cent to 80 per cent. I should like to address as briefly as I can-because I do not propose to speak on any subsequent occasion on this subject- why I think that the Bill is so absurd.

Let us pretend that the planet is warming. We know, of course, that it is not. The figures published each year and, indeed, monthly, by the Met Office or the Hadley Centre, which is a department of the Met Office in association with the climate research unit of the University of East Anglia, show without any doubt that there has been no warming so far this century at all. Some people say that there has been a cooling but, although that has been the slight trend, I think that the margin for error is so great that I would not press that, but there has certainly been no warming.

The majority of climate scientists do not think that if there were a warming, it would be a disaster. Nevertheless, it is possible that warming will resume. The majority of climate scientists believe that warming will resume. I am completely agnostic on that; I do not know. Maybe it will, maybe it will not. The complete standstill this century so far was certainly totally unpredicted by all the elaborate computer models that the scientists use. That is not surprising. The climate is an extremely complex system.

What lies behind this? It was implicit in what the Minister said, although he did not spell it out on this occasion, that by taking this massive step of virtually complete decarbonisation of our economy by 2050 in a mandatory way—something that no other country has done for good reason, because no other country has been so foolish, nor do other countries have the slightest intention of going in this way, but I will come to that in a moment—we in the United Kingdom are giving a global lead that other countries will follow.

To understand that, we have to go back briefly to the G8 meeting last year. At that meeting, Europe, led by Germany and the United Kingdom, sought to isolate the United States in its opposition to binding commitments to cut back carbon dioxide emissions by proposing that the whole of the G8 should agree to a 50 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. I can understand why people are not dying to support anything that President George W Bush supports, but the plan to isolate the United States backfired horribly. Europe was isolated when we got to the G8 summit. The other member countries, Japan, Canada and Russia, all accepted the United States’ position and therefore there was no agreement on a 50 per cent binding commitment to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Fast forward from that, what has happened? Far from making any headway in persuading the rest of the world, even Europe is now backing off.

I remind the Minister of the original plan, the unilateral European cut. We are committing ourselves to a unilateral cut really, irrespective of what any other country does. After all, we account for less than 2 per cent of total carbon dioxide emissions and that is falling. Therefore, it makes sense only if we can persuade the rest of the world to go along with this.

Even our supporters in Europe are busy backing off. The unilateral cut of 20 per cent by 2020, agreed to by the European Union—with a little teaser that, if the rest of the world joined in, we would go up to 30 per cent—has been completely abandoned. It was never a binding commitment because you can bind only individual member countries and the individual countries of the union had not agreed—we had but the others had not—to go along with their share in the 20 per cent cut. The seven accession states of central and eastern Europe, plus Italy, have now said that there is definitely no way that they are going to go along with this. The European Union has agreed that this should be looked at again. Nothing will happen. It can only be agreed unanimously and will be looked at again in December this year, after the Poznan meeting, which I hope the Minister will grace with his presence. It will be an educational event for him.

Not only have those countries said that they will not go along with it, but Germany has always had a slightly equivocal position, because, in addition to ostensibly being very keen on this policy, it subsidises its coal industry more than the rest of the European Union put together. Indeed that is contrary to European Union law and it has to secure a waiver from European law to enable it do that, for which it fights to the death, and successfully so far. However, the German Government, have said that energy-intensive sectors must be exempted from the European emissions trading system. Indeed, an official government spokesman said only the other day that we have got to prevent companies being threatened by climate protection requirements. That makes nonsense of the whole policy. If Germany is saying that, the others will go the same way. Therefore, we are in the position of being completely on our own.

More here

Greenies may bring an end to flushing toilets

Their hatred of dams is causing water shortages in many places

As the world celebrates World Toilet Day today, sanitation experts have called for the end of the flushing dunny to save water and provide fertilizer for crops. Leading health advocates have called for the use of "dry" toilets which separate urine from faeces and remove the need to flush.

Speaking at the recent World Toilet Summit in Macau, World Toilet Organisation founder Jack Sims said the concept of the flushing toilet was unsustainable. Mr Sims said a culture where people flushed their loos but disregarded the thousands of litres of wasted drinking water each year was one of sanitation's greatest challenges. "This 'flush and forget' attitude creates a new problem which we have to revisit," he said.

There have already been calls by Australian experts to reduce the amount of water wasted through toilet flushing with a proposed new toilet tax. Adelaide University's Water Management Professor Mike Young said the tax would encourage people to take shorter showers, recycle washing machine water or connect rainwater tanks to internal plumbing. "Some people may go as far as not flushing their toilet as often, as the less sewage you produce the less the rate you pay," Professor Young said.


Southeast Queensland deluge smashes rainfall records

We were repeatedly told by the Warmists that the previous drought conditions were proof of global warming so I guess this proves global cooling

Rainfall records have been smashed by last night's storm, as unprecedented falls deluged parts of southeast Queensland overnight. Forecaster Gordon Banks said monthly and daily rainfall records would have been "pretty much smashed" in certain areas but the true extent would not be known until all figures had been received after 9am. Mr Banks said Amberley recorded 157mm overnight, smashing the previous November daily high recorded in 1981 of 72mm. Brisbane's highest daily falls of 170mm were also recorded in 1981. He said the highest rainfalls overnight were recorded at Tallegalla, near Rosewood west of Ipswich, with 243mm - 222mm of which fell in just three hours between 9pm and midnight. Rosewood recorded 216mm.

Mr Banks said the storm cluster formed when a trough, that had been moving across southern Queensland in the past few days, combined with a very sharp upper trough near Toowoomba. "It was in just the right location to give it a huge amount of assistance in developing further, and as a result those thunderstorms became organised into a little low pressure system near the surface, which then moved east and off the coast in the early hours of the morning," he said. Mr Banks said further showers and storms would develop this afternoon, though they were unlikely to be as strong as last night's, with more rain on Saturday and into next week.

He said Brisbane was on track to recording one of its wettest Novembers - there had been more than 200mm so far, with the record standing at 413mm. "Looking forward we're actually seeing on the modelling at the moment that the monsoon trough tracks south - the first time we've seen it this summer, tracks south across Queensland next week and could bring some significant rainfall to other parts of the state and also some further showers and storms around the south-east.



For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: