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: nada <dwalters...@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 19:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 162
Message-ID: <87a947fb-e0f9-456c-b11b-85d90fcc20d2@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
References: <41e9fec6-9149-4b92-83ee-3e3f2f92d8b5@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
<dd02a966-2fe0-4a70-87bb-37f66bc5e0a2@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.210.111.9
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1218421559 1569 127.0.0.1 (11 Aug 2008 02:25:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:25:59 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com; posting-host=98.210.111.9;
posting-account=FP7-6AoAAAD3wdsbiiZxfdr0GMAH9Rm3
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
rv:1.8.1.16) Gecko/20080702 Firefox/2.0.0.16,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
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.
>
> > 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/Historical_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 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
>
> http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189
>
> 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.
>
> Fran
Fran, my only caveat to all this Romm beung 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-for-ohio-what-america-can-look-forward-to-under-mccain/
David
|
