Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Sam Wilson" wrote in message ... 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. its not just OK that has been cooler so has Texas. bf |
#122
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alfred Packer wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 20 Aug 2004:
"Sam Wilson" wrote in message ... 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. its not just OK that has been cooler so has Texas. And, I am told, Kansas/Missouri -- Annabel - "Mrs Redboots" (trying out a new .sig to reflect the personality I use in online forums) |
#123
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#124
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Boltar" wrote in message
om... "Terry Harper" wrote in message ... 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? CO2 is only one of the infra-red absorbing gases in the atmosphere. Methane CH4 is another and is a stronger absorber than CO2, but the most abundant and most effective is water vapour. Even moreso when it condenses into clouds. There is a natural CO2 cycle, which involves its conversion by vegetation into Oxygen and organic material, by photosynthesis. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more this reaction can proceed. The CO2 also dissolves in water falling as rain, as a further part of this cycle, and some will be absorbed by the oceans, in turn to be taken up by shellfish to help make their shells. It's all to do with reaction equilibrium. Have a look at http://www.metoffice.com/research/ha...cle/index.html for more information. Venus is irrelevant in this context. -- 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/ |
#126
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. Are you saying: a. The current CO2 levels are a natural phenomonen. For the last 700,000 years, CO2 concentration has varied between 180 and 300ppm. In the last 100 years, it has risen from 280 to nearly 400 ppm. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ or, b. That increased CO2 levels have no impact on climate, and that something else causes CO2 levels and temperatures to correlate. |
#127
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#128
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#129
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. Yes, water is a very effective greenhouse gas, whose levels are not being changed significantly by human activity. However, levels of other greenhouse gases like CO2, CH4 and various halocarbon compounds *are* increasingly significantly - and their contribution to the warming effect and subsequent inbalance in the CO2 cycle increases temperatures, increasing the rate of melting of ice on the planet's surface, and thus increasing concentrations of water in the atmosphere. I'm not sure of the relevance of dipole moments in this discussion, as infrared absorption is at the energy level of stretching and bending vibrations in bonds. The dipole moment of water is more relevant to microwaves. The change in concentration of CO2 is around 35% over the last 200 years, which is pretty huge. 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) Is this meant to prove that climate change is independent of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations? 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. What's wrong with inferences from ice cores? They allow a sample of some 420,000 years. 4 the hypothesis makes no accounting for changes in solar radiation and sunspot activity. Are you telling us that scientists involved in research into global warming are naive enough not to take into account these kind of phenomena? -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
#130
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. Global warming and COOLING are natural processes of the Earths cycle. Tectonic plate shift, volcanic discharge, varying sun output, varying Earth orbit, varying rotation axis points, the occasional comet/ asteroid hit and our general orbit around the galaxy etc. Certainly mans minor ****ting on his own doorstep doesn't help but it is just that - minor. The thing that really ****es me off is that filth politicians see it as yet another opportunity to rob even more money off us. If it is the life and death problem they make out, why aren't they throwing our billions at solar, hydro, wind, thermo and the new hydrogen fuel cell development? Why is it left up to some bloke in a shed? Personally, I hope it happens faster than they predict. The houses of parliament flash flooded; preferably during PM's question time. The worthless parasite *******s. |
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 |