Q&A asks "Are Keiran's cosmic rays lost?"

I don't have any cosmic rays to lose but I feel you are referring to comments I made some time back about this cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis. i.e.
"One feels that there are always plenty of cosmic rays high in the air, but they and the ions that they liberate are in short supply at low altitudes, so that increases or decreases due to changes in solar magnetism have more noticeable consequences lower down and I suspect at lower latitudes too. Further, as we approach what appears to be an extended solar minimum we are seeing this associated with a cloudy and cooler period across the tropics. This lack of warmth in the ocean will eventually transfer to the high latitudes north and south creating changes."

Whilst I haven't been checking up on the cosmic rays recently you will note we are still in this extended solar minimum and we see plenty of clouds about plus much lower temps north and south from the tropics. La Nina, people call it, but I will just say it is active cloud forcing in accordance with changes in the solar plasma field that varies the cosmic-ray flux, and hence low level cloud cover.

Must say that it is fascinating watching the sun in its present phase which seems somewhat unusually long and speculating on its next one or two cycles. It seems a long cycle 23 here will be followed by a very quiet one. But we just don't know, do we?

*A new climate-modeling study indicates that as the world warms, CO2 will cause more pollution-related deaths, although other forms of air pollution will continue to kill far more people.*

Q&A, a snip from your article. I think this guy is yet another
scientist, riding the CO2 bandwagon. As a teenager in the 70s,
I spent a couple of years living in the city of Paris. Cars were
bumper to bumper in every street. To escape the fumes one would
duck into a bistro somewhere. It was bleeding obvious to me,
that all was not what healthy living was all about. So I moved
to the country eventually. Fact is, if people live in cities and
choke themselves in fumes, yes it will affect them, whatever the
CO2 levels.

Dickie is free to wear out her googlebar, posting more gloom
and doom reports, believing everything as gospel. When questioned
about some of the claims, of course she has no answers. So its
not unreasonable to point that out.

The thing about this whole debate, if people want to get serious,
start with the population issue. Instead, we have people in the
UN blaming cows and their evil manure, rather then where the real
problem lies, more and more people. The UN simply don't have
the balls to deal with it, toothless tiger as they are.

Dickie, I know a lot of “Richards” who are tagged “dickie”, hence I thought you were a bloke! Please accept my sincerest apologies.

Pollution is a consequence of human activity and unfortunately … out’ a sight, out’ a mind. For what its worth, hang in there. Thanks for the links.

Live sheep exports? this is out of my league so I would rather defer to those who know more about it than I. Nevertheless, it is interesting to observe the debate and with time I may have a worthy opinion to make, but not here.

However, I do know something about climate science and here I can have a valid opinion. Incidentally, I agree with Alzo (although he does tend to get his knickers in a knot), *climate science* is very complex.

This is why I find it extremely sad and frustrating that people who have no training in (or understanding of) the science say GW is a “crock”. It goes both ways though – the GW alarmists and Doom-Sayers need to lighten up and undergo a reality check.

I doubt you could find any genuine scientist who would deny GW has occurred over the last 250 years. Where you will find *scientific* debate is; how much is due to human activity (AGW), the rate of GW and, what if anything can we do about it.

As I see it, you have extreme fundamentalists on both sides of the so called debate … but they are driven more by political and/or sociological ideology than the science itself. Of course, you will always have those that deny/delay for the sake of the dollar.

Garnaut’s interim report was to be expected. More important will be the Australian Government’s response to the final report.

Dearest Alzo,

“I am glad you are so aware oh great omnipresent one. Does it make you uncomfortable that ALL measured global warming can be shed in a very short space of time (just months)?”

Short answer … No.
Do you really want me to give you a dissertation on the complexities of climate science on OLO?

Cont’d

Cont’d,

Alzo, I said Climate change is statistically measured over longer time frames … than weather.
And you reply, "Hmmm satellite measurements are from 1979 to 2008 ... not enough decades for you?"

Please don’t distort or take out of context what I said Alzo. The rapid cooling from 2007 to 2008 is weather; it is not climate change. The cooling is unusual and it is large, but it was not unexpected.

So Alzo, you are interested in Anthony Watts website?
Gee, thanks Q&A for linking me to him.

Hi Keiran

Yeah, you are OLO’s resident ‘cone-head’ – no disrespect, that’s our vernacular for cosmic-ray enthusiasts so I was hoping you would pitch in, and well … thought you were lost.

I am looking forward to the coming of Solar Cycle 24 – she’s late is she not?

What do you make of this?

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/sun-blank-again/

As to your "blah, blah and blah …" I still like to call it La Niña.

Seriously, there are many drivers of climate, solar and GCR are but one lot (and what about our dwarf galaxy collision?), GHG-e, volcanoes, M cycles, ENSO (in a big way methinks – but one has to ask … what are driving the ENSO’s?) Yes, complex eh?

Yabby,

You think "this guy is yet another
scientist, riding the CO2 bandwagon."

Maybe, but he does have a point … and he does have a job.

I agree, there is a huge population issue – pun intended.
I think the planet could sustain 9 billion IF the planet lived in a more sustainable way (but that is wishful thinking on my part, as well as the UNFCCC methinks) and probably the point that Garnaut is trying to make.

Like I said to Dickie, it’s not about the science really, it’s about ideology. Sure, “the UN simply doesn’t have the balls” – but guess what, who do you think castrated it? The whole charter needs to be rehashed and both you and I know that isn’t going to happen any time soon with the way the veto (politically/ideologically) system works.

*Maybe, but he does have a point … and he does have a job.*

Well maybe he has a job, because he is riding the CO2 bandwagon.
Lets get real here, 1000 lives is neither here nor there, in
the bigger scheme of things. 100'000 Americans a year shoot
each other, still no gun control.

As to the population story, I was watching a documentary on
CNN, IIRC, (could have been BBC) about Nigerian prostitutes
in Denmark. The journalist, keen as she was, went to Nigeria
to try and understand what was going on. She was kind of shocked,
as on her first day there, four women came up to her and offered
to give her their babies.

A google search revealed this website amongst others:

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/nigeria.html

Clearly these women are being forced to pop out babies, if
they want them or not. It seems, they have little choice.

Until we deal with this kind of thing, its fairly pointless
to be too concerned about CO2 or anything else, as it seems
that nature will sort it all out in the end, the hard way.

Sad but kind of true, IMHO.

"Garnaut’s interim report was to be expected."
I'm not so sure that Kevin Rudd would have expected the extreme measures called for in that report to have materialised.

"The rapid cooling from 2007 to 2008 is weather; it is not climate change. The cooling is unusual and it is large, but it was not unexpected."
I'm glad this cooling was not unexpected and I'm sure not much in this world surprises you. Perhaps you could share with us when you expect the next big cooling phase or even the next La Nina. You may call it weather rather than climate all you like but if the globe sheds the warming accumulated over 100 years in a few months why worry? Do we have to wait another 100 years to get back to the same point of warming we were at in 2005? Are you expecting another major cooling phase within 100 years? If Yes back to square 1.

"Maybe, but he does have a point … and he does have a job."
Or does he have point because he has a job...