On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 16 Jun 2013, at 15:08, [email protected] 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. > > Good points. There is actually such a movement in the US for voting on issues directly by the public: http://www.ncid.us/ It seems like passage of such an initiative may be the only way to free ourselves from the current system. It seems to be little known today, but in the early Roman republic people voted directly on laws themselves (not just their representatives). Jason > Bruno > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Resch <[email protected]> > To: Everything List <[email protected]> > 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)<http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge219.html#dysonf> > > > - 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)<http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/09/29/freeman_dyson/> > > > - 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, <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> To: everything-list <[email protected]> >> 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: [email protected] >> >> (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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
