Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Summer?
52 views
Skip to first unread message
greymausg
May 25, 2013, 3:20:44 PM5/25/13
to
Well, Spring-Summer is peeping out, Ash trees are leafing, as are Oaks,
which is early, but grass growth is very poor, manured land (3 weeks ago)
is showing nothing much. Stories of hardship from higher, poorer land are
widespread, hay, silage still being trucked in from as far as France.
There is a big question of the viability of some farms, whether the land
would be better planted with trees. Another year, other problems. Where
is this `global warming'?.
--
maus
.
.
...
Message has been deleted
buddenbrooks
May 26, 2013, 4:06:50 AM5/26/13
to
"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+igOdW5f...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article <slrnkq0t0...@gmaus.org>, greymausg <ma...@mail.com>
> writes
> It is being suggested that the melting of the arctic sea ice, which has
> increased dramatically in recent years, is helping to push the jet stream
> further south .
It has been a scientific principle since Newton's time that one predicts
the result before the experiment.
Some years back we were told that global warming will cause wetter warmer
weather in the UK, now we are having
colder wetter weather we are still told it is proof of the prediction.
A few years ago we were told that the dinasaurs died out due to a large
meteor impact in Mexico causing global cooling. Now better techniques show
the impact occured near the end of the period that the dinasaurs died out
and it was only the closing act not the primary cause, which is still
unknown. So widely held beliefs in the scientific community is not always
evidence of truth.
We now have a international industry based on the theory of global warming
having international conventions
spending billions having no consistant theories to describe what is now
happening compared to previous epochs that the planet went through similar
high CO2 periods and temperatures.
It is certain that we risk collapsing the world economies changing human
behaviour with insufficient evidence that specific actions are a reducing
effect on the reported problem.
If 'melting ice' is causing the gulf stream to move south where are the
satelite thermal images showing it?
Howard Neil
May 26, 2013, 4:42:41 AM5/26/13
to
--
Howard Neil
Tim Lamb
May 26, 2013, 5:16:17 AM5/26/13
to
In message <slrnkq0t0...@gmaus.org>, greymausg <ma...@mail.com>
writes
>
I have some bullock hay but you will have to fetch:-)
--
Tim Lamb
writes
>
--
Tim Lamb
Peter Duncanson
May 26, 2013, 6:05:08 AM5/26/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 08:07:11 +0100, Malcolm <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>In article <slrnkq0t0...@gmaus.org>, greymausg <ma...@mail.com>
>writes
>>
>The grass is at last growing here, but farmers have spent far more than
>usual bringing in silage from the mainland. Fortunately, lambing is
>always fairly late here, rarely before April. But we've had sleet and
>hail showers in the last few days which is a touch unseasonal.
>
Farmers in Northern Ireland have had to import hay, etc, from Britain.
The NI government has allocate money to assist with the transport costs.
[DARD = (NI) Department of Agriculture and Regional Development]
http://www.farminglife.com/news/fodder-taskforce-is-established-by-dard-minister-1-5106548
Fodder taskforce is established by DARD Minister
19/05/2013
http://www.farminglife.com/news/ecni-highlight-dard-fodder-transport-scheme-1-5111350
ECNI highlight DARD fodder transport scheme
21/05/2013
Following critical fodder shortages in Northern Ireland, The Equine
Council for Northern Ireland (ECNI) would like to advise the equine
sector in Northern Ireland that the DARD Fodder Transport Scheme
which has just been launched covers horses as well as cattle, sheep
and goats.
http://www.countrysiderural.co.uk/farmer-guidance-fodder-scheme/
Farmer Guidance - Fodder Scheme
20th May 2013
My son and I were travelling from Birkenhead (nr Liverpool) to Belfast
by ferry (8 hour crossing) on 22nd/23rd May. We noticed that two of the
many vehicles boarding and leaving the ship were large lorries with
trailers carrying as much hay as could be managed within width and
height limits.
>It is being suggested that the melting of the arctic sea ice, which has
>increased dramatically in recent years, is helping to push the jet
>stream further south thus giving Europe colder winters and more easterly
>winds. And the melting sea ice is definitely an effect of global
>warming.
>
>http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/tag/arctic-sea-ice/
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture)
wrote:
>
>In article <slrnkq0t0...@gmaus.org>, greymausg <ma...@mail.com>
>writes
>>
>usual bringing in silage from the mainland. Fortunately, lambing is
>always fairly late here, rarely before April. But we've had sleet and
>hail showers in the last few days which is a touch unseasonal.
>
Farmers in Northern Ireland have had to import hay, etc, from Britain.
The NI government has allocate money to assist with the transport costs.
[DARD = (NI) Department of Agriculture and Regional Development]
http://www.farminglife.com/news/fodder-taskforce-is-established-by-dard-minister-1-5106548
Fodder taskforce is established by DARD Minister
19/05/2013
http://www.farminglife.com/news/ecni-highlight-dard-fodder-transport-scheme-1-5111350
ECNI highlight DARD fodder transport scheme
21/05/2013
Following critical fodder shortages in Northern Ireland, The Equine
Council for Northern Ireland (ECNI) would like to advise the equine
sector in Northern Ireland that the DARD Fodder Transport Scheme
which has just been launched covers horses as well as cattle, sheep
and goats.
http://www.countrysiderural.co.uk/farmer-guidance-fodder-scheme/
Farmer Guidance - Fodder Scheme
20th May 2013
My son and I were travelling from Birkenhead (nr Liverpool) to Belfast
by ferry (8 hour crossing) on 22nd/23rd May. We noticed that two of the
many vehicles boarding and leaving the ship were large lorries with
trailers carrying as much hay as could be managed within width and
height limits.
>It is being suggested that the melting of the arctic sea ice, which has
>increased dramatically in recent years, is helping to push the jet
>winds. And the melting sea ice is definitely an effect of global
>warming.
>
>http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/tag/arctic-sea-ice/
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture)
buddenbrooks
May 26, 2013, 6:41:07 AM5/26/13
to
"Howard Neil" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uOCdnR3QWsucVjzM...@brightview.co.uk...
>
> Errr. maus said the jet stream, not the Gulf Stream..........
>
Hurupf!! Typical police officer, letting evidence cloud the issue.
> Errr. maus said the jet stream, not the Gulf Stream..........
>
Howard Neil
May 26, 2013, 7:49:50 AM5/26/13
to
works and affects our weather (scroll down to "Conclusion" if you don't
want to read it all and just wish to see the relevance to this thread):-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/jetstream-guide.html
--
Howard Neil
David P
May 26, 2013, 8:05:53 AM5/26/13
to
<grins>
Message has been deleted
buddenbrooks
May 26, 2013, 9:21:19 AM5/26/13
to
news:R_2dnfsqo4F9azzM...@brightview.co.uk...
Too much to absorb quickly, worth doing so by the look of it, will add to
to do list.
' From the conclusions I would agree with: 'Clearly, we need to get a good
handle on what is going on here'
I don't disagree that mankind is modifying the atmosphere, it is the
'something must be done and this is something'
reaction we are in the middle of.
We have to accept that the 'third world' needs to lift itself to the same
level of opportunities of the 'developed world'
and that it is politically very difficult to lower living standards in the
developed world. So taxing fuel and travel and manufacturing out of
existence is not going to work. Which seems to be the route favoured by
many.
We should be spending large amounts on research into efficient buildings,
transport and food production.
We should also be wary of assuming that the observed effects are 100% man
made. If they are part of a natural cycle then we will have to live with the
effects without any hope of reversing it.
Now anyone with any sense would sell up any property in low level areas
like London and move to some where higher , like Wales :) although breeding
an ability to swim in sheep might be useful in the long run.
Clearly, we need to get a good handle on what is going on here
to do list.
' From the conclusions I would agree with: 'Clearly, we need to get a good
handle on what is going on here'
I don't disagree that mankind is modifying the atmosphere, it is the
'something must be done and this is something'
reaction we are in the middle of.
We have to accept that the 'third world' needs to lift itself to the same
level of opportunities of the 'developed world'
and that it is politically very difficult to lower living standards in the
developed world. So taxing fuel and travel and manufacturing out of
existence is not going to work. Which seems to be the route favoured by
many.
We should be spending large amounts on research into efficient buildings,
transport and food production.
We should also be wary of assuming that the observed effects are 100% man
made. If they are part of a natural cycle then we will have to live with the
effects without any hope of reversing it.
Now anyone with any sense would sell up any property in low level areas
like London and move to some where higher , like Wales :) although breeding
an ability to swim in sheep might be useful in the long run.
Clearly, we need to get a good handle on what is going on here
buddenbrooks
May 26, 2013, 9:35:28 AM5/26/13
to
news:TJ613472...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> There are already far too many people pontificating about climate change
> based on opinions and not facts, and sadly many of those do so on the
> basis of non-facts, as you have just done!
>
The lack of a 'control' set means that it is very difficult to correlate
cause and effect.
The falsefication some time back of climate data makes any informed view
difficult and
Richard Attenborough's alleged false statements
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/feb/08/bbc-global-warming-attenborough-africa
does mean that we cannot consider the cure while the evidence for the cause
is not well defined.
The effect may be there but the climate change lobby is yet to produce a
workable computer model that can effectively used to
mitigate or live with the effects without having the economic damage that
could lead to large scale human conflict.
Current disputes over water shortage and shareing rivers that flow through
several countries are only a little of what could happen in the future.
In any other species we would identify the problem as too many and
organise a cull.
>
>
> There are already far too many people pontificating about climate change
> based on opinions and not facts, and sadly many of those do so on the
> basis of non-facts, as you have just done!
>
The lack of a 'control' set means that it is very difficult to correlate
cause and effect.
The falsefication some time back of climate data makes any informed view
difficult and
Richard Attenborough's alleged false statements
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/feb/08/bbc-global-warming-attenborough-africa
does mean that we cannot consider the cure while the evidence for the cause
is not well defined.
The effect may be there but the climate change lobby is yet to produce a
workable computer model that can effectively used to
mitigate or live with the effects without having the economic damage that
could lead to large scale human conflict.
Current disputes over water shortage and shareing rivers that flow through
several countries are only a little of what could happen in the future.
In any other species we would identify the problem as too many and
organise a cull.
Message has been deleted
Howard Neil
May 26, 2013, 11:11:20 AM5/26/13
to
On 26/05/2013 14:21, buddenbrooks wrote:
>
> Now anyone with any sense would sell up any property in low level areas
> like London and move to some where higher , like Wales :)
I did that 14 years ago. :-)
>
> Now anyone with any sense would sell up any property in low level areas
> like London and move to some where higher , like Wales :)
although
> breeding an ability to swim in sheep might be useful in the long run.
>
>
dip? ;-)
--
Howard Neil
Howard Neil
May 26, 2013, 11:12:14 AM5/26/13
to
--
Howard Neil
Message has been deleted
Howard Neil
May 26, 2013, 12:30:13 PM5/26/13
to
On 26/05/2013 16:40, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <XNGdnXz5TpPTuz_M...@brightview.co.uk>, Howard
> Neil <inv...@invalid.co.uk> writes
> That's all right, Howard. Now you just have to learn how to spell my
> name :-))
>
Seems I'm having a bad day, Tim. ;-)
Sorry again.
--
Howard Neil
>
> In article <XNGdnXz5TpPTuz_M...@brightview.co.uk>, Howard
> Neil <inv...@invalid.co.uk> writes
> name :-))
>
Seems I'm having a bad day, Tim. ;-)
Sorry again.
--
Howard Neil
greymausg
May 26, 2013, 1:33:36 PM5/26/13
to
for the ends of winters several times, returned a load of same, so I had
usual as well as some left from previous year, result, one lonely bale left.
Better than one person who got a good offer for his supposed surplus in
February, ran out in late March.
buddenbrooks
May 26, 2013, 2:59:32 PM5/26/13
to
news:h6XJrT9B...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> This is hardly surprising. Computer models are only as good as the data
> fed into them and there are large gaps in the data as well as changing
> circumstances, e.g. the recent finding that arctic sea ice melt affects
> the track of the jet stream.
>
We live in a totally deterministic universe, from the moment of the big
bang the end of the universe was totally predictable.
So there are no 'changing circumstances' that cannot be put into a computer
model.
>
>
> This is hardly surprising. Computer models are only as good as the data
> fed into them and there are large gaps in the data as well as changing
> circumstances, e.g. the recent finding that arctic sea ice melt affects
> the track of the jet stream.
>
We live in a totally deterministic universe, from the moment of the big
bang the end of the universe was totally predictable.
So there are no 'changing circumstances' that cannot be put into a computer
model.
buddenbrooks
May 26, 2013, 3:04:36 PM5/26/13
to
news:XNGdnX35TpOEuz_M...@brightview.co.uk...
different story :)
>> Now anyone with any sense would sell up any property in low level areas
>> like London and move to some where higher , like Wales :)
>
>
> I did that 14 years ago. :-)
>
Probably your wisest decision, but you may wish to tell your wife a
>> like London and move to some where higher , like Wales :)
>
>
> I did that 14 years ago. :-)
>
different story :)
buddenbrooks
May 26, 2013, 3:23:45 PM5/26/13
to
"buddenbrooks" <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:xMGdnWukFoRawT_M...@brightview.co.uk...
Probably the wisest decision in your life ...
Old Codger
May 26, 2013, 3:37:39 PM5/26/13
to
third cut and it is almost too long for the mower.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Old Codger
May 26, 2013, 3:39:58 PM5/26/13
to
On 26/05/2013 09:06, buddenbrooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
> We now have a international industry based on the theory of global
> warming having international conventions
> spending billions having no consistant theories to describe what is now
> happening compared to previous epochs that the planet went through
> similar high CO2 periods and temperatures.
If the politicians had not this to work on and tax they would invent
> warming having international conventions
> spending billions having no consistant theories to describe what is now
> happening compared to previous epochs that the planet went through
> similar high CO2 periods and temperatures.
some other worry. They have to be seen to be doing something.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
buddenbrooks
May 26, 2013, 3:58:03 PM5/26/13
to
news:oRP7hFAj...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> So what? That's trite and irrelevant.
>
??
> Even the most powerful computers and models can't cope with the
> unpredictability of our weather and climate.
No, as I said the universe is totally deterministic, so your first part is
true the second is not, weather is totally predictable.
To get back on topic :
I am in favour of not polluting our planet and not using up all our
resourses leaving nothing for future generations.
I am not in favour of living a low quality of life because I am being
taxed to support 'green' policies which have little scientific rigour. I am
not in favour of taxes on aircraft flights, I am in favour of research into
more efficient aircraft.
And to follow on your remark about 'Even the most powerful computers and
models can't cope'
which is why any prediction on global warming is based on inadequate tools
and analysis and should be the start of research not the point to start
destroying the worlds economies.
>
> So what? That's trite and irrelevant.
>
??
> Even the most powerful computers and models can't cope with the
> unpredictability of our weather and climate.
No, as I said the universe is totally deterministic, so your first part is
true the second is not, weather is totally predictable.
To get back on topic :
I am in favour of not polluting our planet and not using up all our
resourses leaving nothing for future generations.
I am not in favour of living a low quality of life because I am being
taxed to support 'green' policies which have little scientific rigour. I am
not in favour of taxes on aircraft flights, I am in favour of research into
more efficient aircraft.
And to follow on your remark about 'Even the most powerful computers and
models can't cope'
which is why any prediction on global warming is based on inadequate tools
and analysis and should be the start of research not the point to start
destroying the worlds economies.
buddenbrooks
May 26, 2013, 3:59:25 PM5/26/13
to
"Old Codger" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:51a2650e$0$1127$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
> On 26/05/2013 09:06, buddenbrooks wrote:
.
>
> If the politicians had not this to work on and tax they would invent some
> other worry. They have to be seen to be doing something.
>
You are far too kind to polititions, I suspect they know how many green
.
>
> If the politicians had not this to work on and tax they would invent some
> other worry. They have to be seen to be doing something.
>
taxes are needed to fund a £10000 pay rise for MPs]
Howard Neil
May 27, 2013, 12:17:12 AM5/27/13
to
in our lives. ;-)
--
Howard Neil
Message has been deleted
buddenbrooks
May 27, 2013, 7:38:44 AM5/27/13
to
news:wNudnZhj3qLUQz_M...@brightview.co.uk...
> On 26/05/2013 20:23, buddenbrooks wrote:
>
> Indeed. I got over that dilemma by making it the wisest joint decision in
> our lives. ;-)
>
Ah, were you attached to the Diplomatic Division of the London Police?
>
> Indeed. I got over that dilemma by making it the wisest joint decision in
> our lives. ;-)
>
Howard Neil
May 27, 2013, 8:22:06 AM5/27/13
to
--
Howard Neil
buddenbrooks
May 27, 2013, 8:46:56 AM5/27/13
to
news:NYfijpBj...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>>
> So, please tell me how much rain will fall here on 2nd June and how many
> hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
It is totally deterministic and with a sufficiently powerful calculation
engine you could have an answer.
I am however not that skilled.
That and of course you failed to say where 'here' is.
> Research started a long time ago. It proceeds on the basis on the best
> available information. Obviously, there will be inadequacies, whether in
> tools or analysis, but the words which I prefer to use in such
> circumstances are "the precautionary principle". Wikipedia puts it quite
> well: "The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states if an
> action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to
> the environment, that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of
> proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an act."
>
'in the absence of scientific consensus' Who would that be making that
decision? Who would enforce it?
Yesterdays article in the Daily Mail by a leading authority in Global
Warming is strongly of the opinion that
the organisations with vested interests in the 'green movement' have
invalidated all the information that is going into models and therefore the
predictions that can be made from these models.
His view was that we had only used a % of the carbon based fuels available
and we would eventually dump the carbon from the rest into the atmosphere.
Efficiency improvements would only extend the period over which this
happened and doing so in 200 years or 10 made no climatic difference. His
suggestion was that all industry had to 'bury' the CO2 equivalent its
activity was responsible for. This having the advantage that it requires no
complex climate model and the big producers such as the oil and gas
industries have the financial clout to develope efficient and cost effective
methods.
>
>>
> So, please tell me how much rain will fall here on 2nd June and how many
> hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
It is totally deterministic and with a sufficiently powerful calculation
engine you could have an answer.
I am however not that skilled.
That and of course you failed to say where 'here' is.
> Research started a long time ago. It proceeds on the basis on the best
> available information. Obviously, there will be inadequacies, whether in
> tools or analysis, but the words which I prefer to use in such
> circumstances are "the precautionary principle". Wikipedia puts it quite
> well: "The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states if an
> action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to
> the environment, that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of
> proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an act."
>
'in the absence of scientific consensus' Who would that be making that
decision? Who would enforce it?
Yesterdays article in the Daily Mail by a leading authority in Global
Warming is strongly of the opinion that
the organisations with vested interests in the 'green movement' have
invalidated all the information that is going into models and therefore the
predictions that can be made from these models.
His view was that we had only used a % of the carbon based fuels available
and we would eventually dump the carbon from the rest into the atmosphere.
Efficiency improvements would only extend the period over which this
happened and doing so in 200 years or 10 made no climatic difference. His
suggestion was that all industry had to 'bury' the CO2 equivalent its
activity was responsible for. This having the advantage that it requires no
complex climate model and the big producers such as the oil and gas
industries have the financial clout to develope efficient and cost effective
methods.
Old Codger
May 27, 2013, 2:50:24 PM5/27/13
to
On 27/05/2013 07:22, Malcolm wrote:
>>
> So, please tell me how much rain will fall here on 2nd June and how many
> hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
Sunday 2 June:
>>
> So, please tell me how much rain will fall here on 2nd June and how many
> hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
No rain in either place.
London temperature around 19 with sun through high clouds, so 12 to 16
hours of hazy sun.
Bruichladdich temperature around 12 with sunshine all day so possibly 17
hours of sun.
HTH
Steve Firth
May 27, 2013, 5:50:58 PM5/27/13
to
"buddenbrooks" <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> "Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:NYfijpBj...@indaal.demon.co.uk.
> "Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:NYfijpBj...@indaal.demon.co.uk.
>> So, please tell me how much rain will fall here on 2nd June and how many
>> > hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
>
> It is totally deterministic and with a sufficiently powerful
> calculation engine you could have an answer.
> I am however not that skilled.
No one is. Weather is not deterministic it is chaotic. You can't, no matter
>> > hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
>
> It is totally deterministic and with a sufficiently powerful
> calculation engine you could have an answer.
> I am however not that skilled.
how hard you try, build a deterministic model of weather systems. It will
inevitably break down rather quickly.
You need to consider Gödel's incompleteness theorems which establish the
inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems, and
Lorenz's work on chaotic systems. The latter shows that with many chaotic
systems that it is possible within limited conditions to predict chaotic
systems but that they quickly reach a set of conditions in which the
prediction fails catastrophically.
see:
http://www.yiin.ca/chaos/content.htm
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
BioRe...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com
May 28, 2013, 2:39:38 PM5/28/13
to
In article <SuadnRMm8LVcyD7M...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Who would enforce it?
I can't answwer that than I could answer 'Who will stop murder'
assuming they could, and there is no proven technology, then these
measures, masny serioously flawed, brought in by goverments would truly
not be needed.
--
Regards from Bob Seago: http://www.rjseago.com
buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> "Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:NYfijpBj...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >>
> > So, please tell me how much rain will fall here on 2nd June and how
> > many hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
> It is totally deterministic and with a sufficiently powerful
> calculation engine you could have an answer. I am however not that
> skilled.
> That and of course you failed to say where 'here' is.
> > Research started a long time ago. It proceeds on the basis on the best
> > available information. Obviously, there will be inadequacies, whether
> > in tools or analysis, but the words which I prefer to use in such
> > circumstances are "the precautionary principle". Wikipedia puts it
> > quite well: "The precautionary principle or precautionary approach
> > states if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to
> > the public or to the environment, that the action or policy is
> > harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those
> > taking an act."
> >
> in the absence of scientific consensus' Who would that be making that
> decision?
There is a very broad scientific consensus
> "Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:NYfijpBj...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >>
> > So, please tell me how much rain will fall here on 2nd June and how
> > many hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
> It is totally deterministic and with a sufficiently powerful
> calculation engine you could have an answer. I am however not that
> skilled.
> That and of course you failed to say where 'here' is.
> > Research started a long time ago. It proceeds on the basis on the best
> > available information. Obviously, there will be inadequacies, whether
> > in tools or analysis, but the words which I prefer to use in such
> > circumstances are "the precautionary principle". Wikipedia puts it
> > quite well: "The precautionary principle or precautionary approach
> > states if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to
> > the public or to the environment, that the action or policy is
> > harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those
> > taking an act."
> >
> in the absence of scientific consensus' Who would that be making that
> decision?
> Who would enforce it?
I can't answwer that than I could answer 'Who will stop murder'
> Yesterdays article in the Daily Mail by a leading authority in Global
> Warming
Who was that, I can't find a referennce on todays Mail on Line.
> Warming
> is strongly of the opinion that the organisations with vested
> interests in the 'green movement' have invalidated all the information
> that is going into models and therefore the predictions that can be
> made from these models.
> His view was that we had only used a % of the carbon based fuels
> available and we would eventually dump the carbon from the rest into
> the atmosphere. Efficiency improvements would only extend the period
> over which this happened and doing so in 200 years or 10 made no
> climatic difference. His suggestion was that all industry had to 'bury'
> the CO2 equivalent its activity was responsible for. This having the
> advantage that it requires no complex climate model and the big
> producers such as the oil and gas industries have the financial clout
> to develope efficient and cost effective methods.
But business has long had an interwesty in not doing that. Indeed
> interests in the 'green movement' have invalidated all the information
> that is going into models and therefore the predictions that can be
> made from these models.
> His view was that we had only used a % of the carbon based fuels
> available and we would eventually dump the carbon from the rest into
> the atmosphere. Efficiency improvements would only extend the period
> over which this happened and doing so in 200 years or 10 made no
> climatic difference. His suggestion was that all industry had to 'bury'
> the CO2 equivalent its activity was responsible for. This having the
> advantage that it requires no complex climate model and the big
> producers such as the oil and gas industries have the financial clout
> to develope efficient and cost effective methods.
assuming they could, and there is no proven technology, then these
measures, masny serioously flawed, brought in by goverments would truly
not be needed.
--
Regards from Bob Seago: http://www.rjseago.com
Old Codger
May 28, 2013, 4:57:14 PM5/28/13
to
On 28/05/2013 07:49, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <51a3aaf2$0$23472$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger
> <m...@privacy.net> writes
>
Ooh, I would not put money on it. It is already changing, London partly
cloudy and Bruichladdich sunny periods.
Weather forecasting is, I consider, largely guesswork, inspired perhaps
but still guesswork.
>
> In article <51a3aaf2$0$23472$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger
> <m...@privacy.net> writes
>> On 27/05/2013 07:22, Malcolm wrote:
>>>>
>>> So, please tell me how much rain will fall here on 2nd June and how many
>>> hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
>>
>> Sunday 2 June:
>>
>> No rain in either place.
>>
>> London temperature around 19 with sun through high clouds, so 12 to 16
>> hours of hazy sun.
>>
>> Bruichladdich temperature around 12 with sunshine all day so possibly
>> 17 hours of sun.
>>
>> HTH
>>
> Right, now for your betting odds :-)
>>>>
>>> So, please tell me how much rain will fall here on 2nd June and how many
>>> hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
>>
>> Sunday 2 June:
>>
>> No rain in either place.
>>
>> London temperature around 19 with sun through high clouds, so 12 to 16
>> hours of hazy sun.
>>
>> Bruichladdich temperature around 12 with sunshine all day so possibly
>> 17 hours of sun.
>>
>> HTH
>>
>
Ooh, I would not put money on it. It is already changing, London partly
cloudy and Bruichladdich sunny periods.
Weather forecasting is, I consider, largely guesswork, inspired perhaps
but still guesswork.
Howard Neil
May 29, 2013, 12:49:12 AM5/29/13
to
On 28/05/2013 21:57, Old Codger wrote:
> On 28/05/2013 07:49, Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> In article <51a3aaf2$0$23472$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger
>> <m...@privacy.net> writes
>>> On 27/05/2013 07:22, Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> So, please tell me how much rain will fall here on 2nd June and how
>>>> many
>>>> hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
>>>
>>> Sunday 2 June:
>>>
>>> No rain in either place.
>>>
>>> London temperature around 19 with sun through high clouds, so 12 to 16
>>> hours of hazy sun.
>>>
>>> Bruichladdich temperature around 12 with sunshine all day so possibly
>>> 17 hours of sun.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>> Right, now for your betting odds :-)
>>
> Ooh, I would not put money on it. It is already changing, London partly
> cloudy and Bruichladdich sunny periods.
>
> Weather forecasting is, I consider, largely guesswork, inspired perhaps
> but still guesswork.
>
Indeed it is. Meteorology is a big hobby of mine and I produce a daily
> On 28/05/2013 07:49, Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> In article <51a3aaf2$0$23472$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger
>> <m...@privacy.net> writes
>>> On 27/05/2013 07:22, Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> So, please tell me how much rain will fall here on 2nd June and how
>>>> many
>>>> hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
>>>
>>> Sunday 2 June:
>>>
>>> No rain in either place.
>>>
>>> London temperature around 19 with sun through high clouds, so 12 to 16
>>> hours of hazy sun.
>>>
>>> Bruichladdich temperature around 12 with sunshine all day so possibly
>>> 17 hours of sun.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>> Right, now for your betting odds :-)
>>
> Ooh, I would not put money on it. It is already changing, London partly
> cloudy and Bruichladdich sunny periods.
>
> Weather forecasting is, I consider, largely guesswork, inspired perhaps
> but still guesswork.
>
forecast for my local area on my website. I only do this for the next
five days and with the knowledge of the micro-climate of my particular
area.
The forecast for day five will nearly always change in some detail on
most days, depending on the weather type. It is normally accurate on the
last day but will have changed a lot from being day five. And that is
with the benefit of some very powerful weather models from some very
large weather organisations worldwide. As already said, the weather is
chaotic.
On the various weather forums and newsgroups, it is common to refer to
the time scale outside the next 5 or so days as FI (Fantasy Island).
Guesswork? Not quite but I like to think of it as horse racing without
the betting. ;-)
--
Howard Neil
Message has been deleted
Jane Gillett
May 29, 2013, 4:30:58 AM5/29/13
to
In article <53530b0916...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com>,
AND sufficient accurate data
> > you could have an answer. I am however not that
> > skilled.
> > That and of course you failed to say where 'here' is.
> > > Research started a long time ago. It proceeds on the basis on the best
> > > available information. Obviously, there will be inadequacies, whether
> > > in tools or analysis, but the words which I prefer to use in such
> > > circumstances are "the precautionary principle". Wikipedia puts it
> > > quite well: "The precautionary principle or precautionary approach
> > > states if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to
> > > the public or to the environment, that the action or policy is
> > > harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those
> > > taking an act."
> > >
> > in the absence of scientific consensus' Who would that be making that
> > decision?
> There is a very broad scientific consensus
IMV the scientific "consensus" as currently expressed is not reliably
objective.
. Funding for research depends on the objectives of the funding
organisation;
. Scientists' futures and actions depend on and can be controlled by
management requirements.
> > Who would enforce it?
> I can't answwer that than I could answer 'Who will stop murder'
> > Yesterdays article in the Daily Mail by a leading authority in Global
> > Warming
> Who was that, I can't find a referennce on todays Mail on Line.
> > is strongly of the opinion that the organisations with vested
> > interests in the 'green movement' have invalidated all the information
> > that is going into models and therefore the predictions that can be
> > made from these models.
<"All the information"> is far too strong a description IMV but some of the
events which have been reported, and some reported behaviour, have made me
doubt the reliability of the model, or, at least, of some of those
promoting the model. Some results would have been inadvertant but still
have changed (and therefore lost) data. Scientists have been reported as
walking out of a major international conference because opponents of "Human
created global warming" were scheduled to speak. Another "pro-warming"
scientist is quoted as having refused to allow "unbelievers" access to his
data "Because you only want to find fault with it"; peer-review?
All this is quotation from people reporting and not verified ( and I've
lent the books to someone in another part of the UK so can't even give
initial references).
> > His view was that we had only used a % of the carbon based fuels
> > available and we would eventually dump the carbon from the rest into
> > the atmosphere. Efficiency improvements would only extend the period
> > over which this happened and doing so in 200 years or 10 made no
> > climatic difference. His suggestion was that all industry had to 'bury'
> > the CO2 equivalent its activity was responsible for. This having the
> > advantage that it requires no complex climate model and the big
> > producers such as the oil and gas industries have the financial clout
> > to develope efficient and cost effective methods.
> But business has long had an interwesty in not doing that. Indeed
> assuming they could, and there is no proven technology, then these
> measures, masny serioously flawed, brought in by goverments would truly
> not be needed.
Another suggestion (Nigel Lawson - one reference I <can> provide!) made in
countering this is that we should compare the effects of "anti-CO2-
emission" activities with simply continuing as we are and adapting to the
resulting conditions (assuming the current "warming" is, in reality, caused
by human production of CO2), using our wealth to help the developing
nations to cope; the suggestion is that the effects of "letting it run" are
not as bad as the effects we'd have on the world's economy by trying to fix
it.
My own feeling is that human created CO2 increase as <the> cause is
unproven. There are other likely candidates.
Jane
--
Jane G : j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk : S Devon
<BioRe...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com> wrote:
> In article <SuadnRMm8LVcyD7M...@brightview.co.uk>,
> buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> > "Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:NYfijpBj...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > >>
> > > So, please tell me how much rain will fall here on 2nd June and how
> > > many hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
> > It is totally deterministic and with a sufficiently powerful
> > calculation engine
And a totally accurate model
> In article <SuadnRMm8LVcyD7M...@brightview.co.uk>,
> buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> > "Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:NYfijpBj...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > >>
> > > So, please tell me how much rain will fall here on 2nd June and how
> > > many hours sunshine there will be.in London the same day.
> > It is totally deterministic and with a sufficiently powerful
> > calculation engine
AND sufficient accurate data
> > you could have an answer. I am however not that
> > skilled.
> > That and of course you failed to say where 'here' is.
> > > Research started a long time ago. It proceeds on the basis on the best
> > > available information. Obviously, there will be inadequacies, whether
> > > in tools or analysis, but the words which I prefer to use in such
> > > circumstances are "the precautionary principle". Wikipedia puts it
> > > quite well: "The precautionary principle or precautionary approach
> > > states if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to
> > > the public or to the environment, that the action or policy is
> > > harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those
> > > taking an act."
> > >
> > in the absence of scientific consensus' Who would that be making that
> > decision?
> There is a very broad scientific consensus
objective.
. Funding for research depends on the objectives of the funding
organisation;
. Scientists' futures and actions depend on and can be controlled by
management requirements.
> > Who would enforce it?
> I can't answwer that than I could answer 'Who will stop murder'
> > Yesterdays article in the Daily Mail by a leading authority in Global
> > Warming
> Who was that, I can't find a referennce on todays Mail on Line.
> > is strongly of the opinion that the organisations with vested
> > interests in the 'green movement' have invalidated all the information
> > that is going into models and therefore the predictions that can be
> > made from these models.
events which have been reported, and some reported behaviour, have made me
doubt the reliability of the model, or, at least, of some of those
promoting the model. Some results would have been inadvertant but still
have changed (and therefore lost) data. Scientists have been reported as
walking out of a major international conference because opponents of "Human
created global warming" were scheduled to speak. Another "pro-warming"
scientist is quoted as having refused to allow "unbelievers" access to his
data "Because you only want to find fault with it"; peer-review?
All this is quotation from people reporting and not verified ( and I've
lent the books to someone in another part of the UK so can't even give
initial references).
> > His view was that we had only used a % of the carbon based fuels
> > available and we would eventually dump the carbon from the rest into
> > the atmosphere. Efficiency improvements would only extend the period
> > over which this happened and doing so in 200 years or 10 made no
> > climatic difference. His suggestion was that all industry had to 'bury'
> > the CO2 equivalent its activity was responsible for. This having the
> > advantage that it requires no complex climate model and the big
> > producers such as the oil and gas industries have the financial clout
> > to develope efficient and cost effective methods.
> But business has long had an interwesty in not doing that. Indeed
> assuming they could, and there is no proven technology, then these
> measures, masny serioously flawed, brought in by goverments would truly
> not be needed.
countering this is that we should compare the effects of "anti-CO2-
emission" activities with simply continuing as we are and adapting to the
resulting conditions (assuming the current "warming" is, in reality, caused
by human production of CO2), using our wealth to help the developing
nations to cope; the suggestion is that the effects of "letting it run" are
not as bad as the effects we'd have on the world's economy by trying to fix
it.
My own feeling is that human created CO2 increase as <the> cause is
unproven. There are other likely candidates.
Jane
--
Jane G : j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk : S Devon
Message has been deleted
BioRe...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com
May 29, 2013, 3:30:59 PM5/29/13
to
In article <53535725f...@higherstert.co.uk>, Jane Gillett
<j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> wrote:
> Another suggestion (Nigel Lawson
Who I think heads the institute calling itself an education charity
expansion of the economy.
> My own feeling is that human created CO2 increase as <the> cause is
> unproven.
Proof is not possible, there is really only evidence which leads to models
according to confidence levels which are adjusted regularly as more and
improved meassurements are made.
It remains that the bubbles of air trapped in ice bubbles show that CO2
levels are higher in these last 120 or so years than for about 900,000
years, that is longer than the 400,000 years in which glacial,interglacial
cycles have been operating.
While correlation is not the same as causation the CO2 and climate are
strongly correlated.
Certainly when as I learnt about vibration of gaseous molcules in the
1960's it was impossible to measure temperatures directly but since it has
been done there seems little to cause doubt in the quantum mechanics.
> There are other likely candidates. Jane
The main reason that I am now persuaded to agree with most scientists that
elevated CO2 and other greenhouse gases lead to atmospheric ( and oceanic)
retention of heat, is that those who disagree have such poor or sometimes
dishonest points to make.
What candidates do you have in mind?
<j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> wrote:
> Another suggestion (Nigel Lawson
Who I think heads the institute calling itself an education charity
> - one reference I <can> provide!) made
> in countering this is that we should compare the effects of "anti-CO2-
> emission" activities with simply continuing as we are and adapting to
> the resulting conditions (assuming the current "warming" is, in reality,
> caused by human production of CO2), using our wealth to help the
> developing nations to cope; the suggestion is that the effects of
> "letting it run" are not as bad as the effects we'd have on the world's
> economy by trying to fix it.
The man cannot contemplate anything other than the 2% year on year
> in countering this is that we should compare the effects of "anti-CO2-
> emission" activities with simply continuing as we are and adapting to
> the resulting conditions (assuming the current "warming" is, in reality,
> caused by human production of CO2), using our wealth to help the
> developing nations to cope; the suggestion is that the effects of
> "letting it run" are not as bad as the effects we'd have on the world's
> economy by trying to fix it.
expansion of the economy.
> My own feeling is that human created CO2 increase as <the> cause is
> unproven.
according to confidence levels which are adjusted regularly as more and
improved meassurements are made.
It remains that the bubbles of air trapped in ice bubbles show that CO2
levels are higher in these last 120 or so years than for about 900,000
years, that is longer than the 400,000 years in which glacial,interglacial
cycles have been operating.
While correlation is not the same as causation the CO2 and climate are
strongly correlated.
Certainly when as I learnt about vibration of gaseous molcules in the
1960's it was impossible to measure temperatures directly but since it has
been done there seems little to cause doubt in the quantum mechanics.
> There are other likely candidates. Jane
elevated CO2 and other greenhouse gases lead to atmospheric ( and oceanic)
retention of heat, is that those who disagree have such poor or sometimes
dishonest points to make.
What candidates do you have in mind?
greymausg
May 30, 2013, 4:36:31 AM5/30/13
to
for the last 50 or so years?.
One should also point out that while `warming-deniers' have sometimes
dishonest motives, so have `warming-believers' (carbon credit traders, etc)
--
maus
.
.
...
Message has been deleted
BioRe...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com
May 30, 2013, 1:00:10 PM5/30/13
to
In article <slrnkqe04...@gmaus.org>, greymausg <ma...@mail.com>
wrote:
The temperature of the world was just under the highest ever recorded in
2011. Localised anecdotes are not relevant.
wrote:
2011. Localised anecdotes are not relevant.
BioRe...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com
May 30, 2013, 1:02:13 PM5/30/13
to
> One should also point out that while `warming-deniers' have sometimes
> dishonest motives, so have `warming-believers' (carbon credit traders,
> etc)
I agree that there are crooked people. Surely you don't think carbon
> dishonest motives, so have `warming-believers' (carbon credit traders,
> etc)
credit traders are doing that trade because they believe the science.
Derek Moody
May 30, 2013, 6:07:45 PM5/30/13
to
In article <53535725f...@higherstert.co.uk>, Jane Gillett
<URL:mailto:j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> wrote:
> Another suggestion (Nigel Lawson - one reference I <can> provide!) made in
> countering this is that we should compare the effects of "anti-CO2-
> emission" activities with simply continuing as we are and adapting to the
> resulting conditions (assuming the current "warming" is, in reality, caused
> by human production of CO2), using our wealth to help the developing
> nations to cope; the suggestion is that the effects of "letting it run" are
> not as bad as the effects we'd have on the world's economy by trying to fix
> it.
>
> My own feeling is that human created CO2 increase as <the> cause is
> unproven. There are other likely candidates.
The actual cause doesn't really matter. Stopping CO2 production makes sense
> Another suggestion (Nigel Lawson - one reference I <can> provide!) made in
> countering this is that we should compare the effects of "anti-CO2-
> emission" activities with simply continuing as we are and adapting to the
> resulting conditions (assuming the current "warming" is, in reality, caused
> by human production of CO2), using our wealth to help the developing
> nations to cope; the suggestion is that the effects of "letting it run" are
> not as bad as the effects we'd have on the world's economy by trying to fix
> it.
>
> My own feeling is that human created CO2 increase as <the> cause is
> unproven. There are other likely candidates.
in a lot of different ways. Just "letting it run" as you suggest is likely
to get very expensive very fast. As a starter, notice the areas where major
cereal crops are grown (school atlas) and remember that the southern limits
are usually temperature or water dependant while the northerly limits are
day-length dependant. Now consider a modest 2 or 3 degree rise.
One early result is that southern Europe and the Middle East have no viable
staple crop, so some 200 million southern Europeans and rather more Middle
Eastern people suddenly need to move north. Cue European war, in about, er,
20 - 50 years at the current rate.
Cheerio,
--
>> de...@farm-direct.co.uk
>> http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/
Derek Moody
May 30, 2013, 6:19:45 PM5/30/13
to
In article <slrnkqe04...@gmaus.org>, greymausg
<URL:mailto:ma...@mail.com> wrote:
> Then why do we have tempratures that are bno different than the usual
> for the last 50 or so years?.
We've all been moaning about the different temperatures for the last umpteen
> Then why do we have tempratures that are bno different than the usual
> for the last 50 or so years?.
weeks.
An early consequence of a warmer atmosphere is an increase in activity - in
extreme weather. Unfortunately while we have been experiencing low
temperatures much of the rest of the world, including large parts of the
Arctic has been unseasonably warm. It's the global average that matters,
not the local effect.
> One should also point out that while `warming-deniers' have sometimes
> dishonest motives, so have `warming-believers' (carbon credit traders, etc)
If we had a few more scientifically literate politicians -and- they weren't
so desperate to be re-elected in 5 years or so then we might have some
realistic responses. We ought to be frantically building nuclear plant
right now and closing all fossil fuel plant (instead of actually increasing
coal burn.) So called renewables are never going to be enough.
Jane Gillett
May 31, 2013, 5:00:55 AM5/31/13
to
In article <ant30224...@strongarm.half-baked-idea.co.uk>,
agree. I think it is important to assess the effects of the steps we are
proposing.
> Stopping CO2 production makes sense
> in a lot of different ways.
Absolutely. Stopping waste in any form makes sense.
> Just "letting it run" as you suggest is likely
> to get very expensive very fast.
So, unfortunately, may our attempts to reduce carbon emmissions - in more
than just money, but even in increased carbon emission itself - manufacture
of industrial equipment for instance - changes in procedures whose effects
have not been realised and "expenses" further down the line such as changes
in a country's industry. All these need to be assessed.
> As a starter, notice the areas where major
> cereal crops are grown (school atlas) and remember that the southern limits
> are usually temperature or water dependant while the northerly limits are
> day-length dependant. Now consider a modest 2 or 3 degree rise.
> One early result is that southern Europe and the Middle East have no viable
> staple crop, so some 200 million southern Europeans and rather more Middle
> Eastern people suddenly need to move north.
Yes. Warming of the landmasses and the oceans will change the life forms
which can live there and that includes the crops grown for commerce and
hence the humans who can find a living there. And, as we are seeing here
ATM, there can be changes towards cold weather, maybe even changes to a
colder climate, in a "warming period", whether caused by the warming or not.
> Cue European war, in about, er,
> 20 - 50 years at the current rate.
Suggest it will probably be caused by water shortages before that. Anyway,
Stwewart Brand** in his book on time reports that calculations on
acceleration of rates of change of technological developments are pointing
to intervals between developments approaching zero by around 2035!
It IS important to try to find the cause. There's no point in going all-out
chasing one cause if it is the wrong one; we will get all the bad results
of the attempts at control without any of the benefits and the unidentified
cause will continue if it was going to.
I realise that strict scientific proof is no tpossible but it <would> be
possible to provide more "evidence" supporting the role of CO2. I'd like to
see a quantitative presentation of link between the levels of atmospheric
CO2 and their insulation ability - that much is academic and quite
possible.
Then I'd like to see the <argument> widened to include evidence for the
resulting increase in planetary temperature taken from knowledge of the
planet's physical parameters that we know eg weights, conduction potentials
- still possible but admittedly limited by our level of understanding of
weathr.
Then there is the intervention of the sun-spot cycle of the sun and its
role in cloud formation and reflection of radiated heat before it reaches
the earth's surface with an accompanying feedback activity in temperature
control; getting harder but still quantative <assessment - guess> possible
if only in rough %s of cloud cover and their effect. It may be that this
could be the main mechanism and CO2 emissions are only a part.
Then..what about the ocean temperatures? Are they driven by heat prevented
from escaping by CO2 or another cause? What effect does chemical
composition have with its resulting changes in density and resulting
currents? - we are putting massive contamination into the oceans.
And, where do we stand in geological terms? Are we in the position of being
in a warming phase between ice ages - in which case warming is not
unlikely. At least somebody has said that the current warming is
significantly higher that some years ago which is an argument against this
as a cause.
Melting ice is evidence that that particular ice is indeed a reliable
indication of local warming but other temperature measurements need some
backing evidence. Yes, the reading may be going up but:
. How does the number of measuring stations and geographical distribution
compare with previous?
. How many are now nearer to major human civilisation centres than
previously? (Neither has "moved" but the human centres, "heat islands",
have expanded).
There is only a fraction of assessment of the above made public and I'd
like to see what those who claim to "know" have to say about it before
trusting that CO2 emissions are "the cause".
Anyway, there are very few of us who are going to do anything about it. The
major developing economies, India & China, have already said that they are
not; the West got rich on the back of CO2 emissions and now it's their (I &
C) turn. USA has a large enough commercial lobby to probably sit on the
fence. Russia has signed up to the carbon credit system because its own
financial crisis left it in a position to make a lot of money out of the
scheme the way the reference dates were worded. Europe? They may have an
intention but if it comes to a conflict between economic recovery and
inmplementing CO2 recovery then........ The underdeveloped economies such
as Africa probably do not emit enough CO2 to be a major cause anyway.
Thanks for responding. I await a further post with interest.
Cheers
Jane
** "The Clock of the Long Now".
> Cheerio,
Derek Moody <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <53535725f...@higherstert.co.uk>, Jane Gillett
> <URL:mailto:j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> wrote:
> > Another suggestion (Nigel Lawson - one reference I <can> provide!) made in
> > countering this is that we should compare the effects of "anti-CO2-
> > emission" activities with simply continuing as we are and adapting to the
> > resulting conditions (assuming the current "warming" is, in reality, caused
> > by human production of CO2), using our wealth to help the developing
> > nations to cope; the suggestion is that the effects of "letting it run" are
> > not as bad as the effects we'd have on the world's economy by trying to fix
> > it.
> >
> > My own feeling is that human created CO2 increase as <the> cause is
> > unproven. There are other likely candidates.
> The actual cause doesn't really matter.
In the sense that the likelyhood is that we cannot do anything about it, I
> In article <53535725f...@higherstert.co.uk>, Jane Gillett
> <URL:mailto:j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> wrote:
> > Another suggestion (Nigel Lawson - one reference I <can> provide!) made in
> > countering this is that we should compare the effects of "anti-CO2-
> > emission" activities with simply continuing as we are and adapting to the
> > resulting conditions (assuming the current "warming" is, in reality, caused
> > by human production of CO2), using our wealth to help the developing
> > nations to cope; the suggestion is that the effects of "letting it run" are
> > not as bad as the effects we'd have on the world's economy by trying to fix
> > it.
> >
> > My own feeling is that human created CO2 increase as <the> cause is
> > unproven. There are other likely candidates.
> The actual cause doesn't really matter.
agree. I think it is important to assess the effects of the steps we are
proposing.
> Stopping CO2 production makes sense
> in a lot of different ways.
> Just "letting it run" as you suggest is likely
> to get very expensive very fast.
than just money, but even in increased carbon emission itself - manufacture
of industrial equipment for instance - changes in procedures whose effects
have not been realised and "expenses" further down the line such as changes
in a country's industry. All these need to be assessed.
> As a starter, notice the areas where major
> cereal crops are grown (school atlas) and remember that the southern limits
> are usually temperature or water dependant while the northerly limits are
> day-length dependant. Now consider a modest 2 or 3 degree rise.
> One early result is that southern Europe and the Middle East have no viable
> staple crop, so some 200 million southern Europeans and rather more Middle
> Eastern people suddenly need to move north.
which can live there and that includes the crops grown for commerce and
hence the humans who can find a living there. And, as we are seeing here
ATM, there can be changes towards cold weather, maybe even changes to a
colder climate, in a "warming period", whether caused by the warming or not.
> Cue European war, in about, er,
> 20 - 50 years at the current rate.
Stwewart Brand** in his book on time reports that calculations on
acceleration of rates of change of technological developments are pointing
to intervals between developments approaching zero by around 2035!
It IS important to try to find the cause. There's no point in going all-out
chasing one cause if it is the wrong one; we will get all the bad results
of the attempts at control without any of the benefits and the unidentified
cause will continue if it was going to.
I realise that strict scientific proof is no tpossible but it <would> be
possible to provide more "evidence" supporting the role of CO2. I'd like to
see a quantitative presentation of link between the levels of atmospheric
CO2 and their insulation ability - that much is academic and quite
possible.
Then I'd like to see the <argument> widened to include evidence for the
resulting increase in planetary temperature taken from knowledge of the
planet's physical parameters that we know eg weights, conduction potentials
- still possible but admittedly limited by our level of understanding of
weathr.
Then there is the intervention of the sun-spot cycle of the sun and its
role in cloud formation and reflection of radiated heat before it reaches
the earth's surface with an accompanying feedback activity in temperature
control; getting harder but still quantative <assessment - guess> possible
if only in rough %s of cloud cover and their effect. It may be that this
could be the main mechanism and CO2 emissions are only a part.
Then..what about the ocean temperatures? Are they driven by heat prevented
from escaping by CO2 or another cause? What effect does chemical
composition have with its resulting changes in density and resulting
currents? - we are putting massive contamination into the oceans.
And, where do we stand in geological terms? Are we in the position of being
in a warming phase between ice ages - in which case warming is not
unlikely. At least somebody has said that the current warming is
significantly higher that some years ago which is an argument against this
as a cause.
Melting ice is evidence that that particular ice is indeed a reliable
indication of local warming but other temperature measurements need some
backing evidence. Yes, the reading may be going up but:
. How does the number of measuring stations and geographical distribution
compare with previous?
. How many are now nearer to major human civilisation centres than
previously? (Neither has "moved" but the human centres, "heat islands",
have expanded).
There is only a fraction of assessment of the above made public and I'd
like to see what those who claim to "know" have to say about it before
trusting that CO2 emissions are "the cause".
Anyway, there are very few of us who are going to do anything about it. The
major developing economies, India & China, have already said that they are
not; the West got rich on the back of CO2 emissions and now it's their (I &
C) turn. USA has a large enough commercial lobby to probably sit on the
fence. Russia has signed up to the carbon credit system because its own
financial crisis left it in a position to make a lot of money out of the
scheme the way the reference dates were worded. Europe? They may have an
intention but if it comes to a conflict between economic recovery and
inmplementing CO2 recovery then........ The underdeveloped economies such
as Africa probably do not emit enough CO2 to be a major cause anyway.
Thanks for responding. I await a further post with interest.
Cheers
Jane
** "The Clock of the Long Now".
> Cheerio,
greymausg
May 31, 2013, 2:02:11 PM5/31/13
to
in ground in Syria and Jordan that I would consider arid. Some years
the crops fail. There is an area of Northern Syria called `the Dead
Cities' where olives were grown back about 500-600 ad, then the climate
changed, and the land was abandoned. The longterm historcal record shows
the edge between desert and semi-farmable land has moved back and forth
over the millennia. Constant change.
buddenbrooks
Jun 1, 2013, 1:33:48 PM6/1/13
to
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1147600968391383187.720919%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org...
> see:
>
> http://www.yiin.ca/chaos/content.htm
>
I think you will find if you read it he says that the system such as a
roulette wheel is deterministic, but chaotic because you cannot measure the
starting condition with sufficient accuracy to use an algorithim, chaotic
refers to the fact that in such a system a small variation can result in a
very large non-linear variation in the outcome.
buddenbrooks
Jun 1, 2013, 1:34:57 PM6/1/13
to
"Old Codger" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:51a51a2d$0$1127$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
> On 28/05/2013 07:49, Malcolm wrote:
> Weather forecasting is, I consider, largely guesswork, inspired perhaps
> but still guesswork.
>
The weather forcast is usually 100% accurate, the location is mostly
> Weather forecasting is, I consider, largely guesswork, inspired perhaps
> but still guesswork.
>
wrong.
buddenbrooks
Jun 1, 2013, 2:01:12 PM6/1/13
to
news:kxI4ZIN7...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> Stop right there! I do not regard the Daily Mail as a source of useful
> information on anything, and perhaps especially not science.
>
No, one must consider the author rather than the medium.
The beauty of science over politics is it generally basis itself on facts
rather than opinion. Since journelists tend to come from the arts side of
uni, it would be foolish to trust any, Dail Mail or otherwise. Just read any
article where you have specialist inside
knowledge and assume they are equally wrong in other areas.
The problem with the global warming predictions is they have now been
public for sufficient years for past predictions to be compared with what
actually happened.
We have firstly decide if we have a problem if we do, how to tackel it. We
are still stuck with the rate of absorption of CO2
by natural processes is so slow that burning the remaining fossel fuels over
10 or 200 years will make no difference to the final global temperature,
just shift the generation that it mostly impacts.
As for concenses of scientists, it is impossible now for a global warming
questioner to get research funds to investigate alternative theories, so
your conseses is biased by political selection.
No I had not realised you are from Scotland, I guess shortly you will not
be eligable to comment in a uk newsgroup :)
I agree by the way to most of the actions to reduce CO2 polution, but
because we cannot continue to use up raw resourses
at the rate we do and deny future generations.
>
>
> Stop right there! I do not regard the Daily Mail as a source of useful
> information on anything, and perhaps especially not science.
>
No, one must consider the author rather than the medium.
The beauty of science over politics is it generally basis itself on facts
rather than opinion. Since journelists tend to come from the arts side of
uni, it would be foolish to trust any, Dail Mail or otherwise. Just read any
article where you have specialist inside
knowledge and assume they are equally wrong in other areas.
The problem with the global warming predictions is they have now been
public for sufficient years for past predictions to be compared with what
actually happened.
We have firstly decide if we have a problem if we do, how to tackel it. We
are still stuck with the rate of absorption of CO2
by natural processes is so slow that burning the remaining fossel fuels over
10 or 200 years will make no difference to the final global temperature,
just shift the generation that it mostly impacts.
As for concenses of scientists, it is impossible now for a global warming
questioner to get research funds to investigate alternative theories, so
your conseses is biased by political selection.
No I had not realised you are from Scotland, I guess shortly you will not
be eligable to comment in a uk newsgroup :)
I agree by the way to most of the actions to reduce CO2 polution, but
because we cannot continue to use up raw resourses
at the rate we do and deny future generations.
buddenbrooks
Jun 1, 2013, 2:07:55 PM6/1/13
to
<BioRe...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com> wrote in message
news:5353939326...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com...
> The main reason that I am now persuaded to agree with most scientists
Most scientists have absolutely no skills in that area to have an informed
view, so you are refering to a sub-set of specialists.
So I assume you are refering to the scientists publishing papers on
'global warming' .
buddenbrooks
Jun 1, 2013, 2:10:57 PM6/1/13
to
<BioRe...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com> wrote in message
news:5354099a5a...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com...
>
> The temperature of the world was just under the highest ever recorded in
> 2011. Localised anecdotes are not relevant.
>
We have not had the technology to make that assertion until the last
> The temperature of the world was just under the highest ever recorded in
> 2011. Localised anecdotes are not relevant.
>
few years. It requres surface temperature measurment at
close intervals over the entire planet.
So probably 2011 might be the highest ever recorded since 2010
buddenbrooks
Jun 1, 2013, 2:15:33 PM6/1/13
to
"Derek Moody" <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ant30224...@strongarm.half-baked-idea.co.uk...
>
> The actual cause doesn't really matter. Stopping CO2 production makes
> sense
> in a lot of different ways.
tundra and methane production from other natural process are being cited as
a major cause, albeat triggered by warming already happening.
If you cannot change the supply side you need to handle the consumption.
CO2 capture appears to resolve the issue even if the cause is
mis-identified.
buddenbrooks
Jun 1, 2013, 2:22:49 PM6/1/13
to
"greymausg" <ma...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnkqh15...@gmaus.org...
Sahara cycles between lush periods and dry ones on a 40000 year cycle due to
slight planarary orbit variations causing weather patterns to alter the
trade winds routes.
Old Codger
Jun 1, 2013, 2:45:35 PM6/1/13
to
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
buddenbrooks
Jun 1, 2013, 4:21:33 PM6/1/13
to
news:vM9qGt9i...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
Please now produce some evidence, any evidence, that that is
> relevant to the situation of the last couple of hundred years during which
> man's activities have led to a rapid increase in CO2 levels.
>
I cant answer the former as the I disagree with the later.
The unfortuneate point is there is no marker that can identify a CO2
molecule from an internal combustion engine or one from a sparrow fart.
In the last 200 hundred years we have poluted the seas and deforested
much of the land mass, both major sinks of CO2.
So it may be the reduced CO2 absorption rate is a major cause and we should
concentrate on planting forests and reducing polution.
>
Please now produce some evidence, any evidence, that that is
> relevant to the situation of the last couple of hundred years during which
> man's activities have led to a rapid increase in CO2 levels.
>
I cant answer the former as the I disagree with the later.
The unfortuneate point is there is no marker that can identify a CO2
molecule from an internal combustion engine or one from a sparrow fart.
In the last 200 hundred years we have poluted the seas and deforested
much of the land mass, both major sinks of CO2.
So it may be the reduced CO2 absorption rate is a major cause and we should
concentrate on planting forests and reducing polution.
buddenbrooks
Jun 1, 2013, 4:23:13 PM6/1/13
to
news:WcukyF+v...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> But CO2 capture is still in its infancy. It is doubtful whether we have
> time for it to mature.
>
Then all is lost, we are not going to reduce fossel fual consumption world
wide in the next 50 years.
>
> But CO2 capture is still in its infancy. It is doubtful whether we have
> time for it to mature.
>
Then all is lost, we are not going to reduce fossel fual consumption world
wide in the next 50 years.
buddenbrooks
Jun 1, 2013, 5:20:05 PM6/1/13
to
news:m8ooaQ91...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article <b-GdnWyCeNqvpDfM...@brightview.co.uk>,
> buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> writes
> No, that is trite balderdash.
>
NOAA which is the US body that derives these figures states that its
figures have sufficient unreliability that comparisons
on a year by year basis is statistically unjustified. Their figures show a
global warming over the longer period, but to claim a specific year was
warmest cannot be justified as the raw data is subject to so much
'adjustment' and anomoly removal that it does not have such a short period
resolution.
Global warming research bodies are remarkably unkeen to release raw data
presumably as they like to choose the 'anomolies' to remove from the data
set.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/20100506-Global-Warming-Karl.pdf
Looking at NOAA's world temperature graph for 1880 to 2010 it looks
remarcably like a sine wave with 1910 being the same below average as 2010
is above.
But probably the main reason I am anti Global Warmers is because I am fed
up with the nanny state that insists on informing me of how bad everything
is I do. When I buy a train ticket now I am immediatly informed how many
grams of CO2 I will generate on the journey, but it won't tell me where to
change trains during the journey, I've got to find that out for myself.
When MPs travel by electric motor assisted cycles and live in energy
efficient appartment blocks within walking distance of parliament I might
start believing it.
>
> In article <b-GdnWyCeNqvpDfM...@brightview.co.uk>,
> buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> writes
>
NOAA which is the US body that derives these figures states that its
figures have sufficient unreliability that comparisons
on a year by year basis is statistically unjustified. Their figures show a
global warming over the longer period, but to claim a specific year was
warmest cannot be justified as the raw data is subject to so much
'adjustment' and anomoly removal that it does not have such a short period
resolution.
Global warming research bodies are remarkably unkeen to release raw data
presumably as they like to choose the 'anomolies' to remove from the data
set.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/20100506-Global-Warming-Karl.pdf
Looking at NOAA's world temperature graph for 1880 to 2010 it looks
remarcably like a sine wave with 1910 being the same below average as 2010
is above.
But probably the main reason I am anti Global Warmers is because I am fed
up with the nanny state that insists on informing me of how bad everything
is I do. When I buy a train ticket now I am immediatly informed how many
grams of CO2 I will generate on the journey, but it won't tell me where to
change trains during the journey, I've got to find that out for myself.
When MPs travel by electric motor assisted cycles and live in energy
efficient appartment blocks within walking distance of parliament I might
start believing it.
buddenbrooks
Jun 1, 2013, 5:35:44 PM6/1/13
to
news:9McuW98m...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> That's not what all the predictions are saying!
>
The Daily Mail surveys seem to suggest otherwise, and indeed are inviting
readers to 'buy a brick' for a refurbished
Hadrien's Wall, although I think they want to name it 'Churchill's Wall' as
they think nameing it after a Spanish immigrant sends the wrong message. ;)
Did a quick glance at the Scotland on Sunday web newspaper site, but the
headline story is "Night Club has two way mirror in Ladies toilet" so I
guess independence is low on the agenda at the momnet.
>
>>No I had not realised you are from Scotland, I guess shortly you will
>>not be eligable to comment in a uk newsgroup :)
>>
> LOL!
>>No I had not realised you are from Scotland, I guess shortly you will
>>not be eligable to comment in a uk newsgroup :)
>>
>
> That's not what all the predictions are saying!
>
The Daily Mail surveys seem to suggest otherwise, and indeed are inviting
readers to 'buy a brick' for a refurbished
Hadrien's Wall, although I think they want to name it 'Churchill's Wall' as
they think nameing it after a Spanish immigrant sends the wrong message. ;)
Did a quick glance at the Scotland on Sunday web newspaper site, but the
headline story is "Night Club has two way mirror in Ladies toilet" so I
guess independence is low on the agenda at the momnet.
Peter Duncanson
Jun 1, 2013, 6:01:15 PM6/1/13
to
On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 22:35:44 +0100, "buddenbrooks"
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>
>"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9McuW98m...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>
> >>No I had not realised you are from Scotland, I guess shortly you will
>>>not be eligable to comment in a uk newsgroup :)
>>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> That's not what all the predictions are saying!
>>
>
> The Daily Mail surveys seem to suggest otherwise, and indeed are inviting
>readers to 'buy a brick' for a refurbished
>Hadrien's Wall, although I think they want to name it 'Churchill's Wall' as
>they think nameing it after a Spanish immigrant sends the wrong message. ;)
>
I suppose it is to much to expect the Daily Mail and its readers to know
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>
>"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9McuW98m...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>
> >>No I had not realised you are from Scotland, I guess shortly you will
>>>not be eligable to comment in a uk newsgroup :)
>>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> That's not what all the predictions are saying!
>>
>
> The Daily Mail surveys seem to suggest otherwise, and indeed are inviting
>readers to 'buy a brick' for a refurbished
>Hadrien's Wall, although I think they want to name it 'Churchill's Wall' as
>they think nameing it after a Spanish immigrant sends the wrong message. ;)
>
the Hadrian's Wall is not on the border between Scotland and England,
and that a large chunk of England is north of the Wall.
A completely new wall would be needed. The border is apparently 96 miles
long. Constructing a wall would be an excellent job-creation scheme.
> Did a quick glance at the Scotland on Sunday web newspaper site, but the
>headline story is "Night Club has two way mirror in Ladies toilet" so I
>guess independence is low on the agenda at the momnet.
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture)
buddenbrooks
Jun 2, 2013, 12:06:07 AM6/2/13
to
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:i8rkq8hefpb9uqqat...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 22:35:44 +0100, "buddenbrooks"
> <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>
> the Hadrian's Wall is not on the border between Scotland and England,
> and that a large chunk of England is north of the Wall.
>
)
> <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>
> the Hadrian's Wall is not on the border between Scotland and England,
> and that a large chunk of England is north of the Wall.
>
You know how it is with neighbours, better to build the wall when you own
the land both sides then maintenance is easier.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
buddenbrooks
Jun 2, 2013, 4:21:02 AM6/2/13
to
news:zZ$9jRBre...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> There are some people who think that having such a long gap between
> announcing the referendum and it actually taking place has failed to focus
> minds on the debate!
>
I think the independence of parts of the UK is an outdated concept. With
so much migration within the UK along with external immigration the idea
that there is a distinct cultural difference and history on physical land
boundries is something true in the 60s but not now.
Not even sure that Eire being independent is meaningful in the current
era of mobility. I can as easily have a weekend in
Edinburgh Dublin London Berlin or Warsaw and do so. Ryan Air far more
influential than Mr Salmond.
Indeed after the Scottish Banks and Edinburgh Trams no one can pretend that
Scottish MPs are any better than English ones.
I work with Scots coming up to retirement and thinking of moving back,
partly being driven by inheriting parents homes in Scotland. They are
unhappy not having a vote while EC students studying at Scotish universities
do.
Really hate to think what will happen if Scotland gets independence and the
remaining UK exits the EC.
I'm in favour of a reduced EC, just those countries with Germanic roots as a
significant part of the language.
( or beer rather than wine as the national drink, which is just aboout the
same area :) )
>
> There are some people who think that having such a long gap between
> announcing the referendum and it actually taking place has failed to focus
> minds on the debate!
>
I think the independence of parts of the UK is an outdated concept. With
so much migration within the UK along with external immigration the idea
that there is a distinct cultural difference and history on physical land
boundries is something true in the 60s but not now.
Not even sure that Eire being independent is meaningful in the current
era of mobility. I can as easily have a weekend in
Edinburgh Dublin London Berlin or Warsaw and do so. Ryan Air far more
influential than Mr Salmond.
Indeed after the Scottish Banks and Edinburgh Trams no one can pretend that
Scottish MPs are any better than English ones.
I work with Scots coming up to retirement and thinking of moving back,
partly being driven by inheriting parents homes in Scotland. They are
unhappy not having a vote while EC students studying at Scotish universities
do.
Really hate to think what will happen if Scotland gets independence and the
remaining UK exits the EC.
I'm in favour of a reduced EC, just those countries with Germanic roots as a
significant part of the language.
( or beer rather than wine as the national drink, which is just aboout the
same area :) )
Message has been deleted
buddenbrooks
Jun 2, 2013, 6:39:12 AM6/2/13
to
news:zZ79jAC7...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> And, actually, the oceans are doing just fine at absorbing CO2 despite
> your evidenceless claim that pollution will reduce that ability. Indeed,
> they are doing so well at it, that surface waters on a global scale are
> becoming more and more acidic, by about 30% in the last 200 years, to the
> increasing detriment of marine ecosystems,
>
If you believe the evidence of NOAA then the seas are not doing so well,
they have absorbed 50% of the CO2 attributed to
mankind.
Sorry , more acidic by 30% is totally meaningless. A bit like the skin
cream adverts which claim their product makes 98% of users agree it made
their skin feel 30% more hydrated.
Acidity/Alcalinty is measured in ph from -7 to +7. I guess sea water is
around 0 which is neutral and 30% more acidic is um still 0.
I am afraid a lot of papers on global warming start with facts, which could
be alarming but go on to make conclusions based on no evidence.
The 50% absorption of CO2 by natural processes in the NOAA report is
supported by scientifically derived measurements, the conclusion becomes
pure opinion because it starts its conclusion on the statement "we have no
evidence that the observed processes will continue" so they might as well
say that the conclusion has no basis on any scientific activity and is a
worst case analysis using the asumption that all negative effects will
persist and any positive mitigating ones will not.
The problem I have is that peer review on scientfic papers is poor and
having read through one I rarely find that the argument justifies its
conclusion. They all seem to play the game of if I give you 3 facts you wont
notice the forth is opinion.
Apart from my frequent use flights I live as low a CO2 production as I can
while actually working. So I am quite happy to reduce my 'Carbon Footprint'
, I am yet to be convinced that it is doing any more than save me money and
keep me healthier as I cycle and walk. I am uncomfortable with waste and its
effect of using up resourses and making them unavailable to future
generations. The destruction of the environment and its impact on
bio-diversity saddens me and will come back to bite humanity in many more
ways than a few degees change in world temperature.
Taxing fuel is easy for a government, stopping the rain forests being
demolished is not. So governments do what they can do, effective or not.
>
>
> And, actually, the oceans are doing just fine at absorbing CO2 despite
> your evidenceless claim that pollution will reduce that ability. Indeed,
> they are doing so well at it, that surface waters on a global scale are
> becoming more and more acidic, by about 30% in the last 200 years, to the
> increasing detriment of marine ecosystems,
>
If you believe the evidence of NOAA then the seas are not doing so well,
they have absorbed 50% of the CO2 attributed to
mankind.
Sorry , more acidic by 30% is totally meaningless. A bit like the skin
cream adverts which claim their product makes 98% of users agree it made
their skin feel 30% more hydrated.
Acidity/Alcalinty is measured in ph from -7 to +7. I guess sea water is
around 0 which is neutral and 30% more acidic is um still 0.
I am afraid a lot of papers on global warming start with facts, which could
be alarming but go on to make conclusions based on no evidence.
The 50% absorption of CO2 by natural processes in the NOAA report is
supported by scientifically derived measurements, the conclusion becomes
pure opinion because it starts its conclusion on the statement "we have no
evidence that the observed processes will continue" so they might as well
say that the conclusion has no basis on any scientific activity and is a
worst case analysis using the asumption that all negative effects will
persist and any positive mitigating ones will not.
The problem I have is that peer review on scientfic papers is poor and
having read through one I rarely find that the argument justifies its
conclusion. They all seem to play the game of if I give you 3 facts you wont
notice the forth is opinion.
Apart from my frequent use flights I live as low a CO2 production as I can
while actually working. So I am quite happy to reduce my 'Carbon Footprint'
, I am yet to be convinced that it is doing any more than save me money and
keep me healthier as I cycle and walk. I am uncomfortable with waste and its
effect of using up resourses and making them unavailable to future
generations. The destruction of the environment and its impact on
bio-diversity saddens me and will come back to bite humanity in many more
ways than a few degees change in world temperature.
Taxing fuel is easy for a government, stopping the rain forests being
demolished is not. So governments do what they can do, effective or not.
buddenbrooks
Jun 2, 2013, 6:50:14 AM6/2/13
to
news:Olkyc3IF...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>>
> I don't think anyone has ever pretended that. However, you are making
> false assumptions about them. The Scottish banks have always been
> regulated from London, and have never been the responsibility of the
> Scottish parliament, hence it was the Bank of England which baled them
> out. And the Edinburgh trams are the responsibility of Edinburgh City
> Council, not the Scottish parliament.
>
A few years back the strength of the Scottish financial sector was given a
support for independence.
I think the Edinburgh City Council also works within the same Scottish
political structure and has the same electorate
and political parties. In the end their mess will have to be bailed out by
the tax payers which currently is the larger British exchequer but is likely
to be the much smaller Scottish one.
Currently the Scot in the street gets a better deal out of the political
system than the Englishman in the street, certainly it seems to be favouring
a more equal society. The question is whether it can continue that way in
the long term and handle major structural failings with support from
Bruxxells rather than London. I would imagine that London treats Scotland as
special while Bruxxels will see it the same as Romania.
>
>>
> I don't think anyone has ever pretended that. However, you are making
> false assumptions about them. The Scottish banks have always been
> regulated from London, and have never been the responsibility of the
> Scottish parliament, hence it was the Bank of England which baled them
> out. And the Edinburgh trams are the responsibility of Edinburgh City
> Council, not the Scottish parliament.
>
A few years back the strength of the Scottish financial sector was given a
support for independence.
I think the Edinburgh City Council also works within the same Scottish
political structure and has the same electorate
and political parties. In the end their mess will have to be bailed out by
the tax payers which currently is the larger British exchequer but is likely
to be the much smaller Scottish one.
Currently the Scot in the street gets a better deal out of the political
system than the Englishman in the street, certainly it seems to be favouring
a more equal society. The question is whether it can continue that way in
the long term and handle major structural failings with support from
Bruxxells rather than London. I would imagine that London treats Scotland as
special while Bruxxels will see it the same as Romania.
greymausg
Jun 2, 2013, 7:13:28 AM6/2/13
to
UNless there is a real, easily seen change coming, they simply repeat
yesterdays.
--
maus
.
.
...
greymausg
Jun 2, 2013, 7:13:29 AM6/2/13
to
On 2013-06-02, Malcolm <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <j5mdneBJ-8DtnTbM...@brightview.co.uk>,
> buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> writes
Scotland and made the Act of Union passable, back when? (170* )
>
> In article <j5mdneBJ-8DtnTbM...@brightview.co.uk>,
> buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> writes
>>
>>"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:zZ$9jRBre...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> There are some people who think that having such a long gap between
>>> announcing the referendum and it actually taking place has failed to
>>>focus minds on the debate!
>>>
>>
>> I think the independence of parts of the UK is an outdated concept.
>>With so much migration within the UK along with external immigration
>>the idea that there is a distinct cultural difference and history on
>>physical land boundries is something true in the 60s but not now.
>>
>> Not even sure that Eire being independent is meaningful in the
>>current era of mobility. I can as easily have a weekend in
>>Edinburgh Dublin London Berlin or Warsaw and do so. Ryan Air far more
>>influential than Mr Salmond.
>>Indeed after the Scottish Banks and Edinburgh Trams no one can pretend
>>that Scottish MPs are any better than English ones.
>>
>>"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:zZ$9jRBre...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> There are some people who think that having such a long gap between
>>> announcing the referendum and it actually taking place has failed to
>>>focus minds on the debate!
>>>
>>
>> I think the independence of parts of the UK is an outdated concept.
>>With so much migration within the UK along with external immigration
>>the idea that there is a distinct cultural difference and history on
>>physical land boundries is something true in the 60s but not now.
>>
>> Not even sure that Eire being independent is meaningful in the
>>current era of mobility. I can as easily have a weekend in
>>Edinburgh Dublin London Berlin or Warsaw and do so. Ryan Air far more
>>influential than Mr Salmond.
>>Indeed after the Scottish Banks and Edinburgh Trams no one can pretend
>>that Scottish MPs are any better than English ones.
>>
> I don't think anyone has ever pretended that. However, you are making
> false assumptions about them. The Scottish banks have always been
> regulated from London, and have never been the responsibility of the
> Scottish parliament, hence it was the Bank of England which baled them
> out. And the Edinburgh trams are the responsibility of Edinburgh City
> Council, not the Scottish parliament.
>
I think that it was the collapse of the Darien Expedition that bankrupted
> false assumptions about them. The Scottish banks have always been
> regulated from London, and have never been the responsibility of the
> Scottish parliament, hence it was the Bank of England which baled them
> out. And the Edinburgh trams are the responsibility of Edinburgh City
> Council, not the Scottish parliament.
>
Scotland and made the Act of Union passable, back when? (170* )
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
buddenbrooks
Jun 2, 2013, 10:58:06 AM6/2/13
to
news:hWXJgTLK...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>
> Well, it is really rather obvious that it can't have the "same"
> electorate, while the Council is a coalition between the Labour Party and
> the SNP, with the Labour party in the majority, so not the "same" as the
> Scottish goverment.
I was thinking in terms that the SMPs representing Edinburgh come from the
same political elite
as those on the council.
> That's what the Better Together movement thinks.
But the UK system is unbalanced and probably needs the UK to break up into
a federation of
regions for Scotland to get what it wants short of independence without
Greater London feeling it is subsidising the rest of the UK. ( I don't live
in London by the way ).
I support independence for Scotland because it will eventually result in a
regional UK and end the British world role that has cost the UK tax payer so
much. It will be the final closure of the British Empire.
>
>
> Well, it is really rather obvious that it can't have the "same"
> electorate, while the Council is a coalition between the Labour Party and
> the SNP, with the Labour party in the majority, so not the "same" as the
> Scottish goverment.
I was thinking in terms that the SMPs representing Edinburgh come from the
same political elite
as those on the council.
> That's what the Better Together movement thinks.
But the UK system is unbalanced and probably needs the UK to break up into
a federation of
regions for Scotland to get what it wants short of independence without
Greater London feeling it is subsidising the rest of the UK. ( I don't live
in London by the way ).
I support independence for Scotland because it will eventually result in a
regional UK and end the British world role that has cost the UK tax payer so
much. It will be the final closure of the British Empire.
buddenbrooks
Jun 2, 2013, 11:28:34 AM6/2/13
to
news:I3GT4vMM...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> No, nothing like that at all. I'm getting the impression that you're not
> a scientist!
I am not, I am an Engineer and Engineering requires defined facts rather
than opinion.
>
>>Acidity/Alcalinty is measured in ph from -7 to +7.
>
> Wrong (again). The range is from 0 to 14. Neutrality is 7.0
>
I'm not a chemist and remembered that water was neutral and acid alkaline
went 7 either side.
>>I guess sea water is around 0 which is neutral and 30% more acidic is um
>>still 0.
>>
> Your guess is about as wildly out as many of your other "guesses", which
> you are trying to present as facts.
>
> The pH of seawater is 8.14, having fallen from 8.27 in the 1750s. This
> represents a 30% increase in H+ ion concentration. And as the pH drops,
> and it is forecast to continue declining, so does the concentration of
> calcium carbonate (you can work out why for yourself). And CaCO2 is what a
> wealth of marine life makes their shells from.
a 30% increase in ions is a meaningful statement. 30% more acid is not.
>
>>I am afraid a lot of papers on global warming start with facts, which
>>could be alarming but go on to make conclusions based on no evidence.
>>
> Hmm, try reading your own posts :-)
My stance is that the evidence is sparce, it is difficult to do more that
put a link to a NOAA paper and let you read that
they assume that CO2 sinks may not continue to behave as they have
historically on the grounds there is no evidence that they will.
I am not saying that global warming caused by human activity is or is not
happening, just that the evidence as presented does not pass peer review.
Much of the evidence is on global warming while the cause is less clear
that it is human caused. Which is very dangerous as if CO2 inclease is the
problem and human production is not the cause then the solutions we adopt
are doomed to failure.
One thing is certain I can have no impact, you and I will be taxed and the
money spent the way the pressure groups want reguardless of any
effectiveness. A rapid move to nuclear power and electric cars is the only
way for the UK to reduce its CO2 output and that is not going to happen.
Green pressure taxes airtravel even though it is more efficient than cars.
http://people.exeter.ac.uk/TWDavies/energy_conversion/Calculation%20of%20CO2%20emissions%20from%20fuels.htm
On the basis that I travel alone.
>
> No, nothing like that at all. I'm getting the impression that you're not
> a scientist!
I am not, I am an Engineer and Engineering requires defined facts rather
than opinion.
>
>>Acidity/Alcalinty is measured in ph from -7 to +7.
>
>
I'm not a chemist and remembered that water was neutral and acid alkaline
went 7 either side.
>>I guess sea water is around 0 which is neutral and 30% more acidic is um
>>still 0.
>>
> you are trying to present as facts.
>
> The pH of seawater is 8.14, having fallen from 8.27 in the 1750s. This
> represents a 30% increase in H+ ion concentration. And as the pH drops,
> and it is forecast to continue declining, so does the concentration of
> calcium carbonate (you can work out why for yourself). And CaCO2 is what a
> wealth of marine life makes their shells from.
a 30% increase in ions is a meaningful statement. 30% more acid is not.
>
>>I am afraid a lot of papers on global warming start with facts, which
>>could be alarming but go on to make conclusions based on no evidence.
>>
My stance is that the evidence is sparce, it is difficult to do more that
put a link to a NOAA paper and let you read that
they assume that CO2 sinks may not continue to behave as they have
historically on the grounds there is no evidence that they will.
I am not saying that global warming caused by human activity is or is not
happening, just that the evidence as presented does not pass peer review.
Much of the evidence is on global warming while the cause is less clear
that it is human caused. Which is very dangerous as if CO2 inclease is the
problem and human production is not the cause then the solutions we adopt
are doomed to failure.
One thing is certain I can have no impact, you and I will be taxed and the
money spent the way the pressure groups want reguardless of any
effectiveness. A rapid move to nuclear power and electric cars is the only
way for the UK to reduce its CO2 output and that is not going to happen.
Green pressure taxes airtravel even though it is more efficient than cars.
http://people.exeter.ac.uk/TWDavies/energy_conversion/Calculation%20of%20CO2%20emissions%20from%20fuels.htm
On the basis that I travel alone.
Steve Firth
Jun 2, 2013, 11:47:25 AM6/2/13
to
buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1147600968391383187.720919%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september
> .org...
> > see:
> >
> > http://www.yiin.ca/chaos/content.htm
> >
>
>
> I think you will find if you read it he says that the system such as a
> roulette wheel is deterministic, but chaotic because you cannot measure the
> starting condition with sufficient accuracy to use an algorithim, chaotic
> refers to the fact that in such a system a small variation can result in a
> very large non-linear variation in the outcome.
I think you will find, if you read it, that he states that weather is
chaotic. For exactly the same reasons. Small variations result in large,
unpredictable, variations in the outcome. No matter how much you
wriggle, weather is not deterministic.
--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1147600968391383187.720919%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september
> .org...
> > see:
> >
> > http://www.yiin.ca/chaos/content.htm
> >
>
>
> I think you will find if you read it he says that the system such as a
> roulette wheel is deterministic, but chaotic because you cannot measure the
> starting condition with sufficient accuracy to use an algorithim, chaotic
> refers to the fact that in such a system a small variation can result in a
> very large non-linear variation in the outcome.
I think you will find, if you read it, that he states that weather is
chaotic. For exactly the same reasons. Small variations result in large,
unpredictable, variations in the outcome. No matter how much you
wriggle, weather is not deterministic.
--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground
buddenbrooks
Jun 2, 2013, 1:00:21 PM6/2/13
to
news:1l3ujp2.1k2785dq9vepsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
If you have sufficient information of the current state of the weather
than you can predict the next state. It is chaotic because within the level
of abiguity of the knowledge of the current state there are large variation
in the possible next state and the rate of deviation from the current state
down these possible future states is large.
In a non-chaotic system then an equation like yt = f(a)t
In a chaotic system then it is not possible to create such an equation
but you could write a table of values of y for a given value of x. One
example could be a hard rubber ball thrown at an angle at a flat wall, the
angle it bounces off is predictable through a linear equation. Drop a
perfect sphere onto the peak of a perfect cone and the angle it bounces off
is deterministic, it obays the same angle of incidence rules and elastic
distortion equations and actually obays the same linear equation but may
bounce of at any angle between 0 and 360 degrees on the horizontal plane,
more constrained on the vertical plane. It is chaotic because you cannot
describe the moment of impact fully, however it is deterministic because it
will obay the physical laws at the moment of impact.
For a chaotic system not to be deterministic you have either to decide
that the laws of physics do not apply or that
quantum mechanics applys to weather patterns (or bouncing balls)
> buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>
> I think you will find, if you read it, that he states that weather is
> chaotic. For exactly the same reasons. Small variations result in large,
> unpredictable, variations in the outcome. No matter how much you
> wriggle, weather is not deterministic.
>
You still misunderstand the definition of Chaotic. Read the article again.
>
> I think you will find, if you read it, that he states that weather is
> chaotic. For exactly the same reasons. Small variations result in large,
> unpredictable, variations in the outcome. No matter how much you
> wriggle, weather is not deterministic.
>
If you have sufficient information of the current state of the weather
than you can predict the next state. It is chaotic because within the level
of abiguity of the knowledge of the current state there are large variation
in the possible next state and the rate of deviation from the current state
down these possible future states is large.
In a non-chaotic system then an equation like yt = f(a)t
In a chaotic system then it is not possible to create such an equation
but you could write a table of values of y for a given value of x. One
example could be a hard rubber ball thrown at an angle at a flat wall, the
angle it bounces off is predictable through a linear equation. Drop a
perfect sphere onto the peak of a perfect cone and the angle it bounces off
is deterministic, it obays the same angle of incidence rules and elastic
distortion equations and actually obays the same linear equation but may
bounce of at any angle between 0 and 360 degrees on the horizontal plane,
more constrained on the vertical plane. It is chaotic because you cannot
describe the moment of impact fully, however it is deterministic because it
will obay the physical laws at the moment of impact.
For a chaotic system not to be deterministic you have either to decide
that the laws of physics do not apply or that
quantum mechanics applys to weather patterns (or bouncing balls)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Steve Firth
Jun 2, 2013, 3:04:53 PM6/2/13
to
buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1l3ujp2.1k2785dq9vepsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think you will find, if you read it, that he states that weather is
> > chaotic. For exactly the same reasons. Small variations result in large,
> > unpredictable, variations in the outcome. No matter how much you
> > wriggle, weather is not deterministic.
> >
>
> You still misunderstand the definition of Chaotic.
No, I don't. You seem to be using a layman's definition of chaotic. And
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1l3ujp2.1k2785dq9vepsN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think you will find, if you read it, that he states that weather is
> > chaotic. For exactly the same reasons. Small variations result in large,
> > unpredictable, variations in the outcome. No matter how much you
> > wriggle, weather is not deterministic.
> >
>
> You still misunderstand the definition of Chaotic.
a ludicrous definiton of deterministic.
A system is chaotic if small inputs create divergent, non repeatable and
non predictable results. That is how weather behaves.
Good luck to you on attempting to predict every weather event based upon
the flap of each butterfly's wing.
> Read the article again.
Please stop acting like an arse.
> If you have sufficient information of the current state of the weather
> than you can predict the next state.
It's as if Goedel had never existed.
Jane Gillett
Jun 2, 2013, 10:59:32 AM6/2/13
to
In article <5353939326...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com>,
<BioRe...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com> wrote:
> In article <53535725f...@higherstert.co.uk>, Jane Gillett
> <j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> wrote:
> > Another suggestion (Nigel Lawson
> Who I think heads the institute calling itself an education charity
> > - one reference I <can> provide!) made
> > in countering this is that we should compare the effects of "anti-CO2-
> > emission" activities with simply continuing as we are and adapting to
> > the resulting conditions (assuming the current "warming" is, in reality,
> > caused by human production of CO2), using our wealth to help the
> > developing nations to cope; the suggestion is that the effects of
> > "letting it run" are not as bad as the effects we'd have on the world's
> > economy by trying to fix it.
> The man cannot contemplate anything other than the 2% year on year
> expansion of the economy.
That doesn't mean that we have worked out that our efforts to reduce CO2
emission will not cause a greater problem while perhaps not addressing the
warming of the planet.
> > My own feeling is that human created CO2 increase as <the> cause is
> > unproven.
> Proof is not possible, there is really only evidence which leads to models
> according to confidence levels which are adjusted regularly as more and
> improved meassurements are made.
I agree proof is not possible but I'd like to see the alternative possible
causes of the warming we've seen addressed.
> It remains that the bubbles of air trapped in ice bubbles show that CO2
> levels are higher in these last 120 or so years than for about 900,000
> years, that is longer than the 400,000 years in which glacial,interglacial
> cycles have been operating.
Atmospheric CO2 is higher now than it has risen in the intervals between
successive ice ages in the past in that case. Do we have any info about the
animal/plant environment operating between the ice ages?
> While correlation is not the same as causation the CO2 and climate are
> strongly correlated.
OK. I accept that CO2 is likely to be a contributing factor.
> Certainly when as I learnt about vibration of gaseous molcules in the
> 1960's it was impossible to measure temperatures directly but since it has
> been done there seems little to cause doubt in the quantum mechanics.
What is the contribution of quantum mechanics?
> > There are other likely candidates. Jane
> The main reason that I am now persuaded to agree with most scientists that
> elevated CO2 and other greenhouse gases lead to atmospheric ( and oceanic)
> retention of heat, is that those who disagree have such poor or sometimes
> dishonest points to make.
Poor? Can't think of any ATM.
Dishonest? Ditto. Find some of the reported <behaviour> of some of the
"believers" (may I use that term please as shorthand without implying any
disrespect?) leads me to doubt.
eg
. refusal to let other scientists look at data because "You only want to
find something wrong with it". Peer review?
. walking out of a major international conference because scientists who
did not agree had been invited to speak.
. inadvertant but none-the-less real loss of real data because of faulty
processing.
And
Personal reports of controlled reporting including one quite recently, of a
science project which was stopped because the results coming out did not
support the objectives of the funding organisation.
In total, I am not confident that science and scientists are, or are
permitted to be, as objective as we and they would like where commercial or
political issues are involved.
> What candidates do you have in mind?
. Sunspot cycle - resulting magnetic field changes leading to changes in
diversion or otherwise of cosmic rays from our atmosphere; such rays
comprising particles act as nuclei for cloud formation which acts as a
screen for solar radiation.
. Massive contamination of oceans leading to changes in chemical
composition hence density and posiible changes in currents and winds which
can play a significant part in melting of ice (F.Hoyle).
. Temp <measurements> not strictly comparable. Where taken from measuring
stations, are we using the same set of stations? In the same geographical
positions with the same proximity to developed towns etc ("heat islands")?
The towns won't have moved but may quite well have expanded in theinterim
causing local increases in temperature; has this been catered for in the
data?
That's the sort of thing I was thinking about.
Anyway, I don't see us (humans) doing anything effective about it. China &
INdia (major developing nations) have said they are not going to change
their current development which is involving major increases in
implementation of CO2 producing systems - "The West got rich on CO2
emissions and now it's our turn"; USA's defintiely uncertain; Russia is
currently making money from the way their financial collapse fits in with
the way the the carbon trading regulations are worded but AFAIAA have not
committed to internal changes. Africa probably doesn't produce enough to
make them a major player. Dunno about Australia. That leaves Europe and if
there is any conflict between reducing carbon emissions and getting out of
this financial crisis we seem to have brought upon ourselves then I suggest
the crisis correction will probably take precedence.
Cheers
Jane
--
Jane G : j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk : S Devon
<BioRe...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com> wrote:
> In article <53535725f...@higherstert.co.uk>, Jane Gillett
> <j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> wrote:
> > Another suggestion (Nigel Lawson
> Who I think heads the institute calling itself an education charity
> > - one reference I <can> provide!) made
> > in countering this is that we should compare the effects of "anti-CO2-
> > emission" activities with simply continuing as we are and adapting to
> > the resulting conditions (assuming the current "warming" is, in reality,
> > caused by human production of CO2), using our wealth to help the
> > developing nations to cope; the suggestion is that the effects of
> > "letting it run" are not as bad as the effects we'd have on the world's
> > economy by trying to fix it.
> The man cannot contemplate anything other than the 2% year on year
> expansion of the economy.
That doesn't mean that we have worked out that our efforts to reduce CO2
emission will not cause a greater problem while perhaps not addressing the
warming of the planet.
> > My own feeling is that human created CO2 increase as <the> cause is
> > unproven.
> Proof is not possible, there is really only evidence which leads to models
> according to confidence levels which are adjusted regularly as more and
> improved meassurements are made.
I agree proof is not possible but I'd like to see the alternative possible
causes of the warming we've seen addressed.
> It remains that the bubbles of air trapped in ice bubbles show that CO2
> levels are higher in these last 120 or so years than for about 900,000
> years, that is longer than the 400,000 years in which glacial,interglacial
> cycles have been operating.
Atmospheric CO2 is higher now than it has risen in the intervals between
successive ice ages in the past in that case. Do we have any info about the
animal/plant environment operating between the ice ages?
> While correlation is not the same as causation the CO2 and climate are
> strongly correlated.
OK. I accept that CO2 is likely to be a contributing factor.
> Certainly when as I learnt about vibration of gaseous molcules in the
> 1960's it was impossible to measure temperatures directly but since it has
> been done there seems little to cause doubt in the quantum mechanics.
What is the contribution of quantum mechanics?
> > There are other likely candidates. Jane
> The main reason that I am now persuaded to agree with most scientists that
> elevated CO2 and other greenhouse gases lead to atmospheric ( and oceanic)
> retention of heat, is that those who disagree have such poor or sometimes
> dishonest points to make.
Poor? Can't think of any ATM.
Dishonest? Ditto. Find some of the reported <behaviour> of some of the
"believers" (may I use that term please as shorthand without implying any
disrespect?) leads me to doubt.
eg
. refusal to let other scientists look at data because "You only want to
find something wrong with it". Peer review?
. walking out of a major international conference because scientists who
did not agree had been invited to speak.
. inadvertant but none-the-less real loss of real data because of faulty
processing.
And
Personal reports of controlled reporting including one quite recently, of a
science project which was stopped because the results coming out did not
support the objectives of the funding organisation.
In total, I am not confident that science and scientists are, or are
permitted to be, as objective as we and they would like where commercial or
political issues are involved.
> What candidates do you have in mind?
. Sunspot cycle - resulting magnetic field changes leading to changes in
diversion or otherwise of cosmic rays from our atmosphere; such rays
comprising particles act as nuclei for cloud formation which acts as a
screen for solar radiation.
. Massive contamination of oceans leading to changes in chemical
composition hence density and posiible changes in currents and winds which
can play a significant part in melting of ice (F.Hoyle).
. Temp <measurements> not strictly comparable. Where taken from measuring
stations, are we using the same set of stations? In the same geographical
positions with the same proximity to developed towns etc ("heat islands")?
The towns won't have moved but may quite well have expanded in theinterim
causing local increases in temperature; has this been catered for in the
data?
That's the sort of thing I was thinking about.
Anyway, I don't see us (humans) doing anything effective about it. China &
INdia (major developing nations) have said they are not going to change
their current development which is involving major increases in
implementation of CO2 producing systems - "The West got rich on CO2
emissions and now it's our turn"; USA's defintiely uncertain; Russia is
currently making money from the way their financial collapse fits in with
the way the the carbon trading regulations are worded but AFAIAA have not
committed to internal changes. Africa probably doesn't produce enough to
make them a major player. Dunno about Australia. That leaves Europe and if
there is any conflict between reducing carbon emissions and getting out of
this financial crisis we seem to have brought upon ourselves then I suggest
the crisis correction will probably take precedence.
Cheers
Jane
--
Jane G : j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk : S Devon
Message has been deleted
Derek Moody
Jun 3, 2013, 7:44:40 PM6/3/13
to
In article <I7ydnZINWNc--TbM...@brightview.co.uk>, buddenbrooks
hard shell to keep you safe.
Cheerio,
--
>> de...@farm-direct.co.uk
>> http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/
<URL:mailto:knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>
> "Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:I3GT4vMM...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:I3GT4vMM...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
> a 30% increase in ions is a meaningful statement. 30% more acid is not.
Pretty much a definition of potential reactivity. Bad news if you rely on a
hard shell to keep you safe.
Cheerio,
--
>> de...@farm-direct.co.uk
>> http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/
Derek Moody
Jun 3, 2013, 8:02:00 PM6/3/13
to
In article <53558a111...@higherstert.co.uk>, Jane Gillett
> I agree proof is not possible but I'd like to see the alternative possible
> causes of the warming we've seen addressed.
>
> > It remains that the bubbles of air trapped in ice bubbles show that CO2
> > levels are higher in these last 120 or so years than for about 900,000
> > years, that is longer than the 400,000 years in which glacial,interglacial
> > cycles have been operating.
>
> Atmospheric CO2 is higher now than it has risen in the intervals between
> successive ice ages in the past in that case. Do we have any info about the
> animal/plant environment operating between the ice ages?
Yes. Plenty of lake-bed sedimental data and pollen samples.
> . Sunspot cycle - resulting magnetic field changes leading to changes in
> diversion or otherwise of cosmic rays from our atmosphere; such rays
> comprising particles act as nuclei for cloud formation which acts as a
> screen for solar radiation.
> . Massive contamination of oceans leading to changes in chemical
> composition hence density and posiible changes in currents and winds which
> can play a significant part in melting of ice (F.Hoyle).
Definite changes in acidity due CO2.
> . Temp <measurements> not strictly comparable. Where taken from measuring
Actually we have a huge set of reliable data for the last few hundred years
from ships logs which faithfully record weather, sea state, phenomena like
icebergs and other relateable data. Other data such a tree-ring studies
and sediment composition extend the data for thousands of years at a reduced
resolution and there are clues in rocks from geologic ages ago.
> make them a major player. Dunno about Australia. That leaves Europe and if
> there is any conflict between reducing carbon emissions and getting out of
> this financial crisis we seem to have brought upon ourselves then I suggest
> the crisis correction will probably take precedence.
We may well be due a collapse in the human population from one or more
causes as nature takes care of things. It might hurt.
<URL:mailto:j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5353939326...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com>,
> <BioRe...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com> wrote:
> > In article <53535725f...@higherstert.co.uk>, Jane Gillett
> > <j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> wrote:
<much snippage>
> In article <5353939326...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com>,
> <BioRe...@speciesrecorder.rjseago.com> wrote:
> > In article <53535725f...@higherstert.co.uk>, Jane Gillett
> > <j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> wrote:
> I agree proof is not possible but I'd like to see the alternative possible
> causes of the warming we've seen addressed.
>
> > It remains that the bubbles of air trapped in ice bubbles show that CO2
> > levels are higher in these last 120 or so years than for about 900,000
> > years, that is longer than the 400,000 years in which glacial,interglacial
> > cycles have been operating.
>
> Atmospheric CO2 is higher now than it has risen in the intervals between
> successive ice ages in the past in that case. Do we have any info about the
> animal/plant environment operating between the ice ages?
> . Sunspot cycle - resulting magnetic field changes leading to changes in
> diversion or otherwise of cosmic rays from our atmosphere; such rays
> comprising particles act as nuclei for cloud formation which acts as a
> screen for solar radiation.
> . Massive contamination of oceans leading to changes in chemical
> composition hence density and posiible changes in currents and winds which
> can play a significant part in melting of ice (F.Hoyle).
> . Temp <measurements> not strictly comparable. Where taken from measuring
from ships logs which faithfully record weather, sea state, phenomena like
icebergs and other relateable data. Other data such a tree-ring studies
and sediment composition extend the data for thousands of years at a reduced
resolution and there are clues in rocks from geologic ages ago.
> make them a major player. Dunno about Australia. That leaves Europe and if
> there is any conflict between reducing carbon emissions and getting out of
> this financial crisis we seem to have brought upon ourselves then I suggest
> the crisis correction will probably take precedence.
causes as nature takes care of things. It might hurt.
Derek Moody
Jun 3, 2013, 7:42:07 PM6/3/13
to
In article <1MmdnTC269Ea-DfM...@brightview.co.uk>, buddenbrooks
<URL:mailto:knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> When MPs travel by electric motor assisted cycles and live in energy
> efficient appartment blocks within walking distance of parliament I might
> start believing it.
Politicians as a rule and UK MP's as a body are woefully lacking in
scientific training. Even science 'A' levels are rare. They haven't a
clue.
<URL:mailto:knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> When MPs travel by electric motor assisted cycles and live in energy
> efficient appartment blocks within walking distance of parliament I might
> start believing it.
Politicians as a rule and UK MP's as a body are woefully lacking in
scientific training. Even science 'A' levels are rare. They haven't a
clue.
Derek Moody
Jun 3, 2013, 7:25:47 PM6/3/13
to
In article <5354618fc...@higherstert.co.uk>, Jane Gillett
<URL:mailto:j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ant30224...@strongarm.half-baked-idea.co.uk>,
> Derek Moody <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
> > Stopping CO2 production makes sense
> > in a lot of different ways.
>
> Absolutely. Stopping waste in any form makes sense.
>
> > Just "letting it run" as you suggest is likely
> > to get very expensive very fast.
> So, unfortunately, may our attempts to reduce carbon emmissions - in more
> than just money, but even in increased carbon emission itself - manufacture
> of industrial equipment for instance - changes in procedures whose effects
> have not been realised and "expenses" further down the line such as changes
> in a country's industry. All these need to be assessed.
There's a very good case to be made for getting in early and selling the kit
to the rest of the world as they wake up to the problem and see how much
they save by addressing it.
> > As a starter, notice the areas where major
> > cereal crops are grown (school atlas) and remember that the southern limits
> > are usually temperature or water dependant while the northerly limits are
> > day-length dependant. Now consider a modest 2 or 3 degree rise.
>
> > One early result is that southern Europe and the Middle East have no viable
> > staple crop, so some 200 million southern Europeans and rather more Middle
> > Eastern people suddenly need to move north.
>
> Yes. Warming of the landmasses and the oceans will change the life forms
> which can live there and that includes the crops grown for commerce and
> hence the humans who can find a living there. And, as we are seeing here
> ATM, there can be changes towards cold weather, maybe even changes to a
> colder climate, in a "warming period", whether caused by the warming or not.
>
> > Cue European war, in about, er,
> > 20 - 50 years at the current rate.
>
> Suggest it will probably be caused by water shortages before that. Anyway,
> Stwewart Brand** in his book on time reports that calculations on
> acceleration of rates of change of technological developments are pointing
> to intervals between developments approaching zero by around 2035!
Note to self: Survive that long and then live forever in perfect health
based on infinite advances in medical technology :-)
> It IS important to try to find the cause. There's no point in going all-out
> chasing one cause if it is the wrong one; we will get all the bad results
> of the attempts at control without any of the benefits and the unidentified
> cause will continue if it was going to.
On the contrary, we -know- the greenhouse effect is real, see Venus. Even
if you choose to doubt it's causality in the current Earth Climate issue
acquiring control of CO2 (and like gasses) then gives us a lever with which
to influence climate in whichever direction required. Should man-made CO2
not be the cause (though I think it is) we buy ourselves time and a tool to
address whatever does turn out to be the true cause.
> I realise that strict scientific proof is no tpossible but it <would> be
> possible to provide more "evidence" supporting the role of CO2. I'd like to
> see a quantitative presentation of link between the levels of atmospheric
> CO2 and their insulation ability - that much is academic and quite
> possible.
It's not so much insulation as absorption of infra red. This goes back to
Fourier nearly 200 years ago. Arrhenius (sp?) compared the Moon's
reflection with Direct Sun-Earth light and got a rough measurement - before
WW1. Search for 'Carbon Dioxide Near Infrared Absorption' and you'll find
loads of quantative stuff.
> Then I'd like to see the <argument> widened to include evidence for the
> resulting increase in planetary temperature taken from knowledge of the
> planet's physical parameters that we know eg weights, conduction potentials
> - still possible but admittedly limited by our level of understanding of
> weathr.
> Then there is the intervention of the sun-spot cycle of the sun and its
> role in cloud formation and reflection of radiated heat before it reaches
> the earth's surface with an accompanying feedback activity in temperature
> control; getting harder but still quantative <assessment - guess> possible
> if only in rough %s of cloud cover and their effect. It may be that this
> could be the main mechanism and CO2 emissions are only a part.
Sunspot cycle is too short, at 11 years it's little more than noise at the
timescales we're measuring. There was only ever one serious paper
suggesting a link and although it has largely been disproved as a long term
effect it did partially correlate to a much shorter period variation - that
said the current solar cycle is a little odd, it might have a double-peak or
some such.
> Then..what about the ocean temperatures? Are they driven by heat prevented
> from escaping by CO2 or another cause? What effect does chemical
A huge effect is in deep water currents caused by extra heavy, extra salty
water sinking beneath forming sea-ice. Melting of the polar ice is removing
the power source for the deep water counter current to the North Atlantic
drift & the Gulf Stream.
> composition have with its resulting changes in density and resulting
> currents? - we are putting massive contamination into the oceans.
> And, where do we stand in geological terms? Are we in the position of being
> in a warming phase between ice ages - in which case warming is not
> unlikely. At least somebody has said that the current warming is
> significantly higher that some years ago which is an argument against this
> as a cause.
AIui the CO2 fraction as measured in deep Antarctic ice-bubbles suggests
the current levels are way higher than anything during and for some time
before the recent ice-ages.
Atm the atmosphere temperature seems to be being buffered by the oceans -
but that's just storing up trouble for later.
<URL:mailto:j.gi...@higherstert.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ant30224...@strongarm.half-baked-idea.co.uk>,
> Derek Moody <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
> > Stopping CO2 production makes sense
> > in a lot of different ways.
>
> Absolutely. Stopping waste in any form makes sense.
>
> > Just "letting it run" as you suggest is likely
> > to get very expensive very fast.
> So, unfortunately, may our attempts to reduce carbon emmissions - in more
> than just money, but even in increased carbon emission itself - manufacture
> of industrial equipment for instance - changes in procedures whose effects
> have not been realised and "expenses" further down the line such as changes
> in a country's industry. All these need to be assessed.
There's a very good case to be made for getting in early and selling the kit
to the rest of the world as they wake up to the problem and see how much
they save by addressing it.
> > As a starter, notice the areas where major
> > cereal crops are grown (school atlas) and remember that the southern limits
> > are usually temperature or water dependant while the northerly limits are
> > day-length dependant. Now consider a modest 2 or 3 degree rise.
>
> > One early result is that southern Europe and the Middle East have no viable
> > staple crop, so some 200 million southern Europeans and rather more Middle
> > Eastern people suddenly need to move north.
>
> Yes. Warming of the landmasses and the oceans will change the life forms
> which can live there and that includes the crops grown for commerce and
> hence the humans who can find a living there. And, as we are seeing here
> ATM, there can be changes towards cold weather, maybe even changes to a
> colder climate, in a "warming period", whether caused by the warming or not.
>
> > Cue European war, in about, er,
> > 20 - 50 years at the current rate.
>
> Suggest it will probably be caused by water shortages before that. Anyway,
> Stwewart Brand** in his book on time reports that calculations on
> acceleration of rates of change of technological developments are pointing
> to intervals between developments approaching zero by around 2035!
Note to self: Survive that long and then live forever in perfect health
based on infinite advances in medical technology :-)
> It IS important to try to find the cause. There's no point in going all-out
> chasing one cause if it is the wrong one; we will get all the bad results
> of the attempts at control without any of the benefits and the unidentified
> cause will continue if it was going to.
On the contrary, we -know- the greenhouse effect is real, see Venus. Even
if you choose to doubt it's causality in the current Earth Climate issue
acquiring control of CO2 (and like gasses) then gives us a lever with which
to influence climate in whichever direction required. Should man-made CO2
not be the cause (though I think it is) we buy ourselves time and a tool to
address whatever does turn out to be the true cause.
> I realise that strict scientific proof is no tpossible but it <would> be
> possible to provide more "evidence" supporting the role of CO2. I'd like to
> see a quantitative presentation of link between the levels of atmospheric
> CO2 and their insulation ability - that much is academic and quite
> possible.
It's not so much insulation as absorption of infra red. This goes back to
Fourier nearly 200 years ago. Arrhenius (sp?) compared the Moon's
reflection with Direct Sun-Earth light and got a rough measurement - before
WW1. Search for 'Carbon Dioxide Near Infrared Absorption' and you'll find
loads of quantative stuff.
> Then I'd like to see the <argument> widened to include evidence for the
> resulting increase in planetary temperature taken from knowledge of the
> planet's physical parameters that we know eg weights, conduction potentials
> - still possible but admittedly limited by our level of understanding of
> weathr.
> Then there is the intervention of the sun-spot cycle of the sun and its
> role in cloud formation and reflection of radiated heat before it reaches
> the earth's surface with an accompanying feedback activity in temperature
> control; getting harder but still quantative <assessment - guess> possible
> if only in rough %s of cloud cover and their effect. It may be that this
> could be the main mechanism and CO2 emissions are only a part.
Sunspot cycle is too short, at 11 years it's little more than noise at the
timescales we're measuring. There was only ever one serious paper
suggesting a link and although it has largely been disproved as a long term
effect it did partially correlate to a much shorter period variation - that
said the current solar cycle is a little odd, it might have a double-peak or
some such.
> Then..what about the ocean temperatures? Are they driven by heat prevented
> from escaping by CO2 or another cause? What effect does chemical
A huge effect is in deep water currents caused by extra heavy, extra salty
water sinking beneath forming sea-ice. Melting of the polar ice is removing
the power source for the deep water counter current to the North Atlantic
drift & the Gulf Stream.
> composition have with its resulting changes in density and resulting
> currents? - we are putting massive contamination into the oceans.
> And, where do we stand in geological terms? Are we in the position of being
> in a warming phase between ice ages - in which case warming is not
> unlikely. At least somebody has said that the current warming is
> significantly higher that some years ago which is an argument against this
> as a cause.
AIui the CO2 fraction as measured in deep Antarctic ice-bubbles suggests
the current levels are way higher than anything during and for some time
before the recent ice-ages.
Atm the atmosphere temperature seems to be being buffered by the oceans -
but that's just storing up trouble for later.
Derek Moody
Jun 3, 2013, 7:34:50 PM6/3/13
to
In article <I3GT4vMM...@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm
<URL:mailto:Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <0aCdneCMutJPvTbM...@brightview.co.uk>,
> buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> writes
'0' in the middle of the scale and the readings described as degrees of
acidity/alkalinity. Some jobsworth decided that people couldn't handle
neutrality being half way up the scale or summat. The confusion seems
commonest among gardeners so perhaps it was a soil testing thing ..?
> >I guess sea water is around 0 which is neutral and 30% more acidic is
> >um still 0.
> >
<URL:mailto:Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <0aCdneCMutJPvTbM...@brightview.co.uk>,
> buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> writes
> >
> >"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:zZ79jAC7...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> And, actually, the oceans are doing just fine at absorbing CO2
> >>despite your evidenceless claim that pollution will reduce that
> >>ability. Indeed, they are doing so well at it, that surface waters on
> >>a global scale are becoming more and more acidic, by about 30% in the
> >>last 200 years, to the increasing detriment of marine ecosystems,
> >>
> >
> >
> > If you believe the evidence of NOAA then the seas are not doing so
> >well, they have absorbed 50% of the CO2 attributed to
> >mankind.
> >
> > Sorry , more acidic by 30% is totally meaningless. A bit like the
> >skin cream adverts which claim their product makes 98% of users agree
> >it made their skin feel 30% more hydrated.
> >
> >"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:zZ79jAC7...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> And, actually, the oceans are doing just fine at absorbing CO2
> >>despite your evidenceless claim that pollution will reduce that
> >>ability. Indeed, they are doing so well at it, that surface waters on
> >>a global scale are becoming more and more acidic, by about 30% in the
> >>last 200 years, to the increasing detriment of marine ecosystems,
> >>
> >
> >
> > If you believe the evidence of NOAA then the seas are not doing so
> >well, they have absorbed 50% of the CO2 attributed to
> >mankind.
> >
> > Sorry , more acidic by 30% is totally meaningless. A bit like the
> >skin cream adverts which claim their product makes 98% of users agree
> >it made their skin feel 30% more hydrated.
> >
> No, nothing like that at all. I'm getting the impression that you're not
> a scientist!
>
> a scientist!
>
> >Acidity/Alcalinty is measured in ph from -7 to +7.
>
>
> Wrong (again). The range is from 0 to 14. Neutrality is 7.0
To be fair, I remember those kits. For some reason they were normalised to
'0' in the middle of the scale and the readings described as degrees of
acidity/alkalinity. Some jobsworth decided that people couldn't handle
neutrality being half way up the scale or summat. The confusion seems
commonest among gardeners so perhaps it was a soil testing thing ..?
> >I guess sea water is around 0 which is neutral and 30% more acidic is
> >um still 0.
> >
> Your guess is about as wildly out as many of your other "guesses", which
> you are trying to present as facts.
>
> The pH of seawater is 8.14, having fallen from 8.27 in the 1750s. This
> represents a 30% increase in H+ ion concentration. And as the pH drops,
> and it is forecast to continue declining, so does the concentration of
> calcium carbonate (you can work out why for yourself). And CaCO2 is what
> a wealth of marine life makes their shells from.
> you are trying to present as facts.
>
> The pH of seawater is 8.14, having fallen from 8.27 in the 1750s. This
> represents a 30% increase in H+ ion concentration. And as the pH drops,
> and it is forecast to continue declining, so does the concentration of
> calcium carbonate (you can work out why for yourself). And CaCO2 is what
> a wealth of marine life makes their shells from.
Derek Moody
Jun 3, 2013, 7:28:20 PM6/3/13
to
In article <slrnkqh15...@gmaus.org>, greymausg
<URL:mailto:ma...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> Climate change has been a feature of history, I have seen corn sowwn
> in ground in Syria and Jordan that I would consider arid. Some years
> the crops fail. There is an area of Northern Syria called `the Dead
> Cities' where olives were grown back about 500-600 ad, then the climate
> changed, and the land was abandoned. The longterm historcal record shows
> the edge between desert and semi-farmable land has moved back and forth
> over the millennia. Constant change.
Of course. Now, however, it looks like there's a significant chance the
effective northern edge of the Sahara might cross the Mediterranean.
<URL:mailto:ma...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-30, Derek Moody <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
> > One early result is that southern Europe and the Middle East have no viable
> > staple crop, so some 200 million southern Europeans and rather more Middle
> > Eastern people suddenly need to move north. Cue European war, in about, er,
> > One early result is that southern Europe and the Middle East have no viable
> > staple crop, so some 200 million southern Europeans and rather more Middle
> > 20 - 50 years at the current rate.
> >
> > Cheerio,
> >
> >
>
> Climate change has been a feature of history, I have seen corn sowwn
> in ground in Syria and Jordan that I would consider arid. Some years
> the crops fail. There is an area of Northern Syria called `the Dead
> Cities' where olives were grown back about 500-600 ad, then the climate
> changed, and the land was abandoned. The longterm historcal record shows
> the edge between desert and semi-farmable land has moved back and forth
> over the millennia. Constant change.
Of course. Now, however, it looks like there's a significant chance the
effective northern edge of the Sahara might cross the Mediterranean.
Steve Firth
Jun 4, 2013, 10:13:39 AM6/4/13
to
Derek Moody <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
Not this year anyway. 17C and raining constantly.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
[snip]
>
> Of course. Now, however, it looks like there's a significant chance the
> effective northern edge of the Sahara might cross the Mediterranean.
Oy! Depressing bugger.
> Of course. Now, however, it looks like there's a significant chance the
> effective northern edge of the Sahara might cross the Mediterranean.
Not this year anyway. 17C and raining constantly.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
ne...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk
Jun 4, 2013, 4:05:31 PM6/4/13
to
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 00:25:47 +0100, Derek Moody
<de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
>On the contrary, we -know- the greenhouse effect is real, see Venus. Even
>if you choose to doubt it's causality in the current Earth Climate issue
>acquiring control of CO2 (and like gasses) then gives us a lever with which
>to influence climate in whichever direction required. Should man-made CO2
>not be the cause (though I think it is) we buy ourselves time and a tool to
>address whatever does turn out to be the true cause.
Indeed did man's deforestation during the iron age and subsequently as
<de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
>On the contrary, we -know- the greenhouse effect is real, see Venus. Even
>if you choose to doubt it's causality in the current Earth Climate issue
>acquiring control of CO2 (and like gasses) then gives us a lever with which
>to influence climate in whichever direction required. Should man-made CO2
>not be the cause (though I think it is) we buy ourselves time and a tool to
>address whatever does turn out to be the true cause.
exploration opened new lands (sugar plantation for instance)
previously storing large amounts of carbon on a rolling cycle actually
cause the unusual temperature stability for the last 4000 years?
I cannot remember the name of the top bod in some world organisation
who calculated as much carbon was in the air/sea system from
deforestation before 1700 as had been put in sice.
AJH
Message has been deleted
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages