On Mar 9, 11:17 pm, Rodney Blackall
wrote:
In article om,
Bonos Ego wrote:

Just finished watching the programme, one word Brilliant.

Recorded it, waiting for time to watch it.

This programme was ground breaking, and a voice that goes against man-
made global warming, with some hard evidence to back it up.
I found the bit about C02, and sea temperatures lagging actual warming
very plausible, and made perfect sense that all of this planet's
warming is down to our Sun's solar activity.


If ALL the warming is due to solar activity, then there should be a
temperature cycle to match the sunspot cycles. There is not in any of the
data I have been
"V shown. Perhaps the ratio of carbon12:carbon14 was shown to
be changing in line with the increased solar output (which I do not think
the scientific satellites have detected yet).

Everyone knows that water takes longer to warm up, and longer to cool
down than land. So the fact that sea temperatures are rising is
because the atmosphere has already warmed up, and the reason for there
being more CO2 in the atmosphere is because the warmer seas are
transfering for CO2 to the atmosphere.

I do not think the oceans have warmed up enough to release more than a tiny
amount of extra CO2. AND there is more going on in the oceans than simple
air/sea exchange of CO2! The myriad chemical and biological process are all
dependent on temperature, but what is the nett OVERALL result?

What has happened in the past is important to give clues; what is more
important is what will happen in the near future if CO2 levels continue to
rise at the current rate? Did the sceptics have any plausible computer
models to show that CO2 concentrations are irrelevant (and still match what
happened in the last few centuries)?

====================
I think, if you are driving a juggernaut towards a sharp bend, it is a good
idea to take your foot off the accelerator rather than argue that any
increase in speed so far has been due to an imperceptible downslope and
there is bound to be a lifesaving upslope before that bend and probable
catastrophe.

A switch to nuclear fission a.s.a.p. is the only sensible answer and pray
that nuclear fusion can be developed in the next century. With lots of spare
power we could coppice the forests, turn them into charcoal, and so remove a
quite a lot of carbon from the cycle. (Removing humans would be a much
better solution from Earth's point of view.)

--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j



Sorry Rodney but


"Removing humans would be a much
better solution from Earth's point of view"

is utter drivel. Humans are far better than so called nature-far
better.
There have been numerous episodes in earths 4,7 billion where
practically all life had been made almost extinct.

Jesus what fairy tale book are you reading from?