In article .com,
"raylopez99" wrote:
Alastair McDonald wrote:
"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.

Based on the consensus you are right Alastair, but keep in mind that
30% of the temperature increase is due to non-manmade causes, says the
IPCC. So if that 30% goes to 50%, then it's fifty-fifty nature vs.
manmade.

And if it goes to 125%, look out!


As for methane hydrates, if they somehow rise from the bottom of the
sea to outgas at the surface, then it's curtains for us, regardless of
global warming. Same if a rogue meteor strikes the earth. Or a
mega-volcano. Or a global pandemic that's not curable. Or "grey goo
nanotech".

Or cloned dinosaurs!

Standard Halloween Science Scare Stories. Life will find a
way.

RL

"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
Standard Halloween Science Scare Stories. Life will find a way.

Yes, life Ray, but not as we know it.


Perhaps Ray is slowly waking up to reality. He used to say business will
find a way, then humans will find a way, now just life will find a way. He
also puts much less effort into his denial campaign lately, just childish
taunts rather than detailed crackpottery.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:Qhpdf.195262$ir4.82925@edtnps90...
"Alastair McDonald" k wrote
in message ...

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
Standard Halloween Science Scare Stories. Life will find a way.

Yes, life Ray, but not as we know it.


Perhaps Ray is slowly waking up to reality. He used to say business will
find a way, then humans will find a way, now just life will find a way. He
also puts much less effort into his denial campaign lately, just childish
taunts rather than detailed crackpottery.

sci.environment seems to have gone a bit quiet recently. I get the impression
that all the sceptics like David O'Hara have disappeared. It will be
interesting to see if they return after the Fox News program. Or perhaps we
have won :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

On 8 Nov 2005 20:03:03 -0800, "Roger Coppock"
wrote:

###
The research was supported by the framework of the National Center of
Competence in Research on Climate (NCCR Climate), an initiative funded
by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

This came from:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wvf110805.php


The bbc have a version too
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4419880.stm

--
Promotional codes, discounts, money off
http://www.promotionalcode.co.uk/
http://www.moneyoffvouchers.co.uk

Alastair McDonald wrote:
"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...


Based on the consensus you are right Alastair, but keep in mind that
30% of the temperature increase is due to non-manmade causes, says
the IPCC. So if that 30% goes to 50%, then it's fifty-fifty nature
vs. manmade.

The IPCC in fact say that up to 30% of the warming SO FAR was due to
natural causes. As AGW increases that figure will fall, not rise.

Actually 30% of the rise and all (100% of the cooling which just nicely
cancells 30% of the warming) of the cooling which overall balanced each
other out.

Natural factors cancelled overall, so separating it into the 30% warming
does not make a lot of sense when talking about the overall sum. ALL of the
resulting warming was due to GHGs.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

"NobodyYouKnow" wrote in message
.. .
Alastair McDonald wrote:
"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...


Based on the consensus you are right Alastair, but keep in mind that
30% of the temperature increase is due to non-manmade causes, says
the IPCC. So if that 30% goes to 50%, then it's fifty-fifty nature
vs. manmade.

The IPCC in fact say that up to 30% of the warming SO FAR was due to
natural causes. As AGW increases that figure will fall, not rise.

Actually 30% of the rise and all (100% of the cooling which just nicely
cancells 30% of the warming) of the cooling which overall balanced each
other out.

Natural factors cancelled overall, so separating it into the 30% warming
does not make a lot of sense when talking about the overall sum. ALL of the
resulting warming was due to GHGs.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

I'll buy that :-)

Cheers, Alastair.

In message .com,
raylopez99 writes

As for methane hydrates, if they somehow rise from the bottom of the
sea to outgas at the surface, then it's curtains for us, regardless of
global warming.

As far as I know this isn't a 'happen' or 'not happen' thing. These
things are being formed and released all the time. Question is, will
methane clathrates contribute more positive feedback (possibly much
more) than the water vapour feedback that started this thread ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Alastair McDonald
k writes

I would like to point out that we are trying to
prevent the bird flu global pandemic,

When not if...


and we are monitoring
the Yellowstone mega-volcano.

So when we see the crust start to bubble we can give the American right
a chance to say their prayers ?


We are scanning the skies for rogue
meteors with plans to shoot them down,

Interesting idea...


but we are doing nothing about
global warming because it would affect the business interests of the
president of the USA.




Standard Halloween Science Scare Stories. Life will find a way.

Yes, life Ray, but not as we know it.

Quite...


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

Gosh, methane is a nonlinear polyatomic molecule, is it not?

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

When you predict that the end of the world (as we know it) is coming
then you are labelled as a crackpot (or a Chicken Little)-!

Which is fine until the sky falls !

I first heard about methane clathrates was about five years ago,

You should have hung out with more chemists !

Or glaciologists (et al.). I was peripherally involved in a paper
on the release of methane clathrates due to the depressurization
caused by the removal of the Laurentide ice sheet -- in 1987.
Methane clathrates were known to the climate community well before 2000.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences