On 30/01/2016 00:35, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:


but for people like you who believe humanity is evil

With truly stupid comments like this, it's difficult not to agree with
Dawlish.


--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

Just as a point of note, did you know that the "official" place where CO2 is measured to be a global average is atop a big dormant volcano in Hawaii...that is constantly seeping lots of CO2 into the air from the cinder ash all over it?

Get hold of a gas analyser and measure it yourself on Salisbury Plain, Dartmoor, Snowdon or Scafell Pike snd I guarantee it will be approx 310 to 340 ppm.

On 30/01/2016 00:44, RW wrote:
On Saturday, 30 January 2016 07:27:08 UTC+13, JohnD wrote:
"Martin Dixon" wrote in message

The evidence that there has been no warming for 18 years according to
our most reliable sources of data.

Martin, I don't quite understand this peculiar fascination with 18 years -
presumably you're taking 1998 as a reference point. What happens if you take
eg 1996 or 1997 or 1999 as the reference instead? Could it be that there's
something very atypical about 1998? Wouldn't it make more sense to take the
mean temperature trend line through the 90's as at eg 1995 as the benchmark
if you wanted to look back over roughly a 20-year period to assess possible
warming/cooling over that period?

Dixon is talking nonsense. The warming trend over a lengthy period is unequivocal, and the "no warming since 1998" meme trotted out by many is simply false.

Jenkins knows he has painted himself into a corner, hence the conspiracy theory nonsense he and fellow travellers spout gets ever shriller.


It's the last bastion of the denier when all the 'evidence' they have
presented has been discredited they just claim that the evidence to the
contrary is all 'lies' and simply made up as part of some grand global
conspiracy. it's so desperate it's just laughable.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

On 30/01/2016 00:31, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:


Bull****e baffles Brains

Shouldn't bother you then should it?


--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

"RW" wrote in message
...

Dixon is talking nonsense.

Yes, of course. I was just curious to see whether he was capable of
marshalling a coherent argument in defence of his broad position. Instead,
perhaps inevitably, the answer is a retreat into confusion tactics.

But the simple question remains: If you wanted to look back at possible
warming/cooling over eg the past 20 years then what's the difference between
the local trend line of temperature in the mid 90's and now? It doesn't have
to be any more complicated than answering that question.

And to address the other point: In the context of AGW, no-one is primarily
concerned about what might be happening on a geological or even an
archaeological timescale. It's on the scale of a single human lifetime, say
50-100 years, that's the critical concern because that will potentially
impact anyone alive today under the age of eg 20-30. So it's not
unreasonable to look back over eg the past 20 years, 50 years etc and
similar timescales to get the best available answer to that question.

As an engineer with an understanding of system dynamics I have
commented elsewhere about the effects of feedback. But all I need to
say here is that positive feedback causes instability which the
behaviour of the earths climate system has never demonstrated. The
climate has shown itself to be remarkably stable over millions of
years, indicating that any feedback mechanisms must be predominantly
negative.


Stable enough for life to continue on Earth, but certainly not stable enough for individual species to survive - no ice, lots of ice, ice at 1 pole etc.).

The argument always seems to be limited to burning of fossil fuels, which is happening at an ever increasing rate, aided by government support of fracking, lack of control over production and associated low oil prices. ('Green' governments were very keen to subsidise car production during the economic crash)

There are many things that get forgotten. The Amazon rainforest is still regarded as a carbon sink, but that is really no longer the case. Ever increasing rates of rainforest destruction, change of land use etc. has resulted in the area becoming a net emitter of CO2 in a couple of recent drier years.. (The rain forest destruction has seriously affected the hydrological cycle & climate, a postive feedback if ever there was one) Intensive farming techniques, often pushed by the 'west' are generally very polluting.

It could well be argued that the real problem is that the global population is such that the Earth cannot support it long term, certainly not in the way developed countries live. At least China has tried to get a grip on this root cause, Europe's solution to meeting carbon targets seems to be just to export heavy industry elsewhere.

I saw some 'carbon neutral, yogurts in Sainsbury's recently. The ones that had been packed in plastic, transported 100's of miles, put in a freezer, collected by me, you get the picture.

We need to take care in the way we treat the global environment, not carry on regardless (Beautiful South?) and hope for the best.

Still enough from me.

Graham
Penzance

CO2 provides about 80% of the forcing which sustains the greenhouse effect
(DOI: 10.1126/science.1190653). Water vapour concentration is a feedback
per the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship. The global warming caused by our
120ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 is roughly the same as the total
anthropogenic warming, i.e. about 1°C.

On Saturday, 30 January 2016 00:06:57 UTC, Martin Dixon wrote:

As an engineer with an understanding of system dynamics I have
commented elsewhere about the effects of feedback. But all I need to
say here is that positive feedback causes instability which the
behaviour of the earths climate system has never demonstrated. The
climate has shown itself to be remarkably stable over millions of
years, indicating that any feedback mechanisms must be predominantly
negative.

As an engineer with an understanding of system dynamics, and having taken Open University courses in geology, I can assure you that the Earth's climate system has shown severe examples of instability. During the current Holocene inter glacial the climate has been relatively stable, but that was preceded by the Younger Dryas stadial when temperatures in the Northern hemisphere returned to ice age conditions in less than 30 years. When the YD ended, temperatures rose by 20 C in Greenland in an event which may have lasted only three years long!

These facts are unbelievable but true.

My OU geology lecturer did not know the difference between negative and positive feedbacks, and there is the problem. The geologists think that the YD was caused by an event, Lake Agassiz flowing into the North Atlantic and halting the ocean currents. But why did the YD end suddenly? Did Lake Agassiz suddenly refill?

From a systems POV, these events were caused by the action of a positive feedback which can act just as abruptly in both directions. The system will remain stable until a tipping point is passed and the positive feedbacks take over. Note, that we are talking about an abrupt change so we will have no warning. Larry will be able to cry out "Where is this disaster?" until it happens!

As an engineer you only deal with systems which are designed to be stable. But the Earth system was not designed by a competent system engineer.

On Saturday, 30 January 2016 08:02:20 UTC, Col wrote:
On 30/01/2016 00:35, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:


but for people like you who believe humanity is evil

With truly stupid comments like this, it's difficult not to agree with
Dawlish.


--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

No a very real remark, most people that would promote the green agenda towards AGW do feel very much that humans are a blight on the planet, what do you thing Col. Are humans a blight on mother earth.

As for Dawlish and his hypocritical posturing over what he feels is odds on sconce that he has backed all the way as a winner he himself personally although posting here all the time about it, does absolutely nothing to mitigate the outcome .


So would you agree with that stance of do as I say and not as I do?

On Saturday, 30 January 2016 08:59:54 UTC, Col wrote:
On 30/01/2016 00:44, RW wrote:
On Saturday, 30 January 2016 07:27:08 UTC+13, JohnD wrote:
"Martin Dixon" wrote in message

The evidence that there has been no warming for 18 years according to
our most reliable sources of data.

Martin, I don't quite understand this peculiar fascination with 18 years -
presumably you're taking 1998 as a reference point. What happens if you take
eg 1996 or 1997 or 1999 as the reference instead? Could it be that there's
something very atypical about 1998? Wouldn't it make more sense to take the
mean temperature trend line through the 90's as at eg 1995 as the benchmark
if you wanted to look back over roughly a 20-year period to assess possible
warming/cooling over that period?

Dixon is talking nonsense. The warming trend over a lengthy period is unequivocal, and the "no warming since 1998" meme trotted out by many is simply false.

Jenkins knows he has painted himself into a corner, hence the conspiracy theory nonsense he and fellow travellers spout gets ever shriller.


It's the last bastion of the denier when all the 'evidence' they have
presented has been discredited they just claim that the evidence to the
contrary is all 'lies' and simply made up as part of some grand global
conspiracy. it's so desperate it's just laughable.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

What is the 'denier' actually saying Col?

Please elaborate or otherwise its just another prejudiced diatribe.