The message from Huge contains these words:
If you think you have a case why not make it instead of demonstrating your penchant for meaningless insults.
Terry linked CO2 with global warming and the link is clearly the greenhouse effect.
Would pot please report to reception. Kettle is waiting for you.
Sigh. Did you actually read what he wrote? (Rhetorical question. The answer is obviously "No".)
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "R D S" saying something like:
1.39 tonnes for a 5-bed fully insulated detached house with various heat inputs and free biomass. At least, when it's completed... Right now, it's considerably more than that.
Well, we had company round and I was watching the programme intermittently - but I did catch the solar-wind thing, as I guessed they needed to debunk that too, and it duly turned up.
I'd be grateful for a second opinion on what they said, though. The solar-wind thing was near the end of the programme.
Exactly. So it doesn't really matter if the programme claimed whether the solar wind stopped the cosmic rays, or vice versa.
Ah, here it is....Sunday evening, BBC2, "Earth: The Climate Wars",
2/3, Fightback, presenter Dr Iain Stewart.I've just checked, and yes, Dr Iain Stewart says that the solar wind 'blows away the cosmic rays' (about 47 minutes in). But he uses the argument that currently, planetary temperatures are on the increase, but solar activity is level, thus debunking the effect of solar activity on global warming.
You have to listen for the weasel words...slipped in somewhere, global warming is 'partly' due to human activity, without saying what the other effects are.
What he doesn't even mention is a) why the planet has cooled by 0.7 degC in the last year (NASA figures?), and why the planet warmed after the Salutrians paddled in their kayaks from the south of France to mid-North America along the edge of the ice-pack, about 20,000 years ago. No man-made global-warming then!
The message from Huge contains these words:
As I said above if you have a case make it, but no you come back with more insults. Ergo you do not have a case to make.
One of the points I was responded to is still above (the other you ignored). I leave it to our readers to decide whether your claim that I obviously hadn't read what Terry wrote is anything other than fantasy.
Terry meanwhile hasn't responded.
I have tried again.
This time I filled the ticks in on the form that said that I drive like an idiot with exessive breaking etc, left all my computers on and all my chargers in 24/7.
Guess what? My action plan is the same
Buy a new freezer and take my washing out to dry (which I do if it is not raining)
Adam
Not necessarily; it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by other mechanisms.
Don't forget the alarmist message that came from the various models that all predicted a huge rise in 'global warming' due to CO2.
A little scientific investigation revealed that the models had been 'tuned' to give the same answer....exit the modelling as a serious issue.
Then there was the Met Office, that claimed on national TV that it had 'proved' the link between 'global warming' and CO2. A search of their website failed to find a published paper that gave that result. The Met Office has been very quiet on the issue since then...exit the MetO as a player.
No proponent of 'global warming' has exer explained why the planet oscillates between cold and warm states; the best they can do is claim that human activity is 'partly' to blame and 'might' accellerate 'global warming'.
I believe that 17000 scientists work on 'global warming', but the case for it is made by about a tenth of that number.
Possibly; but if CO2-led 'global warming' is a flaky issue - and I've touched on some of those above - it might not matter.
I wish I could find the reference that said the planet had cooled by
0.7 degC in the last 12 months - a rise of that magnitude would have been trumpeted from high buildings by the supporters of CO2-led 'global warming'; instead of the current deafening silence.
I gave up halfway through. I could calculate ours myself without too much difficulty. I know on average how many litres of LPG we use per annum, similarly how much diesel and how many units of electricity, and we don't take holidays. I could work out the CO2 equivalents of the LPG and diesel, given some grey matter activity, but calculating the CO2 equivalent of the electricity would be more difficult given the various ways it's generated (coal, gas, nuclear, etc). But it would be easier if I could use instant conversion factors from the web. Does anyone know them, or can anyone point me to a site that does?
What? Since 1908? How come I've never heard of it until recently?
I've never heard a sensible explanation from the wholewheat dungaree tree huggers as to (1) why we have always had 'freak weather' e.g. Thames freezing over several times in the past and (2) what happened to the hole in the ozone layer, which meant we were all doomed?
I'm 2000 years old- i was born in the last millenium!
The message from Terry Fields contains these words:
So why call it a myth?
If you use much the same assumptions models should predict much the same results. With the rise in computing power models are becoming ever more sophisticated but they can only be tested before the event on how closely they model past behaviour which may not be a good guide to the future if deviations from the norm are much greater than was the case in the past, even if the data from the past is sufficiently accurate and extensive to provide a good model of past events.
The crux of the matter is the greenhouse effect. If the effect exists then mankind is contributing to global warming even if the world is cooling at the time because mankind is undoubtedly responsible for discharging huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Look at it this way. The climate is chaotic with numerous natural variables competing to change it one way or the other. One element is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another (as TNT pointed out) is the amount of pollution in the atmosphere. The system must be reasonably stable but only between certain limits. Breech those limits and the system will stabilise at a very different figure. Go too low and you have an ice age with the large area of ice reinforcing the low temperature by reflecting straight back into space much more of the suns energy than was formerly the case. Go the other way and the giant reflectors disappear and it might take an event more extreme even than the overdue super volcano eruption in Yellowstone Park to bring back the ice.
If that is the case then 15000 or more of the non supporters have been incredibly quiet.
The Wikipedia article I refer to in another post claims in effect that it is only the greenhouse effect that up to now has made the Earth a reasonably pleasant place to live.
Would one year in isolation matter? But just for the record it does seen inherently unlikely* given the ice shrinkage in the arctic this summer and the ice losses in the Antarctic during our preceding winter.
*Unless of course the polar regions have continued to warm while the tropics have started to cool.The message from "The Medway Handyman" contains these words:
No, earlier.
Per Wikipedia:
"The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[2]
In the absence of the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature of 14 °C (57 °F) would be about -18 °C (?0.4 °F) [3] [4](Black body temperature of the Earth). "
That is a question only you can answer.
Because it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by other mechanisms, and yet one is being taxed on it while not looking, sounding, or walking like the only mechanism in play.
Yes, but it was later admitted by one of the modellers that there was pressure? rivalry? tacit agreement? to make all the models give the same result. That is basically fraudulent, and makes a mockery of the techniques and resources used, no matter how clever or sophisticated.
You say that 'The crux of the matter is the greenhouse effect'; do you have any evidence for that? It may not be 'the crux' at all.
If you look at the Met Office website, you may find a publication about 'global warming', buried in which is a chart showing the estimates of 'warming' by a number of effects, including CO2.
The paper admits that CO2 is the most well-understood phenomenon, but makes little of other mechanisms, one at least of which of which has a greater potential to affect the climate, but in a cooling rather than warming effect. There are other cooling effects as well, some with large estimated error bands as so little has been researched about them.
The problem is that mechanisms like these are impossible to tax, cannot be controlled by anything that indiciduals could do, not subject to 'building control'...and they have been largely ignored, while money has been pumped into things like fraudulent models for those mechanisms that are easily taxed.
That's an assumption by you. Do you have any published references to support it?
All you are now doing is piling supposition on supposition.
Or lack the funding.
That's peurile, and a supposition.
The blue-green algae that ruled the CO2-rich world before 'life as we know it' came along were seemingly quite happy too. Who are you to say that the planet is a 'reasonably pleasant place to live'?
I'm sorry, but if you have nothing to offer, such as published work, to support your argument, then really you're just making it up as you go along. All I have quoted came from published sources - you might like to try researching the literature for yourself, rather than making usupported comments.
I suggest you do what I did...spend three or four months researching both sides of the argument. I've reproduced for you some of the things I found, but frankly your response e.g. to the accusation of fraudulent modelling didn't even address the issue.
If you have something of substance to say, I'd be pleased to answer it, but I really am not interested in subjective remarks like 'the planet is a reasonably pleasant place to live'.
Good questions....but I doubt you'll get an answer....
"Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant [ozone depleting] compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere. By
2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km² out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later. Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068."Extract quoted from
There are two mechanisms in play here. We have global warming caused by increased greenhouse effect and we also have global cooling caused by increasing amounts of pollution in the atmosphere. They are almost in a state of equilibrium so it is not surprising if there is fluctuation between the two effects. The big problem is that if we fix one we make the effects of the other worse.
I will give you one and I am not a tree hugger..
1) freak weather is freak weather, it has always happened and probably always will. It is usually because memories are poor or life spans are too short to remember the last time the freak weather happened. People my age remember the freak cold weather we had in the seventies/eighties when all the models were predicting an ice age, I would expect some OAPs at that time will have remembered the freak hot spells in the 1920s. I also expect that the freak weather happened previously but there wasn't a TV crew there to record it. Weather is like crime.. grossly over reported and scares people that don't understand statistics. 2) there never was a hole in the ozone. There was a measurable drop in ozone concentrations. The drop has been reduced since the ban on CFCs (although that may be a coincidence) so it isn't news. All the hype to generate funding is currently focused on climate change, in ten years time it will be on something else, such is the drive to get funding.The message from Terry Fields contains these words:
I don't have the time, or indeed the inclination to carrying on arguing on this so I will try and keep this reply short.
Such a response is entirely out of keeping with that science hat you are unsuccessfully trying to wear.
snip
You have absolutely no evidence that it is not.
That snippet I posted from Wikipedia:
In the absence of the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature of 14 °C (57 °F) would be about -18 °C (?0.4 °F) [3] [4](Black body temperature of the Earth). "
Suggests that CO2 is major player and one mankind is heavily influencing.
snip
They were reasonable suppositions unlike much that is coming from the fundamentalist wing of the climate change denyers.
snip
Since when has lack of funding stopped publication in peer reviewed journals?
snip
No it is you that are being puerile unless you happen to be a close relative of blue-green algae and even then I suspect you would be wrong. An average surface temperature of minus 18C doesn't seem an ideal environment for almost all life forms.
You might be happy to live at minus 18C but I wouldn't be and on that point I am absolutely sure I am part of a very large majority.
snip
Thank you Dennis - we seem to agree on something at last.
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.