http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7407881.html

Definitely one here for TurNiP to read Heh! Heh!

If this has been in play since November I'd have thought we would have heard
more about it if it was a proven fact or even a trump fact.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7407881.html

Definitely one here for TurNiP to read Heh! Heh!

On 16/03/17 18:05, Brian Gaff wrote:
If this has been in play since November I'd have thought we would have heard
more about it if it was a proven fact or even a trump fact.
Brian

Its just another 'if...maybe...but based on no more than spinning models
that demonstrably don't work into places where angels fear to tread.

Naturally harry has fallen for it. He bought solar panels after all.

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

It happens that harry formulated :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7407881.html

Definitely one here for TurNiP to read Heh! Heh!

Sorry, but that is another load of absolute tosh!

On 3/16/2017 5:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7407881.html

Definitely one here for TurNiP to read Heh! Heh!


"Could".

Does it seem likely?

Insolation of Venus is 93% higher.

Supported by Michael Mann, enough said.

On 16/03/2017 17:22, harry wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7407881.html

Definitely one here for TurNiP to read Heh! Heh!


Why do you believe that prediction when they have been wrong for all the
previous ones?

I would say its a case of the wheels coming off the bus so they up the
stakes and try more well if we are right its a disaster and we must do
as I say.

On 16/03/2017 18:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Naturally harry has fallen for it. He bought solar panels after all.

That's a bit unfair: Harry's making a very nice profit from his solar
panels. The mugs were the politicians who legislated for his
guaranteed, tax-free, RPI-indexed bung.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 17/03/17 11:16, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Robin
wrote:

On 16/03/2017 18:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Naturally harry has fallen for it. He bought solar panels after all.

That's a bit unfair: Harry's making a very nice profit from his solar
panels. The mugs were the politicians who legislated for his
guaranteed, tax-free, RPI-indexed bung.

No, we're the mugs for letting the ****ers get away with their FIT
theft.

WEll the only party that's trying to stop that is UKIP and you didn't
vote for them.


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

In article ,
harry writes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...ame-over-globa
l-warming-climate-sensitivity-seven-degrees-a7407881.html

Definitely one here for TurNiP to read Heh! Heh!
But have you read it Harry?
--
bert

On 16/03/2017 19:42, newshound wrote:
On 3/16/2017 5:22 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7407881.html

Definitely one here for TurNiP to read Heh! Heh!

"Could".

Does it seem likely?

No.

Even as someone who accepts that anthropogenic global warming from CO2
is real there is a fair amount of headroom before we fry the planet to a
crisp. I actually got a chance to test that with one of the earlier
climate models with an injection of 31x present value of 400ppm CO2 and
watched what happened. That is 5 doublings or on the standard heuristic
5x3K = 15K global temperature rise. I was hoping to boil equatorial
oceans but it was somewhat disappointing with sea levels rising and
stronger winds driven by the increased energy in the atmosphere.

It is entirely likely that I pushed the model outside its valid limits
but it was interesting to watch the atmospheric CO2 concentration relax
down to a new equilibrium with the oceans as temperatures adjusted.

To be almost certain of boiling the equatorial oceans I reckon you would
need to increase CO2 levels to around 6% at which point the planet
becomes hostile to human life for other reasons.
(breathing becomes difficult - insufficient partial pressure O2)

Insolation of Venus is 93% higher.

Which means if you put Venus exactly where the Earth is now its surface
temperature would be only 613K or 340C - still enough to melt lead.

What really matters is that the surface atmospheric pressure of Venus is
around 93 atm because most of its CO2 is still in the atmosphere.

If you were to move the Earth with average surface temperature ~290K to
where Venus is now then the higher insolation would give it 345K ~ 72C
mean surface temperature which might well evaporate all the oceans.

Supported by Michael Mann, enough said.

He is a perfectly good scientist whose climate data you don't like, and
has been most unfairly vilified by paranoid right whingers.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

bert explained on 17/03/2017 :
In article , harry
writes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...ame-over-globa
l-warming-climate-sensitivity-seven-degrees-a7407881.html

Definitely one here for TurNiP to read Heh! Heh!
But have you read it Harry?

Reading it, might not necessarily impart a proper understanding.