http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-...D I&title=The

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-...D I&title=The



I liked what Joe said.

"Do you believe that the contribution from human beings which is equivalent
to the width of a hair on a one kilometer bridge a year, of a trace gas
essential for the maintenance of life on the planet, is worth more to the
global temperature then the influence of the sun, the ocean and volcanic
activity?"

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-...D I&title=The



I liked what Joe said.

"Do you believe that the contribution from human beings which is
equivalent to the width of a hair on a one kilometer bridge a year,
of a trace gas essential for the maintenance of life on the planet,
is worth more to the global temperature then the influence of the
sun, the ocean and volcanic activity?"

Very minor variations of this 'trace gas' compared to itself
rather than it's overall composition of the atmosphere can
lead to dramatic differences in temperature. If there were none
of this gas in the atmosphere at all, the temperature would be
far below freezing. Just a few hundred ppm and we can sustain life.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

In message , Lawrence Jenkins
writes

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-...5873001&channe
l=VBLOG_*******I&title=The



I liked what Joe said.

"Do you believe that the contribution from human beings which is equivalent
to the width of a hair on a one kilometer bridge a year, of a trace gas
essential for the maintenance of life on the planet, is worth more to the
global temperature then the influence of the sun, the ocean and volcanic
activity?"

You lost a syllable from the subject line.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

On Feb 15, 11:26*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message

...

http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-...605873001&chan....

I liked what Joe said.

"Do you believe that the *contribution from human beings which is equivalent
to the width of a hair *on a one kilometer bridge a year, of a trace gas
essential for the maintenance of life on the planet, is worth more to the
global temperature then the influence of the sun, the ocean and volcanic
activity?"

In line with almost all climate scientists and physicists, over the
last 100 (ish) years and especially recently; very probably yes.

Stewart's observation is almost certainly correct.

On Monday 15 Feb 2010 23:26, Lawrence Jenkins scribbled:


"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-
demand.asp?video=66605873001&channel=VBLOG_******* I&title=The



I liked what Joe said.

"Do you believe that the contribution from human beings which is
equivalent
to the width of a hair on a one kilometer bridge a year, of a trace gas
essential for the maintenance of life on the planet, is worth more to the
global temperature then the influence of the sun, the ocean and volcanic
activity?"

If he's not worried about the effects of traces of a gas, how about he goes
into a chamber with a similar trace of hydrogen cyanide in the air to prove
his point?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

Graham P Davis wrote:
On Monday 15 Feb 2010 23:26, Lawrence Jenkins scribbled:

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-
demand.asp?video=66605873001&channel=VBLOG_******* I&title=The

I liked what Joe said.

"Do you believe that the contribution from human beings which is
equivalent
to the width of a hair on a one kilometer bridge a year, of a trace gas
essential for the maintenance of life on the planet, is worth more to the
global temperature then the influence of the sun, the ocean and volcanic
activity?"

If he's not worried about the effects of traces of a gas, how about he goes
into a chamber with a similar trace of hydrogen cyanide in the air to prove
his point?

The HCN levels in a smoke-filled hostelry a few years ago must have been
measurable.

On Tuesday 16 Feb 2010 10:10, PJ scribbled:

Graham P Davis wrote:
On Monday 15 Feb 2010 23:26, Lawrence Jenkins scribbled:

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-
demand.asp?video=66605873001&channel=VBLOG_******* I&title=The

I liked what Joe said.

"Do you believe that the contribution from human beings which is
equivalent
to the width of a hair on a one kilometer bridge a year, of a trace gas
essential for the maintenance of life on the planet, is worth more to
the global temperature then the influence of the sun, the ocean and
volcanic activity?"

If he's not worried about the effects of traces of a gas, how about he
goes into a chamber with a similar trace of hydrogen cyanide in the air
to prove his point?

The HCN levels in a smoke-filled hostelry a few years ago must have been
measurable.

If the levels had been the same as CO2 in the atmosphere, everyone would
have been dead in ten minutes.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

It must be very irritating to some when Joe comes up with the right
analysise of global temperature trends months before they happen.
Looking back through his blogs the one of Sept 30th is pretty
outstanding,made at a time when most other predictions were stating the
opposite .
Yes his style is very 'non European',but at least he sticks his neck out and
tries to encourage debate other than the certainty of unargueable GW. I like
that !
Sorry if this naive summary upsets the scientists among us ,but when you
have been observing the weather for as long as me it's amazing how many
times the computers are confounded ,dare I mention the last few weeks ?.
On this side of the pond our local Guru Will takes chances ,this week for
example. but who doesn't enjoy the debate created by his efforts ?
So Joe and Will ,more power to your respective elbows ,I love reading your
stuff and defend your right to 'keep it coming' !

RonB
,
"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
...
On Monday 15 Feb 2010 23:26, Lawrence Jenkins scribbled:


"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-
demand.asp?video=66605873001&channel=VBLOG_******* I&title=The



I liked what Joe said.

"Do you believe that the contribution from human beings which is
equivalent
to the width of a hair on a one kilometer bridge a year, of a trace gas
essential for the maintenance of life on the planet, is worth more to the
global temperature then the influence of the sun, the ocean and volcanic
activity?"

If he's not worried about the effects of traces of a gas, how about he
goes
into a chamber with a similar trace of hydrogen cyanide in the air to
prove
his point?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

In message
,
Dawlish writes
On Feb 15, 11:26*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message

...

http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-...605873001&chan...

I liked what Joe said.

"Do you believe that the *contribution from human beings which is equivalent
to the width of a hair *on a one kilometer bridge a year, of a trace gas
essential for the maintenance of life on the planet, is worth more to the
global temperature then the influence of the sun, the ocean and volcanic
activity?"

In line with almost all climate scientists and physicists, over the
last 100 (ish) years and especially recently; very probably yes.

It seems to be that, if you take Joe's words literally, the answers
would be no, yes and yes. One would hope that by the influence of the
sun he intended decadal to millenial scale variations in solar output,
but the literal influence of the sun adds about 280K to the earth's
temperature.

Stewart's observation is almost certainly correct.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley