Global warming (was Boscastle)
 

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

Venus is irrelevant in this context.

Really? I think its highly relevant in that it shows exactly what could
happen if a gunaway greenhouse effect takes hold. Our only saving grace is
that we're 50% further from the sun than venus so if it ever took hold
here
the temperature might only rise to 500K instead of 750K.

Do you know the history of the atmosphere of Venus? Or of Venus itself, for
that matter?
--
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/

Global warming (was Boscastle)
 

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

Your qualifications are not the issue here.

No, your's are.

(sic)

Are they? And here I thought we were talking about climate change...

The reference you provided contradicted the spin you were trying to put
on

The reference I provided indicated that the link between solar activity
and
temperature is very strong. Solar activity has a major effect on climate
change and the correlation is provable over a long term. Solar activity is
a
natural phenomenon..

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...d=LFPJMFNAFDIE

will give you a balanced grounding in recent climate research.

Perhaps you would care to point out which of the many links on that page I
should read to refute the point which I made.

No need, that has already been done. You refuted the point yourself. And now
you seem to have withdrawn the silly thing you said. So no problem.

The recent divergence of
temperature from that predicted is the subject of conjecture at this
stage.
I found nothing to suggest that it is otherwise. The unanswered question
is
whether CO2 level is a result of temperature change or whether it causes
it.

I suspect 'both' is the most likely answer to this.

At this stage, nobody can prove that one way or the other, as all the
debate
shows. The FAQ in your reference indicates that quite admirably.

Indeed it does. I would agree with you that 'nobody can prove it one way or
the other'. I am glad that you have rethought your position since you said
'Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made.' on
the 20th Aug. Glad to have helped you.

John

Global warming (was Boscastle)
 

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Indeed it does. I would agree with you that 'nobody can prove it one way
or
the other'. I am glad that you have rethought your position since you said
'Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made.' on
the 20th Aug. Glad to have helped you.

You obviously don't read what I say, only what you think I say.

Again:

The reference I provided indicated that the link between solar activity and
temperature is very strong. Solar activity has a major effect on climate
change and the correlation is provable over a long term. Solar activity is a
natural phenomenon.

My position stands.
--
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/

Boscastle (global warming)
 

In article , Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On 22 Aug 2004 03:56:34 -0700, (Alex Terrell) wrote:


I've found this is a common response from Americans:

I suggest you check the headers, ...

I don't see a Nationality: header - how are we supposed to check?

Sam

Global warming (was Boscastle)
 

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

Indeed it does. I would agree with you that 'nobody can prove it one way
or
the other'. I am glad that you have rethought your position since you
said
'Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made.'
on
the 20th Aug. Glad to have helped you.

You obviously don't read what I say, only what you think I say.

And you obviously have a reading comprehension problem! Again, from your own
reference,
"While the curves do not match perfectly at any time, they start to diverge
noticeably by the 1980's. We interpret this widening gap as evidence for an
additional influence on the temperature - over and above what the Sun is
causing. We think this is likely to be due to the anthropogenic greenhouse
effect"

Read these words and tell me what *you* think they mean. Take your time...

Again:

The reference I provided indicated that the link between solar activity
and
temperature is very strong. Solar activity has a major effect on climate
change and the correlation is provable over a long term. Solar activity is
a
natural phenomenon.

Oh dear. Well, in the absence of any evidence for your 'position', you are
presumably just going to assert it over and over again? Good luck. Few will
be convinced though...

If it helps, consider that your solar hypothesis says *nothing* about the
effects of human changes to the Earth's atmosphere.

My position stands.

Kind of slouches against the wall rather, beside 'The Holocaust never
happened' and 'NASA faked the moon landing'. A funny place to be but stick
with it if it works for you. It's a free country I suppose.

To coin a phrase, "Duh!"

John

Global warming (was Boscastle)
 

"John Mullen" wrote in message
m...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

And you obviously have a reading comprehension problem! Again, from your
own
reference,
"While the curves do not match perfectly at any time, they start to
diverge
noticeably by the 1980's. We interpret this widening gap as evidence for
an
additional influence on the temperature - over and above what the Sun is
causing. We think this is likely to be due to the anthropogenic greenhouse
effect"

Read these words and tell me what *you* think they mean. Take your time...

Those words refer to the second graph, which is not the one which I was
using to substantiate the evidence, namely that solar activity and climate
change have a strong correlation over a long period. You will note the use
of the words "Think" and "Likely". They don't know.

You come in partway through an exchange, don't read what went before, and
take comments out of context. Time you learnt to do your research properly.
Even better, get it peer-reviewed before you rush into print.
--
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/

Global warming (was Boscastle)
 

"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
m...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

And you obviously have a reading comprehension problem! Again, from your
own
reference,
"While the curves do not match perfectly at any time, they start to
diverge
noticeably by the 1980's. We interpret this widening gap as evidence for
an
additional influence on the temperature - over and above what the Sun is
causing. We think this is likely to be due to the anthropogenic
greenhouse
effect"

Read these words and tell me what *you* think they mean. Take your
time...

Those words refer to the second graph, which is not the one which I was
using to substantiate the evidence, namely that solar activity and climate
change have a strong correlation over a long period. You will note the use
of the words "Think" and "Likely". They don't know.

Absolutely. They don't know. You don't know. I don't know. Neither you nor I
are climate scientists. Most people who are climate scientists believe there
is merit in the Global Warming hypothesis. The 'anthropogenic greenhouse
effect' as the quote above calls it.

There is a group (mainly funded by the oil lobby) who are trying to exploit
this perceived uncertainty to say that (contrary to all observations and
most scientists' beliefs) there is no such thing as GW. You were foolish
enough to write 'Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not
man-made.' on the 20th Aug. This was a foolishness that deserved to be
challenged. I have challenged it.

Unless you have anything of substance to support your claim (but as you
haven't repeated it recently I am beginning to think you have withdrawn from
the rather silly position you seemed to be taking anyway!), do not feel you
need to add more to this thread.

John

Global warming (was Boscastle)
 

"Terry Harper" wrote in message ...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

Venus is irrelevant in this context.

Really? I think its highly relevant in that it shows exactly what could
happen if a gunaway greenhouse effect takes hold. Our only saving grace is
that we're 50% further from the sun than venus so if it ever took hold
here
the temperature might only rise to 500K instead of 750K.

Do you know the history of the atmosphere of Venus? Or of Venus itself, for
that matter?

I know what I've read. The general consensus seems to be that billions of
years ago it had large amounts of water but also large amounts of CO2. The
CO2 heated the planet up beyond the boiling point of water despite the sun
being weaker then and the rest is history. Anyway , this is getting way off
topic. The point is more CO2 = more heat trapped. Thats simple physics and
you cannot argue your way out of it.

B2003

Global warming (was Boscastle)
 

Terry Harper wrote:

"John Mullen" wrote in message
m...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

And you obviously have a reading comprehension problem! Again, from your
own
reference,
"While the curves do not match perfectly at any time, they start to
diverge
noticeably by the 1980's. We interpret this widening gap as evidence for
an
additional influence on the temperature - over and above what the Sun is
causing. We think this is likely to be due to the anthropogenic
greenhouse effect"

Read these words and tell me what *you* think they mean. Take your
time...

Those words refer to the second graph, which is not the one which I was
using to substantiate the evidence, namely that solar activity and climate
change have a strong correlation over a long period. You will note the use
of the words "Think" and "Likely". They don't know.

You come in partway through an exchange, don't read what went before, and
take comments out of context. Time you learnt to do your research
properly. Even better, get it peer-reviewed before you rush into print.

But have you done your research thoroughly enough, or have you just stopped
at the one that supports your view of the world? There are quite a few
papers that follow the Danish one and suggest that the suns influence is
not as strong as they suggest, particularly over the last 100 years.

I don't have all the references to hand at the moment, but you could start
with
A Doubling of the Sun's Coronal Magnetic Field during the Last 100 Years, M.
Lockwood, R. Stamper, and M.N. Wild, NATURE Vol. 399, 3 June 1999. Pages
437-439;
Long-term drift of the coronal source magnetic flux and the total solar
irradiance, M. Lockwood and R. Stamper, GRL 1999;
The eclipse work of Davis and Clarke.

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

Global warming (was Boscastle)
 

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

Those words refer to the second graph, which is not the one which I was
using to substantiate the evidence, namely that solar activity and
climate
change have a strong correlation over a long period. You will note the
use
of the words "Think" and "Likely". They don't know.

Absolutely. They don't know. You don't know. I don't know. Neither you nor
I
are climate scientists. Most people who are climate scientists believe
there
is merit in the Global Warming hypothesis. The 'anthropogenic greenhouse
effect' as the quote above calls it.

There is a group (mainly funded by the oil lobby) who are trying to
exploit
this perceived uncertainty to say that (contrary to all observations and
most scientists' beliefs) there is no such thing as GW. You were foolish
enough to write 'Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon,
not
man-made.' on the 20th Aug. This was a foolishness that deserved to be
challenged. I have challenged it.

Unless you have anything of substance to support your claim (but as you
haven't repeated it recently I am beginning to think you have withdrawn
from
the rather silly position you seemed to be taking anyway!), do not feel
you
need to add more to this thread.

I haven't withdrawn from my view, supported by the evidence, that there is a
very strong correlation between solar activity and climate change. I also
note that so-far unexplained deviation from the expected in the second
graph. I have my own views about what the causes might be, which could be
something that started (or began to cease) around the 1980s. Read into that
what you will.
--
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/