OT: Global Warming conference

[Dave]

messagenews: [e-mail]...

And in theory, should be removed by all those trees that are being cut donw across the wold.

Dave

[The Natural Philosopher]

I THOUGHT a wold was a place that had already been de-treed?

Ah. Perhaps not...

"O.E. wald (Anglian), weald (W.Saxon) "forest, wooded upland," from P.Gmc. *walthuz (cf. O.S., O.Fris. wald, M.Du. wold, Du. woud, O.H.G. wald, Ger. Wald "forest," Swed. vall "pasture," O.N. völlr "soil, field, meadow"); perhaps connected to wild. The sense development from "forested upland" to "rolling open country" (c.1205) perhaps is from Scand. infl., or a testimony to the historical deforestation of Britain. Not current since mid-16c.; survives mainly in place names (cf. Cotswold)."

So you see deforestation and therefore man made CO2 has been going on since the 13th century at least..

[dennis]

They appear to be facts. Do you dispute that they are true?

[Dave]

The rate of deforestation has increased by many fold in modern times.

Sorry for the spelling mistakes. That must be the only post I have not speel chucked in week :-)

Dave

[Roger]

The message from "dennis@home" contains these words:

Half truths at most.

Avery seems to have forgotten the industrial revolution, plucks a figure of 0.2 seemingly out of thin air and rubbishes the greenhouse effect in a single sentence. Whether or not global warming is manmade or natural the greenhouse effect is established fact and without in the world would be a much colder place. Atmospheric CO2 has risen considerably seen reliable records started in 1958.

Singer is out on a limb claiming that colder = fiercer storms. More heat means more energy for the weather to play around with and it wasn't the Little Ice Age that brought the bubonic plague but rats. In temperate latitudes extra warmth may be welcomed by some but in the tropics it is not good news. The number of extinctions over the last few centuries doesn't bear out his more diversity claim either.

The final quote is a complete repudiation of the greenhouse effect.

[dennis]

It doesn't rubbish the greenhouse effect at all. It rubbishes the greenhouse effect as being the cause of warming. Don't try and make someone sound stupid by saying they disprove a theory that has plenty of firm evidence. The greenhouse effect is generally accepted, the cause of global warming is what is in doubt. There is virtually no firm evidence that CO2 actually causes global warming when you actually examine it with an open mind. The trouble is most people don't have an open mind and are feed with stupid information in the media.. "the world is going to end" gets news, "nothing is going to happen", doesn't!

But CO2 isn't an effective greenhouse gas compared to the other stuff in the atmosphere. Methane and water are magnitudes better at it and there is more of them too. Why do the global warming fanatics concentrate on CO2 when there are other far larger influences?

Yes and it has followed temperatures not preceded them for the last 150 years or so for which there are "reliable" figures.

Define fierce. Ice storms would certainly be more severe. Also the weather systems may well be more localised with less energy to play with and may be more fierce at a local level rather than in total. You can't just say more energy = fiercer storms it may just mean bigger, but more diffuse, or more frequent. The current crop of big storms aren't atypical BTW, there have been storms just as bad or worse in the past.

It was poor living conditions (population growth caused by warming?), a new world travel network (caused by warming?) and a lack of immunity that caused the black death, nothing to do with the environment as such, more to do with mans reaction to the environment. If man had understood what was happening, it probably wouldn't have happened.

There are few (if any?) extinctions that are not directly related to mans ill management of the environment. The extinctions are not as a result of global warming. Also far more new species have been found.

No it isn't, it just states there is no correlation between temperatures and CO2. This is certainly true of the last centaury where there has been a rise in CO2 following a rise in temperature and not the other way around as some appear to think.

[Rod]

But the finding of a "new" species is not the opposite of an extinction. It is merely that someone noticed something not previously identified. Other than in laboratories, are there any documented species creations in the recent past?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Definitely.

There is an almopst perfect correlation between our temperatures and CO2, although there is some dispute as to which is causing the other.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Not in the UK it hasn't. Its actually been somewhat in reverse since coal and brick took over from wood as primary energy and structural materials around the 18th century onwards..

Well it was interesting to find out the derivation of 'wold' - a word I was aware of, but hadn't connected to Weald, etc etc.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, it doesn't.

Unless you take 'correlation' to mean 'cause'

Which if you are a scientist is compltetly incorrect use of the scientific language.

Which says all it needs to say about the science inherent in the d=ocument. (i.e. not very much and that cherry picked to make a different case)

Howver arguable that is, there is extremely strong *correlation* between global warming and CO2. Periods of high global temperature are always associated with high CO2: the argument is to which causes the other.

So it seems that whoever wrote that report is not a scientists at all, as they do not understand what 'correlation' means, or they are simply lying in te face of the evidence, or both.

The trouble is that a lot of people aren't as smart as they think they are, which makes it very easy to pull woool over their eyes.

Things are already happening, in case you hadn't noticed. Like the polar regions melting. A mere nothinfg I dont think..

Its that massive leap from 'we may not be the primary cause' to 'we aren't the cause' to therefore we don't need to do anything about it' that is the most disturbing.

As of guilt were the only reason for any action at all.

Although I certainly believe that 99.99% of everything suggested by the green movement is at best, marginal, and and worst dangerously counter productive, that isn't a reason to deny something is happening, or attempt to address the issues and investigate the causes. And truy and slow the changes down, at least.

Water is self stabilising: too much and it rains. Methane *eventually* breaks down but CO2 is inert, and doesn't. Methane is of course far more serious, but IIRC has a 'half life' that is somewhat shorter than atmospheric CO2.

Very hard to say.

>

[Roger]

The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

I always forget something.

I had meant to mention the limits of humidity but in addition that clouds also reflect incident radiation before it gets close enough to warm very much at all as well as reducing heat loss at night damping extremes of both high and low temperature.

[dennis]

Are there any extinctions that are linked to global warming in the last 150 years?

[dennis]

So you agree that there is no correlation then as in the data the rise always precedes the CO2 rise (for the last 150 years anyway).

[The Natural Philosopher]

Almost certainly.

[The Natural Philosopher]

You have completely revealed your ignorance as to the meaning of the scientific term 'correlation'

Hint: One of the more amusing facts to be gleaned from historical data is a strong *correlation* between the size of tree rings in a given year, and the number of drawn cricket matches played in the UK in that year..

Do you think one causes the other?

[dennis]

Looking at ice records indicates high CO2 = high temp. Looking at data collected on CO2 vs. temp for the last 150 years shows CO2 lags temp.

There is *no* evidence that what is happening is unusual or linked to CO2 production. If you have some proper evidence please post it.

Its the we must revert to the stone age attitude that worries me.

The age old its better to be safe than sorry argument. That's OK as long as you don't cause more suffering than the worst effects you are trying to prevent may bring. At the moment it looks like the cure is worse than the worst effect of the problem.

Water in the upper atmosphere doesn't rain. At best/worst it forms ice clouds which reflect the solar radiation and cool the planet. Water in the lower atmosphere doesn't matter.

Its not that hard if you draw a graph. Its why climatologists like to draw the hockey stick graph over the last

1500 years because it looks better if you want to "prove" global warming and you can't see the temp leading the CO2 very well.

[Rod]

I prefer the correlation of marmalade consumption and pregancies (births) in post-WW2 UK. Mind boggling trying to think of a cause/effect relationship.

[Roger]

The message from "dennis@home" contains these words:

I was just going to point out that regardless of any other influences the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has a significant effect on the temperature and that temperature change in the oceans lags average air temperature but googling to check a few facts I can across a report I hadn't seen before which says in much more authoritative terms what I have been trying to say up thread and a good deal more as well. I will content myself with just one quote for Dennis to choke on:

"On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature."

The whole article can be found at:

[dennis]

Go on then provide the evidence.

[dennis]

I'm not the one asserting that CO2 causes higher temps, I am quite happy to agree with your analogy that CO2 causes a rise in temperature the same as tree ring growth causes cricket match draws.