On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:19:05 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

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.

Indeed. They must all be part of the grand conspiracy to promote
false knowledge about climate change we hear so much about from the
antis. Subsequent postings in the thread did not provided a
convincing argument about the "silence" of these "15000 scientists".
It would be a most remarkable feat if the IPCC had managed to get
just the 2000 scientists involved in the "conspiracy" and at the
same time muzzle the 15000 not involved in the conspiracy. A most
remarkable feat.

On the "science" point in this sub-thread the article at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question-simple-answer-no/#more-595
is worth reading, this is the first few paragraphs

"I often get emails from scientifically trained people who are
looking for a straightforward calculation of the global warming that
greenhouse gas emissions will bring. What are the physics equations
and data on gases that predict just how far the temperature will
rise? A natural question, when public expositions of the greenhouse
effect usually present it as a matter of elementary physics. These
people, typically senior engineers, get suspicious when experts seem
to evade their question. Some try to work out the answer themselves
(Lord Monckton for example) and complain that the experts dismiss
their beautiful logic.

"The engineers' demand that the case for dangerous global warming be
proved with a page or so of equations does sound reasonable, and it
has a long history. The history reveals how the nature of the
climate system inevitably betrays a lover of simple answers.

"The simplest approach to calculating the Earth's surface
temperature would be to treat the atmosphere as a single uniform
slab, like a pane of glass suspended above the surface (much as we
see in elementary explanations of the 'greenhouse' effect). But the
equations do not yield a number for global warming that is even
remotely plausible. You can't work with an average, squashing
together the way heat radiation goes through the dense, warm, humid
lower atmosphere with the way it goes through the thin, cold, dry
upper atmosphere. Already in the 19th century, physicists moved on
to a 'one-dimensional' model. That is, they pretended that the
atmosphere was the same everywhere around the planet, and studied
how radiation was transmitted or absorbed as it went up or down
through a column of air stretching from ground level to the top of
the atmosphere. This is the study of 'radiative transfer,' an
elegant and difficult branch of theory. You would figure how
sunlight passed through each layer of the atmosphere to the surface,
and how the heat energy that was radiated back up from the surface
heated up each layer, and was shuttled back and forth among the
layers, or escaped into space.

"When students learn physics, they are taught about many simple
systems that bow to the power of a few laws, yielding wonderfully
precise answers: a page or so of equations and you're done. Teachers
rarely point out that these systems are plucked from a far larger
set of systems that are mostly nowhere near so tractable. The
one-dimensional atmospheric model can't be solved with a page of
mathematics. You have to divide the column of air into a set of
levels, get out your pencil or computer, and calculate what happens
at each level. Worse, carbon dioxide and water vapor (the two main
greenhouse gases) absorb and scatter differently at different
wavelengths. So you have to make the same long set of calculations
repeatedly, once for each section of the radiation spectrum."

The rest of the article is worth reading too.


--
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

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:10:32 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

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.

I also have yet to notice a single link from any of these sayings to
a reference. It is entirely possible that there is one (or more)
somewhere which I have missed, in which case I apologise, but so far
all I have seen are vague claims like the "Met Office web site".




--
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

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

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!

Am I the only one that finds Iain Stewart an annoying git?
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

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

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

Which may well support my point too.

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

You can if one of the positives is decreasing, for example
desertification being replaced by vegetative growth elsewhere, or the
oceans never reach the methane hydrate release rate so the mechanism
never takes place. That's why I said it was 'potential'.

Has anyone calculated how much global warming is taking place due to
the receding ice-cap, your second mechanism above? It may be a key
mechanism, and is point against the 'global warming'case

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

You may be natural, but your qualification as a philosopher seem to be
in doubt.

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'

Oh, sorry, I was arguing science, not Daily Mail reporting.

You are now conflating night-time/daytime effects with 'global
warming', much in the same way as weather is so conflated.

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.

A nice shift of ground, but perhaps it reveals your own lack of
understanding.

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?

See above about conflating issues.

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?

See above about conflating issues.

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.

Don't know much about the Salutrians, do you? Or science for that
matter. Otherwise you'd never have said something as silly as that.

In case you miss the point again, it's this: there was an ice-age, at
a time with a miniscule amount of people on the planet. The ice-age
went away. Humans didn't contribute anything to that. What made the
planet warm up, and why are those mechnaisms not operating now?

Before you answer, I raise a similar question, based on your three
mechanisms, below.

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.

So by from own statements, an earth that's covered in ice (reflecting
solar energy), too cold to release methane hydrate from the sea, and
with not a lot of vegetation due to said ice caps to soak up CO2, and
lower levels of atmospheric CO2 so people were cold at night, the
planet was doomed to remain frozen. So, in your humble opinion, what
caused the subsequent warming? And why doesn that not apply today?

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..

Thank heavens that CO2 isn't the only player, and that other players
(that have been little researched) act to cool the planet. See, for
example, the Met Office web site.

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.

His graph was just plain wrong, the 800-year lag that he forgot to
mention isn't now challenged by anyone. Except by you?

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.

Will you tell the Met Office? Let me know what they say.

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.

I don't know what you 'mean', I can only read the words you write, and
som poor;y string together.

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.

Well, good luck. According to another poster, funding isn't an issue.
So let us know how you get on.

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....

Never heard of septicaemia?

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.

Getting warmer on what sort of timescale? Your day/night variations?

What has 'human history' got to do with it?

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.

So, having identified the rate at which things happen, could you state
what the mechanisms were, e.g. for the last ice-age, which was
essentially people-free?

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..

ITYM *some* evidence. Not all evidence points just one way. Some
'suggest' something else.

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.

They are designed to raise taxes, nothing more.

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.

Quite. As I said at the start.

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.

If we don't know what the key mechanisms are, we can't even say
whether we could do anything about them.

Suppose, just suppose, the key mechanism is sunspot activity. There is
no method of controlling sunspots, so anything else is palliative,
second order at best.

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

Such costs are falling. You are clutching at straws.

Plus, it has been calculated that at the level of $120 a barrel, other
methods of oil production become economically viable, such as oil from
shale. There is one oil-shale deposit in the US that could supply them
with about 200 years of oil, at current rates. It was manifestily
obvious that as current oil prices rose above $120, they wouldn't stay
there for long.

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 key is the understanding of what mechanisms are critical, and to
date only one has been researched to any great extent. We are
stumbling about in the dark. Unplugging my mobile phone charger (as a
£half-a-million government newspaper campaign suggested last year)
will accomplish precisely nothing.

David Hansen wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:10:32 +0100 someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

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.

I also have yet to notice a single link from any of these sayings to
a reference. It is entirely possible that there is one (or more)
somewhere which I have missed, in which case I apologise, but so far
all I have seen are vague claims like the "Met Office web site".

"Met Office forecast for global temperature for 2008

Global temperature for 2008 is expected to be 0.37 °C above the
long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, the coolest year since 2000,
when the value was 0.24 °C."

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20080103.html

Note that temperatures fell from 1945 - 1970 (global warming
proponents figures) so the prediction of a rise of 0.37degC is from an
unusually low figure. Pick a different range, and you could find the
planet is cooling. Why didn't they pick, say 1980 to 2000? Is it
because that would show the planet as cooling?

Easy, eh?

For the big one, go he

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...greenhouse.pdf

and look at the graph at the top of page 21.

Note that of twelve mechanisms shown, five are cooling effects, one
straddles the zero line, and eight of them are classed as "Very Low
level of scientific understanding".

How bad can it be for the proponents of the CO2/global warming debate?
At best, they can only say that they don't know what they're talking
about.

But judging by some of the posters on here, that wouldn't matter.

HTH

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

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

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!

Am I the only one that finds Iain Stewart an annoying git?

NO!

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:


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.

You don't understand hoe scientific funding works, do you?

You bid for projects. Many times, the projects aren't what you would
like to work on, but you need an income so you work on something else.

Just because 15000 climate scientists arent working on e.g.
atmospeheric aerosols, doesn't mean that they don't have a view on it,
or any other research in the climate-change game.

Hence, simply because they aren't funded for a particular topic,
doesn't mean that they can't speak on it.

And guess where the big money is going?

Argumentum ad populem. No place in science.

"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.

It's entirely appropriate.

Roger wrote:

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?

Don't need to.

Mitochondrial DNA that could only have some from the Salutrians is
found in an obscure tribe of North American indians.

Just filled in ours and came up with the following.

Home Appliances Travel
Total
Carbon Footprint 11.96 1.57 5.91 19.44
Target Footprint 9.57 1.26 4.73
15.56 (That would be for the UK?)
National Average 4.53 1.62 3.81
9.96 (UK?)

But I'm in eastern Canada. And guessing mine is low.

This is an insulated 'stick built' (wood frame etc.) all electric
house about 40 years old. Four bed About 1600 sq. feet, plus an
attached garage/storeroom that are unheated 99% of time. And with now
only one occupant (myself) most of the time.

If was built today these walls etc. would be two inches thicker and
much more heavily insulated to what is called R2000. That standard is
for a well sealed structure with an electric powered air/heat
exchanger. This house is still 'leaky enough' to not to require an
electrically driven exchanger. Exchangers which incidentally run
continuously.

Most of the electricity here is hydro produced, except for a small
amount of peak demand for heating mid winter which is from an oil
fired power station.

Within this house most of the 'wasted' heat from appliances such as
fridges, incandescent light bulbs etc. helps heat the house. Most
months of the year in this cool climate require some heating, usually
at night when lights are likely to be on anyway.

In this part of North America (unlike further south or in the interior
of the continent) we don't need or even own an air conditioner,
although do run a dehumidifier most months except the coldest and
driest in the basement workshop. We use reconditioned 48 inch
commercial fluorescents for areas where lights are on for long periods
such as kitchen, workshop etc.

Will admit to travel on an average once every couple of years, last
few years, long distance return, air flight! Of course while doing so
the house heating is virtually off at around 50 degrees F! With the
electric hot water tank and water pressure also off (just in case)
that alone saving probably some 25 - 30 cents of electricity per day.

We do occasionally use a basement wood stove burning scrap wood that
would otherwise go to the tip. Also during the 40 years we have
planted and grown some 67 trees on this half acre many of which are
now 30+ feet high. So they absorb carbon; right? We also own some 6
-7 acres of occasionally used fairly heavily treed woodland which also
are busy absorbing carbon, growing falling or blowing down and then
rotting and their nutrients returning to the soil.

So what are we doing right or wrong?

Oh btw our average daily consumption right now is around 44 kilowatt
hours per day. Annually it averages about 70 k.w.hr per day. The
outside temp right now (Sept 17th) is about 9 degrees C (roughly 49 F.
Low wind) average cost of domestic electrcity is about ten cents
(roughly 5p) per kilowatt hour or unit. No heat per-se on at all,
house is being warmed by miscellaneous lights, two PCs running
continuously, cooking etc.

Cheers.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Terry Fields
saying something like:

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!

Am I the only one that finds Iain Stewart an annoying git?

Well I find him a bit gushy, and populist, but then you have to be to
get on the Beeb these days anyway: largely though he knows his subject,
and gets some good points across. And appears to be able to speak
English (albeit with a Scottish accent) which is more than most can
these days.

Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:41:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.


Er....thanks, but I was looking for something like X kilos of CO2 per
KWh. I presume it would vary with supplier, as different suppliers use
a different balance of generating methods, but there must be an
approximate average figure which would be at least as accurate to use
as some of the assumptions in the govt calculator.

Well..a liter of oil weighs about* a kilogram, and costs about 50p to
heat yer house, and probably generates a kg of atmospheric carbon, or
whatever it is with the addition of two oxygen atoms - about 3 times its
own weight in carbon dioxide..

so thats a bout 2kg for every £ spent on fuel. I think gas is probably
similar.

Ad far as electricity generation goes, broadly with the sorts of
efficiencies seen 10 units of electricity give out the same heat as a
liter of oil, but will have been generated at probably about 40%
efficiency, so lets say that a unit of electricity takes about 250grams
of carbon..is that right?




* order of magnitude only..oils lighter than water and has a few
hydrogens attached.

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

For the big one, go he

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...greenhouse.pdf

and look at the graph at the top of page 21.

Note that of twelve mechanisms shown, five are cooling effects, one
straddles the zero line, and eight of them are classed as "Very Low
level of scientific understanding".

And those that are classified as medium level and below are also shown
as minor players.

Those classified as a high level of scientific understanding are CO2,
CH4, N2O and Halocarbons and about three fifths of that column
represents CO2.

How bad can it be for the proponents of the CO2/global warming debate?
At best, they can only say that they don't know what they're talking
about.

Not bad at all but it does rather destroy the last vestiges of your
credibility.

But judging by some of the posters on here, that wouldn't matter.

HTH

It did indeed. It shows how desperate you are to discredit global
warming that you would cite an item that makes such a strong case for
the greenhouse effect.

--
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?

Don't need to.

Mitochondrial DNA that could only have some from the Salutrians is
found in an obscure tribe of North American indians.

For someone who claims a scientific approach you are remarkably careless
with your 'facts'.

There is indeed a strong link between Solutrean artifacts and very
similar items in America and there is some mitochondrial DNA linkage
between several native American tribes and some modern European groups
but as with any hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence
there is some dispute about whether the the Solutreans ever made it from
Europe to America at all let alone whether they did it by land or sea.
Nor that they used kayaks.

--
Roger Chapman

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:30:06 UTC, Roger
wrote:

There is indeed a strong link between Solutrean artifacts and very
similar items in America and there is some mitochondrial DNA linkage
between several native American tribes and some modern European groups
but as with any hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence
there is some dispute about whether the the Solutreans ever made it from
Europe to America at all let alone whether they did it by land or sea.
Nor that they used kayaks.

Can't you just accept that you have a religious belief about climate
change, or whatever it's called this week, and Terry has a different
one? Religions rarely ever agree.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

For the big one, go he

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...greenhouse.pdf

and look at the graph at the top of page 21.

Note that of twelve mechanisms shown, five are cooling effects, one
straddles the zero line, and eight of them are classed as "Very Low
level of scientific understanding".

And those that are classified as medium level and below are also shown
as minor players.

Those classified as a high level of scientific understanding are CO2,
CH4, N2O and Halocarbons and about three fifths of that column
represents CO2.

How bad can it be for the proponents of the CO2/global warming debate?
At best, they can only say that they don't know what they're talking
about.

Not bad at all but it does rather destroy the last vestiges of your
credibility.

But judging by some of the posters on here, that wouldn't matter.

HTH

It did indeed. It shows how desperate you are to discredit global
warming that you would cite an item that makes such a strong case for
the greenhouse effect.

If you believe that the document makes that case, then I despair for
the future of the human race.

Roger wrote:

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?

Don't need to.

Mitochondrial DNA that could only have some from the Salutrians is
found in an obscure tribe of North American indians.

For someone who claims a scientific approach you are remarkably careless
with your 'facts'.

There is indeed a strong link between Solutrean artifacts and very
similar items in America and there is some mitochondrial DNA linkage
between several native American tribes and some modern European groups
but as with any hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence
there is some dispute about whether the the Solutreans ever made it from
Europe to America at all let alone whether they did it by land or sea.
Nor that they used kayaks.

In that case, the BBC TV programme that showed the DNA traces was a
load of rubbish.

Thanks for your input.

The message
from "Bob Eager" contains these words:

There is indeed a strong link between Solutrean artifacts and very
similar items in America and there is some mitochondrial DNA linkage
between several native American tribes and some modern European groups
but as with any hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence
there is some dispute about whether the the Solutreans ever made it from
Europe to America at all let alone whether they did it by land or sea.
Nor that they used kayaks.

Can't you just accept that you have a religious belief about climate
change, or whatever it's called this week, and Terry has a different
one? Religions rarely ever agree.

I don't see my quest as for anything other than the truth. That quest is
currently taking me down the global warming road from a very sceptical
beginning.

To keep things simple I will repeat that snippet from 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). "

If it is accepted that the above is broadly correct then I can't see how
any disinterested observer can do anything other than accept that
varying the CO2 concentration has a significant effect on the
temperature.

To say as Huge did that the greenhouse effect is established fact but
has nothing to do with climate change beggars belief. Huge may not be
the genius he thinks he is but he certainly isn't stupid so what drives
the man to deny the obvious if it isn't religion.

In the final analysis it doesn't really matter what the source of the
CO2 is. If the increasing CO2 is a danger then it behoves our masters to
do something about it. All the signs are that we are teetering on the
brink. Recent years do show a slowdown but it will be several years at
least before it becomes apparent whether the trend is really still
upwards or the temperature really has peaked.

Perhaps we should revisit this subject in 10 years time by which time we
should have a clearer idea of who has got the wrong end of the stick.
:-)

--
Roger Chapman

Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:30:06 UTC, Roger
wrote:

There is indeed a strong link between Solutrean artifacts and very
similar items in America and there is some mitochondrial DNA linkage
between several native American tribes and some modern European groups
but as with any hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence
there is some dispute about whether the the Solutreans ever made it from
Europe to America at all let alone whether they did it by land or sea.
Nor that they used kayaks.

Can't you just accept that you have a religious belief about climate
change, or whatever it's called this week, and Terry has a different
one? Religions rarely ever agree.

Some two or three years ago I researched as best I could the published
evidence for and against 'global warming', as it was called then.

i was shocked at the flaky nature of the pro-warming 'evidence' (which
I mentoined elsewhere) and the vituperation launched against those
scientists that spoke out against it.

I drew the conclusion that CO2-based 'global warming' was a load of
rubbish, driven by some other agenda, and have seen nothing to make me
change my mind since then.

What does come across is the nature of the attack by those who do
believe it on those who don't.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:36:36 UTC, Roger
wrote:

I don't see my quest as for anything other than the truth.

Prophets have said that for centuries!
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Terry Fields wrote:
Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:
For the big one, go he
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...greenhouse.pdf
and look at the graph at the top of page 21.
Note that of twelve mechanisms shown, five are cooling effects, one
straddles the zero line, and eight of them are classed as "Very Low
level of scientific understanding".
And those that are classified as medium level and below are also shown
as minor players.

Those classified as a high level of scientific understanding are CO2,
CH4, N2O and Halocarbons and about three fifths of that column
represents CO2.

How bad can it be for the proponents of the CO2/global warming debate?
At best, they can only say that they don't know what they're talking
about.
Not bad at all but it does rather destroy the last vestiges of your
credibility.

But judging by some of the posters on here, that wouldn't matter.
HTH
It did indeed. It shows how desperate you are to discredit global
warming that you would cite an item that makes such a strong case for
the greenhouse effect.

If you believe that the document makes that case, then I despair for
the future of the human race.
wheres we just despair of you.

Seems a fairly reasonable arrangement..;-)

Terry Fields wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:30:06 UTC, Roger
wrote:

There is indeed a strong link between Solutrean artifacts and very
similar items in America and there is some mitochondrial DNA linkage
between several native American tribes and some modern European groups
but as with any hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence
there is some dispute about whether the the Solutreans ever made it from
Europe to America at all let alone whether they did it by land or sea.
Nor that they used kayaks.
Can't you just accept that you have a religious belief about climate
change, or whatever it's called this week, and Terry has a different
one? Religions rarely ever agree.

Some two or three years ago I researched as best I could the published
evidence for and against 'global warming', as it was called then.

i was shocked at the flaky nature of the pro-warming 'evidence' (which
I mentoined elsewhere) and the vituperation launched against those
scientists that spoke out against it.

That tells anyone who actually understands science, how little you do.

There is no more to be said.



I drew the conclusion that CO2-based 'global warming' was a load of
rubbish, driven by some other agenda, and have seen nothing to make me
change my mind since then.


What you fail to realise, is that the 'there is no CO2 driven global
warming' is another agenda driven by peole who have other ideas tat are
more about short term profit.

You have become their sock puppet.

What does come across is the nature of the attack by those who do
believe it on those who don't.

Or vice versa.

Oh, by the way when was the last time you could actually take a boat to
the North Pole?

And how does that fit in with your 'no global warming' thesis.

Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:36:36 UTC, Roger
wrote:

I don't see my quest as for anything other than the truth.

Prophets have said that for centuries!
Goebbels - or was it Hitler - said that 'the bigger the lie the more
likely it is to be believed'

The 'I am searching for truth' is the biggest lie there is.

The message
from "Bob Eager" contains these words:

I don't see my quest as for anything other than the truth.

Prophets have said that for centuries!

Funnily enough when I was at college my nickname was Prof.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

Some two or three years ago I researched as best I could the published
evidence for and against 'global warming', as it was called then.

Then your best was just not good enough,

i was shocked at the flaky nature of the pro-warming 'evidence' (which
I mentoined elsewhere) and the vituperation launched against those
scientists that spoke out against it.

There is nothing flaky about the greenhouse effect.

I drew the conclusion that CO2-based 'global warming' was a load of
rubbish, driven by some other agenda, and have seen nothing to make me
change my mind since then.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

What does come across is the nature of the attack by those who do
believe it on those who don't.

You have that the wrong way round as well.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

There is indeed a strong link between Solutrean artifacts and very
similar items in America and there is some mitochondrial DNA linkage
between several native American tribes and some modern European groups
but as with any hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence
there is some dispute about whether the the Solutreans ever made it from
Europe to America at all let alone whether they did it by land or sea.
Nor that they used kayaks.

In that case, the BBC TV programme that showed the DNA traces was a
load of rubbish.

Thanks for your input.

Not a program I ever remember watching but have you any evidence that
DNA relating to the Solutreans or native Americans of similar antiquity
has ever been extracted?

The BBC is good at turning supposition into concrete fact - vis walking
with dinosaurs.

As for alternative routes for DNA, the obvious one is a minor European
contamination of the largely Asian DNA of the Native Americans.

--
Roger Chapman

In message , Roger
writes
The message
from "Bob Eager" contains these words:

I don't see my quest as for anything other than the truth.

Prophets have said that for centuries!

Funnily enough when I was at college my nickname was Prof.

You had a punch and judy show ?

cool

--
geoff

In message , Roger
writes
The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

There is indeed a strong link between Solutrean artifacts and very
similar items in America and there is some mitochondrial DNA linkage
between several native American tribes and some modern European groups
but as with any hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence
there is some dispute about whether the the Solutreans ever made it from
Europe to America at all let alone whether they did it by land or sea.
Nor that they used kayaks.

In that case, the BBC TV programme that showed the DNA traces was a
load of rubbish.

Thanks for your input.

Not a program I ever remember watching but have you any evidence that
DNA relating to the Solutreans or native Americans of similar antiquity
has ever been extracted?

There's an inconsistency here, isn't there, TV wise

a blind belief in Soultrean emigration vs total disbelief in climate
wars



--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:
For the big one, go he
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...greenhouse.pdf
and look at the graph at the top of page 21.
Note that of twelve mechanisms shown, five are cooling effects, one
straddles the zero line, and eight of them are classed as "Very Low
level of scientific understanding".
And those that are classified as medium level and below are also shown
as minor players.

Those classified as a high level of scientific understanding are CO2,
CH4, N2O and Halocarbons and about three fifths of that column
represents CO2.

How bad can it be for the proponents of the CO2/global warming debate?
At best, they can only say that they don't know what they're talking
about.
Not bad at all but it does rather destroy the last vestiges of your
credibility.

But judging by some of the posters on here, that wouldn't matter.
HTH
It did indeed. It shows how desperate you are to discredit global
warming that you would cite an item that makes such a strong case for
the greenhouse effect.

If you believe that the document makes that case, then I despair for
the future of the human race.
wheres we just despair of you.

Seems a fairly reasonable arrangement..;-)

LOL

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:36:36 UTC, Roger
wrote:

I don't see my quest as for anything other than the truth.

Prophets have said that for centuries!

Goebbels - or was it Hitler - said that 'the bigger the lie the more
likely it is to be believed'

The 'I am searching for truth' is the biggest lie there is.

Blimey...I never thought Godwin's Law would get invoked in a thread on
(non) 'global warming'.

It was Goebbels.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What you fail to realise, is that the 'there is no CO2 driven global
warming' is another agenda driven by peole who have other ideas tat are
more about short term profit.

You have become their sock puppet.

But it could be said, and doubtless has been, that "What you fail to
realise, is that the 'there is CO2 driven global warming' is another
agenda driven by people who have other ideas that are more about
raising taxes. You have become their sock puppet."

Good game, this.

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

Some two or three years ago I researched as best I could the published
evidence for and against 'global warming', as it was called then.

Then your best was just not good enough,

Well, perhaps it escaped your attention that, in a publication loaded
with bright primary colours and infant-school pictures, a major
government origanisation published a graph that said "there are twelve
suspected forcing mechanisms, and we know next to nothing about eight
of them. In the light of this profound lack of knowledge, this other
mechanism is the only one of importance".

If you can't manage to grasp that, then your best is, well, just not
up to it.

Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

There is indeed a strong link between Solutrean artifacts and very
similar items in America and there is some mitochondrial DNA linkage
between several native American tribes and some modern European groups
but as with any hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence
there is some dispute about whether the the Solutreans ever made it from
Europe to America at all let alone whether they did it by land or sea.
Nor that they used kayaks.

In that case, the BBC TV programme that showed the DNA traces was a
load of rubbish.

Thanks for your input.

Not a program I ever remember watching but have you any evidence that
DNA relating to the Solutreans or native Americans of similar antiquity
has ever been extracted?

The US scientist who was following this showed the DNA traces, and
again AFAIIA they have not been seriously challenged.

The programme was about the 'Clovis point spear', which was first
discovered in North America. Later, it was related to the identical
spear-point developed by the Salutrians, but 10,000 years previously.

The search was on for a connection between the Salutrians and North
America, and it was some time before the scientist, who was working on
other programs at the time, realised that he had not only the DNA from
the Salutrians (or possible their descendents, I can't recall which),
but that it was matched by that of a single tribe of NA Indians, the
inplication being that the Salutrians took their spear-point design to
North America.

But 20,000 years ago, the ice-cap stretched from France to NA, and
gave rise to the speculation that the Salutrians, who lived in a style
much like the Innuit, could have paddled along the edge of the
ice-cap.

The BBC is good at turning supposition into concrete fact - vis walking
with dinosaurs.

You've just shot down the BBC's programme shown last Sunday, that set
out to show how fake the anti-global-warming debate is, and which was
mentioned earlier in this thread.

As for alternative routes for DNA, the obvious one is a minor European
contamination of the largely Asian DNA of the Native Americans.

The possibility of contamination wasn't mentioned in the programme, so
I can't comment.

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

There is indeed a strong link between Solutrean artifacts and very
similar items in America and there is some mitochondrial DNA linkage
between several native American tribes and some modern European groups
but as with any hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence
there is some dispute about whether the the Solutreans ever made it from
Europe to America at all let alone whether they did it by land or sea.
Nor that they used kayaks.

In that case, the BBC TV programme that showed the DNA traces was a
load of rubbish.

Thanks for your input.

Not a program I ever remember watching but have you any evidence that
DNA relating to the Solutreans or native Americans of similar antiquity
has ever been extracted?


I think you miss the point of how this particular brand of science works.

It merely allows you to predict that, given common strands of DNA in tow
populations, that there was a common ancestor, and roughly how many
generations ago that was.


The BBC is good at turning supposition into concrete fact - vis walking
with dinosaurs.

As for alternative routes for DNA, the obvious one is a minor European
contamination of the largely Asian DNA of the Native Americans.


Doesnt work like that. That gives a different pattern altogether.

Terry Fields wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What you fail to realise, is that the 'there is no CO2 driven global
warming' is another agenda driven by peole who have other ideas tat are
more about short term profit.

You have become their sock puppet.

But it could be said, and doubtless has been, that "What you fail to
realise, is that the 'there is CO2 driven global warming' is another
agenda driven by people who have other ideas that are more about
raising taxes. You have become their sock puppet."

Good game, this.

I totally agree Terry, but its babies and bathwater. Just because people
are running cynical marketing campaigns on the back of ecology, doesn't
mean the ecology itself is false.

If you look at my posts, you will find I have defined a word for it .
Ecobollox. I.e. my position is that the problem exists all right, but
the solutions on offer are just so much hot air and marketing fluff.

Terry Fields wrote:
Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:
Some two or three years ago I researched as best I could the published
evidence for and against 'global warming', as it was called then.
Then your best was just not good enough,

Well, perhaps it escaped your attention that, in a publication loaded
with bright primary colours and infant-school pictures, a major
government origanisation published a graph that said "there are twelve
suspected forcing mechanisms, and we know next to nothing about eight
of them. In the light of this profound lack of knowledge, this other
mechanism is the only one of importance".

If you can't manage to grasp that, then your best is, well, just not
up to it.

Thats because you were reading government ecobollox.

Don't mistake that for what the government actually knows or believes.

Government is not a monolithic organisation: it hasm, in these matters,
at least tow faces - one of which is about selling itself - and that's
using all the general ecobollox - and the other is about listening to
sound but unpleasant advice from people who can Do Sums and don't need
primary colours to read a document: hence buried deep in the boring
reports pu find a radical shift towards nuclear power in the governments
stated, but very much understated, policy.

Terry Fields wrote:
Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:
There is indeed a strong link between Solutrean artifacts and very
similar items in America and there is some mitochondrial DNA linkage
between several native American tribes and some modern European groups
but as with any hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence
there is some dispute about whether the the Solutreans ever made it from
Europe to America at all let alone whether they did it by land or sea.
Nor that they used kayaks.
In that case, the BBC TV programme that showed the DNA traces was a
load of rubbish.
Thanks for your input.
Not a program I ever remember watching but have you any evidence that
DNA relating to the Solutreans or native Americans of similar antiquity
has ever been extracted?

The US scientist who was following this showed the DNA traces, and
again AFAIIA they have not been seriously challenged.

The programme was about the 'Clovis point spear', which was first
discovered in North America. Later, it was related to the identical
spear-point developed by the Salutrians, but 10,000 years previously.

The search was on for a connection between the Salutrians and North
America, and it was some time before the scientist, who was working on
other programs at the time, realised that he had not only the DNA from
the Salutrians (or possible their descendents, I can't recall which),
but that it was matched by that of a single tribe of NA Indians, the
inplication being that the Salutrians took their spear-point design to
North America.

But 20,000 years ago, the ice-cap stretched from France to NA, and
gave rise to the speculation that the Salutrians, who lived in a style
much like the Innuit, could have paddled along the edge of the
ice-cap.


Or even walked across it.

The BBC is good at turning supposition into concrete fact - vis walking
with dinosaurs.

You've just shot down the BBC's programme shown last Sunday, that set
out to show how fake the anti-global-warming debate is, and which was
mentioned earlier in this thread.

As for alternative routes for DNA, the obvious one is a minor European
contamination of the largely Asian DNA of the Native Americans.

The possibility of contamination wasn't mentioned in the programme, so
I can't comment.

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:


Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

Some two or three years ago I researched as best I could the published
evidence for and against 'global warming', as it was called then.

Then your best was just not good enough,

Well, perhaps it escaped your attention that, in a publication loaded
with bright primary colours and infant-school pictures, a major
government origanisation published a graph that said "there are twelve
suspected forcing mechanisms, and we know next to nothing about eight
of them. In the light of this profound lack of knowledge, this other
mechanism is the only one of importance".

If you can't manage to grasp that, then your best is, well, just not
up to it.

All you see is a bludgeon with which to beat those who disagree with you
and sneering at a site you are using to support your argument does
nothing to advance it. The graph in question shows the extent of the
warming or cooling effect of each factor. What is not well understood is
the mechanism by which they act.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

There is indeed a strong link between Solutrean artifacts and very
similar items in America and there is some mitochondrial DNA linkage
between several native American tribes and some modern European groups
but as with any hypothesis for which there is absolutely no evidence
there is some dispute about whether the the Solutreans ever made it from
Europe to America at all let alone whether they did it by land or sea.
Nor that they used kayaks.

In that case, the BBC TV programme that showed the DNA traces was a
load of rubbish.

Thanks for your input.

Not a program I ever remember watching but have you any evidence that
DNA relating to the Solutreans or native Americans of similar antiquity
has ever been extracted?

The US scientist who was following this showed the DNA traces, and
again AFAIIA they have not been seriously challenged.

See above. Where have I said that they have?

The programme was about the 'Clovis point spear', which was first
discovered in North America. Later, it was related to the identical
spear-point developed by the Salutrians, but 10,000 years previously.

You are really getting very careless Terry. Hand made artifacts are
never identical, even when made by the same hand. What seems convincing
is the technique for making the spear points which was the same and more
sophisticated than what followed on in Europe. The 10,000 years you use
is also way out.

The search was on for a connection between the Salutrians and North
America, and it was some time before the scientist, who was working on
other programs at the time, realised that he had not only the DNA from
the Salutrians (or possible their descendents, I can't recall which),
but that it was matched by that of a single tribe of NA Indians, the
inplication being that the Salutrians took their spear-point design to
North America.

So the real Terry Field is coming out of the shadows regurgitating half
remembered 'facts' gleaned from a TV program when a quick google would
have shown how wrong said 'facts' are.

But 20,000 years ago, the ice-cap stretched from France to NA, and
gave rise to the speculation that the Salutrians, who lived in a style
much like the Innuit, could have paddled along the edge of the
ice-cap.

Solutrean BTW, not Salutrian. Sticking to your wrong spelling is a
further demonstration of how impervious you are to reality.

The BBC is good at turning supposition into concrete fact - vis walking
with dinosaurs.

You've just shot down the BBC's programme shown last Sunday, that set
out to show how fake the anti-global-warming debate is, and which was
mentioned earlier in this thread.

As for alternative routes for DNA, the obvious one is a minor European
contamination of the largely Asian DNA of the Native Americans.

The possibility of contamination wasn't mentioned in the programme, so
I can't comment.

Technically not contamination but I was looking for a short way of
expressing a very minor element in the genetic make-up of modern native
Americans.

From Wikipedia:

"In addition, certain mtDNA anomalies in pre-Columbian Amerind
populations leave open the possibility of alternate migration patterns
into the Americas. Geneticist Douglas Wallace of Emory University,
studying the mitochondrial DNA of Native Americans, found an mtDNA type
called X. Geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer reports that X occurs 'only
among Europeans and Native Americans, with a single report from southern
Siberia, but the link between the Old and New Worlds is up to 30,000
years old'[3]. However, the most recent study of complete genomes
suggests a single founding population, including type X, arriving via
the Beringia route from Asia.[4]

In short, the idea of a Clovis-Solutrean link remains rather
controversial and does not enjoy wide acceptance. The hypothesis is
challenged by large gaps in time between the Clovis and Solutrean eras,
a lack of evidence of Solutrean seafaring, lack of specific Solutrean
features in Clovis technology, and other issues."

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger" wrote in message
k...


The graph in question shows the extent of the
warming or cooling effect of each factor. What is not well understood is
the mechanism by which they act.

If they don't understand the mechanism how can they know its effect?

There is a lot of evidence that the warming measured a couple of decades ago
was probably due to a drop in pollutants as power stations became cleaner
and aircraft became more efficient. There was a measurable increase in temps
after 9/11 grounded all aircraft and a drop when the flights restarted.

There may not be an actual warming of the entire system at all, just the
bits we measure. Certainly urban temps have shot up far more than rural
temps and far more than sea temps. There was a lot of early satellite data
that showed land and sea temps didn't rise as much as the land based
equipment said but it was decided to ignore it as it didn't fit the
requirements.


Anyway the best thing to do is to reduce the water vapour as it is water
that carries the energy to create storms, etc. The only way to do that is to
stop them burning the rain forests and let them re-grow. You may have to
fight a war to do this. Cutting CO2 is not going to fix the main problem.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What you fail to realise, is that the 'there is no CO2 driven global
warming' is another agenda driven by peole who have other ideas tat are
more about short term profit.

You have become their sock puppet.

But it could be said, and doubtless has been, that "What you fail to
realise, is that the 'there is CO2 driven global warming' is another
agenda driven by people who have other ideas that are more about
raising taxes. You have become their sock puppet."

Good game, this.

I totally agree Terry, but its babies and bathwater. Just because people
are running cynical marketing campaigns on the back of ecology, doesn't
mean the ecology itself is false.

If you look at my posts, you will find I have defined a word for it .
Ecobollox. I.e. my position is that the problem exists all right, but
the solutions on offer are just so much hot air and marketing fluff.

I'm trying to say something similar, in that the solutions proposed
deal with just one problem, that might turn out to be a minor
perturbation caused by the other eight or so problems about which very
little is known.

It used to be called 'putting all one's eggs in the basket', and I
can't see that that is a good way of going forward.