contrails

On Jan 17, 5:37*am, delboy wrote:
On 8 Jan, 11:20, Tom Gardner wrote:



On Jan 8, 7:59*am, delboy wrote:

On 8 Jan, 06:57, Mark Jardini wrote:

While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.

Mark Jardini

I did also mention Northern Europe and North America, so I was not
being a little Englander. Northern France and the other European
countries are also having a bad time.

The argument you are putting forward is that sea ice and the snow on
top of it will melt due to global warming and, being lower in salt
content, will dilute the salinity of oceans. In fact I wouldn't be
surprised to see an increase in sea ice this year. These things are
cyclical, and apparently there was little sea ice in the Medieval mini
warm period between the 9th and 13th Centuries. This allowed the
Vikings to settle in Iceland and Greenland. The ones in Greenland were
wiped out by cold weather in the 15th century. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The main reason our weather is so cold at the moment is that the
airmass is coming from the cold north-east polar regions due to a
blocking anticyclone, rather than from the more normal, more
temperate, south-west direction.

Derek Copeland

Don't forget Mark's second point, which appears to be the more
significant in the long term. If the Gulf Stream shuts down then
olar bears will roam London (same latitude as Churchill in
Canada), presuming they haven't become extinct beforehand - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become its
normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be working.
So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be extending to the
British Isles yet!

Derek Copeland

I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
nor did I imply it.

Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
(not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.

Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.

On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner wrote:

After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become its
normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be working.
So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be extending to the
British Isles yet!

Derek Copeland

I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
nor did I imply it.

Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
(not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.

Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom? If you want to present AGW/Climate
Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
correlate with the theory, so that is why.

Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
object to!

Derek Copeland

delboy wrote in
:

On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner wrote:

After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become
its normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be
working. So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be
extending to the British Isles yet!

Derek Copeland

I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
nor did I imply it.

Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
(not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.

Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom?

No, I'm not. I dislike other people putting silly
opinions/statements into my "mouth".


If you want to present AGW/Climate
Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
correlate with the theory, so that is why.

Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
object to!

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the causal connection
between those beliefs and your comments that I object to.

On 18 Jan, 01:06, Tom wrote:
delboy wrote :





On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner wrote:

After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become
its normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be
working. So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be
extending to the British Isles yet!

Derek Copeland

I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
nor did I imply it.

Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
(not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.

Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom?

No, I'm not. I dislike other people putting silly
opinions/statements into my "mouth".

If you want to present AGW/Climate
Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
correlate with the theory, so that is why.

Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
object to!

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the causal connection
between those beliefs and your comments that I object to.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Eric,

Obviously you must have some professional connection to the AGW scam.
Climate is surely just the long term average of weather events. Any
increase in atmospheric CO2 does not appear to have caused the
predicted increase in Global temperatures. Maybe the 'natural'
concentration of CO2 already gives the maximum greenhouse effect and
increasing it causes little or no difference. In any case CO2 is food
for plants, so I would expect to see an increase in plant growth, as
long as there are no other limiting factors.

Derek Copeland

On Jan 18, 7:44*am, delboy wrote:
On 18 Jan, 01:06, Tom wrote:



delboy wrote :

On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner wrote:

After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become
its normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be
working. So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be
extending to the British Isles yet!

Derek Copeland

I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
nor did I imply it.

Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
(not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.

Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom?

No, I'm not. I dislike other people putting silly
opinions/statements into my "mouth".

If you want to present AGW/Climate
Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
correlate with the theory, so that is why.

Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
object to!

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the causal connection
between those beliefs and your comments that I object to.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Eric,

Obviously you must have some professional connection to the AGW scam.

I think the same assertion could be made about you, but on the
opposing side!

On 18 Jan, 09:06, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Jan 18, 7:44*am, delboy wrote:





On 18 Jan, 01:06, Tom wrote:

delboy wrote :

On 17 Jan, 08:04, Tom Gardner wrote:

After a month in a mini ice age, the UK winter weather has become
its normal mild and moist self, so the Gulf Stream must still be
working. So sorry polar bears, your habitat range won't be
extending to the British Isles yet!

Derek Copeland

I wrote nothing whatsoever that would justify your comment,
nor did I imply it.

Your attempt to associate me with such ignorant concepts
(not knowing the difference between climate and weather)
is offensive. *Please do not do it again*.

Unfortunately this kind of misrepresentation and
cherry-picking data appears to be all too prevalent
in the denialist community. Anybody reading your
comments with an open mind would start to doubt your
sincerity. It does the denialist cause no good whatsoever.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Being a bit touchy aren't we Tom?

No, I'm not. I dislike other people putting silly
opinions/statements into my "mouth".

If you want to present AGW/Climate
Change as a religion (which it seems to have become), then I am
neither a believer or a disbeliever (denialist), but an agnostic. The
latest data on World temperatures, which show a slight cooling, do not
correlate with the theory, so that is why.

Unfortunately the UK Government have taken AGW into its policies, so
they have introduced various taxes and duties that are based on CO2
emissions. They are therefore trying to control and tax our population
based on an unproven scientific theory, which is what I particularly
object to!

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the causal connection
between those beliefs and your comments that I object to.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Eric,

Obviously you must have some professional connection to the AGW scam.

I think the same assertion could be made about you, but on the
opposing side!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not a professional climatologist, so I have no financial interest
in the topic of AGW, other than a desire not to be controlled and
taxed by my Government on the basis of CO2 emissions. I am a trained
and qualified scientist in a different field, so I am used to
evaluating data. I think I can spot dodgy and biased data being used
for political purposes when I see it.

Derek Copeland

On Jan 18, 11:10*am, delboy wrote:
I am a trained
and qualified scientist in a different field, so I am used to
evaluating data. I think I can spot dodgy and biased data being used
for political purposes when I see it.

History is littered with with eminent scientists (in one field)
making pronouncements about a different field, and falling
flat on their faces.

On Jan 18, 2:44*am, delboy wrote:

... Maybe the 'natural'
concentration of CO2 already gives the maximum greenhouse effect and
increasing it causes little or no difference.
...

Clearly no.

Consider Venus.

--

FF

Just had a look at Rutan's site. He gives prominent display to the
Oregon Institute of Science in Cave Junction or some such. I am sure
it exists, but Cave Junction has a population of ~3000. And the 3
authors have no credentials at all.

There are lots of charts and graphs in the article though.

Mark

On 18 Jan, 23:38, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
On Jan 18, 2:44*am, delboy wrote:

... Maybe the 'natural'
concentration of CO2 already gives the maximum greenhouse effect and
increasing it causes little or no difference.
...

Clearly no.

Consider Venus.

Venus is much closer to the Sun, so much hotter for that reason. Its
atmosphere is 97% Carbon Dioxide with smaller concentrations of
sulphuric acid, and chlorine and fluorine compounds. The concentration
of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is currently only 387 ppm (parts per
million), even with carbon emissions. The atmosphere of the Earth may
have had much higher levels of CO2 in its early history, but the
evolution of plant life tied most of the Carbon up in biomass, and
converted CO2 to Oxygen in the atmosphere, fortunately for us oxygen
breathing animals. Even with these higher CO2 levels, the Earth most
have been cool enough to allow Carbon and water based life to form.

Just a worrying thought. We humans breathe in the oxygen in the air
and breathe out CO2. We also give out methane (CH4) which is also a
potent greenhouse gas. Will Governments want to close us down as well
as the fossil fuel power stations? Or will we be taxed on our entire
carbon footprint? Frightening!

Derek Copeland