On Mar 7, 7:33*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:17*am, Dawlish wrote:





On Mar 7, 6:24*am, Meteorologist wrote:

On Mar 6, 4:46*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:39*pm, Meteorologist wrote:

On Mar 6, 4:11*am, Dawlish wrote:

...
Tw+t is far worse and you are happy to throw that one out Lawrence,
because you happen to be "in a foul mood". Keep you replies within
decent bounds.You don't often lower yourself to the levels of
Crunchy's cross-posters and the occasional stalker, but you have been
known to. Stay level headed, even when under pressure! *))
...

Excuse me; call me by my right name, please.

David Christainsen

No. It's either Crunchy, or Meteorologist. Neither is a correct
description, so I'll call you Crunchy. It's a nice nickname. The other
one is just borrowed from people that are. *))

Excuse me; good form dictates that you grant
me my request without equivocation.

David Christainsen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have Crunchy.

Here you are off-topic; so, you have NOT
used good form. *So, going forward, I highly
recommend that you use good form from now on.
Comprendez-vous?

I said his work was interesting, but no more.

Acknowledged; I already knew that.

It's no
more than that, as his work predicts that during periods of low solar
output, the sun's magnetic field can't protect us from cosmic rays
which may increase cloud cover. Unfortunately current global
temperatures simply don't bear out his theory.

Just a second; DO NOT get ahead of yourself. *IMHO
several non-greenhouse gas factors are currently
COUNTERVAILING the cosmic ray factor.

We've had a very quiet
sun for well over 4 years now and though solar cycle 24 has started,
sunspot activity is very low.

Acknowledged.

If the sun's output is low, more clouds should have been created,
blocking more of the sun's heating and causing cooling, so why has the
world experienced such high temperatures over the last 5 years?

I do not know for sure. *However, both Spencer and
Latif have invoked deep oceanic circulation and/or
ENSO CYCLE, for starters. *Further, we have cloud
cover factor etc.

If
Svensmark is correct, why hasn't this extended solar minimum produced
the cooling that he predicted?

The Svensmark effect may still kick in, as I have
already predicted on usenet, within the next 5 years...

Rising global temperatures, not theories, are the only measure of
whether the climate is warming.

Yet, I believe certain qualifications are in order here.

I believe you are applying your statement of rising
global temperatures to the 5 datasets, which lack
sufficient coverage over the full ocean surface or
are not averaged correctly etc.

IOW, the 5 have certain limitations on their accuracy
but they are the best we've got. *Personally, I like
Spencer's the best.

So, right now, the climate is warming. *The issue
is SPECIFICALLY why.

David Christainsen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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).
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.

Crunchy. The world is presently warm; fact. It's been warming for a
long time; fact. The only issue left is what is causing it to get
warmer 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?

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

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; 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.

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

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?

On Mar 8, 11:09*am, Dawlish wrote:
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?

I am working on it; I have some leads.

Stay tuned.

David Christainsen

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

FFS can't people get a grip and some perspective.

WITHOUT THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS HUMANS WOULD HAVE BECOME EXTINCT TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO
You are a liar. Fossil fuels played little or no part in prehistory.

Small amounts of coal near the surface were exploited from around 200BC
in China but that is as far back as it goes. A few local surface
outcrops in the UK were drift mined from Roman times. Newcastle had
industrial scale coal before most places with active mines in the 13th
century. Until the late middle ages mostly they used wood, charcoal or
animal fats for heat and light.

Coal only became really important after the 1615 Royal Proclamation
forbidding the use of wood for glass making and so spurring on the
industrial revolution. The remaining wood was needed for shipbuilding.

Mineral oil was even later before people really used it seriously. First
successful oil well dates from 1859 in the USA. Tallow, beeswax, plant
oils and whale oil were the preferred materials in antiquity.

Regards,
Martin Brown
Sorry for seemingly telling lies Martin, ah I see your problem it was the
fossil fuel reference, I should have said wood, bones and peat etc which
when burnt for survival immdeiatly released Co2 and other greenhouse
gases.
You are a pathological liar and are now making things up to try and
justify your original lie. The phrase that constitutes your big *LIE* is
conveniently all in capitals at the top for all to see and laugh at.

You are a perfect example of why paranoid lying rightards and their
pretend fantasy "dittohead science" cannot be trusted.
Human control of fire and releasing Co2 was one of it's most significant
turning points in survival. Warmth, light, cooked meat, foods and
protection from dangerous animals.
Which was all based on renewable sources until very recently. Whale
numbers are still suffering from their utility as lamp oil and later pet
food.

Of course the fossil stuff came much later , but never the less that
really doesn't change what I said does it. Without the harnessing of
fossil fuels most of us e wouldn't be here let alone communicating via
Computers which are still powered by fossil fuels the last time I checked
It changes what you said by 180 degrees. You are a pathological liar.
By the way Martin, liar is a very strong word and a tad uncalled for.
Not at all it describes you perfectly. It is clear for all to see.

There is no chance at all that humans would have become extinct thousands
of years ago without fossil fuels. It was an outright lie.

Regards,
Martin Brown


Martin a lie is when you know you are not telling the truth I happen to
believe in what I've said so you could argue I'm wrong , mistaken etc. but
please don't use that word liar.

The word has a very specific meaning that is applicable in this case.
You made a clear and unambiguous statement that was completely and
utterly false. You did it with malicious intent to mislead and deceive.

The alternative is that you are clueless and don't know what you are
talking about. If you admit that I might accept an apology.

You did it in a scientific newsgroup. Science bites back with facts.

Without the industrial revolution which could only happen by the harnessing
of fossil fuels then we would live in wretched sad miserable conditions.

That is a different matter entirely. And you are deliberately changing
the subject again to try and deflect criticism of your bare faced *LIE*.

It's you that are the liar as you desperately revise history to suit your
own agenda.

ROFL. How ironic that you of all people should make that claim.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

FFS can't people get a grip and some perspective.

WITHOUT THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS HUMANS WOULD HAVE BECOME EXTINCT TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO
You are a liar. Fossil fuels played little or no part in prehistory.

Small amounts of coal near the surface were exploited from around
200BC in China but that is as far back as it goes. A few local surface
outcrops in the UK were drift mined from Roman times. Newcastle had
industrial scale coal before most places with active mines in the 13th
century. Until the late middle ages mostly they used wood, charcoal or
animal fats for heat and light.

Coal only became really important after the 1615 Royal Proclamation
forbidding the use of wood for glass making and so spurring on the
industrial revolution. The remaining wood was needed for shipbuilding.

Mineral oil was even later before people really used it seriously.
First successful oil well dates from 1859 in the USA. Tallow, beeswax,
plant oils and whale oil were the preferred materials in antiquity.

Regards,
Martin Brown
Sorry for seemingly telling lies Martin, ah I see your problem it was
the fossil fuel reference, I should have said wood, bones and peat etc
which when burnt for survival immdeiatly released Co2 and other
greenhouse gases.
You are a pathological liar and are now making things up to try and
justify your original lie. The phrase that constitutes your big *LIE* is
conveniently all in capitals at the top for all to see and laugh at.

You are a perfect example of why paranoid lying rightards and their
pretend fantasy "dittohead science" cannot be trusted.
Human control of fire and releasing Co2 was one of it's most
significant turning points in survival. Warmth, light, cooked meat,
foods and protection from dangerous animals.
Which was all based on renewable sources until very recently. Whale
numbers are still suffering from their utility as lamp oil and later pet
food.

Of course the fossil stuff came much later , but never the less that
really doesn't change what I said does it. Without the harnessing of
fossil fuels most of us e wouldn't be here let alone communicating via
Computers which are still powered by fossil fuels the last time I
checked
It changes what you said by 180 degrees. You are a pathological liar.
By the way Martin, liar is a very strong word and a tad uncalled for.
Not at all it describes you perfectly. It is clear for all to see.

There is no chance at all that humans would have become extinct
thousands of years ago without fossil fuels. It was an outright lie.

Regards,
Martin Brown


Martin a lie is when you know you are not telling the truth I happen to
believe in what I've said so you could argue I'm wrong , mistaken etc.
but please don't use that word liar.

The word has a very specific meaning that is applicable in this case. You
made a clear and unambiguous statement that was completely and utterly
false. You did it with malicious intent to mislead and deceive.

The alternative is that you are clueless and don't know what you are
talking about. If you admit that I might accept an apology.

You did it in a scientific newsgroup. Science bites back with facts.

Without the industrial revolution which could only happen by the
harnessing of fossil fuels then we would live in wretched sad miserable
conditions.

That is a different matter entirely. And you are deliberately changing the
subject again to try and deflect criticism of your bare faced *LIE*.

It's you that are the liar as you desperately revise history to suit your
own agenda.

ROFL. How ironic that you of all people should make that claim.

Regards,
Martin Brown

So are you denying the fantastic strides made in South Korea ?

Taiwan also do nice Chinos