"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Seriously, you ought to go and read up on this stuff before you
shoot
your
mouth off again. It is a serious topic.

I have done.

Well, keep it up, old chap. Read more widely though...

Have you ever done anything on environmental protection? Maybe
you might like to publish your credentials.

Nope. I won't ask if you have because if you had you would surely know
better....

In that case you forfeit the right to comment further, since you have had
access to my qualifications since this started. I have answered every
question correctly, and received a string of snide remarks from someone
who
is obviously afraid to reveal himself. Anyone with experience of the
subject
would have been able to do far better.

Stop blustering Terry!

Your qualifications are not the issue here.

Denying the strong possibility that human activity has and will have a major
effect on the Earth's climate is a minority view, almost putting you with
the holocaust deniers in my view. Let's call the position you are taking the
Global Warming Denial position.

The reference you provided contradicted the spin you were trying to put on
it! Far from you 'answering every question correctly', you have made rather
a fool of yourself so far. There are certainly many sites available to help
the GWD believers continue their self-serving beliefs. However it is a fact
that most climate scientists do not take this view, whatever acquaintances
of yours may say or believe. I am not foolish enough to think that my
Chemistry degree gives me any special right to be right here. But FWIW I
think the GW hypothesis is fairly safe; perhaps you should ask the people of
Boscastle what they think!

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...d=LFPJMFNAFDIE

will give you a balanced grounding in recent climate research.

Read it, (properly!) and then come back if you want to discuss global
warming further. It is a serious topic and deserves proper research. It will
affect the future of trains in this country in many ways; but of course that
is the least of what it will do.

Denial will not help you in the long term.

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Denial will not help you in the long term.

Unless some of its warm water could turn right after Gibraltar to reach
Britain.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Mullen wrote:
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Seriously, you ought to go and read up on this stuff before you
shoot your mouth off again. It is a serious topic.

I have done.

Well, keep it up, old chap. Read more widely though...

Have you ever done anything on environmental protection? Maybe
you might like to publish your credentials.

Nope. I won't ask if you have because if you had you would surely
know better....

In that case you forfeit the right to comment further, since you
have had access to my qualifications since this started. I have
answered every question correctly, and received a string of snide
remarks from someone who is obviously afraid to reveal himself.
Anyone with experience of the subject would have been able to do far
better.

Stop blustering Terry!

Your qualifications are not the issue here.


Why don't you BOTH post a verifiable list of your qualifications for being
taken seriously (i.e. relevant work experience as well as academic
qualification) then the argument will go away :-)

"Terry Harper" wrote in message ...
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.

Waters influence on climate varies depending on where it is and what
state its in eg stratosphere or troposhere , ice crystals or droplets.
CO2s influence is contstant. As for methane it reacts with O2 fairly quickly
and is converted into C02 so its long term impact on climate is not that
important.


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

It may well speed up but not necessarily at the same rate and this is
obvious given that C02 levels are rising. PLus man cutting down whole swathes
of vegetation that could mop up this extra CO2 doesn't help.

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.

Really? I think its highly relevant in that it shows exactly what could
happen if a gunaway greenhouse effect takes hold. Our only saving grace is
that we're 50% further from the sun than venus so if it ever took hold here
the temperature might only rise to 500K instead of 750K.

B2003

Greg Hennessy wrote in message . ..
On 22 Aug 2004 03:56:34 -0700, (Alex Terrell) wrote:


I've found this is a common response from Americans:

I suggest you check the headers, if you cannot even get that right, how
pray tell is anyone supposed to take your chicken little style enviro
horror seriously.


greg

which is why I was a bit surprised to see such stupid argumentation on
UK rail sites, where I expected more rational, fact based arguments.

"Terry Harper" wrote in message ...
"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
m...

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/

The graph indicates a number of peaks at about that level, 140,000; 240,000
and 320,000 years ago. Most of the time it has been substantially lower. The
peaks coincide with peaks of temperature.

The red line has always remained below 300 ppm, except on the extreme
right. Other graphs then show how over the last 100 years it has gone
from baout 250 to 370.

or,
b. That increased CO2 levels have no impact on climate, and that
something else causes CO2 levels and temperatures to correlate.

Nobody denies the correlation. Cause and effect are the points which are
debatable.

It is feasible that increasing temperatures cause higher CO2 levels,
though the time lag, and climate models indicates the reverse.

Peter Harris wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:17:52 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

"Lukipela" wrote in message
om...

There was a tornado trying to form over where
I live at about 9 o'clock yesterday evening.

I saw one of these when I was in the Lake District in approx 1980. It looked
to reach all the way to the ground, but I was a long way off, so I can't be
sure. I wouldn't worry too much about it, I don't think they have much power
when they form at British latitudes.

Apparently there are an average of 33 tornados per year in the UK
and taking into account land area the UK has the highest number
of reported tornados per square kilometer of any country in the
world.
See
http://www.torro.org.uk/
Fore more information.

Peter Harris

That's an interesting statistic. I would be interested to know if
their numbers are on the increase.
What was odd about the one that I saw gathering strength on Friday was
the fact that the weather hadn't been extreme during the day - i.e. it
wasn't really hot and had suddenly gone cold.
I don't know much about the conditions needed for them to form - but I
would guess the conditions have to be fairly extreme...something which
was not the case on Friday.

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Denial will not help you in the long term.

Unless some of its warm water could turn right after Gibraltar to reach
Britain.

Excellent!

John

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

Your qualifications are not the issue here.

No, your's are.

The reference you provided contradicted the spin you were trying to put
on

The reference I provided indicated that the link between solar activity and
temperature is very strong. Solar activity has a major effect on climate
change and the correlation is provable over a long term. Solar activity is a
natural phenomenon..

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...d=LFPJMFNAFDIE

will give you a balanced grounding in recent climate research.

Perhaps you would care to point out which of the many links on that page I
should read to refute the point which I made. The recent divergence of
temperature from that predicted is the subject of conjecture at this stage.
I found nothing to suggest that it is otherwise. The unanswered question is
whether CO2 level is a result of temperature change or whether it causes it.
At this stage, nobody can prove that one way or the other, as all the debate
shows. The FAQ in your reference indicates that quite admirably.
--
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/

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...

Why don't you BOTH post a verifiable list of your qualifications for being
taken seriously (i.e. relevant work experience as well as academic
qualification) then the argument will go away :-)

Mine is on my web site, accessible from my sig, and always has been.
--
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/