On Apr 18, 1:36*pm, "ronaldbutton" wrote:
Sorry you now have doubts about natures part in climate change Martin,it's
bloody obvious that all previous changes in world temperature were caused by
farting Neandethals,and certainly the sun didn't have anything to do with
it.

RonB"Martin Rowley" wrote in message

...



... I must admit, although I am convinced that humans are contributing to
the broadscale global warming, I was also ready to accept that variation
in solar output via the mechanism of deflecting cosmic radiation could be
a significant 'control' on cloud cover. However, this is the second report
in a short time that debunks that theory ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7352667.stm

Martin.

--
Martin Rowley
E:
W: booty.org.uk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I read the report with interest. I think it is good to see someone
prepared to alter their views on the chances of AGW either being, or
not being, a reality. It's the completely entrenched positions that
bug me.

I know it is likely that CO2 is causing GW, but I'm still not fully
prepared to embrace that, which is why I have gone 1/8 over the past
year, or so. How anyone, with the evidence provided, can believe that
GW is not happening, has not happened and will not continue, with no
words of amelioration in there, is a complete mystery to me. On the
other hand, anyone who is completley convinced that CO2 IS the problem
and there can be no other cause of GW may be correct, but there should
be enough evidence out there to show that the sun COULD be the driving
factor. It's unlikely, but it stops me subscribing fully to the AGW
point of view and makes me wonder how someone can be so adamant that
the cause of GW is settled beyond doubt. I don't think that helps the
AGW cause. The IPCC report did not say that AGW was the case, only
that it was probably the case and that science and climate scientists
were about 90% certain that CO2 was the cause.

At the start of last year, I lengthened my own odds on CO2 being the
main driver from 1/9, the IPCC position, to 1/8. This was down to me
thinking that there may be more in the 11-year solar cycle than I had
previously thought and that cosmic rays may cause increases in cloud
cover. I learned nothing last year which swayed me away from that.
However, these two independent studies showing a lack of a
relationship between cosmic rays and cloud cover is enough to persude
me that my original stance, in agreement with the IPCC is probably
more likely. It does remove a spanner!

I've been thinking about the report you linked to all afternoon, on
and off, whilst dealing with estate agents valuing the house and
plumbers merchants, to find a metric collar that will fit into an
older, imperial downpipe (who says men can't multi-task!!) and I'm
prepared to say that I agree with you Martin and I'll alter my
thinking in a similar way. I believe that these two studies reduce the
chances of the sun being the main driver. I'll now go 1/9 CO2 is
driving GW.

Paul