On 16 Jun 2013, at 15:08, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

I think Dyson is correct. My resentment is from the suspcion that it has been a generated 'rush to judgement.

OK. I can understand. But, locally, we have only one planet here-and- now, so it is a (rare) case where the precaution principle applies, I think.

Well before anyone get alarmed by the harm we can do to the planet and ourselves, Henry Ford asked why to build car in steel using the non renewable resources for the fuel, when we can do cars entirely with renewable plants (and he proved it, including the rentability).

So we have plenty of ways to better manage life on this planet, including possible international taxation to offer a living to those exploiting forest, so as to preserve the maximal pool of genes on the planet.

We can do it, so why don't we do it?

Probably because we failed to separate the state from private interests and corporatism.

Maybe people should vote for political programs *only*, then politicians should be man and woman doing a "social service", and would govern following the idea the people voted for, no matter what they have voted themselves.

Something like that.

But that's for the long run. Today, I don't believe the politics will improve as long as we maintain the criminal prohibition hoax, which makes the whole middle class into hostage of bandits.

Bruno





-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
To: Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter

Coincidentally I came across this wikipage of Freeman Dyson quotes today:

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models. "Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society", in Edge (8 August 2007) I believe global warming is grossly exaggerated as a problem. It's a real problem, but it's nothing like as serious as people are led to believe. The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It distracts people's attention from much more serious problems.
Interview in Salon (29 September 2007)
All the books that I have seen about the science and the economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. ... Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion.
The New York Review of Books (12 June 2008)
What do others think about his comments?  Are his critiques valid?
Jason




On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 5:15 PM, <spudboy...@aol.com> wrote:
Bret, there was a study from the University of Waterloo which holds, not CO2 but CFC's as the primary villain in AGW. Before this both methane and carbon dust, have been identified as well as your old buddy, CO2. The abatement in global heating may also be coming from the world switching over to natural gas (mee thane as the UK says it) for electrical generation. Sadly, the abandonment by Germany and Italy since Fukushima 2011, have cause these nukes to be shut down, and their re-started of old coal plants, using US coal. On the CFC evidence, this sort of goes along with the retirement of CFC's from use as a refrigerant in the 1990's, worldwide. The US move to shale gas must be accelerating the cooling of the atmosphere too.
-----Original Message-----
From: meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter

Whenever someone posts an article from a denialist blog like whatsupwiththat which quotes a newspaper opinion piece which purports to quote a scientific paper - instead of directly citing the scientific paper; you know they're trying to pull the wool over your eyes. The graph below,


<mime-attachment.jpeg>

which is labelled "Source: University of California-Berkley Earth Surface Temperature Project" is not from that project. The people running that project know better than to try to cherry pick some variable like "Daylight high temperature in the U.S." to try fit solar radiation. The whole point of that project was use the most comprehensive possible statistics to estimate the global temperature. And in spite of the fact that the lead researchers were both sceptical of the IPCC's estimates. And although they do not include the graph below, they do include this one:


<agfchgje.png>


In which a prediction of Earth global average surface temperature based just on CO2 and volcanic activity (and no variation in solar activity) is compared to measured values. Any comparison to solar irradiance is difficult in any case since prior to satellites we have no reliable data that is not confounded by atmospheric effects. In fact there is no apparent increase in solar irradiance


<ejjgaacb.png>
Brent

On 6/15/2013 6:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter

Up to the present day, studies of global warming were
based on CO2 levels in the atmosphere, assumed to be caused by
automobiles (the supposed greenhouse effect).
But more resent studies show that total solar irradiation (TSI) --
solar radiation coming from outside of the atmosphere- not CO2 levels--
is  the driving force:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/soon-and-briggs-global-warming-fanatics-take-note-sunspots-do-impact-climate/

<mime-attachment.jpeg>

C02 levels are not reliable indicators of what causes surface
temperature warming (the supposed greenhouse effect) ?
.
Why ? Because some of the CO2 in the atmosphere is there because as the earth warms, the oceans warm and CO2 gases sare less soluble in warmer water, so fizle out into the atmosphere. So it is doubtful to say that current levels of CO2
are entirely from automobiles.

So current scientific evalutations as in the graph below do not rely on CO2 measurements, they use solar radiation which is not influenced by C02 levels
and relate that instead to surface gtemperatures.

The total solar radiation (TSI) is not obtained from measurements made on earth, so it isn't supposed to include greenshouse gas effects. It is measured these days by satellite, but is reconconstructed from pre-satellite days (<1979 ) based on a model
based on the number of sunspots.

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2007/19/aa6725-06/aa6725-06.html

"Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux
N. A. Krivova, L. Balmaceda, and S. K. Solanki

Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Max-Planck-Str. 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
    e-mail: nata...@mps.mpg.de

(Received 9 November 2006 / Accepted 23 February 2007)

Abstract
Context.Total solar irradiance changes by about 0.1% between solar activity maximum and minimum. Accurate measurements of this quantity are only available since 1978 and do not provide information on longer-term secular trends. Aims.In order to reliably evaluate the Sun's role in recent global climate change, longer time series are, however, needed. They can only be assessed with the help of suitable models. Methods.The total solar irradiance is reconstructed from the end of the Maunder minimum to the present based on variations of the surface distribution of the solar magnetic field. The latter is calculated from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model. Results.Our model successfully reproduces three independent data sets: total solar irradiance measurements available since 1978, total photospheric magnetic flux since 1974 and the open magnetic flux since 1868 empirically reconstructed using the geomagnetic aa- index. The model predicts an increase in the solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum of $1.3^{\rm +0.2}_{\rm -0.4}$ Wm-2. "



Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 3/30/2013
"Coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous."
- Albert Einstein

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to