> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Andrew Crystall > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 2:13 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Apostates! > > On 18 Oct 2006 at 6:07, John W Redelfs wrote: > > > On 10/17/06, Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 18/10/2006, at 2:31 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > > > > > > (Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at > > > > Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767) > > > > > > Global warming... just a theory... > > > > > > > I've read that Mars and Jupiter are also warming, and that it has > something > > to do with the output of the sun. Is that true? If so, then why should > we > > I've never heard serious discussion of it. > > Okay, here's a little factiod: 9/11 might have saved the Earth. > Why? > > Because America did something after 9/11. It grounded aircraft. And > without the water vapour in atmosphere, something very interesting > came of the data analysis - it was hotter than it should of been, > during that period. And some scientists started drawing together > other evidence. > > Meanwile, other - very well documented - research is showing that > less light has been hitting the Earth. By a degree, on average, of > some 22% in Israel - with comparative figures elsewhere. >
Let me offer a fairly good and balanced website's take on this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105 Basically, it shoots down the long term implications that were given by the strongest advocates of the global dimming theory: <quote> Does this all have either an implication for the global climate sensitivity (how much warming would result from a doubling of CO2) or the scenarios used by IPCC to project climate changes out to 2100? This is where I have to disagree most strongly with the commentary in the program. First, if we were trying to estimate climate sensitivity purely from the response over the 20th century, we would need to know a number of things quite exactly: chiefly the magnitude of all the relevant forcings. However, the uncertainties in the different aerosol effects in particular, preclude an accurate determination from the instrumental period alone. While it is true that, holding everything else equal, an increase in how much cooling was associated with aerosols would lead to an increase in the estimate of climate sensitivity, the error bars are too large for this to be much of a constraint. The estimate of 3+/-1 deg C (for doubled CO2) based on paleo-data and model studies is therefore still valid, even after this program. <end quote> FWIW, IMHO, the gues at realclimate.org sound like scientists in their writing. There is a particular "voice" that scientists use when writing about their own field, and this site's writings are almost always in that voice. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l