Broome airport - Aircraft affect BOM temps
 

Some fascinating observations by Tom Harley over at Broome. His day job is CEO of Kimberley Environmental Horticulture Inc.

"...Once again, in fact, nearly every day, there is a spike of around 1C every time we have jet aircraft movements...
...As each flight arrival turns off the runway, the jet exhaust lines up with BoM’s recording instruments..."

Continues - https://pindanpost.com/2016/03/26/je...es-for-broome/






.

Senator Malcolm Roberts got elected with 77 votes. Wonder where he found the other 76 crazies?

One Nation Senator Got Elected With Just 77 Personal Votes

While a small band of Climate Change Skeptics/Nutters make public rants on forums that lack vigorous peer-review, the science is well established:

36 Nobel laureates signed a declaration on climate change

Seems that the Broome airport temp reading observations are valid then..:)





.

Labor's Alex Gallacher was elected with only 330 votes. Liberal senator Chris Back was elected with only 430 votes.

If the optional preferential system is OK for the big parties, it's OK for the little parties.

It's the Fokkers that do it...

1 post. Good job, you lot!

And were pretty much ignored by the rest of the world at the time and ever since for doing so. As usual, rather than debate the issue with one of their own with a dissenting view, they just closed ranks and shut the argument down.

This may well be true but it is nothing to the temperature spike in many cockpits as they fly down final over Cable Beach.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif

No, peterc005, the science is not "well established". Nothing like it. Not even close.

I have been following this issue since the late 90's and can tell you that there is considerable scientific opinion favouring the skeptical side of the debate.

In fact, I believe there are more skeptical scientists than there are believers. I have no proof of this, but this is just my observation.

Heard of the Oregon Petition? That is a list of over 30,000 scientists who dispute the idea that man's CO2 emissions are having any dangerous effect on the climate.

Over 9,000 on that list have a PhD. Here are the disciplines from which that 30,000 odd is comprised:

Atmospheric, Environmental and Earth sciences: 3,805 (Climatology: 39)
Computer and Mathematical sciences: 935
Physics & Aerospace sciences: 5,812
Chemistry: 4,822
Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: 2,965
Medicine: 3,046
Engineering and General Science: 10,102

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

At least do a bit of research before believing everything you read on Wikipedia FGD. The science is better established than that petition, but then that's not saying much.

Or even just read the *entire* Wikipedia article before you use it as a reference. It talks about how there was no verification of the claimed credentials of any signatories, no way to prove their legitimacy, and included such scientific luminaries as Geri Halliwell of the Spice Girls (not just once, but twice!), Drs Burns, Honeycutt and Pierce, all of whom were fictional characters on MASH, Michael J Fox (the real actor), Perry Mason (the fictional lawyer), Charles Darwin and at least one character from Star Wars.

Those names were discovered and removed. You would know that if you read the article properly.

Don't use the Wikipedia article, go directly to the website of the Oregon Project.

Global Warming Petition Project

Take a look at the FAQ section. There is detail there about fraudulent signatures and other attempts to discredit the petition and how that was dealt with. Amongst other things, it points out that names such as Perry Mason, Michael Fox are not the actors, but real scientists that have the same names.

It's still a crock.

Why is that? Because you don't agree with it?

No, because it lacks rigour and is nothing more than a self reporting opinion survey. Just because someone has a doctorate doesn't mean they have any more clue about a subject that's outside their area of expertise than a random person on the street.

But if 36 Nobel Laureates, one of whom is not even a scientist (peace prize), and who also do not have any qualifications in the field, tell us we're all gonna die, are they any more relevant?

Folks,

Just a caution on: All the experts agree, there is a consensus of the all the relevant authorities, there is wide public support of the experts, it is a/the greatest moral issue of the times, etc., etc.

Most of you ( I hope) know that Johannes Kepler was the father of modern astronomy, he worked out the laws of planetary motion, in an era where, until then recent times, "the experts" believed that everything revolved around the earth.

As Galileo found out the hard way, only narrowly escaping execution for disputing the consensus, as dictated by the Church.

But back to Kepler, in around 1620, he had to abandon his work, he had to defend his mother from charges of witchcraft, which carried a death sentence.

All the "relevant authorities" and "opinion makes" of the era, the "scientific experts", the population at large, all agreed that witchcraft was the major problem facing civilization, indeed the very existence of the human race was threatened by witchcraft.

As I an sure you all know, witchcraft, the ultimate evil, was the manifestation of the devil on earth, and therein lay the existential threat to civilisation. Or so everyone was convinced --- and the majority, particularly the experts, the educated classes, can't be wrong, can they??

Such was the threat to civil society, that it is estimated that around around 50,000 people were executed between 1500 and 1700 ( this was the era of the voyages of the great navigators --- all operating on agreed scientific principles, remember a bloke called Cook) as a result of convictions for witchcraft, having been subject to all the proper processes of "the law", which was based on the irrefutable knowledge, the "conventional wisdom" of the "experts" of the day. Of course, as was the "scientific" practices of the era, that the methods used to extract "confessions" were gruesome in the extreme, by our standards, but considered quite appropriate "in the day", given the seriousness of the threat to society of the "actions of the agents of the devil on earth".

And a confession is obviously the best proof of the crime, the "truth", isn't that undeniably correct??

It took Johannes Kepler a protracted period of time to mount an ultimately successful defense of his mother, Katharina, who had even spent some months in around 1621 chained to a cell floor, such was the concern if such a powerful witch came into contact with a susceptible subject.

Kepler's defence of his mother was, apparently, a tour de force of genuine scientific reasoning as we would understand it, he was said to have been very good at highlighting dependencies and logical flaws in the "expert" evidence for the prosecution, despite almost universal condemnation for flying in the face of the "consensus of experts". Fortunately for his mother, he succeeded.

Do you see the parallel here --- global warming, man-made, is the greatest threat to mankind, to the degree that anybody who even has the temerity to suggest a contrary case is howled down by the mob, and that mob includes all the "experts" etc., etc., etc.

But there are some really serious and genuine doubts about what is going on, and just what is the cause ----

And is it really a smart idea to be rapidly de-industrialising Australia in pursuit of a "low carbon future" when our Chief Scientist testifies under oath, before the Senate, that even eliminating Australia's 1.3% share of the annual "carbon" output completely, will make zero difference.

My personal view: The earth is slowly warming, how could it be else, we are coming out of the Maunder minimum of the 1600s. But, given the human activity accounts for only about 3% of the annual carbon cycle, our contribution to a cycle of temperature changes is very limited, given the geological history of temperature change.

Indeed, one of the greatest mathematicians of our (or any) age, Dyson Freeman, believes that it is presumptuous in the extreme of the human population that its 3% is the whole reason, and that we can do much about it.

After all, well within recorded human history, Greenland was once green, that's why it is called Greenland, Nordic races of the era grazed cattle on the island.

Tootle pip!!

For a little light reading: The Astronomer and the Witch, Professor Ulinka Rublack, Professor of early Modern History, St.John's College, Cambridge.

Greenland was called Greenland by Eric the Red because he thought a favourable name would attract more settlers. He was banished there after murdering a few fellow Vikings and presumably wanted a bit more company.

Sigh. You're willing to listen to anyone who presents a contrary opinion to the "experts" on the off chance they might be right based on the historical precedence of Galileo and Kepler?

You fail to mention the millions of other contrary views on various subjects that have proved to be entirely wrong. Not a great track record I'd say. Can you nominate any of them who hold a faint flicker of a candle to the intellects of Galileo or Kepler?

Those opposing Galileo and Kepler were basing their views on nothing but ideology and religious belief. Not science. So your argument is of no relevance.

Turn it around. The "powers that be" that opposed Galileo are matched by the Trumps and such of this world. They oppose science and logic with ideology and vested interest in power.

Le Ping,
I am not quite sure if you are addressing my post?

All I am saying is that, just as the "science is settled" with climate change, so the "science was settled" over threat to civilisation from witchcraft.

Medicine is another area where the absolute truths of an era turn out, with the increasing quantum of human knowledge, to be anything from somewhat off the track to completely wrong.

What we do know, without doubt, is that there have been quite large changes, over change cycles, in the earth's temperature over both the span of geological history and the much shorter time scale of human history.

Dyson Freeman's point is that it is rather presumptuous of a group of scientists to believe they know virtually all about "global warming", that the major causes of global warming are human activities, and that any likely changes to human activity is going to make much difference.

Is the current deindustrialisation of Australia a smart idea, to produce precisely nil effect on any global warming trend.

I note, this week, we are actually importing commons house bricks from Spain and elsewhere, goes well with the Portland cement we now import from Korea, instead of making it in Australia.

Tootle pip!!