Re: Channel 4 GW Documentary, Thursday March 8

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 01:39:36 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
<dirk.bruere@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

abelard wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:49:48 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
<dirk.bruere@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

abelard wrote:
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:19:31 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
<dirk.bruere@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

abelard wrote:
On 5 Mar 2007 06:38:09 -0800, "mmaker@xxxxxxxxxxx"
<mmaker@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 5, 2:08 pm, abelard <abela...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
the only people who don't believe in the greenhouse effect are the
dedicated ignoramuses.....
I note how you twist it from not believing 'anthropogenic global
warming' claims to 'don't believe in the greenhouse effect'.

Getting desperate as the 'global warming' scam starts to unravel?
now try writing that again with clear referents
doubtless it will be dopey but at least it will allow me
to follow your dopiness
Even that UN declaration had the weasel words "90% certain that..."
tagged on.
your comments are usually acute....
in neither of your replies can i see any cause to dissent.

though in this second case i'd like to see any half plausible
alternative (i won't say there isn't one....but i've not seen
even half a one in among all the rabbiting)

it's a bit like sherlock....
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

and this theory isn't even improbable
The solar variations *is* extremely probable.

i know of no evidence for this having effects at any serious level
....the current consensus is very little variation....

Not true.
Half
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/damon.html
Quarter
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/sorce_03.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

"
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be
challenged


When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global
warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science
works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for
Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific
dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months? time.
They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th
century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains ?very likely? as meaning that the experts who
made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a
press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain?s
top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had
achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong.
More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach
for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better
idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one
particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the
effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits
essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with
impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find
mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that
anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in
the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in
climate research go almost unreported.

blather up to here

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make
headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter?s billion-dollar
loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the
business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides
colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did
anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape
petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days
later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the
Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

major ice shelves have recently collapsed in the northern
parts of antarctica....
it is considered likely more snow will fall under warming....that
could increase both the antarctic and greenland at least for a
while....
things like local penguin changes are local....thence not very
relevant....

So one awkward question you can ask, when you?re forking out those extra
taxes for climate change, is ?Why is east Antarctica getting colder?? It
makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming.

see last

While
you?re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a
refund if it?s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best
measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather
satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

short term....as for the clown...pah!

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival
hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more
emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active
during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level
state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling,
should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice
Age 300 years ago.

so? as for me....i'm concerned that over-reactions may well
cause damage...including cooling

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar
hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the
latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun,
of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

i'm not convinced by such arguments.....
they are generally too selective and often confuse short term
changes with agw....

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and
cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes
come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a
long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

claimed as local effects

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for
an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and
going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than
nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a
very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001
report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse
experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar
variations control the climate. The sun?s brightness may change too
little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10
years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out
a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness
varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from
exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun?s magnetic field
bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the
20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world.
On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let
in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark?s idea ? apart from its being
politically incorrect ? was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays
could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping
together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at
the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

the effect is consensually regarded as small....

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons
set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together
droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for
cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their
report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal
Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark?s initial
discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside
track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome
is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and
published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe,
when we subtitle it ?A new theory of climate change?.

let's get in a plug

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects
are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really
say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more
fully worked out.

i get bored with all the claims of censorship.....it's just an
attention seeking ploy....
reason will normally break through attempts at censorship
even if it takes a few years....

there's very little hysteria ove agw among intelligent or serious
people....most people who claim censoprship do so because
they're running out of useful arguments or facts

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory
temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark?s scenario,
because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops.

durhhh....
a scientific theory must be able to predict sommat that
another theory contends if it is to be of any use.....
there is no such separation here....

as an experiment is is therefore useless.....

meanwhile the n. antarctic ice shelves are collapsing

Meanwhile humility
in face of Nature?s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant
assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the
sun and the stars.
"

that sounds like a religious fundy....
it is perfectly possible we can go a good way to controlling
planetary climate.....it is highly probable we're already
disturbing the system

regards....

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

Quantcast