Articles Tagged "Cause & Effect"
Sorted by: Date Posted
Sunday, February 19th 2012, 9:23 AM EST
In a recent article from National Geographic by Jason Major headed "Venus Spinning Slower Than Thought—Scientists Stumped", he mentioned the following..
Planet lovers take note: Venus is spinning even slower than astronomers thought, according to new data from a European space probe.
In the early 1990s scientists with NASA's Magellan mission calculated that a single rotation of Venus takes 243.015 Earth days, based on the speed of surface features passing beneath the orbiting spacecraft.
But scientists now mapping Venus's surface with the European Space Agency's Venus Express orbiter were surprised to find the same features up to 12.4 miles (20 kilometers) from where they were expected to be, based on the previous measurements.
According to the new data, Venus is rotating 6.5 minutes slower than it was 16 years ago, a result that's been found to correlate with long-term radar observations taken from Earth.
Monday, January 30th 2012, 1:34 PM EST
The following article from Richard Black reports that Volcanic Activity and sea temperature changes were responsible for the "Little Ice Age", I can't help but think this is a reply to the Mail On Sunday article from David Rose: Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about.
This opposing view from the BBC is yet another example of "cause & effect" being reversed to fit in with the spurious results of "man made climate change".
Richard paints a picture that during times of low solar activity, there is what can only be described as a "coincidental" higher then average number of volcanic eruptions that account for the changes in the Earths climate.
In May 2009, and with the help of Piers Corbyn, I posted an article at SC25.com that went into this aspect to give a credible explanation as to why there is an increase in Volcanic Activity during times of low solar activity.
I hope one day soon, that Richard Black, the BBC, Met Office and and all those who think of the coincidental volcanic increases during times of low solar activity come to their senses and use "cause and effect" the right way around to explain how changes in the world temperature are the results of Higher and Lower solar activity, and not through the spurious results of "man made climate change"
Friday, January 6th 2012, 6:15 AM EST
The following Met Office report
concludes that the current stormy weather in the UK and Northern Europe is the result of....... Over the past few weeks the jet stream has occasionally been particularly strong and some of the low pressure systems have interacted with that as they have tracked over the Atlantic, boosting their strength
.....in other words, the effect is the cause. It is a public scandal that the Met Office dismiss the interaction from the predictable long range Solar Wind influences, as per the services of WeatherAction and Piers Corbyn to justify their position.
For those of you who follow the WeatherAction reports you must have asked yourself this question:
"Why do the Met Office ignore the predictable changes from the Sun on the Earth when they could improve their forecast and information service".
The reason why the Met office use the effect rather then the cause on climate is that it fits in with their position on increases of "man made Co2" and climate change. There is scientific evidence that shows an increase in Co2 is the result of a warmer world and not the other way around. If the Met Office used cause and effect the right way around regarding the weather and "man made Co2, the entire industry supporting this hoax would collapse!...GR
So far this winter the UK has seen some very strong winds associated with a series of Atlantic storms. This has included some near-record strength gusts of wind in places, with Scotland particularly badly affected.
On 8 December a gust of 165mph was recorded at Cairngorm Summit (1245m above sea level) during the first of the winter storms – that gust was just 8mph off the strongest ever recorded in the UK (set at the same spot in 1986). Even at low level there were strong winds, with 105mph at Tulloch Bridge in Highland.
Sunday, November 27th 2011, 8:39 AM EST
I came across a Met Office news release the other day entitled Leading in the science of risk, the essence of this report was that one of their team (a leading Met Office scientist no less) had been awarded a prize for his achievement in risk management. This award was for being able to understand the behavior of the "jet stream" when there is a shift. I can assure you I nearly fell over on reading this, apparently when the "jet stream" changes its location there is an increase in rain over Europe.
So reading between the lines, this guy (Dr Adam Scaife) sees the alteration of the Jet Stream and then comes up with a warning system for Europe. If I only knew they gave out awards for coming up with that sort of information I would have got onto the phone to Piers Corbyn, but alas as he says the effect of "man made" co2 is bunk, the Met Office and those who support "man made" climate change would not and never will give him anything but a cold shoulder.
Those of you who follow Piers Corbyn would know his work concerns not only when there is a high chance of jet stream change, he then uses a "look back" to time periods for a repeat occurrence of similar weather patterns, and is about right in his forecasting conclusions, be it in Europe or as we have seen many times before from other locations in the world. It was only last year, Piers informed us when the Moscow heatwave and Pakistan floods would start and end using his method of "look back"
Friday, October 21st 2011, 6:55 AM EDT
On behalf of the skeptics (sceptics) and "Climate Realists", but not deniars, we would like to thank Professor Richard A. Muller for the work he has shown at the Berkeley Climate Data Project. He has now proved that during the past 50 years "Man Made co2" is also the cause of the Sun being more active.
Wednesday, August 10th 2011, 5:23 AM EDT
To all federal MP's, reputable journalists, friends:
Professor Murry Salby's lecture recorded by the Sydney Institute confirms again that global CO2 levels are a result of temperature, not a cause. Claims by Gillard-Brown-Combet-Milne-Plibersek-Wong are lies*.http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/
The Galileo Movement last month provided two short pages of Basic Facts on carbon dioxide (CO2):http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/freedom1-CO2.pdf pages 1 & 2
Salby's work reinforces this summary. The material though has been known by scientists for decades.
Examining the Gillard-Brown message below reveals why Australians comprehensively reject Julia Gillard. She has fabricated a situation that is irretrievable.
Measurements of global CO2 levels used by the UN reveal that CO2 levels are a result of temperature, not a cause. CO2 does not drive temperature. Temperature determines CO2 levels. Yet the government and Greens tells us the opposite. Saying CO2 drives temperature is the biggest … lie.
Saturday, June 11th 2011, 7:57 AM EDT
We often hear strong opinions in the media about climate change. People cast themselves as "believers" or "sceptics" (although I prefer the term "deniers") -- often without a clear understanding of the evidence upon which scientists base their interpretations of how the climate is changing. As a scientist who is using ice core data to study climate change, I would like to explain this fundamental research technique that underlies our understanding of our modern climate. This is part of a larger body of research that provides a detailed context for understanding the climate changes that we are seeing and experiencing today.
The research in The Guardian headed as Ice cores: archives of past climate - How do ice cores provide glimpses into past climate just goes to show how bad things have become in climate science. There is PROOF that co2 FOLLOWS warming and yet this article is all about how CO2 drives climate, i.e. the "cause" has "become" the effect!!
Click source to read in FULL, and shame on The Guardian for supporting this view.
BTW: WHY IS IT OK TO SAY THE "D" WORD, when it is the "Climate Realists" who have the "Cause & Effect" the right way around?
Saturday, May 28th 2011, 6:03 AM EDT
Warning: Another Tree Ring Analysis From Columbia University
Unless I have misread or misunderstood this report from Columbia University they seem to have mixed up Cause & Effect. They are saying the warming of the Earth (due to greenhouse gasses no doubt)change the effect of El Niño and La Niña, but it should be the other way around. Put simply, it's the changes in the magnetic occilations of the Sun that change the pattern of El Niño and La Niña and they in turn change the temperature of the Earth. Columbia University seem to be putting forward an idea that when the Earth warms and cools it then changes the pattern of El Niño and La Niña.
The FIRST question should have been why does the Earth warm and cool? Columbia University seem to think the "effect is the cause" by standing firm with "Greenhouse Gasses" as the driver of our climate. The "cause" is change in the Sun's output, the "effect" can be seen as temperature changes on Earth
El Niño amplitude derived from North American tree rings (blue) and instrumental measurements (red). The green curve represents the long-term trend in El Niño strength. Amplitudes above 1.0 indicate periods of strong El Niño activity, which occurred about every 50–90 years
El Niño and La Niña, the periodic shifts in Pacific Ocean temperatures, affect weather around the globe, and many scientists have speculated that a warming planet will make those fluctuations more volatile, bringing more intense drought or extreme rainfall to various regions.
Now, scientists have used tree-ring data from the American Southwest to reconstruct a 1,100-year history of the cycle that backs up that assertion. The researchers found a 50-90-year cycle of waxing and waning El Niño intensity that shows that, when the earth warms, the climate acts up.
“Our work revealed that the towering trees on the mountain slopes of the U.S. Southwest and the colorful corals in the tropical Pacific both listen to the music of El Niño, which shows its signature in their yearly growth rings,” explains Jinbao Li, the paper’s lead author and a former PhD student at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
Sunday, May 15th 2011, 2:56 PM EDT
Vostok, Antarctica Ice Core Data
In Al Gore’s presentation of his "Inconvenient Truth" documentary, he conveniently separated the Vostok Ice core temperature and CO2 graphs so you could not see which came first, a warming spike or a CO2 spike. He said that a CO2 spike came first but alas, it was the just the opposite as shown in the Vostok Ice Core graph above.
When both lines are combined on one graph, suitably enlarged and viewed in the correct direction from left to right, it is clearly seen that a warming spike always comes first (blue line) followed by a CO2 increase (red line) some 800 years later.
Source Link: iceagenow.com
Saturday, April 16th 2011, 5:03 PM EDT
(chart and associated post by Frank Lansner at Jo Nova's site:) I added most of the four large interglacial temperature peaks into one peak for a closer look. The pro-CO2 argument goes, that 1) CO2-levels at only 210-240 ppm “must” be the reason that temperature boosts and thus could change 6-7-8 Kelvin or more on Earth. However, in ice core graphs it’s clear that 2) CO2 concentrations far higher, 250-280 ppm, occurs while the temperature declines during 15-20 thousand years after the interglacial temperature peaks and thus temperatures returns almost to start level.
Scientists like to remind us not to confuse cause and effect. But they're not immune from making that mistake themselves. Last week, for example, a flurry of sociological headlines emanating from a conference included the claim that elderly Taiwanese people who shop every day are 27% less likely to die over 10 years than those who shop once a week; and the claim that 16-year-olds who read books at least once a month are more likely to be in managerial jobs at 33 than those who read no books at 16.
It would be tempting but rash to conclude that shopping prevents death, rather than that ill health prevents shopping; or that reading causes career success rather than that a scholarly aptitude causes both reading and career success.