CO2 emissions
Petert
the UK, but I was wondering if anyone has seen figures for the amount
of CO2 the unpronouncable Icelandic volcano has produced since the
start of its present eruption?
--
Cheers
Peter
OG
"Petert" <peter....@brightchro.me.uk> wrote in message
news:5cftu596lrcqamdml...@4ax.com...
What makes you think that motorists are blamed for producing 'the most CO2
in the UK'?
Who is making this accusation? I've never seen it.
BTW, volcanic emissions of CO2 are less than 1% of emissions due to fossil
fuels.
Petert
wrote:
>
>"Petert" <peter....@brightchro.me.uk> wrote in message
>news:5cftu596lrcqamdml...@4ax.com...
>>I know that motorists are falsely blamed for producing the most CO2 in
>> the UK, but I was wondering if anyone has seen figures for the amount
>> of CO2 the unpronouncable Icelandic volcano has produced since the
>> start of its present eruption?
>
>What makes you think that motorists are blamed for producing 'the most CO2
>in the UK'?
>Who is making this accusation? I've never seen it.
I paraphrased - the motorist, by virtue of the additional taxes
imposed on the motorist to "encourage" them to reduce car use and
thereby reduce their (miniscule) CO2 production
>
>BTW, volcanic emissions of CO2 are less than 1% of emissions due to fossil
>fuels.
Source?
So how much CO2 has the volcano produced? It's obviously more than it
produced before it started erupting
--
Cheers
Peter
(Reply to address is a spam trap - pse reply to the group)
john wright
> "Petert"<peter....@brightchro.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:5cftu596lrcqamdml...@4ax.com...
>> I know that motorists are falsely blamed for producing the most CO2 in
>> the UK, but I was wondering if anyone has seen figures for the amount
>> of CO2 the unpronouncable Icelandic volcano has produced since the
>> start of its present eruption?
>
> What makes you think that motorists are blamed for producing 'the most CO2
> in the UK'?
> Who is making this accusation? I've never seen it.
Probably just the perception of motorists being a cash cow for the
Treasury, which tends to be correct. Motorists are also commonly said to
be one of the least green of transport methods. Compare motoring with:
Pedestrianism
Cycling
Bus
Train
Air
Motoring tends to be seen as the next to highest CO2 producer per
passenger mile than the others, only air being worse. That's the
perception anyway. As always YMMV. (From a personal perspective I see
too many trains and buses on not-in-service positioning moves for me to
see them as being really low CO2 producers.)
As I understand it the housing stock produces the most CO2 in the UK
anyway. I may be wrong.
--
John Wright
Use your imagination Marvin!
Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.
Nightjar
> I know that motorists are falsely blamed for producing the most CO2 in
> the UK,
That is more usually ascribed to electrcity generation - 37% compared to
the 21% of all road transport.
> but I was wondering if anyone has seen figures for the amount
> of CO2 the unpronouncable Icelandic volcano has produced since the
> start of its present eruption?
Typically, 40% of the emissions from a volcano are CO2, but the annual
average is about 1% of the CO2 produced by burning fosil fuels. The two
main sources of CO2 are the ocean at 57% and animal respiration at 38%,
leaving all other sources, including man-made CO2 and deforestation, to
produce just 5%.
Depending upon your scientist and method of accounting, CO2 produces
anything from 5% to 26% of the greenhouse effect, which means that the
other sources are producing betwen 0.25% and 1.3% of the greenhouse
effect. Britain produces about 2% of global man-made CO2, so we are
contributing between 0.005% and 0.026% to the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect is, of course, only one theory as to the cause of
global warming. Oceanographers studying the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
and astronomers studing solar activity have both claimed those as the
main driver of global warming (the sun is currently at its most active
for 8000 years) and also both predict we are about to enter a 30 year
long cooling phase. If they are right, we should see the effect within
the next few years. Also, if they are right, the prediction is that, by
2100, the world will be about 0.5C cooler than is now, rather than the
4C hotter predicted for CO2 driven global warming.
Colin Bignell
Colin Bignell
john wright
You could start here: http://bit.ly/planevolcano and study this:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ea0210.pdf for a bit.
McKevvy
...or how about the volume of CO2 produced through fermentation of
wines and beers? Think about how much we drink then imagine the amount
of CO2 by-product. Perhaps the reason no-one in govt has raised this
issue is because it's already taxed to the hilt.
McK.
McKevvy
Actually, water vapour traps a large amount of heat and this is
largely responsible for temperature in the tropics.
McK.
Nightjar
...
> Actually, water vapour traps a large amount of heat and this is
> largely responsible for temperature in the tropics.
Without water vapour, the world would be about 33C cooler than it is
now. It is far more important than CO2 in the greenhouse effect, but
almost entirely natural and therefore no Government can put a tax on it.
Colin Bignell
OG
"Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
news:96WdnR9jtNCi9G3W...@giganews.com...
Somewhat more important is that burning of fossil fuels has significantly
increased the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, and this is the most
likely reason for the increase in global temperatures over recent historical
timescales.
OG
"McKevvy" <vicko_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:520be85d-993f-4be6...@m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Where does the CO2 come from? Recently grown grains and fruit. Hence it is
carbon neutral.
Nightjar
> "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
> news:96WdnR9jtNCi9G3W...@giganews.com...
>> McKevvy wrote:
>> ...
>>> Actually, water vapour traps a large amount of heat and this is
>>> largely responsible for temperature in the tropics.
>> Without water vapour, the world would be about 33C cooler than it is now.
>> It is far more important than CO2 in the greenhouse effect, but almost
>> entirely natural and therefore no Government can put a tax on it.
>>
>
> Somewhat more important is that burning of fossil fuels has significantly
> increased the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere,
Define significantly. As I pointed out earlier, 95% of CO2 comes from
the ocean and animal (including human) respiration. Of the remaining 5%,
1% comes from deforestation, leaving 4% for all other natural and
man-made causes, including volcanoes. Depending upon which scientist you
choose and the methods used for accounting for its effect, that 5%
contributes between 0.25% and 1.3% of the greenhouse effect.
> and this is the most
> likely reason for the increase in global temperatures over recent historical
> timescales.
It is the favoured theory among a particularly influential group of
scientists, although reading the detail of the IPCC report, it seems
likely they are far less unified in their opinion than the authors of
the report would like us to believe. There are also some serious
questions about the data they used. Russian scientists say that only 25%
of the data they supplied was used and that all came from areas affected
by urban warming. They further claim that using all the data supplied,
there has been no global warming for at least a couple of decades.
Canadian scientists also recently threw doubt onto the veracity of the
data, again saying that many of the temperature measurements used were
skewed by urban warming effects. Possibly the worst case being the
recorder at Rome airport that lies in the backblast from taxiing jets.
However, many more are in places where the temperature is artifically
high, such as next to an incinerator or, quite commonly, in the exhaust
from air conditioning plants.
There are two other major theories to account for the change. A
different set of Russian scientists have linked it to sun spot activity,
although without being able to account for why temperatures seem to
track activity. The sun is currently at its most active for 8000 years.
They are predicting a 30 year period of global cooling. Then there are
the scientists studying the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, who are also
predictng a 30 year cooling cycle. Of course, it is possible that these
two theories are linked, as the results are very similar and neither is
fully understood.
The trends over the next few years will give us a good idea of whether
the world has changed the way it has worked for millions of years, which
is that CO2 levels have increased as a result of warming rather than
rising CO2 driving temperature rises, or whether one of the other
theories is correct.
Colin Bignell
OG
"Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
> OG wrote:
>> "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
>> news:96WdnR9jtNCi9G3W...@giganews.com...
>>> McKevvy wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Actually, water vapour traps a large amount of heat and this is
>>>> largely responsible for temperature in the tropics.
>>> Without water vapour, the world would be about 33C cooler than it is
>>> now. It is far more important than CO2 in the greenhouse effect, but
>>> almost entirely natural and therefore no Government can put a tax on it.
>>>
>>
>> Somewhat more important is that burning of fossil fuels has significantly
>> increased the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere,
>
> Define significantly.
More than 20% over the last 50 years.
> As I pointed out earlier, 95% of CO2 comes from the ocean and animal
> (including human) respiration. Of the remaining 5%, 1% comes from
> deforestation, leaving 4% for all other natural and man-made causes,
> including volcanoes.
And in the pre-industrial era, that was pretty much in equilibrium. But as
fossil fuel burning has increased, the equilibrium has moved. Unless
something else is happening, the increase in atmospheric CO2 will inevitably
lead to an increased greenhouse effect.
>Depending upon which scientist you choose and the methods used for
>accounting for its effect, that 5% contributes between 0.25% and 1.3% of
>the greenhouse effect.
Cites please.
>> and this is the most likely reason for the increase in global
>> temperatures over recent historical timescales.
>
> It is the favoured theory among a particularly influential group of
> scientists, although reading the detail of the IPCC report, it seems
> likely they are far less unified in their opinion than the authors of the
> report would like us to believe. There are also some serious questions
> about the data they used. Russian scientists say that only 25% of the data
> they supplied was used and that all came from areas affected by urban
> warming. They further claim that using all the data supplied, there has
> been no global warming for at least a couple of decades. Canadian
> scientists also recently threw doubt onto the veracity of the data, again
> saying that many of the temperature measurements used were skewed by urban
> warming effects. Possibly the worst case being the recorder at Rome
> airport that lies in the backblast from taxiing jets. However, many more
> are in places where the temperature is artifically high, such as next to
> an incinerator or, quite commonly, in the exhaust from air conditioning
> plants.
>
> There are two other major theories to account for the change. A different
> set of Russian scientists have linked it to sun spot activity, although
> without being able to account for why temperatures seem to track activity.
> The sun is currently at its most active for 8000 years.
Cites please - My understanding is that solar activity has been pretty much
stable over the last 35 years, despite which the atmospheric warming has
continued to increase. Maybe it had 'some' effect, but its not clear that it
is the main cause. On the other hand, we do have increased atmospheric CO2
due to fossil fuel burning and we know that that would have the effect of
driving sustained atmospheric heating.
> They are predicting a 30 year period of global cooling. Then there are the
> scientists studying the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, who are also
> predictng a 30 year cooling cycle. Of course, it is possible that these
> two theories are linked, as the results are very similar and neither is
> fully understood.
If the PDO is the cause of the warming, why has there been 90 years of
trends for temperature increase? The PDO is supposed to have alternating
warming and cooling cycles, but the atmospheric temperatures have shown far
more increase than decrease over the last century.
> The trends over the next few years will give us a good idea of whether the
> world has changed the way it has worked for millions of years, which is
> that CO2 levels have increased as a result of warming rather than rising
> CO2 driving temperature rises, or whether one of the other theories is
> correct.
In the past, there wasn't a mechanism for release of huge amounts of fossil
fuel CO2 into the atmosphere. Why would you expect the world NOT to have
changed?
Adrian
were saying:
>>> Somewhat more important is that burning of fossil fuels has
>>> significantly increased the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere,
>> Define significantly.
> More than 20% over the last 50 years.
I think the only answer to that is...
> Cites please.
OG
"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:85dks5...@mid.individual.net...
No problem - Google "Keeling Curve"
plenty of cites
including data here from Scripps Institute
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
monthly data here.
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
1960 - 316 ppmv
2009 - 387 ppmv
22.5% increase.
Nightjar
>
> "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
> news:AvednadKZKksd23W...@giganews.com...
>> OG wrote:
>>> "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
>>> news:96WdnR9jtNCi9G3W...@giganews.com...
>>>> McKevvy wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Actually, water vapour traps a large amount of heat and this is
>>>>> largely responsible for temperature in the tropics.
>>>> Without water vapour, the world would be about 33C cooler than it is
>>>> now. It is far more important than CO2 in the greenhouse effect, but
>>>> almost entirely natural and therefore no Government can put a tax on
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Somewhat more important is that burning of fossil fuels has
>>> significantly increased the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere,
>>
>> Define significantly.
>
> More than 20% over the last 50 years.
Only if you attribute all the increase to the burning of fossil fuels
and ignore the fact that the oceans release more CO2 as they warm and
the fact that the world's population has more that doubled since 1959
and that the extra billions are all exhaling CO2.
>> As I pointed out earlier, 95% of CO2 comes from the ocean and animal
>> (including human) respiration. Of the remaining 5%, 1% comes from
>> deforestation, leaving 4% for all other natural and man-made causes,
>> including volcanoes.
>
> And in the pre-industrial era, that was pretty much in equilibrium. But
> as fossil fuel burning has increased, the equilibrium has moved. Unless
> something else is happening, the increase in atmospheric CO2 will
> inevitably lead to an increased greenhouse effect.
>
>> Depending upon which scientist you choose and the methods used for
>> accounting for its effect, that 5% contributes between 0.25% and 1.3%
>> of the greenhouse effect.
>
> Cites please.
IIRC, the proportion of CO2 from different sources comes from somewhere
deep inside the IPCC report, available from Cambridge University Press.
The maximum contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect at 26% is from
Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
The 5% minimum comes from Michaels, P.J. and Balling, R.C., The Satanic
Gases. Cato Institute, 2000
My calculations from those figures are given earlier in this thread.
It is only in the past 20 years that global temperatures have stopped
tracking solar activity as closely as they did,
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25538
However, if we are entering a cooling period, that would be an expected
result of hysterysis. Sun spot cycle 24, which we are a couple of years
into, has been unusually quiet. Historically, that has been linked to
long periods of global cooling, most notable the Maunder Minimum.
> Maybe it had 'some' effect, but its
> not clear that it is the main cause.
As I said, it is an alternative theory. None of them are clearly right,
or there would not be continuing dispute.
> On the other hand, we do have
> increased atmospheric CO2 due to fossil fuel burning and we know that
> that would have the effect of driving sustained atmospheric heating.
We do not *know* that. It is merely another theory. This article
disusses the matter in depth. In particular, note that the relationship
between increasing levels of CO2 and increasing temperature is
logarithmic, not linear.
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
>> They are predicting a 30 year period of global cooling. Then there are
>> the scientists studying the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, who are also
>> predictng a 30 year cooling cycle. Of course, it is possible that
>> these two theories are linked, as the results are very similar and
>> neither is fully understood.
>
> If the PDO is the cause of the warming, why has there been 90 years of
> trends for temperature increase?
> The PDO is supposed to have alternating
> warming and cooling cycles, but the atmospheric temperatures have shown
> far more increase than decrease over the last century.
If you look at the figures more carefully, you will see that global
temperatures peaked around 1940, when the PDO was in its warm cycle,
declined into the 1960s, when the PDO was in its cool cycle, and rose
again towards the end of the 20th century, when it was again in a warm
cycle. It is, of course, not the only oscillation and the others also
have an effect.
>> The trends over the next few years will give us a good idea of whether
>> the world has changed the way it has worked for millions of years,
>> which is that CO2 levels have increased as a result of warming rather
>> than rising CO2 driving temperature rises, or whether one of the other
>> theories is correct.
>
> In the past, there wasn't a mechanism for release of huge amounts of
> fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere. Why would you expect the world NOT
> to have changed?
There have, however, been periods with much higher levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere. One of the problems with the theory that CO2 drives global
warming is that warming releases more CO2 from the oceans, so the result
should have been a destructive positive feedback that cooked the planet.
As we know, that did not happen.
Colin Bignell
OG
"Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
> OG wrote:
>>
>> "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
>> news:AvednadKZKksd23W...@giganews.com...
>>> OG wrote:
>>>> "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
>>>> news:96WdnR9jtNCi9G3W...@giganews.com...
>>>>> McKevvy wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Actually, water vapour traps a large amount of heat and this is
>>>>>> largely responsible for temperature in the tropics.
>>>>> Without water vapour, the world would be about 33C cooler than it is
>>>>> now. It is far more important than CO2 in the greenhouse effect, but
>>>>> almost entirely natural and therefore no Government can put a tax on
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Somewhat more important is that burning of fossil fuels has
>>>> significantly increased the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere,
>>>
>>> Define significantly.
>>
>> More than 20% over the last 50 years.
>
> Only if you attribute all the increase to the burning of fossil fuels and
> ignore the fact that the oceans release more CO2 as they warm and the fact
> that the world's population has more that doubled since 1959 and that the
> extra billions are all exhaling CO2.
How does that add CO2?
What is the cause for the hysteresis?
> Sun spot cycle 24, which we are a couple of years into, has been unusually
> quiet.
The breakdown of the link is over a 20 year period, so what is the relevance
of the current cycle?
> Historically, that has been linked to long periods of global cooling, most
> notable the Maunder Minimum.
Any other periods , or is that the only period with an association ?
>> Maybe it had 'some' effect, but its not clear that it is the main cause.
>
> As I said, it is an alternative theory. None of them are clearly right, or
> there would not be continuing dispute.
Until relatively recently there was plenty of dispute about the harm of
tobacco products, and there is increasing dispute about creationism vs
evolution. Within the scientific world, the facts are pretty much settled.
We DO know the amount of fossil fuels that have been burned over the last
century or more and it correlates well with the increase in atmospheric CO2
and the expected atmospheric warming.
>> On the other hand, we do have increased atmospheric CO2 due to fossil
>> fuel burning and we know that that would have the effect of driving
>> sustained atmospheric heating.
>
> We do not *know* that. It is merely another theory. This article disusses
> the matter in depth. In particular, note that the relationship between
> increasing levels of CO2 and increasing temperature is logarithmic, not
> linear.
>
> http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
And why should I believe the author of that article rather than believing
experts in the field?
>>> They are predicting a 30 year period of global cooling. Then there are
>>> the scientists studying the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, who are also
>>> predictng a 30 year cooling cycle. Of course, it is possible that these
>>> two theories are linked, as the results are very similar and neither is
>>> fully understood.
>>
>> If the PDO is the cause of the warming, why has there been 90 years of
>> trends for temperature increase? The PDO is supposed to have alternating
>> warming and cooling cycles, but the atmospheric temperatures have shown
>> far more increase than decrease over the last century.
>
> If you look at the figures more carefully, you will see that global
> temperatures peaked around 1940, when the PDO was in its warm cycle,
> declined into the 1960s, when the PDO was in its cool cycle, and rose
> again towards the end of the 20th century, when it was again in a warm
> cycle. It is, of course, not the only oscillation and the others also have
> an effect.
In the warming cycle, between 1920 and 1940, the average temperature
increased by more than 0.3C; in the cooling cycle, between 1940 and 1970,
the temperature dropped by less than 0.1 degree, in the warming cycle
between then and now, the temperatures have increased by more than 0.5
degrees.
It does seem that the PDO is only a minor source of variation.
john wright
The oceans act as a huge sink for a lot of the CO2, however its
produced. Like most gases, the solubility in water tends to reduce as
the temperature goes up, so you end up with more CO2 than you first
thought of in the atmosphere.
OG
"john wright" <jo...@pegasus.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:85isj4...@mid.individual.net...
I was asking about the breathing humans!
Nightjar
>
> "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
>> OG wrote:
...
>>> More than 20% over the last 50 years.
>>
>> Only if you attribute all the increase to the burning of fossil fuels
>> and ignore the fact that the oceans release more CO2 as they warm and
>> the fact that the world's population has more that doubled since 1959
>> and that the extra billions are all exhaling CO2.
>
> How does that add CO2?
You have a problem with the concept that around 6.7 billion people
breathing exhale between them more than twice as much CO2 as 3 billion
people? If so, you are going to struggle with some of the more complex
topics.
...
>> It is only in the past 20 years that global temperatures have stopped
>> tracking solar activity as closely as they did,
>>
>> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25538
>>
>> However, if we are entering a cooling period, that would be an
>> expected result of hysterysis.
> What is the cause for the hysteresis?
Hysteresis simply means that there is a delay between cause and effect.
It is an inherent property of most natural cycles and for global
phenomena often runs into decades.
>> Sun spot cycle 24, which we are a couple of years into, has been
>> unusually quiet.
>
> The breakdown of the link is over a 20 year period, so what is the
> relevance of the current cycle?
The link is not broken; it is simply less close. The relevance is that,
if the sun spot theory is correct, then a very quiet sun is going to
make the planet get colder. The fact that temperatures are rather higher
than would be expected just means that it probably won't get as cold as
it did in the 17th-18th century.
>> Historically, that has been linked to long periods of global cooling,
>> most notable the Maunder Minimum.
>
> Any other periods , or is that the only period with an association ?
Quite a few since the Chinese started observations around 800BC. That
simply happens to be the best known.
>>> Maybe it had 'some' effect, but its not clear that it is the main cause.
>>
>> As I said, it is an alternative theory. None of them are clearly
>> right, or there would not be continuing dispute.
>
> Until relatively recently there was plenty of dispute about the harm of
> tobacco products,
Indeed. The vested interests, the people who stood to make a lot of
money from it, said one thing and other people said another. Eventually
science proved what was originally a minority view was correct. One day,
we may even know which theory about climate change is correct. We don't yet.
> and there is increasing dispute about creationism vs
> evolution.
That is a matter of religious belief, although, in that, it does bear a
strong resemblence to the arguments about climate change.
> Within the scientific world, the facts are pretty much settled.
Certainly it is among those who get large grants to prove the case for
CO2 being the driver. Many other scientists beg to differ, see below.
> We DO know the amount of fossil fuels that have been burned over the
> last century or more and it correlates well with the increase in
> atmospheric CO2 and the expected atmospheric warming.
There are those who would disagree
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
It is also worth recalling that the 'expected atmospheric warming' is
only expected because that is what computer models predict and that
computer models are only as good as the assumptions made when creating
them. NASA had two computer models of how sun spot cycle 24 would
progress - both were wrong.
>>> On the other hand, we do have increased atmospheric CO2 due to fossil
>>> fuel burning and we know that that would have the effect of driving
>>> sustained atmospheric heating.
>>
>> We do not *know* that. It is merely another theory. This article
>> disusses the matter in depth. In particular, note that the
>> relationship between increasing levels of CO2 and increasing
>> temperature is logarithmic, not linear.
>>
>> http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
>
> And why should I believe the author of that article rather than
> believing experts in the field?
What you mean is why should you believe that expert in the field rather
than others. I was not suggesting you should. I was simply providing you
with information you may not have been aware of that runs against the
accepted wisdom. How can anyone hold a balanced opinion if they are not
just as familiar with the case against as with the case for?
...
>> If you look at the figures more carefully, you will see that global
>> temperatures peaked around 1940, when the PDO was in its warm cycle,
>> declined into the 1960s, when the PDO was in its cool cycle, and rose
>> again towards the end of the 20th century, when it was again in a warm
>> cycle. It is, of course, not the only oscillation and the others also
>> have an effect.
>
> In the warming cycle, between 1920 and 1940, the average temperature
> increased by more than 0.3C; in the cooling cycle, between 1940 and
> 1970, the temperature dropped by less than 0.1 degree, in the warming
> cycle between then and now, the temperatures have increased by more than
> 0.5 degrees.
> It does seem that the PDO is only a minor source of variation.
The world got warmer when the PDO got warmer and the world got colder
when the PDO got colder, which fits the theory that the two are linked.
It would be neccesary to look at the state of other oscillations, such
as El Nino, over the same time scale to see whether they would add to or
reduce the effects of the PDO. However, if the PDO is the cause of the
temperature changes, then those variations in the global average are
anything but a minor effect.
Colin Bignell
OG
"Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
I seriously look at the counter arguments and am just not convinced. I get
the feeling that you are accepting poor correlations and presumed 'if-then'
conditions in support of your 'alternative explanations', while requiring
high levels of correlations from the accepted explanation.
Just an observation.
Nightjar
...
> I seriously look at the counter arguments and am just not convinced. I get
> the feeling that you are accepting poor correlations and presumed 'if-then'
> conditions in support of your 'alternative explanations', while requiring
> high levels of correlations from the accepted explanation.
I don't find any of the arguments sufficiently convicing to accept any
of them. Therefore, I will not rule out any reasonably plausible
explaination without further evidence.
I am concerned about the apparent manipulation of the figures to support
the CO2 theory, particularly as the Hadley Centre and the Met Office are
so reluctant to release the data for independent verification. I also
find it suspicious that the IPCC report defines such a wide range for
considering something as 'likely', 66% to 95%, which would have the
effect of disguising significant dissention among the contributors.
However, while the CO2 theory will take decades to resolve, the PDO and
/ or sun spot predictions require that there are noticable changes over
the next few years, which should narrow the field down.
Colin Bignell
OG
"Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
> OG wrote:
> ...
>> I seriously look at the counter arguments and am just not convinced. I
>> get the feeling that you are accepting poor correlations and presumed
>> 'if-then' conditions in support of your 'alternative explanations', while
>> requiring high levels of correlations from the accepted explanation.
>
> I don't find any of the arguments sufficiently convicing to accept any of
> them. Therefore, I will not rule out any reasonably plausible explaination
> without further evidence.
Except the anthropogenic fossil fuel CO2 one, apparently.
That's how it looks like to me.
Nightjar
I have not ruled it out, but neither have I accepted it, any more than I
have accepted any other theory. I find the secrecy surrounding the data
it is based upon, the poor working methods of people handling that data
and main line statisticians criticising the way the IPCC uses statistics
all very worrying.
Colin Bignell
john wright
Stupid pointless speculation if you ask me. I'm with Richard Dawkins on
this.
Nightjar
> ...I'm with Richard Dawkins on
> this.
Too moderate
Colin Bignell
john wright
> john wright wrote:
>> ...I'm with Richard Dawkins on
>> this.
>
> Too moderate
I would agree with Christopher Hitchens on this as well. I think he's
wrong to have supported the invasion of Iraq though.
I can be quite extreme - my own view is that *all* religion is bollocks
and harmful bollocks at that - we'd be better off if there was no such
thing at all. As probably did the guy who first wrote what I use as a .sig.