On Mar 8, 6:41*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
On Mar 8, 11:15*am, Dawlish wrote:





On Mar 8, 3:46*pm, Meteorologist wrote:

On Mar 8, 2:46*am, Dawlish wrote:

...
The cooling is always either in the future, or the present measures
aren't good enough for someone that refuses to see that it's actually
warm (or, as in another thread, there must be unprecedented climate
changes going on as it can't possibly be cooler in one part of the
world whilst the world overall is warm - shakes head at that one).

Yet, climate is warming and UAH proves it.

They are the only answers possible in the face of continued warming..
Even though we have had 4 years of low solar output and no resultant
cooling, it's still in the future. Even though we've got 5 different
global measures now, 3 surface, 2 satellite (which hardly lack
sufficient coverage!) the measuring still isn't good enough.

That's right; it is not good enough.

Crunchy.

Man, are you dense and gauche!

The world is presently warm; fact.

Acknowledged.

It's been warming for a
long time; fact.

Depends on one's frame of reference for "long time";
I prefer Prof. Lindzen's frame of reference. *BTW I went
to MIT; Prof. Lindzen lives in Newton; I live in
West Newton; Prof. Lindzen is a MIT professor.

The only issue left is what is causing it to get
warmer

I agree that yours is an important issue. *Yet, I insist
that climate science itself across-the-board must
improve its prediction record over different time frames...

and in the absence of any other reasonably accepted cause -
what's that cause likely to be? Let me guess - a deep solar minimum
and cosmic rays increasing cloud cover.........it can't be CO2 of
course, can it?

Just a second - your factor should be precisely stated
as greenhouse warming across-the-board, not just CO2.
Get it?

David Christainsen

Crunchy;

Here is Dawlish's violation of good form. *Character up
or be exposed to others.

there's been over 4 years of a low solar minimum to put
Svensmark's theories to the test. The outcome is not cooling, as he
predicts, but warming to the extent that the planet is just about at
the warmest ever in recorded history.

That's why his theories are interesting, but no more.

Now there's no need to create another cross-group thread to link to
the same theories again. You've put your point of view, few agree and
no-one has been "put straight". In the end, all your cross posting
does is attract nutters who have no interest in this newsgroup
whatsoever, but who who trail along after you spouting foul language.

Your cross-posting comment here is just your ploy; so,
note well that I am not now cross-posting with
you.

Further, for the subject per se of cosmic ray cloud
connection, the microphysics of why the factor
exists to a limited extent is hardly understood.

So, I have already given on usenet a very comprehensive
literature search result. *I guess you did not bother to
investigate any of these references to broaden your own
knowledge. *Bottom line - it is all about accurate scientific
information.

-----

David Christainsen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bottom line, it's about global temperatures and you can't explain why,
if Svensmark is correct, why they are currently so high, can you?