Roger Chapman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...


It didn't just repair itself. It was pointed out that we were
chucking nasty things into the atmosphere, people stopped doing
some of that and then it started to repair itself.

I think you will find the "hole" was repairing itself before a
significant drop in the CFCs occurred.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Min_ozone.jpg

Do all your opinions come from Wikipedia? Why don't you answer directly?


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

Bob Martin wrote:
in 245042 20091208 190907 "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

The mainstream evidence? Oh, is that like the conclusive evidence
that the hole in the ozone level was going to kill us all?

Tell that to an Australian :
http://www.cancer.org.au/cancersmart...andfigures.htm

Australia has a high UV level & a popluation descended from pale skinned
redheads.

95% of skin cancers are benign & don't spread from the skin.


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Bob Martin wrote:
in 245042 20091208 190907 "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

The mainstream evidence? Oh, is that like the conclusive evidence
that the hole in the ozone level was going to kill us all?
Tell that to an Australian :
http://www.cancer.org.au/cancersmart...andfigures.htm

Australia has a high UV level & a popluation descended from pale skinned
redheads.

95% of skin cancers are benign & don't spread from the skin.


I always thought that cancers are not benign. Tumours can be malignant
(i.e. cancerous) or non-malignant (i.e. benign).

This mob seems to agree with me:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/benigntumors.html

--
Rod

Roger Chapman wrote:
Phil L wrote:

Phils question was delightfully simple, I'll re post it so you
can't ignore it;
"If it was first noticed 100 years ago, it's fairly safe to say
that it had been occuring for centuries before that, so how is it
mankind's fault, when the world population 300 - 400 years ago was
a tiny fraction of what it is now, and virtually none of them used
fossil fuels?" Got any answers ****wit?

snip

The wiki page got boring after 2 minutes, but I didn't see any
explanation as to when this 'trend' began, or any possible causes

That is the problem with science. Far too boring to be interesting to
all too many people.

But the greenhouse effect has always been with us (at least as long as
there have been greenhouse gases in the atmosphere). Fourier, Tyndall
and Arrhenius all played their part in developing the theory.

I'm not denying that climate change is occuring, I'm just saying
that it's highly unlikely to have anything whatsoever to do with
mankind. The earth regularly warms and cools over millions of years, or
occasionally, very rapidly. This has occured hundreds, if not
thousands of times according to scientists, and yet mankind has only
been around for one, maybe two of these cycles.

The is quite a long list of things that contribute to the variability
of climate. One of these is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
This is now about 50% above the pre industrial level. You might not
think that the huge amount of CO2 resulting from human activity in
the recent past has anything to do with this rise or with climate
change but the great majority of the scientists who investigate such
matters do.

You still haven't answered Phil's question. You've talked a lot of bollox
and thrown a lot of insults around and generally behaved like a patronising
****, but you still haven't answered the question.

If climate chamge is man made, explain the Thames freezing over in 1607 and
1813, the freak heat wave in 1858 when temperatures hit over 100f, the
lowest temperature ever recorded in the UK in 1895, Britains worst ever
storm in 1703, or the great famine of the early 14th century caused by a
mini ice age.

Don't point to yet another Wikipedia page, answer the question.



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

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
om...
in 245266 20091209 140503 "dennis@home"
wrote:

It is true that the term 'global warming' is misleading as it might be
taken to imply that everywhere just gets a bit hotter. And those of us
in the UK might be forgiven for thinking "that's all right. Wouldn't
mind it being a bit sunnier". The problem is that what we are talking
about is an increase of energy into weather systems.

That isn't strictly true.
Unless there is more energy arriving from the Sun there will be no more
energy than there is now.
If there is more energy from the sun then that would explain the increases
in temperature.

That's too simplistic - what matters is the %age of energy arriving from
the sun which is retained in the atmosphere,

If it were retained by the atmosphere the temperature would continue to
increase, it hasn't.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Bob Martin wrote:
in 245266 20091209 140503 "dennis@home"
wrote:

It is true that the term 'global warming' is misleading as it might be
taken to imply that everywhere just gets a bit hotter. And those of us
in the UK might be forgiven for thinking "that's all right. Wouldn't
mind it being a bit sunnier". The problem is that what we are talking
about is an increase of energy into weather systems.
That isn't strictly true.
Unless there is more energy arriving from the Sun there will be no more
energy than there is now.
If there is more energy from the sun then that would explain the
increases
in temperature.

That's too simplistic - what matters is the %age of energy arriving from
the sun which is retained in the atmosphere,

Or to look at it another way, if the atmosphere is warmer there will be
more energy in it. That after all is the only reason it is warmer.

There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase its
temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms.

Man at B&Q wrote:

The is quite a long list of things that contribute to the variability of
climate. One of these is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This
is now about 50% above the pre industrial level. You might not think
that the huge amount of CO2 resulting from human activity in the recent
past has anything to do with this rise or with climate change but the
great majority of the scientists who investigate such matters do.

So? Were the majority who used to believe in the miasmatic theory of
disease correct?

Methodology in science has come a long way since then.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples where passionately and
strongly held majority views were eventually shown to be wrong.

Possibly but I can't think of anything like that in the recent past. The
closest I get is the steady state universe versus the big bang which
isn't exactly the recent past these days and in any case was at the
leading edge of cosmology at the time. It often takes time for a new
theory to have its kinks ironed out. The greenhouse effect has been
established fact too long for the basics to be wrong. Where the argument
needs to be is in the extent to which AGW is adding to the underlying
natural variation as that influences what counter measures are needed or
can be effective if taken.

What's different about AGW?

The huge amount of compelling evidence.

For there to have been no AGW you would have to accept either that
mankind had nothing to do with the 50% increase in CO2 concentrations or
that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

dennis@home wrote:

snip

Or to look at it another way, if the atmosphere is warmer there will
be more energy in it. That after all is the only reason it is warmer.

There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase its
temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

Roger Chapman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

snip

Or to look at it another way, if the atmosphere is warmer there will
be more energy in it. That after all is the only reason it is
warmer.

There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase
its temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

OFFS. Can't you answer for yourself **** for brains?

Henceforth know as 'Wikiman'.


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

You still haven't answered Phil's question. You've talked a lot of bollox
and thrown a lot of insults around and generally behaved like a patronising
****, but you still haven't answered the question.

It would be obvious to any disinterested observer that I have answered
Phil's question.

If climate chamge is man made, explain the Thames freezing over in 1607 and
1813, the freak heat wave in 1858 when temperatures hit over 100f, the
lowest temperature ever recorded in the UK in 1895, Britains worst ever
storm in 1703, or the great famine of the early 14th century caused by a
mini ice age.

The sceptics have a lunatic fringe that denies everything about global
warming but the warmers do not have the equivalent which would ascribe
all climate change to man's activities. The items you mention, assuming
they are actually real, are a result of the natural variability of the
climate of the UK which can be distinctly different from the climate of
the world as a whole which again has a considerable degree of natural
variability.

Large scale volcanic eruptions can have a major effect on world
temperature. The 1885 event above may have been close enough to have
been influenced by the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa.


Don't point to yet another Wikipedia page, answer the question.

Why ever not. It is often head of the list when it comes to a search and
has the added advantage of winding you up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa

Phil L wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

Phils question was delightfully simple, I'll re post it so you can't
ignore it;
"If it was first noticed 100 years ago, it's fairly safe to say that
it had been occuring for centuries before that, so how is it
mankind's fault, when the world population 300 - 400 years ago was a
tiny fraction of what it is now, and virtually none of them used
fossil fuels?" Got any answers ****wit?
With every post you get further and further into insanity. Phil got an
answer and hasn't come back again. If I had ignored it Phil wouldn't
have got that answer.


The wiki page got boring after 2 minutes, but I didn't see any explanation
as to when this 'trend' began, or any possible causes


You can churn out as many lies as you like but none of them alter the
reality or the fact that you are a clueless idiot who doesn't
understand the first thing about science.

I'm not denying that climate change is occuring, I'm just saying that it's
highly unlikely to have anything whatsoever to do with mankind.

well that's a statement that stands aghast of anything.

how can man's activities NOT have an effect?

Since plants obviously do and more and more land surface is less and
less plants and we are buring up all the plant life from a few million
years ago...

The earth regularly warms and cools over millions of years, or occasionally,
very rapidly. This has occured hundreds, if not thousands of times according
to scientists, and yet mankind has only been around for one, maybe two of
these cycles.

yes, but this time there is no major volcanic eruption, no asteroid
impact and no major change in solar activity to point the finger at.

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Dec 9, 6:19 pm, Roger Chapman wrote:


The is quite a long list of things that contribute to the variability of
climate. One of these is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This
is now about 50% above the pre industrial level. You might not think
that the huge amount of CO2 resulting from human activity in the recent
past has anything to do with this rise or with climate change but the
great majority of the scientists who investigate such matters do.

So? Were the majority who used to believe in the miasmatic theory of
disease correct?

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples where passionately and
strongly held majority views were eventually shown to be wrong.

What's different about AGW?

I think you would have to be a scientist to understand the answer one
might give you.



MBQ

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Or to look at it another way, if the atmosphere is warmer there will
be more energy in it. That after all is the only reason it is
warmer.
There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase
its temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

OFFS. Can't you answer for yourself **** for brains?


Of course I can answer for myself. I keep on quoting Wikipedia for 3
reasons:

1) It is an easy source of information and so saves me time.

2) It winds TMH up.

3) As a cite it should be a constant reminder that TMH (IIRC) has never
once cited any source for the garbage he peddles.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
If climate chamge is man made, [...]

For the vast majority of earth's history, climate change has been
entirely due to natural factors: solar flux, orbital variations,
biological processes locking up carbon, volcanic events, etc.

Now, human activity can affect the climate too: e.g. a nice
nuclear war (i.e. n. winter) should do the trick, although burning
fossils and releasing carbon as CO2 works as well -- if a little more
slowly, and in the oppsite direction.

Simples.

#Paul

On Dec 9, 8:16*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:


What's different about AGW?

The huge amount of compelling evidence.

I would call it circumstantial, rather than compelling.


For there to have been no AGW you would have to accept either that
mankind had nothing to do with the 50% increase in CO2 concentrations or
that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, lets put that one to bed.

So it reduces to "For there to have been no AGW you would have to
accept that mankind had nothing to do with the 50% increase in CO2
concentrations"

Why? Of course mankind is responsible for CO2, along with many other
emissions. You're making assumptions about the effect of CO2,
specifically that the measured increase is directly responsible for
any warming.

How long have accurate CO2 measurements been taken?

How reliable is the proxy data for historic CO2 levels?

MBQ

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:
Phil L wrote:

Phils question was delightfully simple, I'll re post it so you
can't ignore it;
"If it was first noticed 100 years ago, it's fairly safe to say
that it had been occuring for centuries before that, so how is it
mankind's fault, when the world population 300 - 400 years ago was
a tiny fraction of what it is now, and virtually none of them used
fossil fuels?" Got any answers ****wit?
snip

The wiki page got boring after 2 minutes, but I didn't see any
explanation as to when this 'trend' began, or any possible causes
That is the problem with science. Far too boring to be interesting to
all too many people.

But the greenhouse effect has always been with us (at least as long as
there have been greenhouse gases in the atmosphere). Fourier, Tyndall
and Arrhenius all played their part in developing the theory.

I'm not denying that climate change is occuring, I'm just saying
that it's highly unlikely to have anything whatsoever to do with
mankind. The earth regularly warms and cools over millions of years, or
occasionally, very rapidly. This has occured hundreds, if not
thousands of times according to scientists, and yet mankind has only
been around for one, maybe two of these cycles.
The is quite a long list of things that contribute to the variability
of climate. One of these is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
This is now about 50% above the pre industrial level. You might not
think that the huge amount of CO2 resulting from human activity in
the recent past has anything to do with this rise or with climate
change but the great majority of the scientists who investigate such
matters do.

You still haven't answered Phil's question. You've talked a lot of bollox
and thrown a lot of insults around and generally behaved like a patronising
****, but you still haven't answered the question.

If climate chamge is man made, explain the Thames freezing over in 1607 and
1813,

Largely BEFORE the CO2 had been released by industrialisation but quite
a nice period after it, and a couple of major eruptions, had pumped teh
air full of dust.

the freak heat wave in 1858 when temperatures hit over 100f,

WE get summers like that these days every 5 years or so. 100F is
nothing. 100F was originally chosen as 'the hottest day in summer' as 0F
was chosen as 'the coldest day in winter'

Its only about 37 celsius. I saw 38 a couple of years back.




the
lowest temperature ever recorded in the UK in 1895, Britains worst ever
storm in 1703, or the great famine of the early 14th century caused by a
mini ice age.


14th century again correspinds to a gelogical event IIRC.

1895 was not that cold 1962 was IIRC colder,

Thse peaks and trougfhs are really irrelevant though: what counts is the
AVERAGE temeperature, and thats been going up ever since I can remember.
Very few frosts in winter, very little snow.

And teh industrial **** doesn't START till late 17th century, and didn't
really get going till the 19th



Don't point to yet another Wikipedia page, answer the question.

What question?

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

You still haven't answered Phil's question. You've talked a lot of
bollox and thrown a lot of insults around and generally behaved like a
patronising ****, but you still haven't answered the question.

It would be obvious to any disinterested observer that I have answered
Phil's question.

If climate chamge is man made, explain the Thames freezing over in
1607 and 1813, the freak heat wave in 1858 when temperatures hit over
100f, the lowest temperature ever recorded in the UK in 1895,
Britains worst ever storm in 1703, or the great famine of the early
14th century caused by a mini ice age.

The sceptics have a lunatic fringe that denies everything about global
warming but the warmers do not have the equivalent which would ascribe
all climate change to man's activities. The items you mention, assuming
they are actually real, are a result of the natural variability of the
climate of the UK which can be distinctly different from the climate of
the world as a whole which again has a considerable degree of natural
variability.

Large scale volcanic eruptions can have a major effect on world
temperature. The 1885 event above may have been close enough to have
been influenced by the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa.


It was. There were purple sunsets for two years.

Don't point to yet another Wikipedia page, answer the question.

Why ever not. It is often head of the list when it comes to a search and
has the added advantage of winding you up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa

dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Martin" wrote in message
om...
in 245266 20091209 140503 "dennis@home"
wrote:

It is true that the term 'global warming' is misleading as it might be
taken to imply that everywhere just gets a bit hotter. And those of us
in the UK might be forgiven for thinking "that's all right. Wouldn't
mind it being a bit sunnier". The problem is that what we are talking
about is an increase of energy into weather systems.

That isn't strictly true.
Unless there is more energy arriving from the Sun there will be no more
energy than there is now.
If there is more energy from the sun then that would explain the
increases
in temperature.

That's too simplistic - what matters is the %age of energy arriving
from the sun which is retained in the atmosphere,

If it were retained by the atmosphere the temperature would continue to
increase, it hasn't.


good grief. Did you really think that made any sense to anyone with any
background in science?

dennis@home wrote:


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Bob Martin wrote:
in 245266 20091209 140503 "dennis@home"
wrote:

It is true that the term 'global warming' is misleading as it might be
taken to imply that everywhere just gets a bit hotter. And those of us
in the UK might be forgiven for thinking "that's all right. Wouldn't
mind it being a bit sunnier". The problem is that what we are talking
about is an increase of energy into weather systems.
That isn't strictly true.
Unless there is more energy arriving from the Sun there will be no more
energy than there is now.
If there is more energy from the sun then that would explain the
increases
in temperature.

That's too simplistic - what matters is the %age of energy arriving
from the sun which is retained in the atmosphere,

Or to look at it another way, if the atmosphere is warmer there will
be more energy in it. That after all is the only reason it is warmer.

There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase its
temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms.

I am speechless.

Surely this is drivel in a different sock?

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Why ever not. It is often head of the list when it comes to a search
and has the added advantage of winding you up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa

You aren't bright enough to wind anyone up.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******



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

Man at B&Q wrote:

What's different about AGW?

The huge amount of compelling evidence.

I would call it circumstantial, rather than compelling.

It is compelling enough to have persuaded most governments to take AGW
seriously. (Even China).

For there to have been no AGW you would have to accept either that
mankind had nothing to do with the 50% increase in CO2 concentrations or
that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, lets put that one to bed.

I don't think TMH has any intention of letting us.

So it reduces to "For there to have been no AGW you would have to
accept that mankind had nothing to do with the 50% increase in CO2
concentrations"

Why? Of course mankind is responsible for CO2, along with many other
emissions. You're making assumptions about the effect of CO2,
specifically that the measured increase is directly responsible for
any warming.

If the increase is not responsible for some warming then you are back to
the assumption that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas (or the deceitful
scientists are making it all up).

How long have accurate CO2 measurements been taken?

Judging but the last link below, since 1957.

How reliable is the proxy data for historic CO2 levels?

I haven't come across anything that suggests it is unreliable other than
a suggestion that nothing can be pinned down to a single year because
ice melt can effect adjacent layers.

Having written the above I thought I had better check and came across this:

http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2...deception.html

Mainstream science seems to find the ice core data reliable unlike the
very variable data from the early years of CO2 sampling. For obvious
reasons the sceptics have fastened on to the historic test results.

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003893.html

Tree ring data is apparently considerably more suspect. IIUC that leaked
e-mail about adding in the real temperatures relates to a problem trying
to match the proxy (or should that be poxy) data for the very recent
past to the real temperature which is known for sure.

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

snip

Or to look at it another way, if the atmosphere is warmer there will be
more energy in it. That after all is the only reason it is warmer.

There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase its
temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

So what?
Are you actually trying to say something or just posting cr@p links for the
sake of it?

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...


Of course I can answer for myself. I keep on quoting Wikipedia for 3
reasons:

1) It is an easy source of information and so saves me time.

Yes its so easy that you keep posting stuff that is irrelevant.
you obviously don't know what they mean or you wouldn't post them.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase its
temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms.

I am speechless.

Why can't you understand what stores energy in the atmosphere?
A hint.. lots of latent energy in the form of water vapour.


Surely this is drivel in a different sock?

You are in a sock?

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Man at B&Q wrote:

What's different about AGW?

The huge amount of compelling evidence.

I would call it circumstantial, rather than compelling.

It is compelling enough to have persuaded most governments to take AGW
seriously. (Even China).

But not Australia any more.

They have decided it isn't worth the effort.

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:16 pm, Roger Chapman wrote:

What's different about AGW?
The huge amount of compelling evidence.

I would call it circumstantial, rather than compelling.

For there to have been no AGW you would have to accept either that
mankind had nothing to do with the 50% increase in CO2 concentrations or
that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, lets put that one to bed.

So it reduces to "For there to have been no AGW you would have to
accept that mankind had nothing to do with the 50% increase in CO2
concentrations"

Why? Of course mankind is responsible for CO2, along with many other
emissions. You're making assumptions about the effect of CO2,
specifically that the measured increase is directly responsible for
any warming.

How long have accurate CO2 measurements been taken?

Pass.

How reliable is the proxy data for historic CO2 levels?

better than 97% as an estimate.


MBQ

Roger Chapman wrote:


Tree ring data is apparently considerably more suspect. IIUC that leaked
e-mail about adding in the real temperatures relates to a problem trying
to match the proxy (or should that be poxy) data for the very recent
past to the real temperature which is known for sure.

tree ring is more indicative of rainfall than CO2.
There is allegedly a big correlation between tree ring data and drawn
cricket matches (wisden) it being supposed that rain was the cause of both.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase
its temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms.

I am speechless.

Why can't you understand what stores energy in the atmosphere?
A hint.. lots of latent energy in the form of water vapour.


Hint. And how much water vapour can you store in warm air as opposed to
cold?
Hint. Why does water vapour become mist of cloud, when it cools?
Hint. Why is it cooler after it rains?


Surely this is drivel in a different sock?

You are in a sock?

I see that one passed so far over your head it might as well have been a
satellite.

dennis@home wrote:

Of course I can answer for myself. I keep on quoting Wikipedia for 3
reasons:

1) It is an easy source of information and so saves me time.

Yes its so easy that you keep posting stuff that is irrelevant.
you obviously don't know what they mean or you wouldn't post them.

That you don't find the cites relevant says a good deal more about you
than it does about me, particularly when you don't come up with any
cites of your own.

dennis@home wrote:

snip

There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not increase
its temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

So what?
Are you actually trying to say something or just posting cr@p links for
the sake of it?

The reference contains a definition of temperature.

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

Great tits cope well with warming

They do indeed. And many are glad of it, too.

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

I could have an
opinion that the moon is made of green cheese

Ityf it's Wensleydale.

John Rumm wrote:

One of the things that interests me is why so little attention is paid
to water vapour. IIUC this is by far the most significant "greenhouse
gas" - and concentrations of that dwarf CO2 (man made or otherwise).

(the cynic might say that perhaps its because if you include it, you
make the man made CO2 component look far less significant, and that does
not suit the agenda!)


As I understand it, you are correct that water vapour is a greenhouse
gas and that its concentration is much higher than C02. However, being
a different molecule it has different characteristics regarding the
absorption and re-emission of infra red and so volume for volume has a
lower effect than CO2. Another factor is that its concentration in the
atmosphere is not *directly* affected by human activity but, since
warmer air can hold higher volumes of water vapour, its concentration
can indirectly be increased by warming that occurs for other reasons -
for example increasing CO2 concentration. So there is a kind of
feedback mechanism at play. In summary, water vapour is indeed an
important greenhouse gas but it is not a 'driver' for the process of
increasing the greenhouse effect.

wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
If climate chamge is man made, [...]

For the vast majority of earth's history, climate change has been
entirely due to natural factors: solar flux, orbital variations,
biological processes locking up carbon, volcanic events, etc.

Now, human activity can affect the climate too: e.g. a nice
nuclear war (i.e. n. winter) should do the trick, although burning
fossils and releasing carbon as CO2 works as well -- if a little more
slowly, and in the oppsite direction.


Dont jest. It will probably come to that.

War is the problem solving tool of last resort.

The problem is really overpopulation, and, sadly, even a war may not be
enough.

If I were around long enough to collect, Id place 10 grand on there
being less people alive in 100 years than there are now.



Simples.

#Paul

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not
increase its temperature.

I am speechless.
Surely this is drivel in a different sock?

Throw a block of ice into the air. The ice has a low temperature, but
nevertheless has both kinetic and gravitational potential energy.

#Paul

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Or to look at it another way, if the atmosphere is warmer there
will be more energy in it. That after all is the only reason it is
warmer.
There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not
increase its temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

OFFS. Can't you answer for yourself **** for brains?


Of course I can answer for myself. I keep on quoting Wikipedia for 3
reasons:

1) It is an easy source of information and so saves me time.

Or you are a ****** who doesn't have enough information or intelligence to
answer for yourself.

2) It winds TMH up.

Don't flatter yourself Wikiman, you are trying to punch well above your
weight.

3) As a cite it should be a constant reminder that TMH (IIRC) has
never once cited any source for the garbage he peddles.

And neither have you idiot. Your entire premise relies on refering any
akward question to a Wikipedia page that happens to support your naive veiw.
Such Wiki pages could of course be wildly inaccurate and/or written by
someone who is a big a prat as you are.

This is going to be difficult for you. I'm going to ask you to think for
yourself.

I could easily write a Wikipedia page claiming that global warning is caused
by little green men in flying saucers and then refer anyone asking awkward
questions to that page. It wouldn't prove a thing - except to ****wits like
you who believe what ever Wikipedia quotes.

So, apart from pathetic attempts to slag off anyone who doesn't swallow your
ecobollox wholesale, you can't answer a simple question in case someone
picks holes in your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

"Each of the three global temperature centres uses different
observation sets, although there are large overlaps in the
information used. Each centre also has its own methods for checking
and processing data, as well as for making the final calculation."

And they still ****ed up & got different years?

You really are the most ignorant of idiots but do keep on digging.
You are providing a certain level of amusement.

Your verbal diarrhoea is no substitute for rational thought.

And neither is you being a complete ****wit, but there you are.


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

Phils question was delightfully simple, I'll re post it so you can't
ignore it;

"If it was first noticed 100 years ago, it's fairly safe to say that
it had been occuring for centuries before that, so how is it
mankind's fault, when the world population 300 - 400 years ago was a
tiny fraction of what it is now, and virtually none of them used
fossil fuels?" Got any answers ****wit?

With every post you get further and further into insanity. Phil got an
answer and hasn't come back again. If I had ignored it Phil wouldn't
have got that answer.

Phil did not get an answer, he got a referal to a Wikipedia page, no doubt
written by another ecoboloxist like you.

You can churn out as many lies as you like but none of them alter the
reality or the fact that you are a clueless idiot who doesn't
understand the first thing about science.

And nothing can alter the fact that you are evading the issue completely and
are incapable of answering the simplest of questions.

Any post that questions your opinion is either refered to a Wikipedia page
or met with abuse and name calling.

Anyone with a different opinion is a denier, a maverick, clueless, or a
lunatic.

If you were able to answer a simple question you might make your point, as
it is you are a complete ****wit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

snip

There is a lot of energy in the atmosphere that is does not
increase its temperature.
The energy does, however, drive storms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature

So what?
Are you actually trying to say something or just posting cr@p links
for the sake of it?

The reference contains a definition of temperature.

Once again, **** all information, just a referal to a Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******


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

I keep on quoting Wikipedia for 3
reasons:

1) It is an easy source of information and so saves me time.

2) xx

3) xx
4 - if wikipedia is misleading or inaccurate it is possible to update it
thus increasing and improving the common treasury of knowledge.

[g]