Two New Books Confirm Global Warming Is Natural -- Not Caused By Human Activity
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
------------------------------------
Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human
Activity
Tue Jan 30 2007
Matt Drudge
Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human
activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable
Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist
Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New
Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former
BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.
Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred
before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical
evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The
evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and
Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep
seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.
Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following
variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and
finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites
the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by
creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes
that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.
The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of
earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into
a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun.
When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started
floating through the chamber.
“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons
[generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for
the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.
The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the
sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s
temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from
outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of
water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that
reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it
shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.
Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural,
1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why
and how.
Lawson English
> Hmmmmmmmmm...
>
> DSH
> ------------------------------------
>
> Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human
> Activity
>
Books are NEVER considered a primary source in scientific debate (unless
it is debate about the book, of course, or about information that is
only found in the book due to its historical nature). Books are
secondary sources, at best, and often tertiary.
To refer to a book as confirming something in the context of a
scientific debate is to show that you don't understand scientific debate.
Guerite³
"Lawson English" <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote in message
news:HaMvh.7433$uK1....@newsfe23.lga...
What about movies?
Lawson English
Same thing, of course. Has someone here touted Gore's movie as
confirming something about Global Warming?
D. Spencer Hines
Knee-Jerk, Angry Loony-Left, Academics, Et Alii, Like Our Own Pet Marmot --
Pogue Gans The Chemist -- ALWAYS TRY TO DISCREDIT THE SOURCE WHEN THEY CAN
OFFER NO SUBSTANCE IN REBUTTAL.
It's built into their GENES.
"When In Doubt, Fumble, Mumble, Pontificate, Act Outraged That You've Been
Outwitted -- And Try To Discredit The Messenger" -- Is Their Motto.
How Sweet It Is!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Deus Vult
Sholem Aleichem
Nikolaos
>
>DSH
>------------------------------------
>
>Two New Books Confirm [sic] Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human
>Activity
Confirm?
It would be much more accurate to write "argue (against massive
scientific consensus)"
Wait til Friday and see if these two books have had any effect on the
report to be announced by the Paris conference:
http://www.ana.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=5014932&maindocimg=3564718&service=100
Niko
Nikolaos
<pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hilarious!
>
>Knee-Jerk, Angry Loony-Left, Academics, Et Alii, Like Our Own Pet Marmot --
>Pogue Gans The Chemist -- ALWAYS TRY TO DISCREDIT THE SOURCE WHEN THEY CAN
>OFFER NO SUBSTANCE IN REBUTTAL.
And where did you publish anything of substance in rebuttal of the
IPCC?
Niko
(a conservative who refuses to stick his head in the sand)
IE_Json
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xOLvh.7$wi5...@eagle.america.net...
> floating through the chamber.
>
> "We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons
> [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks
for
> the cloud condensation nuclei," says Svensmark.
>
> The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the
> sun's irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth's
> temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth's atmosphere
from
> outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of
> water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that
> reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it
> shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet
warms.
>
> Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural,
> 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why
> and how.
The Danes who presented an academic study comparing the temperature changes
on Earth with the suneruptions not to be forgotten either. I don't have the
ref at hand. Looked it up when someone else mentioned it a while ago.
Inger E
>
>
Renia
Unless, of course, the book is full of the analysis of primary data.
Peter Jason
"Global Warming" thing is becoming immortal!
The newspapers are full of it here, all
splashed across the pages in glorious
technicolour.
It is looking like the greatest beat-up of
all time.
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in
message news:eposf8$tpq$4...@mouse.otenet.gr...
Lawson English
Peer review still applies. Few books, aside from textbooks, are ever
peer-reviewed, and even those that are, contain rehashes of analysis
done previously.
Eric Stevens
Of course a book cannot be a primary source in this field but it is
fatuotous to argue that Fred Singer is not well aquainted with primary
sources.
In any case, much of the underlying primary source material is already
well known to anyone who has followed the field.
Eric Stevens
TMOliver
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote ....
>
> Unless, of course, the book is full of the analysis of primary data.
There exits substantial primary data and easily viewable scientific evidence
that Southwestern Greenland was a relatively hospitable climate, warm enough
for the routine cultivation of grain and livestock raising from about
1000CE, becoming cooler over the next 400 years, until by soon after 1400
the local resident population died of, leaving only archeological and
pathologic evidence to bolster the cultural memory of the "Green Years".
That simple fact, so rarely mentioned by the prophets of doom, gloom, and
rising temperatures, provides a glaring and undeniable example that "Things
may not be what they seem."
TMO
Jack Linthicum
> "Renia" <r...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote ....
That would seem to suggest that Greenland may be a some what warm
place in the Medieval Warm Period and one cold crock in the Little Ice
Age.
During the present millennium there was a period of relatively mild
climate called the Medieval Warm Period, lasting from about 1000 to
1300 AD. As with the Little Ice Age, its timing and effects varied
from region to region, and many experts doubt that the Medieval Warm
Period was a truly global phenomenon. In East Asia, for example,
temperatures were cooler.
http://earth.usc.edu/geol150/evolution/images/littleiceage/LittleIceAge.htm
During the MWP, Greenland's climate was so cold that cattle breeding
and dairy farming could only be carried on in the sheltered fiords.
Figure 2: Ratio of O18 vs. O16 in Greenland ice core vs. time.
(Source: Lamb, 1995)
The isotope data implies that during the MWP temperatures were
typically above normal and that after the year 1150 temperatures were
typically cooler, especially during the LIA. Ice core data from
Wyoming (Naftz et al., 1994) and Peru (Aber, 2000) also supports a
global warm period consistent with the MWP and a global cool period
consistent with the LIA.
>From 1846 to present, detailed records have been kept in Iceland that
show the number of months drift ice appeared along with the
temperature. Bergthórsson (1969) has estimated past north Atlantic
temperatures using a drift ice vs. temperature correlation derived
from recorded data. For example, he observed that if ice is sighted in
20 months of one decade and 22 months of the next decade, that second
decade was about 0.1oC cooler than the first. By analyzing various
clues to reports of drift ice, he applied this correlation to estimate
temperatures back to 1591. Using other historical references to past
climate, he extended his temperature estimates back to the year 900.
Fig. 5 shows the results of his research and Fig. 6 shows the
variation in amount of polar ice seen from Iceland (Lamb, 1977.) Both
illustrate the MWP and the LIA quite well.
Estimated temperatures vs. time by Bergthórsson, 1969
Figure 5: Estimated temperatures vs. time by Bergthórsson, 1969.
(Source: Bryson, 1977)
Number of weeks polar ice appeared at Iceland coast vs. time by Lamb,
1977
Figure 6: Number of weeks polar ice appeared at Iceland coast vs. time
by Lamb, 1977. (Source: Tkachuk, 1983)
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0216_060216_warming.html
Soren Larsen
> "Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote ....
>
>>
>> Unless, of course, the book is full of the analysis of primary data.
>
> There exits substantial primary data and easily viewable scientific
> evidence that Southwestern Greenland was a relatively hospitable
> climate, warm enough for the routine cultivation of grain
Never happened as a matter of routine during the norse period.
Now otoh!
> and
> livestock raising from about 1000CE,
That was _always_ the case even right to the end of
the Greenland Norse.
>becoming cooler over the next
> 400 years, until by soon after 1400 the local resident population
> died of,
That would be around 1500 and all the evidence points to gradual
abandonment of the settlements.
>leaving only archeological and pathologic evidence to
> bolster the cultural memory of the "Green Years".
> That simple fact, so rarely mentioned by the prophets of doom, gloom,
> and rising temperatures, provides a glaring and undeniable example
> that "Things may not be what they seem."
You might like to see
http://www.cicero.uio.no/humsec/papers/DugmoreKellerMcGovern.pdf
Have we been here before? Climate change, and the contrasting fates of human
settlements in the Atlantic islands
"
The
precise reasons for the final extinction of the Norse in Greenland are
uncertain. Amongst many
different explanations there is the possibility that in the 15th Century 'it
got cold and they died'; such a
brutally deterministic explanation can be refined to present a convincing
case that an inability to adapt
and adopt fundamentally different lifestyles in the face of climate change
may have made inevitable a
fate that could have been avoided. Perhaps the Norse Greenlanders chose not
to live like the Inuit, and
so they died. On the other hand perhaps extinction was all to do with trade;
fundamental changes to
the economic systems that first brought the Norse to Greenland could have
made inevitable a
marginalisation of the colonies that effectively sealed their fate. The
possible role of climate change in
this classic story of extinction provides a poignant historical underpinning
to considerations of human
security in the face of present and future global change. Delving deeper
into the ways in which climate
fluctuations maybe translated into various impacts, and reasons why impact
may occur even in the
presence of apparently effective management mechanisms, we explore the
notion of unpredictable
change in relation to differing cultural and environmental 'memories'. In
Iceland, many different
experiences of success and failure, of impact and sustainability, can be
explored in relation to rich,
well constrained data sets of both environmental and cultural information.
Over the last 1,100 years
the Icelanders have experienced a wide range of different climate changes,
their responses to these
challenges and the consequences of their choices offer some instructive
perspectives on contemporary
global change. To what extent have we been here before, and will we cope any
better in the future?"
Soren Larsen
>
> TMO
--
History is not what it used to be.
Renia
Indeed. The Earth's temperatures have been nipping up and down for millenia.
Eugene Griessel
There exists even more ample evidence that the earth has been in a
warming cycle for the past 18000 years - and is still in that cycle
and will be for a few thousand years more, despite the occasional
hiccough like the little ice age that put paid to the Greenland
settlements. The argument is not whether the earth is warming or not
- ample evidence exists that it is. Things like the retreat of
glaciers on Mt Kenya and Kilimanjaro were already being noted in the
1890s and Jean Louis Agassiz did excellent work in the 1820s in the
Swiss alps showing the same thing. What the argument is largely about
is how much the warming is being effected or accelerated by human
activities and whether those effects can be reversed.
If we look at the earth since the Silurian epoch then it is still in
an ice age today - with only one period about 300 million years ago -
the Permo-Carboniferous glaciation - being colder or as cold. For
millions of years through the Cretaceous period earth was considerably
hotter than now - no natural ice existed anywhere on earth.
Glaciation only started in the Antarctica about 35 million years ago
and really took off about 15 million years back.
Any number of factors could influence whether it gets hotter or colder
- scientists can only predict using the current trends but any number
of factors could reverse those. A big caldera explosion, dramatic
changes in the ocean currents, large asteroid hitting dome charlie,
etc. etc.
A couple of my friends who have done scientific work in the Antarctic
are however in no doubt whatsoever that human influence is
dramatically assisting warming.
Eugene L Griessel
Only when one has a full belly and freedom from bodily pain can one
afford the luxury of emotions beyond the most primitive will to survive.
Guerite³
"Lawson English" <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote > >>>
> >> Books are NEVER considered a primary source in scientific debate
(unless
> >> it is debate about the book, of course, or about information that is
> >> only found in the book due to its historical nature). Books are
> >> secondary sources, at best, and often tertiary.
> >>
> >> To refer to a book as confirming something in the context of a
> >> scientific debate is to show that you don't understand scientific
debate.
> >
> > What about movies?
> >
> >
>
> Same thing, of course. Has someone here touted Gore's movie as
> confirming something about Global Warming?
LOL - surely, you jess.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Eugene Griessel wrote:
>
> A couple of my friends who have done scientific work in the Antarctic
> are however in no doubt whatsoever that human influence is
> dramatically assisting warming.
Such an attitude would be forgivable if they're merely
funding trollops...the last six years has turned every
environmental researcher into one, more or less...the
funding pie isn't getting any larger, so I can empathise
those simply paying lip service to gain access to the
Capital Equipment Gravy Train..."with implications for
the study of Global Warming" is almost a boilerplate
blurb in environmental research presentations these
days.
But...
If they "know" then they're _not_ testing the hypothesis
and _aren't_ using scientific method. You're supposed to
try to _disprove_ it, if your data supports it, well and fine,
but you haven't "proved" it, you've supported it. Your job
as a scientist is to try to disprove it _again_...not rest
on your moralistic laurels and assume you've the answer.
Any "scientist" claiming to _know_ "human influence is
dramatically assisting warming" when _not_ suckling at
the funding teat strikes me as singularly lacking in the
necessary objectivity needed to do good science...and I'd
be inclined to doubt their word simply based on that.
Deirdre
D. Spencer Hines
And that's one of the principal reasons I don't trust Pogue Gans when he
says quite similar things about "Global Warming Caused By Humans".
DSH
"Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.e...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:45C156E6...@rcn.com...
BlackBeard
wrote:
>
> Such an attitude would be forgivable if they're merely
> funding trollops...the last six years has turned every
> environmental researcher into one, more or less...the
> funding pie isn't getting any larger, so I can empathise
> those simply paying lip service to gain access to the
> Capital Equipment Gravy Train..."with implications for
> the study of Global Warming" is almost a boilerplate
> blurb in environmental research presentations these
> days.
>
> But...
>
> If they "know" then they're _not_ testing the hypothesis
> and _aren't_ using scientific method. You're supposed to
> try to _disprove_ it, if your data supports it, well and fine,
> but you haven't "proved" it, you've supported it. Your job
> as a scientist is to try to disprove it _again_...not rest
> on your moralistic laurels and assume you've the answer.
>
> Any "scientist" claiming to _know_ "human influence is
> dramatically assisting warming" when _not_ suckling at
> the funding teat strikes me as singularly lacking in the
> necessary objectivity needed to do good science...and I'd
> be inclined to doubt their word simply based on that.
>
> Deirdre
Thank you for a scientific response. I was tying to word a similar
response but yours is much more concise and clear.
'What she said'
BB
I guess everybody has some mountain to climb,
it's just fate whether you live in Tibet or Kansas...
Paul J Gans
>DSH
It is curious that the less one knows about a subject
the more strongly one has opinions about it.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Eric Stevens
Very well said.
Eric Stevens
D. Spencer Hines
>news:45C156E6...@rcn.com...
>> Any "scientist" claiming to _know_ "human influence is
>> dramatically assisting warming" when _not_ suckling at
>> the funding teat strikes me as singularly lacking in the
>> necessary objectivity needed to do good science...and I'd
>> be inclined to doubt their word simply based on that.
>>
>> Deirdre
BINGO!
And that's one of the principal reasons I don't trust Pogue Gans when he
says quite similar things about "Global Warming Caused By Humans".
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------
> It is curious that the less one knows about a subject
> the more strongly one has opinions about it.
>
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans
Yes, that's quite true with respect to Gans.
The blind sow roots up an acorn!
Well Done!
D. Spencer Hines
I concur with both Deirdre and Eugene.
DSH
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ovq2s2leic2875hkb...@4ax.com...
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
------------------------------------
Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human
Activity
Tue Jan 30 2007
Matt Drudge
Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human
activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable
Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist
Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New
Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former
BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.
Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred
before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical
evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The
evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and
Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep
seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.
Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following
variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and
finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites
the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by
creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes
that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.
The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of
earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into
a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun.
When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started
Peter Jason
"Deirdre Sholto Douglas"
<finch.e...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:45C156E6...@rcn.com...
dapra
> Hmmmmmmmmm...
>
> DSH
> ------------------------------------
>
> Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human
> Activity
>
Watch out Hines not to fall of the edge of your flat earth. Even the
Bush regime do not dispute any more the human activities contribution to
global warming.
J Antero
The authors get free refills at any Exxon station...
Eugene Griessel
Thanks for your cut and paste boiler-plate job. And your fiddling
with semantics.
What experiment do you propose and to test which hypothesis?
That global carbon-dioxide levels are rising? Proven beyond
reasonable doubt. That human activities are largely responsible?
Proven beyond reasonable doubt. That excess carbon-dioxide has an
effect on climate? Proven beyond reasonable doubt. Anything more?
The researchers I refer to are not Americans who need to get funding
by toeing a party line. The research I refer to was done in the late
1970s and mid-1980s. Within the constraints of dealing with chaotic
systems with large numbers of variables certainty is never completely
possible.
Exploiting those uncertainties to maintain a current lifestyle is
possibly the most morally reprehensible act humankind is capable of.
Eugene L Griessel
The greater the desire to own a myriad communications devices the less
the desire to actually communicate via them.
D. Spencer Hines
Indeed...
I concur with both Deirdre and Eric.
DSH
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ovq2s2leic2875hkb...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:56:39 -0600, Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Lawson English
By the same token, any scientist claiming to _know_ that the sun will
rise tomorrow isn't a real scientist either...
Eric Stevens
True.
Let's hope that nobody is ever able to falsify that hypothesis. :-)
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Well, yes, even though this news group is not the proper place to
start an argument about it.
First of all, it has not been firmly established the temperature
follows carbon-dioxide. There is a case to be made
_on_historical_data_ that CO2 which follows temperature.
Nor has it been firmly established that there are no factors other
than anthropogenic which affect global temperatures. In fact there is
a very good case to be made for a long history of cyclicly fluctuating
global temperatures driven by - what - factors we are beginning to
barely understand. Try cosmic rays. Alternatively, the latest idea:
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Article in
Press, Accepted Manuscript http://tinyurl.com/2ozbyo
"Solar resonant diffusion waves as a driver of terrestrial climate
change".
>
>The researchers I refer to are not Americans who need to get funding
>by toeing a party line. The research I refer to was done in the late
>1970s and mid-1980s. Within the constraints of dealing with chaotic
>systems with large numbers of variables certainty is never completely
>possible.
>Exploiting those uncertainties to maintain a current lifestyle is
>possibly the most morally reprehensible act humankind is capable of.
... of which mankind is capable.
Please put the emphasis on the word 'possibly'.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Bush - aah - it must be right then. :-(
Eric Stevens
Eugene Griessel
>First of all, it has not been firmly established the temperature
>follows carbon-dioxide. There is a case to be made
>_on_historical_data_ that CO2 which follows temperature.
>
>Nor has it been firmly established that there are no factors other
>than anthropogenic which affect global temperatures. In fact there is
>a very good case to be made for a long history of cyclicly fluctuating
>global temperatures driven by - what - factors we are beginning to
>barely understand. Try cosmic rays. Alternatively, the latest idea:
>Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Article in
>Press, Accepted Manuscript http://tinyurl.com/2ozbyo
Obviously did not read my earlier post. But as you say, this is not
the ng to discuss this. When has that ever bothered Hines, might I
respectfully ask?
Eugene L Griessel
The greater the desire to own a myriad communications devices the less
the desire to actually communicate via them.
D. Patterson
"dapra" <dap...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Ja-dnYVP1MBb7FzY...@comcast.com...
No, the Bush Administration did no such thing.
D. Patterson
"J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote in message
news:rGewh.21552$X72....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>L O L
>
> The authors get free refills at any Exxon station...
>
Which is typical of the remarks and misconduct we have been seeing come from
the AGW fraudsters.
Jack Linthicum
The international people do not have muzzles and sign loyalty oaths in
order to print their papers.
... continued warming observed since 2001 is part of that certainty.
But climatologists say the bigger factor is the broad accumulation of
science over the past six years that has increased the precision with
which climate models predict future climate change, debunked
alternative hypotheses advanced by skeptics, and identified the
footprint of man-made climate change in every corner of the earth.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Climate Change: "Many, Many Smoking Guns"
Fourth in a series of international reports, due out tomorrow,
reflects better science and more-precise models.
By Peter Fairley
When the UN-organized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
presents its projections for global warming and future climate changes
tomorrow, the report's hallmark will be a far greater level of
certainty and precision than what was expressed in the last IPCC
report, issued in 2001. "The certainty is huge," says Andrew Weaver of
the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada's top climate
modeling expert and a coauthor of the new IPCC report.
To be sure, continued warming observed since 2001 is part of that
certainty. But climatologists say the bigger factor is the broad
accumulation of science over the past six years that has increased the
precision with which climate models predict future climate change,
debunked alternative hypotheses advanced by skeptics, and identified
the footprint of man-made climate change in every corner of the earth.
As Weaver put it, the IPCC has not just found a smoking gun linking
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Rather, its fourth report
delivers a smoking arsenal. "There are many, many smoking guns," he
says. "It's a battalion of smoking intercontinental ballistic
missiles."
Jerry Mahlman, a senior research associate at the U.S. National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), in Boulder, CO, and a peer reviewer
for the IPCC, says that while the final language is still being
hammered out, the report might end up expressing 99 percent certainty
that greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels,
are warming Earth, up from "greater than 90 percent" confidence in the
previous report. "It's very obvious that the earth is warming up
exactly as we've projected it to do so," says Mahlman. One recent
draft notes that IPCC's projection in 1990 that global average
temperature would rise by between 0.15 and 0.3 °C per decade through
2005 compares well with the 0.2 °C increase that actually occurred.
Today, many detailed scientific reports are detecting global warming's
fingerprints rather than simply glimpsing the outline of its
footprint. The second and third IPCC assessments, issued in 1996 and
2001, respectively, built a case for man-made climate change on
increased global average temperature above that expected from natural
variability. Weaver says the fourth report, in contrast, will identify
the signal of man-made climate change in every region of the globe and
in many more variables beyond temperature, such as increases in
intense tropical cyclones and forest fires.
"We're finding the signal of climate change in more and more places,"
says Stanley Solomon, a scientist with NCAR's Earth & Sun Systems Lab.
For example, last year Solomon published the first definitive
identification of man-made climate change in the thermosphere, the
uppermost layer of Earth's atmosphere. The thermosphere was,
paradoxically, predicted to cool and thin with increased carbon
dioxide. And that is exactly what Solomon and his colleagues found.
They detected the expected cooling by noting a small but statistically
significant decline in the drag on satellites traveling through the
thermosphere.
The biggest challenge faced by Solomon: ruling out the effects of
solar storms, which skeptics of man-made climate change have proposed
might be causing global warming. Solomon and others have refuted this
notion but confirmed the storms' dominance as a temperature driver in
the thermosphere. "Solar-driven changes, while they're extremely large
above 100 kilometers, get progressively smaller and smaller as you get
lower into the atmosphere, and are extremely small once you reach the
surface," says Solomon. Other scientific studies have identified human
influence in everything from declining mountain glaciers and snow
cover in both hemispheres, to increases in ocean salinity, to the
growing frequency and range of severe droughts.
And as the science has peered into more areas, the models have gotten
sharper, too. New modeling techniques pioneered by the Oxford
University-based climateprediction.net program, a distributed
computing effort, helped the IPCC express its predictions more
precisely. The early draft of the IPCC report leaked last week
predicts a far tighter range of temperature and sea-level increase
over the next century than the previous IPCC report did. For example,
the draft projects that sea level will gain between 28 and 43
centimeters by 2100, compared with the 9-to-88-centimeter rise
forecast in 2001.
Probabilistic models are also helping the IPCC come to consensus over
the most likely figure within their predicted range. In the case of
temperature, the leaked draft says that if carbon dioxide
concentrations stabilize at 550 parts per million, the planet will
warm 2 to 4.5 °C, but it adds a "best estimate" of 3 °C, which is
slightly below the mean for that range. Of course, the future
trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions and consequent warming depends
greatly on future energy and transportation policies and trends.
Weaver estimates that uncertainty in emissions contributes about 50
percent of the uncertainty in most climate-change predictions. The
rest comes from imperfect understanding of how the climate's physical
and biological components interact, such as how much cloud cover will
result from changes in temperature.
What is most clear is that the increasing scientific certainty around
global warming has emboldened climate scientists as much as it has
isolated the small band of skeptics swimming against the scientific
mainstream. "There is no credible alternative hypothesis," says
Mahlman. "It simply doesn't exist." Weaver predicts that the skeptics
will soon fade away as funding sources increasingly pull their funding
from organizations and researchers leading the anti-IPCC charge, as
oil and gas giant ExxonMobil announced that it had done last month in
pulling funding from the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise
Institute, a conservative think tank. It was the same story with the
"smoking doesn't cause cancer" crowd, says Weaver: "Once the funding
breaks down, they'll break down."
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=18129
a.spencer3
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Y8ewh.60$wi5...@eagle.america.net...
> Indeed...
>
> I concur with both Deirdre and Eugene.
>
> DSH
>
Well, that damns them, then.
Surreyman
Eugene Griessel
>
>http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=3D18129
>
Have you seen the report the CSIRO did for Sydney?
Of special interest to you and your drinking pals (Blackbear, LaN,
etc) is the fact that the wine industry will be severly negatively
impacted by continued global warming!
Eugene L Griessel
Accept that some days you're the pigeon, and some days you're the statue.
Leszek
<pogue...@hotmail.com> top-posted:
Hilarious!
He's both for and against at the same time.
La N
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
news:45c17c43...@news.uunet.co.za...
>
> The researchers I refer to are not Americans who need to get funding
> by toeing a party line. The research I refer to was done in the late
> 1970s and mid-1980s. Within the constraints of dealing with chaotic
> systems with large numbers of variables certainty is never completely
> possible.
> Exploiting those uncertainties to maintain a current lifestyle is
> possibly the most morally reprehensible act humankind is capable of.
>
Amen!
- nilita
La N
"Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
> "Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=3D18129
>>
>
> Have you seen the report the CSIRO did for Sydney?
>
> Of special interest to you and your drinking pals (Blackbear, LaN,
> etc) is the fact that the wine industry will be severly negatively
> impacted by continued global warming!
>
Oh nooooooo ...........
btw, our Inuit people of the north are definitely experiencing the adverse
effects of global warming which is affecting their lifestyle. Ice floes are
melting, and polar bears, seals, and other animals are fleeing even more
northward.
- nil
La N
"Leszek" <leszek...@telepol.pl> wrote in message
news:ehi3s2lsesq7q6hkd...@4ax.com...
You noticed that too, eh? ...%)
- nilita
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
You're quite welcome...USENET means writing reasoned
responses for those unable to understand "reason" who
can't distinguish between cut and paste and original
writing...you would appear to be one of them.
> What experiment do you propose and to test which hypothesis?
> That global carbon-dioxide levels are rising? Proven beyond
> reasonable doubt. That human activities are largely responsible?
> Proven beyond reasonable doubt. That excess carbon-dioxide has an
> effect on climate? Proven beyond reasonable doubt. Anything more?
In a word: Bollocks. _Nothing_ has been "proven", that's
not how scientific theories are tested...they are either
disproven or supported, no more, no less. There are data
which both disprove _and_ support the ToGW, which, to
anyone with a _working_ intellect, means the jury is still
out.
> The researchers I refer to are not Americans who need to get funding
> by toeing a party line. The research I refer to was done in the late
> 1970s and mid-1980s.
Really? And who might they be? Are they published?
Have you a cite? (A peer reviewed one, by preference.)
Or is this merely anecdoctal evidence you're pulling out
of thin air? Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy,
but appeals to _unknown_ authority are just meaningless
rhetoric.
> Within the constraints of dealing with chaotic
> systems with large numbers of variables certainty is never completely
> possible.
Ah...whopping error bars in their data, hm?
> Exploiting those uncertainties to maintain a current lifestyle is
> possibly the most morally reprehensible act humankind is capable of.
Nope, presenting "theory" as "fact" tops it every time.
Deirdre
Jack Linthicum
> "Eugene Griessel" <eugene@dynagen..co..za> wrote in message
>
> news:45c1c5bd...@news.uunet.co.za...
>
>
> >>http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=3D18129
>
> > Have you seen the report the CSIRO did for Sydney?
>
> > Of special interest to you and your drinking pals (Blackbear, LaN,
> > etc) is the fact that the wine industry will be severly negatively
> > impacted by continued global warming!
>
> Oh nooooooo ...........
>
> btw, our Inuit people of the north are definitely experiencing the adverse
> effects of global warming which is affecting their lifestyle. Ice floes are
> melting, and polar bears, seals, and other animals are fleeing even more
> northward.
>
> - nil
But the Yukon Pinot Noir and Denali Chardonnay will be just fine, I
would imagine the big time companies that own most of the world wine
production are scouting out micro climates from 45 degrees north. And
the Nunavut A&M course in wine growing is just about filled up for the
next semester.
La N
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1170343254.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Now if we could just get the Northern People to put down the harpoons and
get interested in grape picking ... I know it's hot backbreaking boring work
... but damn, when they see the smiles on our faces, Jack, they'll know it's
well worth it ...%)
Fred J. McCall
:On Jan 31, 6:56 pm, Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.enter...@rcn.com>
:wrote:
:
:>
:> Such an attitude would be forgivable if they're merely
:> funding trollops...the last six years has turned every
:> environmental researcher into one, more or less...the
:> funding pie isn't getting any larger, so I can empathise
:> those simply paying lip service to gain access to the
:> Capital Equipment Gravy Train..."with implications for
:> the study of Global Warming" is almost a boilerplate
:> blurb in environmental research presentations these
:> days.
:>
:> But...
:>
:> If they "know" then they're _not_ testing the hypothesis
:> and _aren't_ using scientific method. You're supposed to
:> try to _disprove_ it, if your data supports it, well and fine,
:> but you haven't "proved" it, you've supported it. Your job
:> as a scientist is to try to disprove it _again_...not rest
:> on your moralistic laurels and assume you've the answer.
:>
:> Any "scientist" claiming to _know_ "human influence is
:> dramatically assisting warming" when _not_ suckling at
:> the funding teat strikes me as singularly lacking in the
:> necessary objectivity needed to do good science...and I'd
:> be inclined to doubt their word simply based on that.
:
:Thank you for a scientific response. I was tying to word a similar
:response but yours is much more concise and clear.
:
:'What she said'
What she describes isn't new and it isn't restricted to environmental
research. It's always easier to get funding if:
1) You can write a proposal to describe precisely what you're going to
find and prove. Real science (where you don't know the answer going
in) is much harder to get funded.
2) Your description can be put into simple language that people who
don't know what you're talking about can understand. Again, real
science is much harder to get funded.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Brad Meyer
Griessel) wrote:
>What experiment do you propose and to test which hypothesis?
>That global carbon-dioxide levels are rising? Proven beyond
>reasonable doubt.
But have been rising for about 11,000 years now. Ever since the last
glacial retreat.
> That human activities are largely responsible?
How do you define "largely"? If CO2 levels have been rising since
before any large civilization how much of the rise is _due_ to
civilization?
>Proven beyond reasonable doubt. That excess carbon-dioxide has an
>effect on climate? Proven beyond reasonable doubt. Anything more?
Yeah. Whose reasonable doubt? It would seem not everyone's, else there
wouldn't be these books and this sort of debate.
One of the great advantages of being a fifty something is that with
that sort of leadtime, one can see that what science does best is
explain why what they had porposed a generation ago was mistaken.
The other interesting thing in this thread is the (unstated) assumtion
that if in fact global warming is natural occurance, then it can be
ignored. IMO that is alkin to arguing that it would be a "bad thing"
to destroy ourselves with a nuke war, but being destroyed by a meteor
impact would be acceptable because it is "natural".
Séimí mac Liam
news:45C156E6...@rcn.com:
> Any "scientist" claiming to _know_ "human influence is
> dramatically assisting warming" when _not_ suckling at
> the funding teat strikes me as singularly lacking in the
> necessary objectivity needed to do good science...and I'd
> be inclined to doubt their word simply based on that.
>
May I quote you?
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
"Séimí mac Liam" wrote:
>
> Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.e...@rcn.com> wrote in
> news:45C156E6...@rcn.com:
>
> > Any "scientist" claiming to _know_ "human influence is
> > dramatically assisting warming" when _not_ suckling at
> > the funding teat strikes me as singularly lacking in the
> > necessary objectivity needed to do good science...and I'd
> > be inclined to doubt their word simply based on that.
> >
>
> May I quote you?
Where and in what context?
Deirdre
Séimí mac Liam
Today's IPCC activities seems an appropriate and interesting venue.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
"Séimí mac Liam" wrote:
>
> Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.e...@rcn.com> wrote in
> news:45C2178E...@rcn.com:
>
> >
> >
> > "Séimí mac Liam" wrote:
> >>
> >> Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.e...@rcn.com> wrote in
> >> news:45C156E6...@rcn.com:
> >>
> >> > Any "scientist" claiming to _know_ "human influence is
> >> > dramatically assisting warming" when _not_ suckling at
> >> > the funding teat strikes me as singularly lacking in the
> >> > necessary objectivity needed to do good science...and I'd
> >> > be inclined to doubt their word simply based on that.
> >> >
> >>
> >> May I quote you?
> >
> > Where and in what context?
> >
> > Deirdre
> >
>
> Today's IPCC activities seems an appropriate and interesting venue.
Hm. Perhaps, but I'm disinclined to lend my thoughts
or words to a Special Interest Group which I'm not a
member of...either to snipe _or_ support.
Deirdre
Jack Linthicum
> "BlackBeard" <spk_...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> What she describes isn't new and it isn't restricted to environmental
> research. It's always easier to get funding if:
>
> 1) You can write a proposal to describe precisely what you're going to
> find and prove. Real science (where you don't know the answer going
> in) is much harder to get funded.
>
> 2) Your description can be put into simple language that people who
> don't know what you're talking about can understand. Again, real
> science is much harder to get funded.
>
It is even easier if a study has been released that steps on some
corporate toes, said toes being attached to a body which can reach
into their pockets and fund a study disproving the offending one.
Andrew Swallow
Can be falsified by moving to Mercury or the moon.
Andrew Swallow
J Antero
"D. Patterson" <pro...@legypt.net> wrote in message
news:12s3f2o...@corp.supernews.com...
Which is typical of the ignorant bullshit we get from right wing braindeads,
and other Bushites.
Even the chimps handlers have finally stated that global warming is a real
phenomenon.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Of course its a real phenomenon. The Vikings knew it was a real
phenomenon in c900 AD. Before them, so too did the Romans at around
0 AD. It's what's causing it this time that is the bone of contention.
Eric Stevens
J Antero
Previously they were denying that even that an abnormal warming was
occuring. Now the administration agrees both that it's occuring and that
manmade emisions are at least partly the cause, but they don't want to do
anything about it.
And, there's still plenty of braindeads in denial of the whole thing.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:m945s2hputo3jf3oj...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 01:08:01 GMT, "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"D. Patterson" <pro...@legypt.net> wrote in message
>>>news:12s3f2o...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:rGewh.21552$X72....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>L O L
>>>>>
>>>>> The authors get free refills at any Exxon station...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is typical of the remarks and misconduct we have been seeing come
>>>> from the AGW fraudsters.
>>>
>>>Which is typical of the ignorant bullshit we get from right wing
>>>braindeads,
>>>and other Bushites.
>>>
>>>Even the chimps handlers have finally stated that global warming is a real
>>>phenomenon.
>>>
>>
>> Of course its a real phenomenon. The Vikings knew it was a real
>> phenomenon in c900 AD. Before them, so too did the Romans at around
>> 0 AD. It's what's causing it this time that is the bone of contention.
>
>Previously they were denying that even that an abnormal warming was
>occuring.
But who is 'they'? Apart from that, we still don't really know that
the warming is abnormal. From memory we have at least some 2 degrees
to to before we can match the Roman warm period.
>Now the administration agrees both that it's occuring and that
>manmade emisions are at least partly the cause, but they don't want to do
>anything about it.
There is no doubt that manmade emissions are a factor but the question
is, how large a factor? Even without the threat of global warming we
should not be pouring out rubbish into the atmosphere the way we are.
J Antero
Read a few books on it written by scientists. It's not a revelation that
earth has gone through previous warmings and coolings.
D. Patterson
The fact that life evolved, proliferated, and thrived for hundreds of
millions of years in an atmosphere having 500, 1,000, 2,000, and even 7,000
ppm concentrations of CO2 proves AGW scaremongering, Al Gore, and his AGW
acolytes are all monstrous frauds when they lead people to believe the Earth
must be headed into irreversable runaway global warming and destruction when
and if CO2 levels reach only 500-600 ppm concentrations. Your gratuitously
abusive remarks and lies prove you to be the gutter quality dregs of
humanity, and that is being generous.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
It is to some. Just consider how readily Mann's now infamous 'hockey
stick' curve was accepted, even by the IPCC. They should have known
better but for some reason they didn't. It now turns out the paper
wasn't ever properly peer reviewed.
Eric Stevens
D. Patterson
The IPCC leadership edited, rewrote, and censored the articles of
contributing scientists without the authors' prior knowledge and permission
to falsify the authors' statements contrary to AGW claims. In consequence,
scientists contributing to the IPCC reports have resigned in protest and
other scientists refuse to contribute articles which the IPCC leadership
could rewrite to reverse the conslusions of the authors.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Since I wrote the message to which you are responding, the IPCC has
released the political summary of the fourth IPCC report. The
distressing thing about this is that the technical reports upon which
this is supposedly based will not be completed for another four months
and, in their final drafting, will be subject to the constraint that
they must not contradict the political summary. This is science?
Eric Stevens
D. Patterson
It's a political witchhunt by AGW proponents masquerading as science.
Witness Heidi Cullen suggesting the drowning of sceptical witches in the
well to see if they float, as she suggests meteorologists who deny AGW
should not be certified by the American Meteorological Association.
http://www.jamesspann.com/wordpress/?p=650
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html?cm_ven=one_deg_blog&cm_ite=one_deg_commentary&from=one_deg_commentary
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> It's a political witchhunt by AGW proponents masquerading as science.
> Witness Heidi Cullen suggesting the drowning of sceptical witches in the
> well to see if they float, as she suggests meteorologists who deny AGW
> should not be certified by the American Meteorological Association.
Why?
Adam Whyte-Settlar
Nah - just ordinary people who have just had it up to here with the ignorant
bullshit we get from right wing
braindeads, and other Bushites posting from uma.
Tell your chimpanzee's handlers to stop telling lies and killing thousands
of innocent people and you might just earn some respect - but be warned; I
think it just might be too late.
D. Patterson
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:45c3...@quokka.wn.com.au...
See the links. Heidi Cullen wrote:
"Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are
permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it
to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and
junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the
fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give
them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming
can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a
meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and
tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's
just an incorrect statement."
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html?cm_ven=one_deg_blog&cm_ite=one_deg_commentary&from=one_deg_commentary
If Heidi Cullen honored and took her own adivce, she would be compelled to
resign from the American Meterological Association, The Weather Channel, and
her profession because of her participation in a scientific, political, and
financial case of fraud. It is an indisputable fact that the Earth and the
biosphere have experienced and thrived for hundreds of millions of years in
an atmosphere with concentrations of CO2 ranging from 360ppm to 7,000 ppm.
The AGW fraudsters with the asistance of Heidi Cullen's intmidation of AMA
meteorologists are attempting to frighten the public into believing that CO2
concentrations of 300ppm are unnatural and 500 to 600 ppm will result in
runaway warming resulting in the destruction of all life on the Earth. As
the geological record and paleontological record prove beyond any reasonable
doubt whatsoever, such AGW claims about high CO2 concentrations resulting in
runaway greenhouse warming is absurdly and ridiculously false form of
witchhunting for fraudulent political and financial purposes. In other
words, the AGW scaremongering is shaping up to become the biggest scam and
con job in history with its shakedown of the worldwide general public to the
tune of hundreds of billions of dollars into the pockets of the fraudster
leadedrship.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> Since I wrote the message to which you are responding, the IPCC has
> released the political summary of the fourth IPCC report. The
> distressing thing about this is that the technical reports upon which
> this is supposedly based will not be completed for another four months
> and, in their final drafting, will be subject to the constraint that
> they must not contradict the political summary. This is science?
It's what passes for it in the Special Interest realm...
the price of marrying one's hypothesis, I guess.
Deirdre
IE_Json
Actually most of this world's meterologists aren't capable in judging the
Climate-question at all!
To do so they need to have knowledge of Oceanography above groundlevel
courses, they need to have degrees in geology as well as have good knowledge
of techtonical plates movements and their impact not only on vulcanic
eruption, landslides due to their activity as well as landrise/landsinking
caused by the techtonical plates movements.
But above all - they need to have historic knowledge. That might seem odd,
but reality has higher value than interpolated/expolated, and which is
important to remember
"Just below the surface, the ground in this cold area remains frozen all
year long - keeping trees from growing roots long enough to hold them
upright."
http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-isotherm.htm
Not to mention the facts for temperature in Arctic regions, Greenland and
Siberia:
Max: 23 to 36 F (-5 to +2,2 degree Celcius)
Min: -90 F (-67,7 degree Celsius)
Average temp Arctic: 0 to 20 F (-17 to -6 degrees Celsius)
http://www.allthingsarctic.com/weather/index.aspx
Please also note that the hard cold winds make the freezing on humans,
animals as well as ice harder than it would have been with still winds in
same temperatures.
Also please note that 5-7 degrees higher Celsius/year in medium value
wouldn't have very much impact on the glaciers in the Arctic nor on the
permafrost in Greenland, Siberia and northern Canada!
It's still a long way to Tipparary, and definitely further way to go before
Greenland, Siberia and the other parts of the Arctic can be as furtile as it
once was. During Viking Age up to 1450's.....
Inger E
Lawson English
Hmmmm... The predictions I've read suggest a rise in ocean depth of a
few inches to over a foot. This doesn't sound like the end of all life
on earth, but DOES sound like it could be traumatic for countries that
depend on coastlines staying static for a while...
Lawson English
So everyone living on the coast should plan on moving to Greenland,
Siberia and parts of the Artic...
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
A sharp witted one would probably be more inclined
to tell you the sun doesn't "rise" at all...it stays
put and the _planet_ moves.
Deirdre
Lawson English
A matter of perspective, of course. "Sunrise" labels a phenomenon, and
need not provide the explanation for how the phenomenon occurs.
IE_Json
"Lawson English" <Law...@nowhere.none> wrote in message
news:44Nwh.163172$jb3....@newsfe18.lga...
Well definitely not if they aren't planning to live to be several hundred
years older then the oldest tree,
or if they don't like to live in cold weather 10-11 month a year with part
of those months in darkness if they live north of the so called 'midnight
sun' areas....
Check facts. I sent url:s.
Inger E
J Antero
The hockey stick is alive and well.
Read a book by real people, and get a life.
J Antero
"IE_Json" <inger_e....@nospamtelia.com> wrote in message
news:cUKwh.31037$E02....@newsb.telia.net...
<snip>
> Actually most of this world's meterologists aren't capable in judging the
> Climate-question at all!
Exactly.
J Antero
>
> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote in message
> news:R9wwh.18034$yx6....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "D. Patterson" <pro...@legypt.net> wrote in message
>> news:12s3f2o...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote in message
>>> news:rGewh.21552$X72....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>L O L
>>>>
>>>> The authors get free refills at any Exxon station...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is typical of the remarks and misconduct we have been seeing come
>>> from the AGW fraudsters.
>>
>> Which is typical of the ignorant bullshit we get from right wing
>> braindeads, and other Bushites.
>>
>> Even the chimps handlers have finally stated that global warming is a
>> real phenomenon.
>>
>
> The fact that life evolved, proliferated, and thrived for hundreds of
> millions of years in an atmosphere having 500, 1,000, 2,000, and even
> 7,000 ppm concentrations of CO2 proves AGW scaremongering,
Hysterical!!!!
And the fact there have always been hurricanes means New Orleans should have
been left on its own - let Darwin sort it all out.
Oh, unless it's you getting the axe - then you want those dole checks coming
in on time.
LOL.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
>
> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:45c3...@quokka.wn.com.au...
>>
>> "D. Patterson" <pro...@legypt.net> wrote in message
>> news:12s6av8...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> It's a political witchhunt by AGW proponents masquerading as science.
>>> Witness Heidi Cullen suggesting the drowning of sceptical witches in the
>>> well to see if they float, as she suggests meteorologists who deny AGW
>>> should not be certified by the American Meteorological Association.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> See the links. Heidi Cullen wrote:
You misunderstood my question - disregarding for the moment the veracity of
the claims re C02 etc - what I don't understand is 'Why' would the AGW
proponents diseminate incorrect information. What is their *motive* here?
I've asked this of at least a half dozen posters and every one has either
avoided or ignored the question.
What have they got to gain? I just don't buy it's for the usual follow-up
'more research is needed' research grants because if they were doing it for
the money then the oil/coal companies are currently offering them much more
to say precisely the opposite.
And the 2,500 scientists from all over the world who have just produced and
released that Paris report last night - if what you say is true then 'Why'
have they all spent the last two or three years compiling a consensual pack
of lies? It just doesn't make any sense. You're not seriously claiming that
it's all some kind of anti-American conspiracy surely?
A W-S
dapra
> "IE_Json" <inger_e....@nospamtelia.com> wrote in message
> news:cUKwh.31037$E02....@newsb.telia.net...
>
> <snip>
>
>>Actually most of this world's meterologists aren't capable in judging the
>>Climate-question at all!
>
>
> Exactly.
>
But Bush is? Who can hardly say a coherent sentence?
Paul J Gans
Go away.
You now have a report put together by thousands of climate
scientists from over 100 nations. And they strongly
disagree with you.
You are, of course right. You know *nothing* about the subject.
You feel that incredulity is the proper way to do science, and
then you dress it up by claiming the other person is lying.
Unload on me. Prove to more people what a fool you are.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Eric, don't be an ass. The material is all in the open
literature. And has been for years.
You love to look for strange viewpoints on things. That's
not the way to bet on this.
Paul J Gans
You claim that the vast majority of climate scientists in
the world are a special interest group?
Wow.
Paul J Gans
>A sharp witted one would probably be more inclined
>to tell you the sun doesn't "rise" at all...it stays
>put and the _planet_ moves.
I gather that you've never heard of Newtonian relativity.
Either description is allowed these days.
Tiglath
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:eq12ip$q0$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> In soc.history.medieval Deirdre Sholto Douglas <finch.e...@rcn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>A sharp witted one would probably be more inclined
>>to tell you the sun doesn't "rise" at all...it stays
>>put and the _planet_ moves.
>
A sharper-witted one would retort: "Nothing stays put, but you should."
Paul J Gans
Data that does not verify a preconceived opinion is
false data.
You knew that, didn't you?
<grin>
J Antero
>>
>> "D. Patterson" <pro...@legypt.net> wrote in message
>> news:12s3f2o...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "J Antero" <JAnt...@map.com> wrote in message
>>> news:rGewh.21552$X72....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>L O L
>>>>
>>>> The authors get free refills at any Exxon station...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is typical of the remarks and misconduct we have been seeing come
>>> from the AGW fraudsters.
>>
>> Which is typical of the ignorant bullshit we get from right wing
>> braindeads, and other Bushites.
>>
>> Even the chimps handlers have finally stated that global warming is a
>> real phenomenon.
>>
>
> millions of years in an atmosphere having 500, 1,000, 2,000, and even
> 7,000 ppm concentrations of CO2 proves AGW scaremongering, Al Gore, and
> his AGW acolytes are all monstrous frauds when they lead people to believe
> the Earth must be headed into irreversable runaway global warming and
> destruction when and if CO2 levels reach only 500-600 ppm concentrations.
>Your gratuitously abusive remarks and lies prove you to be the gutter
>quality dregs of humanity, and that is being generous.
Lying scum like yourself, Patterson, are yourselfs the dregs of American
society.
The only notable about you, you fucking parasite, is the damage you and
those like you do.
J Antero
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:45c3...@quokka.wn.com.au...
>
> "D. Patterson" <pro...@legypt.net> wrote in message
> news:12s6h7s...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawi...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:45c3...@quokka.wn.com.au...
>>>
>>> "D. Patterson" <pro...@legypt.net> wrote in message
>>> news:12s6av8...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>> It's a political witchhunt by AGW proponents masquerading as science.
>>>> Witness Heidi Cullen suggesting the drowning of sceptical witches in
>>>> the well to see if they float, as she suggests meteorologists who deny
>>>> AGW should not be certified by the American Meteorological Association.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>
>> See the links. Heidi Cullen wrote:
>
> You misunderstood my question - disregarding for the moment the veracity
> of the claims re C02 etc
Don't accept on face value anything this person has to say.
- what I don't understand is 'Why' would the AGW
> proponents diseminate incorrect information. What is their *motive* here?
They don't have any motive.
Most of the scientists working in the climatology field drive SUVs and
over-heat and over-cool their houses, the same as the rest of us.
J Antero
"dapra" <dap...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YOqdnU0Xn6dsmFnY...@comcast.com...
No dummy. The point is the distinction between meteorologists who try to
predict weather over a short future span, to climatologists who study
climate over hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
You think it _isn't_? Its purpose is to investigate
"human-induced climate change"...a rather narrow
mandate, you must admit. Furthermore, it "does
not carry out research nor does it monitor climate
related data or other relevant parameters". (Their
words, not mine.)
One can only wonder how it manages to investigate
"climate change" _without_ "monitoring climate re-
lated data"...perhaps they have a crystal ball?
Deirdre
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> Go away.
>
> You now have a report put together by thousands of climate
> scientists from over 100 nations. And they strongly
> disagree with you.
People, including the leading scientists of their day,
believed in Spontaneous Generation of life from non-
living matter for more than two thousand years...
weight of opinion didn't make _them_ right though.
Perhaps GW is merely awaiting its own Pasteur.
Deirdre
Adam Whyte-Settlar
> - what I don't understand is 'Why' would the AGW
>> proponents disseminate incorrect information. What is their *motive*
>> here?
>
> They don't have any motive.
> Most of the scientists working in the climatology field drive SUVs and
> over-heat and over-cool their houses, the same as the rest of us.
I should be so lucky.
27C and 94% humidity at 3am last night and my $30K Toyota Land-Bruiser SUV
got pinched by the local Abo's 6 weeks ago. Still waiting for the insurance
company to pay out.
Should have stayed in the temperate regions and stuck to riding the bike.
I've managed without a car for at least ten of the last twenty years - I
used to pedal a 16 mile round trip to work accross Auckland - uphill both
ways.
Mind you, it was quicker than trying to *drive* accross Auckland. Good free
adrenalin sport too.
So not everybody is a hypocrit 'same as the rest of us'. Not all the time
anyway.
With respect, I don't buy this 'they have no motive' answer either.
*Everybody* has an agenda even if they don't even realise it themselves.
Anyone else got any ideas as to why 2,500 climatologists should collectively
lie?
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
> With respect, I don't buy this 'they have no motive' answer either.
> *Everybody* has an agenda even if they don't even realise it themselves.
Following the money is always a good start...failing
that, follow the renown. One is always left wondering
how many folks, who rely on the GW Gravy Train for
their funding, got results which _didn't_ support the
hypothesis...results which they _failed_ to publish.
(And anyone who thinks _that_ doesn't happen is
blessed with rose coloured corneas.)
> Anyone else got any ideas as to why 2,500 climatologists should collectively
> lie?
They're _not_ lying, per se...but they're trying to inter-
pret data from a non-random system which is poorly
understood and has a multitude of variables. They are
using techniques which may, or may not, be up to the
task of long-term prediction...this is especially so given
that the system they're attempting to define runs on a
vastly different time scale and may have influences be-
yond our ability to detect.
There's a lot of conjecture and extrapolation with any
theory...which is as it should be...the problem isn't con-
jecture, it's jumping to conclusions and trying to write
social policy when scientific understanding is still in-
complete.
Deirdre
Adam Whyte-Settlar
"Deirdre Sholto Douglas" <finch.e...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:45C424C9...@rcn.com...
>
>
> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>
>> Go away.
>>
>> You now have a report put together by thousands of climate
>> scientists from over 100 nations. And they strongly
>> disagree with you.
>
> People, including the leading scientists of their day,
> believed in Spontaneous Generation of life from non-
> living matter for more than two thousand years...
> weight of opinion didn't make _them_ right though.
You mean bees *don't* originate from inside dead Lions?!
Isn't that Heresy?
As you might have gathered I've just finished reading about William Harvey's
book "Anatomical Exertations Concerning the Generation of Animals".
in Bee Wilson's book 'The Hive'. (Yes, that's her real name)
As you no doubt know Harvey was the *nglishman who discovered in 1650 that
blood circulates. Franscisco Redi was also very clever for a greasy medieval
wop - he discovered that maggots do not spontaneously develop from meat but
are put there by flies in the form of eggs.
Anyway. Thing is - for 2,000 years humans didn't have access to
super-computers, sattelite imagery or white coats.
In fact most of them didn't even have access to either dead Lions or even
dead Oxen - wherefrom another school of thought held, for over 3,000 years,
bees originated.
Indeed a minor industry involving several trades surrounded the persuading
of newly created bees to leave the dead Oxen and swarm to a nearby waiting
hive. (I swear I'm not making this up)
It wasn't 'weight of opinion' that made them right or wrong it was lack of
tools and lack of giant's shoulders. The heresy laws didn't help either.
Point being that once they got access to decent tools (observable hives) and
dead Lions or oxen it didn't take them long to figure out that Bees hatched
from eggs in the hive not the oxen.
So what I'm getting at in my roundabout yet fascinating way is that your
analogy doesn't really stand up.
These 2,500 scientists are rather better equipped than were Harvey or Redi's
predecessors and they are standing on the shoulders of giants.
Even allowing for the current political manifestations of the old heresy
laws that's got to count for something.
A W-S
Michael Siemon
Deirdre,
The "scientific understanding" in this case is far more
complete than the obfuscators want you to think. It is far
past the status of the original US Surgeon General's report
on the causal linkage of tobacco and lung cancer -- and what
we have now is the equivalent, on a hugely expanded scale, of
the attempts by those who grew rich on selling poison to
pretend that they didn't know what they were doing. It is now
50 years since _that_ emerged. And guess what, the latest
"surprise" discovery is that the [still going strong and
profitable] cigarette makers have increased nicotine in their
products 11% in the last decade.
Gee; I wonder why they would do _that_? [Selling "coffin
nails" is _still_ profitable.] Start thinking about the folks
who do that, and consider the climate change issue.
No one with honest credentials in this matter disputes the
IPCC report -- they are even upset that the conclusions are
toned down for political reasons.
What should be done about this is, IMO, still unclear --
what is clear is that the message to do _nothing_ is exactly
the equivalent of the disinformation of the tobacco industry.
Billzz
news:45C4338C...@rcn.com...
Global Extortion
Our first television set. We were enthralled by "The 64,000 Dollar
Question." We knew there was a radio program called "The 64 Dollar
Question" and it seemed beyond belief that a human being could just answer
a question and get sixty-four thousand dollars.
Our father took on a new profession after our mother died. He saw us off to
school and picked us up after. Sometimes we would accompany him on his
rounds, and sometimes the police would look at us but, knowing our
circumstances, they never interfered. I saw the little slips and the
numbers but it took me years later to discover he was a bookie.
Well, back to the TV and the little Italian shoemaker was getting close and
we called our father to see. He looked for about five minutes and said that
it was fixed. We were aghast. We pointed out the soundproof booth, and the
envelopes, and the poor person sweating and stammering, and waiting, and the
suspense. He calmly said the words which I can repeat to this day, "You don't
understand. It has to be fixed. There is too much money involved for it
not to be fixed." My father died many years before it was proven that it
was indeed fixed. I can only hope that heaven gets the re-run of the movie.
This, of course brings us to Global Warming. Now there are always two parts
to a really big problem like this. The first part is convincing people that
there is a problem and the second part is convincing them of the solution.
It is even better if the solution is presented along with the problem and
that this is the only solution that can possibly be true. This is important
because as the old doctor maxim says, "there is no money to be made in the
diagnosis, only the offered pill." And what is this bitter pill?
It seems that we, in the United States, have to ship our manufacturing, and
our jobs, overseas. Now, on the surface this does not seem to make sense,
because we have at least some pollution controls, and the third-world
countries who would be the beneficiaries of our largesse do not. Also if
anyone remembers the billion or so backyard smelters in China or has
traveled in Asia and seen the billion or so charcoal-burners coating the
countryside with ash one might wonder, who exactly is the polluter? I'm not
a betting person but I'll bet plenty of people are inspecting our plants and
plenty of people are not inspecting the billion charcoal burners.
We don't have to wonder about where the warming is coming from. We are told
it is our manufacturing. Forget the burning of Brazil, or Mount Pinatubo,
or Mount. St. Helen's, the problem has got to be us and the solution has got
to be to ship our jobs to some other country. No other solution seems
possible for the people who are waiting for our jobs.
No one seems to notice that this solution only moves the problem. But that's
not the point is it? What is the point, boys and girls? Remember our
lesson? It's fixed. And how do we know it's fixed? There is too much
money involved for it not to be fixed.
IE_Json
I haven't said anything for or against Bush. He is a conservative, so am I.
He is a president, I am only a teacher. That I studied the subjects involved
and also due to my father been more or less born in to the water- air
problematic (my father now close to 92 was one of the first three who
started to work with Environmental questions back in first half 50's).
I have no knowledge of President Bush background. Neither what he studied at
University or what he worked with before being a Politian. Thus it's
impossible for me to say if he has or hasn't background to back up what he
in many others views don't have knowledge about.
Inger E
Tiglath
>>The fact that life evolved, proliferated, and thrived for hundreds of
>>millions of years in an atmosphere having 500, 1,000, 2,000, and even
>>7,000
>>ppm concentrations of CO2 proves AGW scaremongering, Al Gore, and his AGW
>>acolytes are all monstrous frauds when they lead people to believe the
>>Earth
>>must be headed into irreversable runaway global warming and destruction
>>when
>>and if CO2 levels reach only 500-600 ppm concentrations. Your gratuitously
>>abusive remarks and lies prove you to be the gutter quality dregs of
>>humanity, and that is being generous.
>
> Go away.
>
> You now have a report put together by thousands of climate
> scientists from over 100 nations. And they strongly
> disagree with you.
>
> You are, of course right. You know *nothing* about the subject.
> You feel that incredulity is the proper way to do science, and
> then you dress it up by claiming the other person is lying.
>
> Unload on me.
Risky behavior.
BC
wrote:
> Hmmmmmmmmm...
>
> DSH
> ------------------------------------
>
> Two New Books ConfirmGlobalWarmingis Natural; Not Caused By Human
> Activity
>
> Tue Jan 30 2007
>
> Matt Drudge
>
> Two powerful new books say today'sglobalwarmingis due not to human
> activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. UnstoppableGlobalWarmingEvery 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist
> Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New
> Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former
> BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.
>
> Singer and Avery note that most of the earth's recentwarmingoccurred
> before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical
> evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth's last million years. The
> evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and
> Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep
> seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.
>
> UnstoppableGlobalWarmingshows the earth's temperatures following
> variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and
> finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites
> the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth's temperatures by
> creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes
> thatglobalclimate models can't accurately register cloud effects.
>
> The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark's team mimicked the chemistry of
> earth's atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into
> a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun.
> When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets-cloud seeds-started
> floating through the chamber.
>
> "We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons
> [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for
> the cloud condensation nuclei," says Svensmark.
>
> The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the
> sun's irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth's
> temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth's atmosphere from
> outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of
> water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that
> reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it
> shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.
>
> UnstoppableGlobalWarmingdocuments the reality of a moderate, natural,
> 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why
> and how.
Isn't it well past the time for all you anti-science,anti-
global warming nutcases to just shut the f*ck up and
admit that you have no friggin clue whatsoever about what
you're talking about, whether as laughably inept amateur
scientists or by trotting out alleged experts with dubious
or utterly BS credentials? Seriously.
Look at your latest "evidence' -- those two books:
Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years
by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery
Neither is a credible source
Singer is a pro-tobacco and pro-oil disgrace to science,
who's joined in on oil comapny efforts to spread confusion
and disinformation on climate research.
Avery is a pro-pesticide nutcase and "originator of a
misleading claim that organic foods are more dangerous
than foods sprayed with chemical pesticides."
The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change
by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder
While Svenmark appears to be a legitimate researcher,
his claims are based on a 10 yr old premise that hasn't
exactly made much headway compared to other climate
research done since that time:
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv
What he did was do a lab experiment by making a large
cloud chamber and bombard it with radiation to simulate
the earth being bomabarded with cosmic radiation and
the effect on cloud formation.
If this sounds a little iffy, that's because it is -- the bulk
of the more mainstream climate research has focused
on actual earth conditions and matching up variations in
climate to a host of factors from cosmic rays to human
activity, and the results have consistently shown that t
here are a lot of things that affect climate, including solar
activity, but nothing nearly so much in recent history as
human activity. See:
http://nebelkammer.phywe.de/en/cloud.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf
Nigel Calder is just a science writer and not a scientist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Calder
Hope this clarifies. No go find some other activity that
doesn;t involve dealing that much with climate science,
like collecting salt and pepper shakers. Might I suggest
newspaper folding?
-BC