Ron Button wrote:

What say you experts ?

Scientists were warning that CO2 would cause global warning before signs of
that warming became evident. After the warming showed up, anti-AGW people
argued that it wasn't happening and, if it was, it wasn't caused by CO2 and
even if it was it wouldn't matter and we should all look forward to the
benefits of a warmer world. I can't be bothered to pay any attention to
their half-baked ramblings.


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]

On Jan 28, 4:12Â*pm, Richard Stamper wrote:
On Jan 28, 2:00 pm, Dick Lovett wrote:





On Jan 28, 1:07�pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley

wrote:
In message , Ron Button
writes
I don't have the literature to hand, but supposedly carbon isotope
ratios demonstrate the anthropogenic source of the additional
atmospheric carbon dioxide.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

As far as I am aware - source Hadley Centre - it has not been possible
to measure the isotopic signal of anthropgenic CO2
since 1945 due to atomic bomb contamination of the atmospheric.

Dick Lovett
Charlbury

Do you have an exact source for this? Â*I would expect atomic bomb
explosions to affect the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere but not
the ratio of Carbon-13 to Carbon-12, which is what is used as an
indicator of combustion of plant-derived carbon.

The most recent IPCC report gives no hint of any difficulty in using
the 13C/12C ratio as an indicator of increased inputs of plant-
material carbon into the atmosphere - seehttp://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
page 139 and references.

Cheers,

Richard Stamper- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The source was Dr Peter Stott, Met Office, one of the speakers at an
extreme weather and climate change conference in Oxford last March.
There was no mention of C-12, C-13 or C-14, just that it wasn't
possible now to be sure how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere was man
made. This came as a surprise to me and several others sitting close
by, so I made a note of it.

Dick Lovett

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
...
Ron Button wrote:

What say you experts ?

Scientists were warning that CO2 would cause global warning before signs
of
that warming became evident. After the warming showed up, anti-AGW people
argued that it wasn't happening and, if it was, it wasn't caused by CO2
and
even if it was it wouldn't matter and we should all look forward to the
benefits of a warmer world.

Over the last century or so we've had scientists warning us all manner of
disasters.
At various times, and occasionaly simulatiously, they have said it'll get
warmer
or it'll get cooler. There never seemed to be a body of scientists
predicting that global
climate would remain static (after all it has never been static throughout
geological
history).

So at any point in time, in whichever random direction global temperatures
are heading, there
will have been scientists predicting it.

They talk of "unprecedented" warming. Is it really? Three quarters of a
degree in a century??
Unprecedented??

I'm sure there are more important things to occupy the greatest minds in
science. It's
all about making a living and jumping from gravy train to gravy train I
supose.

I can't be bothered to pay any attention to
their half-baked ramblings.

Half baked? Rather like the global climate models we are currently being
force fed -
unfit for human consuption.

Paulus

Paulus wrote:

They talk of "unprecedented" warming. Is it really? Three quarters of a
degree in a century??
Unprecedented??

The three-quarters of a degree rise in the past forty years has been enough
to reduce the area of ice in the Arctic last summer to half what it was at
the beginning of that period. The latest forecast is that it will all melt
within the next ten years. Presumably that doesn't bother you.

A little light reading - should you be interested:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...nts/Arrhenius/
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...:Arrhenius_pdf

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...dex.html#atmos
http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/climate.html
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../medieval.html

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman, not newsboy.
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money." [Chic Murray, 1919-85]

On Jan 30, 10:50 am, Graham P Davis wrote:

The three-quarters of a degree rise in the past forty years has been enough
to reduce the area of ice in the Arctic last summer to half what it was at
the beginning of that period.

It doesn't bother me.

It doesn't explain what is happening at any depth. The ice is surface
phenomenon. And 3/4 of a degree isn't enough to affect the whole
thermo-haline column of an ocean. Either that or it must affect the
whole column. And not just of that one ocean.
There hasn't been enough solar output to do that. I am sure we'd have
noticed.

Either that or glowballs is superficial after all.
In which case, what's the problem?

But the worst case scenario is that the less hospitable regions of the
world become more habitable. How is that a bad thing?

If it were 3/4 of a degree every year of 40 years it would be
something. And I am sure that a few half interested watchers believe
that. But people are famous for not paying too much attention to
things and getting lead off down garden paths.

It's why we recruit children into armed services/terrorist cells
rather than people who have sampled life and death. It's why we vote
for monkeys and murderers, or pray for the good health of kings.

On Jan 28, 10:35 am, "Ron Button" wrote:
What say you experts ?

RonB

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com...ljYmEwYzUyNTkw...
yODJjZTM3Nzc

First, the science. After many years in this line of work, I've come to the
firm conclusion that global warming is one of those research areas where
scientists think they know much more than they really do. In many ways,
putting a man on the Moon was far easier than understanding the climate
system. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - a minor one. And, yes,
humans burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide: one molecule of CO2 for
every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, every five years.

But is this a recipe for a global warming Armageddon? I'm betting my
reputation on: "No." Recent research has made me more convinced of this than
ever.

So, why would a minority of scientists like me dare to disagree with a
56-percent majority? (That is how many of the 530 climate scientists polled
agreed that global warming is mostly caused by humans,)

While there are several answers to this question, here I'll mention only
one. Compared to the carbon dioxide that humans produce, Mother Nature
routinely transfers 40 times as much CO2, and 24,000 times as much water
vapor (Earth's primary greenhouse gas), back and forth between the
atmosphere and the Earth's surface, every day.

Scientists have simply assumed that these natural processes have been in
balance for centuries. But, what if there have always been some small - but
natural - imbalances in those large up-and-down flows that slowly change
over time? In that case, our measured increases in greenhouse gases and
global temperatures might well turn out to be more natural than manmade,
lost in the noise of natural variability.

Can I prove any of this? No - not yet, anyway. But neither have any
scientists produced one single scientific paper showing that Mother Nature
isn't the dominant source of what we are seeing. Mankind is one possible
explanation, and our measurements of natural variability in the climate
system on time scales of decades to centuries are simply not good enough to
find out how many natural sources of variability are also out there.

The evidence for rapid exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere
comes from the fact that current carbon cycle flux estimates show that the
annual CO2 exchange between surface and atmosphere amounts to 20% to 30% of
the total amount in the atmosphere. This means that most of the carbon in
the atmosphere is recycled through the surface every five years or so. From
Segalstad's writings, the rate of exchange could even be faster than this.
For instance, how do we know what the turbulent fluxes in and out of the
wind-driven ocean are? How would one measure such a thing locally, let
alone globally? Now, this globally averaged situation is made up of some
regions emitting more CO2 than they absorb, and some regions absorbing more
than they emit. What if there is a region where there has been a long-term
change in the net carbon flux that is at least as big as the human source?
After all, the human source represents only 3% (or less) the size of the
natural fluxes in and out of the surface. This means that we would need to
know the natural upward and downward fluxes to much better than 3% to say
that humans are responsible for the current upward trend in atmospheric CO2.
Are measurements of the global carbon fluxes much better than 3% in
accuracy?? I doubt it.
So, one possibility would be a long-term change in the El Nino / La Nina
cycle, which would include fluctuations in the ocean upwelling areas off the
west coasts of the continents. Since these areas represent semi-direct
connections to deep-ocean carbon storage, this could be one possible source
of the extra carbon (or, maybe I should say a decreasing sink for
atmospheric carbon?).
Let's say the oceans are producing an extra 1 unit of CO2, mankind is
producing 1 unit, and nature is absorbing an extra 1.5 units. Then we get
the situation we have today, with CO2 rising at about 50% the rate of human
emissions. If nothing else, Fig. 3 illustrates how large the natural
interannual changes in CO2 are compared to the human emissions. In Fig. 5
we see that the yearly-average CO2 increase at Mauna Loa ends up being
anywhere from 0% of the human source, to 130%.
It seems to me that this is proof that natural net flux imbalances are at
least as big as the human source.

Roy Spencer is quite correct when he writes "After many years in this
line of work, I've come to the firm conclusion that global warming is
one of those research areas where scientists think they know much more
than they really do." However when he asks "But is this a recipe for a
global warming Armageddon?" and answers "I'm betting my reputation on:
"No."" he is very wrong.

Of course, as has already been pointed out Dr Spencer is a
creationist, so he has little scientific reputation to lose. However,
working with Christy he has shown that the climate models do not
accurately represent the the tropical lapse rate. The warming that
the models predict in the the upper troposphere has not materialised,
and Spencer and Christy therefore argue that global warming is not
happening. No one lives in the upper troposphere. They all live at
the bottom of the troposphere and that is where the warming is
occurring. It is on the sea surface where the Arctic sea ice has
melted, and elsewhere on the surface where glaciers and the Greenland
ice sheet are melting. And the melt is far faster than predicted by
the models. The models are being proved wrong, even without Spencer
and Christy's data

Arrhenius is held up as a great hero, but his model was shown to be
wrong by Dr Koch. His work was reported by Karl Angsrom and agrees
with that of John Tyndall. Koch showed that the absorption of
radiation by CO2 is virtually saturated. Therefore the greenhouse
theory of climate change cannot work the way that it is currently
being proposed. Increasing CO2 does not change the radiation balance
of the Earth.

The actual mechanism is that when CO2 concentration increases the
radiation is absorbed closer to its origin, the Earth's surface. The
surface loses heat by convection as well as radiation, and with warmer
air close to the surface convection is inhibited and so the surface
warms. In regions of the Earth where CO2 is the dominant greenhouse
gas, because absolute humidity is low, then higher concentrations of
CO2 lead to significant rises in surface temperature. Those regions
are at the poles where the low temperature leads to low humidity.

It is the increase in CO2 which is causing the Arctic sea ice to melt,
and the melting is being accelerated by the greenhosue effect of water
vapour from the ice free areas, plus the ice albedo effect. Within a
few years the Arctic sea ice will vanish, and with it the natural air
conditioning system for the Northern Hemisphere!

It is not just creationists like Spencer who cannot believe in
Armageddon. None of us wants to believe in that, so we we all dismiss
it. However, it is a fact :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

On Jan 30, 7:32 pm, Alastair wrote:

It is not just creationists like Spencer who cannot believe in
Armageddon. None of us wants to believe in that, so we we all dismiss
it. However, it is a fact.

Where do you suppose the term Armageddon comes from?

The meaning isn't well known though. It has nothing to do with Ice or
Glowballs. That stuff is for the four horsemen.

Armageddon concerns human reactions to the things happening.

You might want to check out your facts before you make such silly
comments.

On Jan 31, 12:21 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jan 30, 7:32 pm, Alastair wrote:



It is not just creationists like Spencer who cannot believe in
Armageddon. None of us wants to believe in that, so we we all dismiss
it. However, it is a fact.

Where do you suppose the term Armageddon comes from?

The meaning isn't well known though. It has nothing to do with Ice or
Glowballs. That stuff is for the four horsemen.

Armageddon concerns human reactions to the things happening.

You might want to check out your facts before you make such silly
comments.

"More generally, it [Armageddon] can also refer to an apocalyptic
catastrophe." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon

Well, Mr Weatherlawyer, it seems that you are also a Sea Lawyer!

As I wrote, no one wants to believe we are heading for an Armageddon,
and most people will try to rationalise it away. But your attempt to
prove that catastrophe in not imminent by disputing the meaning of the
term Armageddon really takes the biscuit.

On Jan 31, 12:03 pm, Alastair wrote:
On Jan 31, 12:21 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:



On Jan 30, 7:32 pm, Alastair wrote:

It is not just creationists like Spencer who cannot believe in
Armageddon. None of us wants to believe in that, so we we all dismiss
it. However, it is a fact.

Where do you suppose the term Armageddon comes from?

The meaning isn't well known though. It has nothing to do with Ice or
Glowballs. That stuff is for the four horsemen.

Armageddon concerns human reactions to the things happening.

You might want to check out your facts before you make such silly
comments.

"More generally, it [Armageddon] can also refer to an apocalyptic
catastrophe."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon

Well, Mr Weatherlawyer, it seems that you are also a Sea Lawyer!

Is there anyone that is allowed to disagree with you without some sort
of personal affront?

As I wrote, no one wants to believe we are heading for an Armageddon,
and most people will try to rationalise it away. But your attempt to
prove that catastrophe in not imminent by disputing the meaning of the
term Armageddon really takes the biscuit.

The term refers to a gathering of people who believe they are doing
the right thing over a dispute. The outcome isn't given if I remember
correctly. Read it yourself:
http://scripturetext.com/revelation/16-16.htm

All I was disputing was your right to attack the man's physics with a
canard about his beliefs. All of which is based on a few words on a
political pamphlet.

Speaking as a Sea lawyer, I have to point out the term Armageddon was
used by you and incorrectly at that. I can't see where a link to an
article in the Wikipedia of all places changes that.

Just because you believe that glowballs is irrefutable and passing if
not past the point of no return doesn't turn the perceived catastrophe
as some cataclysmic war.

Or is it the gathering of people who dispute the existence of god that
you refer to?

On Jan 31, 5:47 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jan 31, 12:03 pm, Alastair wrote:



On Jan 31, 12:21 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Jan 30, 7:32 pm, Alastair wrote:

It is not just creationists like Spencer who cannot believe in
Armageddon. None of us wants to believe in that, so we we all dismiss
it. However, it is a fact.

Where do you suppose the term Armageddon comes from?

The meaning isn't well known though. It has nothing to do with Ice or
Glowballs. That stuff is for the four horsemen.

Armageddon concerns human reactions to the things happening.

You might want to check out your facts before you make such silly
comments.

"More generally, it [Armageddon] can also refer to an apocalyptic
catastrophe."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon

Well, Mr Weatherlawyer, it seems that you are also a Sea Lawyer!

Is there anyone that is allowed to disagree with you without some sort
of personal affront?

As I wrote, no one wants to believe we are heading for an Armageddon,
and most people will try to rationalise it away. But your attempt to
prove that catastrophe in not imminent by disputing the meaning of the
term Armageddon really takes the biscuit.

The term refers to a gathering of people who believe they are doing
the right thing over a dispute. The outcome isn't given if I remember
correctly. Read it yourself:http://scripturetext.com/revelation/16-16.htm

All I was disputing was your right to attack the man's physics with a
canard about his beliefs. All of which is based on a few words on a
political pamphlet.

Speaking as a Sea lawyer, I have to point out the term Armageddon was
used by you and incorrectly at that. I can't see where a link to an
article in the Wikipedia of all places changes that.

Just because you believe that glowballs is irrefutable and passing if
not past the point of no return doesn't turn the perceived catastrophe
as some cataclysmic war.

Or is it the gathering of people who dispute the existence of god that
you refer to?

I was not the one to first introduce the term Armageddon. It was Dr
Roy Spencer. Read the article posted by RodB, or the excerpt from it
I quoted at the start of my first post. You are correct with your
quote from the Bible but that is not the way that the term is commonly
used. The Concise Oxford gives two meanings:
Armageddon // n.
1 (in the New Testament): a the last battle between good and evil
before the Day of Judgement. b the place where this will be fought.
2 a bloody battle or struggle on a huge scale.
[Greek, from Hebrew har megiddon 'hill of Megiddo': see Rev. 16:16]

As I see it, both Dr Spencer and I are using the second meaning.

Moreover, I am not attacking Dr Spencer's science. His analysis of
the MSU satellite data agrees with the readings obtained from
radiosondes. From that data he deduces that the computer models are
wrong, since they predict a warming in the upper troposphere and the
measurements do not show that. He then argues that because the models
are wrong global warming is not happening, but that is a non-
sequitur. In fact surface measurements have shown that global warming
is happening faster than the models predict.