"lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...
Soryy to post this way I'm on another PC using the BT ISP and they are
useless I only get fragments of the NG on there. So I'm using google to read
and BT to post. I could post from google but I just can't be arsed with
another user no and password. Anyhow

Col made the point that Co2 rises had gone hand in hand with World
temperature increases That's not strictly true. The record shows that temps
actually fell between 1940 ish through to the mid 70's
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

I was aware of this (small) dip, indeed I even recal the scares in the mid
70's that said we were heading for another ice age
However whatever way you look at it, the trend is upwards.
What is interesting about that graph is that the trend from 1905 to 1940
is very similar to 1975 to now.
Did metereologists in 1940 wonder what was going on or did they
simply put it down to natural variability?
My reckoning is that this was the first 'spurt' of global warming but
nobody recognised it as such at the time.


Whereas Co2 actually started to rise rapidly plus the fact it had been
increasing steadily since the beginning of the 20th century So explain the
dip based on the simple equation more Co2 = increased linear warming

The 1940-75 period was not so much of a dip, more of a levelling of
temperature. It was a pause for breath in the general increase in temps
that at been observed since the beginning of the century.
As for it's cause, well probably the natural variability of the climate held
temperatures down during this period.

And it's interesting to see that even today the rate of rise appears to
be slackening off, just as it did around 1940.
Perhaps we will enter a several decade long period of roughly stable
temperatures, just as we did then?

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:23:19 -0000, Col wrote in


Whereas Co2 actually started to rise rapidly plus the fact it had been
increasing steadily since the beginning of the 20th century So explain the
dip based on the simple equation more Co2 = increased linear warming

The 1940-75 period was not so much of a dip, more of a levelling of
temperature. It was a pause for breath in the general increase in temps
that at been observed since the beginning of the century.
As for it's cause, well probably the natural variability of the climate held
temperatures down during this period.

This particular period was a puzzle for the first IPCC report back in
1991(?). Later work suggested that another form of pollution was a large
factor in this cooling trend - particulates principally from industry when
it was at its dirtiest. Fuels high in sulphur (e.g.coal) also produced
sulphates. The solar reflective qualities of these is thought to have
offset the warming effect of the greenhouse gases during that period. Once
industry began to clean up its act, the latter effect began to dominate
again. Once the particulates were incorporated into the models, they too
suggested cooling should occur in that period.

Support for this is given by the contrast between the two hemispheres. It
was the dirty Northern Hemisphere which showed the cooling trend. The
southern one only showed a levelling of temperatures as you say.

--
Mike 55.13°N 6.69°W Coleraine posted to uk.sci.weather 31/12/2004 22:32:37 UTC

What this demonstrates, is proof that the global warming argument is
just nonsense. If the global warming argument really had solid credibility,
then they would not resort to such bull**** allegations, would
they? They would not have to.

The fluffy-brained (of which the media has much more than its fair share)
would like to see natural disasters as all of a piece and they think, at the
moment, that global warming is God, the doer and maker of all things. This is
sheer nonsense, as we all know, but it doesn't diminish in any way whatsoever
the fact of global warming, as demonstrated by the temperature record.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

Mike Tullett wrote:

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:23:19 -0000, Col wrote in


Whereas Co2 actually started to rise rapidly plus the fact it had been
increasing steadily since the beginning of the 20th century So explain
the dip based on the simple equation more Co2 = increased linear warming

The 1940-75 period was not so much of a dip, more of a levelling of
temperature. It was a pause for breath in the general increase in temps
that at been observed since the beginning of the century.
As for it's cause, well probably the natural variability of the climate
held temperatures down during this period.

This particular period was a puzzle for the first IPCC report back in
1991(?). Later work suggested that another form of pollution was a large
factor in this cooling trend - particulates principally from industry when
it was at its dirtiest. Fuels high in sulphur (e.g.coal) also produced
sulphates. The solar reflective qualities of these is thought to have
offset the warming effect of the greenhouse gases during that period.
Once industry began to clean up its act, the latter effect began to
dominate
again. Once the particulates were incorporated into the models, they too
suggested cooling should occur in that period.

Support for this is given by the contrast between the two hemispheres. It
was the dirty Northern Hemisphere which showed the cooling trend. The
southern one only showed a levelling of temperatures as you say.


I don't understand why this 1940-75 period should have been a puzzle for the
IPCC in 1991 since it was explained in 1975. GARP studied paleoclimatic
records covering 700,000 years. The surface temperature data was analysed
in terms of five cycles, ranging from 100,000 to 100 years. The 100-year
cycle peaked around 1940 with a temperature change of -0.0121 K/decade at
1975. The sum of the cycles gave a figure for 1975 of -0.154 K/decade.



Graham

In message
(TudorHgh) wrote:

What this demonstrates, is proof that the global warming argument is
just nonsense. If the global warming argument really had solid credibility,
then they would not resort to such bull**** allegations, would
they? They would not have to.

The fluffy-brained (of which the media has much more than its fair share)
would like to see natural disasters as all of a piece and they think, at the
moment, that global warming is God, the doer and maker of all things. This is
sheer nonsense, as we all know, but it doesn't diminish in any way whatsoever
the fact of global warming, as demonstrated by the temperature record.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

It would have been more credible if they had blamed global COOLING, ie the
cooling of and subsequent contraction of the earth's core. As I understood
it, the quake was caused by two plates moving together, so this in much more
beleivable (whether there is any truth in it I don't know).

Martin


--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/

"TudorHgh" wrote in message
...
What this demonstrates, is proof that the global warming argument is
just nonsense. If the global warming argument really had solid credibility,
then they would not resort to such bull**** allegations, would
they? They would not have to.

The fluffy-brained (of which the media has much more than its fair
share)
would like to see natural disasters as all of a piece and they think, at the
moment, that global warming is God, the doer and maker of all things. This is
sheer nonsense, as we all know, but it doesn't diminish in any way whatsoever
the fact of global warming, as demonstrated by the temperature record.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey

It's all part of the "blame culture".

The world is both a beautiful and a dangerous place, it is a place of
opportunity, a place where we can can learn, a place where we can demonstrate
oneness, caring and service to others. The world *is* and we have to make the
most of it and care for it and it's peoples.

Peace and love,

Will.
--

" Visit Haytor meteorological office at
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...met_office.htm "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A COL BH site in East Dartmoor at Haytor, Devon 310m asl (1017 feet).

mailto:
www: http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk

DISCLAIMER - All views and opinions expressed by myself are personal
and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 09:26:17 -0000, Will Hand wrote:

The world is both a beautiful and a dangerous place, it is a place
of opportunity, a place where we can can learn, a place where we can
demonstrate oneness, caring and service to others. The world *is*
and we have to make the most of it and care for it and it's peoples.

Hear, hear. There is sweet FA we can do about natural disasters, all
we can do is react in the best way we can; dispose of the dead, care
for the living.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Will Hand"

wrote without any reference to "god"

The world is both a beautiful and a dangerous place, it is a place of
opportunity, a place where we can learn, a place where we can demonstrate
oneness, caring and service to others. The world *is* and we have to make
the
most of it and care for it and it's peoples.

Peace and love,

I, as an atheist/humanist, cannot disagree one iota. Well said Will.

Jack