"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article , "James"
wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter Wilkins wrote:
On 8 Nov 2005 22:21:15 -0800, "Roger Coppock"
wrote :

"Elevated surface temperatures due to other greenhouse gases have
enhanced water evaporation and contributed to a cycle that stimulates
further surface emperature increases, . . ."

Try reading at least two sentences of an article before commenting
on it.

Oh no! Not that! Two sentences is a bit beyond me, but I did manage.
They still didn't pin it onto anthropogenic CO2 or George Bush.

The added GH gas is CO2, and that is anthropogenic.


How do you know that Lloyd? Has natural co2 been outlawed by AGW
enthusiasts?


Then please tell us what natural source of CO2 just got turned on 150
years
ago.

Your question implies there aren't any.

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:56:57 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote :


Try reading to the last paragraph. It begins "The strong increase of
longwave radiation is shown in the study to be due to increasing
cloudiness, rising temperature, rising water vapor,
and above all to long-lived manmade greenhouse gases."

And since you may have found that sentence too long, it ends " ... and
above all to long-lived manmade greenhouse gases. " It does not
mention GWB because it is concerned with the science not the politics!


Geez Alistair, you really won't let me have my little bit of fun, will
you? My original post was in response to Rogers which started off "A
new report indicates that the vast majority of the rapid temperature
increase recently observed in Europe is likely due to an unexpected
greenhouse gas: water vapour."

I was so doubled up laughing that anyone could believe and actually
say that water vapour was an unexpected greenhouse gas that I couldn't
read much further. So they did pin it on mankind after all, although
I could be a nit-picker and say that it's not just CO2!

But I'm still puzzled - I thought more water vapour in the atmosphere
was a GOODS THING as it means more clouds and reduced solar
insolation. So shouldn't we hurry up and burn more carbon? (sorry,
just joking.... I think....)

And sorry about the delayed response to acknowledge the correctness of
your post: I only just found it. My new newsreader is inexplicably
marking posts to this newsgroup as "read" even though I have it set as
"watch". I can't cope with this new technology - or perhaps it is
just than my newsreader is smarter than I am. (I see you nodding your
head in agreement..)

Keep smiling and keep posting - I find your posts some of the most
rational and informative in this newsgroup - amongst the few that are
worth reading.

But I can't completely agree with your statement that this newsgroup
is concerned with science, not politics. I do agree it SHOULD be!

Regards
Peter

--
Regards,
Peter Wilkins

"Peter Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:56:57 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote :


Geez Alistair, you really won't let me have my little bit of fun, will
you?

This is not a laughing matter :-(

I was so doubled up laughing that anyone could believe and actually
say that water vapour was an unexpected greenhouse gas that I couldn't
read much further.

What they were saying was that they had under-estimated the effect
of water vapour in their climate models. That means the effects of
AGW will be much worse than those that are currently being predicted.

So they did pin it on mankind after all, although I could be a nit-picker
and say that it's not just CO2!

The climate system is full of positive (bad) and negative (good)
feedbacks, and we do not know exactly how the climate system
will react to us adding CO2 to it. What we don't know is whether
the consequences will be bad or very bad. It is not whether they
will be good or bad, as the skeptics would like to have you think.
What that article is implying is that it is going to be very bad!

But I'm still puzzled - I thought more water vapour in the atmosphere
was a GOODS THING as it means more clouds and reduced solar
insolation. So shouldn't we hurry up and burn more carbon? (sorry,
just joking.... I think....)

It is important to realise that more water vapour in the atmosphere
does not necessarily mean more clouds. Clouds only form when air
cools below its dew point temperature. The cooling is normally
because the air is rising, because of either convection or as it passes
over mountains. Since, what goes up must come down, the amount
of rising air equals the amount of falling air, and so cloud cover tends
to be fixed at a global value of 50%.

The point is that the CO2 will raise temperatures which will cause
more water vapour, which will raise temperatures, which will cause
more water vapour, which will ... But the clouds will not necessarily
increase to compensate.

Thus the climate will heat up until there is a switch in the system which
leads to more clouds. When that happens, the farmers will be taken
by surprise and the world will starve. The paddy fields will dry up,
and the deserts will bloom, but no one is farming them!

And sorry about the delayed response to acknowledge the
correctness of your post: I only just found it. My new newsreader
is inexplicably marking posts to this newsgroup as "read" even
though I have it set as "watch". I can't cope with this new
technology - or perhaps it is just than my newsreader is smarter
than I am. (I see you nodding your head in agreement..)

I don't think your newsreader is smarter than you, but perhaps
the man who wrote it is - Bill Gates. I am pretty sure he is richer
that you anyway. Have you checked the synchronisation
settings by right clicking on the news group name.

Keep smiling and keep posting - I find your posts some of the
most rational and informative in this newsgroup - amongst the
few that are worth reading.

But I can't completely agree with your statement that this
newsgroup is concerned with science, not politics. I do agree
it SHOULD be!

Thanks, I try to keep my posts interesting, sometimes at the cost
of civility :-( Sorry Roger.

It sounds as though you are following this thread on the
alt.global-warming or uk.environment newsgroups which I agree
should not avoid the politics. I am following it on sci.environment
where a few professional scientists post stuff worth reading too!
This probably applies even more to sci.geo.meteorology but
you do get even more dross in along with the pearls in these
big groups.

I noticed recently that your Australian environment minister, a
Campbell, was weakening on global warming. Luckily for Howard
focus on that has now been removed by the discovery of suicide
bombers. Apparently they were using the same methods as
the London bombers, the ones who distracted attention away
from Tony Blair's attempt to get George Bush to sign up to Kyoto
at the Edinburgh G8 meeting. (Well this is going out to
alt.global-warming so why not a little conspiracy theory :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

Only Roger can spin an article that essentially throws cold water onto
the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis into one that supports it.
I suppose Roger wants us to believe the putative "30%" man-made gg
component is responsible for the increased water vapour, but in fact
the increase could be due to rising temperatures that have nothing to
do with manmade GG. Notwithstanding what a FORTRAN 77 computer
simulation shows.

"Further research is needed on the AGW hypothesis".

RL

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
Only Roger can spin an article that essentially throws cold water onto
the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis into one that supports it.
I suppose Roger wants us to believe the putative "30%" man-made gg
component is responsible for the increased water vapour, but in fact
the increase could be due to rising temperatures that have nothing to
do with manmade GG. Notwithstanding what a FORTRAN 77 computer
simulation shows.

"Further research is needed on the AGW hypothesis".

Yes further research is needed urgently on how much more water vapour
will be produced by the increase in carbon dioxide. Will it be enough to
warm the planet to the extent that the methane hydrates will be released?

Cheers, Alastair.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:23:21 -0000, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote :


It sounds as though you are following this thread on the
alt.global-warming or uk.environment newsgroups which I agree
should not avoid the politics. I am following it on sci.environment
where a few professional scientists post stuff worth reading too!
This probably applies even more to sci.geo.meteorology but
you do get even more dross in along with the pearls in these
big groups.

Thanks for that and for the other info too, Alistair.
Most interesting.

I've added sci.environment to my subscribed list and, if it looks as
good as you say, I may just keep that and drop this one (alt.global
warming).

The "marked read" problem is proving very elusive to solve: only some
posts are being marked read, not all. None of Rogers get marked read
before reading. :-)

I noticed recently that your Australian environment minister, a
Campbell, was weakening on global warming. Luckily for Howard
focus on that has now been removed by the discovery of suicide
bombers. Apparently they were using the same methods as
the London bombers, the ones who distracted attention away
from Tony Blair's attempt to get George Bush to sign up to Kyoto
at the Edinburgh G8 meeting. (Well this is going out to
alt.global-warming so why not a little conspiracy theory :-)

Our local conspiracy mobs (the Democrats, the unions and some of the
more extreme greens) are saying that Prime Minister Howard coerced the
State police forces (all controlled by Labor State governments
politically opposed to Howards Liberal Federal one) to make the raids
on the terrorists just to take the public eye away from his Industrial
Relations Reform bills currently before federal parliament. Can you
imagine State Labor governments bending over backwards to help their
hated political opponent? Very likely, I'm sure! But as the proposed
reforms would bring us into line with New Zealand, they must be pretty
extreme, so any action against them must be justified! Oops, sorry,
too much off topic.

And Campbell is not one of our most admired ministers, he tends to
waver in the breeze a bit. I still tend to believe, despite all the
doom and gloom alt.global warming postings, that the Kyoto Accords are
largely a waste of time, effort and money that would be better spent
elsewhere, and that our technology initiatives with China & the US
show some promise of providing better bang for the buck in eventually
solving (or at least alleviating) the climate problems, whether it be
the current global warming or a possible future ice age.

--
Regards,
Peter Wilkins

In message , Alastair McDonald
k writes

Yes further research is needed urgently on how much more water vapour
will be produced by the increase in carbon dioxide. Will it be enough to
warm the planet to the extent that the methane hydrates will be released?

Presumably any increase in temperature will result in some clathrate
decomposition ?

Although there is the potential for released methane to contribute to a
runaway effect, it's not a simple "hydrates will be released" or not
thing is it ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message .com,
raylopez99 writes

Only Roger can spin an article that essentially throws cold water onto
the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis into one that supports it.

Exactly which bit threw cold water on it ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...
In message , Alastair McDonald
k writes

Yes further research is needed urgently on how much more water vapour
will be produced by the increase in carbon dioxide. Will it be enough to
warm the planet to the extent that the methane hydrates will be released?

Presumably any increase in temperature will result in some clathrate
decomposition ?

Although there is the potential for released methane to contribute to a
runaway effect, it's not a simple "hydrates will be released" or not
thing is it ?

Don't know :-(

And I am not sure anyone else does. It is not the sort of thing you want to
talk about. You could be labelled as a crackpot!

Cheers, Alastair.

In message , Alastair McDonald
k writes

Presumably any increase in temperature will result in some clathrate
decomposition ?

Although there is the potential for released methane to contribute to a
runaway effect, it's not a simple "hydrates will be released" or not
thing is it ?

Don't know :-(

And I am not sure anyone else does.

I'm pretty sure that physical chemists can tell you about the
thermodynamics of clathrate formation, and if they can tell you, it can
be modelled.


It is not the sort of thing you want to
talk about. You could be labelled as a crackpot!

Don't see why...


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore