On Jul 24, 10:44*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jul 24, 7:54 am, Dawlish wrote:



Good that someone is under your skin.

Predict us an eathquake, date, location and intensity........or even
post without being abusive. Maybe the of those asks is even more
difficult than the former. Neither is much to ask.

Good boy.

Would you like a biscuit?

Again, whatever. See other thread.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:26:43 GMT, Paul Hyett
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 at 17:37:15, Redman
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

We will eventually see who has the last laugh and I'll bet it's me,
remember, this is some of the same scientists that were predicting a mini
Ice Age in the 70's, I'm still waiting for that to materialise

You know what'd be ironic : if the man-made greenhouse gases were
actually *saving* us from entering another ice-age, and all the green
measures reduced them sufficiently that we plunge into one.

i think that is both possible and should be a real consideration....

i have visions from god that we'll clean the place up and then forget
the cure in a few hundred years when conditions return to
'normal'
and have to invent co2 producers, that look a bit like battersea
power station....but we'll have to site them far away from
people....
if there's anywhere left by then

regards

Having billions of tons of ice ploughing our northern cities into the
ground, would be infinitely worse than having to raise sea-defences, or
even moving to higher ground!

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mel Rowing wrote:

The venusian atmosphere is analgous to this.


Venus is hot because it is close to the sun.

In article ,
Paul Hyett wrote:
Having billions of tons of ice ploughing our northern cities into the
ground, would be infinitely worse than having to raise sea-defences, or
even moving to higher ground!

You'd need a fair number of billions of tons. One billion
tons of ice would cover the UK to a depth of about one-sixth of an
inch. Wouldn't even stop the trains running ....

--
Andy Walker
Nottingham

On Jul 24, 1:49 pm, (Andy Walker) wrote:

one-sixth of an inch. Wouldn't even stop the trains running ....

You sound sure.

Is your surname/real name Dawlish? Such a statement sounds Paulish.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:49:08 +0000 (UTC), (Andy Walker)
wrote:

In article ,
Paul Hyett wrote:
Having billions of tons of ice ploughing our northern cities into the
ground, would be infinitely worse than having to raise sea-defences, or
even moving to higher ground!

You'd need a fair number of billions of tons. One billion
tons of ice would cover the UK to a depth of about one-sixth of an
inch. Wouldn't even stop the trains running ....

not even if it were the wrong sort of ice?

regards

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mel Rowing" wrote in message
...
On Jul 23, 12:12 am, abelard wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:17:29 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing





wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:34 pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:02 pm, Mel Rowing wrote:
The truth is that no scientific experiment as ever been undertaken
that shows that any increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
will induce global warming. Until one is the theory of anthropogenic
global warming remains just that, a theory.

Consideration of the spectroscopic properties of CO2 which are well
known would appear to conflict with that theory.

It's underpinned by some good science Mel. Science that is far better
than the theories that try to counter CO2 being the major cause of the
warming. Hence, I believe that CO2 is probably the main cause of the
present GW. Of course AGW is still a theory and it will remain so
until proven. However, that theory is far more believable and is
believed by far more scientists, than don't believe it.

Gentlemen! Gentlemen !!

You are all confusing HYPOTHESIS with THEORY. A hypothesis is an assumption,
a guess if you will. Once a hypothesis is proved and confirmed, it becomes a
theory.

Best wishes,
Doc

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:39:46 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
wrote:

On Jul 23, 12:12*am, abelard wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:17:29 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing





wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:34*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:02*pm, Mel Rowing wrote:
The truth is that no scientific experiment as ever been undertaken
that shows that any increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
will induce global warming. Until one is the theory of anthropogenic
global warming remains just that, a theory.

Consideration of the spectroscopic properties of CO2 which are well
known would appear to conflict with that theory.

It's underpinned by some good science Mel. Science that is far better
than the theories that try to counter CO2 being the major cause of the
warming. Hence, I believe that CO2 is probably the main cause of the
present GW. Of course AGW is still a theory and it will remain so
until proven. However, that theory is far more believable and is
believed by far more scientists, than don't believe it.

But you make no attempt to elaborate on this good science! you
repeatedly accept it as a mere article of faith.

What have we got?

We have a mathematical statistical correlation between assessed global
temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. That stark fact leads open the
possibililty of the common confusion between correlation and cause.
However, even here there is room for controversy as to whether CO2
level changes preceed or lag behind temperature changes. There are
resepctable theories that support both sides of the controversy but
that's what they are and must remain, theories.

Over and above that we have satellite data which at the very least
lends itself to the suspicion that it undergoes a "correction" process
in order to fit in with the AGW theory. Once we start accepting
corrected data the stright away we have to look at the assumptions
under which that correction process have been applied. In short we
apply a validity to a theory that has not been substantiated.

We do similar when we use computer models to predict future climate
patterns. We make assumptions regarding the validity of the AGW theory
in order to arrive at complex mathematical functions that I don't even
pretend to follow and then "tweak" these models using pre-historical
interpreted data.

There is however things we do know very well.

CO2 is probably the best known molecule in terms of its infra-red
absorption spectrum.

From this we know that CO2 molecules do not totally block infra red
light regardless of any level of CO2 present.

Essentially (and simply) CO2 molecules absorb IR in a specific wave
band (15 microns) that amounts to ~8% of the energy radiated from the
earth surface. That is not theory it is fact observed *on countless
occasions.

That particular band of IR is absorbed to extinction (blocked) The
energy from it is converted to heat which is why, as AGW enthusiasts
never tire of telling us that earth is warmer than it otherwise would
be if CO2 were not present.

[hey...the last post went walkabout before i wanted it to]

I've been having that trouble too though I cancel them before I
repeat.

:-)

reasonable as it is regarded as established fact....
but it also contributes to raising water vapour....

However, all other IR wavebands are not blocked. A CO2 molecule blocks
just this specific area of IR and not any other. It therefore not the
case that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the more IR will be
blocked. Natural CO2 levels are sufficient to block all the IR that
CO2 is capable of blocking. The only difference that increased CO2
levels will make is that extinction will occur at lower levels. The
natural distance *of *~99% extinction is a mere ~10m.

do you mean 10m from the surface? or what?
why do you think that relevant?

Paste from the article I cited in my previous post:

"As the transmission T = 10-3.21 is 0.6 per mille, we conclude that
the relative absorption around the peak is 1-T = 99.94% which takes
place already within a 10 m layer near ground"

I leave you with the work of Heinz Hug in this area.

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jul 24, 4:51 pm, abelard wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:49:08 +0000 (UTC), (Andy Walker)
wrote:

In article ,
Paul Hyett wrote:
Having billions of tons of ice ploughing our northern cities into the
ground, would be infinitely worse than having to raise sea-defences, or
even moving to higher ground!

You'd need a fair number of billions of tons. One billion
tons of ice would cover the UK to a depth of about one-sixth of an
inch. Wouldn't even stop the trains running ....

not even if it were the wrong sort of ice?

It would if it were the wrong sort of leaves:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/89421.stm

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:56:34 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
wrote:

On Jul 23, 12:12*am, abelard wrote:

do you mean 10m from the surface? or what?
why do you think that relevant?

Paste from Hug's paper:

"As the transmission T = 10-3.21 is 0.6 per mille, we conclude that
the relative absorption around the peak is 1-T = 99.94% which takes
place already within a 10 m layer near ground"

Relevance?

This has always been the case. CO2 has always been present in the
atmosphere in sufficient quantity to facilitate this.

i'm not following this adequately.....
surely what matters is not where it's taking place but how
much of 'it' is happening with various gas mixes....

Note that the temperature differential between the ground and the roof
of your house is not that great. This is because the surface of the
earth cools essentially through convection and that any thermal
radiation emitted is absorbed and converted to heat (especially by
water vapour) which is added to the thermal mix.

surely what matters is how much the earth absorbs/maintains....
you've another post i haven't had time to get to yet where
you go on about churning in toffee.....
but the earth isn't seriously churning....

It's only at altitude that uninhibited thermal radiation becomes
signficant (indeed vital).

but surely what matters is not the details of how the heat is
radiated....there is always a balance reached.....
the claim is the balance is slightly higher with more gwgs

Whe people speak of global warming I presume they refer to changes in
conditions at ground level where we happen to live most of the time.

seems very reasonable....
but temperatures taken at that level must reflect the earth
temperature....
while atmospheric temperatures must/do vary considerably at different
levels of the atmosphere....those only a few feet down are very
much more stable (from year to year over present conditions)
it is those conditions i'd expect to vary by the decades as the
co2 (etc) blanket increased....and that would reflect in the
surface temperatures over time

any problems with that lot??

regards

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------