Dear Hasbeen,

Why do you keep making out that you are intelligent? Especially after telling all of us that you are a Plastic Engineer.

Altrav if you are looking for an explanation read the next post from me.

GLOBAL WARMING ? BUT IS IT CO2 ?
There has been a week of panic by schoolgirls literaly hysterical about CO2 induced global warming. The claim is made that the science is irrafutable. Many well known scientists in the weather field are not so convinced and are banned from access to once respected web sites.

While all this has been going on, the ground under them has shifted. A not so unknown theory has been given a boost by scientists at a Finish University and at a Japanese university the presentation of papers on the effect of the sun, sunspots, cosmic rays and clouds. Their work does not deny that the earth has warmed, but they deny the part attributed to CO2.

The sun has a cycle of variation of radiation levels. The sunspot activity follows an eleven year cycle and the intensity of the plasma expelled towards the earth varies over a longer cycle of maximum and minimum. These particles & plasma intensify the earths magnetic fields so that over the years the strength of these fields follows a long cycle of about 600 years.

The earth is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays from space. The cosmic rays react with water vapour to form low clouds. However if the earths magnetic field is strong enough the cosmic rays are diverted away from forming clouds. When low clouds form the earth is shaded and heat is reflected from the top of the clouds back into space.

It is the variation in the magnetic field over the complex cycle that causes the variation in cosmic rays and as a result the cloud cover that causes the earth to warm and cool. The result of these variations is a natural cycle of the earth warming and cooling over a cycle of 600 years.

Why is CO2 not a major factor in the warming ? The IPCC models did not take into account the effect of cloud cover or lack of cloud cover. At times of low cloud cover the resulting warming was assumed to be caused the greenhouse effect..

Continued

Continued;
A 1986 analysis of Alpine glaciers concluded that the period AD 100-400 period was significantly warmer than the periods that immediately preceded and followed. Artifacts recovered from the retreating Schnidejoch glacier have been taken as evidence for the Bronze Age, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

During these periods the cloud cover would be comparatively light and the earth was warmer.
In the medieval period around 900 1000 ad the earth was warm and the Vikings settled in Greenland and lived there successfully for some hundreds of years. Then as the earth cooled the living became harder until finally the people left Greenland.

In the 18th century which was a cool time the Thames froze every year and the winter festival was held on the ice. Today 300 years later wine grapes are again being grown in the UK and
the Thames never freezes.

The scientists who developed this hypothesis believe that the highest temperature is now around 1990. Perhaps it is +- 50 years. If this hypothesis is correct the next minimum will arrive in in about 300 years time.

Want to know more ? Here are some links to the authors articles and information on
Mark Svenmark who was the originator of the whole idea in 2012.
http://tinyurl.com/y5lee6uv http://tinyurl.com/y4w8nzzu
htpp://tinyurl.com/y5huzsz5

The above is an interesting new "idea" proposed by teams in two
separate universities. Their papers have been peer reviewed but it is
all very recent in early July. Already it has been attacked by the
usual suspects and accused of being in the pay of the coal industry.
That gets a bit boring but it indicates that those objectors have
read about it and are concerned.

Hey Bazz,

I found the article

Cook, J., et al. 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature', Environmental Research Letters 8 (2), 2013.