|
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
I understand 'the cosmic ray thingy' was originally based upon flawed data and is currently unproved. So was the original ice core CO2 study. So in that context, the current research that relies on the CO2 levels reported in that study should likewise be disqualified. Thirdly, the gobal warming signal seems to be gradually emerging from the noise with time. No, the global warming noise is just increasing. The signal level seems to be lost below all the global warming screaming and hype. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On 30 Mar 2007 12:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said: I'm impressed. If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with a micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod. But don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how to use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be that size. I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a scientist. I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either totally ignorant or corrupted by funding. I merely declared an interest. I am in a postion to judge for myself the honesty and integrity of some of the big players, who I know personally. Wrong. You said that we needed to look at papers by you and other scientists doing scientific research. You even provided a link that indicated a direct personal involvement in writing papers related to global warming. You declared that fairly early in your entry into this thread. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:57:39 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... Thirdly, the gobal warming signal seems to be gradually emerging from the noise with time. All the more reason to let significantly more time to pass in which to allow the signal to noise ratio to be clarified, in my book. Time will pass anyhow before effective action can be taken. Time now to start planning, not shooting oneself in he foot by over-reacting or corrupting the science by political dogma. Planning for what? For changing the kind of grass we plant since the earth is warming? We're trying to create an understanding so that political dogma doesn't rule the decisions, but common sense and scientific reality. Those preaching global warming panic are going down the political dogma path. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
the_bmac wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote: Nope, it was a purely personal attack. whatever you say I lurked, I posted, I left shaking my head If that's what it takes to get rid of those pesky intra-cranial rocks, go for it. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On 30 Mar 2007 13:14:04 -0500, Dave wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:59:23 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal said: I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a scientist. So just what was it that you intended to convey by: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html Well let's do it and get an idea of what the areas of my expertise are. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search The spurious hits are mainly my late dad (p.f.). Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing) I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either totally ignorant or corrupted by funding. There is of course a third possibility. You could conceivably be knowledgeable and not the recipient of any potentially corrupting funding. I take it you're eliminating that possibility. The funding has increased but what really kills funding is scientific dishonesty or even just one honest mistake. Not necessarily. One can keep getting funding if they are supporting by a politically favored viewpoint. Although this research adds to the jigsaw there is no yes/no to GW to be had from it, so it is hard to see how it could possibly be corrupted by public funding or any expectations of government. Why any government would actually *want* a "yes" answer is beyond reason. You've got to be kidding. Or trying to pull a quick one. A "yes" would support a political platform or viewpoint. Do you think Al Gore would propose funding to blow his political agenda out of the water? Or do you think we would use his political influence to fund research that would be interpreted in a way so as to support his position? |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Jeff wrote:
* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 4:46 PM: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:32:41 -0400, Jeff said: An allegation was made, one that verges on calling everyone who who supports the theory of Global Warming corrupt. An yet, absolutely no supporting evidence is given. That's blowing smoke! No Jeff. Blowing smoke is claiming the issue of whether those supporting the theory of GW are corrupt is to be found in a scientific journal. Why is that, Dave? I don't follow your logic at all. A claim was made, I only asked if there was supporting evidence that would be acceptable to most people. How is that blowing smoke? Most people would look at it the other way, that making such a claim without supporting evidence is blowing smoke. Logic was never your long suit, was it Dave? I think the paper by this physicist has been published in the last few weeks. Some scientists reject current global warming theory February 02, 2007 AD Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming. Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect. Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities. Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause. +++ Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. "In fact, there is much more than meets the eye." Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future. All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming. "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that this does not exist." The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate. Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant." The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate. In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity. CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution. "I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go." |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:12:22 -0500, Cessna 310 wrote: Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote: On 30 Mar 2007 12:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:19 -0400, Jeff said: I'm impressed. If you're dying to know the diameter of a rod, and a fella shows up with a micrometer and says he's an expert in using it, let him measure the rod. But don't let him bamboozle you into thinking that just because he knows how to use a micrometer he's an expert in figuring out how the rod got to be that size. I have never claimed to be an expert on climate modelling or even a scientist. I am caught between a rock and a hard place - either totally ignorant or corrupted by funding. I merely declared an interest. I am in a postion to judge for myself the honesty and integrity of some of the big players, who I know personally. Wrong. You said that we needed to look at papers by you and other scientists doing scientific research. You even provided a link that indicated a direct personal involvement in writing papers related to global warming. You declared that fairly early in your entry into this thread. I keep looking, but I can't seem to detect a point to all this quibbling. Forget trying to disparage your opponent. Either make your case independently on it's own merits, or shut the **** up. CWM Maybe the following will shut you up. Or maybe you can't figure out what is being said.... Some scientists reject current global warming theory February 02, 2007 AD Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming. Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect. Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities. Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause. +++ Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. "In fact, there is much more than meets the eye." Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future. All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming. "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that this does not exist." The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate. Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant." The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate. In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity. CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution. "I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go." |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
* Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote, On 3/30/2007 4:47 PM:
.... With all due respect, you don't have the background or knowledge to judge my contribution to those papers and I don't have the inclination to attempt to explain. I was trolled into indicating that I had some knowledge, connections, public funding in related fields. I am sorry Jeff was somewhat misled for a period. No need to apologize, I don't feel that I was misled. Having worked in academia for a number of years, and published a little, I understand how all that works. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:35:22 -0500, Cessna 310 wrote: Maybe the following will shut you up. Or maybe you can't figure out what is being said.... I thought you were claiming to know what you were talking about? Your only option now really is to just shut the **** up. Find a subject you have first hand knowlege about. Preferably something ON ****ING TOPIC. If that is beyond your abilities, then do the right thing and shoot yourself in whatever portion of your body houses your desicated brain. CWM Charlie, as the originator of this particular thread, I rule that Cessna's posts have been entirely on-topic. Your most recent contributions are slightly off-topic, but I find them sufficiently entertaining that they might as well be considered on-topic also. Carry on. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:55:47 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: Charlie, as the originator of this particular thread, I rule that Cessna's posts have been entirely on-topic. Your most recent contributions are slightly off-topic, but I find them sufficiently entertaining that they might as well be considered on-topic also. Carry on. Your original post was completely off topic for this newsgroup. That's just another FACT that you choose to ignore. If this is the way you want this newsgroup to evolve, I will be more than happy to start lots of off topic threads to assist you in your endeavors. I may even cross post them to gain more impact for your project. Maybe others can also join in and start off topic threads. That would be GREAT! CWM Aw, c'mon, Charlie. You need to go sailing as badly as I do. Unfortunately, that option isn't open to me for another few weeks. The most I can hope to do until then is work on the boat when weather allows. But I have to disagree that the topic is is off-topic for this newsgroup, as the outcome of the debate could very well impact our ability to engage in this activity. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com