Roger Chapman wrote:
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.

Perhaps Dennis thinks for himself & doesn't need to constantly refer people
to Wikipedia pages?

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


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

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.

Exactly

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.

Alledgedly.

There are so many black swans about its hard to belive anyone ever saw a
white one.


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

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
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.

What is there to cite?
I said there is energy in the atmosphere that doesn't increase its
temperature and you post irrelevant stuff about temperatures.
That says a lot about you BTW.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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?


What has that got to do with what i said?

"Bob" wrote in message
...
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.

A very odd feedback mechanism..
if it were simple then the first hot day we have will result in more water
vapour..
leading to higher temps..
leading to more water vapour..
leading to the end of life as we know it Jim.

In summary, water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas but it is
not a 'driver' for the process of increasing the greenhouse effect.

So it isn't a feedback mechanism then?

The Medway Handyman wrote:

"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.

You could of course try and provide some authoritative support for the
pseudo scientific garbage you peddle but no, all you ever do is spout
insults and then whinge when you get some of your own medicine in return.

All you have done in this thread (and elsewhere) is display an appalling
level of ignorance about the scientific method and any evidence put
forward. But keep on digging. There is still a chance you can make your
personal situation even worse.

dennis@home wrote:

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.

What is there to cite?

Something to back up what you say.

I said there is energy in the atmosphere that doesn't increase its
temperature and you post irrelevant stuff about temperatures.
That says a lot about you BTW.

Remember this from up thread:

**********************************

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.

*********************************

ISTM that the nature of temperature is relevant.

If you want to put forward the curious notion that a warmer atmosphere
will not be more energetic then you do need some convincing evidence.
That you would have great difficulty in finding any evidence at all, let
alone any convincing evidence, is the real reason why there are no cites
to back you up.

george [dicegeorge] wrote:
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]

You won't get that past TMH. He thinks Wikipedia is run by a cabal of
global warmers who won't let anyone who disagrees with them edit.

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

"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.

You could of course try and provide some authoritative support for the
pseudo scientific garbage you peddle but no, all you ever do is spout
insults and then whinge when you get some of your own medicine in
return.

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

All you have done in this thread (and elsewhere) is display an
appalling level of ignorance about the scientific method and any
evidence put forward. But keep on digging. There is still a chance
you can make your personal situation even worse.

I think you will find its you looking like a looser, since you can't answer
a straight question.


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
george [dicegeorge] wrote:
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]

You won't get that past TMH. He thinks Wikipedia is run by a cabal of
global warmers who won't let anyone who disagrees with them edit.

And you think Wikipedia is the one true light?

Global warmers don't like anyone who dares to disagree with them do they?
They use terms like denier, maverick, lunatic etc.

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

in 245343 20091209 200824 "dennis@home" wrote:
"Bob Martin" wrote in message
. com...
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.


(Groan.)

wrote in message
...
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.

It also has "negative" latent energy.

"Negative" in that it will absorb a lot of energy while staying at the same
temperature.
But I expect /you/ already knew that and the others won't listen anyway.

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

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.

What is there to cite?

Something to back up what you say.

OK.
I cite primary school science, go and read some primary school books.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
Roger Chapman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Given that the Met Office and NASA don't use exactly the same data
but still get broad agreement between their figures, particularly
over the last 20 years, you have to wonder where the deniers get
their so called facts from.

Are you sure?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatec...xplained5.html

"Furthermore, while the UK Met Office regards 1998 as the hottest
year yet, Nasa thinks it was 2005 (they use the same data but
interpret it differently)."

I said:

1) That they don't use exactly the same data and

They said they use the same data!

I thought it was going to be difficult for me to track down where it
was that I saw the original information but it turned out to be
ridiculously easy. There it was bold as brass in the text of the link
I gave.
"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.


Do you have any more reasoned scientific evidence like that trolling around?

in 245393 20091209 220257 "dennis@home" wrote:
"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.

"they" being a couple of politicians who consider planning for the future to be a
waste of money - but I bet they have a pension plan.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
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/******


Is that the best scientific answer you can give, you lost your argument a
while ago.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
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.


I actually keep an open mind. We know there are some mechanisms which
supply positive feedback to the earths climate, and some which provide
negative feedback. One thing is different to all other periods of warming,
is that CO2 in the atmosphere has peaked during a warm period, not before,
so we have no example of this man-made effect.

The best scientific evidence suggests that man is increasing CO2 in the
atmosphere at an unprecedented rate. To me that rapid change sounds bad
news, and we ought to minimise the impact we have on potential climate
change.

The best models do indicate that global warming will occur. I also respect
not all models are reliable but as time goes on I would hope they might well
become more so.

I keep an open mind about modelling, I recall some years ago there were some
disputes over changes in sea level, where some models said it would rise,
and others said it would fall, on the basis of increased precipitation over
the Antarctic, which would fall as snow and be locked into the ice sheet.

You can choose to bury your head in the sand if you wish, and call every
tree hugger a ******, but by doing so you are distancing yourself from plain
common sense of scientific reason and keeping an open mind. If on the other
hand you have a crystal ball, do let on.

The Medway Handyman wrote:

"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.
You could of course try and provide some authoritative support for the
pseudo scientific garbage you peddle but no, all you ever do is spout
insults and then whinge when you get some of your own medicine in
return.

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

That is very much your style. Nothing there about global warming, or the
scientific method, or statistical analysis. Just a description of
yourself as others see you.

All you have done in this thread (and elsewhere) is display an
appalling level of ignorance about the scientific method and any
evidence put forward. But keep on digging. There is still a chance
you can make your personal situation even worse.

I think you will find its you looking like a looser, since you can't answer
a straight question.

I answered the question twice. That you can't see it just makes you The
Medway Moron.

dennis@home wrote:

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.

What is there to cite?

Something to back up what you say.

OK.
I cite primary school science, go and read some primary school books.

When I was at primary school science was what we looked forward to do
when we got to grammar school. ISTM even now primary school science
can't be a rigorous discipline because children of that age wouldn't
understand it if it was. The experiment that began this thread is
probably the sort of thing The Medway Moron would meet in primary school
science if he ever progressed that far.

dennis@home wrote:


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

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.

What is there to cite?

Something to back up what you say.

OK.
I cite primary school science, go and read some primary school books.



well I cite a university degree in engineering. But then, you know it
all already.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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?


What has that got to do with what i said?



I give up.

If you cant see that much, I don't think I could explain anything to you
whatsoever.

wrote:
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.


and gets a little warmer as a result. :-)

E=mc^2 and all that.
#Paul

dennis@home wrote:


wrote in message
...
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.

It also has "negative" latent energy.

"Negative" in that it will absorb a lot of energy while staying at the
same temperature.
But I expect /you/ already knew that and the others won't listen anyway.

Indeed, which is one reason tempearatures havent yet rocketed, as the
ice is all melting at the poles.

Once it has, though...

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


wrote in message
...
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.

It also has "negative" latent energy.

"Negative" in that it will absorb a lot of energy while staying at the
same temperature.
But I expect /you/ already knew that and the others won't listen anyway.

Indeed, which is one reason tempearatures havent yet rocketed, as the ice
is all melting at the poles.

Really?
How much of the permanent ice sheet has actually gone?
/If/ it has gone is that due to a lack of precipitation or something else?

Once it has, though...

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

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.

What is there to cite?

Something to back up what you say.

OK.
I cite primary school science, go and read some primary school books.

When I was at primary school science was what we looked forward to do when
we got to grammar school. ISTM even now primary school science can't be a
rigorous discipline because children of that age wouldn't understand it if
it was. The experiment that began this thread is probably the sort of
thing The Medway Moron would meet in primary school science if he ever
progressed that far.

Ah yes, the original fake that you have been trying to prove so far.

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


What has that got to do with what i said?



I give up.

Good.


If you cant see that much, I don't think I could explain anything to you
whatsoever.

That indicates that you don't know anything useful that I need to know.
You sure as hell don't know anything about what I said.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
wrote:
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.


and gets a little warmer as a result. :-)

E=mc^2 and all that.

Are you sure you didn't mean more massive?

#Paul

On Dec 9, 9:46*pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:


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).

It's the magnitude of the some that I question. How much of any
warming is due to man and how much to natural climate change?

MBQ

On 10 Dec, 00:07, "dennis@home" wrote:

What is there to cite?
I said there is energy in the atmosphere that doesn't increase its
temperature and you post irrelevant stuff about temperatures.

The point is: how do you think you can put energy into a system
without increasing its temperature?
What do you think temperature actually is? That's why Roger quoted
Wikipedia - so that you can do a bit of background reading. I don't
blame him for not wanting to have to explain A level physics in detail
to you. You need to take some responsibility for educating yourself.

Man at B&Q wrote:

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).

It's the magnitude of the some that I question. How much of any
warming is due to man and how much to natural climate change?

That is the $64,000 question.

Both sides seem to have nailed their colours to the mast. On one side we
have the Met Office predictions of a renewed spurt in GW while on the
other the prediction is for a period of GC. The proof of the pudding
will be in the eating. If the Met Office's predictions prove on the mark
and there is no evidence of increased radiation from the Sun then
their case may well have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. If on the
other hand there is a significant shortfall without something like a
major volcanic eruption to cool things down then the sceptics' case that
the influence of CO2 has been exaggerated will be greatly strengthened.
The deniers will meanwhile go on without a care in the world as their
case is based on faith, not reason.

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:46 pm, Roger Chapman wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:

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).

It's the magnitude of the some that I question. How much of any
warming is due to man and how much to natural climate change?

MBQ

Well since we haven't had since st helens, a major volcanic eruption,
and since the solar output has remained reasonably constant over the
last century, one deduces in the absence of other causes, that most of
it is in fact man made.

Of course climate is sufficiently complex to produce chaotic behaviour:
and the formal analysis of chaotic systems who that they tend to
exhibit, quasi-periodic zones, interspersed with zones of deep instability.

That is, you are likely to see what look like cycles of temperature of
various harmonic relationships, and then a sudden flip to a completely
new mean.

This is particularly worrying, since the earth's albedo will decrease
dramatically if substantial ice melt happens, and the actual
stabilising effect of ice, which needs a lot or warmth to turn it into
water, will vanish. So, if polar ice area decreases dramatically, global
warming will accelerate, and result in more and more ice melting..not good.

The initial effect will of course be an increase in flow into the deep
sea polar cold currents. This may or may not actually cool some places.
But don't be fooled.

If the polar ice goes completely, then a huge stabilising effect goes
with it.

Its probably true to say that the most noticeable areas where climate
change is seen, are the polar regions, right now: elsewhere its not
reflected in particularly higher temperatures, but more an alteration in
rainfall patterns.

One of the most disturbing things about chaotic systems, is their
propensity to stabilise around attractors for a time, and then flip
suddenly to a new attractor.

It is more than likely that the mass extinctions of the past were
trigger by quite small events, these being just enough to flip to a new
quasi stable climate model.

Viz we have had snowball earths, and desert earths as well as steamy
tropical ones and today's relatively 'in the middle and suitable for
mammals' one.

The second disturbing thing about chaotic systems, is that whilst we
have a handle on roughly how they behave, the sensitivity to initial
conditions, and the precision required for computing them means that
accurate predictions are almost impossible.

Hence the widely differing values on what the final temperature rise
will be.

To summarise: the science says

- that we have already put more CO2 into the atmosphere than has been
there ion the last few million years.

- it is inconceivable that this will make no difference to the climate.

- if it simply results in an overall temperature rise concomitant with
the retained extra energy, we are in fairly major trouble, but broadly
speaking mankind and civilisation will survive in some places.

- If it however results in a flip to a new attractor, then all bets are
off. It becomes less a question of who is going to die, and more a
question of who is going to survive, and where. We could flip to
subtropical here, or desert, instead of 'more like the South of France'
..
And bang in a 50 meter sea level rise, and things start to look a bit dodgy.

There are some figures online somewhere for CO2 released by major
volcanic activity, and also what we have burnt to date. I haven't time
to look them up, but I think you will find that its not hugely different.

It seems that major CO2 and dust releases from major volcanic action are
one of the more likely drivers for prehistoric climate flips. If its all
dust, its 'nuclear winter' time and the resultant ice build up and low
cloud cover then stabilise into a high albedo earth, that stays cold for
millions of years. If on the other hand the dust settles on top of
existing snow, and there is a lot of CO2 released, then the albedo
drops, and the planet warms, and stays that way.

Asteroid impacts are mainly dust generation, unless they trigger
volcanic releases elsewhere.So by and large they tend to flip the
climate towards cold.


What is most concerning is that these climatic periods last aeons, and
only change under the impact of fairly dramatic and literally earth
shattering events. And cannot be explained by simple solar radiation
variation.

That is that we may actually see an IRREVERSIBLE transition to a new
climate state. Pulling the CO2 out wont get us back to here. It would
require something on a global scale - covering the earth with mirrors or
a dustcloud for a few years..to push it all backwards

I think this is what underlies the broad consensus amongst scientists
that we are taking already a major risk: even if we stay within the same
climate attractor, it will nit be easy. I suspect that politically what
is happening is that most governments cannot actually see a way to do
anything about it without the naysayers jumping up and down and claiming
its not necessary: So the current politics is to appease the panicky
with eco-bollox, and to appease the nay sayers with no real action that
costs real money. And hope we stay on the same attractor. When the cost
of dealing with the changes will be less than the costs of trying to
stop it.

If we do move to a new attractor, all bets are off. We know its happened
in the past, and it could happen at any time if we get hit by an
asteroid, or a major volcanic eruption happens. Or possibly if we burn
up all the fossil fuel we can get our hands on.

I cannot understand the attitude that says 'I could get killed by a
falling tree, or in a car crash, which are things I cant do anything
about, therefore I wont bother to fix my brakes' which seems to be the
attitude here.

It may be that politically it is NOT possible to prevent the crash here,
just as it wasn't politically possible to stop the market crash. Even
though plenty of people saw it coming and tried to say so.

Ultimately though, there is one fact that is to me inescapable, and
climate change just makes it different: Man as a species is
overpopulating his habitat. All studies of populations and habitats show
there is no steady state of population in a species. It fluctuates,
often WILDLY as the complex interactions between food supply, predator
to prey ratios, birthrates and death rates as a function of available
food, all dance together to give massive quasi periodic effects.

MOST of the world DEPENDS on fossil fuel for its survival. You have to
go a long way down the scale to find cultures that do not use it or
manufactured items to a level they would not be lost without them. The
more civilised we are, the more we are hooked, and the more political
power those so hooked have. Its a fine line between a government killing
its population by denying them access to fossil fuels and letting them
die because the fuel ran out, or made such gross changes to teh habitat
that they couldn't survive.

And pragmatically, a government that does what the people want, gives
them the products of a mechanised society, and then throws up its hands
and say 'its not our fault the world has changed' (especially if they
have been warning you about it, though not actually DOING anything about
it, for decades) is more likely to survive than one who says 'this
country needs to reduce its carbon emissions by 90%, and you don't want
nuclear power, so it's off to the gas chambers for 90% of you I am
afraid,and a child tax of £10k p.a. on the rest so the 10% left will
have the standard of living they want'

"Bob" wrote in message
...
On 10 Dec, 00:07, "dennis@home" wrote:

What is there to cite?
I said there is energy in the atmosphere that doesn't increase its
temperature and you post irrelevant stuff about temperatures.

The point is: how do you think you can put energy into a system
without increasing its temperature?
What do you think temperature actually is? That's why Roger quoted
Wikipedia - so that you can do a bit of background reading. I don't
blame him for not wanting to have to explain A level physics in detail
to you. You need to take some responsibility for educating yourself.


I recommend you do just that.
I also suggest you don't tell me to do A level physics as if that is what
they are teaching these days its would be a waste of time.
Temperature is not a measure of the energy in a system.. it is the measure
of one type of energy in a system.
I can easily put energy into a system without changing its temperature.. I
could put an AA battery on a shelf, or a stick of dynamite in there, neither
has increased its temperature but the energy has gone up.
The same with water vapour, it has energy due to its state which can be
converted to heat energy but isn't.
In fact I can lower the temperature of a system by making water vapour out
of water already in that system.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

It actually doesn't matter if the major causes of global warming aren't
man made if the man made contribution is enough to make a significant
difference.

As I said in the last post, just because a tree may fall on the road in
front of your car is no reason not to fix the brakes. Indeed, its
actually the reverse.

The ONLY way in which the deniers case makes sense is if man made CO2,
now 50% of all atmospheric CO2, has negligible impact on anything.

That should be a third, not a half.

Who wants to claim that?

A denier by the name of Piers Corbyn among others. The list is quite
long and probably includes such well known names as Lawson (both Nigel
and Dominic)and Monckton as well as Dennis and The Medway Moron.

The deniers case has never made sense but the skeptics might just have a
point. Somewhere within the link below is a claim that if atmospheric
CO2 doubled from 300 ppm to 600ppm the rise in average temperatures
would be just 0.4C. I can't see anything obviously wrong but you may
have better luck than me.

At that level shouldn't we be concentrating on just about anything else
aimed at reducing global warming and forget about reducing CO2 output?

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

"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.
You could of course try and provide some authoritative support for
the pseudo scientific garbage you peddle but no, all you ever do is
spout insults and then whinge when you get some of your own
medicine in return.

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

That is very much your style. Nothing there about global warming, or
the scientific method, or statistical analysis. Just a description of
yourself as others see you.

So thats ner ner ne ner ner then is it?

Can you not see what a **** you are making of yourself?


All you have done in this thread (and elsewhere) is display an
appalling level of ignorance about the scientific method and any
evidence put forward. But keep on digging. There is still a chance
you can make your personal situation even worse.

I think you will find its you looking like a looser, since you can't
answer a straight question.

I answered the question twice. That you can't see it just makes you
The Medway Moron.

OK then ****wit, either tell me the date & time of the posts, repost your
reply, or shut the **** up.

Posting a link to a Wikipedia page IS NOT answering the question.


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

Roger 'Wikiman' Chapman wrote:


The deniers will meanwhile go on without a care in the world as their case
is based on faith, not reason.

You could of course rephrase that as;

"Those who have a different opinion to mine....

But you deliberately choose the pergoartive term 'deniers'.

You then carry on to attack those with a different opinion by claiming their
case is based on faith, not reason.

The jury is well & truly still out on climate change being man made.

You are totally unable to explain the eyrar of black swans that abound.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gullibility


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

Roger Chapman wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

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.

What is there to cite?

Something to back up what you say.

OK.
I cite primary school science, go and read some primary school books.

When I was at primary school science was what we looked forward to do
when we got to grammar school. ISTM even now primary school science
can't be a rigorous discipline because children of that age wouldn't
understand it if it was. The experiment that began this thread is
probably the sort of thing The Medway Moron would meet in primary
school science if he ever progressed that far.

Instead of insulting me in your pathetic manner, why don't you try answering
some questions?

(Without posting a link to a Wikipedia page).


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

I answered the question twice. That you can't see it just makes you
The Medway Moron.

OK then ****wit, either tell me the date & time of the posts, repost your
reply, or shut the **** up.

Posting a link to a Wikipedia page IS NOT answering the question.

I know this is the panto season but I don't see the need to trade oh yes
it is/Oh no it isn't with The Medway Moron.

If he wants me to stop pointing out he is posting garbage then he can
stop posting. That will cut down greatly the opportunities I have for
demonstrating his wide ranging ignorance. I don't suppose he will
though. He seems to glory in his failure to understand even simple ideas.

The Medway Moron wrote:

The deniers will meanwhile go on without a care in the world as their case
is based on faith, not reason.

You could of course rephrase that as;

"Those who have a different opinion to mine....

But you deliberately choose the pergoartive term 'deniers'.

I chose to differentiate between the deniers like yourself and the
sceptics who argue from a scientific point of view.

You then carry on to attack those with a different opinion by claiming their
case is based on faith, not reason.

The Medway Moron has clearly demonstrated that his beliefs are based on
faith, not reason, as he lacks the ability to understand even the
simplest science.

The jury is well & truly still out on climate change being man made.

There you go again. Faith rather than reason. What is at issue is the
degree that global warming is man made.

You are totally unable to explain the eyrar of black swans that abound.

If I knew what you were rabbiting on about I could at least make an
informed decision whether or not to respond. I currently see no reason
to bother with swans black or white or "eyrars" either for that matter.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gullibility

Wow! A real cite at last. What a pity it has nothing to do with climate
change.

The Medway Moron wrote:

snip


The experiment that began this thread is
probably the sort of thing The Medway Moron would meet in primary
school science if he ever progressed that far.

Instead of insulting me in your pathetic manner, why don't you try answering
some questions?

(Without posting a link to a Wikipedia page).

Question: Does The Medway Moron understand anything about science.

Answer: No.

Question: Does The Medway Moron understand anything about statistics.

Answer: No.

Two questions posed and answered without the need to check Wikipedia or
any other reference source other than this very thread.

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

It actually doesn't matter if the major causes of global warming
aren't man made if the man made contribution is enough to make a
significant difference.

As I said in the last post, just because a tree may fall on the road
in front of your car is no reason not to fix the brakes. Indeed, its
actually the reverse.

The ONLY way in which the deniers case makes sense is if man made CO2,
now 50% of all atmospheric CO2, has negligible impact on anything.

That should be a third, not a half.

Who wants to claim that?

A denier by the name of Piers Corbyn among others. The list is quite
long and probably includes such well known names as Lawson (both Nigel
and Dominic)and Monckton as well as Dennis and The Medway Moron.

The deniers case has never made sense but the skeptics might just have a
point. Somewhere within the link below is a claim that if atmospheric
CO2 doubled from 300 ppm to 600ppm the rise in average temperatures
would be just 0.4C. I can't see anything obviously wrong but you may
have better luck than me.

At that level shouldn't we be concentrating on just about anything else
aimed at reducing global warming and forget about reducing CO2 output?


Well that is like it or not the biggest driver which we have potential
control over. Unless you want to reintroduce smog and industrial pollution.


http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm