Richard T. Fowler

Offering Christian and Christ-centered commentary about climate- and energy-related issues.

Spectacular Growth Of Arctic Sea Ice During NASA/NOAA ‘s Hottest Year Ever

Richard T. Fowler:

Wow! That’s got to be at least 10% growth in seven days.

Originally posted on Real Science:

Green shows growth in the last seven days

ScreenHunter_3896 Oct. 20 22.39

View original

Bill Gray Editorial In The Coloradoan

Richard T. Fowler:

HUGE … Popcorn fans, make sure you are well-stocked. Because now it’s on. Bill Gray has just accused the temperature gatekeepers of “tampering” with the data to produce a signal. It seems they will have to respond to this!

Originally posted on Real Science:

Another awesome piece from my hero, Bill Gray, whose funding was cut off in 1993 by Al Gore – over Bill’s refusal to participate is a Gore fear mongering activity.

Despite increasing amounts of CO2 gas in the atmosphere, mean global surface temperatures have not shown any increase over the past 18 years.

In addition:

• • Raw U.S. mean surface temperatures and daily high surface temperature records (without any tampering) have shown a weak decline since the warm 1930s period.

• Winter snow cover has been gradually increasing across the northern hemisphere in recent years.

Read the rest here :   Soapbox: CO2 increase is not nemesis as it’s portrayed

View original

“GHE” vs. “Tyndall effect”

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/the-other-night/#comment-441845

Our friend Tony Heller puts himself in a tight spot. It ends up being him, Morgan Wright, and someone named dp versus 15 others:

Anto
Anything Is Possible
Richard T. Fowler (myself)
Geran
Higley 7
M. Kelly
Kevin K.
Neils Zoo
Northern Ont.
Password Protected
Rosco
Squid 2112
Mark Stoval
Tel
Tom O. Mason

Then, Tony posts a follow-up post in which he seems to reverse himself:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/co2-contributes-less-than-2-5-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

(Read the post, the title is not very representative.)

The Definitive Data On The Global Warming/Climate Change Scam

Richard T. Fowler:

Steven, thanks in no small part to your tireless efforts, I think we are finally starting to detect an ever-so-slight change in the direction of the Titanic.

Is it enough, and is it soon enough?? We’ll stay tuned.

Originally posted on Real Science:

Bookmark this.

There is only one piece of US climate data which correlates with CO2 –  the amount of data tampering NCDC is applying to US temperature.

ScreenHunter_3233 Oct. 01 22.59

All of the other relevant metrics show either no correlation, or negative correlation vs. CO2.  The whole thing is a 100% scam – from top to bottom.

Hot days show no correlation vs. CO2

ScreenHunter_3341 Oct. 05 06.14

Severe tornadoes have declined as CO2 has increased

ScreenHunter_3337 Oct. 05 05.58

US temperatures show no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3332 Oct. 05 05.19

US hurricane strikes have declined as CO2 has increased

ScreenHunter_3328 Oct. 05 04.41

US heavy rainfall events show no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3315 Oct. 04 14.20

East Coast sea level rise shows no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3311 Oct. 04 11.20

View original

NCDC Corrects For UHI – By Massively Cooling The Past

Originally posted on Real Science:

Another smoking gun that USHCN adjustments are garbage, and inverted from reality.

The weather station at Fort Collins, CO is a classic study in UHI, yet NCDC adjusts Fort Collins temperatures by massively cooling the past – the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

ScreenHunter_3296 Oct. 04 04.14

In 1937, the station was located in the middle of a farm,

By 1950, the area was starting to get built up.

By 1969, the city had surrounded the weather station.

Now it is in the middle of a parking lot.

ScreenHunter_619 Sep. 16 08.24

The Fort Collins trend massively diverges from nearby Boulder, CO. Fort Collins is warming rapidly, while Boulder is cooling. Homogenization should warm the past, not cool it.

ScreenHunter_1501 Jan. 11 06.26

What about TOBS? The Fort Collins temperature has always been read near sunrise, which adds an additional cold bias to the data. Every factor in the equation should cause the NCDC adjustments to warm the past, rather…

View original 45 more words

Comment for Harry Dale Huffman and Steven Goddard Regarding the Biblical Account of Creation And Its Comparability to Fraudulent Climate “Science” — A.D. 2013/07/31 01

A commenter named Anto commented today at Steven Goddard’s Real Science:

When it’s a matter of faith, there’s always some way to excuse the pachyderm in the greenhouse.

Case in point: creationists – close relatives to today’s climate catastrophists.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/gaia-sends-crushing-defeat-to-the-global-warming-scamsters/

Harry Dale Huffman replied with the following:

There is a real, physical truth behind the creationist claims, despite their religious motivation and habitual stampede towards a “First Cause” (or “God”) explanation for things. None of the earth and life sciences–not just the incompetent “climate science”–are “settled science”, despite 150 years of Darwinian dogma (the “undirected evolution” paradigm guiding all those sciences IS dogma, and fundamentally false).

There was, in fact, a deliberate “creation” event–actually, a re-formation of the existing surface of the Earth, AND a re-formation and re-orientation of the entire solar system (these links give only the simplest, definitive objective evidence of the event), which imposed a readable design enclosing a real message for man on Earth–within the last 20,000 years, as my unprecedented research has brought to light (I am a physicist, dealing only with objective evidence). We are literally in the time of Galileo again, when the “authorities” and the consensus-minded populace cannot focus upon the greater truth, and are violently opposed to recognizing it.

I offer the following in response to Harry, and I also address it to Steven.

I say that the “time of Galileo” never went away, just shifted its focus every so often. Your own arguments are packed to the brim with subjective observations, which you can’t or won’t admit are subjective. Physics itself must deal with subjective evidence, or else it is not scientific. For this reason I have yet to meet a “physicist” who is not anti-science, for they are ever denying the obvious subjectivity present in their reasoning. Granted that many if not most Creationists I’ve encountered are anti-science as well, but that in and of itself doesn’t falsify their theories, as is also the case with the physicists. Proof or disproof is not dependent on the use of a perfect method for finding the truth. If that there the case there would be no valid proofs or disproofs, because there is no perfect human being walking the Earth today.

Really the bottom line is whether one believes in the supernatural, which objectively does exist. If one denies that which is blatantly true and in one’s face, simply because one is afraid of the wider implications, then of course one’s conclusions about pretty much everything natural are going to be wide of the mark … sometimes phenomenally so. Most of us, myself included, have been guilty of this kind of denial.

But if one admits the existence of supernatural effects operating together with nature, then at once one has lost the ability to be certain that the biblical history of Creation is false. It is very, very important for people to understand this. Denial of this fact is really at the core of the modern Inquisition. And make no mistake, the Inquisition does want Creationists dead if they will not repent. Ultimately that’s where this is headed, and already some of their more strident denunciations are barely distinguishable from threats.

I think the really important thing here is to LEARN AND RECOGNIZE that the Inquisition has never been either scientific or Christian (or even Jewish), or inherently Creationist. It has been a wolf in sheep’s clothing ever since its inception. And it has now taken over the mantle of science, exactly as prophecied. Folks like you, Harry, and you as well, Steven, are unwitting accomplices, unaware of what you’re really doing. I have great respect for both of you, because I see the degree of honesty that shows through in your words. Ultimately you will probably see the full reality, and you will be targets as well, because you have such integrity that you’d rather be targets than publicly deny what has been proven to you. Please always remember that the truth about Creation is never just revealed to everyone who seeks it. Only to those who are willing to believe that it’s possible are shown the proof. And that’s totally out of the hands of us who already know. We can pray, but ultimately if it’s not God’s plan for you to know, you will not be shown! I was in Harry’s place for many years, and Steven’s for years before that. If anyone here is the very antithesis of habitual stampeding or mindless consensus-following, it is myself. I didn’t embrace my present beliefs, I fought tooth-and-nail to deny them! But because it was God’s plan for me to know, I was forced to know, against all my natural instincts! The consequence: I spent >85% of my life up until now denying that which I now know to be true. And again I can’t prove it to you because it’s subjective, and subjective things are something you have to experience yourself.

I’m sorry, but the doctrines of pure naturalism, and of uniformitarianism, are frauds. They are the true closest relatives of liberal climate catastrophism. Of course, the liberals are borrowing “liberally” from the Bible, because ultimately the intent is to impersonate Christians while fundamentally inverting the Word. I beg you not to fall for such a cheap trick. You are way, way better than that.

RTF

Sociopolitical Meaning of Star Trek, and Associated Discussion about the American Experiment — A.D. 2012/02/27 01

Additional comment is invited emerging from the conversation involving myself and Mr Lynn at this location:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/rio20-meets-agenda-21/

The issue of globalism is also discussed at length on that thread, and ties into the two matters cited in the title.

Reply to Comment from Mike — A.D. 2012/02/07

{{UPDATE: Addition below in double squiggles. — RTF}}

My reply to portions of Mike’s comment posted on the previous post.

QUESTION #1.
——–
“That’s why it so puzzling,

that he only talks about kinematics and no dynamics.”
——–

ANSWER.
When I began participating in this conversation back in December at claesjohnson.blogspot.com, the immediate topic at hand was computational fluid dynamics. Have you read that portion of the conversation?

Also, have you read Computational Blackbody Radiation?

Are you aware that it makes use of finite precision computation for its conclusions?

Also, Climate Thermodynamics does the same.

Also, Claes posted a little bit on dynamics in response to my unified field hypothesis.

All three of these works by Claes have in common their use of or reliance on, for their conclusions, the Euler equations for incompressible gas. This connection has fundamental cosmological implications.

If Claes has been quiet about dynamics during the discussion of SR, I’d imagine it’s because SR cannot deal effectively with either kinematics or dynamics.

You might as well ask why he doesn’t address how SR deals with hot dogs. If it is already proven that SR cannot deal effectively with anything, why should Claes have to list out the set of all known classes of things in the universe, and state the same reason for each one, as to why SR cannot be used to describe it. He said the reason once: because SR is known to be devoid of physical meaning and measurable physical effect. Why isn’t once enough?

QUESTION #2.

“Or doesn’t talk about threshold energies.”

ANSWER.

Try as I might, I have not yet been able to imagine how threshold energies can have anything to do with validating or invalidating relativity. Nonetheless, Claes has written about them before.

QUESTION #3

“Or doesn’t talk about Mandelstam variables.”

ANSWER.

I just looked this up on Wikipedia. At first glance, it {{looks}} to me like pure smokescreen, i.e. assumptions that are at odds with those of SR.

QUESTION #4.

“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand what proper time is.”

ANSWER.

So what? Neither do you. You both flunked that question rather badly in your replies at Claes’ blog to my comment that I copied here: http://richardtfowler.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/comment-in-moderation-a-d-20120202/.

QUESTION #5.

“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand what the ideal clock hypothesis is.”

ANSWER.

You’ll have to explain the relevance of that to me. I haven’t gone searching for info yet.

QUESTION #6.

“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand the [basic] definition of a physical clock.”

ANSWER.

He says he follows SI time. If you believe in GR and SR, then so must you, no?

QUESTION #7.

“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand that the principle of relativity was originally formulated by Galileo hundreds of years ago.”

ANSWER.

As I posted below, he has posted about this. You replied, “I meant the ‘principle of relativity’ – the outcome of a physical experiment is independent of relative constant motion.” This is nonresponsive.

QUESTION #8.

“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand that the equivalence principle goes much deeper than just equating inertial and gravitational mass.”

ANSWER.

From this comment, you don’t seem to understand that he has a problem with the equation of inertial and gravitational mass. That seems puzzling to me.

QUESTION #9.

“Or that he doesn’t seem to understand that a time dilation really have been measured.”

ANSWER.

Now, about that there is nothing puzzling at all. He clearly knows that such measurement is impossible, because such dilation does not exist. Therefore, what would be puzzling is if he thought it had been measured.

QUESTION #10.

“Or that he doesn’t seem willing to discuss empirical measurements.”

ANSWER.

Again, this is not puzzling when you consider that so-called “empirical measurements” of SR are known to be simple misinterpretations of some other phenomenon.

QUESTION #11.

“Or,… should I go on?”

ANSWER.

If you feel it is the right thing to do, you may.

MIKE:

“Look at his answers about what time is according to him in a Newtonian theory. The answer is completely vacuous and extremely unscientific. Either he have not thought this through, personally I see this as unlikely, or he understands what his true answer will render.”

RTF:

You are right that his answer is completely vacuous and extremely unscientific. No human being is perfect. But I think it is now clear from the record that he knows that to give the true answer will require a serious consideration of my postulate that energy is not conserved — and that such consideration introduces certain other difficulties for him that he is unwilling or unable to cope with.

MIKE:

“This is a very strong statement from someone who probably doesn’t know what special relativity is.”

RTF:

Professor J. L. Synge in 1960:

“[. . .] the general theory of relativity. The name is repellent. Relativity? I have never been able to understand what the word means in this connection. I used to think that this was my fault, some flaw of my intelligence, but it is now apparent that nobody ever understood it, probably not even Einstein himself.”

(See Comment #619 at claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/questioning-relativity-1-herbert-dingle/ )

MIKE:

“Richard, do you have any intentions to really try to understand what special relativity is?”

RTF:

That is a strong statement from someone who clearly doesn’t understand what special relativity is.

Special relativity is what I said it is — no more and no less. I know this because its chief proponents are on record admitting that it is nothing more than an imaginary representation of a nonexistent “illusion”, and the facts that have already been submitted by you and Claes about it are consistent with such an assessment.

If you have additional information you would like to share about it here, you may do so. But for it to overcome the contradictions that have been pointed out, the new information will have to change the assumptions so that they do not contradict each other — that is, it will have to alter the model into something new that is not SR.

MIKE:

“If your major exposure to special relativity theory comes from what Claes has written, you should be informed that he has presented less then half of the theory which makes it look like an empty theory “without physical content” as he him self have put it. He has left out important axioms and useful formalism that is necessary to understand the basic theory.”

RTF:

I’m still waiting for anything new and relevant from you. You have failed to resolved the problems that have been raised. You have resorted instead to ex-cathedra declarations that our supposed misinterpretations are the result of incomplete understanding.

And how could you resolve them, since the problems being pointed out are fundamental? There is nothing that could possibly be presented. SR is internally inconsistent. This fact explains why you have not yet been able to present something new that would (A) make sense and (B) deal at least partially with one or more of the problems without making any changes to the present model of SR.

MIKE:

“Unfortunately Claes seem to have started to use a rhetoric that may fool someone not familiar with basic physics theory.”

RTF:

Whether or not Claes has done this, I do know that Einstein has in describing SR.

MIKE:

“Who knows, maybe I will work through Penrose’s book [. . . .]“

RTF:

If you do, feel free let me know what you find there.

Comment in moderation — A.D. 2012/02/02

I posted the following comment to

claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/questioning-relativity-definition-vs-axiom/

today, and it went into moderation, where it has been sitting for about a half hour.

Commenter Mike is being allowed to post at least one comment, while having another that he describes as being “of heaviest importance” hidden. He posted his comment after I posted mine.

{{Update: The comment was released from moderation. –RTF}}

Here is the comment I posted.

——–

Richard T. Fowler
February 2, 2012
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

With due respect, both of you are engaging in circular argument.

You propose to test the proposition that time does (Mike) or does not (Claes) vary with motion.

In either case, you are starting with the assumption that it does not vary without motion. This, as I have said, is a reasonable assumption, even if it may be false. It is reasonable because modeling the alternative seems too difficult.

You both then implicitly assume that there exists one or more objects (e.g. caesium radiation, light) that travel with constant speed. The suggestion, apparently, is that experiment has already shown this to be a valid assumption.

How did experiment show this? If it was by comparison to another moving object, then it would be necessary to show that that object moves with constant speed, in order to test the first object. To test the second object would require an experiment comparing it to a third object, and so on, ad infinitum.

So, assuming this validation has not been done (since it would appear to be impossible due to infinite regress), it must then follow that it is simply being assumed that your respective preferred object moves with constant speed.

If this assumption is true, it implies that time cannot vary for that particular object.

If time cannot vary for that object, then it cannot vary for that object within any inertial frame, nor in any non-inertial frame. I.e., it cannot vary for that object in any frame where that object would be found.

If time cannot vary for that object in any frame where that object would be found, then it cannot vary for any other object in the same frame. Therefore, time cannot vary FOR ANY OBJECT between two frames that both contain the control object.

So as can be seen by the above, the experiment begins with an assumption which implies the question that is supposed to be tested. The experiment is begging the question.

I sincerely hope you will both take this very simple line of reasoning to heart and apply it to your future comments about this matter. This is not a trivial point I am making. It would seem to be foundational.

RTF

——–

Discussion of Field Theories With Claes — A.D. 2012/01/09

There is a remarkable conversation between Claes and myself and a couple of others, which began on 1 January and continued until this morning.

I offer this post in case anyone would like to continue discussing the issues raised there over here.

The four posts where the discussion may be found are (in chronological order):

http://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/repulsion-between-matter-and-antimatter/

http://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/laplaces-equation-as-gods-equation/

http://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/newtonian-gravitation-of-matter-and-antimatter/

http://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/why-no-unified-field-theory/

Please note, for the record, I do not subscribe to Claes’ opinion that Laplace’s equation is appropriately thought of as “God’s equation”, as he expresses in one of the titles of these posts. I believe Laplace’s equation is false, and I also believe that any equation which is true is creditable to God, which would qualify it as one of His equations.

But that was not the main point of the conversation. The main point was about field theories, including one which I came up with, in considering some of Claes’ past work, and posted on the second one of the four posts. Discussion ensued, with Claes posting some counter-arguments which I believe I successfully refuted. It’s not yet clear to me where Claes presently stands on the matter. Hopefully that can be determined soon.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: