|
Parent Article: Should you trust the NWS predictions? |
|
There is no process of 'Polar Amplification' evident. |
by Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
Hartlod (nospam) bigpond.com (verified) |
Current rating: 0
19 Mar 2006
Modified: 12:37:54 AM |
The contrivance of an 'imposing name', "Polar Amplification", seems to be made with little regard to the 'Polar Regions' NOT 'reacting first', but are in FACT acting in turn and are LAST to show the effects of warming that began ~15,000 years ago when the snow cover began to move back from the edge of what is now just north of the State of Texas. The Ice and Snow are gone from that region, but the warming cycle still continues.
It is NOT POSSIBLE to VALIDLY produce a trend from only a few decades data, and so plots of 'temperature' and the NUMBERS incorporated are only showing a 'tide returning', NOT 'unnatural warming'. There is NO valid reason to run from the 'sight' calling "Doom and Woe' is upon you all!"
There seems some that still avoid notice of how irrelevant numerous measures of temperature can be in developing any climate model that is VALID and functional when those measures are made for such small time frames compared to the overall process purported to be under study.
These 'temperature' plots are not able to validate opinions of 'global warming' due to inadequate statistical methods being employed. One million data points in the last 30 years is only defining a statistically insignificant time-frame of the overall climate oscillation. 100 Million data points in 50, 100 or 200 years, is of no more help in validating either model or opinion.
It is very simply really, with relation to global climate alterations, there is no trend viable from only '15 years' of 'time', there is no trend viable from the past 150 years or 400 years, and no matter how many data points you place into that period, you will still not get a trend. This is known of statistical process, often ignored within the opinion and inference proffered in regard to 'greenhouse climate change'.
There is also the motion of human population across the surface in line with population growth. The alteration of the surface associated with this increase in population has led to alterations of what would be 'pleasant green terrain' to become covered to various densities in coverage of concrete and asphalt, with the increase in surface region of concrete and asphalt leading to the small increase in average SURFACE temperatures observed as 0.6 degrees C. to date.
If you look at the plot of SURFACE temperature "Figure 1â you will notice the trended âshapeâ linked to plots relating to HUMAN POPULATION for this period.
I again provide the most relevant plots. The rise in average surface temperature (as above) is in tandem with rematerialing produced by the rise in population seen in "Figure 2, Human population growth/redistribution (U.N.)" and total growth in Figure 3.
Greater definition of population rise and redistribution is seen, with consideration of geographic redistribution of Human population seen in figure 4, as detailing geographical population density, which can relate where future sprawl will proceed.
The trend of Human Population redistribution will continue to see sprawl over presently existing 'green' regions, like the Amazonian basin. Sprawl will continue into those presently less densely occupied regions, taking the âbest places first. Then population growth will âfill inâ the gaps to produce a âunified human sprawl surface materialâ.
ď§ This âsprawlâ trend, along with its linked interactions with turbulence and weather patterning, is produced from Surface kinetic energy induction rate and distribution alterations. These alterations, these redistributions, produced by âsprawlâ surface rematerialing will be producing further changes to weather and regional 'climates'.
It is important to notice this as it is the REDISTRIBUTION and ALTERATION of kinetic energy induction by the planetary surface that is producing alterations to weather patterning seen in events associated with, rainfall, floods, snow, etc. All these events are driven by turbulence produced by Conduction and Convection of kinetic energy.
There is again, to restate what needs to be realised rapidly, no possibility in SCIENCE for a 'greenhouse effect' to even be produced by the materials involved. Such 'greenhouse concepts' would involve behaviors the actual materials do not posses, these properties outlined as 'greenhouse behavior' within the âgreenhouse concepts.
It is that few if any of the labeled âclimate expertsâ, the supposed 'relevant scientists' often presenting âdoom and woeâ, can actually place our âpresentâ into the actual known climate oscillation. How then can they be at all referenced as producing âfuture scenariosâ of âhuman induced âclimate woesâ? Effectively they are 'lost' and if we had heeded these âclimate expertsâ just 30 years ago, today the poles would be blackened to counter the âGlobal Cooling scareâ of the 1970âs.
ď§ Observations are not so much of âclimate changeâ but of âredistribution of turbulenceâ induced by alterations to the planetary surface. Humanity IS making these alterations and is doing so unheeding of the effect our constructions are having on the distribution and rate of kinetic energy inductions CONDUCTED to the atmosphere/ocean and transported as CONVECTION.
Climate alteration is a process of thousands of years, not tens or even hundreds. Notice the irregular periodicity of those Periods that contain multiple glacial events (above), where ice ebbs and flows across the surface (figure 5).
These total periods are within the 'troughs' of a very LONG and IRREGULAR oscillation. SO the 'blocks of time' in figure 5 represent the placement of 'troughs' within the overall Planetary Climate oscillation.
Within these 'troughs' occurs an EVIDENCED secondary set of oscillations, producing the fall and rise, the ebb and flow' of ICE & SNOW across the surface. ALL of this activity is WITHIN the OVERALL 'trough' of the LONG term irregularly periodic oscillation.
Within these 'short and ice prone' Periods, Million of years are encompassed; the present PERIOD is only TWO MILLION years into its progression.
Are we to listen to the book selling âclimate prophetsâ for more MILLIONS of years yet?
Are we to fund âclimate prophetsâ in their continuance with BILLIONS of dollars for the MILLIONS of years left in this cycle?
I do not hope so!
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod (at) bigpond.com |
See also:
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
|
