Message from discussion
Global dimming and ice age predictions after WW2 contradict global warming theory
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,uk.politics.environment,sci.environment,alt.global-warming,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Global dimming and ice age predictions after WW2 contradict
global warming theory
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 186
Message-ID: <70e3821b-6081-471f-a3f1-2ccb9a6f1efa@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
References: <41e9fec6-9149-4b92-83ee-3e3f2f92d8b5@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
<dd02a966-2fe0-4a70-87bb-37f66bc5e0a2@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
<87a947fb-e0f9-456c-b11b-85d90fcc20d2@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.88.131.150
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1218425933 4978 127.0.0.1 (11 Aug 2008 03:38:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 03:38:53 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com; posting-host=61.88.131.150;
posting-account=LNl2nQoAAADrE2ege-lZHJagqFiDklsV
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 itcpx03 (NetCache NetApp/6.0.5), 1.0 ISA09
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR
1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
On Aug 11, 12:25=A0pm, nada <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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://w=
ww.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=3D107);
> > > 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 fin=
ding
> > > > > 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 temperature=
s
> > > > 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, bu=
t
> > > 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) =A0of the speculation in the early 1970s, more
> > > > scientists hypothesised about global warming than a new ice age. Ev=
en
> > > > the article generally credited with circualting this idea foreshado=
wed
> > > > the opposite as a distinct possibility. There was never peer-review=
ed
> > > > science behind the claim, and certainly nothing like the process th=
at
> > > > has informed the IPCC assessment reports.
>
> > > I did Google "global dimming" as you suggested and came across the
> > > Wikipedia pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming. The graph
> > > on that page, which takes data fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo=
rical_temperature_record,
> > > does not show dimming for anything like the period 1943-74 - in fact
> > > it's only in the 1940s according to those graphs.
>
> > > Critics of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" such as George Monbiot
> > > didn't claim that the post-war dimming was incorrect, and it must hav=
e
> > > 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
>
> >http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189
>
> > You might also want to look atwww.realclimate.orgorlook at the work
> > of Joseph Romm
>
> > > > > [I
> > > > > remember this at the time but I'd forgotten about it until remind=
ed by
> > > > > the Channel 4 TV programme "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
>
> > > > This was put about by a self-styled swindler of the Thatcher and Ha=
yek-
> > > > 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 an=
d
> > > 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 suppor=
t
> > > 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 cos=
y
> > > 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 =A0the vast majority of th=
e
> > 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.
>
> > Fran
>
> Fran, my only caveat to all this Romm being totally taken apart
> because of his anti-nuclear attitude and his playing with numbers. see
> the commentary under some of his latest posts.http://climateprogress.org/=
2008/08/08/aep-demands-45-rate-increase-fo...
Romm is good in his area, which is climate science, but I've written
to him to dispute his stuff on nuclear.
Fran
|
