Sue McNaughton wrote in message ...
In article , Paul Weaver
writes
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:51:49 +0000, Al wrote:

ISTR that global temperature, while at the upper end of its range over the
last however many millions of years, remains in territory already seen in
nature.

Nowhere near the Jurassic era. And besides, I wouldn't like another ice
age, would you?

Thirty years ago, we were being promised one, which should have started
about four years ago.

Promised? That's a bit strong. There was some speculation based on
trends, but no science.

Global warming is based on a strong analysis of trends and a lot of
science. The halting of the Atlantic Conveyor is more speculative, but
certainly a worry.

On 20 Aug 2004 01:32:14 -0700, (Alex Terrell) wrote:

Colin McKenzie wrote in message ...
David Chorley wrote:
This, incidentally, is why "global warming through increased levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" was thought up as it is hogwash as
basic science and undisproveable, as it is unproveable.

If global warming is happening, it's a far more serious problem for
humanity than Islamic terrorism. Yet our politicians seem much more
exercised about the latter.

As to the theory, like all theories it cannot be proved 100%. But we
have warming, we have increased CO2, and we have a credible theory to
connect the two. Until a better theory comes along, intelligent people
without vested interests accept the hypothesis.

Colin McKenzie

Firstly, Global warming is happening, beyond reasonable doubt. It is
also beyond reasonable doubt that the chief cause of this is human
production of CO2.


Bull****, correlation != causation.
--
Es ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

You sound like a knowledgeable bloke, but if global warming is hokum, why
does New Scientist tell me it's real? Is this to do with research grants,
like the asteroids heading towards the Earth that the astronomers find
whenever they are trying to get increases in funding?

Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

David Chorley wrote:

Matthew Wild wrote in message
...
David Chorley wrote:

The only interest a politician will have in climate change will be how
to extract more money from the taxpayer and extend control over the
individual.
This, incidentally, is why "global warming through increased levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" was thought up as it is hogwash as
basic science and undisproveable, as it is unproveable.

David

Your evidence for this exactly?

Matthew

1. basic science: the ability of the CO2 molecule to absorb and
re-radiate energy is based on its dipole moment. CO2 is a linear
molecule with, at best a temporarily induced dipole moment, unlike
water, which with its unshared pair of electrons has a huge dipole
moment and is a very effective greenhouse gas. Witness the change in
temperature on a cloudy night, when the clouds clear and energy is not
re-radiated back to the ground. A change in the concentration of
carbon dioxide would have to be huge to perform this degree of effect.

The change in concentration has been huge. IIRC, the levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere now are higher than they were when the dinosaurs were around.

2. Paeleontology.
The records of prehistoric London show a savannah-like climate with
species much more like East Africa as recently as 10000 years ago, not
so long ago that continental drift would have much of an effect (
1000years/metre)

Not quite sure what this is meant to prove.

3. The data set is too small: a sample of 200 years, notwithstanding
inferences made from ice cores, is just too small to make predictions.

The correlations of data from ice cores are pretty good and provide a good
idea of the changes over thousands of years.

4 the hypothesis makes no accounting for changes in solar radiation
and sunspot activity.

This is absolutely wrong. Work, we and others, have done, shows that changes
in solar radiation would account for less than 50% of the change in global
climate change. Also, climate change has been accelerating over the last
50-60 years. The sun hasn't been changing that much on such a timescale and
the link between sunspots and climate is incredibly tenuous.

HTH

David

Oklahoma, USA has undergone its coolest summer since records began...
therefore we are subject to global cooling.

And due to global warming, the UK will get generally warmer, but also a lot
wetter and more changeable to the extremes. As the globe warms, it will
different effects in different locations as the prevailing weather patterns
change.

Matthew
--
Matthew Wild Tel.: +44 (0)1235 445173
URL http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/
World Data Centre - Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Chilton
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX

In article , David
Chorley wrote:

Oklahoma, USA has undergone its coolest summer since records began...
therefore we are subject to global cooling.

Therefore Oklahoma is subject to local cooling, not global cooling.
AIUI global warming doesn't mean that everywhere will get (or has got)
warmer but that the average temperature will rise.

Sam

Terry Harper wrote:

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

You sound like a knowledgeable bloke, but if global warming is hokum, why
does New Scientist tell me it's real? Is this to do with research grants,
like the asteroids heading towards the Earth that the astronomers find
whenever they are trying to get increases in funding?

Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made.

It's not entirely natural. The rate of change has been increasing over the
last 50-60 years and there is no evidence to suggest that the sun is
changing it's energy supply by that much.

Matthew
--
Matthew Wild Tel.: +44 (0)1235 445173
URL http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/
World Data Centre - Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Chilton
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX

David Hansen wrote:

of energy conservation is the actions of Luddites. FYI the Luddites
objected to progress, which is precisely not what greens are doing.

The Luddites were simply looking after their own interests. They
objected to their loss of income, caused by unapprenticed labour
replacing a skilled workforce. That this change was enabled by
technology was, in the main, irrelevent. Taken against the backdrop
of food shortages and widespread poverty, it was simply the desperate
actions of a workforce fearing for their livelihood and wanting to
feed their families.

Cheers

mark-r

--
I've got a tin at home that says, "Open other end", it
never is.
-- Humphrey Lyttleton

In message , at 11:32:58 on Fri,
20 Aug 2004, Sam Wilson remarked:
Oklahoma, USA has undergone its coolest summer since records began...
therefore we are subject to global cooling.

Therefore Oklahoma is subject to local cooling, not global cooling.
AIUI global warming doesn't mean that everywhere will get (or has got)
warmer but that the average temperature will rise.

Oklahoma sits on a knife-edge. Depending on the exact combination of
factors they get weather that's either inherited from Canada, or the
Gulf. The temperature can change by 40 degrees in a day, and they've had
record highs and record lows on the same day. Quite a small changes in
the underlying factors are quite capable of altering its climate
permanently.
--
Roland Perry

"Terry Harper" wrote in message ...
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

You sound like a knowledgeable bloke, but if global warming is hokum, why
does New Scientist tell me it's real? Is this to do with research grants,
like the asteroids heading towards the Earth that the astronomers find
whenever they are trying to get increases in funding?

Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made.

Maybe it is , maybe it isn't. But do you care to explain why most climate
experts (which I'm guessing you're not) have a different point of view?
Or are they all part of some conspiracy or just plain deluded?

Also I'd love for people like you to explain how its ok to accept as a fact
that the CO2 in the air keeps the planet warmer than it would otherwise be
but when the CO2 percentage rises , well , that won't make any difference.
Right? Presumably because CO2 has some kind of magical thermal cutoff limit
that means it won't cause anymore warming beyond a certain point no matter how
much of it there is. Right? And the temperature on venus (which has a 99% CO2
atmosphere) is just a one off fluke. Right?

B2003

Greg Hennessy wrote in message . ..
On 20 Aug 2004 01:32:14 -0700, (Alex Terrell) wrote:

Colin McKenzie wrote in message ...
David Chorley wrote:
This, incidentally, is why "global warming through increased levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" was thought up as it is hogwash as
basic science and undisproveable, as it is unproveable.

If global warming is happening, it's a far more serious problem for
humanity than Islamic terrorism. Yet our politicians seem much more
exercised about the latter.

As to the theory, like all theories it cannot be proved 100%. But we
have warming, we have increased CO2, and we have a credible theory to
connect the two. Until a better theory comes along, intelligent people
without vested interests accept the hypothesis.

Colin McKenzie

Firstly, Global warming is happening, beyond reasonable doubt. It is
also beyond reasonable doubt that the chief cause of this is human
production of CO2.


Bull****, correlation != causation.

Since all the activities of humanity do not, cumulatively, equal the
CO2 production of termites, I suggest we eradicate the termite
population.

David.
Global warming happens during daytime, at night global cooling occurs.