"Sam Wilson" wrote in message
...
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.

its not just OK that has been cooler so has Texas.

bf

Alfred Packer wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 20 Aug 2004:


"Sam Wilson" wrote in message
...
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.

its not just OK that has been cooler so has Texas.

And, I am told, Kansas/Missouri
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
(trying out a new .sig to reflect the personality I use in online forums)

On 20 Aug 2004 09:46:45 -0700, (David Chorley)
wrote:


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.


Our kyoto loving chums are exceedingly silent on the issue of wildfires
stretching across several 1000 miles of chinese and indian coalfields.

Wildfires which have an annual CO2 output equivalent to the vehicular
traffic in North America.

greg


--
Es ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein

"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/

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.

"!=" != "not always"

Which bit do you dispute?
1. Human activity is responsible for the unprecendentedly high levels of CO2
2. The high CO2 levels are largely responsible for global warming


For the last 700,000 years, CO2 concentration has varied between 180
and 300ppm.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

In the last 100 years, it has risen from 280 to nearly 400 ppm.

Now I suppose that this unprecedented increase happening over the last
100 years could be a coincidence, and is perhaps nothing to do with
our CO2 production.

But more likely the additional 100 ppm is human production.

"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.

Are you saying:

a. The current CO2 levels are a natural phenomonen. For the last
700,000 years, CO2 concentration has varied between 180 and 300ppm. In
the last 100 years, it has risen from 280 to nearly 400 ppm.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

or,
b. That increased CO2 levels have no impact on climate, and that
something else causes CO2 levels and temperatures to correlate.

On 20 Aug 2004 07:51:53 -0700, (Boltar) wrote:

"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

An additional possible problem is the lack of political will behind
motor car legislation - Only when California decided to do something
about lead in petrol did we decide we should do something as well. We
currently have something over 600% more lead in our systems than our
grandparents (TEL was introduced in about 1923).
The research I read in the 70s on lead (when I worked for a firm using
the stuff) suggested it reduces the cognitive ability and increases
agression in the subject, so we are more stroppy and less smart than
we would otherwise have been.
This is unlikely to help when sorting out the mess.

On 20 Aug 2004 11:46:21 -0700, (Alex Terrell) wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote in message . ..


Which bit do you dispute?
1. Human activity is responsible for the unprecendentedly high levels of CO2

Not proven to be "unprecendentedly high levels"

2. The high CO2 levels are largely responsible for global warming

If that's the case why doesn't Kyoto address *all* sources of CO2.

But more likely the additional 100 ppm is human production.


So what.

Thinly disguised leftists screaming for state control of the means of
production is not a meaningful basis for environmental policy



greg

--
Es ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein

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.

Yes, water is a very effective greenhouse gas, whose levels are not
being changed significantly by human activity. However, levels of other
greenhouse gases like CO2, CH4 and various halocarbon compounds *are*
increasingly significantly - and their contribution to the warming
effect and subsequent inbalance in the CO2 cycle increases temperatures,
increasing the rate of melting of ice on the planet's surface, and thus
increasing concentrations of water in the atmosphere.

I'm not sure of the relevance of dipole moments in this discussion, as
infrared absorption is at the energy level of stretching and bending
vibrations in bonds. The dipole moment of water is more relevant to
microwaves.

The change in concentration of CO2 is around 35% over the last 200
years, which is pretty huge.

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)

Is this meant to prove that climate change is independent of atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations?

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.

What's wrong with inferences from ice cores? They allow a sample of some
420,000 years.

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

Are you telling us that scientists involved in research into global
warming are naive enough not to take into account these kind of phenomena?

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"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.

Global warming and COOLING are natural processes of the Earths cycle.
Tectonic plate shift, volcanic discharge, varying sun output, varying
Earth orbit, varying rotation axis points, the occasional comet/
asteroid hit and our general orbit around the galaxy etc.

Certainly mans minor ****ting on his own doorstep doesn't help but it
is just that - minor.

The thing that really ****es me off is that filth politicians see it
as yet another opportunity to rob even more money off us.

If it is the life and death problem they make out, why aren't they
throwing our billions at solar, hydro, wind, thermo and the new
hydrogen fuel cell development? Why is it left up to some bloke in a
shed?

Personally, I hope it happens faster than they predict. The houses of
parliament flash flooded; preferably during PM's question time. The
worthless parasite *******s.