Back 40,

Your comments are right and wrong at the same time.  The carbon situation on
mollisols, the deep prairie soils of Iowa and the like, are indeed more impacted
by management and the organic carbon (humus) content is the key there for carbon
storage and for nitrogen.  Biochar may enhance this, but the full proof is not
in, though research at Iowa State and USDA may soon close in on better answers.

In older soils in wetter climates, the ultisols of Georgia or the Oxisols of the
Amazon, soil organic carbon is simply oxidized to fast even in areas with little
or no management, so biochar does have greater impact.  We have more certainty
about biochar's positive effects in the tropics and on poor quality soils in
general (with the possible exception of acidic spodosols) than we do in rich
temperate soils.  As with most things in ecological/environmental science,
generalizations seldom work and we have to do the research with all the
variables.

Wayne


________________________________________
From: biochar@yahoogroups.com [biochar@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of back40
[back40@...]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 2:16 AM
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

You might seek a "reasoned account" of nitrogen too Erich rather than parroting
the gleeful narrative of  superstitious activists. The nitrogen cycle is every
bit as complex as the carbon cycle. Both have been altered from the
pre-industrial state and it would be foolish to attempt to intervene in a system
without understanding the system a little bit first. That's just poking and
hoping and usually makes things worse.

You do not need biochar to increase soil sequestration of carbon. Reducing
tillage will do as much or more. One could do both, but if one must choose just
one then it is organic carbon that is of most value. Just to twist the thought
knife, 90% of soil nitrogen is in soil organic matter. It's a two-fer, carbon
and nitrogen.

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Erich Knight
<erichjknight@...<mailto:erichjknight@...>> wrote:


Thanks Back 40 for the reasoned account, verses the denier's gleeful reportage
that Kevin cited, again with glee.
IOP has a balanced report also;

Probing the cosmic-ray–climate link
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46965

I see no reason that this work refutes human climate control. The paper
introduces a new independent variable: the role of ammonia vapor in nucleation,
and we all know how man, for the past 100 years has padded the nitrogen cycle
with our wasteful production & use. along with land use changes.

The space weather connection has recently been shown for lightening initiation,
cosmic rays have a significant influence
So this is all good grist for the modeler's mill, but before we can assign the
appropriate weights on the aerosols/nucleation effects many more chemical
questions need answers.

This recent research on man's effects on  aerosols by Lina Mercado of the UK’s
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, presents a double-bind, in that , as aerosols
are reduced, less diffusion of light reduces photosynthesis,(drawing down 20%
less CO2 into biomass).  Again, only a carbon negative system like biochar can
address this added CO2 burden caused by this double-bind of clean air.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/38777

When we can see the temperature difference from the 3 day hiatus of air travel
after 9/11, how can anyone say man has no effect on the climate?
It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth
sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation.

Erich



On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, back40
<back40@...<mailto:back40@...>> wrote:


see discussion

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/28/cosmic-ray-discussion-thread/


On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Kevin
<kchisholm@...<mailto:kchisholm@...>> wrote:


.Following is an interesting Article:

>
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-act\
ion/
> How cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
> Increased solar activity reduces terrestrial cosmic rays & effects
> climate?
>
It seems to clearly address the question: "Is Global Warming caused by
atmospheric
CO2 resulting from anthropogenic activity?" with the answer:
"No, it is the Sun, stupid."

It thus appears that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its
ardent "believers" were very wrong in misdirecting billions of dollars into
wasteful areas. Their "Consensus Science" now appears to have been self
serving and to
be shown as "non-science." We would hope that "AGW Believers" will now act
on the truths revealed by "Real Science."

This Article, and its Reference Papers, would appear to have major
implications for biochar as follows:
1: It would appear unlikely that carbon credits will be available to help
justify production of biochar.
2: It would appear that the future of biochar will now rise or fall on its
benefits, or lack thereof, directly to the Farmer or Grower actually using
biochar.

Biochar Producers, and Stove Systems that were counting on carbon credits
for their viability will be at risk, to the extent that they needed carbon
credit payments for their viability.

Hopefully, the fall-out from the CERN Paper will lead to:
1: Focus on methods and procedures where the use of biochar will give direct
benefits to the Farmer and Grower, and where there is a sensible return on
the investment in biochar.
2: Focus on stove systems that burn all biomass fuels fed to them cleanly
and efficiently, except in the case where charcoal production is desired
because it has a higher value as biochar, or for resale as a fuel.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm




--
Regards,
Gary Jones




--
Regards,
Gary Jones

----- Original Message -----

From: Erich Knight

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:36 AM

Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Thanks Back 40 for the reasoned account, verses the denier's gleeful reportage that Kevin cited, again with glee.
IOP has a balanced report also;

Probing the cosmic-ray–climate link

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46965

I see no reason that this work refutes human climate control. The paper introduces a new independent variable: the role of ammonia vapor in nucleation, and we all know how man, for the past 100 years has padded the nitrogen cycle with our wasteful production & use. along with land use changes.

The space weather connection has recently been shown for lightening initiation, cosmic rays have a significant influence
So this is all good grist for the modeler's mill, but before we can assign the appropriate weights on the aerosols/nucleation effects many more chemical questions need answers.
 
This recent research on man's effects on  aerosols by Lina Mercado of the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, presents a double-bind, in that , as aerosols are reduced, less diffusion of light reduces photosynthesis,(drawing down 20% less CO2 into biomass).  Again, only a carbon negative system like biochar can address this added CO2 burden caused by this double-bind of clean air.
http://physicsworld..com/cws/article/news/38777

When we can see the temperature difference from the 3 day hiatus of air travel after 9/11, how can anyone say man has no effect on the climate?
It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation.

Erich


On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, back40 <back40@...> wrote:

 

see discussion

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/28/cosmic-ray-discussion-thread/

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Kevin <kchisholm@...> wrote:

 

.Following is an interesting Article:

> http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
> How cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
> Increased solar activity reduces terrestrial cosmic rays & effects
> climate?
>
It seems to clearly address the question: "Is Global Warming caused by
atmospheric
CO2 resulting from anthropogenic activity?" with the answer:
"No, it is the Sun, stupid."

It thus appears that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its
ardent "believers" were very wrong in misdirecting billions of dollars into
wasteful areas. Their "Consensus Science" now appears to have been self
serving and to
be shown as "non-science." We would hope that "AGW Believers" will now act
on the truths revealed by "Real Science."

This Article, and its Reference Papers, would appear to have major
implications for biochar as follows:
1: It would appear unlikely that carbon credits will be available to help
justify production of biochar.
2: It would appear that the future of biochar will now rise or fall on its
benefits, or lack thereof, directly to the Farmer or Grower actually using
biochar.

Biochar Producers, and Stove Systems that were counting on carbon credits
for their viability will be at risk, to the extent that they needed carbon
credit payments for their viability.

Hopefully, the fall-out from the CERN Paper will lead to:
1: Focus on methods and procedures where the use of biochar will give direct
benefits to the Farmer and Grower, and where there is a sensible return on
the investment in biochar.
2: Focus on stove systems that burn all biomass fuels fed to them cleanly
and efficiently, except in the case where charcoal production is desired
because it has a higher value as biochar, or for resale as a fuel.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

--
Regards,
Gary Jones

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3868 - Release Date: 08/30/11

 

Dear Erich

 

I am disappointed that you would brush off the CERN work with shallow insults that evade the issue. Such shallowness is very unscientific and unprofessional. You seek to stick blindly with your present beliefs, rather than checking whether alternative possibilities tend to support or refute them.

 

I am indeed amused with the general thrust of your reply, that follows the initial shallow and evasive insults!  The thrust of your comments is that the aerosols are a result of Anthropogenic Pollution. What ever happened to Anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of Global Climate Change??? :-) Your approach is just like that adopted by the US Government when they couldn't find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq... they then had to continue with the War, because Saddam was a bad man who violated the Rights of the Iraqi People. :-) Now that you have relegated anthropogenic CO2 to a minor position in AGW, in favor of anthropogenic aerosols and air pollution, perhaps you should abandon biochar (charcoal in soil) and shift your efforts to "Aerochar" (activated charcoal dispersed in the upper atmosphere, from great big balloons filled with hydrogen made by windpower, to absorb all the anthropogenic pollutants that are causing the aerosols ultimately responsible for Global Climate Change. :-)

 

I am profoundly amused by your last statement:

" It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation."

 

Two points come to mind:

1: What you are saying is basically: "We don't have the solar and earth sensing tools to assess the climate situation, and as a consequence, we don't know what in the world we are talking about."

2: If there is no funding to provide such tools, it is probably because all the available money was spent by those seeking to justify Anthropogenic Carbon Based Global Warming. :-)

 

Shallow insults degrade the Biochar Lists. Consensus science (one of the greatest oxymorons of all time!), bluster, shifting justifications, and shallow insults are the refuge of those whose basic thesis is on shaky ground. If you want to "hit me where it hurts," and advance your cause, then provide truth, fact, logic, and science to support your "Believer Views and speculative opinions".

 

Kevin Chisholm

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Erich Knight

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:36 AM

Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Thanks Back 40 for the reasoned account, verses the denier's gleeful reportage that Kevin cited, again with glee.
IOP has a balanced report also;

Probing the cosmic-ray–climate link

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46965

I see no reason that this work refutes human climate control. The paper introduces a new independent variable: the role of ammonia vapor in nucleation, and we all know how man, for the past 100 years has padded the nitrogen cycle with our wasteful production & use. along with land use changes.

The space weather connection has recently been shown for lightening initiation, cosmic rays have a significant influence
So this is all good grist for the modeler's mill, but before we can assign the appropriate weights on the aerosols/nucleation effects many more chemical questions need answers.
 
This recent research on man's effects on  aerosols by Lina Mercado of the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, presents a double-bind, in that , as aerosols are reduced, less diffusion of light reduces photosynthesis,(drawing down 20% less CO2 into biomass).  Again, only a carbon negative system like biochar can address this added CO2 burden caused by this double-bind of clean air.
http://physicsworld..com/cws/article/news/38777

When we can see the temperature difference from the 3 day hiatus of air travel after 9/11, how can anyone say man has no effect on the climate?
It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation.

Erich


On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, back40 <back40@...> wrote:

 

see discussion

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/28/cosmic-ray-discussion-thread/

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Kevin <kchisholm@...> wrote:

 

.Following is an interesting Article:

> http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
> How cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
> Increased solar activity reduces terrestrial cosmic rays & effects
> climate?
>
It seems to clearly address the question: "Is Global Warming caused by
atmospheric
CO2 resulting from anthropogenic activity?" with the answer:
"No, it is the Sun, stupid."

It thus appears that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its
ardent "believers" were very wrong in misdirecting billions of dollars into
wasteful areas. Their "Consensus Science" now appears to have been self
serving and to
be shown as "non-science." We would hope that "AGW Believers" will now act
on the truths revealed by "Real Science."

This Article, and its Reference Papers, would appear to have major
implications for biochar as follows:
1: It would appear unlikely that carbon credits will be available to help
justify production of biochar.
2: It would appear that the future of biochar will now rise or fall on its
benefits, or lack thereof, directly to the Farmer or Grower actually using
biochar.

Biochar Producers, and Stove Systems that were counting on carbon credits
for their viability will be at risk, to the extent that they needed carbon
credit payments for their viability.

Hopefully, the fall-out from the CERN Paper will lead to:
1: Focus on methods and procedures where the use of biochar will give direct
benefits to the Farmer and Grower, and where there is a sensible return on
the investment in biochar.
2: Focus on stove systems that burn all biomass fuels fed to them cleanly
and efficiently, except in the case where charcoal production is desired
because it has a higher value as biochar, or for resale as a fuel.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

--
Regards,
Gary Jones

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3868 - Release Date: 08/30/11

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Kevin ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:29 PM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

Kevin, I suggest that you read a scientific appraisal of the paper rather than the outpourings of rightwing bloggers or scientifically-untrained journalists. 

 

# I started this thread with a reference to:

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
Are you suggesting that Nigel Calder is either a "right wing blogger" or "a scientifically untrained Journalist?" Can you point to any errors or deceptions in his posting? When I read his posting, I thought it was entirely reasonable, and could not detect any bias, distortion,  or imbalance.

 

You can start here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

 

# Thank you. Good posting.

Basically, the CERN/CLOUD paper is good serious science but it in no way demonstrates that "climate change is really due to cosmic rays" or anything of the kind. 

 

# Agreed. Kirkby was very clear in making this point. However, it does indeed reasonably open the door to this being a possibility.

 

 There is a lot of work still to be done before the size of the effect of cosmic ray driven nucleation can be assessed. 

 

# Agreed.

 

It does nothing to eliminate the vast body of quantitative evidence, in multiple streams, pointing to anthropogenic carbon dioxide (together with a handful of other less significant emissions) as the principal cause of present-day climate change.

 

# Agreed. That was not its purpose. However, it does reasonably open the door to the possibility that phenomenon other than Anthropogenic Carbon is the sole cause of present day climate change. Note that you seem to have a "double standard" here...  you accept that it is sufficient for evidence to merely point to anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of climate change, yet you require thet CERN/CLOUD actually demonstrate the connection. I would like to point out that if "The Believers" could actually demonstrate the connection between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change, there would be no need for "Consensus Science." The facts would stand on their own merit, and they could base tehir position on real science.

 

  And it does nothing to explain the shape of the current warming trend, which does not follow solar cycles.

 

# The following URL shows a presentation by Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI where he presents a very reasonable case for the Sun being responsible for Global Warming. Do you see any basic flaws in it?

There is a reason for the present consensus among climatologists, and that is that the data are both convincing and consistent with well-established theory. 

 

# "When the only tool you have is a hammer, the only problem you see is nails." :-) As I understand it, a key directive in the mandate of the IPCC was

"... to determine if there is a connection between global warming and anthropogenic activity..." The IPCC excluded the possibility of natural causes being responsible for global warming.

 

This doesn't stop climatologists from taking seriously good science which breaks new ground in related areas (like the CERN/CLOUD process).  But it does prevent them from suddenly jumping ship to back Svensmark's highly speculative theory, which still has no serious data to support it.

 

# Why are "The Believers" so reluctant to leave their minds open to such good science, and where it could possibly lead?

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

Mark



On 2011:09:01 07:28, Kevin wrote:

 

Dear Erich

 

I am disappointed that you would brush off the CERN work with shallow insults that evade the issue. Such shallowness is very unscientific and unprofessional. You seek to stick blindly with your present beliefs, rather than checking whether alternative possibilities tend to support or refute them.

 

I am indeed amused with the general thrust of your reply, that follows the initial shallow and evasive insults!  The thrust of your comments is that the aerosols are a result of Anthropogenic Pollution. What ever happened to Anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of Global Climate Change??? :-) Your approach is just like that adopted by the US Government when they couldn't find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq... they then had to continue with the War, because Saddam was a bad man who violated the Rights of the Iraqi People. :-) Now that you have relegated anthropogenic CO2 to a minor position in AGW, in favor of anthropogenic aerosols and air pollution, perhaps you should abandon biochar (charcoal in soil) and shift your efforts to "Aerochar" (activated charcoal dispersed in the upper atmosphere, from great big balloons filled with hydrogen made by windpower, to absorb all the anthropogenic pollutants that are causing the aerosols ultimately responsible for Global Climate Change. :-)

 

I am profoundly amused by your last statement:

" It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation."

 

Two points come to mind:

1: What you are saying is basically: "We don't have the solar and earth sensing tools to assess the climate situation, and as a consequence, we don't know what in the world we are talking about."

2: If there is no funding to provide such tools, it is probably because all the available money was spent by those seeking to justify Anthropogenic Carbon Based Global Warming. :-)

 

Shallow insults degrade the Biochar Lists. Consensus science (one of the greatest oxymorons of all time!), bluster, shifting justifications, and shallow insults are the refuge of those whose basic thesis is on shaky ground. If you want to "hit me where it hurts," and advance your cause, then provide truth, fact, logic, and science to support your "Believer Views and speculative opinions".

 

Kevin Chisholm

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Erich Knight

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:36 AM

Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Thanks Back 40 for the reasoned account, verses the denier's gleeful reportage that Kevin cited, again with glee.
IOP has a balanced report also;

Probing the cosmic-ray–climate link

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46965

I see no reason that this work refutes human climate control. The paper introduces a new independent variable: the role of ammonia vapor in nucleation, and we all know how man, for the past 100 years has padded the nitrogen cycle with our wasteful production & use. along with land use changes.

The space weather connection has recently been shown for lightening initiation, cosmic rays have a significant influence
So this is all good grist for the modeler's mill, but before we can assign the appropriate weights on the aerosols/nucleation effects many more chemical questions need answers.
 
This recent research on man's effects on  aerosols by Lina Mercado of the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, presents a double-bind, in that , as aerosols are reduced, less diffusion of light reduces photosynthesis,(drawing down 20% less CO2 into biomass).  Again, only a carbon negative system like biochar can address this added CO2 burden caused by this double-bind of clean air.
http://physicsworld..com/cws/article/news/38777

When we can see the temperature difference from the 3 day hiatus of air travel after 9/11, how can anyone say man has no effect on the climate?
It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation.

Erich


On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, back40 <back40@...> wrote:

 

see discussion

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/28/cosmic-ray-discussion-thread/

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Kevin <kchisholm@...> wrote:

 

.Following is an interesting Article:

> http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
> How cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
> Increased solar activity reduces terrestrial cosmic rays & effects
> climate?
>
It seems to clearly address the question: "Is Global Warming caused by
atmospheric
CO2 resulting from anthropogenic activity?" with the answer:
"No, it is the Sun, stupid."

It thus appears that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its
ardent "believers" were very wrong in misdirecting billions of dollars into
wasteful areas. Their "Consensus Science" now appears to have been self
serving and to
be shown as "non-science." We would hope that "AGW Believers" will now act
on the truths revealed by "Real Science."

This Article, and its Reference Papers, would appear to have major
implications for biochar as follows:
1: It would appear unlikely that carbon credits will be available to help
justify production of biochar.
2: It would appear that the future of biochar will now rise or fall on its
benefits, or lack thereof, directly to the Farmer or Grower actually using
biochar.

Biochar Producers, and Stove Systems that were counting on carbon credits
for their viability will be at risk, to the extent that they needed carbon
credit payments for their viability.

Hopefully, the fall-out from the CERN Paper will lead to:
1: Focus on methods and procedures where the use of biochar will give direct
benefits to the Farmer and Grower, and where there is a sensible return on
the investment in biochar.
2: Focus on stove systems that burn all biomass fuels fed to them cleanly
and efficiently, except in the case where charcoal production is desired
because it has a higher value as biochar, or for resale as a fuel.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

--
Regards,
Gary Jones

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3868 - Release Date: 08/30/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3869 - Release Date: 08/31/11

Dear Mark

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Kevin ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:29 PM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

Kevin, I suggest that you read a scientific appraisal of the paper rather than the outpourings of rightwing bloggers or scientifically-untrained journalists. 

 

# I started this thread with a reference to:

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
Are you suggesting that Nigel Calder is either a "right wing blogger" or "a scientifically untrained Journalist?" Can you point to any errors or deceptions in his posting? When I read his posting, I thought it was entirely reasonable, and could not detect any bias, distortion,  or imbalance.

 

You can start here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

 

# Thank you. Good posting.

Basically, the CERN/CLOUD paper is good serious science but it in no way demonstrates that "climate change is really due to cosmic rays" or anything of the kind. 

 

# Agreed. Kirkby was very clear in making this point. However, it does indeed reasonably open the door to this being a possibility.

 

 There is a lot of work still to be done before the size of the effect of cosmic ray driven nucleation can be assessed. 

 

# Agreed.

 

It does nothing to eliminate the vast body of quantitative evidence, in multiple streams, pointing to anthropogenic carbon dioxide (together with a handful of other less significant emissions) as the principal cause of present-day climate change.

 

# Agreed. That was not its purpose. However, it does reasonably open the door to the possibility that phenomenon other than Anthropogenic Carbon is the sole cause of present day climate change. Note that you seem to have a "double standard" here...  you accept that it is sufficient for evidence to merely point to anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of climate change, yet you require thet CERN/CLOUD actually demonstrate the connection. I would like to point out that if "The Believers" could actually demonstrate the connection between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change, there would be no need for "Consensus Science." The facts would stand on their own merit, and they could base tehir position on real science.

 

  And it does nothing to explain the shape of the current warming trend, which does not follow solar cycles.

 

# The following URL shows a presentation by Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI where he presents a very reasonable case for the Sun being responsible for Global Warming. Do you see any basic flaws in it?

There is a reason for the present consensus among climatologists, and that is that the data are both convincing and consistent with well-established theory. 

 

# "When the only tool you have is a hammer, the only problem you see is nails." :-) As I understand it, a key directive in the mandate of the IPCC was

"... to determine if there is a connection between global warming and anthropogenic activity..." The IPCC excluded the possibility of natural causes being responsible for global warming.

 

This doesn't stop climatologists from taking seriously good science which breaks new ground in related areas (like the CERN/CLOUD process).  But it does prevent them from suddenly jumping ship to back Svensmark's highly speculative theory, which still has no serious data to support it.

 

# Why are "The Believers" so reluctant to leave their minds open to such good science, and where it could possibly lead?

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

Mark



On 2011:09:01 07:28, Kevin wrote:

 

Dear Erich

 

I am disappointed that you would brush off the CERN work with shallow insults that evade the issue. Such shallowness is very unscientific and unprofessional. You seek to stick blindly with your present beliefs, rather than checking whether alternative possibilities tend to support or refute them.

 

I am indeed amused with the general thrust of your reply, that follows the initial shallow and evasive insults!  The thrust of your comments is that the aerosols are a result of Anthropogenic Pollution. What ever happened to Anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of Global Climate Change??? :-) Your approach is just like that adopted by the US Government when they couldn't find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq... they then had to continue with the War, because Saddam was a bad man who violated the Rights of the Iraqi People. :-) Now that you have relegated anthropogenic CO2 to a minor position in AGW, in favor of anthropogenic aerosols and air pollution, perhaps you should abandon biochar (charcoal in soil) and shift your efforts to "Aerochar" (activated charcoal dispersed in the upper atmosphere, from great big balloons filled with hydrogen made by windpower, to absorb all the anthropogenic pollutants that are causing the aerosols ultimately responsible for Global Climate Change. :-)

 

I am profoundly amused by your last statement:

" It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation."

 

Two points come to mind:

1: What you are saying is basically: "We don't have the solar and earth sensing tools to assess the climate situation, and as a consequence, we don't know what in the world we are talking about."

2: If there is no funding to provide such tools, it is probably because all the available money was spent by those seeking to justify Anthropogenic Carbon Based Global Warming. :-)

 

Shallow insults degrade the Biochar Lists. Consensus science (one of the greatest oxymorons of all time!), bluster, shifting justifications, and shallow insults are the refuge of those whose basic thesis is on shaky ground. If you want to "hit me where it hurts," and advance your cause, then provide truth, fact, logic, and science to support your "Believer Views and speculative opinions".

 

Kevin Chisholm

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Erich Knight

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:36 AM

Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Thanks Back 40 for the reasoned account, verses the denier's gleeful reportage that Kevin cited, again with glee.
IOP has a balanced report also;

Probing the cosmic-ray–climate link

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46965

I see no reason that this work refutes human climate control. The paper introduces a new independent variable: the role of ammonia vapor in nucleation, and we all know how man, for the past 100 years has padded the nitrogen cycle with our wasteful production & use. along with land use changes.

The space weather connection has recently been shown for lightening initiation, cosmic rays have a significant influence
So this is all good grist for the modeler's mill, but before we can assign the appropriate weights on the aerosols/nucleation effects many more chemical questions need answers.
 
This recent research on man's effects on  aerosols by Lina Mercado of the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, presents a double-bind, in that , as aerosols are reduced, less diffusion of light reduces photosynthesis,(drawing down 20% less CO2 into biomass).  Again, only a carbon negative system like biochar can address this added CO2 burden caused by this double-bind of clean air.
http://physicsworld..com/cws/article/news/38777

When we can see the temperature difference from the 3 day hiatus of air travel after 9/11, how can anyone say man has no effect on the climate?
It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation.

Erich


On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, back40 <back40@...> wrote:

 

see discussion

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/28/cosmic-ray-discussion-thread/

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Kevin <kchisholm@...> wrote:

 

.Following is an interesting Article:

> http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
> How cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
> Increased solar activity reduces terrestrial cosmic rays & effects
> climate?
>
It seems to clearly address the question: "Is Global Warming caused by
atmospheric
CO2 resulting from anthropogenic activity?" with the answer:
"No, it is the Sun, stupid."

It thus appears that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its
ardent "believers" were very wrong in misdirecting billions of dollars into
wasteful areas. Their "Consensus Science" now appears to have been self
serving and to
be shown as "non-science." We would hope that "AGW Believers" will now act
on the truths revealed by "Real Science."

This Article, and its Reference Papers, would appear to have major
implications for biochar as follows:
1: It would appear unlikely that carbon credits will be available to help
justify production of biochar.
2: It would appear that the future of biochar will now rise or fall on its
benefits, or lack thereof, directly to the Farmer or Grower actually using
biochar.

Biochar Producers, and Stove Systems that were counting on carbon credits
for their viability will be at risk, to the extent that they needed carbon
credit payments for their viability.

Hopefully, the fall-out from the CERN Paper will lead to:
1: Focus on methods and procedures where the use of biochar will give direct
benefits to the Farmer and Grower, and where there is a sensible return on
the investment in biochar.
2: Focus on stove systems that burn all biomass fuels fed to them cleanly
and efficiently, except in the case where charcoal production is desired
because it has a higher value as biochar, or for resale as a fuel.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

--
Regards,
Gary Jones

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3868 - Release Date: 08/30/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3869 - Release Date: 08/31/11

----- Original Message -----

From: rongretlarson@...

To: biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Cc: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 11:15 PM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Biochar lists, Mark,  Kevin

1.  I listened to the recommended video (and a few others) by Dr. Vir Shaviv and thought (at first, not being knowledgeable about the GCR argument) he did quite a credible job.  But his claim that solar input has been increasing I doubted (and I found he was dead wrong at

     http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant)

 

# There is no disagreement here. At 5:31 in his talk, he says that over an 11 year solar cycle, the radiation changes by less than about 1/10 of 1%. This is very consistent with what your reference indicates. At 5:55, he goes on to state that "... over th 20th Century, there have been long term variations, and that over the 20th Century, solar activity has increased.. Your above citation is irrelevant to this statement, in that it only deals with data from 1980 onward.

 

      I also have become convinced that climate sensitivity (temperature increase following (any) doubling of CO2 is at least 4 or so now and possibly double that over long time periods.  His claim of 0.5 (I found one place) or 1 degree (justified because he believes there are no positive feedbacks) also flies against what the scientists I believe (mainly Jim Hansen and his co-authors) are saying.   I think his is just an assertion, with no analysis (based on my reading of the above 5 cites).

 

# I think this is a good snapshot of the "State of Anthropogenic Climate Science". Specifically,

1: There are two camps, the Believers and the Disbelievers

2: The Believers reconcile the differences in their beliefs through Consensus Science, and vote on what they believe is true.

3: You, as a Believer,  claim the right to grant credibility to some Scientists and to dismiss others. If that is OK, is it not equally fair and rational for the Disbelievers to grant credibility to the Scientists they believe, and to dismiss the Scientists that they disbelieve?   

   Mark gave a Real Climate reference (below) that is very on topic - and I was glad to see Kevin saying "good posting"..  That site gives credit to the new experimental results by Kirkby, etal - but gives no credit to the GCR theory.  I found nothing at that RC site to justify the Calder (Kevin and Watts and other deniers) claims that these early results proved anything about GCR.

 

# In my opinion, the essence of the CERN/CLOUD work was to prove that there was indeed a POTENTIAL for  Global Cosmic Rays (GCR) to influence climate. Kirkby was very clear to state that the work did not prove the connection, at this stage.  

2.  For other rebuttals of GCR and its proponents, see:

   http://www.skepticalscience.com/Svensmark-Friis-Christensen-rebut-Lockwood-solar-paper.html

 

# This posting by John Cook is dated 8 Oct 2007 was made when Svensmark was still in disfavour. It does not have the benefit of the recent CERN/CLOUD work. This posting is far from being definitive, and generally accepted, as evidenced by the comments following it. 
    

and

   http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004..html

# This is a "very heavy paper" and I am not competent to dissect it. However, I do note that it was published in 2004, when Svensmark was in disfavour, and additionally, I am puzzled by its graph Fig. 1, which shows 3 periods of extreme Global Warming over the last 350,000 years, yet present GW has been constant for the past 10,000 years, even though CO2 Levels have been increasing over that period.

and

   http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark

 

# At this Site, Svensmark is faulted (in 2009) as follows:

 "It's not that Svensmark did not do some work, or that some of the work by itself was unimportant. The problem with Svensmark, is that his 'claims' were larger than the work could support."

 As I understand it, the recent CERN/CLOUD work does provide the basic support for the Svensmark thesis. Kirkby is cautious (and responsible) to state basically that it provides only part of the proof that Svenmark should have, as requested by OSS.

 

3,  Previously,  I did not know anything about Nigel Calder (whose blog started this thread), but was intrigued by Kevin's question (to Mark):

      "Are you suggesting that Nigel Calder is either a "right wing blogger" or "a scientifically untrained Journalist?" Can you point to any errors or deceptions in his posting? When I read his posting, I thought it was entirely reasonable, and could not detect any bias, distortion,  or imbalance."

 

    My answer to the first question, based on the five cites above is Yes and Yes. 

 

# What is a "right wing blogger?" Would Calder be any better, or more credible if he was a "left wing blogger?" Since Calder is being labeled both a "right wing blogger" and a "Disbeliever", does that mean that "Believers" are "Left Wing Bloggers?" :-)  Whether he is a "scientifically trained Journalist" is not nearly as important as whether what he says is correct or not. There are many examples of "Tobacco Scientists" who are highly trained in their fields, but whese opinions and statements are of low worth because they are wrong.

 

The many specific errors and deceptions are also in the above 5 cites. 

 

# The OSS Site you cite above is a very obvious "Believer Site", that gives a very strong impression that ONLY Anthropogenic CO2 is causing Global Climate Change. They have dismissed Svensmark prior to the CERN Work. They basically fault and dismiss his work, because he "over-stretched" his claims, yet they did not show where his claims were in error. They did not show specific errors with Svensmark's basic thesis. They demanded absolute proof of his thesis, yet they are comfortable with simply believing that their own beliefs are correct.

 

 Lastly, it is also clear Calder is a denier of AGW from the language he uses.  I have no doubt that most deniers would see him as quite perfect.

 

# Whether he is a "Believer" or a "Denier" is irrelevant. What IS relevant is whether he is right or wrong in the position he takes. Can you point to anything he specifically says that is wrong, in error, misleading, or deceptive?

   Trying to find a reason why I am continuing this GCR dialog on a Biochar list, 

 

# Here is one reason for you to avoid dismissing GCR as being important to the future of Biochar: If GCR is the major driver in Climate Change, then the hypothesis that GW is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 is proven wrong. The fundamental consequence to "Anthropogenic CO2 Believers" would be that there would be no justification for carbon credit payments to biochar users, to delay or avoid climate change. At this stage, I neither accept nor reject GCR as being the major cause of Global Climate Change, but I do believe it is more credible than Anthropogenic CO2 as being the major cause of Climate Change.

 

 I presume Calder, like Kevin, would be against Biochar.(as it is "not needed" and a "waste of funds").    Anyone know?  (I explictly exempt Dr. Shaviv from this bet, but would also like to ask him).

 

# I would suggest that it is unfair to judge Mr. Calder or Dr. Shaviv by the positions I take. They should rise or fall on their own merits, and the positions they take. I am not at all "against Biochar", but I do indeed express extreme caution against its use as a "cure-all" or "panacea". I would be very much more supportive of it, if I saw that it was economically sensible for a Farmer or Grower to use it.

 

# I would again draw your attention to the presentation by Dr. Shaviv at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI  It is very fast moving, and covers an enormous amount of work. In particular, I would draw your attention to the "40 second clip" between 9:00 and 9:40 of his talk, where he explains the link between Solar Activity and Global Warming. Note that his stated link does not involve a requirement for a change in solar input, as you wrongly suggest in your opening comment, but rather that changes in solar activity result in changes in cloud characteristics, which result in changes to the amount of solar input that actually reaches the Earth.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

Ron

---

From: "Kevin" <kchisholm@...>
To: "Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd" <mark@...>, biochar@yahoogroups.com
Cc: biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 11:30:15 AM
Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Dear Mark

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Kevin ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:29 PM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

Kevin, I suggest that you read a scientific appraisal of the paper rather than the outpourings of rightwing bloggers or scientifically-untrained journalists. 

 

# I started this thread with a reference to:

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
Are you suggesting that Nigel Calder is either a "right wing blogger" or "a scientifically untrained Journalist?" Can you point to any errors or deceptions in his posting? When I read his posting, I thought it was entirely reasonable, and could not detect any bias, distortion,  or imbalance.

 

You can start here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

 

# Thank you. Good posting.

Basically, the CERN/CLOUD paper is good serious science but it in no way demonstrates that "climate change is really due to cosmic rays" or anything of the kind. 

 

# Agreed. Kirkby was very clear in making this point. However, it does indeed reasonably open the door to this being a possibility.

 

 There is a lot of work still to be done before the size of the effect of cosmic ray driven nucleation can be assessed. 

 

# Agreed.

 

It does nothing to eliminate the vast body of quantitative evidence, in multiple streams, pointing to anthropogenic carbon dioxide (together with a handful of other less significant emissions) as the principal cause of present-day climate change.

 

# Agreed. That was not its purpose. However, it does reasonably open the door to the possibility that phenomenon other than Anthropogenic Carbon is the sole cause of present day climate change. Note that you seem to have a "double standard" here...  you accept that it is sufficient for evidence to merely point to anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of climate change, yet you require thet CERN/CLOUD actually demonstrate the connection. I would like to point out that if "The Believers" could actually demonstrate the connection between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change, there would be no need for "Consensus Science." The facts would stand on their own merit, and they could base tehir position on real science.

 

  And it does nothing to explain the shape of the current warming trend, which does not follow solar cycles.

 

# The following URL shows a presentation by Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI where he presents a very reasonable case for the Sun being responsible for Global Warming. Do you see any basic flaws in it?

There is a reason for the present consensus among climatologists, and that is that the data are both convincing and consistent with well-established theory. 

 

# "When the only tool you have is a hammer, the only problem you see is nails." :-) As I understand it, a key directive in the mandate of the IPCC was

"... to determine if there is a connection between global warming and anthropogenic activity..." The IPCC excluded the possibility of natural causes being responsible for global warming.

 

This doesn't stop climatologists from taking seriously good science which breaks new ground in related areas (like the CERN/CLOUD process).  But it does prevent them from suddenly jumping ship to back Svensmark's highly speculative theory, which still has no serious data to support it.

 

# Why are "The Believers" so reluctant to leave their minds open to such good science, and where it could possibly lead?

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

Mark



On 2011:09:01 07:28, Kevin wrote:

 

Dear Erich

 

I am disappointed that you would brush off the CERN work with shallow insults that evade the issue. Such shallowness is very unscientific and unprofessional. You seek to stick blindly with your present beliefs, rather than checking whether alternative possibilities tend to support or refute them.

 

I am indeed amused with the general thrust of your reply, that follows the initial shallow and evasive insults!  The thrust of your comments is that the aerosols are a result of Anthropogenic Pollution. What ever happened to Anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of Global Climate Change??? :-) Your approach is just like that adopted by the US Government when they couldn't find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq... they then had to continue with the War, because Saddam was a bad man who violated the Rights of the Iraqi People. :-) Now that you have relegated anthropogenic CO2 to a minor position in AGW, in favor of anthropogenic aerosols and air pollution, perhaps you should abandon biochar (charcoal in soil) and shift your efforts to "Aerochar" (activated charcoal dispersed in the upper atmosphere, from great big balloons filled with hydrogen made by windpower, to absorb all the anthropogenic pollutants that are causing the aerosols ultimately responsible for Global Climate Change. :-)

 

I am profoundly amused by your last statement:

" It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation."

 

Two points come to mind:

1: What you are saying is basically: "We don't have the solar and earth sensing tools to assess the climate situation, and as a consequence, we don't know what in the world we are talking about."

2: If there is no funding to provide such tools, it is probably because all the available money was spent by those seeking to justify Anthropogenic Carbon Based Global Warming. :-)

 

Shallow insults degrade the Biochar Lists. Consensus science (one of the greatest oxymorons of all time!), bluster, shifting justifications, and shallow insults are the refuge of those whose basic thesis is on shaky ground. If you want to "hit me where it hurts," and advance your cause, then provide truth, fact, logic, and science to support your "Believer Views and speculative opinions".

 

Kevin Chisholm

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Erich Knight

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:36 AM

Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Thanks Back 40 for the reasoned account, verses the denier's gleeful reportage that Kevin cited, again with glee.
IOP has a balanced report also;

Probing the cosmic-ray–climate link

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46965

I see no reason that this work refutes human climate control. The paper introduces a new independent variable: the role of ammonia vapor in nucleation, and we all know how man, for the past 100 years has padded the nitrogen cycle with our wasteful production & use. along with land use changes.

The space weather connection has recently been shown for lightening initiation, cosmic rays have a significant influence
So this is all good grist for the modeler's mill, but before we can assign the appropriate weights on the aerosols/nucleation effects many more chemical questions need answers.
 
This recent research on man's effects on  aerosols by Lina Mercado of the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, presents a double-bind, in that , as aerosols are reduced, less diffusion of light reduces photosynthesis,(drawing down 20% less CO2 into biomass).  Again, only a carbon negative system like biochar can address this added CO2 burden caused by this double-bind of clean air.
http://physicsworld..com/cws/article/news/38777

When we can see the temperature difference from the 3 day hiatus of air travel after 9/11, how can anyone say man has no effect on the climate?
It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation.

Erich


On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, back40 <back40@...> wrote:

 

see discussion

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/28/cosmic-ray-discussion-thread/

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Kevin <kchisholm@...> wrote:

 

.Following is an interesting Article:

> http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
> How cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
> Increased solar activity reduces terrestrial cosmic rays & effects
> climate?
>
It seems to clearly address the question: "Is Global Warming caused by
atmospheric
CO2 resulting from anthropogenic activity?" with the answer:
"No, it is the Sun, stupid."

It thus appears that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its
ardent "believers" were very wrong in misdirecting billions of dollars into
wasteful areas. Their "Consensus Science" now appears to have been self
serving and to
be shown as "non-science." We would hope that "AGW Believers" will now act
on the truths revealed by "Real Science."

This Article, and its Reference Papers, would appear to have major
implications for biochar as follows:
1: It would appear unlikely that carbon credits will be available to help
justify production of biochar.
2: It would appear that the future of biochar will now rise or fall on its
benefits, or lack thereof, directly to the Farmer or Grower actually using
biochar.

Biochar Producers, and Stove Systems that were counting on carbon credits
for their viability will be at risk, to the extent that they needed carbon
credit payments for their viability.

Hopefully, the fall-out from the CERN Paper will lead to:
1: Focus on methods and procedures where the use of biochar will give direct
benefits to the Farmer and Grower, and where there is a sensible return on
the investment in biochar.
2: Focus on stove systems that burn all biomass fuels fed to them cleanly
and efficiently, except in the case where charcoal production is desired
because it has a higher value as biochar, or for resale as a fuel.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

--
Regards,
Gary Jones

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3868 - Release Date: 08/30/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3869 - Release Date: 08/31/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3871 - Release Date: 09/01/11

 



Dear Ron

 

----- Original Message -----

From: rongretlarson@...

To: biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Cc: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 11:15 PM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Biochar lists, Mark,  Kevin

1.  I listened to the recommended video (and a few others) by Dr. Vir Shaviv and thought (at first, not being knowledgeable about the GCR argument) he did quite a credible job.  But his claim that solar input has been increasing I doubted (and I found he was dead wrong at

     http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant)

 

# There is no disagreement here. At 5:31 in his talk, he says that over an 11 year solar cycle, the radiation changes by less than about 1/10 of 1%. This is very consistent with what your reference indicates. At 5:55, he goes on to state that "... over th 20th Century, there have been long term variations, and that over the 20th Century, solar activity has increased.. Your above citation is irrelevant to this statement, in that it only deals with data from 1980 onward.

 

      I also have become convinced that climate sensitivity (temperature increase following (any) doubling of CO2 is at least 4 or so now and possibly double that over long time periods.  His claim of 0.5 (I found one place) or 1 degree (justified because he believes there are no positive feedbacks) also flies against what the scientists I believe (mainly Jim Hansen and his co-authors) are saying.   I think his is just an assertion, with no analysis (based on my reading of the above 5 cites).

 

# I think this is a good snapshot of the "State of Anthropogenic Climate Science". Specifically,

1: There are two camps, the Believers and the Disbelievers

2: The Believers reconcile the differences in their beliefs through Consensus Science, and vote on what they believe is true.

3: You, as a Believer,  claim the right to grant credibility to some Scientists and to dismiss others. If that is OK, is it not equally fair and rational for the Disbelievers to grant credibility to the Scientists they believe, and to dismiss the Scientists that they disbelieve?   

   Mark gave a Real Climate reference (below) that is very on topic - and I was glad to see Kevin saying "good posting"..  That site gives credit to the new experimental results by Kirkby, etal - but gives no credit to the GCR theory.  I found nothing at that RC site to justify the Calder (Kevin and Watts and other deniers) claims that these early results proved anything about GCR.

 

# In my opinion, the essence of the CERN/CLOUD work was to prove that there was indeed a POTENTIAL for  Global Cosmic Rays (GCR) to influence climate. Kirkby was very clear to state that the work did not prove the connection, at this stage.  

2.  For other rebuttals of GCR and its proponents, see:

   http://www.skepticalscience.com/Svensmark-Friis-Christensen-rebut-Lockwood-solar-paper.html

 

# This posting by John Cook is dated 8 Oct 2007 was made when Svensmark was still in disfavour. It does not have the benefit of the recent CERN/CLOUD work. This posting is far from being definitive, and generally accepted, as evidenced by the comments following it. 
    

and

   http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004..html

# This is a "very heavy paper" and I am not competent to dissect it. However, I do note that it was published in 2004, when Svensmark was in disfavour, and additionally, I am puzzled by its graph Fig. 1, which shows 3 periods of extreme Global Warming over the last 350,000 years, yet present GW has been constant for the past 10,000 years, even though CO2 Levels have been increasing over that period.

and

   http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark

 

# At this Site, Svensmark is faulted (in 2009) as follows:

 "It's not that Svensmark did not do some work, or that some of the work by itself was unimportant. The problem with Svensmark, is that his 'claims' were larger than the work could support."

 As I understand it, the recent CERN/CLOUD work does provide the basic support for the Svensmark thesis. Kirkby is cautious (and responsible) to state basically that it provides only part of the proof that Svenmark should have, as requested by OSS.

 

3,  Previously,  I did not know anything about Nigel Calder (whose blog started this thread), but was intrigued by Kevin's question (to Mark):

      "Are you suggesting that Nigel Calder is either a "right wing blogger" or "a scientifically untrained Journalist?" Can you point to any errors or deceptions in his posting? When I read his posting, I thought it was entirely reasonable, and could not detect any bias, distortion,  or imbalance."

 

    My answer to the first question, based on the five cites above is Yes and Yes. 

 

# What is a "right wing blogger?" Would Calder be any better, or more credible if he was a "left wing blogger?" Since Calder is being labeled both a "right wing blogger" and a "Disbeliever", does that mean that "Believers" are "Left Wing Bloggers?" :-)  Whether he is a "scientifically trained Journalist" is not nearly as important as whether what he says is correct or not. There are many examples of "Tobacco Scientists" who are highly trained in their fields, but whese opinions and statements are of low worth because they are wrong.

 

The many specific errors and deceptions are also in the above 5 cites. 

 

# The OSS Site you cite above is a very obvious "Believer Site", that gives a very strong impression that ONLY Anthropogenic CO2 is causing Global Climate Change. They have dismissed Svensmark prior to the CERN Work. They basically fault and dismiss his work, because he "over-stretched" his claims, yet they did not show where his claims were in error. They did not show specific errors with Svensmark's basic thesis. They demanded absolute proof of his thesis, yet they are comfortable with simply believing that their own beliefs are correct.

 

 Lastly, it is also clear Calder is a denier of AGW from the language he uses.  I have no doubt that most deniers would see him as quite perfect.

 

# Whether he is a "Believer" or a "Denier" is irrelevant. What IS relevant is whether he is right or wrong in the position he takes. Can you point to anything he specifically says that is wrong, in error, misleading, or deceptive?

   Trying to find a reason why I am continuing this GCR dialog on a Biochar list, 

 

# Here is one reason for you to avoid dismissing GCR as being important to the future of Biochar: If GCR is the major driver in Climate Change, then the hypothesis that GW is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 is proven wrong. The fundamental consequence to "Anthropogenic CO2 Believers" would be that there would be no justification for carbon credit payments to biochar users, to delay or avoid climate change. At this stage, I neither accept nor reject GCR as being the major cause of Global Climate Change, but I do believe it is more credible than Anthropogenic CO2 as being the major cause of Climate Change.

 

 I presume Calder, like Kevin, would be against Biochar.(as it is "not needed" and a "waste of funds").    Anyone know?  (I explictly exempt Dr. Shaviv from this bet, but would also like to ask him).

 

# I would suggest that it is unfair to judge Mr. Calder or Dr. Shaviv by the positions I take. They should rise or fall on their own merits, and the positions they take. I am not at all "against Biochar", but I do indeed express extreme caution against its use as a "cure-all" or "panacea". I would be very much more supportive of it, if I saw that it was economically sensible for a Farmer or Grower to use it.

 

# I would again draw your attention to the presentation by Dr. Shaviv at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI  It is very fast moving, and covers an enormous amount of work. In particular, I would draw your attention to the "40 second clip" between 9:00 and 9:40 of his talk, where he explains the link between Solar Activity and Global Warming. Note that his stated link does not involve a requirement for a change in solar input, as you wrongly suggest in your opening comment, but rather that changes in solar activity result in changes in cloud characteristics, which result in changes to the amount of solar input that actually reaches the Earth.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

Ron

---

From: "Kevin" <kchisholm@...>
To: "Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd" <mark@...>, biochar@yahoogroups.com
Cc: biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 11:30:15 AM
Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Dear Mark

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Kevin ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:29 PM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

Kevin, I suggest that you read a scientific appraisal of the paper rather than the outpourings of rightwing bloggers or scientifically-untrained journalists. 

 

# I started this thread with a reference to:

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
Are you suggesting that Nigel Calder is either a "right wing blogger" or "a scientifically untrained Journalist?" Can you point to any errors or deceptions in his posting? When I read his posting, I thought it was entirely reasonable, and could not detect any bias, distortion,  or imbalance.

 

You can start here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

 

# Thank you. Good posting.

Basically, the CERN/CLOUD paper is good serious science but it in no way demonstrates that "climate change is really due to cosmic rays" or anything of the kind. 

 

# Agreed. Kirkby was very clear in making this point. However, it does indeed reasonably open the door to this being a possibility.

 

 There is a lot of work still to be done before the size of the effect of cosmic ray driven nucleation can be assessed. 

 

# Agreed.

 

It does nothing to eliminate the vast body of quantitative evidence, in multiple streams, pointing to anthropogenic carbon dioxide (together with a handful of other less significant emissions) as the principal cause of present-day climate change.

 

# Agreed. That was not its purpose. However, it does reasonably open the door to the possibility that phenomenon other than Anthropogenic Carbon is the sole cause of present day climate change. Note that you seem to have a "double standard" here...  you accept that it is sufficient for evidence to merely point to anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of climate change, yet you require thet CERN/CLOUD actually demonstrate the connection. I would like to point out that if "The Believers" could actually demonstrate the connection between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change, there would be no need for "Consensus Science." The facts would stand on their own merit, and they could base tehir position on real science.

 

  And it does nothing to explain the shape of the current warming trend, which does not follow solar cycles.

 

# The following URL shows a presentation by Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI where he presents a very reasonable case for the Sun being responsible for Global Warming. Do you see any basic flaws in it?

There is a reason for the present consensus among climatologists, and that is that the data are both convincing and consistent with well-established theory. 

 

# "When the only tool you have is a hammer, the only problem you see is nails." :-) As I understand it, a key directive in the mandate of the IPCC was

"... to determine if there is a connection between global warming and anthropogenic activity..." The IPCC excluded the possibility of natural causes being responsible for global warming.

 

This doesn't stop climatologists from taking seriously good science which breaks new ground in related areas (like the CERN/CLOUD process).  But it does prevent them from suddenly jumping ship to back Svensmark's highly speculative theory, which still has no serious data to support it.

 

# Why are "The Believers" so reluctant to leave their minds open to such good science, and where it could possibly lead?

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

Mark



On 2011:09:01 07:28, Kevin wrote:

 

Dear Erich

 

I am disappointed that you would brush off the CERN work with shallow insults that evade the issue. Such shallowness is very unscientific and unprofessional. You seek to stick blindly with your present beliefs, rather than checking whether alternative possibilities tend to support or refute them.

 

I am indeed amused with the general thrust of your reply, that follows the initial shallow and evasive insults!  The thrust of your comments is that the aerosols are a result of Anthropogenic Pollution. What ever happened to Anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of Global Climate Change??? :-) Your approach is just like that adopted by the US Government when they couldn't find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq... they then had to continue with the War, because Saddam was a bad man who violated the Rights of the Iraqi People. :-) Now that you have relegated anthropogenic CO2 to a minor position in AGW, in favor of anthropogenic aerosols and air pollution, perhaps you should abandon biochar (charcoal in soil) and shift your efforts to "Aerochar" (activated charcoal dispersed in the upper atmosphere, from great big balloons filled with hydrogen made by windpower, to absorb all the anthropogenic pollutants that are causing the aerosols ultimately responsible for Global Climate Change. :-)

 

I am profoundly amused by your last statement:

" It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation."

 

Two points come to mind:

1: What you are saying is basically: "We don't have the solar and earth sensing tools to assess the climate situation, and as a consequence, we don't know what in the world we are talking about."

2: If there is no funding to provide such tools, it is probably because all the available money was spent by those seeking to justify Anthropogenic Carbon Based Global Warming. :-)

 

Shallow insults degrade the Biochar Lists. Consensus science (one of the greatest oxymorons of all time!), bluster, shifting justifications, and shallow insults are the refuge of those whose basic thesis is on shaky ground. If you want to "hit me where it hurts," and advance your cause, then provide truth, fact, logic, and science to support your "Believer Views and speculative opinions".

 

Kevin Chisholm

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Erich Knight

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:36 AM

Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Thanks Back 40 for the reasoned account, verses the denier's gleeful reportage that Kevin cited, again with glee.
IOP has a balanced report also;

Probing the cosmic-ray–climate link

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46965

I see no reason that this work refutes human climate control. The paper introduces a new independent variable: the role of ammonia vapor in nucleation, and we all know how man, for the past 100 years has padded the nitrogen cycle with our wasteful production & use. along with land use changes.

The space weather connection has recently been shown for lightening initiation, cosmic rays have a significant influence
So this is all good grist for the modeler's mill, but before we can assign the appropriate weights on the aerosols/nucleation effects many more chemical questions need answers.
 
This recent research on man's effects on  aerosols by Lina Mercado of the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, presents a double-bind, in that , as aerosols are reduced, less diffusion of light reduces photosynthesis,(drawing down 20% less CO2 into biomass).  Again, only a carbon negative system like biochar can address this added CO2 burden caused by this double-bind of clean air.
http://physicsworld..com/cws/article/news/38777

When we can see the temperature difference from the 3 day hiatus of air travel after 9/11, how can anyone say man has no effect on the climate?
It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation.

Erich


On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, back40 <back40@...> wrote:

 

see discussion

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/28/cosmic-ray-discussion-thread/

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Kevin <kchisholm@...> wrote:

 

.Following is an interesting Article:

> http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
> How cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
> Increased solar activity reduces terrestrial cosmic rays & effects
> climate?
>
It seems to clearly address the question: "Is Global Warming caused by
atmospheric
CO2 resulting from anthropogenic activity?" with the answer:
"No, it is the Sun, stupid."

It thus appears that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its
ardent "believers" were very wrong in misdirecting billions of dollars into
wasteful areas. Their "Consensus Science" now appears to have been self
serving and to
be shown as "non-science." We would hope that "AGW Believers" will now act
on the truths revealed by "Real Science."

This Article, and its Reference Papers, would appear to have major
implications for biochar as follows:
1: It would appear unlikely that carbon credits will be available to help
justify production of biochar.
2: It would appear that the future of biochar will now rise or fall on its
benefits, or lack thereof, directly to the Farmer or Grower actually using
biochar.

Biochar Producers, and Stove Systems that were counting on carbon credits
for their viability will be at risk, to the extent that they needed carbon
credit payments for their viability.

Hopefully, the fall-out from the CERN Paper will lead to:
1: Focus on methods and procedures where the use of biochar will give direct
benefits to the Farmer and Grower, and where there is a sensible return on
the investment in biochar.
2: Focus on stove systems that burn all biomass fuels fed to them cleanly
and efficiently, except in the case where charcoal production is desired
because it has a higher value as biochar, or for resale as a fuel.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

--
Regards,
Gary Jones

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3868 - Release Date: 08/30/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3869 - Release Date: 08/31/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3871 - Release Date: 09/01/11

hello, i am postgraduate student from Malaysia would like to know whether there
is method that can be used for leaching experiments using biochar. it will be
great if somebody can help me.

thank you

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Kevin ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 2:36 AM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

Kevin -

You have not answered the key problem with the hypothesis to which you are so attached.  And Shaviv ignores it (indeed, by careful choice of axes and careful wording, he conceals it). 

 

# Firstly, what I especially like about Dr. Shaviv's presentation is that he lays out a very definite and specific mechanism for why Sun Activity can indeed be responsible for Global Climate Change. (Changes in solar activity result in changes in the Global Cosmic Radiation (GCR)  levels seen by the Earth's Atmosphere, with the result that cloud characteristics change, leading to the result that more or less solar energy can actually reach the Earth.) Because of such clarity in the position he takes, it should be relatively easily to show the specific faults in his position with equal clarity.

 

That is - for the last 30 years we have seen rapid warming but no corresponding trend in solar activity. 

 

# The hypothesis laid out by Dr. Shaviv makes basic good sense to me. The mechanism that is key to Dr. Shaviv's hypothesis is that GCR activity can influence nucleation, and cloud characteristics. The CERN/CLOUD experimental work confirms this hypothesis. However, as Dr. Kirkby was very careful to caution, the CERN/CLOUD work DOES NOT prove a total link between GCR and Climate Change, in that there are other "steps along the way" that must be proven also before the total link is proven. Interestingly, they have drawn attention to the importance of ammonia, in extremely small concentrations, in the nucleation effects observed at various CR intensities. The key message I get from the CERN/CLOUD work is basically that "We have shown that GCR activity can influence nucleation in the basic SO2/SO4 system, but we were surprised by the importance of other elements or compounds or materials in the nucleation effects we have observed."

 

Until you can answer this with a detailed mechanism (or a convincing refutation of the data), you have an enormous hole in your theory.

 

# Given that CERN have discovered that extremely small levels of elements/compounds/materials can influence nucleation with relatively constant CR levels, there are a number of  mechanisms to explain rapid warming without significant change in solar activity. More specifically, they provide additional nucleating agents to the atmosphere:

1: Increased presence of dusts and salts in the atmosphere, due to volcanic activity, or storm activity.

2: Increases in atmospheric SO2, as a consequence of burning high sulphur fuels and/or volcanic activity. (I understand that great progress has been made in controlling such anthropogenic SO2, and such progress may have contributed to present lessened GW)

3: Increased CFC levels in the atmosphere that were subsequently reduced.

4: Increased high altitude airline travel, resulting in contrails from water/CO2 in the engine exhaust. In the three days on 2001 when the planes were grounded, there was an observable surface warming. (See: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-airplane-contrails-worse-co2-emissions.html and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail )

5: Increased Methane Levels in the atmosphere, NOT because CH4 is a "Greenhouse Gas" per se, but rather, that it provides increased levels of C and H in the atmosphere, for lightening to reform it into ammonia in the presence of water vapor. This ties in very neatly with Kirkbys observation about the importance of ammonia in nucleation.

 

# Interestingly, NONE of these suggested warming mechanisms rely on the "Greenhouse Effect" as promoted by the IPCC. It is not so much a question of "Increased anthropogenic CO2 KEEPS MORE HEAT IN," but rather, "more nucleation changes cloud characteristics to ALLOW MORE HEAT IN," (Global Warming) and "less nucleation changes cloud characteristics TO KEEP HEAT OUT." (Global Cooling)

There is no corresponding hole in the consensus position - which is why it is the consensus position.

 

# A "Consensus Position" is only necessary when there is fundamental conflict within the issue being considered. It is not science... it is simply an agreement between people who want to move a position forward. If a fox was put in a henhouse, could one conclude that foxes do not eat rabbits? Certainly not! However, it would be reasonable for the observers to conclude "based on the system we have studied, we conclude that foxes eat chickens." The work by Svensmark, Shaviv, and CERN suggests that a different system and mechanisms should be studied to explain Global Warming.

I note that the serious scientists at RealClimate make their judgment on the quality of the science, not on whether it agrees with the consensus position or not. 

 

# That is very good! Science, truth, fact and observed realities trump what people think.

 

They criticised Svensmark because he went way beyond the conclusions which could be drawn from his results into wild speculation. 

 

# I do not know Svensmark's work well enough to comment on it in detail. However, it seems that his basic work was sound as far as it went, and that he simply over-extended his conclusions beyond the evidence he generated with his work. While he can be faulted for such "over-extension", has anyone yet done the work to prove that his "over-extension" was wrong?

 

They acknowledge the quality of the Kirkby et al work, which arrives at new information by sound methodology, and concludes only what can be concluded from that methodology.  They are prepared to be guided by results, not by whether a theory fits their political/economic/social worldview. 

 

# That is great!! That is what "Real Science" is all about.

 

Contrast this with the partisan attitude of Nigel Calder (and of those who quote him favourably on this subject).

 

# Calder is indeed a colorful writer. :-) He may indeed exaggerate a point in order to make it clearly understood. However, was the calibre of his writing such that he distorted the results of the CERN/CLOUD work to a degree that a reasonably intelligent but non-scientific reader would end up with the wrong conclusions about the significance of the CERN/CLOUD Work? To the extent that he leaves such people with the impression "Hey, perhaps it is the Sun that is responsible for Global Warming", then this is a good article. However, if he leaves the reader with the impression that the necessary links and mechanisms are fully proven, then he has overstepped the "bounds of literary license" and done the reader a disservice.

 

# Thanks again for your pointed and helpful comments on my views.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin 

Mark



On 2011:09:05 21:12, Kevin wrote:

 



Dear Ron

 

----- Original Message -----

From: rongretlarson@...

To: biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Cc: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 11:15 PM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Biochar lists, Mark,  Kevin

1.  I listened to the recommended video (and a few others) by Dr. Vir Shaviv and thought (at first, not being knowledgeable about the GCR argument) he did quite a credible job.  But his claim that solar input has been increasing I doubted (and I found he was dead wrong at

     http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant)

 

# There is no disagreement here. At 5:31 in his talk, he says that over an 11 year solar cycle, the radiation changes by less than about 1/10 of 1%. This is very consistent with what your reference indicates. At 5:55, he goes on to state that "... over th 20th Century, there have been long term variations, and that over the 20th Century, solar activity has increased.. Your above citation is irrelevant to this statement, in that it only deals with data from 1980 onward.

 

      I also have become convinced that climate sensitivity (temperature increase following (any) doubling of CO2 is at least 4 or so now and possibly double that over long time periods.  His claim of 0.5 (I found one place) or 1 degree (justified because he believes there are no positive feedbacks) also flies against what the scientists I believe (mainly Jim Hansen and his co-authors) are saying.   I think his is just an assertion, with no analysis (based on my reading of the above 5 cites).

 

# I think this is a good snapshot of the "State of Anthropogenic Climate Science". Specifically,

1: There are two camps, the Believers and the Disbelievers

2: The Believers reconcile the differences in their beliefs through Consensus Science, and vote on what they believe is true.

3: You, as a Believer,  claim the right to grant credibility to some Scientists and to dismiss others. If that is OK, is it not equally fair and rational for the Disbelievers to grant credibility to the Scientists they believe, and to dismiss the Scientists that they disbelieve?   

   Mark gave a Real Climate reference (below) that is very on topic - and I was glad to see Kevin saying "good posting"..  That site gives credit to the new experimental results by Kirkby, etal - but gives no credit to the GCR theory.  I found nothing at that RC site to justify the Calder (Kevin and Watts and other deniers) claims that these early results proved anything about GCR.

 

# In my opinion, the essence of the CERN/CLOUD work was to prove that there was indeed a POTENTIAL for  Global Cosmic Rays (GCR) to influence climate. Kirkby was very clear to state that the work did not prove the connection, at this stage.  

2.  For other rebuttals of GCR and its proponents, see:

   http://www.skepticalscience.com/Svensmark-Friis-Christensen-rebut-Lockwood-solar-paper.html

 

# This posting by John Cook is dated 8 Oct 2007 was made when Svensmark was still in disfavour. It does not have the benefit of the recent CERN/CLOUD work. This posting is far from being definitive, and generally accepted, as evidenced by the comments following it. 
    

and

   http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004..html

# This is a "very heavy paper" and I am not competent to dissect it. However, I do note that it was published in 2004, when Svensmark was in disfavour, and additionally, I am puzzled by its graph Fig. 1, which shows 3 periods of extreme Global Warming over the last 350,000 years, yet present GW has been constant for the past 10,000 years, even though CO2 Levels have been increasing over that period.

and

   http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark

 

# At this Site, Svensmark is faulted (in 2009) as follows:

 "It's not that Svensmark did not do some work, or that some of the work by itself was unimportant. The problem with Svensmark, is that his 'claims' were larger than the work could support."

 As I understand it, the recent CERN/CLOUD work does provide the basic support for the Svensmark thesis. Kirkby is cautious (and responsible) to state basically that it provides only part of the proof that Svenmark should have, as requested by OSS.

 

3,  Previously,  I did not know anything about Nigel Calder (whose blog started this thread), but was intrigued by Kevin's question (to Mark):

      "Are you suggesting that Nigel Calder is either a "right wing blogger" or "a scientifically untrained Journalist?" Can you point to any errors or deceptions in his posting? When I read his posting, I thought it was entirely reasonable, and could not detect any bias, distortion,  or imbalance."

 

    My answer to the first question, based on the five cites above is Yes and Yes. 

 

# What is a "right wing blogger?" Would Calder be any better, or more credible if he was a "left wing blogger?" Since Calder is being labeled both a "right wing blogger" and a "Disbeliever", does that mean that "Believers" are "Left Wing Bloggers?" :-)  Whether he is a "scientifically trained Journalist" is not nearly as important as whether what he says is correct or not. There are many examples of "Tobacco Scientists" who are highly trained in their fields, but whese opinions and statements are of low worth because they are wrong.

 

The many specific errors and deceptions are also in the above 5 cites. 

 

# The OSS Site you cite above is a very obvious "Believer Site", that gives a very strong impression that ONLY Anthropogenic CO2 is causing Global Climate Change. They have dismissed Svensmark prior to the CERN Work. They basically fault and dismiss his work, because he "over-stretched" his claims, yet they did not show where his claims were in error. They did not show specific errors with Svensmark's basic thesis. They demanded absolute proof of his thesis, yet they are comfortable with simply believing that their own beliefs are correct.

 

 Lastly, it is also clear Calder is a denier of AGW from the language he uses.  I have no doubt that most deniers would see him as quite perfect.

 

# Whether he is a "Believer" or a "Denier" is irrelevant. What IS relevant is whether he is right or wrong in the position he takes. Can you point to anything he specifically says that is wrong, in error, misleading, or deceptive?

   Trying to find a reason why I am continuing this GCR dialog on a Biochar list, 

 

# Here is one reason for you to avoid dismissing GCR as being important to the future of Biochar: If GCR is the major driver in Climate Change, then the hypothesis that GW is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 is proven wrong. The fundamental consequence to "Anthropogenic CO2 Believers" would be that there would be no justification for carbon credit payments to biochar users, to delay or avoid climate change. At this stage, I neither accept nor reject GCR as being the major cause of Global Climate Change, but I do believe it is more credible than Anthropogenic CO2 as being the major cause of Climate Change.

 

 I presume Calder, like Kevin, would be against Biochar.(as it is "not needed" and a "waste of funds").    Anyone know?  (I explictly exempt Dr. Shaviv from this bet, but would also like to ask him).

 

# I would suggest that it is unfair to judge Mr. Calder or Dr. Shaviv by the positions I take. They should rise or fall on their own merits, and the positions they take. I am not at all "against Biochar", but I do indeed express extreme caution against its use as a "cure-all" or "panacea". I would be very much more supportive of it, if I saw that it was economically sensible for a Farmer or Grower to use it.

 

# I would again draw your attention to the presentation by Dr. Shaviv at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI  It is very fast moving, and covers an enormous amount of work. In particular, I would draw your attention to the "40 second clip" between 9:00 and 9:40 of his talk, where he explains the link between Solar Activity and Global Warming. Note that his stated link does not involve a requirement for a change in solar input, as you wrongly suggest in your opening comment, but rather that changes in solar activity result in changes in cloud characteristics, which result in changes to the amount of solar input that actually reaches the Earth.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

Ron

---

From: "Kevin" <kchisholm@...>
To: "Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd" <mark@...>, biochar@yahoogroups.com
Cc: biochar-policy@...
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 11:30:15 AM
Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Dear Mark

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Kevin ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:29 PM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

Kevin, I suggest that you read a scientific appraisal of the paper rather than the outpourings of rightwing bloggers or scientifically-untrained journalists. 

 

# I started this thread with a reference to:

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
Are you suggesting that Nigel Calder is either a "right wing blogger" or "a scientifically untrained Journalist?" Can you point to any errors or deceptions in his posting? When I read his posting, I thought it was entirely reasonable, and could not detect any bias, distortion,  or imbalance.

 

You can start here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

 

# Thank you. Good posting.

Basically, the CERN/CLOUD paper is good serious science but it in no way demonstrates that "climate change is really due to cosmic rays" or anything of the kind. 

 

# Agreed. Kirkby was very clear in making this point. However, it does indeed reasonably open the door to this being a possibility.

 

 There is a lot of work still to be done before the size of the effect of cosmic ray driven nucleation can be assessed. 

 

# Agreed.

 

It does nothing to eliminate the vast body of quantitative evidence, in multiple streams, pointing to anthropogenic carbon dioxide (together with a handful of other less significant emissions) as the principal cause of present-day climate change.

 

# Agreed. That was not its purpose. However, it does reasonably open the door to the possibility that phenomenon other than Anthropogenic Carbon is the sole cause of present day climate change. Note that you seem to have a "double standard" here...  you accept that it is sufficient for evidence to merely point to anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of climate change, yet you require thet CERN/CLOUD actually demonstrate the connection. I would like to point out that if "The Believers" could actually demonstrate the connection between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change, there would be no need for "Consensus Science." The facts would stand on their own merit, and they could base tehir position on real science.

 

  And it does nothing to explain the shape of the current warming trend, which does not follow solar cycles.

 

# The following URL shows a presentation by Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI where he presents a very reasonable case for the Sun being responsible for Global Warming. Do you see any basic flaws in it?

There is a reason for the present consensus among climatologists, and that is that the data are both convincing and consistent with well-established theory. 

 

# "When the only tool you have is a hammer, the only problem you see is nails." :-) As I understand it, a key directive in the mandate of the IPCC was

"... to determine if there is a connection between global warming and anthropogenic activity..." The IPCC excluded the possibility of natural causes being responsible for global warming.

 

This doesn't stop climatologists from taking seriously good science which breaks new ground in related areas (like the CERN/CLOUD process).  But it does prevent them from suddenly jumping ship to back Svensmark's highly speculative theory, which still has no serious data to support it.

 

# Why are "The Believers" so reluctant to leave their minds open to such good science, and where it could possibly lead?

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

Mark



On 2011:09:01 07:28, Kevin wrote:

 

Dear Erich

 

I am disappointed that you would brush off the CERN work with shallow insults that evade the issue. Such shallowness is very unscientific and unprofessional. You seek to stick blindly with your present beliefs, rather than checking whether alternative possibilities tend to support or refute them.

 

I am indeed amused with the general thrust of your reply, that follows the initial shallow and evasive insults!  The thrust of your comments is that the aerosols are a result of Anthropogenic Pollution. What ever happened to Anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of Global Climate Change??? :-) Your approach is just like that adopted by the US Government when they couldn't find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq... they then had to continue with the War, because Saddam was a bad man who violated the Rights of the Iraqi People. :-) Now that you have relegated anthropogenic CO2 to a minor position in AGW, in favor of anthropogenic aerosols and air pollution, perhaps you should abandon biochar (charcoal in soil) and shift your efforts to "Aerochar" (activated charcoal dispersed in the upper atmosphere, from great big balloons filled with hydrogen made by windpower, to absorb all the anthropogenic pollutants that are causing the aerosols ultimately responsible for Global Climate Change. :-)

 

I am profoundly amused by your last statement:

" It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation."

 

Two points come to mind:

1: What you are saying is basically: "We don't have the solar and earth sensing tools to assess the climate situation, and as a consequence, we don't know what in the world we are talking about."

2: If there is no funding to provide such tools, it is probably because all the available money was spent by those seeking to justify Anthropogenic Carbon Based Global Warming. :-)

 

Shallow insults degrade the Biochar Lists. Consensus science (one of the greatest oxymorons of all time!), bluster, shifting justifications, and shallow insults are the refuge of those whose basic thesis is on shaky ground. If you want to "hit me where it hurts," and advance your cause, then provide truth, fact, logic, and science to support your "Believer Views and speculative opinions".

 

Kevin Chisholm

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Erich Knight

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:36 AM

Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Thanks Back 40 for the reasoned account, verses the denier's gleeful reportage that Kevin cited, again with glee.
IOP has a balanced report also;

Probing the cosmic-ray–climate link

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46965

I see no reason that this work refutes human climate control. The paper introduces a new independent variable: the role of ammonia vapor in nucleation, and we all know how man, for the past 100 years has padded the nitrogen cycle with our wasteful production & use. along with land use changes.

The space weather connection has recently been shown for lightening initiation, cosmic rays have a significant influence
So this is all good grist for the modeler's mill, but before we can assign the appropriate weights on the aerosols/nucleation effects many more chemical questions need answers.
 
This recent research on man's effects on  aerosols by Lina Mercado of the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, presents a double-bind, in that , as aerosols are reduced, less diffusion of light reduces photosynthesis,(drawing down 20% less CO2 into biomass).  Again, only a carbon negative system like biochar can address this added CO2 burden caused by this double-bind of clean air.
http://physicsworld..com/cws/article/news/38777

When we can see the temperature difference from the 3 day hiatus of air travel after 9/11, how can anyone say man has no effect on the climate?
It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation.

Erich


On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, back40 <back40@...> wrote:

 

see discussion

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/28/cosmic-ray-discussion-thread/

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Kevin <kchisholm@...> wrote:

 

.Following is an interesting Article:

> http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
> How cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
> Increased solar activity reduces terrestrial cosmic rays & effects
> climate?
>
It seems to clearly address the question: "Is Global Warming caused by
atmospheric
CO2 resulting from anthropogenic activity?" with the answer:
"No, it is the Sun, stupid."

It thus appears that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its
ardent "believers" were very wrong in misdirecting billions of dollars into
wasteful areas. Their "Consensus Science" now appears to have been self
serving and to
be shown as "non-science." We would hope that "AGW Believers" will now act
on the truths revealed by "Real Science."

This Article, and its Reference Papers, would appear to have major
implications for biochar as follows:
1: It would appear unlikely that carbon credits will be available to help
justify production of biochar.
2: It would appear that the future of biochar will now rise or fall on its
benefits, or lack thereof, directly to the Farmer or Grower actually using
biochar.

Biochar Producers, and Stove Systems that were counting on carbon credits
for their viability will be at risk, to the extent that they needed carbon
credit payments for their viability.

Hopefully, the fall-out from the CERN Paper will lead to:
1: Focus on methods and procedures where the use of biochar will give direct
benefits to the Farmer and Grower, and where there is a sensible return on
the investment in biochar.
2: Focus on stove systems that burn all biomass fuels fed to them cleanly
and efficiently, except in the case where charcoal production is desired
because it has a higher value as biochar, or for resale as a fuel.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

--
Regards,
Gary Jones

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3868 - Release Date: 08/30/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3869 - Release Date: 08/31/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3871 - Release Date: 09/01/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3878 - Release Date: 09/05/11

imagine the boost in benefits to blend biochar with sea minerals.....
better yet, spray hot fresh char with sea mineral solutions.....
www.nutrient-dense.info/dairy

for a green & peaceful planet,
David Yarrow
dyarrow5@...
44 Gilligan Road, East Greenbush, NY 12061
518-507-5335
dyarrow5 (skype)
www.dyarrow.org
www.carbon-negative.us
www.ancientforests.us
www.nutrient-dense.info
www.farmandfood.org
www.seaagri.com

Dear Jesse and everyone,

The thing that most helps me understand this debate is the use of the
term "structure" to describe all of the organizations we have
created. These organizations include governments, corporations,
unions and religions. All fit into the structure category.

We build structures to resist change. Nobody wants their roof to blow
off in a windstorm.

We probably should keep in mind that all living things are always
changing. Shift happens!

Structures are built to serve us. We are not here to serve them.

Which structures support the idea of human caused global warming and
which oppose it? How does this support or opposition strengthen the
supporting or opposing structure?

Petroleum based structures are likely to oppose this concept. They
are likely to oppose it because the more we believe that we are
dependent on them for our well being, the more we will support them.

Some government structures may support the concept of human caused
global warming for the same reason. We must support these structures
because we cannot do anything on our own to combat global warming.

Both try to convince us that we are helpless victims of circumstances
beyond our control. Both seek more and more control over the things
we need to survive.

Structures are designed to be as close to dead as possible. Did I
mention that all living things are always changing?

I have noticed that the best way I can deal with the inherent
limitations of structure is to figure out how to provide as many of
the things I need to survive independent of structure.

Biochar helps with this. The ormus minerals help even more.

I suspect that the best thing I can do to reverse global warming is
to sequester more carbon. Burying biochar does this but ormus helps
us to double the amount of wood we can burn for biochar. How much
carbon is sequestered in eight inches of new topsoil in one season?:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/topsoil.htm

How much more carbon is sequestered in a tree that has five times the
amount of wood compared to its parent tree fifty feet away:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/Plums_2010.htm

Just putting ormus on the tree and letting my neighbors pick the
fruit has convinced several of them to use the ormus minerals on
their plants. All of this without the intervention of structure.

This is a way to empower the individual, instead of serving structure.

Here is a link to more thoughts on structure:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/structure.htm

At 09:31 AM 9/6/2011, you wrote:
>Greetings biochar list, I am a sociologist who is beginning to study
>biochar (which has brought me to this list).
>
>I've been trying to follow this thread as best I can - some of the
>scientific claims are a bit difficult for me to decipher (or at
>least I'm not trying hard enough yet!)Â  but in general I have a
>broader question:
>
>1. Regardless of what is causing climate change - or rising levels
>of CO2 and Ocean acidification - is there debate about the effects
>of these changes?  From my limited perspective it seems like
>whether 'nature' or 'mankind' created these current trends, they
>don't seem to bode well for the medium term health and survival of
>life as we know it.  If 'nature' causes a tornado or a drought its
>just as bad as if people caused it - for the people left in its
>wake.  Or am I missing something? is the argument that the ocean is
>not acidifying and that deserts are not growing, etc...?
>
>2. As for the idea that cleantech is a waste of resources -if it
>turns out that humans didn't cause climate change. I'm not sure I
>understand what the better use of resources would be?  I mean we're
>in a global recession where investment capital - everywhere on the
>planet - is tripping over itself looking for viable investment
>opportunities - and not finding any to speak of.  Creating a new
>energy infrastructure would seem to be a better alternative than war
>as a way to spend all that money looking for a place to be spent.
>And even if the planet is not at risk from our fossil fuel ways,
>isn't there decent evidence that smog and other airborne waste
>products of fossil fuel consumption aren't exactly great for
>peoples' health and well being?
>
>3. as for the implications for biochar - do these climate change
>arguments also entail skepticism that we may not be destroying the
>remaining healthy soil on the planet (or stocks of available
>phosphorous)?  It would seem that this is a somewhat separate issue
>- and would make biochar an effective and even important technology
>- so far as it does improve soil health - regardless of who or what
>is causing climate change.
>
>Sorry if this is off base - I'm really just hoping to understand
>better how these arguments work.
>
>best to you all!
>jesse
>
>________________________
>Jesse Goldstein
>PhD Candidate in Sociology
>Fellow, Center For Place Culture and Politics
>Graduate Center, City University of New York

--

With kindest regards,

Barry Carter
<bcarter@...>
2319 Balm
Baker City, Oregon 97814
Phone: 541-523-3357
Web Pages:
ORMUS - http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/index.htm
Forest - http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/bmnfa/index.htm
Donate - http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/donate.htm

"What you think upon grows. Whatever you allow to occupy your mind
you magnify in your life. Whether the subject of your thought be good
or bad, the law works and the condition grows. Any subject that you
keep out of your mind tends to diminish in your life, because what
you do not use atrophies. The more you think of grievances, the more
such trials you will continue to receive; the more you think of the
good fortune you have had, the more good fortune will come to you."
--Emmet Fox from Make Your Life Worthwhile, 1942

Here are some interesting articles for using biochar in abandoned mines.
Enjoy ... Ken

http://www.hcn.org/blogs/range/new-hope-for-old-mines

http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.13/biochar-makeover-for-abandoned-mines

while helping make topsoil by sheetmulching for a new teaching garden in north
troy NY low income neighrborhood, i was unexpectedly caught on camera taking a
break.  i thought i had a better tan than that:
http://vimeo.com/28677171

for a green & peaceful planet,
David Yarrow
dyarrow5@...
44 Gilligan Road, East Greenbush, NY 12061
518-507-5335
dyarrow5 (skype)
www.dyarrow.org
www.carbon-negative.us
www.ancientforests.us
www.nutrient-dense.info
www.farmandfood.org
www.seaagri.com

----- Original Message -----

From: rongretlarson@...

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Kevin ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com ; mark@...

Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 1:02 PM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

Mark,  cc Kevin and 2 lists)-

   Great response.  Thanks.

   1.   Re item 3 below,  Here is more on Nigel Calder from his wiki entry:

     "Calder is a long-standing sceptic of global warming.

 

# I went to this reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming and could find no reference to Nigel Calder.

 

# While Calder is a "long standing sceptic", others are "long standing believers." History will show who is right.

 

As early as 1980, he predicted that within 20 years "the much-advertised heating of the earth by the man-made carbon-dioxide ‘greenhouse’ [will fail] to occur; instead, there [will be] renewed concern about cooling and an impending ice age".^[1]

 

# I went to his wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Calder  and found the URL for the above  Reference, [1]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece  I found it to be a well reasoned and responsibly written piece. I could not find reference to his prediction of 1980.

 

Calder participated in the polemic

 

# So, whats wrong with that?

"

A polemic is a form of dispute, wherein the main efforts of the disputing parties are aimed at establishing the superiority of their own points of view regarding an issue. Along with debate, polemic is one of the more common forms of dispute. Similar to debate, it is constrained by a definite thesis which serves as the subject of controversy. However, unlike debate, which may seek common ground between two parties, a polemic is intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view.^[3]

Polemic usually addresses serious matters of religious, philosophical, political, or scientific importance, and is often written to dispute or refute a widely accepted position."

 

film The Great Global Warming Swindle.

 

# So, what did he say in the film that was wrong, inappropriate, or misleading?

 

He also co-authored The Chilling Stars.

 

# The Reviews for this book are as follows:

The online magazine londonbookreview.com remarked, "For those who believe that the argument about the causes of climate change have been settled may find this a difficult book to read. But those who retain an open mind may find this an interesting read, even if it is only to confirm that the science is far from being settled."^[1]

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. wrote for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii that "This is a must read if you want to better understand the real environment around you and unravel the twisted claims of the global warming fiasco."^[2]

 

^{# This seems rather reasonable to me. Good Science should look at all possibilities.}

 

Regarding global warming, Calder has said that "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

 

# I would think that it is easier to get funding for "Popular Science" than for "Unpopular Science." "Leading Edge Science" is more difficult to fund than is "established science."

   I think he probably was a pretty good science writer at one time (maybe still), but he is by no stretch of the imagination a trained climate scientist.

 

# Why don't you give any weight to the "trained climate scientists" who hold a different view than those approved by the IPCC for inclusion as "Consensus Scientists?"

2.  I would like to ask Calder

 

# Well then, why not ask him??? :-)

 

(maybe Kevin can respond for him) why the folks favoring GCR theory never talk about CO2 - which (as you have said) covers all the bases.  The argument is always one sided. 

 

# You are wrong here. Dr. Shaviv discusses CO2, and rates it as a low contributor to Global Warming. See his comments at 4:46 in his presentation.

 

The vast majority (97-99%) of climate scientists are willing to debunk GCR theory, but the GCR proponents are not willing to even mention CO2, much less debunk that theory (which most scientists and all  scientific societies feel is 100% proven).  What is it about CO2 that makes for these one directional conversations?   Can anyone point me to an authoritative article on why CO2 isn't the cause of AGW?

 

# One way to understand why Climate Scientists who are so willing and anxious to dismiss GCR theory is that they will look very bad if it is actually the major mechanism in Global Climate Change.

3.  Kevin found the key article 

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004.html  (correcting a "double dot" at the end)   too "heavy" to read apparently.  Here are the two concluding paragraphs:

"Conclusions

Two main conclusions result from our analysis of [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003]. The first is that the correlation of cosmic ray flux (CRF) and climate over the past 520 m.y. appears to not hold up under scrutiny. Even if we accept the questionable assumption that meteorite clusters give information on CRF variations, we find that the evidence for a link between CRF and climate amounts to little more than a similarity in the average periods of the CRF variations and a heavily smoothed temperature reconstruction. Phase agreement is poor. The authors applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation. We thus find that the existence of a correlation has not been convincingly demonstrated.

Our second conclusion is independent of the first. Whether there is a link of CRF and temperature or not, the authors’ estimate of the effect of a CO₂-doubling on climate is highly questionable. It is based on a simple and incomplete regression analysis which implicitly assumes that climate variations on time scales of millions of years, for different configurations of continents and ocean currents, for much higher CO₂ levels than at present, and with unaccounted causes and contributing factors, can give direct quantitative information about the effect of rapid CO₂ doubling from pre-industrial climate. The complexity and non-linearity of the climate system does not allow such a simple statistical derivation of climate sensitivity without a physical understanding of the key processes and feedbacks. We thus conclude that [Shaviv and Veizer, 2003] provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide."

 

# I don't know where the Shaviv and Veizer paper was published, but presumably it was in a peer reviewed Journal. If their peers did not fault them prior to publication, then presumable their statements were reasonable, based on what was known at the time. It would be rather out of place for me to attempt to critically review the above review. If I did, and was able to provide a reasonable refutation, then you would probably dismiss my views simply because I am not a "Trained Climate Scientist."

One reason for rejecting the GCR theory should be enough.  Nothing has changed with the Kirkby experiments.

 

# I would strongly disagree with you here. Firstly, you ASSUME that the reason for rejecting the CRF theory is valid, The Rhamsdorf Review was done in 2004, before the discoveries of Kirkby et al were made.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

Ron

---

From: "Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd" <mark@...>
To: biochar@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Kevin" <kchisholm@...>, biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 11:36:14 PM
Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Kevin -

You have not answered the key problem with the hypothesis to which you are so attached.  And Shaviv ignores it (indeed, by careful choice of axes and careful wording, he conceals it).  That is - for the last 30 years we have seen rapid warming but no corresponding trend in solar activity.  Until you can answer this with a detailed mechanism (or a convincing refutation of the data), you have an enormous hole in your theory.

There is no corresponding hole in the consensus position - which is why it is the consensus position.

I note that the serious scientists at RealClimate make their judgment on the quality of the science, not on whether it agrees with the consensus position or not.  They criticised Svensmark because he went way beyond the conclusions which could be drawn from his results into wild speculation.  They acknowledge the quality of the Kirkby et al work, which arrives at new information by sound methodology, and concludes only what can be concluded from that methodology.  They are prepared to be guided by results, not by whether a theory fits their political/economic/social worldview.  Contrast this with the partisan attitude of Nigel Calder (and of those who quote him favourably on this subject).

Mark



On 2011:09:05 21:12, Kevin wrote:

 



Dear Ron

 

----- Original Message -----

From: rongretlarson@...

To: biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Cc: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 11:15 PM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Biochar lists, Mark,  Kevin

1.  I listened to the recommended video (and a few others) by Dr. Vir Shaviv and thought (at first, not being knowledgeable about the GCR argument) he did quite a credible job.  But his claim that solar input has been increasing I doubted (and I found he was dead wrong at

     http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant)

 

# There is no disagreement here. At 5:31 in his talk, he says that over an 11 year solar cycle, the radiation changes by less than about 1/10 of 1%. This is very consistent with what your reference indicates. At 5:55, he goes on to state that "... over th 20th Century, there have been long term variations, and that over the 20th Century, solar activity has increased.. Your above citation is irrelevant to this statement, in that it only deals with data from 1980 onward.

 

      I also have become convinced that climate sensitivity (temperature increase following (any) doubling of CO2 is at least 4 or so now and possibly double that over long time periods.  His claim of 0.5 (I found one place) or 1 degree (justified because he believes there are no positive feedbacks) also flies against what the scientists I believe (mainly Jim Hansen and his co-authors) are saying.   I think his is just an assertion, with no analysis (based on my reading of the above 5 cites).

 

# I think this is a good snapshot of the "State of Anthropogenic Climate Science". Specifically,

1: There are two camps, the Believers and the Disbelievers

2: The Believers reconcile the differences in their beliefs through Consensus Science, and vote on what they believe is true.

3: You, as a Believer,  claim the right to grant credibility to some Scientists and to dismiss others. If that is OK, is it not equally fair and rational for the Disbelievers to grant credibility to the Scientists they believe, and to dismiss the Scientists that they disbelieve?   

   Mark gave a Real Climate reference (below) that is very on topic - and I was glad to see Kevin saying "good posting"..  That site gives credit to the new experimental results by Kirkby, etal - but gives no credit to the GCR theory.  I found nothing at that RC site to justify the Calder (Kevin and Watts and other deniers) claims that these early results proved anything about GCR.

 

# In my opinion, the essence of the CERN/CLOUD work was to prove that there was indeed a POTENTIAL for  Global Cosmic Rays (GCR) to influence climate. Kirkby was very clear to state that the work did not prove the connection, at this stage.  

2.  For other rebuttals of GCR and its proponents, see:

   http://www.skepticalscience.com/Svensmark-Friis-Christensen-rebut-Lockwood-solar-paper.html

 

# This posting by John Cook is dated 8 Oct 2007 was made when Svensmark was still in disfavour. It does not have the benefit of the recent CERN/CLOUD work. This posting is far from being definitive, and generally accepted, as evidenced by the comments following it. 
    

and

   http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_etal_eos_2004..html

# This is a "very heavy paper" and I am not competent to dissect it. However, I do note that it was published in 2004, when Svensmark was in disfavour, and additionally, I am puzzled by its graph Fig. 1, which shows 3 periods of extreme Global Warming over the last 350,000 years, yet present GW has been constant for the past 10,000 years, even though CO2 Levels have been increasing over that period.

and

   http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/henrik-svensmark

 

# At this Site, Svensmark is faulted (in 2009) as follows:

 "It's not that Svensmark did not do some work, or that some of the work by itself was unimportant. The problem with Svensmark, is that his 'claims' were larger than the work could support."

 As I understand it, the recent CERN/CLOUD work does provide the basic support for the Svensmark thesis. Kirkby is cautious (and responsible) to state basically that it provides only part of the proof that Svenmark should have, as requested by OSS.

 

3,  Previously,  I did not know anything about Nigel Calder (whose blog started this thread), but was intrigued by Kevin's question (to Mark):

      "Are you suggesting that Nigel Calder is either a "right wing blogger" or "a scientifically untrained Journalist?" Can you point to any errors or deceptions in his posting? When I read his posting, I thought it was entirely reasonable, and could not detect any bias, distortion,  or imbalance."

 

    My answer to the first question, based on the five cites above is Yes and Yes. 

 

# What is a "right wing blogger?" Would Calder be any better, or more credible if he was a "left wing blogger?" Since Calder is being labeled both a "right wing blogger" and a "Disbeliever", does that mean that "Believers" are "Left Wing Bloggers?" :-)  Whether he is a "scientifically trained Journalist" is not nearly as important as whether what he says is correct or not. There are many examples of "Tobacco Scientists" who are highly trained in their fields, but whese opinions and statements are of low worth because they are wrong.

 

The many specific errors and deceptions are also in the above 5 cites. 

 

# The OSS Site you cite above is a very obvious "Believer Site", that gives a very strong impression that ONLY Anthropogenic CO2 is causing Global Climate Change. They have dismissed Svensmark prior to the CERN Work. They basically fault and dismiss his work, because he "over-stretched" his claims, yet they did not show where his claims were in error. They did not show specific errors with Svensmark's basic thesis. They demanded absolute proof of his thesis, yet they are comfortable with simply believing that their own beliefs are correct.

 

 Lastly, it is also clear Calder is a denier of AGW from the language he uses.  I have no doubt that most deniers would see him as quite perfect.

 

# Whether he is a "Believer" or a "Denier" is irrelevant. What IS relevant is whether he is right or wrong in the position he takes. Can you point to anything he specifically says that is wrong, in error, misleading, or deceptive?

   Trying to find a reason why I am continuing this GCR dialog on a Biochar list, 

 

# Here is one reason for you to avoid dismissing GCR as being important to the future of Biochar: If GCR is the major driver in Climate Change, then the hypothesis that GW is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 is proven wrong. The fundamental consequence to "Anthropogenic CO2 Believers" would be that there would be no justification for carbon credit payments to biochar users, to delay or avoid climate change. At this stage, I neither accept nor reject GCR as being the major cause of Global Climate Change, but I do believe it is more credible than Anthropogenic CO2 as being the major cause of Climate Change.

 

 I presume Calder, like Kevin, would be against Biochar.(as it is "not needed" and a "waste of funds").    Anyone know?  (I explictly exempt Dr. Shaviv from this bet, but would also like to ask him).

 

# I would suggest that it is unfair to judge Mr. Calder or Dr. Shaviv by the positions I take. They should rise or fall on their own merits, and the positions they take. I am not at all "against Biochar", but I do indeed express extreme caution against its use as a "cure-all" or "panacea". I would be very much more supportive of it, if I saw that it was economically sensible for a Farmer or Grower to use it.

 

# I would again draw your attention to the presentation by Dr. Shaviv at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI  It is very fast moving, and covers an enormous amount of work. In particular, I would draw your attention to the "40 second clip" between 9:00 and 9:40 of his talk, where he explains the link between Solar Activity and Global Warming. Note that his stated link does not involve a requirement for a change in solar input, as you wrongly suggest in your opening comment, but rather that changes in solar activity result in changes in cloud characteristics, which result in changes to the amount of solar input that actually reaches the Earth.

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

Ron

---

From: "Kevin" <kchisholm@...>
To: "Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd" <mark@...>, biochar@yahoogroups.com
Cc: biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2011 11:30:15 AM
Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Dear Mark

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Kevin ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:29 PM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

Kevin, I suggest that you read a scientific appraisal of the paper rather than the outpourings of rightwing bloggers or scientifically-untrained journalists. 

 

# I started this thread with a reference to:

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
Are you suggesting that Nigel Calder is either a "right wing blogger" or "a scientifically untrained Journalist?" Can you point to any errors or deceptions in his posting? When I read his posting, I thought it was entirely reasonable, and could not detect any bias, distortion,  or imbalance.

 

You can start here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

 

# Thank you. Good posting.

Basically, the CERN/CLOUD paper is good serious science but it in no way demonstrates that "climate change is really due to cosmic rays" or anything of the kind. 

 

# Agreed.. Kirkby was very clear in making this point. However, it does indeed reasonably open the door to this being a possibility.

 

 There is a lot of work still to be done before the size of the effect of cosmic ray driven nucleation can be assessed. 

 

# Agreed..

 

It does nothing to eliminate the vast body of quantitative evidence, in multiple streams, pointing to anthropogenic carbon dioxide (together with a handful of other less significant emissions) as the principal cause of present-day climate change.

 

# Agreed.. That was not its purpose. However, it does reasonably open the door to the possibility that phenomenon other than Anthropogenic Carbon is the sole cause of present day climate change. Note that you seem to have a "double standard" here...  you accept that it is sufficient for evidence to merely point to anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of climate change, yet you require thet CERN/CLOUD actually demonstrate the connection. I would like to point out that if "The Believers" could actually demonstrate the connection between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change, there would be no need for "Consensus Science." The facts would stand on their own merit, and they could base tehir position on real science.

 

  And it does nothing to explain the shape of the current warming trend, which does not follow solar cycles.

 

# The following URL shows a presentation by Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI where he presents a very reasonable case for the Sun being responsible for Global Warming. Do you see any basic flaws in it?

There is a reason for the present consensus among climatologists, and that is that the data are both convincing and consistent with well-established theory. 

 

# "When the only tool you have is a hammer, the only problem you see is nails." :-) As I understand it, a key directive in the mandate of the IPCC was

"... to determine if there is a connection between global warming and anthropogenic activity..." The IPCC excluded the possibility of natural causes being responsible for global warming.

 

This doesn't stop climatologists from taking seriously good science which breaks new ground in related areas (like the CERN/CLOUD process).  But it does prevent them from suddenly jumping ship to back Svensmark's highly speculative theory, which still has no serious data to support it.

 

# Why are "The Believers" so reluctant to leave their minds open to such good science, and where it could possibly lead?

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

Mark



On 2011:09:01 07:28, Kevin wrote:

 

Dear Erich

 

I am disappointed that you would brush off the CERN work with shallow insults that evade the issue. Such shallowness is very unscientific and unprofessional. You seek to stick blindly with your present beliefs, rather than checking whether alternative possibilities tend to support or refute them.

 

I am indeed amused with the general thrust of your reply, that follows the initial shallow and evasive insults!  The thrust of your comments is that the aerosols are a result of Anthropogenic Pollution. What ever happened to Anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of Global Climate Change??? :-) Your approach is just like that adopted by the US Government when they couldn't find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq... they then had to continue with the War, because Saddam was a bad man who violated the Rights of the Iraqi People. :-) Now that you have relegated anthropogenic CO2 to a minor position in AGW, in favor of anthropogenic aerosols and air pollution, perhaps you should abandon biochar (charcoal in soil) and shift your efforts to "Aerochar" (activated charcoal dispersed in the upper atmosphere, from great big balloons filled with hydrogen made by windpower, to absorb all the anthropogenic pollutants that are causing the aerosols ultimately responsible for Global Climate Change. :-)

 

I am profoundly amused by your last statement:

" It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation."

 

Two points come to mind:

1: What you are saying is basically: "We don't have the solar and earth sensing tools to assess the climate situation, and as a consequence, we don't know what in the world we are talking about."

2: If there is no funding to provide such tools, it is probably because all the available money was spent by those seeking to justify Anthropogenic Carbon Based Global Warming. :-)

 

Shallow insults degrade the Biochar Lists. Consensus science (one of the greatest oxymorons of all time!), bluster, shifting justifications, and shallow insults are the refuge of those whose basic thesis is on shaky ground. If you want to "hit me where it hurts," and advance your cause, then provide truth, fact, logic, and science to support your "Believer Views and speculative opinions".

 

Kevin Chisholm

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Erich Knight

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:36 AM

Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Thanks Back 40 for the reasoned account, verses the denier's gleeful reportage that Kevin cited, again with glee.
IOP has a balanced report also;

Probing the cosmic-ray–climate link

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46965

I see no reason that this work refutes human climate control. The paper introduces a new independent variable: the role of ammonia vapor in nucleation, and we all know how man, for the past 100 years has padded the nitrogen cycle with our wasteful production & use. along with land use changes.

The space weather connection has recently been shown for lightening initiation, cosmic rays have a significant influence
So this is all good grist for the modeler's mill, but before we can assign the appropriate weights on the aerosols/nucleation effects many more chemical questions need answers.
 
This recent research on man's effects on  aerosols by Lina Mercado of the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, presents a double-bind, in that , as aerosols are reduced, less diffusion of light reduces photosynthesis,(drawing down 20% less CO2 into biomass).  Again, only a carbon negative system like biochar can address this added CO2 burden caused by this double-bind of clean air.
http://physicsworld..com/cws/article/news/38777

When we can see the temperature difference from the 3 day hiatus of air travel after 9/11, how can anyone say man has no effect on the climate?
It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation.

Erich


On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, back40 <back40@...> wrote:

 

see discussion

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/28/cosmic-ray-discussion-thread/

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Kevin <kchisholm@...> wrote:

 

.Following is an interesting Article:

> http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
> How cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
> Increased solar activity reduces terrestrial cosmic rays & effects
> climate?
>
It seems to clearly address the question: "Is Global Warming caused by
atmospheric
CO2 resulting from anthropogenic activity?" with the answer:
"No, it is the Sun, stupid."

It thus appears that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its
ardent "believers" were very wrong in misdirecting billions of dollars into
wasteful areas. Their "Consensus Science" now appears to have been self
serving and to
be shown as "non-science." We would hope that "AGW Believers" will now act
on the truths revealed by "Real Science."

This Article, and its Reference Papers, would appear to have major
implications for biochar as follows:
1: It would appear unlikely that carbon credits will be available to help
justify production of biochar.
2: It would appear that the future of biochar will now rise or fall on its
benefits, or lack thereof, directly to the Farmer or Grower actually using
biochar.

Biochar Producers, and Stove Systems that were counting on carbon credits
for their viability will be at risk, to the extent that they needed carbon
credit payments for their viability.

Hopefully, the fall-out from the CERN Paper will lead to:
1: Focus on methods and procedures where the use of biochar will give direct
benefits to the Farmer and Grower, and where there is a sensible return on
the investment in biochar.
2: Focus on stove systems that burn all biomass fuels fed to them cleanly
and efficiently, except in the case where charcoal production is desired
because it has a higher value as biochar, or for resale as a fuel.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

--
Regards,
Gary Jones

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3868 - Release Date: 08/30/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3869 - Release Date: 08/31/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3871 - Release Date: 09/01/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3880 - Release Date: 09/06/11

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd

To: Kevin

Cc: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 2:25 AM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Sorry, Kevin, I missed the beginning of the thread so did not realize that Calder was your reference.

# The Calder Article
I do not know Calder's political views, neither do I know what discipline he trained in (I suspect he got a physics degree back in the 50s then went straight into science journalism), but his willingness to associate himself with the notorious (and politically-motivated) Channel 4 propaganda documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", suggests that his approach is far from scientific on these matters.  And I find this view strengthened when I read what he has to say about the CERN/CLOUD paper.  First the sensationalist subtitle to the article, which is not justified by the CERN/CLOUD contents.  Then the rant about "political correctness", description of Nature as "the warmists' house magazine", unsubstantiated attacks on mainstream science as "sketchy and poorly modelled", and the clear emotional attachment to the Svensmark hypothesis.  He's not approaching this as sincere scientific endeavour but as a grudge match.  If you couldn't detect any bias or imbalance in this article then you need to send your biasometer in for servicing.

Nobody in the scientific community is claiming that "anthropogenic carbon is the sole cause of present day climate change".  Solar forcing, for example, is included in the models.  It's just that it proves to be insufficient to explain the data, and indeed the trend has been in the wrong direction in recent decades.  Likewise, sulphate aerosols, El Nino effects, volcanoes, etc are also included in the models.  I hope that it will soon be possible to also include cosmic rays, but, as the Real Climate article points out, there are several pieces of work that have to be done before that is possible.  I understand that Kirkby's team have a planned programme of research for the next 5 years which will address at least some of the issues.

I have not had time to watch the Shaviv youtube.  I will attempt to do so in due course.  But there is an important point which you have disregarded (and I will be interested to see if Shaviv has too) - the place where the Svensmark theory really falls down (or at least would require probably a complex series of ad hoc hypotheses to bolster it) is that there is no correlation between cosmic ray intensity and global mean surface temperature over the last 30 years of climate change.  Whereas there is a very clear correlation with anthropogenic emissions of known greenhouse gases.

You appear to fail to understand the function of the IPCC, which is primarily to prepare summary reports on existing scientific work relevant to climate change.  It does not set scientific policy.  It does not direct research programmes.  It merely tells governments, and the rest of us, where the science has got to in these crucial areas of research.  Trying to enforce consensus among the sort of serious scientists who work in climatology is like trying to herd cats - with these people consensus comes only when they are convinced by the evidence, not when they are told what to think.  Scientists make a name for themselves by discovering new stuff, and an even bigger name by overturning existing accepted wisdom.  Hence I find your reference to "the believers" utterly unjustified.  Especially just after you accused Erich of "shallow insults".

Mark



On 2011:09:01 11:30, Kevin wrote:

Dear Mark

----- Original Message -----

From: Mark Bigland-Pritchard / Low Energy Design Ltd

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Kevin ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:29 PM

Subject: Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

Kevin, I suggest that you read a scientific appraisal of the paper rather than the outpourings of rightwing bloggers or scientifically-untrained journalists. 

 

# I started this thread with a reference to:

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
Are you suggesting that Nigel Calder is either a "right wing blogger" or "a scientifically untrained Journalist?" Can you point to any errors or deceptions in his posting? When I read his posting, I thought it was entirely reasonable, and could not detect any bias, distortion,  or imbalance.

 

You can start here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

 

# Thank you. Good posting.

Basically, the CERN/CLOUD paper is good serious science but it in no way demonstrates that "climate change is really due to cosmic rays" or anything of the kind. 

 

# Agreed. Kirkby was very clear in making this point. However, it does indeed reasonably open the door to this being a possibility.

 

 There is a lot of work still to be done before the size of the effect of cosmic ray driven nucleation can be assessed. 

 

# Agreed.

 

It does nothing to eliminate the vast body of quantitative evidence, in multiple streams, pointing to anthropogenic carbon dioxide (together with a handful of other less significant emissions) as the principal cause of present-day climate change.

 

# Agreed. That was not its purpose. However, it does reasonably open the door to the possibility that phenomenon other than Anthropogenic Carbon is the sole cause of present day climate change. Note that you seem to have a "double standard" here...  you accept that it is sufficient for evidence to merely point to anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of climate change, yet you require thet CERN/CLOUD actually demonstrate the connection. I would like to point out that if "The Believers" could actually demonstrate the connection between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change, there would be no need for "Consensus Science." The facts would stand on their own merit, and they could base tehir position on real science.

 

  And it does nothing to explain the shape of the current warming trend, which does not follow solar cycles.

 

# The following URL shows a presentation by Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI where he presents a very reasonable case for the Sun being responsible for Global Warming. Do you see any basic flaws in it?

There is a reason for the present consensus among climatologists, and that is that the data are both convincing and consistent with well-established theory. 

 

# "When the only tool you have is a hammer, the only problem you see is nails." :-) As I understand it, a key directive in the mandate of the IPCC was

"... to determine if there is a connection between global warming and anthropogenic activity..." The IPCC excluded the possibility of natural causes being responsible for global warming.

 

This doesn't stop climatologists from taking seriously good science which breaks new ground in related areas (like the CERN/CLOUD process).  But it does prevent them from suddenly jumping ship to back Svensmark's highly speculative theory, which still has no serious data to support it.

 

# Why are "The Believers" so reluctant to leave their minds open to such good science, and where it could possibly lead?

 

Best wishes,

 

Kevin

Mark



On 2011:09:01 07:28, Kevin wrote:

 

Dear Erich

 

I am disappointed that you would brush off the CERN work with shallow insults that evade the issue. Such shallowness is very unscientific and unprofessional. You seek to stick blindly with your present beliefs, rather than checking whether alternative possibilities tend to support or refute them.

 

I am indeed amused with the general thrust of your reply, that follows the initial shallow and evasive insults!  The thrust of your comments is that the aerosols are a result of Anthropogenic Pollution. What ever happened to Anthropogenic CO2 as being the cause of Global Climate Change??? :-) Your approach is just like that adopted by the US Government when they couldn't find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq... they then had to continue with the War, because Saddam was a bad man who violated the Rights of the Iraqi People. :-) Now that you have relegated anthropogenic CO2 to a minor position in AGW, in favor of anthropogenic aerosols and air pollution, perhaps you should abandon biochar (charcoal in soil) and shift your efforts to "Aerochar" (activated charcoal dispersed in the upper atmosphere, from great big balloons filled with hydrogen made by windpower, to absorb all the anthropogenic pollutants that are causing the aerosols ultimately responsible for Global Climate Change. :-)

 

I am profoundly amused by your last statement:

" It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation."

 

Two points come to mind:

1: What you are saying is basically: "We don't have the solar and earth sensing tools to assess the climate situation, and as a consequence, we don't know what in the world we are talking about."

2: If there is no funding to provide such tools, it is probably because all the available money was spent by those seeking to justify Anthropogenic Carbon Based Global Warming. :-)

 

Shallow insults degrade the Biochar Lists. Consensus science (one of the greatest oxymorons of all time!), bluster, shifting justifications, and shallow insults are the refuge of those whose basic thesis is on shaky ground. If you want to "hit me where it hurts," and advance your cause, then provide truth, fact, logic, and science to support your "Believer Views and speculative opinions".

 

Kevin Chisholm

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Erich Knight

To: biochar@yahoogroups.com ; biochar-policy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:36 AM

Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [biochar] Fw: Interesting link re.global warming.

 

Thanks Back 40 for the reasoned account, verses the denier's gleeful reportage that Kevin cited, again with glee.
IOP has a balanced report also;

Probing the cosmic-ray–climate link

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46965

I see no reason that this work refutes human climate control. The paper introduces a new independent variable: the role of ammonia vapor in nucleation, and we all know how man, for the past 100 years has padded the nitrogen cycle with our wasteful production & use. along with land use changes.

The space weather connection has recently been shown for lightening initiation, cosmic rays have a significant influence
So this is all good grist for the modeler's mill, but before we can assign the appropriate weights on the aerosols/nucleation effects many more chemical questions need answers.
 
This recent research on man's effects on  aerosols by Lina Mercado of the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, presents a double-bind, in that , as aerosols are reduced, less diffusion of light reduces photosynthesis,(drawing down 20% less CO2 into biomass).  Again, only a carbon negative system like biochar can address this added CO2 burden caused by this double-bind of clean air.
http://physicsworld..com/cws/article/news/38777

When we can see the temperature difference from the 3 day hiatus of air travel after 9/11, how can anyone say man has no effect on the climate?
It's Kevin's congressional colleagues that have denied us the solar and earth sensing tools to have real time data to assess our climatic situation.

Erich


On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, back40 <back40@...> wrote:

 

see discussion

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/28/cosmic-ray-discussion-thread/

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Kevin <kchisholm@...> wrote:

 

.Following is an interesting Article:

> http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
> How cosmic rays affect cloud formation.
> Increased solar activity reduces terrestrial cosmic rays & effects
> climate?
>
It seems to clearly address the question: "Is Global Warming caused by
atmospheric
CO2 resulting from anthropogenic activity?" with the answer:
"No, it is the Sun, stupid."

It thus appears that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its
ardent "believers" were very wrong in misdirecting billions of dollars into
wasteful areas. Their "Consensus Science" now appears to have been self
serving and to
be shown as "non-science." We would hope that "AGW Believers" will now act
on the truths revealed by "Real Science."

This Article, and its Reference Papers, would appear to have major
implications for biochar as follows:
1: It would appear unlikely that carbon credits will be available to help
justify production of biochar.
2: It would appear that the future of biochar will now rise or fall on its
benefits, or lack thereof, directly to the Farmer or Grower actually using
biochar.

Biochar Producers, and Stove Systems that were counting on carbon credits
for their viability will be at risk, to the extent that they needed carbon
credit payments for their viability.

Hopefully, the fall-out from the CERN Paper will lead to:
1: Focus on methods and procedures where the use of biochar will give direct
benefits to the Farmer and Grower, and where there is a sensible return on
the investment in biochar.
2: Focus on stove systems that burn all biomass fuels fed to them cleanly
and efficiently, except in the case where charcoal production is desired
because it has a higher value as biochar, or for resale as a fuel.

Best wishes,

Kevin Chisholm

--
Regards,
Gary Jones

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3868 - Release Date: 08/30/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3869 - Release Date: 08/31/11

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3880 - Release Date: 09/06/11