Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#111
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sue McNaughton wrote in message ...
In article , Paul Weaver writes On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:51:49 +0000, Al wrote: ISTR that global temperature, while at the upper end of its range over the last however many millions of years, remains in territory already seen in nature. Nowhere near the Jurassic era. And besides, I wouldn't like another ice age, would you? Thirty years ago, we were being promised one, which should have started about four years ago. Promised? That's a bit strong. There was some speculation based on trends, but no science. Global warming is based on a strong analysis of trends and a lot of science. The halting of the Atlantic Conveyor is more speculative, but certainly a worry. |
#112
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#113
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John Rowland" wrote in message
... You sound like a knowledgeable bloke, but if global warming is hokum, why does New Scientist tell me it's real? Is this to do with research grants, like the asteroids heading towards the Earth that the astronomers find whenever they are trying to get increases in funding? Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made. -- Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society 75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm E-mail: URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/ |
#114
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
David Chorley wrote:
Matthew Wild wrote in message ... David Chorley wrote: The only interest a politician will have in climate change will be how to extract more money from the taxpayer and extend control over the individual. This, incidentally, is why "global warming through increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" was thought up as it is hogwash as basic science and undisproveable, as it is unproveable. David Your evidence for this exactly? Matthew 1. basic science: the ability of the CO2 molecule to absorb and re-radiate energy is based on its dipole moment. CO2 is a linear molecule with, at best a temporarily induced dipole moment, unlike water, which with its unshared pair of electrons has a huge dipole moment and is a very effective greenhouse gas. Witness the change in temperature on a cloudy night, when the clouds clear and energy is not re-radiated back to the ground. A change in the concentration of carbon dioxide would have to be huge to perform this degree of effect. The change in concentration has been huge. IIRC, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now are higher than they were when the dinosaurs were around. 2. Paeleontology. The records of prehistoric London show a savannah-like climate with species much more like East Africa as recently as 10000 years ago, not so long ago that continental drift would have much of an effect ( 1000years/metre) Not quite sure what this is meant to prove. 3. The data set is too small: a sample of 200 years, notwithstanding inferences made from ice cores, is just too small to make predictions. The correlations of data from ice cores are pretty good and provide a good idea of the changes over thousands of years. 4 the hypothesis makes no accounting for changes in solar radiation and sunspot activity. This is absolutely wrong. Work, we and others, have done, shows that changes in solar radiation would account for less than 50% of the change in global climate change. Also, climate change has been accelerating over the last 50-60 years. The sun hasn't been changing that much on such a timescale and the link between sunspots and climate is incredibly tenuous. HTH David Oklahoma, USA has undergone its coolest summer since records began... therefore we are subject to global cooling. And due to global warming, the UK will get generally warmer, but also a lot wetter and more changeable to the extremes. As the globe warms, it will different effects in different locations as the prevailing weather patterns change. Matthew -- Matthew Wild Tel.: +44 (0)1235 445173 URL http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/ World Data Centre - Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Chilton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX |
#115
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , David
Chorley wrote: Oklahoma, USA has undergone its coolest summer since records began... therefore we are subject to global cooling. Therefore Oklahoma is subject to local cooling, not global cooling. AIUI global warming doesn't mean that everywhere will get (or has got) warmer but that the average temperature will rise. Sam |
#116
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Terry Harper wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message ... You sound like a knowledgeable bloke, but if global warming is hokum, why does New Scientist tell me it's real? Is this to do with research grants, like the asteroids heading towards the Earth that the astronomers find whenever they are trying to get increases in funding? Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made. It's not entirely natural. The rate of change has been increasing over the last 50-60 years and there is no evidence to suggest that the sun is changing it's energy supply by that much. Matthew -- Matthew Wild Tel.: +44 (0)1235 445173 URL http://www.wdc.rl.ac.uk/ World Data Centre - Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Chilton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX |
#117
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() David Hansen wrote: of energy conservation is the actions of Luddites. FYI the Luddites objected to progress, which is precisely not what greens are doing. The Luddites were simply looking after their own interests. They objected to their loss of income, caused by unapprenticed labour replacing a skilled workforce. That this change was enabled by technology was, in the main, irrelevent. Taken against the backdrop of food shortages and widespread poverty, it was simply the desperate actions of a workforce fearing for their livelihood and wanting to feed their families. Cheers mark-r -- I've got a tin at home that says, "Open other end", it never is. -- Humphrey Lyttleton |
#118
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 11:32:58 on Fri,
20 Aug 2004, Sam Wilson remarked: Oklahoma, USA has undergone its coolest summer since records began... therefore we are subject to global cooling. Therefore Oklahoma is subject to local cooling, not global cooling. AIUI global warming doesn't mean that everywhere will get (or has got) warmer but that the average temperature will rise. Oklahoma sits on a knife-edge. Depending on the exact combination of factors they get weather that's either inherited from Canada, or the Gulf. The temperature can change by 40 degrees in a day, and they've had record highs and record lows on the same day. Quite a small changes in the underlying factors are quite capable of altering its climate permanently. -- Roland Perry |
#119
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Terry Harper" wrote in message ...
"John Rowland" wrote in message ... You sound like a knowledgeable bloke, but if global warming is hokum, why does New Scientist tell me it's real? Is this to do with research grants, like the asteroids heading towards the Earth that the astronomers find whenever they are trying to get increases in funding? Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon, not man-made. Maybe it is , maybe it isn't. But do you care to explain why most climate experts (which I'm guessing you're not) have a different point of view? Or are they all part of some conspiracy or just plain deluded? Also I'd love for people like you to explain how its ok to accept as a fact that the CO2 in the air keeps the planet warmer than it would otherwise be but when the CO2 percentage rises , well , that won't make any difference. Right? Presumably because CO2 has some kind of magical thermal cutoff limit that means it won't cause anymore warming beyond a certain point no matter how much of it there is. Right? And the temperature on venus (which has a 99% CO2 atmosphere) is just a one off fluke. Right? B2003 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Sling him under a train" | London Transport | |||
"Sling him under a train" | London Transport | |||
Kings Cross fire (1987) : final victim named | London Transport | |||
1987 King's Cross fire victim named | London Transport | |||
Bus stop sign covered and marked 'not in use' and a temporary bus stop sign right next to it | London Transport |