"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote

Interesting, what do these folk have to say about the lack of warming
from 1950 to 1975?

Mostly a result of sulphate aresols that were emitted by the burning
of high sulfer coals in power plants that had no emission scrubbers.

This has been known for the last 30 years.

What's your excuse?

On Oct 6, 8:56 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:

"john fernbach" <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Rather than calling other people fools for believing in an AGW
"cartoon" that is now endorsed by the bulk of respectable
scientific
opinion around the world, you really need to present us with
compelling evidence why we should trust you rather than the IPCC,
the
National Academy of Sciences, the CSIRO, the Tyndall Centre, etc.

Interesting, what do these folk have to say about the lack of warming
from 1950 to 1975?

Phil H-

Phil - I believe the mainstream AGW position is that other kinds of
air pollution - fine particulates and sulfur dioxide droplets in
aerosol form - had the effect of blocking out some of the incoming
sunlight during these years.

Also, I think there was major volcanic activity that also put fine
particulates and aerosols high into the atmosphere. The result was
that global average temperatures in fact did go down for 2 1/2 decades
rather than rising, as "greenhouse warming" theory predicted it would.

Nobody is exactly saying so, but I believe the "global dimming" or
albedo effect/reflectiveness effect generated by sulfur aerosols and
fine particulate air pollution partly accounts for the famous
predictions of a new ice age that were made in the early 1970s by some
climate scientists (e.g. Dr. Stephen Schneider) who focus on global
warming rather than global cooling.

Because of the effect of air pollution {was there also an effect of
atomic testing, I wonder?] in blocking incoming solar radiation, the
globe was in fact cooling between 1950 and 1975. And in his famous
predictions on a looming cooling period leading to a new ice age,
Schneider in the early 1970s was basically tracking what the
temperature data were suggesting.

But then the volcanic activity started to subside, and beginning in
the early 1970s a number of industrial countries (the US especially)
started to impose new controls on air pollution, limiting the amount
of fine particulates and sulfur dioxide aerosols that western industry
emitted into the atmosphere. Therefore, the number of reflective
particles in the upper atmosphere diminished, more sunlight got
through, and average temperatures started to rise again, beginning in
around 1975.

At least that's how I remember the popularized versions of mainstream
AGW science that I've read.

Also, I believe that once they plugged an air pollution variable into
the famous general circulation models (GCM models) of the atmosphere
than everyone loves to complain about, the models began to track the
available data pretty well.

On Oct 6, 12:51 pm, <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

"john fernbach" <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote
in message

On Oct 3, 10:06 am,
claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

You have to about be mentally retarded to
believe that CO2 has any effect at all on
atmospheric temperatures.

The "science" of AGW is a cartoon.

You keep saying this, Claudius, and maybe
someday the bulk of the
scientists will agree with you. But right,
they mostly seem to be on the other side,
don't they?

No. As with every other aspect of AGW the
consensus is a result of
propaganda. Most scientists are ambivalent
about AGW. And this is unfortunate because it
opens to door to phoneys that claim to be
scientist but that really are only pretending
to believe in AGW to get funding.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the
IPCC, the editors of Scientific American and
Nature, the Met Climate Office in the UK, the
UK's Tyndall Centre, a number of researchers
with the Australian scientific outfit CSIRO,
and even the Bush Administration and Exxon-
Mobil Corp. are all now talking about
"greenhouse gases" and how best to control
them.

Yeah, so?

So you may be the lone prophet in the
wilderness crying out the truth to a sinful &
adulterous generation, Claudius - but you are
the lone prophet in the wilderness, and it's
understandable that most people treat you as
a kook.

Rather than calling other people fools for
believing in an AGW "cartoon" that is now
endorsed by the bulk of respectable
scientific opinion around the world, you
really need to present us with compelling
evidence why we should trust you rather than
the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences,
the CSIRO, the Tyndall Centre, etc.

AGW isn't a scientific hypothesis. It's a cult
phenomenon. As you are demonstrating here.

How do you know that "most scientists" are
ambivalent about AGW, Claudius?

And when you say "most scientists," are you
talking most CLIMATE scientists, or are you
including people who specialized in petroleum
geology, say, or in electrical engineering, or
in DNA splicing or in other technical fields
with little focus on the study of the climate?

Also - you're now saying that most scientists
are "ambivalent," which is a funny thing to say
about a theory that you claim is a total hoax
and fraud. Most scientists are now only
"ambivalent" about the
alleged fraud of AGW, Claudius? They're not
denouncing it outright, for some odd reason?

The bulk of them certainly don't seem shy about
standing up for Darwinian evolution and
denouncing the claims of "Creationism," and I
wonder why they're so bashful or [ambivalent]
about AGW, if it's so bad.

The truth, I suspect, is that you're BS-ing us
on this topic,
Claudius. Or if you're sincere, you just don't
realize how isolated
your position is. You keep telling us that we
should trust YOUR vision of climate science
rather than the one that's more established
with most academic bodies around the world -
and while you may be the new Galileo, the new
breakthrough guy, you haven't demonstrated this.

Sounds to me as if you're spinning the science
furiously on behalf of
the coal and oil companies. But I could be
totally wrong about this, I recognize.