"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

Do you know the history of the atmosphere of Venus? Or of Venus itself,
for
that matter?

I know what I've read. The general consensus seems to be that billions of
years ago it had large amounts of water but also large amounts of CO2. The
CO2 heated the planet up beyond the boiling point of water despite the sun
being weaker then and the rest is history. Anyway , this is getting way
off
topic. The point is more CO2 = more heat trapped. Thats simple physics and
you cannot argue your way out of it.

I haven't said that there isn't. However, there is also a chain of chemical
reactions forming the Carbon cycle, and those reactions have kinetics and
equilibria which are temperature dependent. That restrains the level of CO2
in the atmosphere.
--
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/

"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...
"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
...

Do you know the history of the atmosphere of Venus? Or of Venus
itself,
for
that matter?

I know what I've read. The general consensus seems to be that billions
of
years ago it had large amounts of water but also large amounts of CO2.
The
CO2 heated the planet up beyond the boiling point of water despite the
sun
being weaker then and the rest is history. Anyway , this is getting way
off
topic. The point is more CO2 = more heat trapped. Thats simple physics
and
you cannot argue your way out of it.

I haven't said that there isn't. However, there is also a chain of
chemical
reactions forming the Carbon cycle, and those reactions have kinetics and
equilibria which are temperature dependent. That restrains the level of
CO2
in the atmosphere.

(sounds of a man out of his depth)

"Terry Harper" wrote in message ...
I haven't said that there isn't. However, there is also a chain of chemical
reactions forming the Carbon cycle, and those reactions have kinetics and
equilibria which are temperature dependent. That restrains the level of CO2
in the atmosphere.

Well quite obviously its not restraining it enough since the levels are rising
consistently year on year. I suppose one could hope that at some trigger temp
this mechanisms might go into overdrive and magically bring the CO2 levels
down again but I wouldn't lay any bets on it and it would be foolish for
governments to assume that and hence do nothing to mitigate fossil fuel usage.

B2003

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

Those words refer to the second graph, which is not the one which I
was
using to substantiate the evidence, namely that solar activity and
climate
change have a strong correlation over a long period. You will note the
use
of the words "Think" and "Likely". They don't know.

Absolutely. They don't know. You don't know. I don't know. Neither you
nor
I
are climate scientists. Most people who are climate scientists believe
there
is merit in the Global Warming hypothesis. The 'anthropogenic greenhouse
effect' as the quote above calls it.

There is a group (mainly funded by the oil lobby) who are trying to
exploit
this perceived uncertainty to say that (contrary to all observations and
most scientists' beliefs) there is no such thing as GW. You were foolish
enough to write 'Global warming is real, but it's a natural phenomenon,
not
man-made.' on the 20th Aug. This was a foolishness that deserved to be
challenged. I have challenged it.

Unless you have anything of substance to support your claim (but as you
haven't repeated it recently I am beginning to think you have withdrawn
from
the rather silly position you seemed to be taking anyway!), do not feel
you
need to add more to this thread.

I haven't withdrawn from my view, supported by the evidence, that there is
a
very strong correlation between solar activity and climate change. I also
note that so-far unexplained deviation from the expected in the second
graph. I have my own views about what the causes might be, which could be
something that started (or began to cease) around the 1980s. Read into
that
what you will.

OK. I read into it that you would quite like to be a GW denier (less guilt
for you) but you haven't read up enough science yet to be able to talk the
talk. You said something you couldn't justify, grabbed a URL to justify it
but didn't properly check the URL. The URL unfortunately contradicted what
you had said. You blustered for a while, threw in a red herring, and now
you're going all cryptic. Interesting stuff; but more psychology than
climate science.

John

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:02:54 +0100, John Mullen
wrote:

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

Those words refer to the second graph, which is not the one which I
was
using to substantiate the evidence, namely that solar activity and
climate
change have a strong correlation over a long period. You will note
the
use
of the words "Think" and "Likely". They don't know.

Absolutely. They don't know. You don't know. I don't know. Neither you
nor
I
are climate scientists. Most people who are climate scientists believe
there
is merit in the Global Warming hypothesis. The 'anthropogenic
greenhouse
effect' as the quote above calls it.

There is a group (mainly funded by the oil lobby) who are trying to
exploit
this perceived uncertainty to say that (contrary to all observations
and
most scientists' beliefs) there is no such thing as GW. You were
foolish
enough to write 'Global warming is real, but it's a natural
phenomenon,
not
man-made.' on the 20th Aug. This was a foolishness that deserved to be
challenged. I have challenged it.

Unless you have anything of substance to support your claim (but as
you
haven't repeated it recently I am beginning to think you have
withdrawn
from
the rather silly position you seemed to be taking anyway!), do not
feel
you
need to add more to this thread.

I haven't withdrawn from my view, supported by the evidence, that there
is
a
very strong correlation between solar activity and climate change. I
also
note that so-far unexplained deviation from the expected in the second
graph. I have my own views about what the causes might be, which could
be
something that started (or began to cease) around the 1980s. Read into
that
what you will.

OK. I read into it that you would quite like to be a GW denier (less
guilt
for you) but you haven't read up enough science yet to be able to talk
the
talk. You said something you couldn't justify, grabbed a URL to justify
it
but didn't properly check the URL. The URL unfortunately contradicted
what
you had said. You blustered for a while, threw in a red herring, and now
you're going all cryptic. Interesting stuff; but more psychology than
climate science.

Personally, I would tend to lean towards Terrys view rather than
"someone@microsoft"
I dont find Johns arguments particularly logical.

Paul

"Paul Hutchinson" wrote in message
newspsc8vcz0iado8ta@paul-7ua5eciid5...

Personally, I would tend to lean towards Terrys view rather than
"someone@microsoft"
I dont find Johns arguments particularly logical.

Thank you Paul.
--
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/

"Paul Hutchinson" wrote in message
newspsc8vcz0iado8ta@paul-7ua5eciid5...
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:02:54 +0100, John Mullen
wrote:

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

Those words refer to the second graph, which is not the one which I
was
using to substantiate the evidence, namely that solar activity and
climate
change have a strong correlation over a long period. You will note
the
use
of the words "Think" and "Likely". They don't know.

Absolutely. They don't know. You don't know. I don't know. Neither
you
nor
I
are climate scientists. Most people who are climate scientists
believe
there
is merit in the Global Warming hypothesis. The 'anthropogenic
greenhouse
effect' as the quote above calls it.

There is a group (mainly funded by the oil lobby) who are trying to
exploit
this perceived uncertainty to say that (contrary to all observations
and
most scientists' beliefs) there is no such thing as GW. You were
foolish
enough to write 'Global warming is real, but it's a natural
phenomenon,
not
man-made.' on the 20th Aug. This was a foolishness that deserved to
be
challenged. I have challenged it.

Unless you have anything of substance to support your claim (but as
you
haven't repeated it recently I am beginning to think you have
withdrawn
from
the rather silly position you seemed to be taking anyway!), do not
feel
you
need to add more to this thread.

I haven't withdrawn from my view, supported by the evidence, that there
is
a
very strong correlation between solar activity and climate change. I
also
note that so-far unexplained deviation from the expected in the second
graph. I have my own views about what the causes might be, which could
be
something that started (or began to cease) around the 1980s. Read into
that
what you will.

OK. I read into it that you would quite like to be a GW denier (less
guilt
for you) but you haven't read up enough science yet to be able to talk
the
talk. You said something you couldn't justify, grabbed a URL to justify
it
but didn't properly check the URL. The URL unfortunately contradicted
what
you had said. You blustered for a while, threw in a red herring, and now
you're going all cryptic. Interesting stuff; but more psychology than
climate science.

Personally, I would tend to lean towards Terrys view rather than
"someone@microsoft"
I dont find Johns arguments particularly logical.

I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position allows you to
use fossil fuels without guilt.

Unfortunately the science leans the other way.



John

John Mullen wrote:

I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position allows
you to use fossil fuels without guilt.

....and leaning toward the 'sky is falling' position provides another reason
for guilt and self-righteous hand-wringing among the beard 'n' sandals
brigade

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:

I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position allows
you to use fossil fuels without guilt.

...and leaning toward the 'sky is falling' position provides another
reason
for guilt and self-righteous hand-wringing among the beard 'n' sandals
brigade

Personally I prefer to believe things that are likely to be true. You are of
course free to believe whatever self-justifying crap you wish.

I once had a long discussion with a Holocaust denier on another NG. Never
again.

John

John Mullen wrote:
I totally understand. Leaning towards the GW denial position
allows you to use fossil fuels without guilt.

Unfortunately the science leans the other way.

Anyone reading this got house insurance? Life insurance?

The economic cost of anti-GW measures is the cost of the insurance
policy against global environmental dislocation (or disaster).
And the majority of climate scientists are saying that that that
dislocation (or disaster) is pretty much a dead cert. On that
basis, the cost of the anti-GW "insurance policy" is well worth it,
despite the expense. If there was a 70% chance of your house
being burnt down, a policy that cost 20% of its value would be
worth it.

Of ocurse there's a catch. It's pretty much human nature to tend
to do absolutely ****-all about inconvenient problems until some
major disaster happens -- since the disaster gives the average
person (e.g. politicians) an anecdote to "prove" the science
with. If we're lucky, that major disaster (which most likely
will have to kill many millions to count) will happen to somebody
else, and it won't happen too late for effective steps to be
taken. This disaster will never count as proof for rich
individuals or businesses who can make a short or medium term
profit regardless.

It's an insurance policy. The climate scientists might not have
got it right, but the chance of that is much smaller than the
chance they're right; so the reasonable position would be that
the anti-GW measures and their inconveniences are worthwhile.
Expecting a planets worth of national governments to agree on
something reasonable is, on the other hand, not reasonable.

#Paul