On Mar 20, 5:19*pm, "Alex Stephens Jr"
wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...



What you are doing is trying to push a cold agenda and now
you are trying to say that H2O and not CO2 is the reason why Climate
is changing.

I have no agenda, I wonder why you infinitely persist in saying otherwise..
Look elsewhere for a warming denialist.

By the sheer nature of physics and chemistry, positive feedback is already
underway. Indeed it's always happening. What temperature would the surface
of the earth be if there was no H20 in the atmosphere? Warmer or colder? I
wonder if you know the answer to that simple question?

The atmosphere is now warmer than at any stage of the previous 100 years so
can therefor retain more water vapour. This is a powerful force, initially
affecting weather and in turn the climate. If global warming is uniform,
then so equally is positive feedback.

But, alas, and this may come as somewhat of a surprise to you, there's a
tipping point, so special is that little H20 molecule without which
bioligcal life would be devoid on this blue oasis in space. Enter the realms
of negative feedback, or indeed, not so much a blue oasis in space, more of
a white one. One whether through cloud or ice cover reflects solar energy
back into space. A drastically cooler planet awaits eventually, again and
again and again. Until such times as the sun begins to expand and all life
ceases on our planet permanantly.

If Carbon Dioxide increases on the planet (or anyother greenhouse gas) to
the extent that it's effect counter balances negative feedback, then the
future populations of the planet have a problem. A classic runaway
greenhouse effect. This line has not been crossed, which is why we have
global warming conferences, because there is time to halt such a scenario..
What level of CO2 in the atmosphere constitutes the dividing line? It's a
long way off yet. In the meantime the climate changes and this affects most
species of life on the planet, not just humans. And the warmer it gets, the
more water goes up into the atmosphere and the more falls on Dawlish. Or
does it? Strangely the hadley predictions don't seem to think so. I'm sure I
read that precipitation in London is forecast by them to increase 0.1% by
the year 2050. Why would this be in an atmosphere that is forecast to hold
more water vapour? A change to a less maratime and more continental climate
perhaps? More snow for Lawrence in winter and more heat for the snow haters
in Summer?

Anyway, I'm sidetracking... I have no agenda, if you can't accept that then
that's your problem I'm afraid.

A quick glance at average northern hemisphere land temperatures for the past
winter shows that it was on the cooler side of average (just) of the last
thirty winters. So, contrary to what you said, it may indeed have been a
record warm winter in some parts of the northern hemisphere (land), but it
was more than balanced by those who experience a colder than average winter
when compared to the thirty year mean.
It was certainly not remarkable though in terms of cold hemispherically....
The winter of 2000/01 and moreso the winter of 1993/94 were distinctly
colder. What was remarkable was the extended displacement of typical weather
patterns.
To ask, or to ponder whether that was in any part due to global warming,
changing levels of water vapour, shifting oceanic currents or merely just a
chance freak of nature is not unreasonable, nor does it amount to jumping on
a global cooling bandwagon.
And note that I ask these questions, I do not say they are statements of
fact.

Lex

;-)

I argee with much of what you say Lex and of course, negative
feedbacks could have begun to occur already - however the last little
bit about the northern hemisphere warmer areas being balanced by the
colder areas (which would produce an average Northern Hemisphere
winter temperature) would take some proving against even a 30-year
mean! I'd like to see your figures on that one.

Good to see you have no agenda. See how your future posts on the
subject stack up in that respect!