Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"I thought that was what you meant and I agree, rex. Svensmark's work
is interesting, but that's about the limit of it. The proof of the pudding here would be in the eating i.e. in the outcome global temperatures. If Svensmark was correct and cosmic ray interactions with water vapour and cloud-formation have such a controlling effect effect, then a lower incidence of them would see lower temperatures. If his theories were true, I theorise that global temperatures would have fallen during the recent La Nina, which coincided with this reduction in the sun's output during cycle 23 and the continuing minimum at the start of cycle 24, which has effectively now lasted for 20 months. During that time, every single month has been in its respective top 10 warmest for 130 years (NOAA). Any sceptic who feels that the sun is the main reason for warming temperatures over the last century has got to ask themselves questions about that. Explain it someone! In January 2008, when the last solar cycle ended, even Watts said this; "Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to competing forecasts on whether it will be an highly active or a quiet low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of validity for some CO2 based AGW theories. Only time will tell". Well how much time do the sceptics and denialists need? There has been no reduction in global temperatures during this unexpectedly long period of low solar output. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/0...s-officially-s... In addition, despite such low solar output and an El Nino which is only still developing and is nowhere near the size of the "super" El Nino of 1998, (and 1998 always forms the origin of denialist graphs - see Joe Bastadi's TV graphs as an example) we are seeing temperatures which are equivalent to this exceptional year. That El Nino did not occur during a solar minimum either. Whenever I've posed that question, denialists and hard-line sceptics dive for cover. So explain it guys! The only way we can see whether the world is warming is the most recent, but still long enough term trend through the last century and especially the latter part of it and into the first decade of this. If other theories don't produce the goods in terms of an alternative - and Svensmark's theories certainly don't - we have to fall back even more strongly on the most likely theory; that CO2 is driving global temperatures higher." ----- Dawlish in another thread to me in October, 2009 - "By your own admission, you don't have any answers to the no- cooling- in-2008-9 conundrum yourself, so why not accept the fact that the lack of effect of all the three factors I highlighted are actually likely to point to GW continuing and that the continuation is very likely to be due to the extra warming caused by CO2? Like I said, it's a very difficult question to answer." ---------- My position: I accept that the lack of effect of all the three factors Dawlish highlighted are actually likely to point to GW continuing for a few years BUT no more than that - Dawlish here again: "if Dr Svensmark is entirely correct, why didn't we see global cooling when a lower incidence of cosmic rays coincided with a La Nina AND a negative PDO? Surely that triple whammy should have produced lower global temperatures.................unfortunately it didn't and that leaves you and a few others with some difficult explaining to do. So, in a manner of speaking, Dr. Svensmark is not entirely correct or rather, I say the effect of CO2 warming will be countervailed, whether it is a Latif explanation primarily or a Svensmark explanation primarily over the next 20 years at least. So, like a heck of lot of meteorologists, I hedge because our climate science has inherent UNCERTAINTY as to exact cause and effect for the rest of our lives. So, cosmic rays do not have "such a controlling" effect. But, they have some effect. Is it more than minor? How much effect is the scientific question. CERN will greatly help answer the question IMHO but we have to be patient with the time delay. Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds Svensmark, Henrik; Bondo, Torsten; Svensmark, Jacob http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3615101S --- 5 cites on Svensmark http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=2009GeoRL..36... --- http://www.topix.com/forum/city/loui...BLH4PVNHPL3CMM GlynnMhor: Extract - From the [recent Solomon] article: "Why did the water vapor decrease? "We really don't know," says Solomon, "We don't have enough information yet."" CERN is now running an experiment called CLOUD which studies the formation of clouds and the retention of water vapour in the atmosphere in response to varying factors (temperature, pressure==altitude, humidity) and in particular changing cosmic ray flux, simulated by one of their accelerators governs. This will provide a direct test of Svensmark's hypothesis from Forbush decrease events that increased CR flux removes water vapour, thus cooling the globe. --- I found the 5 cites on Svensmark giving contradictory results. This anomaly demands scientific resolution ASAP. David Christainsen Newton, Mass. USA |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 3, 11:10*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
"I thought that was what you meant and I agree, rex. Svensmark's work is interesting, but that's about the limit of it. The proof of the pudding here would be in the eating i.e. in the outcome global temperatures. If Svensmark was correct and cosmic ray interactions with water vapour and cloud-formation have such a controlling effect effect, then a lower incidence of them would see lower temperatures. If his theories were true, I theorise that global temperatures would have fallen during the recent La Nina, which coincided with this reduction in the sun's output during cycle 23 and the continuing minimum at the start of cycle 24, which has effectively now lasted for 20 months. During that time, every single month has been in its respective top 10 warmest for 130 years (NOAA). Any sceptic who feels that the sun is the main reason for warming temperatures over the last century has got to ask themselves questions about that. Explain it someone! In January 2008, when the last solar cycle ended, even Watts said this; "Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to competing forecasts on whether it will be an highly active or a quiet low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of validity for some CO2 based AGW theories. Only time will tell". Well how much time do the sceptics and denialists need? There has been no reduction in global temperatures during this unexpectedly long period of low solar output. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/0...s-officially-s... In addition, despite such low solar output and an El Nino which is only still developing and is nowhere near the size of the "super" El Nino of 1998, (and 1998 always forms the origin of denialist graphs - see Joe Bastadi's TV graphs as an example) we are seeing temperatures which are equivalent to this exceptional year. That El Nino did not occur during a solar minimum either. Whenever I've posed that question, denialists and hard-line sceptics dive for cover. So explain it guys! The only way we can see whether the world is warming is the most recent, but still long enough term trend through the last century and especially the latter part of it and into the first decade of this. If other theories don't produce the goods in terms of an alternative - and Svensmark's theories certainly don't - we have to fall back even more strongly on the most likely theory; that CO2 is driving global temperatures higher." ----- Dawlish in another thread to me in October, 2009 - "By your own admission, you don't *have any answers to the no- cooling- in-2008-9 conundrum yourself, so why not accept the fact that the lack of effect of all the three factors I highlighted are actually likely to point to GW continuing and that the continuation is very likely to be due to the extra warming caused by CO2? Like I said, it's a very difficult question to answer." ---------- My position: I accept that the lack of effect of all the three factors Dawlish highlighted are actually likely to point to GW continuing for a few years BUT no more than that - Dawlish here again: "if Dr Svensmark is entirely correct, why didn't we see global cooling when a lower incidence of cosmic rays coincided with a La Nina AND a negative PDO? Surely that triple whammy should have produced lower global temperatures.................unfortunately it didn't and that leaves you and a few others with some difficult explaining to do. So, in a manner of speaking, Dr. Svensmark is not entirely correct or rather, I say the effect of CO2 warming will be countervailed, whether it is a Latif explanation primarily or a Svensmark explanation primarily over the next 20 years at least. So, like a heck of lot of meteorologists, I hedge because our climate science has inherent UNCERTAINTY as to exact cause and effect for the rest of our lives. So, cosmic rays do not have "such a controlling" effect. But, they have some effect. *Is it more than minor? *How much effect is the scientific question. *CERN will greatly help answer the question IMHO but we have to be patient with the time delay. Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds Svensmark, Henrik; Bondo, Torsten; Svensmark, Jacob http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3615101S --- 5 cites on Svensmark http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=2009GeoRL..36.... --- http://www.topix.com/forum/city/loui...BLH4PVNHPL3CMM GlynnMhor: Extract - From the [recent Solomon] article: "Why did the water vapor decrease? "We really don't know," says Solomon, "We don't have enough information yet."" CERN is now running an experiment called CLOUD which studies the formation of clouds and the retention of water vapour in the atmosphere in response to varying factors (temperature, pressure==altitude, humidity) and in particular changing cosmic ray flux, simulated by one of their accelerators governs. This will provide a direct test of Svensmark's hypothesis from Forbush decrease events that increased CR flux removes water vapour, thus cooling the globe. --- I found the 5 cites on Svensmark giving contradictory results. *This anomaly demands scientific resolution ASAP. David Christainsen Newton, Mass. USA So; despite all the present evidence for warming, you'd rather believe what someone else thinks might happen over the next 20 years. OK. Come back then and we'll talk Crunchy. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 4, 3:23*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 3, 11:10*pm, Meteorologist wrote: "I thought that was what you meant and I agree, rex. Svensmark's work is interesting, but that's about the limit of it. The proof of the pudding here would be in the eating i.e. in the outcome global temperatures. If Svensmark was correct and cosmic ray interactions with water vapour and cloud-formation have such a controlling effect effect, then a lower incidence of them would see lower temperatures. If his theories were true, I theorise that global temperatures would have fallen during the recent La Nina, which coincided with this reduction in the sun's output during cycle 23 and the continuing minimum at the start of cycle 24, which has effectively now lasted for 20 months. During that time, every single month has been in its respective top 10 warmest for 130 years (NOAA). Any sceptic who feels that the sun is the main reason for warming temperatures over the last century has got to ask themselves questions about that. Explain it someone! In January 2008, when the last solar cycle ended, even Watts said this; "Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to competing forecasts on whether it will be an highly active or a quiet low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of validity for some CO2 based AGW theories. Only time will tell". Well how much time do the sceptics and denialists need? There has been no reduction in global temperatures during this unexpectedly long period of low solar output. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/0...s-officially-s... In addition, despite such low solar output and an El Nino which is only still developing and is nowhere near the size of the "super" El Nino of 1998, (and 1998 always forms the origin of denialist graphs - see Joe Bastadi's TV graphs as an example) we are seeing temperatures which are equivalent to this exceptional year. That El Nino did not occur during a solar minimum either. Whenever I've posed that question, denialists and hard-line sceptics dive for cover. So explain it guys! The only way we can see whether the world is warming is the most recent, but still long enough term trend through the last century and especially the latter part of it and into the first decade of this. If other theories don't produce the goods in terms of an alternative - and Svensmark's theories certainly don't - we have to fall back even more strongly on the most likely theory; that CO2 is driving global temperatures higher." ----- Dawlish in another thread to me in October, 2009 - "By your own admission, you don't *have any answers to the no- cooling- in-2008-9 conundrum yourself, so why not accept the fact that the lack of effect of all the three factors I highlighted are actually likely to point to GW continuing and that the continuation is very likely to be due to the extra warming caused by CO2? Like I said, it's a very difficult question to answer." ---------- My position: I accept that the lack of effect of all the three factors Dawlish highlighted are actually likely to point to GW continuing for a few years BUT no more than that - Dawlish here again: "if Dr Svensmark is entirely correct, why didn't we see global cooling when a lower incidence of cosmic rays coincided with a La Nina AND a negative PDO? Surely that triple whammy should have produced lower global temperatures.................unfortunately it didn't and that leaves you and a few others with some difficult explaining to do. So, in a manner of speaking, Dr. Svensmark is not entirely correct or rather, I say the effect of CO2 warming will be countervailed, whether it is a Latif explanation primarily or a Svensmark explanation primarily over the next 20 years at least. So, like a heck of lot of meteorologists, I hedge because our climate science has inherent UNCERTAINTY as to exact cause and effect for the rest of our lives. So, cosmic rays do not have "such a controlling" effect. But, they have some effect. *Is it more than minor? *How much effect is the scientific question. *CERN will greatly help answer the question IMHO but we have to be patient with the time delay. Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds Svensmark, Henrik; Bondo, Torsten; Svensmark, Jacob http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3615101S --- 5 cites on Svensmark http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=2009GeoRL..36.... --- http://www.topix.com/forum/city/loui...BLH4PVNHPL3CMM GlynnMhor: Extract - From the [recent Solomon] article: "Why did the water vapor decrease? "We really don't know," says Solomon, "We don't have enough information yet."" CERN is now running an experiment called CLOUD which studies the formation of clouds and the retention of water vapour in the atmosphere in response to varying factors (temperature, pressure==altitude, humidity) and in particular changing cosmic ray flux, simulated by one of their accelerators governs. This will provide a direct test of Svensmark's hypothesis from Forbush decrease events that increased CR flux removes water vapour, thus cooling the globe. --- I found the 5 cites on Svensmark giving contradictory results. *This anomaly demands scientific resolution ASAP. David Christainsen Newton, Mass. USA So; despite all the present evidence for warming, you'd rather believe what someone else thinks might happen over the next 20 years. OK. Come back then and we'll talk Crunchy.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hi Dawlish, You really have never properly understood my thinking because you hardly ever tried. Yes, Latif does figure in my thinking. He said "may", not that it definitely would. Further, the oceanographers have something valuable to add to the climate science debate, as you yourself must know and do know in my opinion. You are rude and arrogant here for no reason. You got a distorted view of me in part because of my attackers from soc.religion.quaker. Once God helped me stabalize the situation there, that freed me up to come on uk.sci.weather without any crossposting. You invited me, remember? In the future, if you want to get along with me, refrain from calling me Crunchy. IOW be polite and informative. BTW I regard you as a good meteorologist from which other people may learn to their benefit. Best, David Christainsen Newton, Mass. USA |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 4, 3:18*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:23*am, Dawlish wrote: On Feb 3, 11:10*pm, Meteorologist wrote: "I thought that was what you meant and I agree, rex. Svensmark's work is interesting, but that's about the limit of it. The proof of the pudding here would be in the eating i.e. in the outcome global temperatures. If Svensmark was correct and cosmic ray interactions with water vapour and cloud-formation have such a controlling effect effect, then a lower incidence of them would see lower temperatures. If his theories were true, I theorise that global temperatures would have fallen during the recent La Nina, which coincided with this reduction in the sun's output during cycle 23 and the continuing minimum at the start of cycle 24, which has effectively now lasted for 20 months. During that time, every single month has been in its respective top 10 warmest for 130 years (NOAA). Any sceptic who feels that the sun is the main reason for warming temperatures over the last century has got to ask themselves questions about that. Explain it someone! In January 2008, when the last solar cycle ended, even Watts said this; "Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to competing forecasts on whether it will be an highly active or a quiet low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of validity for some CO2 based AGW theories. Only time will tell". Well how much time do the sceptics and denialists need? There has been no reduction in global temperatures during this unexpectedly long period of low solar output. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/0...s-officially-s.... In addition, despite such low solar output and an El Nino which is only still developing and is nowhere near the size of the "super" El Nino of 1998, (and 1998 always forms the origin of denialist graphs - see Joe Bastadi's TV graphs as an example) we are seeing temperatures which are equivalent to this exceptional year. That El Nino did not occur during a solar minimum either. Whenever I've posed that question, denialists and hard-line sceptics dive for cover. So explain it guys! The only way we can see whether the world is warming is the most recent, but still long enough term trend through the last century and especially the latter part of it and into the first decade of this. If other theories don't produce the goods in terms of an alternative - and Svensmark's theories certainly don't - we have to fall back even more strongly on the most likely theory; that CO2 is driving global temperatures higher." ----- Dawlish in another thread to me in October, 2009 - "By your own admission, you don't *have any answers to the no- cooling- in-2008-9 conundrum yourself, so why not accept the fact that the lack of effect of all the three factors I highlighted are actually likely to point to GW continuing and that the continuation is very likely to be due to the extra warming caused by CO2? Like I said, it's a very difficult question to answer." ---------- My position: I accept that the lack of effect of all the three factors Dawlish highlighted are actually likely to point to GW continuing for a few years BUT no more than that - Dawlish here again: "if Dr Svensmark is entirely correct, why didn't we see global cooling when a lower incidence of cosmic rays coincided with a La Nina AND a negative PDO? Surely that triple whammy should have produced lower global temperatures.................unfortunately it didn't and that leaves you and a few others with some difficult explaining to do. So, in a manner of speaking, Dr. Svensmark is not entirely correct or rather, I say the effect of CO2 warming will be countervailed, whether it is a Latif explanation primarily or a Svensmark explanation primarily over the next 20 years at least. So, like a heck of lot of meteorologists, I hedge because our climate science has inherent UNCERTAINTY as to exact cause and effect for the rest of our lives. So, cosmic rays do not have "such a controlling" effect. But, they have some effect. *Is it more than minor? *How much effect is the scientific question. *CERN will greatly help answer the question IMHO but we have to be patient with the time delay. Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds Svensmark, Henrik; Bondo, Torsten; Svensmark, Jacob http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3615101S --- 5 cites on Svensmark http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=2009GeoRL..36... --- http://www.topix.com/forum/city/loui...BLH4PVNHPL3CMM GlynnMhor: Extract - From the [recent Solomon] article: "Why did the water vapor decrease? "We really don't know," says Solomon, "We don't have enough information yet."" CERN is now running an experiment called CLOUD which studies the formation of clouds and the retention of water vapour in the atmosphere in response to varying factors (temperature, pressure==altitude, humidity) and in particular changing cosmic ray flux, simulated by one of their accelerators governs. This will provide a direct test of Svensmark's hypothesis from Forbush decrease events that increased CR flux removes water vapour, thus cooling the globe. --- I found the 5 cites on Svensmark giving contradictory results. *This anomaly demands scientific resolution ASAP. David Christainsen Newton, Mass. USA So; despite all the present evidence for warming, you'd rather believe what someone else thinks might happen over the next 20 years. OK. Come back then and we'll talk Crunchy.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hi Dawlish, Hi Crunchy, You really have never properly understood my thinking because you hardly ever tried. *Yes, Latif does figure in my thinking. *He said "may", not that it definitely would. Further, the oceanographers have something valuable to add to the climate science debate, as you yourself must know and do know in my opinion. I have read Latif's work and I'm aware of the complete misrepresentation, by the denialist community, of his conclusions. I find his work interesting, no more and it is not backed by recent global temperature rises at all. By Latif, Svensmark and all the others you continue to cross-post about, it shouild have got cooler over the last 2 years. It didn't. You are rude and arrogant here for no reason. * I don't suffer arrogant fools gladly and I'll happily give them back the same, if you don't mind. Best not to *tell* people to "discuss" your Internet trawls and then say you won't talk to people unless they address you as Sir Crunchy. You got a distorted view of me in part because of my attackers from soc.religion.quaker. * I'm quite capable of making my own mind up about anyone Crunchy. It wasn't difficult to make my mind up about you. The next paragraph confirms my judgement. Once God helped me stabalize the situation there, that freed me up to come on uk.sci.weather without any crossposting. *You invited me, remember? Gods have nothing to do with this. I invited you nowhere. If you have a direct line to a god, wish her, or him, all the best from me. In the future, if you want to get along with me, refrain from calling me Crunchy. You'll always be Crunchy to me. If you don't like me calling you Crunchy, don't talk to me. Easy eh? - Show quoted text - |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 4, 10:37*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:18*pm, Meteorologist wrote: ... Hi Dawlish, Hi Crunchy, Bad move. You really have never properly understood my thinking because you hardly ever tried. *Yes, Latif does figure in my thinking. *He said "may", not that it definitely would. Further, the oceanographers have something valuable to add to the climate science debate, as you yourself must know and do know in my opinion. I have read Latif's work and I'm aware of the complete misrepresentation, by the denialist community, of his conclusions. This is hardly news to me. To make it perfectly clear, I agree with you here. Further, I read Latif's own public statement on the matter. I find his work interesting, no more and it is not backed by recent global temperature rises at all. My advice for you is to judge by the thing itself - Latif's work. Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here. By Latif, Svensmark and all the others you continue to cross-post about, it shouild have got cooler over the last 2 years. It didn't. Currently, I am doing zero crossposting. Further, you seem completely unaware of my recent posts on the Susan Solomon paper on water vapor. Further, I agree with you to the extent of the bare fact that it did not get cooler over the last 2 years. Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here. So, what is really going on in our usenet interaction is your misguage of my position in the climate science debate. Further, I will now give you a heads-up on part of my highly usual background - THE PSYCHOLOGICAL - a) my late father was a psychiatrist b) I was research assistant long ago at Tufts University in Small Groups Pschology to Dr. Thornton Roby, who was brilliant and world famous. c) I have done marriage counseling out of idealism for free So, yes, I study the contrarians in the climate science debate but out of the psychological angle for my own private reasons - List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming CLIMATE SCIENCE I am governed by the scientifc evidence and nothing but. All aspects of meteorology are the love of my life. You are rude and arrogant here for no reason. * I don't suffer arrogant fools gladly and I'll happily give them back the same, if you don't mind. I have said the same on usenet once in a while. Yet, I modestly suggest that the climate science debate is so important that extraordinary diplomacy is necessary in conversation. *Best not to **tell* people to "discuss" your Internet trawls and then say you won't talk to people unless they address you as Sir Crunchy. Bogus. You got a distorted view of me in part because of my attackers from soc.religion.quaker. * I'm quite capable of making my own mind up about anyone Crunchy. It wasn't difficult to make my mind up about you. The next paragraph confirms my judgement. Bad move; call me David, please. Further, respectfully, you need to review your flawed judgement. Once God helped me stabalize the situation there, that freed me up to come on uk.sci.weather without any crossposting. *You invited me, remember? Gods have nothing to do with this. I invited you nowhere. If you have a direct line to a god, wish her, or him, all the best from me. You forget I was both an Episcopalian and a Friend for quite a number of years. This is the way we talk. So, with God's help (Episcopalian terminology), I will carry on. Further, you are not entirely truthful here. Recently, you mentioned the possibility of my coming on uk.sci.weather without crossposting. In the future, if you want to get along with me, refrain from calling me Crunchy. *You'll always be Crunchy to me. If you don't like me calling you Crunchy, don't talk to me. Easy eh? Excuse me, you are using bad psychology. Forget about me personally for the moment. If you, me, or anybody wants to work with people, to co-operate with other climate scientists, such a person must be polite and informative. So, in the case of the climate science debate, as I said before, diplomacy must have a very high priority. David Christainsen Newton, Mass. USA |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 4, 4:59*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
On Feb 4, 10:37*am, Dawlish wrote: On Feb 4, 3:18*pm, Meteorologist wrote: ... Hi Dawlish, Hi Crunchy, Bad move. You really have never properly understood my thinking because you hardly ever tried. *Yes, Latif does figure in my thinking. *He said "may", not that it definitely would. Further, the oceanographers have something valuable to add to the climate science debate, as you yourself must know and do know in my opinion. I have read Latif's work and I'm aware of the complete misrepresentation, by the denialist community, of his conclusions. This is hardly news to me. *To make it perfectly clear, I agree with you here. *Further, I read Latif's own public statement on the matter. I find his work interesting, no more and it is not backed by recent global temperature rises at all. My advice for you is to judge by the thing itself - Latif's work. Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here. By Latif, Svensmark and all the others you continue to cross-post about, it shouild have got cooler over the last 2 years. It didn't. Currently, I am doing zero crossposting. *Further, you seem completely unaware of my recent posts on the Susan Solomon paper on water vapor. *Further, I agree with you to the extent of the bare fact that it did not get cooler over the last 2 years. Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here. So, what is really going on in our usenet interaction is your misguage of my position in the climate science debate. Further, I will now give you a heads-up on part of my highly usual background - THE PSYCHOLOGICAL - a) my late father was a psychiatrist b) I was research assistant long ago at Tufts University * * in Small Groups Pschology to Dr. Thornton Roby, who * * was brilliant and world famous. c) I have done marriage counseling out of idealism for free So, yes, I study the contrarians in the climate science debate but out of the psychological angle for my own private reasons - List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...g_the_mainstre... CLIMATE SCIENCE I am governed by the scientifc evidence and nothing but. All aspects of meteorology are the love of my life. You are rude and arrogant here for no reason. * I don't suffer arrogant fools gladly and I'll happily give them back the same, if you don't mind. I have said the same on usenet once in a while. Yet, I modestly suggest that the climate science debate is so important that extraordinary diplomacy is necessary in conversation. *Best not to **tell* people to "discuss" your Internet trawls and then say you won't talk to people unless they address you as Sir Crunchy. Bogus. You got a distorted view of me in part because of my attackers from soc.religion.quaker. * I'm quite capable of making my own mind up about anyone Crunchy. It wasn't difficult to make my mind up about you. The next paragraph confirms my judgement. Bad move; call me David, please. *Further, respectfully, you need to review your flawed judgement. Once God helped me stabalize the situation there, that freed me up to come on uk.sci.weather without any crossposting. *You invited me, remember? Gods have nothing to do with this. I invited you nowhere. If you have a direct line to a god, wish her, or him, all the best from me. You forget I was both an Episcopalian and a Friend for quite a number of years. *This is the way we talk. *So, with God's help (Episcopalian terminology), I will carry on. Further, you are not entirely truthful here. *Recently, you mentioned the possibility of my coming on uk.sci.weather without crossposting. In the future, if you want to get along with me, refrain from calling me Crunchy. *You'll always be Crunchy to me. If you don't like me calling you Crunchy, don't talk to me. Easy eh? Excuse me, you are using bad psychology. Forget about me personally for the moment. If you, me, or anybody wants to work with people, to co-operate with other climate scientists, such a person must be polite and informative. So, in the case of the climate science debate, as I said before, diplomacy must have a very high priority. David Christainsen Newton, Mass. USA Bye Crunchy. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 4, 12:31*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:59*pm, Meteorologist wrote: On Feb 4, 10:37*am, Dawlish wrote: On Feb 4, 3:18*pm, Meteorologist wrote: ... Hi Dawlish, Hi Crunchy, Bad move. You really have never properly understood my thinking because you hardly ever tried. *Yes, Latif does figure in my thinking. *He said "may", not that it definitely would. Further, the oceanographers have something valuable to add to the climate science debate, as you yourself must know and do know in my opinion. I have read Latif's work and I'm aware of the complete misrepresentation, by the denialist community, of his conclusions. This is hardly news to me. *To make it perfectly clear, I agree with you here. *Further, I read Latif's own public statement on the matter. I find his work interesting, no more and it is not backed by recent global temperature rises at all. My advice for you is to judge by the thing itself - Latif's work. Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here. By Latif, Svensmark and all the others you continue to cross-post about, it shouild have got cooler over the last 2 years. It didn't. Currently, I am doing zero crossposting. *Further, you seem completely unaware of my recent posts on the Susan Solomon paper on water vapor. *Further, I agree with you to the extent of the bare fact that it did not get cooler over the last 2 years. Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here. So, what is really going on in our usenet interaction is your misguage of my position in the climate science debate. Further, I will now give you a heads-up on part of my highly usual background - THE PSYCHOLOGICAL - a) my late father was a psychiatrist b) I was research assistant long ago at Tufts University * * in Small Groups Pschology to Dr. Thornton Roby, who * * was brilliant and world famous. c) I have done marriage counseling out of idealism for free So, yes, I study the contrarians in the climate science debate but out of the psychological angle for my own private reasons - List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...g_the_mainstre... CLIMATE SCIENCE I am governed by the scientifc evidence and nothing but. All aspects of meteorology are the love of my life. You are rude and arrogant here for no reason. * I don't suffer arrogant fools gladly and I'll happily give them back the same, if you don't mind. I have said the same on usenet once in a while. Yet, I modestly suggest that the climate science debate is so important that extraordinary diplomacy is necessary in conversation. *Best not to **tell* people to "discuss" your Internet trawls and then say you won't talk to people unless they address you as Sir Crunchy. Bogus. You got a distorted view of me in part because of my attackers from soc.religion.quaker. * I'm quite capable of making my own mind up about anyone Crunchy. It wasn't difficult to make my mind up about you. The next paragraph confirms my judgement. Bad move; call me David, please. *Further, respectfully, you need to review your flawed judgement. Once God helped me stabalize the situation there, that freed me up to come on uk.sci.weather without any crossposting. *You invited me, remember? Gods have nothing to do with this. I invited you nowhere. If you have a direct line to a god, wish her, or him, all the best from me. You forget I was both an Episcopalian and a Friend for quite a number of years. *This is the way we talk. *So, with God's help (Episcopalian terminology), I will carry on. Further, you are not entirely truthful here. *Recently, you mentioned the possibility of my coming on uk.sci.weather without crossposting. In the future, if you want to get along with me, refrain from calling me Crunchy. *You'll always be Crunchy to me. If you don't like me calling you Crunchy, don't talk to me. Easy eh? Excuse me, you are using bad psychology. Forget about me personally for the moment. If you, me, or anybody wants to work with people, to co-operate with other climate scientists, such a person must be polite and informative. So, in the case of the climate science debate, as I said before, diplomacy must have a very high priority. David Christainsen Newton, Mass. USA Bye Crunchy.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You are a petty twit for no good reason; everybody can see it. David Christainsen Newton, Mass. USA |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Putting Dawlish straight on the Svensmark issue - cosmic raycloud connection | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Putting Dawlish straight on the Svensmark issue - cosmic raycloud connection | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Henrik Svensmark 2009 | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
USENET is incapable of talking about Dr. Svensmark - effect of cosmicrays on climate | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Solar Forcing Explanation NOT Debunked - Henrik Svensmark NOTDebunked | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) |