BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 10:26 PM

oops. Methane.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 10:25 PM

EBarnacle-
You have hit upon one of the most important positive feedbacks of all!
Yes, yes, yes, there should be a lot more discussion of this:

The Earth warms slightly...
So, polar sea ice shrinks a little bit...
Since water has a much lower emissivity than ice...
So, the exposed ocean absorbs more thermal IR...
So, the Earth warms a little...
so, polar sea ice shrinks a little...
...
...
...


Be very worried. This is a runaway process.


Sort of like the Mewthane bomb.
The Earth warms a little...
So, some permafrost thaws...
This releases just a little bit of methane...
Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (right BB?)...
So, the Earth warms a bit more...
So, some permafrost thaws...
...
...
...


Get it?

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: EBarnacle
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 09:31 PM

In re: temperature change. It is hardly trivial. Have you looked at the Summer ice caps lately? A large part of any sea level ris is going to come from there and from deglaciation. Have the scientists you all are citing considered the effects of chsnges in albedo?

We need to aggressively address these issues before more of the world gets into wars over territory they are forced to need.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 09:18 PM

Moving populations doesn't seem to appeal to the populations involved. Witness New Orleans.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 09:00 PM

Should we give them Texas?

By all means. They'd have to do a better job than Rick Perry.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 07:25 PM

beardedbruce is rather like that author, Tom Clancy, he cloaks alot of nothing in techno-babble, some people might be impressed, I'm not.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 07:06 PM

I tried several years ago to get BB to address the 'moving populations' idea in more detail, but never got anywhere.

(Will Rogers in the 1940s was being interviewed, and was asked "What should we do about the German submarines?"
He replied, "Simple...boil the ocean!"
The questioner sputtered,something like.. "But that's...I don't see... Will, how would we boil the ocean?"
"Oh, that's not my department...I'm the idea man! We have experts to work out the details!")

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 06:38 PM

Gore et al insist to reducing CO2

Relax Bruce, I have heard Gore talk about the importance of reducing methane.

We can cut our carbon and methane emissions and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. In the long run doing so would be a cost saver and in the short run a job creator.

We can't move Bangladesh. We have neither the will or the resources or the cooperation of the Bangladeshies. And where would they go? Should we give them Texas? There is plenty of empty land in Texas. The Texans might object however.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 06:00 PM

saulgoldie,

No apologies. I with you agree entirely on a personal level. Sadly, I am preparing my kids to live in a world far different from this one.
But in science, nothing is ever certain, and we must listen to all ideas no matter how crazy, and then dispassionately destroy them. If they can survive, they are the new truth. So far, hypotheses regarding anthropogenic climate change are surviving the onslaught by other scientists. I am always prepared to wear my scientist hat and discuss rationally a scientific topic.
Sadly, assaults on anthropogenic climate change hypotheses by non-scientists are being incited by politicians and media blowhards, and it is dangerous to ignore them. This (I think) is what Al Gore meant when he said "we must win the conversation". The science is really quite settled. It is the public conversation that is being lost. So with or without scientist hat I'll go at it on this topic.
Enjoy the pipe and songs.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 05:54 PM

I don't think anyone says there is any prospect that reducing pollution will stop undesirable climate change in its tracks. Even if the only factor causing that were human activity, it is far too late for that.

Obviously we need to find ways of reducing the damage caused by changes that are going to happen whatever we do - but at the same time we need to stop doing things which are liable to make things even worse.

If the house is near to burning down, you stop pouring fuel on it and threatening all the other houses on the street. But of course you also look for alternative accommodation. Those aren't alternatives, you do both.

What's to disagree in that, bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 05:45 PM

I don't think I said anything about ethanol production, BB. I considered that a bad option from the start, for reasons already stated.

When I have time (not this afternoon) I'll give you three workable and relatively inexpensive ideas that have been put forth, which do not make use of fossil fuels, don't add pollutants to the environment, and are relatively inexpensive. Methods, incidentally, that some folks are already using to very good effect.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: saulgoldie
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 05:37 PM

TIA,
I am sorry, but based on the best of the available information, I think we have long passed many serious environmental tipping points. Profound change for humanity is not a matter of "if" but only a matter of "when." We can stall the inevitable. But we cannot avoid it. I am going to relight my pipe, and have another drink. Maybe I will practice a few songs.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 05:13 PM

TIA

Planing for the move NOW would make the disruptions a lot less than waiting until people are forced to move and THEN trying to move them.

I never said there was a perfect solution- just that Gore et al have not shown that the solution they are pushing will be at all effective, and would reduce the resources to impliment other solutions.





Don.

Ethanol production has been shown to reduce availibale fuel ( since it takes more petrochemicals than the ethanol replaces) AND has resulted in a large increase in the cost of corn, both as a feedstock and as fodd.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:56 PM

Just curious -
Which will be more disruptive to human life on planet Earth:

1) transitioning from a fossil fuel (which we can all agree will run out at some point) economy to something else (which would have the added benefit of reducing various forms of polution related to extraction, processing, transportation and burning of fossil fuels), or
2) moving the populations of Bangladesh, Tuvalu, Venice, the entire Sahel, possibly the southwestern US, Nunavut, many many coastal regions, et. etc. to other places - where there are already other people living?

Which is more likely to provoke conflict, promote disease and death in refugee camps and just generally F with humanity?

Serious question.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:50 PM

I have read the Spencer and Braswell paper you just linked to.
There are some difficulties.

First, it is a modelling paper - it uses a climate model developed by Spencer himself, but it is too simplistic to really approximate Earth's complicated atmosphere-ocean feedbacks. In fact, the water cycle and El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) are not included in the model.

Second, this model assumes that El Nino/Southern Oscillation is driven by changes in cloud cover (as opposed to many scientists who have presented evidence that ENSO drives changes in cloud cover (i.e. Spencer may have his cause and effect reversed). So this is some justification (possibly incorrect) for neglecting ENSO, but it is still neglected in the model.

Third, their model was developed using only a single data set - a good model needs to be built or trained on one data set, and then fed completely different ones. This is a very basic principle of any type of modelling.

Fourth, details regarding their modelling algorithms and assumptions have not been released, so the results cannot be independently confirmed (remember Pons and Fleishman?).

So, while the paper you provided can certainly not be called "wrong", it is currently *unsupported*.
So, in this case, I agree with you - certainly not a useful model (at this point).

A colleagues says all the time "all models are bad, but some are useful".

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:41 PM

Wild assertions, BB. Stock Right-Wing argument.

Let's see you support that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:32 PM

Don, if you bother reading my posts instead of attacking me, you will see I have stated why IMHO we should be seeking to adjust TO climate change BEFORE we depend on STOPPING it, to help those (mostly) thirdworld cultures that are endangered by it.

Instead, the effect of Gore et al is to drive up food prices, increaseing world starvation, and NOT moving any populations from endangered areas but instead removing the infrastructure that would be used in the future to help them.

This is a presciption for war and famine- yet I can't even get a supposedly intelligent person such as yourself to look at the POSSIBILITY that WE WON"T BE ABLE TO STOP CLIMATE CHANGE, and perhaps we should be looking at ways to SAVE LIVES.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:32 PM

cross-posted.

You can't begin to assert that you are getting no response from me. You are simply getting a response that you do not like, and it would be a lot lot lot of work to refute.

So, I understand. I am busy too.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:29 PM

1) Of course all of the references are to articles published before 2011. We can't read articles published in the future can we? But they are all within the last decade. This is okay, yes?

2) Wow, I hope you are not fibbing again when you say you looked at several of the articles. Not a single article linked on that page is on climate modelling. There are papers on global carbon balance, seawater pH, isotopic ratios, outgoing long wavelength radiation spectra, ionospheric electron density, etc., etc., etc. But not one on climate modelling.

3) Okay, I understand you have a beef with climate models. Tell me which one, provide a citation (I can get my hands on anything), and perhaps I can "address this point." Without this, you haven't really made any point so how do I begin to address it?

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:27 PM

BTNG,

If it is so obvious,, why can't those who say so provide factual evidence? I point out that the model being used is not in accord with the observed results, according to NASA, and I get NO DISCUSSION.


http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf



Methane and water vapor are far greater greenhouse gasses, yet Gore et al insist to reducing CO2.

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-scientists-shine-light-methane-mystery-105956823.html;_ylt=ApDDycFooG0Bu4c_68LjI.aw73QA;_ylu=X3oDM

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:24 PM

So it doesn't say that global warming is not man made - merely that some man-made causes may have less effect than predicted? Is that your new position, now that the old one is shown indefensible?

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:21 PM

"Can you show that IF YOU REMOVE the man-made sources that climate change will stop?

"If not, you are pushing an agenda that is being used to endanger the lives and peoles of third-world countries"

How so?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:18 PM

You do have to love BB's so called "sources" Yahoo, retreads of the original blog, hardly original research.

I'll repeat once more....

what CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer actually said, was "asked…colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of climate change debate.

"One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters,"

give it up beardedbruce, you're wrong and you know it!

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:14 PM

McG,

Can you show that IF YOU REMOVE the man-made sources that climate change will stop?


If not, you are pushing an agenda that is being used to endanger the lives and peoles of third-world countries.

I HAVE NOT SAID that it would not be NICE to reduce pollution, just that there are more important things to do IN REGARDS TO CLIMATE CHANGE.

TIA,

I looked at several of the source articles- and noted the dates. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't 2011 AFTER 2004 and 2007?

If the MODELS do not reflect the real-world, it is NOT SCIENCE to keep using them without modification.

YOUR failure to address this point indicates that YOU have a pre-concieved result that is what you are willing to accept, regardless of what is real.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:04 PM

What is the political agenda of Skepticalscience?
Can you find any mention of any political party? Or any politician? Please show me where.

No, you are afraid to try to go up against the real science, so you glance, and if it doesn't agree with your preconceived notion, you label it "political".

Do the peer-reviewed journal articles also have a political agenda?
Did you follow any links to any original data?
I suspect not.

Why should *I* answer your monstrously broad question when the scientific literature is awash in answers to your question. (Besides, I am too busy preparing lectures on Earth Science for young minds...bet that pisses you off).

But you are not really asking a question. You are trying to deflect the conversation from your original erroneous post and thread title.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 04:01 PM

There can be no doubt whatsoever that human activity is putting enormous amounts of pollutants into the environment. The idea that somehow this has no significant impact on that environment is in itself highly implausible, and there is ample evidence to show that it does have such effects.

That's the point. There is room for arguments about what other factors may be involved and what needs to be done, but there is no value in denying that point, and attacking those who accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 03:46 PM

TIA, I looked at the sight- which clearly has a political agenda. Thus I could pull the SRS Defense of refusing to look at anything that does not a priori agree with what I want to believe.

However, YOU do not address the post

From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 30 Aug 11 - 11:14 AM

"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

If the studies that are listed are now being found not to reflect reality, are you still insisting that I have to believe them?

I am STILL waiting for the explaination of the KNOWN short term climactic changes on Mars and Jupiter, that YOU keep telling me must be caused my man-made sources, since they are the ONLY significant sources of climate change you are willing to acknowledge.



IF we try to stop climate change and FAIL, PEOPLE DIE.

IF we try to adjust to the change, there is at least a chance of survival.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 03:37 PM

"WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTION.
I continue to note that you have provided no factual evidence, and continue to attack me, rather than discuss the topic."

Total Baloney BB. Go follow the link I posted (a summary), then follow the links within it to the actual peer-reviewed science.

You know that the answer is really really really long so you are avoiding reading it by claiming I did not provide it.

It is up there at 11:31 AM.

Good Luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 03:35 PM

BB, first I questioned that CERN actually said what you said it said. Then, if they actually did say that (apparently not!), were particle physicists really qualified to comment on matters of meteorology and oceanography.

YOU took it personally.

It way YOU who started questioning MY qualifications to even comment on the matter.

Take a walk around the block and clear your head.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 03:31 PM

Don,

BTW,
"Jerry once said, about the profligate use of fossil fuels, "When it's gone, it's gone! When you consider the number of really essential products that are made from petroleum—from plastics to fertilizers to pharmaceuticals (and he enumerated many more)—you realize that to use up the limited supply of petroleum by burning it to produce energy is a crime against future generations!" Then he went on to describe several relatively easy and inexpensive methods of propelling automobiles and producing electricity that don't involve the burning of fossil fuels or the polluting of the atmosphere."

I agree with this- I just do not think that the efforts being pushed by Gore et al are either effective, or ecologically sound.


" By the way, he was one of Ronald Reagan's science advisers and played a major part in the development of the "Star Wars" project—no, not the movies!—SDI"

And I worked on that as well- RME, LACE, and Clementine/DSPSE. But that seems to disqualify me from having valid knowledge, according to YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 03:22 PM

Don,

YOU have presented no facts, nor discussed the ones I have brought up. Imnstead, you have attacked me, my qualifications to have an opinion, the writer of the article, and all those who hold opinions that differ with yours.

McG,

The conspiracy theorists who insist that certain types of human activity threaten us all are diverting discussion from the real issues.

IF one presumes climate change, either it is primarily caused by man or not.

IN EITHER CASE, there should be steps taken TO COMPENSATE FOR THE CHANGE, which are being ignored and the resources required are being used to attempt to STOP that change- great if it works (for which NO EVIDENCE is being presented), but if it does not future generations will curse us for not taking steps to help human survival FIRST.

It it the Gore et al party that has made this political, using it to push their agenda regardless of the negative impact on the majority of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 03:08 PM

Political considerations shouldn't enter into a discussion about scientific theories. Such things should be put on one side until it comes to deciding what to do in face of their findings.

The conspiracy theorists who deny that certain types of human activity threaten us all are diverting discussion from the real issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 03:03 PM

BB, you are totally mischaracterizing what I have said.

I see no reason why I should continue to attempt to carry on a rational discussion with someone who has no interest in factual information, but just wants to win an argument.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 02:56 PM

Don,

So?

I worked with Gene Shoemaker, but that gives ME no additional abilities. YOU STATED YOUR qualifications and asked mine- I replied, and in the opinion of any sane person, ON WHAT YOU STATED **I** have as good or better qualifications on the subject at hand. So when YOU state that I am not entitled to have an educated opinion, I fail to see how you can claim anything of the kind.


As for Jerry Pournelle, he and I shared computer connections ( Heath/Zenith) Perhaps you should read what you wrote:

"In addition to having an encyclopedic mind for scientific facts and theories, he had a vivid imagination, which served him well both in writing some really fine science fiction and in hatching up alternative ways of doing things.

He was a Southerner, born and raised in Louisiana, which, despite his prodigious knowledge, may explain his political conservatism. He and Newt Gingrich became good friends, which really puzzles me, but that's another question."

Perhaps you should be asking why YOU disagree with HIS political opinions, instead of denying that others are permitted to disagree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 02:31 PM

"MY qualifications are greater than yours…."

In what areas, BB?

I've been following the global warming thing since the 1950s with the observations of Jacques Cousteau and books by such people as Rachel Carson, who was one of the first to call attention to the effect that human activity was having on the oceans and the atmosphere. And your assumption that concern about climate change all started with Al Gore's Earth in the Balance displays an actual lack of knowledge on your part. People have been concerned about what human caused pollution is doing to the planet long before Gore's book.

In the very early 1960s, I knew Jerry Pournelle quite well. Jerry is probably best known as a writer of science fiction, but (to forestall anybody doing a riff on his being "only" a science fiction writer) he has advanced degrees in a couple of scientific areas, has worked in the space program when he was with the Boeing Space Center, and although he and I didn't agree politically (he's quite conservative), I learned a lot of facts from him and we had many enlightening conversations on many subjects. By the way, he was one of Ronald Reagan's science advisers and played a major part in the development of the "Star Wars" project—no, not the movies!—SDI.

Jerry once said, about the profligate use of fossil fuels, "When it's gone, it's gone! When you consider the number of really essential products that are made from petroleum—from plastics to fertilizers to pharmaceuticals (and he enumerated many more)—you realize that to use up the limited supply of petroleum by burning it to produce energy is a crime against future generations!" Then he went on to describe several relatively easy and inexpensive methods of propelling automobiles and producing electricity that don't involve the burning of fossil fuels or the polluting of the atmosphere.

In addition to having an encyclopedic mind for scientific facts and theories, he had a vivid imagination, which served him well both in writing some really fine science fiction and in hatching up alternative ways of doing things.

He was a Southerner, born and raised in Louisiana, which, despite his prodigious knowledge, may explain his political conservatism. He and Newt Gingrich became good friends, which really puzzles me, but that's another question.

In any case, that much of the current climate change is human caused is considered to be an incontrovertible fact by the overwhelming majority of competent scientists. Political considerations notwithstanding.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 02:25 PM

JtS,

"Many of us are waiting for you to stop evading and either back up that claim or admit your error."


I REPEAT:


From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 30 Aug 11 - 03:36 PM

TIA, Thread titles are limited to a short phrase.

I will let it be retitled" Global warming- CERN data indicates that there are significant sources of climate change related tempurature control mechanisms that are solar rather than man-made."


Otherwise, should we piss and moan over thread titles, or determine what the factual basis is for the racist attempts to destroy the 3rd world peoples being proposed by Man-made GW enthusiates?


WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTION.


I continue to note that you have provided no factual evidence, and continue to attack me, rather than discuss the topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: pdq
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 01:55 PM

EBarnacle, here are answers to three of your questions:


Is the atmospheric energy output directly parallel with the rise in solar/cosmic emissions?

          ANS: Perhaps you mean atmospheric energy absorption?

          For practical purposes, ALL the energy that heats the Earth's atomosphere comes from one source: the Sun. Volcanic activity and such are trivial.

Is GW a fact as we know it? Is global temperature rising?

          ANS: The official number from the US government if a rise in the ambiant air temperatue near the Earth's surface has risen 1 degree F in the last 150 years. That is absolutelty trivial and is less change (up or down ) than occurred in most of the last 2000 years.

Do the facts as we know them tell us that we should do what we can to reduce all of the contributing factors?

          ANS: You are correct in noting water vapor. It swamps all other "greenhouse gases". It can approach 5% of the atmosphere by mass. Carbon dioxide is just 365 parts per million and methane gas is just 1.8 parts per billion!

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 01:21 PM

what CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer actually said, was "asked…colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of climate change debate.

"One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters,"

So........

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: EBarnacle
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 01:21 PM

Try to approach an issue which really does affect us all withe less "heat" and more light.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: BTNG
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 01:16 PM

Has anyone noticed that most of th postings, regarding this issue, on the net, are all variations on or direct cut and paste jobs, of the original Daily Torygraph blog, hardly what one might call sound scientific knowledge

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: EBarnacle
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 01:09 PM

It seems to me that the real question is of energy in vs. energy out.

Is the atmospheric energy output directly parallel with the rise in solar/cosmic emissions? If the carbon content of the atmosphere were reduced, would this output change?--in which direction? Is GW a fact as we know it? Is global temperature rising? Do the facts as we know them tell us that we should do what we can to reduce all of the contributing factors? Which of these factors would you suggest we address first?

My personal factor is atmospheric water vapor, which my company is currently extracting to provide potable water where there is either none or not enough. Don't just stand there arguing, do something!

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 12:56 PM

beardedbruce: "The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won't be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth."

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!...I've been posting that for a long time, only to be rebutted by nonsensical Gore 'party talking points'. the latest data indicate sunspot, and solar storm activity.

Gore should have long ago been indicted for fraud, with all the taxpayer money he has collected(read: extorted), from the public...umm....$500,000,000, I believe. Don't forget, he invented the internet and the wheel, too.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 11:32 AM

Ask Dr. Science about tough questions!

I'm SURE he deals with climate...somewhere....

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 11:31 AM

Jack is correct. You are changing the subject to avoid admitting an error.

However, if you really want to change the subject you will have your work cut out for you refuting these 10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change .

And don't just argue with John Cook (the author of the summary). You need to go back and refute the original citations (follow the links to the original peer-reviewed publications).

Good Luck!

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 11:30 AM

At this date that's a bit like asking for the proof that smoking causes cancer in the course of an argument about whether it should be banned in pubs.

There's no doubt that there are other causes for cancer as well, and other causes for climate change, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 11:29 AM

It wasn't in any apparent sense an error. It was apparently a deliberate lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 11:17 AM

>>I do note that none here have bothered to provide ANY factual support for significant man-made caused climate change.
Attacking me proves only that you do not even think you can support your own viewpoint.<<

No one here on this thread has claimed anything about man-nade climate change but you. What you claimed was that "CERN says that 'Global Warming' is NOT man-made."

Many of us are waiting for you to stop evading and either back up that claim or admit your error.

No one is attacking you. We are however, calling your bullshit what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 10:46 AM

I do note that none here have bothered to provide ANY factual support for significant man-made caused climate change.

Attacking me proves only that you do not even think you can support your own viewpoint.





Don,

Check EO-1 instruments, and Atmospheric models for precision orbite determination. MY qualifications are greater than yours, which YOU consider to be sufficient to judge others by.

So, you are saying you are not competent to make the judgements you have been making???

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 09:12 AM

You could call it "the oral tradition" as applied to science...

Or you could call it Bearded Bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Global Warming- CERN says not man-made
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 11 - 07:22 AM

Basically this CERN research finding is about as relevant to "controversy" about global warming as this story - Firing laser beams into the sky could make it rain, say scientists

Interesting in itself, but...