I've been involved in a long debate about solar power (particularly concentrating solar power/solar thermal energy) versus nuclear power, mainly with the pro-nuclear socialist David Walters, but another pro- nuclear socialist called Fran has recently joined in, on alt.politics.socialism.trotsky in the thread "Guardian: Solar power from Sahara could provide Europe's electricity, says EU".
Others, including David, thought that crossposting on these issues may be OK, so I'm also sending this to a few other newsgroups. I'm also posting my messages on this subject to my Revolutionary Platform Network Forum (including to the Global Warming board there at http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=107); please state if you object to me posting replies to your comments there.
On 10 Aug, 13:19, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 4:11 am, Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > I've had some doubts about my position on global warming, but finding > > out that the weather got colder during the post-war boom (despite the > > increasing levels of carbon dioxide due to industrialisation)
> Google "global dimming" for the effect of SO2 on global temperatures > from 1943-74 ...
I did find out about the sulphur claim (I wasn't sure it was SO2 and thought I'd wait for somebody else to mention it), when doing earlier browsing. I was sceptical then and still am now of this explanation. Isn't it amazing that you get all this talk of global warming and yet very little mention of the fact that temperatures did increase after the second world war. Obviously, those who agree with global warming need some sort of explanation when pushed to justify their theory, but they generally don't want to mention global dimming and SO2 (and I didn't find out about the SO2 explanation until I read a critique of "The Great Global Warming Swindle").
> > and > > another ice age was predicted by scientists reinforced my view.
> Another meme put about by deniers. Even at the "height" (if that is > the right word) of the speculation in the early 1970s, more > scientists hypothesised about global warming than a new ice age. Even > the article generally credited with circualting this idea foreshadowed > the opposite as a distinct possibility. There was never peer-reviewed > science behind the claim, and certainly nothing like the process that > has informed the IPCC assessment reports.
Critics of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" such as George Monbiot didn't claim that the post-war dimming was incorrect, and it must have been in the late 70s or early 80s when I heard of the ice age prediction, which certainly doesn't tally with dimming just in the 1940s.
> > [I > > remember this at the time but I'd forgotten about it until reminded by > > the Channel 4 TV programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
> This was put about by a self-styled swindler of the Thatcher and Hayek- > loving "Living Marxism" crowd.
I did discover that the person responsible for that programme is linked to LM, and found a page with an interview the day after the programme went out on their current Spiked project website, but he and they claim that he is not a member of the ex-RCP.
I disagree with a lot of the ideas that that organisation/ex- organisation puts out, but that doesn't mean that valid points they make about global warming can be discounted.
> You need to stop believing the first thing you read on the internet.
> Fran
I don't. I've researched global warming theory quite a lot and found arguments against global warming more convincing than those in support of it. When you tell people that China had the coldest winter for 50 years (according to TV news in the UK) or that Scotland had the coldest Easter for 46 years, or that the UK sea level is only rising 3.1mm a year, then people do tend to get very sceptical about the cosy consensus of envrionmentalists, most of the media and virtually all politicians that global warming is caused by mankind and heading for a catastrophe.
<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > I've been involved in a long debate about solar power (particularly > concentrating solar power/solar thermal energy) versus nuclear power, > mainly with the pro-nuclear socialist David Walters, but another pro- > nuclear socialist called Fran has recently joined in, on > alt.politics.socialism.trotsky in the thread "Guardian: Solar power > from Sahara could provide Europe's electricity, says EU".
> Others, including David, thought that crossposting on these issues > may > be OK, so I'm also sending this to a few other newsgroups. I'm also > posting my messages on this subject to my Revolutionary Platform > Network Forum (including to the Global Warming board there athttp://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=107); > please state if you object to me posting replies to your comments > there.
> On 10 Aug, 13:19, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 4:11 am, Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > I've had some doubts about my position on global warming, but finding > > > out that the weather got colder during the post-war boom (despite the > > > increasing levels of carbon dioxide due to industrialisation)
> > Google "global dimming" for the effect of SO2 on global temperatures > > from 1943-74 ...
> I did find out about the sulphur claim (I wasn't sure it was SO2 and > thought I'd wait for somebody else to mention it), when doing earlier > browsing. I was sceptical then and still am now of this explanation. > Isn't it amazing that you get all this talk of global warming and yet > very little mention of the fact that temperatures did increase after > the second world war. Obviously, those who agree with global warming > need some sort of explanation when pushed to justify their theory, but > they generally don't want to mention global dimming and SO2 (and I > didn't find out about the SO2 explanation until I read a critique of > "The Great Global Warming Swindle").
> > > and > > > another ice age was predicted by scientists reinforced my view.
> > Another meme put about by deniers. Even at the "height" (if that is > > the right word) of the speculation in the early 1970s, more > > scientists hypothesised about global warming than a new ice age. Even > > the article generally credited with circualting this idea foreshadowed > > the opposite as a distinct possibility. There was never peer-reviewed > > science behind the claim, and certainly nothing like the process that > > has informed the IPCC assessment reports.
> Critics of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" such as George Monbiot > didn't claim that the post-war dimming was incorrect, and it must have > been in the late 70s or early 80s when I heard of the ice age > prediction, which certainly doesn't tally with dimming just in the > 1940s.
Here's somerthing pertinent for you in which a discussion on aerosols takes place
> > > [I > > > remember this at the time but I'd forgotten about it until reminded by > > > the Channel 4 TV programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
> > This was put about by a self-styled swindler of the Thatcher and Hayek- > > loving "Living Marxism" crowd.
> I did discover that the person responsible for that programme is > linked to LM, and found a page with an interview the day after the > programme went out on their current Spiked project website, but he and > they claim that he is not a member of the ex-RCP.
> I disagree with a lot of the ideas that that organisation/ex- > organisation puts out, but that doesn't mean that valid points they > make about global warming can be discounted.
> > You need to stop believing the first thing you read on the internet.
> > Fran
> I don't. I've researched global warming theory quite a lot and found > arguments against global warming more convincing than those in support > of it.
I find that implusible. If you had researched it quite a lot, you'd be very familiar with the arguments on both sides and the response above shows that you aren't.
There are no sound arguments 'against global warming'. The bulk of those listed in the 'sceptics' category accept that it is occurring but dispute only the magnitude of future climate change and the speed, or the etiology. What you miss is that all the principal non- anthropogenic factor (orbital forcing) recommends cooling and yet we are warming. That the Earth's temperature more or less plateaued during the 1943-74 period despite SO2 and other aerosols cutting insolation underscores the strength of the other anthropogenic drivers of warming, since when scrubbing of flues andf the short residence time of SO2 combined, temperatures started rising almost immediately despite an absence of any rise in TSI.
TSI-based claims also can't account for stratospheric cooling with lower tropospheric warming.
> When you tell people that China had the coldest winter for 50 > years (according to TV news in the UK) or that Scotland had the > coldest Easter for 46 years,
<sigh> regional weather is not climate. Climate is, by definition, a sustained and predictable patern of weather over a period long enough to reduce to noise regional weather anomalies. The globe (as in *global* warming) amounts to more than Scotland or China. It's the overall and long established trend line that is of significance here.
> or that the UK sea level is only rising > 3.1mm a year, then people do tend to get very sceptical about the cosy > consensus of environmentalists, most of the media and virtually all > politicians that global warming is caused by mankind and heading for a > catastrophe.
So much hangs on one word here : "cosy" and you don't support it. The implication here is of some sort of skullduggery but if you are to make that claims and impugn the integrity of the vast majority of the world's scientists, who, unlike you, have to make specific testable claims and risk public and career ending humiliation, you will need more than one snide observation.
Who are these "people" who "tend to get very sceptical"? Vague appeals to populist angst are not an argument, especially when the bulk of the populace would be hard pressed to describe the pattern of water transports in the major water currents, explain what a cline was in this context, specify the differences between the various measurement methodologies, or the difference between the morphology of the ice mass in the various parts of the world. Before opening the front of your trousers to relieve yourself in public, it's best practice to test which way the wind is blowing.
> <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > I've been involved in a long debate about solar power (particularly > > concentrating solar power/solar thermal energy) versus nuclear power, > > mainly with the pro-nuclear socialist David Walters, but another pro- > > nuclear socialist called Fran has recently joined in, on > > alt.politics.socialism.trotsky in the thread "Guardian: Solar power > > from Sahara could provide Europe's electricity, says EU".
> > Others, including David, thought that crossposting on these issues > > may > > be OK, so I'm also sending this to a few other newsgroups. I'm also > > posting my messages on this subject to my Revolutionary Platform > > Network Forum (including to the Global Warming board there athttp://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=107); > > please state if you object to me posting replies to your comments > > there.
> > On 10 Aug, 13:19, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 10, 4:11 am, Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > I've had some doubts about my position on global warming, but finding > > > > out that the weather got colder during the post-war boom (despite the > > > > increasing levels of carbon dioxide due to industrialisation)
> > > Google "global dimming" for the effect of SO2 on global temperatures > > > from 1943-74 ...
> > I did find out about the sulphur claim (I wasn't sure it was SO2 and > > thought I'd wait for somebody else to mention it), when doing earlier > > browsing. I was sceptical then and still am now of this explanation. > > Isn't it amazing that you get all this talk of global warming and yet > > very little mention of the fact that temperatures did increase after > > the second world war. Obviously, those who agree with global warming > > need some sort of explanation when pushed to justify their theory, but > > they generally don't want to mention global dimming and SO2 (and I > > didn't find out about the SO2 explanation until I read a critique of > > "The Great Global Warming Swindle").
> > > > and > > > > another ice age was predicted by scientists reinforced my view.
> > > Another meme put about by deniers. Even at the "height" (if that is > > > the right word) of the speculation in the early 1970s, more > > > scientists hypothesised about global warming than a new ice age. Even > > > the article generally credited with circualting this idea foreshadowed > > > the opposite as a distinct possibility. There was never peer-reviewed > > > science behind the claim, and certainly nothing like the process that > > > has informed the IPCC assessment reports.
> > Critics of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" such as George Monbiot > > didn't claim that the post-war dimming was incorrect, and it must have > > been in the late 70s or early 80s when I heard of the ice age > > prediction, which certainly doesn't tally with dimming just in the > > 1940s.
> Here's somerthing pertinent for you in which a discussion on aerosols > takes place
> You might also want to look atwww.realclimate.orgor look at the work > of Joseph Romm
> > > > [I > > > > remember this at the time but I'd forgotten about it until reminded by > > > > the Channel 4 TV programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
> > > This was put about by a self-styled swindler of the Thatcher and Hayek- > > > loving "Living Marxism" crowd.
> > I did discover that the person responsible for that programme is > > linked to LM, and found a page with an interview the day after the > > programme went out on their current Spiked project website, but he and > > they claim that he is not a member of the ex-RCP.
> > I disagree with a lot of the ideas that that organisation/ex- > > organisation puts out, but that doesn't mean that valid points they > > make about global warming can be discounted.
> > > You need to stop believing the first thing you read on the internet.
> > > Fran
> > I don't. I've researched global warming theory quite a lot and found > > arguments against global warming more convincing than those in support > > of it.
> I find that implusible. If you had researched it quite a lot, you'd be > very familiar with the arguments on both sides and the response above > shows that you aren't.
> There are no sound arguments 'against global warming'. The bulk of > those listed in the 'sceptics' category accept that it is occurring > but dispute only the magnitude of future climate change and the speed, > or the etiology. What you miss is that all the principal non- > anthropogenic factor (orbital forcing) recommends cooling and yet we > are warming. That the Earth's temperature more or less plateaued > during the 1943-74 period despite SO2 and other aerosols cutting > insolation underscores the strength of the other anthropogenic drivers > of warming, since when scrubbing of flues andf the short residence > time of SO2 combined, temperatures started rising almost immediately > despite an absence of any rise in TSI.
> TSI-based claims also can't account for stratospheric cooling with > lower tropospheric warming.
> > When you tell people that China had the coldest winter for 50 > > years (according to TV news in the UK) or that Scotland had the > > coldest Easter for 46 years,
> <sigh> regional weather is not climate. Climate is, by definition, a > sustained and predictable patern of weather over a period long enough > to reduce to noise regional weather anomalies. The globe (as in > *global* warming) amounts to more than Scotland or China. It's the > overall and long established trend line that is of significance > here.
> > or that the UK sea level is only rising > > 3.1mm a year, then people do tend to get very sceptical about the cosy > > consensus of environmentalists, most of the media and virtually all > > politicians that global warming is caused by mankind and heading for a > > catastrophe.
> So much hangs on one word here : "cosy" and you don't support it. The > implication here is of some sort of skullduggery but if you are to > make that claims and impugn the integrity of the vast majority of the > world's scientists, who, unlike you, have to make specific testable > claims and risk public and career ending humiliation, you will need > more than one snide observation.
> Who are these "people" who "tend to get very sceptical"? Vague appeals > to populist angst are not an argument, especially when the bulk of the > populace would be hard pressed to describe the pattern of water > transports in the major water currents, explain what a cline was in > this context, specify the differences between the various measurement > methodologies, or the difference between the morphology of the ice > mass in the various parts of the world. Before opening the front of > your trousers to relieve yourself in public, it's best practice to > test which way the wind is blowing.
> On Aug 10, 5:32 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 12:24 am, Steve Wallis
> > <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > I've been involved in a long debate about solar power (particularly > > > concentrating solar power/solar thermal energy) versus nuclear power, > > > mainly with the pro-nuclear socialist David Walters, but another pro- > > > nuclear socialist called Fran has recently joined in, on > > > alt.politics.socialism.trotsky in the thread "Guardian: Solar power > > > from Sahara could provide Europe's electricity, says EU".
> > > Others, including David, thought that crossposting on these issues > > > may > > > be OK, so I'm also sending this to a few other newsgroups. I'm also > > > posting my messages on this subject to my Revolutionary Platform > > > Network Forum (including to the Global Warming board there athttp://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=107); > > > please state if you object to me posting replies to your comments > > > there.
> > > On 10 Aug, 13:19, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 10, 4:11 am, Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > I've had some doubts about my position on global warming, but finding > > > > > out that the weather got colder during the post-war boom (despite the > > > > > increasing levels of carbon dioxide due to industrialisation)
> > > > Google "global dimming" for the effect of SO2 on global temperatures > > > > from 1943-74 ...
> > > I did find out about the sulphur claim (I wasn't sure it was SO2 and > > > thought I'd wait for somebody else to mention it), when doing earlier > > > browsing. I was sceptical then and still am now of this explanation. > > > Isn't it amazing that you get all this talk of global warming and yet > > > very little mention of the fact that temperatures did increase after > > > the second world war. Obviously, those who agree with global warming > > > need some sort of explanation when pushed to justify their theory, but > > > they generally don't want to mention global dimming and SO2 (and I > > > didn't find out about the SO2 explanation until I read a critique of > > > "The Great Global Warming Swindle").
> > > > > and > > > > > another ice age was predicted by scientists reinforced my view.
> > > > Another meme put about by deniers. Even at the "height" (if that is > > > > the right word) of the speculation in the early 1970s, more > > > > scientists hypothesised about global warming than a new ice age. Even > > > > the article generally credited with circualting this idea foreshadowed > > > > the opposite as a distinct possibility. There was never peer-reviewed > > > > science behind the claim, and certainly nothing like the process that > > > > has informed the IPCC assessment reports.
> > > Critics of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" such as George Monbiot > > > didn't claim that the post-war dimming was incorrect, and it must have > > > been in the late 70s or early 80s when I heard of the ice age > > > prediction, which certainly doesn't tally with dimming just in the > > > 1940s.
> > Here's somerthing pertinent for you in which a discussion on aerosols > > takes place
> > > > > [I > > > > > remember this at the time but I'd forgotten about it until reminded by > > > > > the Channel 4 TV programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
> > > > This was put about by a self-styled swindler of the Thatcher and Hayek- > > > > loving "Living Marxism" crowd.
> > > I did discover that the person responsible for that programme is > > > linked to LM, and found a page with an interview the day after the > > > programme went out on their current Spiked project website, but he and > > > they claim that he is not a member of the ex-RCP.
> > > I disagree with a lot of the ideas that that organisation/ex- > > > organisation puts out, but that doesn't mean that valid points they > > > make about global warming can be discounted.
> > > > You need to stop believing the first thing you read on the internet.
> > > > Fran
> > > I don't. I've researched global warming theory quite a lot and found > > > arguments against global warming more convincing than those in support > > > of it.
> > I find that implusible. If you had researched it quite a lot, you'd be > > very familiar with the arguments on both sides and the response above > > shows that you aren't.
> > There are no sound arguments 'against global warming'. The bulk of > > those listed in the 'sceptics' category accept that it is occurring > > but dispute only the magnitude of future climate change and the speed, > > or the etiology. What you miss is that all the principal non- > > anthropogenic factor (orbital forcing) recommends cooling and yet we > > are warming. That the Earth's temperature more or less plateaued > > during the 1943-74 period despite SO2 and other aerosols cutting > > insolation underscores the strength of the other anthropogenic drivers > > of warming, since when scrubbing of flues andf the short residence > > time of SO2 combined, temperatures started rising almost immediately > > despite an absence of any rise in TSI.
> > TSI-based claims also can't account for stratospheric cooling with > > lower tropospheric warming.
> > > When you tell people that China had the coldest winter for 50 > > > years (according to TV news in the UK) or that Scotland had the > > > coldest Easter for 46 years,
> > <sigh> regional weather is not climate. Climate is, by definition, a > > sustained and predictable patern of weather over a period long enough > > to reduce to noise regional weather anomalies. The globe (as in > > *global* warming) amounts to more than Scotland or China. It's the > > overall and long established trend line that is of significance > > here.
> > > or that the UK sea level is only rising > > > 3.1mm a year, then people do tend to get very sceptical about the cosy > > > consensus of environmentalists, most of the media and virtually all > > > politicians that global warming is caused by mankind and heading for a > > > catastrophe.
> > So much hangs on one word here : "cosy" and you don't support it. The > > implication here is of some sort of skullduggery but if you are to > > make that claims and impugn the integrity of the vast majority of the > > world's scientists, who, unlike you, have to make specific testable > > claims and risk public and career ending humiliation, you will need > > more than one snide observation.
> > Who are these "people" who "tend to get very sceptical"? Vague appeals > > to populist angst are not an argument, especially when the bulk of the > > populace would be hard pressed to describe the pattern of water > > transports in the major water currents, explain what a cline was in > > this context, specify the differences between the various measurement > > methodologies, or the difference between the morphology of the ice > > mass in the various parts of the world. Before opening the front of > > your trousers to relieve yourself in public, it's best practice to > > test which way the wind is blowing.
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote: > Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 11, 12:24 am, Steve Wallis > > <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > I've been involved in a long debate about solar power (particularly > > > concentrating solar power/solar thermal energy) versus nuclear power, > > > mainly with the pro-nuclear socialist David Walters, but another pro- > > > nuclear socialist called Fran has recently joined in, on > > > alt.politics.socialism.trotsky in the thread "Guardian: Solar power > > > from Sahara could provide Europe's electricity, says EU".
> > > Others, including David, thought that crossposting on these issues > > > may > > > be OK, so I'm also sending this to a few other newsgroups. I'm also > > > posting my messages on this subject to my Revolutionary Platform > > > Network Forum (including to the Global Warming board there athttp://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=107); > > > please state if you object to me posting replies to your comments > > > there.
> > > On 10 Aug, 13:19, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 10, 4:11 am, Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > I've had some doubts about my position on global warming, but finding > > > > > out that the weather got colder during the post-war boom (despite the > > > > > increasing levels of carbon dioxide due to industrialisation)
> > > > Google "global dimming" for the effect of SO2 on global temperatures > > > > from 1943-74 ...
> > > I did find out about the sulphur claim (I wasn't sure it was SO2 and > > > thought I'd wait for somebody else to mention it), when doing earlier > > > browsing. I was sceptical then and still am now of this explanation. > > > Isn't it amazing that you get all this talk of global warming and yet > > > very little mention of the fact that temperatures did increase after > > > the second world war. Obviously, those who agree with global warming > > > need some sort of explanation when pushed to justify their theory, but > > > they generally don't want to mention global dimming and SO2 (and I > > > didn't find out about the SO2 explanation until I read a critique of > > > "The Great Global Warming Swindle").
> > > > > and > > > > > another ice age was predicted by scientists reinforced my view.
> > > > Another meme put about by deniers. Even at the "height" (if that is > > > > the right word) of the speculation in the early 1970s, more > > > > scientists hypothesised about global warming than a new ice age. Even > > > > the article generally credited with circualting this idea foreshadowed > > > > the opposite as a distinct possibility. There was never peer-reviewed > > > > science behind the claim, and certainly nothing like the process that > > > > has informed the IPCC assessment reports.
> > > Critics of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" such as George Monbiot > > > didn't claim that the post-war dimming was incorrect, and it must have > > > been in the late 70s or early 80s when I heard of the ice age > > > prediction, which certainly doesn't tally with dimming just in the > > > 1940s.
> > Here's somerthing pertinent for you in which a discussion on aerosols > > takes place
> > You might also want to look atwww.realclimate.orgor look at the work > > of Joseph Romm
> > > > > [I > > > > > remember this at the time but I'd forgotten about it until reminded by > > > > > the Channel 4 TV programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
> > > > This was put about by a self-styled swindler of the Thatcher and Hayek- > > > > loving "Living Marxism" crowd.
> > > I did discover that the person responsible for that programme is > > > linked to LM, and found a page with an interview the day after the > > > programme went out on their current Spiked project website, but he and > > > they claim that he is not a member of the ex-RCP.
> > > I disagree with a lot of the ideas that that organisation/ex- > > > organisation puts out, but that doesn't mean that valid points they > > > make about global warming can be discounted.
> > > > You need to stop believing the first thing you read on the internet.
> > > > Fran
> > > I don't. I've researched global warming theory quite a lot and found > > > arguments against global warming more convincing than those in support > > > of it.
> > I find that implusible. If you had researched it quite a lot, you'd be > > very familiar with the arguments on both sides and the response above > > shows that you aren't.
> > There are no sound arguments 'against global warming'. The bulk of > > those listed in the 'sceptics' category accept that it is occurring > > but dispute only the magnitude of future climate change and the speed, > > or the etiology. What you miss is that all the principal non- > > anthropogenic factor (orbital forcing) recommends cooling and yet we > > are warming. That the Earth's temperature more or less plateaued > > during the 1943-74 period despite SO2 and other aerosols cutting > > insolation underscores the strength of the other anthropogenic drivers > > of warming, since when scrubbing of flues andf the short residence > > time of SO2 combined, temperatures started rising almost immediately > > despite an absence of any rise in TSI.
> Unsupported claim.
> TSI is significantly involved in temperature increase and decrease. > Show me the opposite, as you assume
What? Do you really expect me to answer a question that comes unaccompanied by homophobic abuse? You had me take you for an angst- ridden moronic jackass and now it seems it was but mere affectation.
Or is it? Curious people want to know Herr Mulifauler ...
> <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > I've been involved in a long debate about solar power (particularly > > concentrating solar power/solar thermal energy) versus nuclear power, > > mainly with the pro-nuclear socialist David Walters, but another pro- > > nuclear socialist called Fran has recently joined in, on > > alt.politics.socialism.trotsky in the thread "Guardian: Solar power > > from Sahara could provide Europe's electricity, says EU".
> > Others, including David, thought that crossposting on these issues > > may > > be OK, so I'm also sending this to a few other newsgroups. I'm also > > posting my messages on this subject to my Revolutionary Platform > > Network Forum (including to the Global Warming board there athttp://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=107); > > please state if you object to me posting replies to your comments > > there.
> > On 10 Aug, 13:19, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 10, 4:11 am,Steve Wallis<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > I've had some doubts about my position on global warming, but finding > > > > out that the weather got colder during the post-war boom (despite the > > > > increasing levels of carbon dioxide due to industrialisation)
> > > Google "global dimming" for the effect of SO2 on global temperatures > > > from 1943-74 ...
> > I did find out about the sulphur claim (I wasn't sure it was SO2 and > > thought I'd wait for somebody else to mention it), when doing earlier > > browsing. I was sceptical then and still am now of this explanation. > > Isn't it amazing that you get all this talk of global warming and yet > > very little mention of the fact that temperatures did increase after > > the second world war. Obviously, those who agree with global warming > > need some sort of explanation when pushed to justify their theory, but > > they generally don't want to mention global dimming and SO2 (and I > > didn't find out about the SO2 explanation until I read a critique of > > "The Great Global Warming Swindle").
> > > > and > > > > another ice age was predicted by scientists reinforced my view.
> > > Another meme put about by deniers. Even at the "height" (if that is > > > the right word) of the speculation in the early 1970s, more > > > scientists hypothesised about global warming than a new ice age. Even > > > the article generally credited with circualting this idea foreshadowed > > > the opposite as a distinct possibility. There was never peer-reviewed > > > science behind the claim, and certainly nothing like the process that > > > has informed the IPCC assessment reports.
> > Critics of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" such as George Monbiot > > didn't claim that the post-war dimming was incorrect, and it must have > > been in the late 70s or early 80s when I heard of the ice age > > prediction, which certainly doesn't tally with dimming just in the > > 1940s.
> Here's somerthing pertinent for you in which a discussion on aerosols > takes place
The graph on this page only shows (as far as five-year averages are concerned) global temperatures reducing in the 1940s. This looks to be based on the same data used in the Wikpedia pages I mentioned. You gave the dates 1943-74, which certainly doesn't tally with this graph, and I remember talk of an ice age when I was growing up (and I was only born in 1966). There was a TV programme with excerpts shown in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which it claimed represented the scientific consensus at the time of a predicted ice age, but with a sole scientist giving a contradictory position suggesting global warming from CO2.
It's easy to dismiss "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as propaganda from "kooks", right-wingers pretending to be Marxists (the LM crowd) and people in the pay of the power companies, but the person most featured on that programme was a former editor of New Scientist - the foremost science publication in the UK.
That programme showed a graph with decreasing temperatures for the sort of period you gave (1943-74) - completely different from those clearly made-up graphs.
I am becoming fed up with these doomsayers. In the 1970s we were told the world would get dramatically colder. In the 1990s much the same people were telling us that doom awaited us,...#65279; imminently, thanks to the hole in the ozone layer, which now seems to have gone curiously out of fashion.
As an academic I cannot help noting that both the writer of your article, Andrew Simms, and the researcher on whose work he relied, work for a foundation whose very existence depends on the notion that there is such a thing as dramatic climate change.
> You might also want to look atwww.realclimate.orgor look at the work > of Joseph Romm
I've checked those out, but I don't know what specific points they made that you find particularly persuasive. Would you like to elaborate?
> > I don't. I've researched global warming theory quite a lot and found > > arguments against global warming more convincing than those in support > > of it.
> I find that implusible. If you had researched it quite a lot, you'd be > very familiar with the arguments on both sides and the response above > shows that you aren't.
I did say "quite a lot" rather than "a lot", so I haven't heard all the arguments. I'm personally a scientist (with a PhD in computer science) and am perfectly capable of being convinced if the evidence for your point of view is good enough!
> There are no sound arguments 'against global warming'. The bulk of > those listed in the 'sceptics' category accept that it is occurring > but dispute only the magnitude of future climate change and the speed, > or the etiology.
I had to search for "etiology", not knowing what it meant. [Please explain "TSI" which you used later in the message; it's a bit annoying when words/acronyms are used that I don't understand; use of such terms must be even more confusing for people for which English is not their first language.] According to Wikpedia, etiology is the study of causation. "The Great Global Warming Swindle" suggests that global warming causes carbon dioxide rather than the other way round; other sceptics say that people do cause global warming via greenhouse gases but other factors such as solar flares are more significant. I don't know enough physics to be able to judge which of these views is most persuasive.
According to NASA statistics for the northern hemisphere, 1998 was the hottest year to date until 2005. Even if you agree with global warming theory, there are clearly other factors at play. And I've also heard that the southern hemisphere isn't actually warming (or maybe to a lesser degree), but NASA won't release figures to confirm (or deny) this!
> > When you tell people that China had the coldest winter for 50 > > years (according to TV news in the UK) or that Scotland had the > > coldest Easter for 46 years,
> <sigh> regional weather is not climate. Climate is, by definition, a > sustained and predictable patern of weather over a period long enough > to reduce to noise regional weather anomalies.
Yes, I know, but it makes an already rather scpetical public even more sceptical about global warming theory. Perhaps the Chinese regime is currently playing lip-service to global warming theory but I wouldn't imagine the general public in China is very convinced of it!
> > or that the UK sea level is only rising > > 3.1mm a year, then people do tend to get very sceptical about the cosy > > consensus of environmentalists, most of the media and virtually all > > politicians that global warming is caused by mankind and heading for a > > catastrophe.
> So much hangs on one word here : "cosy" and you don't support it. The > implication here is of some sort of skullduggery but if you are to > make that claims and impugn the integrity of the vast majority of the > world's scientists, who, unlike you, have to make specific testable > claims and risk public and career ending humiliation, you will need > more than one snide observation.
OK, maybe "cosy" is not the best word bearing in mind that environmentalists are encouraging politicians who say they agree with global warming but aren't prepared to do much (if anything) about it. However, does it strike you as strange that right-wing capitalist views are dominating politics in the West, but those politicians actually agree with lefties on the environment?
Steve Wallis wrote: > On 11 Aug, 01:32, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> <sigh> regional weather is not climate. Climate is, by definition, a >> sustained and predictable patern of weather over a period long enough >> to reduce to noise regional weather anomalies.
> Yes, I know, but it makes an already rather scpetical public even more > sceptical about global warming theory. Perhaps the Chinese regime is > currently playing lip-service to global warming theory but I wouldn't > imagine the general public in China is very convinced of it!
Fran is 100% convinced, she thinks China is a shining example which America should try to emulate (and presumably everyone else). She also says that they have the lowest pollution.
> Steve Wallis wrote: > > On 11 Aug, 01:32, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >> <sigh> regional weather is not climate. Climate is, by definition, a > >> sustained and predictable patern of weather over a period long enough > >> to reduce to noise regional weather anomalies.
> > Yes, I know, but it makes an already rather scpetical public even more > > sceptical about global warming theory. Perhaps the Chinese regime is > > currently playing lip-service to global warming theory but I wouldn't > > imagine the general public in China is very convinced of it!
> Fran is 100% convinced, she thinks China is a shining example which > America should try to emulate (and presumably everyone else). She > also says that they have the lowest pollution.
> Cheers,
> Rich
First, Steve misunderstood me...we should keep this discussion limited to environmental and energy NGs, not political ones. So it's staying on the above 4 NGs.
China IS a shingin example because they are taking energy seriously. They are, simply put, exploring *every* option bar none. From wind, to tidal, to all forms of solar, to nuclear (160 GWs being planned), to clean coal, to dirty coal, to bio diesel. You name it, they are exploring it, and backing it up to the tune of billions of USD worth of R&D.
<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > I've been involved in a long debate about solar power (particularly > concentrating solar power/solar thermal energy) versus nuclear power, > mainly with the pro-nuclear socialist David Walters, but another pro- > nuclear socialist called Fran has recently joined in, on > alt.politics.socialism.trotsky in the thread "Guardian: Solar power > from Sahara could provide Europe's electricity, says EU".
> Others, including David, thought that crossposting on these issues > may > be OK, so I'm also sending this to a few other newsgroups. I'm also > posting my messages on this subject to my Revolutionary Platform > Network Forum (including to the Global Warming board there athttp://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=107); > please state if you object to me posting replies to your comments > there.
> On 10 Aug, 13:19, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 4:11 am, Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > I've had some doubts about my position on global warming, but finding > > > out that the weather got colder during the post-war boom (despite the > > > increasing levels of carbon dioxide due to industrialisation)
> > Google "global dimming" for the effect of SO2 on global temperatures > > from 1943-74 ...
> I did find out about the sulphur claim (I wasn't sure it was SO2 and > thought I'd wait for somebody else to mention it), when doing earlier > browsing. I was sceptical then and still am now of this explanation. > Isn't it amazing that you get all this talk of global warming and yet > very little mention of the fact that temperatures did increase after > the second world war. Obviously, those who agree with global warming > need some sort of explanation when pushed to justify their theory, but > they generally don't want to mention global dimming and SO2 (and I > didn't find out about the SO2 explanation until I read a critique of > "The Great Global Warming Swindle").
> > > and > > > another ice age was predicted by scientists reinforced my view.
> > Another meme put about by deniers. Even at the "height" (if that is > > the right word) of the speculation in the early 1970s, more > > scientists hypothesised about global warming than a new ice age. Even > > the article generally credited with circualting this idea foreshadowed > > the opposite as a distinct possibility. There was never peer-reviewed > > science behind the claim, and certainly nothing like the process that > > has informed the IPCC assessment reports.
> Critics of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" such as George Monbiot > didn't claim that the post-war dimming was incorrect, and it must have > been in the late 70s or early 80s when I heard of the ice age > prediction, which certainly doesn't tally with dimming just in the > 1940s.
> > > [I > > > remember this at the time but I'd forgotten about it until reminded by > > > the Channel 4 TV programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
> > This was put about by a self-styled swindler of the Thatcher and Hayek- > > loving "Living Marxism" crowd.
> I did discover that the person responsible for that programme is > linked to LM, and found a page with an interview the day after the > programme went out on their current Spiked project website, but he and > they claim that he is not a member of the ex-RCP.
> I disagree with a lot of the ideas that that organisation/ex- > organisation puts out, but that doesn't mean that valid points they > make about global warming can be discounted.
> > You need to stop believing the first thing you read on the internet.
> > Fran
> I don't. I've researched global warming theory quite a lot and found > arguments against global warming more convincing than those in support
Really. Considering that the arguments for it are on scientific web sites and those against it on blogs or industry-funded fronts sites, this tells us a lot about your ability to think critically.
> of it. When you tell people that China had the coldest winter for 50 > years (according to TV news in the UK) or that Scotland had the > coldest Easter for 46 years, or that the UK sea level is only rising > 3.1mm a year, then people do tend to get very sceptical about the cosy > consensus of envrionmentalists,
Actually it's of scientists. Every scientific organization in the world, articles published in journals like Science and Nature...
>most of the media and virtually all > politicians that global warming is caused by mankind and heading for a > catastrophe.
Yeah, I bet you're skeptical of that "earth goes around the sun" thing too then.
<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 11 Aug, 01:32, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 12:24 am,Steve Wallis
> > <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > I've been involved in a long debate about solar power (particularly > > > concentrating solar power/solar thermal energy) versus nuclear power, > > > mainly with the pro-nuclear socialist David Walters, but another pro- > > > nuclear socialist called Fran has recently joined in, on > > > alt.politics.socialism.trotsky in the thread "Guardian: Solar power > > > from Sahara could provide Europe's electricity, says EU".
> > > Others, including David, thought that crossposting on these issues > > > may > > > be OK, so I'm also sending this to a few other newsgroups. I'm also > > > posting my messages on this subject to my Revolutionary Platform > > > Network Forum (including to the Global Warming board there athttp://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=107); > > > please state if you object to me posting replies to your comments > > > there.
> > > On 10 Aug, 13:19, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 10, 4:11 am,Steve Wallis<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > I've had some doubts about my position on global warming, but finding > > > > > out that the weather got colder during the post-war boom (despite the > > > > > increasing levels of carbon dioxide due to industrialisation)
> > > > Google "global dimming" for the effect of SO2 on global temperatures > > > > from 1943-74 ...
> > > I did find out about the sulphur claim (I wasn't sure it was SO2 and > > > thought I'd wait for somebody else to mention it), when doing earlier > > > browsing. I was sceptical then and still am now of this explanation. > > > Isn't it amazing that you get all this talk of global warming and yet > > > very little mention of the fact that temperatures did increase after > > > the second world war. Obviously, those who agree with global warming > > > need some sort of explanation when pushed to justify their theory, but > > > they generally don't want to mention global dimming and SO2 (and I > > > didn't find out about the SO2 explanation until I read a critique of > > > "The Great Global Warming Swindle").
> > > > > and > > > > > another ice age was predicted by scientists reinforced my view.
> > > > Another meme put about by deniers. Even at the "height" (if that is > > > > the right word) of the speculation in the early 1970s, more > > > > scientists hypothesised about global warming than a new ice age. Even > > > > the article generally credited with circualting this idea foreshadowed > > > > the opposite as a distinct possibility. There was never peer-reviewed > > > > science behind the claim, and certainly nothing like the process that > > > > has informed the IPCC assessment reports.
> > > Critics of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" such as George Monbiot > > > didn't claim that the post-war dimming was incorrect, and it must have > > > been in the late 70s or early 80s when I heard of the ice age > > > prediction, which certainly doesn't tally with dimming just in the > > > 1940s.
> > Here's somerthing pertinent for you in which a discussion on aerosols > > takes place
> The graph on this page only shows (as far as five-year averages are > concerned) global temperatures reducing in the 1940s. This looks to be > based on the same data used in the Wikpedia pages I mentioned. You > gave the dates 1943-74, which certainly doesn't tally with this graph, > and I remember talk of an ice age when I was growing up (and I was > only born in 1966).
>There was a TV programme with excerpts shown in > "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which it claimed represented the > scientific consensus at the time of a predicted ice age, but with a > sole scientist giving a contradictory position suggesting global > warming from CO2.
The program lied. Did you bother to check it out?
> It's easy to dismiss "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as propaganda > from "kooks", right-wingers pretending to be Marxists (the LM crowd) > and people in the pay of the power companies, but the person most > featured on that programme was a former editor of New Scientist - the > foremost science publication in the UK.
And several have said that program misrepresented them.
> That programme showed a graph with decreasing temperatures for the > sort of period you gave (1943-74) - completely different from those > clearly made-up graphs.
> I am becoming fed up with these doomsayers. In the 1970s we were told > the world would get dramatically colder. In the 1990s much the same > people were telling us that doom awaited us,...#65279; imminently, > thanks to the hole in the ozone layer, which now seems to have gone > curiously out of fashion.
> As an academic I cannot help noting that both the writer of your > article, Andrew Simms, and the researcher on whose work he relied, > work for a foundation whose very existence depends on the notion that > there is such a thing as dramatic climate change.
> I've checked those out, but I don't know what specific points they > made that you find particularly persuasive. Would you like to > elaborate?
> > > I don't. I've researched global warming theory quite a lot and found > > > arguments against global warming more convincing than those in support > > > of it.
> > I find that implusible. If you had researched it quite a lot, you'd be > > very familiar with the arguments on both sides and the response above > > shows that you aren't.
> I did say "quite a lot" rather than "a lot", so I haven't heard all > the arguments. I'm personally a scientist (with a PhD in computer > science) and am perfectly capable of being convinced if the evidence > for your point of view is good enough!
> > There are no sound arguments 'against global warming'. The bulk of > > those listed in the 'sceptics' category accept that it is occurring > > but dispute only the magnitude of future climate change and the speed, > > or the etiology.
> I had to search for "etiology", not knowing what it meant. [Please > explain "TSI" which you used later in the message; it's a bit annoying > when words/acronyms are used that I don't understand; use of such > terms must be even more confusing for people for which English is not > their first language.] According to Wikpedia, etiology is the study of > causation. "The Great Global Warming Swindle" suggests that global > warming causes carbon dioxide rather than the other way round; other > sceptics say that people do cause global warming via greenhouse gases > but other factors such as solar flares are more significant. I don't > know enough physics to be able to judge which of these views is most > persuasive.
If warming is causing the CO2,
1. What is causing the warming? 2. Where is the CO2 coming from?
> According to NASA statistics for the northern hemisphere, 1998 was the > hottest year to date until 2005.
nada wrote: > The bottom line is do we want to continue experimenting on the planet > by pumping as much CO2 as we can into the atmosphere?
> David
OR
Do we want to experiment by using iron to make the oceans absorb more CO2? And the other silly waste of taxes given out as grants for similar experiments.
nada wrote: > The bottom line is do we want to continue experimenting on the planet > by pumping as much CO2 as we can into the atmosphere?
No, the bottom line is are you willing to starve, and let your family starve *today* because the "mitigation strategies" basically pull the rug out from under your economy and food chain.
Why needs AGW, the mitigation strategies are a clear and present danger today.
Lloyd wrote: > On Aug 11, 10:45 am, Rich <some...@someplace.not> wrote: >> Fran wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Here's somerthing pertinent for you in which a discussion on aerosols >>> takes place >>> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189 >> Aren't they the ones demanding Nuremberg-sytle trials for dem 'ebil >> deniers? You'd probably support that Fran.
>>> You might also want to look atwww.realclimate.orgor look at the work >>> of Joseph Romm >> And realclimate is the very definition of a vested interest.
>> Got any unbiased sources?
> Just National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, American Geophysical > Union, American Physics Society, NASA, NOAA, EPA...
Are they unbiased? Or do they simply echo biased sources?
If you claim that they have no vested interest in AGW, feel free to show it.
> And we know you don't have any unbiased sources.
You believe lots of things Lloyd. But I don't need sources to ask you the basis for your beliefs. You are the source.
> Lloyd wrote: > > On Aug 11, 10:45 am, Rich <some...@someplace.not> wrote: > >> Fran wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> Here's somerthing pertinent for you in which a discussion on aerosols > >>> takes place > >>>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189 > >> Aren't they the ones demanding Nuremberg-sytle trials for dem 'ebil > >> deniers? You'd probably support that Fran.
> >>> You might also want to look atwww.realclimate.orgorlook at the work > >>> of Joseph Romm > >> And realclimate is the very definition of a vested interest.
> >> Got any unbiased sources?
> > Just National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, American Geophysical > > Union, American Physics Society, NASA, NOAA, EPA...
> Are they unbiased? Or do they simply echo biased sources?
Oh give us a break. Either you're a 10-year old or you're a kook.
> If you claim that they have no vested interest in AGW, feel > free to show it.
Note: Google Groups now says that it does not support sending messages to sci.environment, despite the fact that I sent my previous messages to it; hence I am only posting this message to the other four groups.
On 11 Aug, 15:20, "V for Vendicar"
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote > > TSI is significantly involved in temperature increase and decrease.
> How sad for you that the total energy output from the sun (TSI) has > decreased over the last 20-30 years as the earth's temperature has been > rising.
Well, I just googled "total energy output from the sun TSI" (without quotes) and the first item that came up was a March 2003 SPACE.COM article entitled "Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming" (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ sun_output_030320.html).
The first paragraph says "In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.", which rather contradicts your assertion.
What is perhaps more significant is a graph showing "Northern Hemisphere Land Temperature and Solar Cycle", with an "Astrophysical Journal" source and showing temperatures clearly decreasing over a period of 30 years or so (quite possibly 1943-74 which Fran mentioned). The graphs in the Wikpedia pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Global_dimming and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record) show cooling from 1940-50, particularly looking at 5-year averages, and no noticeable cooling in the subsequent decades. Those Wikipedia graphs are clearly a fabrication; I can't see how an ice age could seriously have been predicted in the 1970s if it hadn't actually got colder in the previous 20 years!
Does anybody know of any graphs for southern hemisphere temperatures, which I have heard haven't actually increased when northern hemisphere ones have?
Maybe I haven't browsed as many science websites as others, mainly getting information from mainstream media and New Scientist (which incidentally had a small item recently predicting cooling over the next decade!) However, it is difficult to distinguish disinformation from the truth with big vested interests at stake, so I prefer to put my views on public forums such as these and let both sides put their views forward and we'll see who wins the argument. I'm perfectly prepared to change my position and support the global warming consensus if there's strong enough evidence for it.
>Note: Google Groups now says that it does not support sending messages >to sci.environment, despite the fact that I sent my previous messages >to it; hence I am only posting this message to the other four groups.
>On 11 Aug, 15:20, "V for Vendicar" ><Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote >> > TSI is significantly involved in temperature increase and decrease.
>> How sad for you that the total energy output from the sun (TSI) has >> decreased over the last 20-30 years as the earth's temperature has been >> rising.
>Well, I just googled "total energy output from the sun TSI" (without >quotes) and the first item that came up was a March 2003 SPACE.COM >article entitled "Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling >Global Warming" (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ >sun_output_030320.html).
>The first paragraph says "In what could be the simplest explanation >for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's >radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late >1970s.", which rather contradicts your assertion.
>What is perhaps more significant is a graph showing "Northern >Hemisphere Land Temperature and Solar Cycle", with an "Astrophysical >Journal" source and showing temperatures clearly decreasing over a >period of 30 years or so (quite possibly 1943-74 which Fran >mentioned). The graphs in the Wikpedia pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/ >wiki/Global_dimming and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record) >show cooling from 1940-50, particularly looking at 5-year averages, >and no noticeable cooling in the subsequent decades. Those Wikipedia >graphs are clearly a fabrication; I can't see how an ice age could >seriously have been predicted in the 1970s if it hadn't actually got >colder in the previous 20 years!
>Does anybody know of any graphs for southern hemisphere temperatures, >which I have heard haven't actually increased when northern hemisphere >ones have?
The southern hemisphere is a totally different environment from the NH, the proportion of sea surface is much greater, with a lot less annual change vegetation, and it is six months out of sync with the NH.
>Maybe I haven't browsed as many science websites as others, mainly >getting information from mainstream media and New Scientist (which >incidentally had a small item recently predicting cooling over the >next decade!) However, it is difficult to distinguish disinformation >from the truth with big vested interests at stake, so I prefer to put >my views on public forums such as these and let both sides put their >views forward and we'll see who wins the argument. I'm perfectly >prepared to change my position and support the global warming >consensus if there's strong enough evidence for it.
Raw data from the midwest during 1960-1980 is scary, and it is reflected in the global averages for those years, see;
The big change in number of stations could have an effect on the average, even using anomalies, if the anomalies of the dropped stations were a lot different from the retained or picked up stations.
My opinion is that the averaging is meaningless, it is flawed in a number of different ways, and that the bias has or is rapidly reaching, a plateau. If the bias was upward, than part of the apparent cooling or reduced warming is the result of the averaging biases of a short, imperfect, data set.
<revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Note: Google Groups now says that it does not support sending messages > to sci.environment, despite the fact that I sent my previous messages > to it; hence I am only posting this message to the other four groups.
> On 11 Aug, 15:20, "V for Vendicar"
> <Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > "Peter Muehlbauer" <spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote > > > TSI is significantly involved in temperature increase and decrease.
> > How sad for you that the total energy output from the sun (TSI) has > > decreased over the last 20-30 years as the earth's temperature has been > > rising.
> Well, I just googled "total energy output from the sun TSI" (without > quotes) and the first item that came up was a March 2003 SPACE.COM > article entitled "Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling > Global Warming" (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ > sun_output_030320.html).
> The first paragraph says "In what could be the simplest explanation > for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's > radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late > 1970s.", which rather contradicts your assertion.
> What is perhaps more significant is a graph showing "Northern > Hemisphere Land Temperature and Solar Cycle", with an "Astrophysical > Journal" source and showing temperatures clearly decreasing over a > period of 30 years or so (quite possibly 1943-74 which Fran > mentioned). The graphs in the Wikpedia pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/ > wiki/Global_dimming andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record) > show cooling from 1940-50, particularly looking at 5-year averages, > and no noticeable cooling in the subsequent decades. Those Wikipedia > graphs are clearly a fabrication; I can't see how an ice age could > seriously have been predicted in the 1970s if it hadn't actually got > colder in the previous 20 years!
But that's just it ... nobody predicted a new ice age.
A couple of scientists looked at a couple of data points, kept in mind the orbital forcing issues and essentially said "it might be worth looking into the possibility that we are entering a new ice age ..."
They were proposing *more research*. Not only was the proposal reasonable, but had it been followed, we might have got a head start on taking the issue of climate seriously.
Of course, the GPC [global polluters cartel] spruikers have blown a proposal for research by a handful of scientists into a world wide scientific consensus. They simply have no regard for honesty.
Fran wrote: > On Aug 13, 5:06 am, Steve Wallis > <revolutionarysocialistst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Note: Google Groups now says that it does not support sending messages >> to sci.environment, despite the fact that I sent my previous messages >> to it; hence I am only posting this message to the other four groups.
>> On 11 Aug, 15:20, "V for Vendicar"
> Of course, the GPC [global polluters cartel] spruikers have blown a > proposal for research by a handful of scientists into a world wide > scientific consensus. They simply have no regard for honesty.
> Fran
You could insert AGWers(for GPC) to correct the paragraph.
Lloyd wrote: > On Aug 11, 10:02 pm, Rich <some...@someplace.not> wrote: >> Lloyd wrote: >>> On Aug 11, 10:45 am, Rich <some...@someplace.not> wrote: >>>> Fran wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>> Here's somerthing pertinent for you in which a discussion on aerosols >>>>> takes place >>>>> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189 >>>> Aren't they the ones demanding Nuremberg-sytle trials for dem 'ebil >>>> deniers? You'd probably support that Fran. >>>>> You might also want to look atwww.realclimate.orgorlook at the work >>>>> of Joseph Romm >>>> And realclimate is the very definition of a vested interest. >>>> Got any unbiased sources? >>> Just National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, American Geophysical >>> Union, American Physics Society, NASA, NOAA, EPA... >> Are they unbiased? Or do they simply echo biased sources?
> Oh give us a break. Either you're a 10-year old or you're a kook.
False dichotomy time.
>> If you claim that they have no vested interest in AGW, feel >> free to show it.
> If you have half a brain, feel free to show it.
Either make your case or don't.
Your case right now seems to be that the above are beyond either criticism or examination, and I don't take blind belief on your part as evidence for anything but that you are one of the faithful, a useful idiot.
>>> And we know you don't have any unbiased sources. >> You believe lots of things Lloyd. But I don't need sources >> to ask you the basis for your beliefs. You are the source.
|
