"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

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

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?

CO2 is only one of the infra-red absorbing gases in the atmosphere. Methane
CH4 is another and is a stronger absorber than CO2, but the most abundant
and most effective is water vapour. Even moreso when it condenses into
clouds.

There is a natural CO2 cycle, which involves its conversion by vegetation
into Oxygen and organic material, by photosynthesis. The more CO2 there is
in the atmosphere, the more this reaction can proceed. The CO2 also
dissolves in water falling as rain, as a further part of this cycle, and
some will be absorbed by the oceans, in turn to be taken up by shellfish to
help make their shells. It's all to do with reaction equilibrium. Have a
look at
http://www.metoffice.com/research/ha...cle/index.html
for more information.

Venus is irrelevant in this context.
--
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/

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

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?

Are you unable to answer this question? If not, please do.

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?

CO2 is only one of the infra-red absorbing gases in the atmosphere.
Methane
CH4 is another and is a stronger absorber than CO2, but the most abundant
and most effective is water vapour. Even moreso when it condenses into
clouds.

There is a natural CO2 cycle, which involves its conversion by vegetation
into Oxygen and organic material, by photosynthesis. The more CO2 there is
in the atmosphere, the more this reaction can proceed. The CO2 also
dissolves in water falling as rain, as a further part of this cycle, and
some will be absorbed by the oceans, in turn to be taken up by shellfish
to
help make their shells. It's all to do with reaction equilibrium. Have a
look at

http://www.metoffice.com/research/ha...ycle/index.htm
l
for more information.

Venus is irrelevant in this context.

Why?

John

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

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

Are you unable to answer this question? If not, please do.

The answer was given in another post. See
http://dmiweb.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterr.../welcome.shtml
--
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/

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

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

Are you unable to answer this question? If not, please do.

The answer was given in another post. See
http://dmiweb.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterr.../welcome.shtml

The URL you give contradicts what you say!

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

"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" (Your ref above)

So now I am confused. What do you in fact believe? What you said above? Or
what your reference said?

John

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

The answer was given in another post. See
http://dmiweb.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterr.../welcome.shtml

The URL you give contradicts what you say!

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

"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" (Your ref above)

So now I am confused. What do you in fact believe? What you said above? Or
what your reference said?

Did you look at the first graph on the page, and read what it says about it?

They don't know why there is a recent divergence. They are postulating.
Man-made additions to the CO2 in the atmosphere did not suddenly start in
the 1980s.
--
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/

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

The answer was given in another post. See
http://dmiweb.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterr.../welcome.shtml

The URL you give contradicts what you say!

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

"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" (Your ref above)

So now I am confused. What do you in fact believe? What you said above?
Or
what your reference said?

Did you look at the first graph on the page, and read what it says about
it?

I looked at both graphs and the accompanying story, a few months ago in the
New Scientist, and again yesterday. Neither supports what you are trying to
make it support.

They don't know why there is a recent divergence. They are postulating.
Man-made additions to the CO2 in the atmosphere did not suddenly start in
the 1980s.

Indeed not.

If the scientific mainstream (say 9 out of 10 scientists who study this kind
of thing for a living), and also the article *you* chose to highlight your
argument, both disagree with you, please do tell why your opinion is
nonetheless right.

John

"Terry Harper" wrote in message ...
CO2 is only one of the infra-red absorbing gases in the atmosphere. Methane
CH4 is another and is a stronger absorber than CO2, but the most abundant
and most effective is water vapour. Even moreso when it condenses into
clouds.

Waters influence on climate varies depending on where it is and what
state its in eg stratosphere or troposhere , ice crystals or droplets.
CO2s influence is contstant. As for methane it reacts with O2 fairly quickly
and is converted into C02 so its long term impact on climate is not that
important.


There is a natural CO2 cycle, which involves its conversion by vegetation
into Oxygen and organic material, by photosynthesis. The more CO2 there is
in the atmosphere, the more this reaction can proceed. The CO2 also

It may well speed up but not necessarily at the same rate and this is
obvious given that C02 levels are rising. PLus man cutting down whole swathes
of vegetation that could mop up this extra CO2 doesn't help.

dissolves in water falling as rain, as a further part of this cycle, and
some will be absorbed by the oceans, in turn to be taken up by shellfish to
help make their shells. It's all to do with reaction equilibrium. Have a
look at
http://www.metoffice.com/research/ha...cle/index.html
for more information.

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.

B2003

"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/

"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