Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:13:14 +0100 Rod wrote :
The only time I sent a container, the damn ship ran aground.

Thank you for your words of encouragement g

Well it was coming to the UK - via Hamburg. Maybe they are better leaving?

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Andy Champ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Its all bollox. To reduce carbon footprint, make carbon expensive. Its
that simple,. People, when faced with huge bills, will naturally find
out 'what works' to reduce them.


How is that going to justify all the civil servants?

They could have done that for fuel, instead of the 16 (or whatever)
sorts of road tax.

Andy
Precisely.

In message , Rod
writes
Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:13:14 +0100 Rod wrote :
The only time I sent a container, the damn ship ran aground.
Thank you for your words of encouragement g

Well it was coming to the UK - via Hamburg. Maybe they are better
leaving?

Must have been driving on the wrong side - auslaender eh ?

--
geoff

ARWadworth wrote:

So all in all, Action CO2 calculator is a pile of crap IMHO.

....and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

However, the dear old Beeb, always keen to support government policies
when they involve raising taxes for spurious reasons like this, showed
a programme on Sunday night(?) that tried to debunk the CO2-debunkers.
It 'answered' the 'sunspot' thing by saying that as sunspot activity
'blew away' the cosmic rays that promote cloud formation (which cools
down the planet), sunspots had nothing to with climate change!

So now we know.....we need to control cosmic rays. New tax, anyone?

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:27:44 +0100, Terry Fields wrote:

ARWadworth wrote:

So all in all, Action CO2 calculator is a pile of crap IMHO.

...and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

However, the dear old Beeb, always keen to support government policies
when they involve raising taxes for spurious reasons like this, showed
a programme on Sunday night(?) that tried to debunk the CO2-debunkers.
It 'answered' the 'sunspot' thing by saying that as sunspot activity
'blew away' the cosmic rays that promote cloud formation (which cools
down the planet), sunspots had nothing to with climate change!

So now we know.....we need to control cosmic rays. New tax, anyone?

Another astronomical tax?

Don.

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

....and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

So you believe that the greenhouse effect is nonexistant?

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

If the greenhouse effect is real, and it has been accepted as fact for
over a century, then whether or not CO2 concentrations tend to lag or
lead is an interesting side issue.

There is a rational explanation for the lag, if it really does exist, in
that some of the extra CO2 is expelled from the sea as sea temperatures
rise and the sea is such a huge heat sink that it lags years behind
atmospheric temperature trends.

--
Roger Chapman

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...

ARWadworth wrote:

So all in all, Action CO2 calculator is a pile of crap IMHO.

...and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

However, the dear old Beeb, always keen to support government policies
when they involve raising taxes for spurious reasons like this, showed
a programme on Sunday night(?) that tried to debunk the CO2-debunkers.
It 'answered' the 'sunspot' thing by saying that as sunspot activity
'blew away' the cosmic rays that promote cloud formation (which cools
down the planet), sunspots had nothing to with climate change!

Well if they said that then the BBC is talking cr@p.
Cosmic rays are high energy particles that solar wind has no effect on.
The damn things are travelling so fast they penetrate deeply into the
atmosphere where solar wind doesn't reach.
If that is the basis they are discounting the cosmic ray effect on they need
to think again.
I will have to get iPlayer out and view the program to see what other lies
they are telling the gullible.

Roger wrote:
The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

....and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

So you believe that the greenhouse effect is nonexistant?

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

If the greenhouse effect is real, and it has been accepted as fact for
over a century, then whether or not CO2 concentrations tend to lag or
lead is an interesting side issue.

There is a rational explanation for the lag, if it really does exist, in
that some of the extra CO2 is expelled from the sea as sea temperatures
rise and the sea is such a huge heat sink that it lags years behind
atmospheric temperature trends.

The more frighetning thing is that CO2 appears to be both a cause and an
effect, of global warming: I.e. you have a nice positive feedback system
that can 'flip' the climate between a high CO2/low CO2 regime, depending
on what is stored in the oceans.

Hitherto, its probably been volcanic activity or sunspot driven: now
its fossil fuel driven.

There is an interesting balance also between coal burning and warming,
in that the short term effect of coal burning is to put up particulates
that cool the atmosphe its when you stop burning coal because of acid
rain etc, and fit exhaust catalysers to cars, that you suddenly get a
rise in temperatures. China is now burning more coal than ever..

The poles are the place that receive the least sunlight, but have the
same radiation poetntial..they are the heats sinks of the world.
Reduction in radiation from the poles by CO@ blanketing leads to rapidly
risng polar temperatures.

We are seeing rapidly rising polar temperatures.

Its probably far far too late to stop CO2 generated global warming though.

What is needed is a way to generate the massive amounts of energy we
will need to deal with its effects. An that isnt going to be
photovoltaics or windmills.

The message
from Huge contains these words:

from Terry Fields contains these words:

....and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

So you believe that the greenhouse effect is nonexistent?

Why are you conflating the greenhouse effect with global warming?
Could it be
that you are seeking to mislead? Or are you merely an idiot?

If you think you have a case why not make it instead of demonstrating
your penchant for meaningless insults.

Terry linked CO2 with global warming and the link is clearly the
greenhouse effect.

--
Roger Chapman

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "R D S" saying
something like:

Our 2 person household is 7.41 against a national average of 9.96 tonnes per
year.

1.39 tonnes for a 5-bed fully insulated detached house with various heat
inputs and free biomass.
At least, when it's completed...
Right now, it's considerably more than that.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House

dennis@home wrote:



"Terry Fields" wrote in message
.. .

ARWadworth wrote:

So all in all, Action CO2 calculator is a pile of crap IMHO.

...and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

However, the dear old Beeb, always keen to support government policies
when they involve raising taxes for spurious reasons like this, showed
a programme on Sunday night(?) that tried to debunk the CO2-debunkers.
It 'answered' the 'sunspot' thing by saying that as sunspot activity
'blew away' the cosmic rays that promote cloud formation (which cools
down the planet), sunspots had nothing to with climate change!

Well if they said that then the BBC is talking cr@p.

Well, we had company round and I was watching the programme
intermittently - but I did catch the solar-wind thing, as I guessed
they needed to debunk that too, and it duly turned up.

I'd be grateful for a second opinion on what they said, though. The
solar-wind thing was near the end of the programme.

Cosmic rays are high energy particles that solar wind has no effect on.

Exactly. So it doesn't really matter if the programme claimed whether
the solar wind stopped the cosmic rays, or vice versa.

The damn things are travelling so fast they penetrate deeply into the
atmosphere where solar wind doesn't reach.
If that is the basis they are discounting the cosmic ray effect on they need
to think again.
I will have to get iPlayer out and view the program to see what other lies
they are telling the gullible.

Ah, here it is....Sunday evening, BBC2, "Earth: The Climate Wars",
2/3, Fightback, presenter Dr Iain Stewart.

I've just checked, and yes, Dr Iain Stewart says that the solar wind
'blows away the cosmic rays' (about 47 minutes in). But he uses the
argument that currently, planetary temperatures are on the increase,
but solar activity is level, thus debunking the effect of solar
activity on global warming.

You have to listen for the weasel words...slipped in somewhere, global
warming is 'partly' due to human activity, without saying what the
other effects are.

What he doesn't even mention is a) why the planet has cooled by 0.7
degC in the last year (NASA figures?), and why the planet warmed after
the Salutrians paddled in their kayaks from the south of France to
mid-North America along the edge of the ice-pack, about 20,000 years
ago. No man-made global-warming then!

The message
from Huge contains these words:

from Terry Fields contains these words:

....and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

So you believe that the greenhouse effect is nonexistent?

Why are you conflating the greenhouse effect with global warming?
Could it be
that you are seeking to mislead? Or are you merely an idiot?

If you think you have a case why not make it instead of demonstrating
your penchant for meaningless insults.

Would pot please report to reception. Kettle is waiting for you.

As I said above if you have a case make it, but no you come back with
more insults. Ergo you do not have a case to make.

Terry linked CO2 with global warming and the link is clearly the
greenhouse effect.

Sigh. Did you actually read what he wrote? (Rhetorical question. The
answer is
obviously "No".)

One of the points I was responded to is still above (the other you
ignored). I leave it to our readers to decide whether your claim that I
obviously hadn't read what Terry wrote is anything other than fantasy.

Terry meanwhile hasn't responded.

--
Roger Chapman

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
I'm fairly average. But I did some digging. It doesn't care how much you
use the train, your CO2 figure is the same. All those long distance
commuters will be pleased. I imagine the rest is as bad. After all, how
much difference does that mobile phone charger really make when I forget
to unplug it?

Andy

I have tried again.

This time I filled the ticks in on the form that said that I drive like an
idiot with exessive breaking etc, left all my computers on and all my
chargers in 24/7.

Guess what? My action plan is the same

Buy a new freezer and take my washing out to dry (which I do if it is not
raining)

Adam

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

....and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

So you believe that the greenhouse effect is nonexistant?

Not necessarily; it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by
other mechanisms.

Don't forget the alarmist message that came from the various models
that all predicted a huge rise in 'global warming' due to CO2.

A little scientific investigation revealed that the models had been
'tuned' to give the same answer....exit the modelling as a serious
issue.

Then there was the Met Office, that claimed on national TV that it had
'proved' the link between 'global warming' and CO2. A search of their
website failed to find a published paper that gave that result. The
Met Office has been very quiet on the issue since then...exit the MetO
as a player.

No proponent of 'global warming' has exer explained why the planet
oscillates between cold and warm states; the best they can do is claim
that human activity is 'partly' to blame and 'might' accellerate
'global warming'.

I believe that 17000 scientists work on 'global warming', but the case
for it is made by about a tenth of that number.

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

If the greenhouse effect is real, and it has been accepted as fact for
over a century, then whether or not CO2 concentrations tend to lag or
lead is an interesting side issue.

There is a rational explanation for the lag, if it really does exist, in
that some of the extra CO2 is expelled from the sea as sea temperatures
rise and the sea is such a huge heat sink that it lags years behind
atmospheric temperature trends.

Possibly; but if CO2-led 'global warming' is a flaky issue - and I've
touched on some of those above - it might not matter.

I wish I could find the reference that said the planet had cooled by
0.7 degC in the last 12 months - a rise of that magnitude would have
been trumpeted from high buildings by the supporters of CO2-led
'global warming'; instead of the current deafening silence.

Roger wrote:
The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

....and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

So you believe that the greenhouse effect is nonexistant?

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia
was shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate
change - the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on
sunspot activity instead.

If the greenhouse effect is real, and it has been accepted as fact for
over a century,

What? Since 1908? How come I've never heard of it until recently?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Terry Fields wrote:
ARWadworth wrote:

So all in all, Action CO2 calculator is a pile of crap IMHO.

...and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

I've never heard a sensible explanation from the wholewheat dungaree tree
huggers as to (1) why we have always had 'freak weather' e.g. Thames
freezing over several times in the past and (2) what happened to the hole in
the ozone layer, which meant we were all doomed?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

I'm 2000 years old-
i was born in the last millenium!


If the greenhouse effect is real, and it has been accepted as fact for
over a century,

What? Since 1908? How come I've never heard of it until recently?

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

So you believe that the greenhouse effect is nonexistant?

Not necessarily; it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by
other mechanisms.

So why call it a myth?

Don't forget the alarmist message that came from the various models
that all predicted a huge rise in 'global warming' due to CO2.

A little scientific investigation revealed that the models had been
'tuned' to give the same answer....exit the modelling as a serious
issue.

If you use much the same assumptions models should predict much the same
results. With the rise in computing power models are becoming ever more
sophisticated but they can only be tested before the event on how
closely they model past behaviour which may not be a good guide to the
future if deviations from the norm are much greater than was the case in
the past, even if the data from the past is sufficiently accurate and
extensive to provide a good model of past events.

Then there was the Met Office, that claimed on national TV that it had
'proved' the link between 'global warming' and CO2. A search of their
website failed to find a published paper that gave that result. The
Met Office has been very quiet on the issue since then...exit the MetO
as a player.

No proponent of 'global warming' has exer explained why the planet
oscillates between cold and warm states; the best they can do is claim
that human activity is 'partly' to blame and 'might' accellerate
'global warming'.

The crux of the matter is the greenhouse effect. If the effect exists
then mankind is contributing to global warming even if the world is
cooling at the time because mankind is undoubtedly responsible for
discharging huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Look at it this way. The climate is chaotic with numerous natural
variables competing to change it one way or the other. One element is
the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another (as TNT pointed out) is the
amount of pollution in the atmosphere. The system must be reasonably
stable but only between certain limits. Breech those limits and the
system will stabilise at a very different figure. Go too low and you
have an ice age with the large area of ice reinforcing the low
temperature by reflecting straight back into space much more of the suns
energy than was formerly the case. Go the other way and the giant
reflectors disappear and it might take an event more extreme even than
the overdue super volcano eruption in Yellowstone Park to bring back the
ice.

I believe that 17000 scientists work on 'global warming', but the case
for it is made by about a tenth of that number.

If that is the case then 15000 or more of the non supporters have been
incredibly quiet.

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

If the greenhouse effect is real, and it has been accepted as fact for
over a century, then whether or not CO2 concentrations tend to lag or
lead is an interesting side issue.

There is a rational explanation for the lag, if it really does exist, in
that some of the extra CO2 is expelled from the sea as sea temperatures
rise and the sea is such a huge heat sink that it lags years behind
atmospheric temperature trends.

Possibly; but if CO2-led 'global warming' is a flaky issue - and I've
touched on some of those above - it might not matter.

The Wikipedia article I refer to in another post claims in effect that
it is only the greenhouse effect that up to now has made the Earth a
reasonably pleasant place to live.

I wish I could find the reference that said the planet had cooled by
0.7 degC in the last 12 months - a rise of that magnitude would have
been trumpeted from high buildings by the supporters of CO2-led
'global warming'; instead of the current deafening silence.

Would one year in isolation matter? But just for the record it does seen
inherently unlikely* given the ice shrinkage in the arctic this summer
and the ice losses in the Antarctic during our preceding winter.

*Unless of course the polar regions have continued to warm while the
tropics have started to cool.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from "The Medway Handyman" contains
these words:

If the greenhouse effect is real, and it has been accepted as fact for
over a century,

What? Since 1908?

No, earlier.

Per Wikipedia:

"The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and
first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[2]

In the absence of the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface
temperature of 14 °C (57 °F) would be about -18 °C (–0.4 °F) [3]
[4](Black body temperature of the Earth). "

How come I've never heard of it until recently?

That is a question only you can answer.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

So you believe that the greenhouse effect is nonexistant?

Not necessarily; it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by
other mechanisms.

So why call it a myth?

Because it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by other
mechanisms, and yet one is being taxed on it while not looking,
sounding, or walking like the only mechanism in play.

Don't forget the alarmist message that came from the various models
that all predicted a huge rise in 'global warming' due to CO2.

A little scientific investigation revealed that the models had been
'tuned' to give the same answer....exit the modelling as a serious
issue.

If you use much the same assumptions models should predict much the same
results. With the rise in computing power models are becoming ever more
sophisticated but they can only be tested before the event on how
closely they model past behaviour which may not be a good guide to the
future if deviations from the norm are much greater than was the case in
the past, even if the data from the past is sufficiently accurate and
extensive to provide a good model of past events.

Yes, but it was later admitted by one of the modellers that there was
pressure? rivalry? tacit agreement? to make all the models give the
same result. That is basically fraudulent, and makes a mockery of the
techniques and resources used, no matter how clever or sophisticated.

Then there was the Met Office, that claimed on national TV that it had
'proved' the link between 'global warming' and CO2. A search of their
website failed to find a published paper that gave that result. The
Met Office has been very quiet on the issue since then...exit the MetO
as a player.

No proponent of 'global warming' has exer explained why the planet
oscillates between cold and warm states; the best they can do is claim
that human activity is 'partly' to blame and 'might' accellerate
'global warming'.

The crux of the matter is the greenhouse effect. If the effect exists
then mankind is contributing to global warming even if the world is
cooling at the time because mankind is undoubtedly responsible for
discharging huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

You say that 'The crux of the matter is the greenhouse effect'; do you
have any evidence for that? It may not be 'the crux' at all.

If you look at the Met Office website, you may find a publication
about 'global warming', buried in which is a chart showing the
estimates of 'warming' by a number of effects, including CO2.

The paper admits that CO2 is the most well-understood phenomenon, but
makes little of other mechanisms, one at least of which of which has a
greater potential to affect the climate, but in a cooling rather than
warming effect. There are other cooling effects as well, some with
large estimated error bands as so little has been researched about
them.

The problem is that mechanisms like these are impossible to tax,
cannot be controlled by anything that indiciduals could do, not
subject to 'building control'...and they have been largely ignored,
while money has been pumped into things like fraudulent models for
those mechanisms that are easily taxed.

Look at it this way. The climate is chaotic with numerous natural
variables competing to change it one way or the other. One element is
the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another (as TNT pointed out) is the
amount of pollution in the atmosphere. The system must be reasonably
stable but only between certain limits.

That's an assumption by you. Do you have any published references to
support it?

Breech those limits and the
system will stabilise at a very different figure. Go too low and you
have an ice age with the large area of ice reinforcing the low
temperature by reflecting straight back into space much more of the suns
energy than was formerly the case. Go the other way and the giant
reflectors disappear and it might take an event more extreme even than
the overdue super volcano eruption in Yellowstone Park to bring back the
ice.

All you are now doing is piling supposition on supposition.

I believe that 17000 scientists work on 'global warming', but the case
for it is made by about a tenth of that number.

If that is the case then 15000 or more of the non supporters have been
incredibly quiet.

Or lack the funding.

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

If the greenhouse effect is real, and it has been accepted as fact for
over a century, then whether or not CO2 concentrations tend to lag or
lead is an interesting side issue.

There is a rational explanation for the lag, if it really does exist, in
that some of the extra CO2 is expelled from the sea as sea temperatures
rise and the sea is such a huge heat sink that it lags years behind
atmospheric temperature trends.

Possibly; but if CO2-led 'global warming' is a flaky issue - and I've
touched on some of those above - it might not matter.

The Wikipedia article I refer to in another post claims in effect that
it is only the greenhouse effect that up to now has made the Earth a
reasonably pleasant place to live.

That's peurile, and a supposition.

The blue-green algae that ruled the CO2-rich world before 'life as we
know it' came along were seemingly quite happy too. Who are you to say
that the planet is a 'reasonably pleasant place to live'?

I wish I could find the reference that said the planet had cooled by
0.7 degC in the last 12 months - a rise of that magnitude would have
been trumpeted from high buildings by the supporters of CO2-led
'global warming'; instead of the current deafening silence.

Would one year in isolation matter? But just for the record it does seen
inherently unlikely* given the ice shrinkage in the arctic this summer
and the ice losses in the Antarctic during our preceding winter.

*Unless of course the polar regions have continued to warm while the
tropics have started to cool.

I'm sorry, but if you have nothing to offer, such as published work,
to support your argument, then really you're just making it up as you
go along. All I have quoted came from published sources - you might
like to try researching the literature for yourself, rather than
making usupported comments.

I suggest you do what I did...spend three or four months researching
both sides of the argument. I've reproduced for you some of the
things I found, but frankly your response e.g. to the accusation of
fraudulent modelling didn't even address the issue.

If you have something of substance to say, I'd be pleased to answer
it, but I really am not interested in subjective remarks like 'the
planet is a reasonably pleasant place to live'.

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
ARWadworth wrote:

So all in all, Action CO2 calculator is a pile of crap IMHO.

...and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

I've never heard a sensible explanation from the wholewheat dungaree tree
huggers as to (1) why we have always had 'freak weather' e.g. Thames
freezing over several times in the past and (2) what happened to the hole in
the ozone layer, which meant we were all doomed?

Good questions....but I doubt you'll get an answer....

The Medway Handyman wrote:

[...] (2) what happened to the hole in
the ozone layer, which meant we were all doomed?

"Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led
to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of
the most significant [ozone depleting] compounds have been declining.
These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere. By
2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km²
out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic
ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later. Work has
suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery
will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980
levels by around 2068."

Extract quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion which
is well worth reading.

--
Andy

in 146823 20080916 184255 Terry Fields wrote:

I wish I could find the reference that said the planet had cooled by
0.7 degC in the last 12 months - a rise of that magnitude would have
been trumpeted from high buildings by the supporters of CO2-led
'global warming'; instead of the current deafening silence.

There are two mechanisms in play here. We have global warming caused by
increased greenhouse effect and we also have global cooling caused by
increasing amounts of pollution in the atmosphere.
They are almost in a state of equilibrium so it is not surprising if there is
fluctuation between the two effects.
The big problem is that if we fix one we make the effects of the other worse.

"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
ARWadworth wrote:

So all in all, Action CO2 calculator is a pile of crap IMHO.

...and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

I've never heard a sensible explanation from the wholewheat dungaree tree
huggers as to (1) why we have always had 'freak weather' e.g. Thames
freezing over several times in the past and (2) what happened to the hole
in
the ozone layer, which meant we were all doomed?

Good questions....but I doubt you'll get an answer....

I will give you one and I am not a tree hugger..

1) freak weather is freak weather, it has always happened and probably
always will. It is usually because memories are poor or life spans are too
short to remember the last time the freak weather happened. People my age
remember the freak cold weather we had in the seventies/eighties when all
the models were predicting an ice age, I would expect some OAPs at that
time will have remembered the freak hot spells in the 1920s. I also expect
that the freak weather happened previously but there wasn't a TV crew there
to record it. Weather is like crime.. grossly over reported and scares
people that don't understand statistics.

2) there never was a hole in the ozone. There was a measurable drop in ozone
concentrations. The drop has been reduced since the ban on CFCs (although
that may be a coincidence) so it isn't news. All the hype to generate
funding is currently focused on climate change, in ten years time it will be
on something else, such is the drive to get funding.

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

I don't have the time, or indeed the inclination to carrying on arguing
on this so I will try and keep this reply short.

So you believe that the greenhouse effect is nonexistant?

Not necessarily; it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by
other mechanisms.

So why call it a myth?

Because it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by other
mechanisms, and yet one is being taxed on it while not looking,
sounding, or walking like the only mechanism in play.

Such a response is entirely out of keeping with that science hat you are
unsuccessfully trying to wear.

snip

No proponent of 'global warming' has exer explained why the planet
oscillates between cold and warm states; the best they can do is claim
that human activity is 'partly' to blame and 'might' accellerate
'global warming'.

The crux of the matter is the greenhouse effect. If the effect exists
then mankind is contributing to global warming even if the world is
cooling at the time because mankind is undoubtedly responsible for
discharging huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

You say that 'The crux of the matter is the greenhouse effect'; do you
have any evidence for that? It may not be 'the crux' at all.

You have absolutely no evidence that it is not.

That snippet I posted from Wikipedia:

In the absence of the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface
temperature of 14 °C (57 °F) would be about -18 °C (–0.4 °F) [3]
[4](Black body temperature of the Earth). "

Suggests that CO2 is major player and one mankind is heavily influencing.

snip

All you are now doing is piling supposition on supposition.

They were reasonable suppositions unlike much that is coming from the
fundamentalist wing of the climate change denyers.

snip

If that is the case then 15000 or more of the non supporters have been
incredibly quiet.

Or lack the funding.

Since when has lack of funding stopped publication in peer reviewed journals?

snip

The Wikipedia article I refer to in another post claims in effect that
it is only the greenhouse effect that up to now has made the Earth a
reasonably pleasant place to live.

That's peurile, and a supposition.

The blue-green algae that ruled the CO2-rich world before 'life as we
know it' came along were seemingly quite happy too. Who are you to say
that the planet is a 'reasonably pleasant place to live'?

No it is you that are being puerile unless you happen to be a close
relative of blue-green algae and even then I suspect you would be wrong.
An average surface temperature of minus 18C doesn't seem an ideal
environment for almost all life forms.

You might be happy to live at minus 18C but I wouldn't be and on that
point I am absolutely sure I am part of a very large majority.

snip

--
Roger Chapman

dennis@home wrote:
"Terry Fields" wrote in message
...

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
ARWadworth wrote:

So all in all, Action CO2 calculator is a pile of crap IMHO.

...and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia
was shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate
change - the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on
sunspot activity instead.

I've never heard a sensible explanation from the wholewheat
dungaree tree huggers as to (1) why we have always had 'freak
weather' e.g. Thames freezing over several times in the past and
(2) what happened to the hole in
the ozone layer, which meant we were all doomed?

Good questions....but I doubt you'll get an answer....

I will give you one and I am not a tree hugger..

1) freak weather is freak weather, it has always happened and probably
always will. It is usually because memories are poor or life spans
are too short to remember the last time the freak weather happened.
People my age remember the freak cold weather we had in the
seventies/eighties when all the models were predicting an ice age, I
would expect some OAPs at that time will have remembered the freak
hot spells in the 1920s. I also expect that the freak weather
happened previously but there wasn't a TV crew there to record it.
Weather is like crime.. grossly over reported and scares people that
don't understand statistics.
2) there never was a hole in the ozone. There was a measurable drop
in ozone concentrations. The drop has been reduced since the ban on
CFCs (although that may be a coincidence) so it isn't news. All the
hype to generate funding is currently focused on climate change, in
ten years time it will be on something else, such is the drive to get
funding.

Thank you Dennis - we seem to agree on something at last.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Terry Fields wrote:


No proponent of 'global warming' has exer explained why the planet
oscillates between cold and warm states; the best they can do is claim
that human activity is 'partly' to blame and 'might' accellerate
'global warming'.


Oh, you can't have been listening. Ther are many mecahnisms of localised
psitive feedback. to name buta few

- methane hydrate in the oceans released at a certain temperature along
with CO2 to exacerbate warming.
- polar ice that extends further south and acts as a reflector to
exacerbate global cooling.
- increased desertification causes loss of plant cover, thus reducing
the ability to sink CO2.

Thats 3 positive feedback mechanisms

Then there are the impacts on global air and water circulation patterns,
that causes localised changes that may in fact be contrary to the
average global movement of temperature.


As to what triggers these changes, it can be solar activity, volcanic
activity meteorite impact or burning lots of stuff.



I believe that 17000 scientists work on 'global warming', but the case
for it is made by about a tenth of that number.


Whatever you want to think, the fact remains that CO2 is a strong infra
red absorber, and an excess of it in the atmosphere will reduce
re-radiation of heat at night.

Whatever you want to think, there is absolutely no doubt that
atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and that the amount its increasing
correlates extremely well with world consumption of carbon based fuels.

What is in contention, are the other complex interrelated mechanisms
that come into play when temperatures start to change. Some of these are
broadly negative feedback, acting to stabilise temperatu others are
positive feedback mechanisms, exacerbating the initial inputs.

Refining these parts of the global model is where climatology is right
now: Arguing about whether its happening at all, or if it is, its not
our fault, is just a political and economic issue.




Possibly; but if CO2-led 'global warming' is a flaky issue - and I've
touched on some of those above - it might not matter.


Not at all. You statement is about as sensible as saying that maybe its
the rain that causes the clouds, as all the rain evoporates and forms
clouds.

I wish I could find the reference that said the planet had cooled by
0.7 degC in the last 12 months - a rise of that magnitude would have
been trumpeted from high buildings by the supporters of CO2-led
'global warming'; instead of the current deafening silence.

Annual variations of that order of magnitude are statistically
insginificant: plenty of mechanisms within the models can account for
that. My guess is that arctic ice has melted to a huge extent, and
dumped a load of cold water elsewhere than the poles.

Consider a bowl of water with an ice cube in it. At the start, you have
a lot of warm water and one cold spot. The ice cube. 'Average' (by area)
temperatures are high. The cube melts, lowering the average temperature.
But in fact the total heat in the system has increased due to absorption
from the room..

If we measured the total heat in the ecosphere, rather than the average
temperature, it might be a very different story.

Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:16:19 GMT, "ARWadworth"
wrote:

Has anyone else filled in one of these besides me?

I just tried out http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/carboncalc/html/index.aspx

I gave up halfway through. I could calculate ours myself without too
much difficulty. I know on average how many litres of LPG we use per
annum, similarly how much diesel and how many units of electricity,
and we don't take holidays. I could work out the CO2 equivalents of
the LPG and diesel, given some grey matter activity, but calculating
the CO2 equivalent of the electricity would be more difficult given
the various ways it's generated (coal, gas, nuclear, etc). But it
would be easier if I could use instant conversion factors from the
web. Does anyone know them, or can anyone point me to a site that
does?

Typical power staion generates at about 25-30% (gas turbine) up to maybe
30-40% (coal or well made oil fired)

Nuclear is not any more efficient: it just doesn't release carbon dioxide.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Terry Fields wrote:
ARWadworth wrote:

So all in all, Action CO2 calculator is a pile of crap IMHO.
...and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -
the heat has gone out of that debate, and focussed on sunspot activity
instead.

I've never heard a sensible explanation from the wholewheat dungaree tree
huggers as to (1) why we have always had 'freak weather' e.g. Thames
freezing over several times in the past

I think that is correlated with several things: firstly a altogether
slower thames due to muck and structures in it, and secondly some hard
winters due to possibly a volcanic eruption somewhere.. and thirdly, a
generally colder and pre-industrial climate.


and (2) what happened to the hole in
the ozone layer, which meant we were all doomed?



We found that we didn't need to use fluorocarbons and stopped using
them. CFCS were banned

The hole repaired itself.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
om...
in 146823 20080916 184255 Terry Fields
wrote:

I wish I could find the reference that said the planet had cooled by
0.7 degC in the last 12 months - a rise of that magnitude would have
been trumpeted from high buildings by the supporters of CO2-led
'global warming'; instead of the current deafening silence.

There are two mechanisms in play here. We have global warming caused by
increased greenhouse effect and we also have global cooling caused by
increasing amounts of pollution in the atmosphere.
They are almost in a state of equilibrium so it is not surprising if there
is
fluctuation between the two effects.
The big problem is that if we fix one we make the effects of the other
worse.

We have been fixing the particulates in the atmosphere, for a few decades.
You may have noticed a slight warming due to it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:

No proponent of 'global warming' has exer explained why the planet
oscillates between cold and warm states; the best they can do is claim
that human activity is 'partly' to blame and 'might' accellerate
'global warming'.

Oh, you can't have been listening. Ther are many mecahnisms of localised
psitive feedback. to name buta few

- methane hydrate in the oceans released at a certain temperature along
with CO2 to exacerbate warming.
- polar ice that extends further south and acts as a reflector to
exacerbate global cooling.
- increased desertification causes loss of plant cover, thus reducing
the ability to sink CO2.

Thats 3 positive feedback mechanisms

That's three *potential* local feedback mechanisms, none of which is
man-made.

Who is to say the one isn't balanced by another?

Then there are the impacts on global air and water circulation patterns,
that causes localised changes that may in fact be contrary to the
average global movement of temperature.

As to what triggers these changes, it can be solar activity, volcanic
activity meteorite impact or burning lots of stuff.

I believe that 17000 scientists work on 'global warming', but the case
for it is made by about a tenth of that number.

Whatever you want to think, the fact remains that CO2 is a strong infra
red absorber, and an excess of it in the atmosphere will reduce
re-radiation of heat at night.

No-one has disputed that, and in any case I never said it.

Whatever you want to think, there is absolutely no doubt that
atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and that the amount its increasing
correlates extremely well with world consumption of carbon based fuels.

But that proves nothing. It is merely an observation, like the outside
temperature here is 14 degC.

There was an ice-age in place about 20,000 years ago, whereby the
Salutrians paddled in their kayaks from the south of France to mid
north America, along the edge of the ice-cap. The science that backs
this up is indisputable and it is not a supposition.

Subsequently, the planet warmed and the ice receded. But with probably
only a million people on the planet, living a subsistence lifestyle,
there was no human input whatsoever to the warming of the globe.

So what warmed the globe then, and why isn't it operating now?

What is in contention, are the other complex interrelated mechanisms
that come into play when temperatures start to change. Some of these are
broadly negative feedback, acting to stabilise temperatu others are
positive feedback mechanisms, exacerbating the initial inputs.

Refining these parts of the global model is where climatology is right
now: Arguing about whether its happening at all, or if it is, its not
our fault, is just a political and economic issue.

Possibly; but if CO2-led 'global warming' is a flaky issue - and I've
touched on some of those above - it might not matter.

Not at all. You statement is about as sensible as saying that maybe its
the rain that causes the clouds, as all the rain evoporates and forms
clouds.

I'm afraid that's an evasion.

The evidence is that CO2 lags 'global warming', and no-one now takes
that part of Al Gore's alarmist film with any seriousness.

I wish I could find the reference that said the planet had cooled by
0.7 degC in the last 12 months - a rise of that magnitude would have
been trumpeted from high buildings by the supporters of CO2-led
'global warming'; instead of the current deafening silence.

Annual variations of that order of magnitude are statistically
insginificant: plenty of mechanisms within the models can account for
that. My guess is that arctic ice has melted to a huge extent, and
dumped a load of cold water elsewhere than the poles.

Stop guessing. So far, I haven't guessed anything, but reported the
science.

Consider a bowl of water with an ice cube in it. At the start, you have
a lot of warm water and one cold spot. The ice cube. 'Average' (by area)
temperatures are high. The cube melts, lowering the average temperature.
But in fact the total heat in the system has increased due to absorption
from the room..

Only if the bowl is below room temperature. If the room's at 4 degC
and the bowl at 50 degC, there certainly won't be any net absorption
from the room.

If we measured the total heat in the ecosphere, rather than the average
temperature, it might be a very different story.

No, what we need to do is quantify all the effects. So far only one is
known with any degree of certainty; there are many others that are
known but unexplored, and possibly some currently unknown.

To focus on the one is essentially fraudulent.

"Roger" wrote in message
k...


That snippet I posted from Wikipedia:

In the absence of the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface
temperature of 14 °C (57 °F) would be about -18 °C (-0.4 °F) [3]
[4](Black body temperature of the Earth). "

Suggests that CO2 is major player and one mankind is heavily influencing.

Where does it say, incorrectly, CO2 is causing the greenhouse effect?
Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and methane not CO2.
Ask a climatologist how much of the greenhouse effect is water and be
shocked by the answer.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Oh, you can't have been listening. Ther are many mecahnisms of localised
psitive feedback. to name buta few

- methane hydrate in the oceans released at a certain temperature along
with CO2 to exacerbate warming.

This is "complete ****e". the fact that you have heard of clathrates
does not make them responsible for regular and rapid *localised*
positive feedback.

- polar ice that extends further south and acts as a reflector to
exacerbate global cooling.

Ibid.

- increased desertification causes loss of plant cover, thus reducing
the ability to sink CO2.

Ditto.

You may now go back to clutching at straws.

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

I don't have the time, or indeed the inclination to carrying on arguing
on this so I will try and keep this reply short.

ditto.

So you believe that the greenhouse effect is nonexistant?

Not necessarily; it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by
other mechanisms.

So why call it a myth?

Because it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by other
mechanisms, and yet one is being taxed on it while not looking,
sounding, or walking like the only mechanism in play.

Such a response is entirely out of keeping with that science hat you are
unsuccessfully trying to wear.

You haven't mentioned any science at all, nor seemingly posted any
responses to my quoting e.g. from the Met Office web site, so please
don't parrot phrases like "(the) science hat you are unsuccessfully
trying to wear".

No proponent of 'global warming' has exer explained why the planet
oscillates between cold and warm states; the best they can do is claim
that human activity is 'partly' to blame and 'might' accellerate
'global warming'.

The crux of the matter is the greenhouse effect. If the effect exists
then mankind is contributing to global warming even if the world is
cooling at the time because mankind is undoubtedly responsible for
discharging huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

You say that 'The crux of the matter is the greenhouse effect'; do you
have any evidence for that? It may not be 'the crux' at all.

You have absolutely no evidence that it is not.

You proposed it, I don't have to prove a negative. You prove the
positive - that's how science works.

That snippet I posted from Wikipedia:

In the absence of the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface
temperature of 14 °C (57 °F) would be about -18 °C (€“0.4 °F) [3]
[4](Black body temperature of the Earth). "

Suggests that CO2 is major player and one mankind is heavily influencing.

CO2 is the one effect that has been heavily if badly researched, of
the many mechanisms that exist. That doesn't mean it is the most
important, as I said elsewhere, using Met Office publications to back
up my statement.

Feel free to quote any science that supports your statement.

All you are now doing is piling supposition on supposition.

They were reasonable suppositions unlike much that is coming from the
fundamentalist wing of the climate change denyers.

Thanks, but science isn't suppositions, reasonable or otherwise.

If that is the case then 15000 or more of the non supporters have been
incredibly quiet.

Or lack the funding.

Since when has lack of funding stopped publication in peer reviewed journals?

Christ...because the experimentation is costly. You can't do cosmic
ray flux measurements with a Blue Peter approach.

The Wikipedia article I refer to in another post claims in effect that
it is only the greenhouse effect that up to now has made the Earth a
reasonably pleasant place to live.

That's peurile, and a supposition.

The blue-green algae that ruled the CO2-rich world before 'life as we
know it' came along were seemingly quite happy too. Who are you to say
that the planet is a 'reasonably pleasant place to live'?

No it is you that are being puerile unless you happen to be a close
relative of blue-green algae and even then I suspect you would be wrong.
An average surface temperature of minus 18C doesn't seem an ideal
environment for almost all life forms.

I think that point whooshed.

You might be happy to live at minus 18C but I wouldn't be and on that
point I am absolutely sure I am part of a very large majority.

Argumentum ad populem. No place in science.

Apart from an almost-irrelevant Wikipedia reference, and personal
prediliction for being warm, what science do you have to support your
position - I have seen none at all. And you have totally failed to
counter my science-founded points. Do you wish to continue this
non-exchange any further?

Huge wrote:

On 2008-09-16, Terry Fields wrote:

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

....and so is the CO2/'global warming' myth.

So you believe that the greenhouse effect is nonexistant?

Not necessarily; it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by
other mechanisms.

The greenhouse effect is real, measurable, demonstrable. But "greenhouse effect"
does not mean "anthropogenic global warming". Roger is either an idiot or
seeking to deceive - either way he should be ignored.

My findings too. I tried to post founded statements, but he's ignored
them in favour of populist arguments and personal feelings. Hardly
scientific.

Terry Fields wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
No proponent of 'global warming' has exer explained why the planet
oscillates between cold and warm states; the best they can do is claim
that human activity is 'partly' to blame and 'might' accellerate
'global warming'.
Oh, you can't have been listening. Ther are many mecahnisms of localised
psitive feedback. to name buta few

- methane hydrate in the oceans released at a certain temperature along
with CO2 to exacerbate warming.
- polar ice that extends further south and acts as a reflector to
exacerbate global cooling.
- increased desertification causes loss of plant cover, thus reducing
the ability to sink CO2.

Thats 3 positive feedback mechanisms

That's three *potential* local feedback mechanisms, none of which is
man-made.

Who is to say the one isn't balanced by another?


1/. They are not potential, they are actual. The only doubt is how much
effect they have.

2/. You cannot balance two positives..they are on the same side of the
scales.

I am beginning to doubt your ability to understand science at all.


Then there are the impacts on global air and water circulation patterns,
that causes localised changes that may in fact be contrary to the
average global movement of temperature.

As to what triggers these changes, it can be solar activity, volcanic
activity meteorite impact or burning lots of stuff.

I believe that 17000 scientists work on 'global warming', but the case
for it is made by about a tenth of that number.
Whatever you want to think, the fact remains that CO2 is a strong infra
red absorber, and an excess of it in the atmosphere will reduce
re-radiation of heat at night.

No-one has disputed that, and in any case I never said it.


Never said what? I made no assertions about what you said, merely
pointed out that the greenhouse effect is largely based on what the lay
public term 'scientific fact'


Whatever you want to think, there is absolutely no doubt that
atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and that the amount its increasing
correlates extremely well with world consumption of carbon based fuels.

But that proves nothing. It is merely an observation, like the outside
temperature here is 14 degC.


Science never *proves* anything. I am more convinced you don't
understand science and its methods at all.

I am constructing a chain of logic. Man burns fuel, fuel makes CO2. Co2
is an infrared absorber, ergo man causes changes in the infra red
absorption of the atmosphere, which, given that the incident sunlight
is in the visible, but the main heat loss is in the infra red inevitably
leads to a greater retention of heat by the planet.

Now, do you disagree with that?

Sure it iognores the levels of incident radiation and a plethora of
other effects, but that is always has been and always will be the main
thrust of the anthropogenic climate change argument.
Do you refute that that is a valid chain of logic based on factual data?




There was an ice-age in place about 20,000 years ago, whereby the
Salutrians paddled in their kayaks from the south of France to mid
north America, along the edge of the ice-cap. The science that backs
this up is indisputable and it is not a supposition.


That isn't science: science is about the construction of hypotheses and
the testing thereof. That is factual data, as nears as we can have
'facts;' about the past.


Subsequently, the planet warmed and the ice receded. But with probably
only a million people on the planet, living a subsistence lifestyle,
there was no human input whatsoever to the warming of the globe.

So what warmed the globe then, and why isn't it operating now?


The sun, stupid. The are fluctations in solar output, and there are
other issues..the magnetic flux variation of the world which affects the
way the solar wind goes, and volcanoes and other causes of dust can be
triggers..what is more worrying, is that it seems now, from temperature
data on a long timescale, that the climate 'flips' between various
states: ther eare positive feedback elements in there, and changes can
be rapid and large once certain thresholds are reached.


What is in contention, are the other complex interrelated mechanisms
that come into play when temperatures start to change. Some of these are
broadly negative feedback, acting to stabilise temperatu others are
positive feedback mechanisms, exacerbating the initial inputs.

Refining these parts of the global model is where climatology is right
now: Arguing about whether its happening at all, or if it is, its not
our fault, is just a political and economic issue.

Possibly; but if CO2-led 'global warming' is a flaky issue - and I've
touched on some of those above - it might not matter.
Not at all. You statement is about as sensible as saying that maybe its
the rain that causes the clouds, as all the rain evoporates and forms
clouds.

I'm afraid that's an evasion.
Not at all. We are talking cause and effect: Just the samae. Is CO2 the
result or the cause, of global warming?

The horrifying possibility that is looking stronger by the minute, is
that in facts its both.

Which leads to a nightmare positive feedback scenario. CO2 causes
temperature rise: that leads to release of CO2 from the oceans, and
plant destruction, leading to more CO2 and less being 'fixed' and the
climate rushes along to a point where seal levels rise, most land plant
life is extinguished, along with most animal life, reaching a new
balance where marine photosynthsesis and e.g. shellfish abound, laying
down carbonates and organic muds that sink, form rocks, and remove CO2
gradually..over the next ten million years or so.

Of course if it gets too hot, there would be a permanent Venus like
cloud cover and most life would cease..


The evidence is that CO2 lags 'global warming', and no-one now takes
that part of Al Gore's alarmist film with any seriousness.


That is not proven. Its more disinformation.

I wish I could find the reference that said the planet had cooled by
0.7 degC in the last 12 months - a rise of that magnitude would have
been trumpeted from high buildings by the supporters of CO2-led
'global warming'; instead of the current deafening silence.
Annual variations of that order of magnitude are statistically
insginificant: plenty of mechanisms within the models can account for
that. My guess is that arctic ice has melted to a huge extent, and
dumped a load of cold water elsewhere than the poles.

Stop guessing. So far, I haven't guessed anything, but reported the
science.

No, you have reported a lot of pseudo scientific opinion.

Consider a bowl of water with an ice cube in it. At the start, you have
a lot of warm water and one cold spot. The ice cube. 'Average' (by area)
temperatures are high. The cube melts, lowering the average temperature.
But in fact the total heat in the system has increased due to absorption
from the room..

Only if the bowl is below room temperature. If the room's at 4 degC
and the bowl at 50 degC, there certainly won't be any net absorption
from the room.


That was the assumption. Stop raising straw men. You know what I mean.
If you dont know, you are a bigger fool than you appear to be.

If we measured the total heat in the ecosphere, rather than the average
temperature, it might be a very different story.

No, what we need to do is quantify all the effects.

Not if we are trying to establish whether global warming is a fact or
not. We need to measure *total heat*, which may absolutely NOT
correspond to average surface temperatures of the earth at all.

All that melting ice doesn't cool the sea surface temperature at all. It
goes way down deep, and does things like drive the gulf stream.
Stellites dont measure deep sea temperatures..

So far only one is
known with any degree of certainty; there are many others that are
known but unexplored, and possibly some currently unknown.

To focus on the one is essentially fraudulent.

I agree, when someone is dying of cancer, it is fraudulent to not focus
on the splinter in his left toe. That could after all - to a completely
unscientific mind- easily be the cause of death....

In the final analysis, you need to really answer three or for questions
honestly to yourself.

1/. Is the world getting warmer: The answer is yes, it is. To a level we
haven't seen before probably in human history. Geologically, its been
this hot before, if not hotter, but what lived on earth then doesn't
live on Earth now. Largely.

2/. Is the effect likely to be a minor and slow one? the answer is no it
isn't: all the historical evidence shows that climate change happens
swiftly over decades, not over centuries.

3/. Irrespective of whether its man made or not, is this something we
should be trying to do something about or not? The evidence suggests
that if we don't, we are in for a tough time irrespective of the cause..

4/. Are the current ecological and green movement and the government
measures that are being proposed effective and likely to solve the
problem? The answer is they are as much use a throwing a cupful of water
at a volcano.

In fact, ecobollox is a smokescreen, designed to lull the public into a
sense of security, because the governments have less clue than anyone
how to proceed. Its also a handy source of taxes.

However, because ecobollox is bollox, does not imply that global warming
on a vast scale isn't happening: And whether or not mankind is
implicated in it, is utterly irrelevant in the decisions on whether we
should in fact attempt to do something about it.

Carbon emissions will come down, simply because the global costs of
carbon fuel are now exceeding the costs of alternatives - especially
nuclear power.

The current worldwide recession - probably a decade of stagnation in
economic terms - buys us a decade or so of time to find alternative
energy sources. Managing climate in a micro or macro scale is not beyond
our abilities. The task is to identify the most efficient way to achieve
it.

The message
from Huge contains these words:

The greenhouse effect is real, measurable, demonstrable. But
"greenhouse effect"
does not mean "anthropogenic global warming". Roger is either an idiot or
seeking to deceive - either way he should be ignored.

For heavens sake get back out of the gutter Huge.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

There was an ice-age in place about 20,000 years ago, whereby the
Salutrians paddled in their kayaks from the south of France to mid
north America, along the edge of the ice-cap. The science that backs
this up is indisputable and it is not a supposition.

You know someone who was there and can vouch for this tall tale?

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

snip

Because it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by other
mechanisms, and yet one is being taxed on it while not looking,
sounding, or walking like the only mechanism in play.

Such a response is entirely out of keeping with that science hat you are
unsuccessfully trying to wear.

You haven't mentioned any science at all, nor seemingly posted any
responses to my quoting e.g. from the Met Office web site, so please
don't parrot phrases like "(the) science hat you are unsuccessfully
trying to wear".

Just for the record very little of what you have been saying could be
classed as science if you apply the same test to what you say as you do
to what I have said.

Your claim that CO2/global warming is a myth is entirely unscientific as
is your subsequent claim that it is irrelevant and/or may be masked by
other factors. If the greenhouse effect is real then reducing
atmospheric CO2 will mean that the Earth will be cooler than it
otherwise would have been. Likewise increasing CO2 will mean that the
Earth will be be warmer than it otherwise would have been.

snip

If that is the case then 15000 or more of the non supporters have been
incredibly quiet.

Or lack the funding.

Since when has lack of funding stopped publication in peer reviewed
journals?

Christ...because the experimentation is costly. You can't do cosmic
ray flux measurements with a Blue Peter approach.

But these 15000 are the bulk of the 17000 you claimed were already involved.

snip

You might be happy to live at minus 18C but I wouldn't be and on that
point I am absolutely sure I am part of a very large majority.

Argumentum ad populem. No place in science.

Not a latin tag I have come across before but looking for it did point
me in the direction of another that seems to fit both Huge and, to a
lesser extent you - Argumentum ad hominem.

"An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is
a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because
many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it
is so.""

Not exactly appropriate to my opinion of the majority wanting to live in
warmth rather than cold but entirely appropriate to the dedicated band
of fundamentalist denyers who refuse to accept the possibility of
climate change.

snip.

--
Roger Chapman

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:27:44 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields
wrote this:-

Since Al Gore's famous graph of CO2/temperature over the millennia was
shown to be flawed - in that the CO2 levels *lagged* climate change -

"Minor" detail - it has not been shown to be flawed.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
is a good introduction to this subject from 2007.

"The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)

"When I give talks about climate change, the question that comes up
most frequently is this: 'Doesn’t the relationship between CO2 and
temperature in the ice core record show that temperature drives CO2,
not the other way round?'

"On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable question. It is no
surprise that it comes up because it is one of the most popular
claims made by the global warming deniers. It got a particularly
high profile airing a couple of weeks ago, when congressman Joe
Barton brought it up to try to discredit Al Gore’s congressional
testimony. Barton said:

"'In your movie, you display a timeline of temperature and compared
to CO2 levels over a 600,000-year period as reconstructed from ice
core samples. You indicate that this is conclusive proof of the link
of increased CO2 emissions and global warming. A closer examination
of these facts reveals something entirely different. I have an
article from Science magazine which I will put into the record at
the appropriate time that explains that historically, a rise in CO2
concentrations did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually
lagged temperature by 200 to 1,000 years. CO2 levels went up after
the temperature rose. The temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice
versa. On this point, Mr. Vice President, you’re not just off a
little. You’re totally wrong.'

"Of course, those who've been paying attention will recognize that
Gore is not wrong at all. This subject has been very well addressed
in numerous places. Indeed, guest contributor Jeff Severinghaus
addressed this in one of our very first RealClimate posts, way back
in 2004. Still, the question does keep coming up, and Jeff recently
received a letter asking about this. His exchange with the letter
writer is reproduced in full at the end of this post. Below is my
own take on the subject.

"First of all, saying 'historically' is misleading, because Barton
is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long
(glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has
definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn't
really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why
CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on
climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of
human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to
exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and,
on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil
reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are
now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are
extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting
it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to
change those basic facts.

"Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations
behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate
changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed,
Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this
finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the
cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records,
well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature. In that
paper (Lorius et al., 1990), they say that:

"'changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part
in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together
with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the
relatively weak orbital forcing'

"What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal
radiative forcing change from the earth's wobble around the sun (the
well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the
positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of
sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations
(higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures).
Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat,
depending on the characteristic response times of these different
components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature
by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period
required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to
lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we
expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the
"carbon pump" (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers
carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.

"Several recent papers have indeed established that there is lag of
CO2 behind temperature. We don't really know the magnitude of that
lag as well as Barton implies we do, because it is very challenging
to put CO2 records from ice cores on the same timescale as
temperature records from those same ice cores, due to the time delay
in trapping the atmosphere as the snow is compressed into ice (the
ice at any time will always be younger older than the gas bubbles it
encloses, and the age difference is inherently uncertain). Still,
the best published calculations do show values similar to those
quoted by Barton (presumably, taken from this paper by Monnin et al.
(2001), or this one by Caillon et al. (2003)). But the calculations
can only be done well when the temperature change is large, notably
at glacial terminations (the gradual change from cold glacial
climate to warm interglacial climate). Importantly, it takes more
than 5000 years for this change to occur, of which the lag is only a
small fraction (indeed, one recently submitted paper I'm aware of
suggests that the lag is even less than 200 years). So it is not as
if the temperature increase has already ended when CO2 starts to
rise. Rather, they go very much hand in hand, with the temperature
continuing to rise as the the CO2 goes up. In other words, CO2 acts
as an amplifier, just as Lorius, Hansen and colleagues suggested.

"Now, it there is a minor criticism one might level at Gore for his
treatment of this subject in the film (as we previously pointed out
in our review). As it turns out though, correcting this would
actually further strengthen Gore's case, rather than weakening it."

Feel free to read the rest and follow the references.





--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54