"A cold spell soon to replace global warming"
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 04:54
Dr. Sorokhtin's article
According to this, those who are presently children will have a colder future toward the end of their lives.
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 05:04
Also worth noting:
According to this, carbon dioxide is GOOD for the Earth. If you are an
environmentalist, limiting CO2 production is a bad thing to do.
LSemmens - 4-1-2008 at 05:56
Post boosting again, are we scholar? Are you sure that you're not on the "election trail"?
(I've moved your duplicates to the trash!
the bear - 4-1-2008 at 09:24
Good on yer "Blue", e needs pruning his peas r getting above is sticks.
Regards the bear
LSemmens - 4-1-2008 at 12:24
Sorry Bear, I ain't "Blue", now... two of my sons, my daughter, and SWMBO, they can rightly be called "Blue", just not I.
dr john - 4-1-2008 at 16:24
Scholar's latest site starts with this
Strangely, no-one can see this rise starting in the 17th century when they look at the data - looks like the only big rise started in the 20th century
(lower of the two images)
and it says this too
but as I'm sure scholar's dad told him, carbonic acid only exists in aqueous solution, it does not exist as a liquid or as a gas, so evaporating
Strangely scholar's latest site also says
before quickly going back into denial mode.
Now I see no point in me posting lots of links that say the opposite thing, as scholar has faith in his sources and will never be persuaded otherwise.
but isn't it interesting that the article ends with this
something that the other science articles there don't end with...
And if you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle you'll find a graph of solar activity (as well as the assessment that it has no
effect on earth's climatic)
EDIT Better graph of solar activity
You notice that when solar activity fell between 1980 and 1985, average global temperature rose, and when solar activity fell in about 1990 to 1995,
global temperatures were still rising. It didn't drop as your friend's article implies it should have done.
And the better graph shows a max in solar activity in 1960, when global temps dropped slightly (and the better graph does NOT show we are at a peak of
solar activity just now, the peaks have been decreasing since 1960, while the temp has risen)
But let's not let these facts get in the way of scholar's faith in the sun effect...
scholar - 4-1-2008 at 16:50
That is indeed one way in which the man-made
global warning alarmists are sometimes dishonest--
1--There are people in the IPCC who know that the invented carbon dioxide forcing theory is false, and that man-made global warming has never been
proven by empiracle data, but the IPCC removed mention of that from their report, AND they did not honestly say that the extreme version of their
report was disputed by some of their scientists. I myself heard one of the IPCC scientists tell of how his name was listed as supporting conclusions
that were wrong, and with which he disagreed. When he complained and asked that his name at least be removed from the list of those subscribing, they
refused to do so until he threatened to sue them.
2--Man-made global warming alarmists often say there is a consensus agreeing with their opinion, even though there isn't. They won't end an article
with, "This is the opinion of. . ." and then list only the names of those who actually worked on the article. They would like to give you the
impression that there is general agreement, when there isn't. In fact, John Coleman gives an example of a man who changed from a supporting to a
skeptical position on man-made global warming, because the evidence just isn't there.
Dr. John, do you know how many scientists subscribed to the document petitioning the US government to consider the man-made global warming theory to
be unsupported by evidence and unproven?
TooCute4Words - 7-1-2008 at 16:30
I prefer a warmer winter and am glad of global warming only because of that. But unfortunately it is damaging to us, so I guess something will have
to be done to mend that, but cutting down on the things which harm our environment still won't be enough to help us.
Our Richard Branson has offered $25m (£12.8m) for help to save our planet. What a generous man. Offering money for such an impossible task.
Here's the article,
Theravad - 7-1-2008 at 17:30
I posted in the other thread about Cosmo-climatology, there is a book published which sums up the cosmic radiation effect on cloud formation ( see
"The Chilling Stars" ).
I am not debunking the effect of carbon emission but the actual causal chain of current climate is far more complex and multi-faceted than just
Theravad - 7-1-2008 at 17:32
scholar - 7-1-2008 at 18:10
And the scientists who point out that the carbon dioxide concentration does not effect the climate in a
noticeable way do not say that carbon dioxide could not have any effect (e.g. if there was a way that humankind
could increase carbon dioxide to half the atmosphere). But, the actual carbon dioxide is measured in hundreds of parts per million, not hundreds of
thousands of parts per million. The amount of water vapor is so much more than that of carbon dioxide that its effect is overwhelming in
comparison--but you don't hear anyone suggesting we need to restrict ocean evaporation. All the land animals exhale carbon dioxide--but we protect
and encourage the continuation of animals. The variation in carbon dioxide from man-made burning is like adding buckets of water into the ocean. In
fact, man puts out forest fires and puts in fire breaks (unnatural barriers to the spread of fires, such as agricultural fields with no trees for fuel
in them) , and harvests lumber, which reduces the spread of wildfires caused by lightning strikes. Plants which mankind raises take in CO2 and give
off oxygen. Not everything man does adds to CO2 totals, some things reduce it. And without the unevidenced CO2 forcing, the man-made global warming
scam (as meteorologist John Coleman calls it) falls apart.
dr john - 8-1-2008 at 11:04
If you bother to look at the data I linked to in my first post in this thread, you can see quite clearly that what the article author says is
happening is not happening!!!
There is NO sign of a rise in temps that started in the 17th C as he claims, and there is no sign of us being at a 200 year peak of solar
So why do you believe the things he says?
Redwolf5150 - 10-1-2008 at 17:27
That and you know what they say about arguing with a donkey.
Scholar can be as stubburn as a mule when he wants to be.
Redwolf5150 - 10-1-2008 at 17:28
Uhhhh, because he found it on the Internet??????
And you KNOW you can believe EVERYTHING you see on the Internet or receive in your email.
Just ask Giron about the little blue pills. He'll tell you.
scholar - 10-1-2008 at 19:26
Dr. John is correct in saying that Dr. Sorokhtin did not write accurately when he spoke of the ocean exuding carbonic acid. What Dr. Sorokhtin
obviously meant to say was that the components of carbonic acid, carbon dioxide and water vapor, come from the ocean. When the water becomes
precipitation and falls through carbon dioxide, it becomes the rainwater we collect at ground level--dilute carbonic acid.
Dr. John compares what Dr. Sorokhtin says with charts to which Dr. John refers--but is there any reason to believe Dr. Sorokhtin is working from the
same data? The graphs to which Dr. John refers are labeled as graphs of surface temperature. Does Dr. Sorokhtin say that he is referring to surface
temperature only, and not to the temperature in a wider volume of the biosphere?
Dr. Sorokhtin says there is a correlation between measured CO2 concentrations and estimated temperatures based on ice core data, but he explains the
causality in the other direction, that when the oceans warm, more CO2 is released from the oceans. Warmth causes more atmospheric CO2, more CO2
doesn't cause the warmth. (Everyone sees this effect in carbonated soda. Pour soda warm instead of cold, or add energy to it by shaking it--the
carbon dioxide comes out rapidly. Chill it and don't shake it before you open the bottle or can, and the gas does not come out of the drink so
quickly. Does anyone say the carbonation warmed up the drink? No, the warmth of the drink makes the carbonation exit more quickly.) I have read
elsewhere, not just here, that the data indicates the increase in CO2 lags behind the increase in temperature.
Dr. Sorokhtin's main point is that, while the greenhouse gas theory has never been proved to cause global warming,"The real reasons for climate
changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of
the Arctic Ocean surface waters . . .solar activity and luminosity." To this I would add the effect Theravad mentions, plus the influence of
variations in volcanic activity and atmospheric particles (due to volcanoes and/or large meteor strikes). When he argues for the influence of solar
activity, that does not exclude the possibility that other factors could have greater effect from time to time. (Dr. John used similar logic when he
said that the recent years of NO global warming do not disprove the greenhouse theory, because other factors could temporarily be holding back the
Hi, Redwolf! It's good to see you!
victor - 10-1-2008 at 19:44
If I was a mule I would take offence at that.
scholar - 10-1-2008 at 19:50
I note that Redwolf makes no claim that he, himself, is not stuffborn. In fact, I would guess he would agree that stubbornness is an excellent
quality, in the right circumstances. I bet he would be as stubborn in protecting his family as would I.
If we were agreed on the cause, I would gladly fight by his side. He and I have a lot in common.
victor - 10-1-2008 at 20:08
All evidence of global warming will be found to be correct.
Because governments have discovered it to be the best cash cow in modern history and they will milk it for all its worth.
scholar - 10-1-2008 at 21:54
John Coleman, a meteorologist who is critical of the man-made global warming alarmists, points out that scientists whose project
financing depend on government research grants are under great financial pressure to toe the line with respect to the global warming scam. They can
offer to do research that assumes or supports it and get financing, or they can lose their grants. A climatologist points out that scientists who are
retired do not have the same financial vulnerability, and they are more likely to come out against it.
LSemmens - 11-1-2008 at 12:36
We can easily cure global warming, just stop everyone from letting off steam and talking hot air all the time!
Redwolf5150 - 11-1-2008 at 18:06
I'm not stubburn.
I am just secure in the knowledge that I am usually right.