The message from Terry Fields contains these words:
That is how it comes across. You can huff and puff all you like and swear you are a fully paid up scientist but on Usenet you are what you post and there is nothing of the disinterested observer about you.
So you totally ignored the fact that they had quantified each effect.
If you had bothered to read all of what I wrote in a previous piece you would have been aware that I had noticed they had stacked all the well understood greenhouse gases in one column.
I didn't find it misleading in the least. However I would have found what you suggest misleading as it would mask, for instance, the differing role of O3 at differing heights and completely bugger the picture of anything that worked across the divide.
Try google.
Is it? Did they? Are you sure it just isn't the last two decades at time things started looking serious?
If what you allege is true why didn't they pick 1900 - 1920 which was a whole lot colder. 1960 - 1980 was as much unusually cool as 1935 - 1945 were unusually warm. Even picking 1950 - 1970 might have given a lower base line.
We do at least know why the Denyers chose 1998 as their base year. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
You have said that before so it is about time you cited your source.
We know the size of each effect. That is a great deal more than nothing.
As I have said before if the greenhouse effect is real than reducing atmospheric CO2 will lead to lower temperatures than would otherwise be the case. It doesn't matter that other independent factors are already working in the opposite direction (unless they can be increased to counteract the effect of increased CO2) other than if the effect of CO2 is largely counteracted already reducing CO2 will have a bigger effect than might seem possible at first glance.
Thank you but I am already aware of the con trails evidence.
So that's all right then, even if we don't know any of the mechanisms or how they might or might not interact.
If you are saying the Google can turn up the answers, then post them.
You are supposed to have read the Met Office publication, which I maintain shows a graph of forcing mechanisms which they claim very little understanding of and for which you claim rubbishes any case I am trying to make, yet you seem not to have noticed the graph on page
25 that would not only answer your questions, but also show I was correct.
And, if you plot the Met Office's own figure of 0.37 degC on the Met Office's own graph, it would show you that the expected temperature difference for this year is below the maximum value shown; that is, the planet might be cooling even by the Met Office's own data; and is certainly about the value for the late 1990s, implying a peak in value between 2000 and now. An inconvenient truth, perhaps.
"Met Office forecast for global temperature for 2008
Global temperature for 2008 is expected to be 0.37 °C above the long-term (1961-1990) average of 14.0 °C, the coolest year since 2000, when the value was 0.24 °C."
formatting link
note that temperatures fell from 1945 - 1970 (Met Office figures) so the prediction of a rise of 0.37degC is from an unusually low figure. Pick a different range, and you could also find the planet is cooling. Why didn't they pick, say 1980 to 2000? Is it because that would show the planet as cooling?
In that case you will doubtless find that the effect of clouds is greater than anyone has forecast - supporting the case that water vapour has a far greater effect than CO2, and is not man made, rather harder to tax, and not subject to human control.
Which is more or less what I've been saying all along.
The message from Terry Fields contains these words:
snip
More of a red herring. What has been challenged is the route by which that DNA reached America.
A very unscientific version of identical. And it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the technique was established independently in separate areas. However I am with you on the point that the similarities of the spear points points to some sort of connection between Europe and America.
The information is readily available from a variety of sources. You got Wikipedia as it was the last site I visited. If you don't like Wikipedia you could easily follow up the footnote references.
Why not. Or are you on your bad research kick as it doesn't agree with your beliefs.
No, you claimed a much longer gap.
You are clutching at straws. They certainly couldn't have used inland waterways. Anyway there is no evidence that kayaks date back anywhere near that far. The hypothesis that you are trying to ape seems to confine itself to skin boats and and a resemblance to Inuit lifestyle. But they could have walked all the way and confined their fishing/hunting to the edge of the ice sheet.
Oh really? Bowled out more like. You had a tall tale about a misnamed people migrating by boat along the the edge of the ice as fact when in reality it is highly contentious. You tried to bolster this by misrepresenting the DNA evidence and you have ignored the bit above about the latest evidence from studying complete genomes.
Perhaps the mistake I really made was to make a throwaway remark about stone spears to illustrate that 20000 years ago the ice cap extended down to circa mid north atlantic levels, and followed with a question that asked what mechanisms warmed the planet at that time, and whether they operate today.
No-one, including yourself, has sought to answer that, but you seem to be keen on picking up spelling errors and quoting wikipedia while rubbishing TV, unwilling to admit that both are ways of distributing information whether good, bad, indifferenet, or biassed.
Take one of your statements above: "there is no evidence that kayaks date back anywhere near that far"; got a reference for that?
Take another: "The hypothesis that you are trying to ape seems to confine itself to skin boats and and a resemblance to Inuit lifestyle"; can you cite any other actual method of living on a polar ice cap?
Take another: " Technically not contamination but I was looking for a short way of expressing a very minor element in the genetic make-up of modern native Americans." Got a cite for 'minor element'?
The message from Terry Fields contains these words:
You are misrepresenting the case again. A low level of understanding is not a complete lack of understanding which is what you keep on pretending is the situation.
I haven't the time or the inclination to search out something that most scientists seem to think has been resolved and which you would undoubtedly rubbish if I posted it.
I was looking at a more easily available graph which is much less distinct. The page 25 graph certainly does not show that the period 1960
- 1998 was unusually cool. 1950 - 1960 might not be marginally cooler as I originally thought but the decline over the period 1950 - 1980 is minimal compared to the steep increases 1920 - 1945 and 1974 - 2004. And you will note (and disregard) that the base line of this graph is the temperature at the end of the 19th century.
There is too much year on year variability to make any prediction for the future on the basis of just one year and dubious to make one even on several.
Isn't 2008 being influenced by a La Nina event which is generally accepted to depress the annual average just as a El Nino event increases the annual average.
There you go again. Unusually low to describe a level that is well above average for the period 1861 - 1980.
And do tell me when they first adopted the period 1960 - 1980? Lb to a pinch of salt it was well before 2000 so your suggestion of 1980 - 2000 is preposterous.
Would that be daytime clouds you are on about or night time clouds?
And would you be arguing that water vapour works in the same direction as clouds or in the reverse direction?
No, what you have been claiming all along is that CO2/global warming is a myth and anything that doesn't support that claim is badly researched rubbish or worse.
The message from Terry Fields contains these words:
big snip
Don't be silly. What you need is a reference to the antiquity of the kayak and there doesn't seem to be much for that. About the only quote I can come up with is:
"Archaeologists have found evidence indicating kayaks to be at least
4000 years old."
Kayaks would have to date back at least 17000 years if they were in use in Europe at the end of the time the Solutrean are suposed to have occupied parts of France and Spain.
You can't have everything. Wikipedia happens to be the easiest. You will be pleased to note that the author(s) of this article thinks that the Haplogroup X is a major element in Northern North America. You will be less pleased to learn it is by no means confined to one obscure tribe.
In human mitochondrial genetics, Haplogroup X is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup which can be used to define genetic populations. The genetic sequences of haplogroup X diverged originally from haplogroup N, and subsequently further diverged about 20,000 to 30,000 years ago to give two sub-groups, X1 and X2. Overall haplogroup X accounts for about 2% of the population of Europe, the Near East and North Africa. Sub-group X1 is much less numerous, and restricted to North and East Africa, and also the Near East. Sub-group X2 appears to have undergone extensive population expansion and dispersal around or soon after the last glacial maximum, about 21,000 years ago. It is more strongly present in the Near East, the Caucasus, and Mediterranean Europe; and somewhat less strongly present in the rest of Europe. Particular concentrations appear in Georgia (8%), the Orkney Islands (in Scotland) (7%) and amongst the Israeli Druze (26%); the latter are presumably due to a founder effect.
[edit] North and South America
Haplogroup X is also one of the five haplogroups found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas.[1] Although it occurs only at a frequency of about 3% for the total current indigenous population of the Americas, it is a major haplogroup in northern North America, where among the Algonquian peoples it comprises up to 25% of mtDNA types. It is also present in lesser percentages to the west and south of this area -- in North America among the Sioux (15%), the Nuu-Chah-Nulth (11%?13%), the Navajo (7%), and the Yakima (5%), and in South America among the Yanomami people (12%) in eight villages in Roraima in northwestern Brazil.
Unlike the four main Native American haplogroups (A, B, C, and D), X is not at all strongly associated with East Asia. The sole occurrence of X in Asia discovered so far is in Altaia in South Siberia (Derenko et al,
2001), and detailed examination (Reidla et al, 2003) has shown that the Altaian sequences are all almost identical, suggesting that they arrived in the area probably from the South Caucasus more recently than 5000 BP.
This absence of haplogroup X2 in Asia is one of the major factors causing the current rethinking of the peopling of the Americas. However, the New World haplogroup X2a is as different from any of the Old World X2b, X2c, X2d, X2e and X2f lineages as they are from each other, indicating an early origin "likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East".[2]
The Solutrean Hypothesis posits that haplogroup X reached North America with a wave of European migration about 20,000 BP by the Solutreans, a stone-age culture in south-western France and in Spain, by boat around the southern edge of the Arctic ice pack.
Another possible way to explain existence of haplogroup X in mtDNA of indigenous peoples of the Americas is that it was brought to North America with the people of Caucasian origin through the Bering land bridge. [3]
You do keep up with your stupid trying to score points cr@p. So what if most is evaporated from the oceans, an awful lot is trapped by the rain forests and precipitates out. All of that has to go somewhere else. It isn't a coincidence that rain forests are wet and near the equator.
I'll take your exact figures on trust, but I think that is a fairly accurate summary.
There area few other items to add.
Things like pollution, water vapour and certain other chemicals that are greenhouse contributors wash out of the air pretty quickly: Co2 does not.
The issue as to whether it matters is that even if the risk of it mattering is relatively small, the chances are that if it matters, it really really matters, are rather large. I.e. the risk of a very significant effect is pretty large. Its not like oh well, theres a 30% chance it will be a bit warmer for a few years, its more like well there is a 5% chance that human life will become impossible on 90% of the inhabited land surface. That's the worrying thing.
Ultimately we (in te west anyway) can create live and grow food in artificial ecospheres if we have to, but boy we will need a lot of energy to build and run them.
And if that energy produces more Co2, and that is implicated in the problem its no solution at all.
I don't think that is the case. However the argument is rapidly becoming irrelevant: a crashing world economy will use less fuel, and buys us more time, and in the end only nuclear power will work, and we should have just about enough time to get it onstream before the lights go out.
Carbon fuel just got too expensive compared with nuclear. Bye Bye petroleum.
I dont think you are representing the situation accurately. For whatever reason, the Age of Oil is dead. Over. Finished.
In this country oil/gas burning probably accounts for about 90% of carbon emissions,. stop burning it and there is no argument. Use as many ordinary lightbulbs as you like. What we need to do is to build nuclear power stations and a bloody great grid, and make everything that doesn't move run off electricity, starting with home heating using heatpumps if possible.
That alone, if we had the nuclear capacity to generate it, would probably knock 15-20% of the carbon we use, on the head: add in industrial static use and its nearer 40%. Make sensible electric commuter cars and we are probably over 55% reductions, and with a bit more effort. long distance trucks and the like, and we are up to getting on for 60-65%.
Whats left is hard to reduce: aircraft? well no suitable alternative exists, on intercontinental stuff, but high speed trains are more than fast enough for transcontinental journeys. So that might take us up to maybe 70-75% reductions.
The bitst that are left include military and civil emergency forces, that mauy have to operate without electricity for extended periods, some intercontinental air travel, a few things like portable gas stoves and blowlamps, and the petrochemicals industry.
Even these are possible to either synthesise fuel for, or do with electricity..I mean a blowlamp is only a hot air gun write large..
WE dont actually NEED carbon fuel at all. We do need carbon as a reducing agent and chemical component in e.g. steelmaking, but we actually have nearly all the steel we need.
What we DO need is massive amounts of cheap energy, and there is only one way we know how to do that that doesn't burn carbon fuel..
I think it was more like the cessation of an effect that profoundly cooled the planet.
Fr instance the sort of effect a meteorite impact of sufficient size might have is to cool the earth susbstantially for several years: if that then resulted in excessive snowfall, and increased albedo, then even when the dust settlled, you have an icebound planet. That might e a stable state until e.g. a large volcanic eruption spews dust into the air..causing rapid cooling, then emits vast amounts of Co2, which sets the planet on a longer term warming course. Solar radiation is not a constant, nor is the screening effect of the earths magnetic field, which wanders about, changes strength, and occasionally flips altogether.
Thee are all known effects as its orbital perturbations: the exact impact of them is somewhat hard to say, because we never had a need to really try and work things out, and its hard to actually do the experiments without wrecking the planet. We are engaged in the experiment now 'let's see what happens if we burn all the fossil fuel we can dig up'
Its likely to be very instructive, and potentially very destructive.
Whatever you think, I can almost guarantee that it won't have any measurable effect.
Man has been screwing the environment ever since he got clever enough to do it, and kill off any predators that might have stopped him. Hes not alone in this: Overgrazing and deforestation probably created most of the sahara..its as easy for sheep to wreck a field and goats a forest, as it is for humans... .
The technology for using algae to convert human and animal waste to oil has been around for decades. However, at present, it is a lot easier and cheaper to extract the stuff from the ground, so the process has not been refined into a commercially viable operation.
The shells are optional extras on many goods and are classed as anti-tamper devices. They stop people damaging goods by opening them and also stop people stealing the contents, but leaving the empty box on the shelf.
Forgive me if I don't answer directly the rest of the points you made, partly because you've demonstrated that you can't read a graph or use it's data, thus bringing into doubt the rest of your comments. For that graph is essentially a key piece of data.
I'm not responsible for the way the graph was presented, but nevertheless in order to place the Met Office's own estimate of the increase for 2008 on the Met Office's own graph it isn't actually necessary to involve the baseline. I'm surprised you seem unfamiliar with such straightforward data-handling.
I did not choose the 1960 - 1990 as a baseline, the Global Warmers did. By choosing a different baseline, the planet can be shown to be cooling, and possibly cooling for some years now. If you don't grasp this simple concept, the your search for 'the truth' will founder on this very simple and very clear concept.
Scientists are used to handling data; it's their bread-and-butter. Banks, supermarkets, health services, traffic handlers and half-a-hundred other industries are used to handling variable data. Sophisticated tools exist to handle data. To an analyst, there can be no such thing as 'too much variability'; your statement is a nonsense and shows your simplistic approach and technical ignorance.
For your information, the term "at least 4000 years old" does include something that is "20,000 years old"; unless you have evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, you are merely speculating.
Perhaps the mistake I really made was to make a throwaway remark about stone spears to illustrate that 20000 years ago the ice cap extended down to circa mid north atlantic levels, and followed with a question that asked what mechanisms warmed the planet at that time, and whether they operate today.
No-one, including yourself, has sought to answer that, but you seem to be keen on picking up spelling errors and quoting wikipedia while rubbishing TV, unwilling to admit that both are ways of distributing information whether good, bad, indifferenet, or biassed.
"We have anecdotal evidence that people tend to tune their models to be similar to other people's," says David Stainforth, from the University of Oxford, UK. "Nobody wants to have a model that's terribly different, particularly when there are only 8 or 10 in the world," he explains.
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:45:52 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-
Given the crashing world economy and the high cost of building nuclear power stations then the money is unlikely to be available to build the things, even if one ignores all the other problems the things pose.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.