On Mar 16, 5:59 pm, "James" wrote:
"JohnM" wrote in message

...



On Mar 16, 2:55 am, "James" wrote:
"JohnM" wrote in message

...

On Mar 15, 1:21 am, "James" wrote:
"Stan Kellett" wrote in message

...

Accordingly this movie is based on real science however they are
using
the worse case scenario.

However remember the worst case scenario forecast 10 years ago
is
now
the most likely. And before anyone states the slight dip over
last
couple of years this was forecast by all scientists as sun is in
an
inactive phase and some natural Oceanographic effects countering
the
AGW effect are happening. Once these phases go into a natural
warming
then we will start seeing the AGW accelerating.

Stan

"James" wrote in message
.. .

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
Here's a new movie that could out do Al Gore's
"An Inconvenient Truth."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/.../main4861157.s...

LOL How desperate can they get? Rather than tell you about the
catastrophes, it's time to show you. Then, maybe you will be
scared
enough. This should be good. Why didn't they get Spielberg?

================================================== ======

Once these phases go into a natural warming then we will start
seeing
the
AGW accelerating.

What does this mean?

I think he's referring to the notion that once ENSO moves into the
next phase and the next cycle of solar activity starts, the CO2
that's
been continually accruing in the atmosphere will express itself in
a
kind of 1998 hiccup - but hotter.

So when the sun warms things up and El Nino returns, it's global
warming
because of co2 again. Give us a break.

Not correct. Let me try and explain a little more.

Just now the trapping of heat by GGs is continuing to increase as it
has for the last 150 years, because of humankind releasing carbon
previously locked away geologically. This would result in a rise of
temperature, all else being equal. But all else is not equal. The
solar activity that supplies the heat has recently fallen slightly,
the oceans which take up heat have recently been able to increase
their uptake through colder waters surfacing. Global temperature is an
expression of the extent to which these and numerous other heat
shuffling processes interact.

A few things he
1) The original claim was that co2 warming was so major that any natural
variability would be miniscule and not be effective to any great degree.

Quite so. There has been no sign of the kind of winter weather that
was normal 50 years ago. The combined effect of two major 'coolants'
has not changed the continued warming of the Arctic these last two or
three years.

2) It's already been shown that temperature does not go lock step with
co2 increase. Co2 follows temperature by app 800 years.

That is a feature of Earth's natural carbon cycle as it varied over
thousands and millions of years in the past. Today we have 'unnatural'
carbon being inserted into the natural order. The two aren't
comparable in their behaviour.

3) Warmers have swearing of late that the oceans are warming. Now you
are admitting that they are not

Err... no. The oceans are likely warming because of increasing
atmospheric temperatures, but nobody knows for sure as they are just
too big to measure such things.

and that the natural variability ie.
sun, oscillations, etc are quite relevant to the climate. I mean what
happenned to "unstoppable temperature increase" till we all croak. It
would appear that warmers have forgotten a few things in the past.

Much of the present understanding is very new. When I first heard
about CO2 increasing there was little knowledge of ocean oscillatory
behaviour or variations in the solar constant to add to the equation.

4) For all warmers: Always tell the truth. Then, you never have to
remember what you said.

This condition will have no effect on the eventual course of CC.