In article , dated Fri, 9 Mar 2007,
Gianna wrote

e.g. the only ordinary light bulbs I have left in use (3x 25w, 1x 40w)
are in fittings where it is not physically possible to insert the low
wattage fluorescents. They are seldom used - should that change I will
need to change the light fittings.

I commend you, and would like to do the same, except we can't find any
that give a light we can live in for any length of time. We tried them
in the kitchen, which is a pretty cheerful duck-egg blue - they turned
the walls a sad greenish grey which was desperately depressing. If
anyone can recommend ones with a decent colour spectrum we'd buy them
like a shot.


--
Kate B

PS 'elvira' is spamtrapped - please reply to 'elviraspam' at cockaigne if you want
to reply personally

In message , Gianna
writes
Bob Martin wrote:
in 221785 20070309 124614 Gianna wrote:

As the proportions of atmospheric gases vary over time, the term
'excess' is
subjective. They stated that temperatures, and CO2 levels, have been higher
than they presently are, and that was long before industrialisation etc..
Other sources claim that CO2 today is higher than at any time in the
last 600,000 years.

Yes, they do.
As in any scientific debate, each camp is producing evidence in support
of their conclusions. I would have no idea which set of evidence is
true in some theoretical absolute sense. Unless someone on this group
is a qualified climate scientist with access to the primary source raw
data (somewhat unlikely), then none of us will know which side is
'correct' (if any).

From the posts I have read here, we are all reliant on the secondary
sources (or worse). So, we weigh up each case and decide which we
think the most plausible.
We may then state which body of evidence and conclusion we believe - we
may not state which body of evidence is 'true' or 'correct' as we
cannot know.


If the person(s) you quote is not disputing that then he must be
referring to an earlier
period - in which case how does he know?

There was a blip in temperature and CO2 at the Palaeocene/Eocene
boundary, for example. That blip resulted in a pulse of extinctions
sufficient to cause geologists to draw a period boundary coincident with
that.

There is also a long term decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels, roughly
compensating for the increased brightness of the sun. Some time, in the
millions, or perhaps tens or hundreds of millions, years range, that
will put the


I rather had the impression that the climate scientist(s) on the
programme were disputing that. If you want more detail than was
provided in the programme, you would have to ask those who took part. I
can only report what I saw/heard.

I seem to recall that they suggested that CO2 from decaying vegetable
matter, including autumn leaves, was greater in volume than that
generated my human activity. I have not sought to check that.

Yes. That's true. It's also pretty much irrelevant as to whether global
warming is caused by human emissions. The annual oscillation due to
fixation of carbon in the northern hemisphere summer and release in the
northern hemisphere winter (the northern hemisphere biota is more
productive or more seasonal that the southern hemisphere biota) is
greater than the annual increase in CO2 level. However the natural
processes are in balance, leaving the anthropogenic emissions to change
the atmospheric CO2 level.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In message , Gianna
writes
They didn't identify it as a problem, so did not need to get round it.
They stated that humans have pumped CO2 into the atmosphere but only as
a tiny proportion of the total. They further suggested that as CO2 is
essential to life, and as the total amount is (still) very small
(regardless of where it came from) it was inappropriate to describe it
as a pollutant.

Current atmospheric CO2 levels are about 40% above preindustrial levels.
That may be a tiny proportion of the atmosphere, but it's not a tiny
proportion of the CO2.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

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?

Kate Brown wrote:
In article , dated Fri, 9 Mar 2007,
Gianna wrote

e.g. the only ordinary light bulbs I have left in use (3x 25w, 1x 40w)
are in fittings where it is not physically possible to insert the low
wattage fluorescents. They are seldom used - should that change I
will need to change the light fittings.

I commend you, and would like to do the same, except we can't find any
that give a light we can live in for any length of time. We tried them
in the kitchen, which is a pretty cheerful duck-egg blue - they turned
the walls a sad greenish grey which was desperately depressing. If
anyone can recommend ones with a decent colour spectrum we'd buy them
like a shot.

Do perceived benefits of using low-energy lighting take into account
"waste heat" from normal bulbs in winter, which helps to warm up the
house, reducing main heating system usage?

On Mar 9, 8:59 am, Bob Martin wrote:
in 221754 20070308 231307 Simon Wyndham wrote:

Bonos Ego wrote:
Just finished watching the programme, one word Brilliant.

Yes it was. Just a shame that the global warming brigade are so powerful
that nobody will take any notice of it.

Perhaps, but it takes a special kind of naivety (or worse) to think that we can
go on pumping millions of tons of crap into our atmosphere without any
detrimental effects.



Isn't a 'bob martins' a vitamin tablet for dogs? Hmm maybe humans
aren't so bad after all.

Why do you think humans "go on pumping millions of tons of crap into
our atmosphere " ? It's called suvival dear boy. Why don't you ffff
off and live in the dark ages

wrote:

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?


Ah there you go again.
Lawrence, dear boy, old friend ... humans are PART OF nature and as such, cannot
be superior to it. As I wrote to another poster on this topic, one cannot
bounce a ball if one is inside it. It is like suggesting that a feather is far
better than the bird which grew it.

As for extinction, Homo sapiens will become extinct one day, as previous Homo
species already have, some of which lasted a very long time indeed compared with
our tour of duty. Extinction isn't important - it is how the system works.
'Homo evenbetter' is probably starting to evolve already ... some little segment
of genetic material ... waiting its turn.

Why is it so important to you to feel so self-important (in the species sense,
not personally)? I like belonging to the greater scheme of things.

You aren't a supernatural deity junkie are you?


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

in 221818 20070310 002243 wrote:
On Mar 9, 8:59 am, Bob Martin wrote:
in 221754 20070308 231307 Simon Wyndham wrote:

Bonos Ego wrote:
Just finished watching the programme, one word Brilliant.

Yes it was. Just a shame that the global warming brigade are so powerful
that nobody will take any notice of it.

Perhaps, but it takes a special kind of naivety (or worse) to think that we can
go on pumping millions of tons of crap into our atmosphere without any
detrimental effects.



Isn't a 'bob martins' a vitamin tablet for dogs? Hmm maybe humans
aren't so bad after all.

Why do you think humans "go on pumping millions of tons of crap into
our atmosphere " ? It's called suvival dear boy. Why don't you ffff
off and live in the dark ages

I was going to reply to your idiotic response to Rodney Blackall's post
but then I saw this and realised you are just attention-seeking.

In message .com,
writes
On Mar 9, 8:59 am, Bob Martin wrote:
in 221754 20070308 231307 Simon Wyndham wrote:

Bonos Ego wrote:
Just finished watching the programme, one word Brilliant.

Yes it was. Just a shame that the global warming brigade are so powerful
that nobody will take any notice of it.

Perhaps, but it takes a special kind of naivety (or worse) to think
that we can
go on pumping millions of tons of crap into our atmosphere without any
detrimental effects.



Isn't a 'bob martins' a vitamin tablet for dogs? Hmm maybe humans
aren't so bad after all.

Why do you think humans "go on pumping millions of tons of crap into
our atmosphere " ? It's called suvival dear boy. Why don't you ffff
off and live in the dark ages

Why are you arguing that we just have a choice of suicide methods?

It's not necessary to use energy wastefully to survive. It's not
necessary to use particular sources of energy to survive. It's not
necessary to neglect to remove the pollutants from the output stream of
the energy producing processes to survive.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
In message .com,
writes
On Mar 9, 8:59 am, Bob Martin wrote:
in 221754 20070308 231307 Simon Wyndham wrote:

Bonos Ego wrote:
Just finished watching the programme, one word Brilliant.

Yes it was. Just a shame that the global warming brigade are so powerful
that nobody will take any notice of it.

Perhaps, but it takes a special kind of naivety (or worse) to think
that we can
go on pumping millions of tons of crap into our atmosphere without any
detrimental effects.



Isn't a 'bob martins' a vitamin tablet for dogs? Hmm maybe humans
aren't so bad after all.

Why do you think humans "go on pumping millions of tons of crap into
our atmosphere " ? It's called suvival dear boy. Why don't you ffff
off and live in the dark ages

Why are you arguing that we just have a choice of suicide methods?

It's not necessary to use energy wastefully to survive. It's not
necessary to use particular sources of energy to survive. It's not
necessary to neglect to remove the pollutants from the output stream of
the energy producing processes to survive.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

I think that's it, we should treat energy like we do money, after all money is a
kind of energy too if you think about it.
OTOH some people go too far; using AGW as an excuse for seeking draconian
measures and to control the population and this is what gets people's backs up,
not the need to save energy, which most people accept as a good and necessary
thing to do.

Cheers,

Will.
--