Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
N_Cook wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading
at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the
University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine
effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press
about the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over
around UK coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist
crap. Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts.
Those facts, of course, were concerned with the very serious
problem of CO2 being a major influence in global warming.


Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.

**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9%
~ 26% of Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.

Wow 9% to 26%,

**Indeed. Why the fossil fuel lobby regards those figures as insignificant
is beyond me.

and these are the people who supposedly can tell me the
temperature to a fraction of a degree for say 1500AD.

**Certainly. The proxy data used is quite reliable.

You really are dreaming, aren't you? A fraction of a degree? From tree
rings?



Did you ever study thermodynamics?

**Indeed.

There's only a certain amount of
energy available for CO2 to absorb, once that amount is absorbed,
there isn't any additional "forcing". Something normally omitted from
the popular press articles.

**Not quite. I suggest you hit the text books again.

Oh, now we're creating energy through ordinary non-nuclear processes?




Of course there's not much you can do about water vapor, why do you
think they've focussed on CO2.

**Because CO2 is:
* The problem we need to deal with.
* The problem we CAN deal with.
* A very stable molecule (unlike water vapour), which can persist for
hundreds of years in the atmosphere (unlike water vapour).

Except that water vapor is *constantly* being added to the
atmosphere in huge quantities. Much larger quantities than CO2.


Even the most idiotic enviro-nut
realizes that they'd be laughed into oblivion by proposing to regulate
water vapor.

**No one is suggesting that we should nor could do so. However, 9% ~ 26% of
Solar forcing is a significant figure.

No because *again* they'd be laughed at hysterically by everyone. So
they pick on CO2.



As for reducing CO2 emmisions, you're dreaming. Not without going back
to a much more primitive lifestyle.

**Complete bull****. We already have the technology to significantly reduce
CO2 emissions without significantly affecting lifestyle.

Prove it! Windmills, solar power, all very nice, except what do you do
when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing?




To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that
rising CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.

**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a
little about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And
yes, More CO2 may well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating
the effect.

No, I prefer climastrologists,

**Now you're just displaying your stupidity. Suit yourself. I'll treat you
accordingly.

Given that they're using statistical models to predict the future that
have neither been tested nor validated I believe thay have much more
in common with astrologists that scientists. BTW, another science that
also uses models is economics; note how accurate the economists'
predictions have been recently.


it's a much better description of their
scientific abilities. More water vapor may also lead to more clouds
which tend to relect the sun's energy before it's absorbed.

**Now you're displaying more stupidity. Note your use of the term "may".

The point
is, we don't know, an the scientists who should be researching these
things have turned into advocates for one single point of view.

**There's a good reason for that.

No there's not, not if they expect reasonable people to believe them.





As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.

**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.

Did you read the editorial?

**I rarely read editorials. I am only interested in the science, not
opinions.

It's a vast morass of conspiracy theories.
SA hasn't been about science for at least a decade, it's now about
being politically correct more than about science.

**Prove it.

Go read it.




BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before*
the emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been
pulling
in for their climate research.

**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers
****ed up, with the thousands of researchers who have not?

One instance? Only one instance. My my, you are gullible. Why do you
think the climastrologists don't want to release any of their data and
methodology? Perhaps because most of it is just plain crap?

**Well, no, Mr Moron. The good thing about the whole issue is that
climatologists not only release their data, but they have it subjected to
the usual peer-review processes. That one organisation saw fit to subvert
the process is distressing, but hardly disasterous.

*One* organization. I'd suggest you remove your head from that warm,
moist, noisome place you obviously keep it, clean the brown stuff
from up your nose and smell the coffee.