On Mar 9, 6:51 pm, 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.

You want one with a modified warm phosphor. Typically they are
packaged to look more like a chunky traditional light bulb/jamjar
hybrid. The economy ones with the tubes visible tend to have a classic
fluorescent green mercury line cast.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mar 10, 10:12 am, "Bonos Ego" wrote:
On Mar 9, 7:59 am, Bob Martin wrote:

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.

Wow, hang on a minute!

I never said that we should carry on pumping pollutants into the
atmosphere, I think I have been very much misunderstood.

You nailed your colours to the mast by declaring this pack of half-
truths and downright lies to be "brilliant". And again below.

In saying brilliant, I'm saying at last there is some counter balance
against the global warming brigade, which appears to have been
hijacked by politicians as a means for not letting 2nd / 3rd World
countries develop, which I find repugnant.

Is it right that we should deny someone in Africa electricity, and
their industrial revolution, when we have already had ours?

Leap frogging to use new low energy technologies is more like it.
China is actually an unsung hero in terms of low energy CFL production
and internal use for instance.

As the programme pointed out, CO2 is naturally occurring, and appears
to lag rather than lead global warming, with our Sun being the main
reason for climate change.

So is C02 really a pollutant, an innocent gas which has been sent to
prison for a crime it did not commit?

They would be well pleased that you have swallowed this misleading
message hook line and sinker.

What they showed was a TRUE statement. But it is only half the story.

If the Earth warms from a brighter sun then after a delay more CO2
comes out of the oceans.
but also
If the Earth warms from higher greenhouse gas concentrations then
after a delay more CO2 comes out of the oceans.
ie Positive feedback.

This is bad news! Warming oceans are less effective as carbon sinks.
It cuts both ways.

We can rule out a brighter sun being entirely responsible for the last
few decades of warming because there is continuous radiometric
monitoring of the sun from satellites. This prevents handwaving
explanations that blame the sun. The sun getting brighter is
responsible for about half the observed warming over the past century.
And greenhouse forcing looks like it contributed a similar amount of
warming in the past 3-4 decades. See eg ADS abstracts Baliunas &
Soon. .

They also quietly ignored the inconvenient fact that the rising CO2
level in the atmosphere is accompanied by a change in the isotope
ratios consistent with our burning fossil fuels. The excess CO2 is not
from natural oceanic sources. And the atmospheric CO2 level is still
climbing rapidly.

To recap: the science is now very clear AGW is real and significant.
What we do about it is another matter.
At a minimum it is time to start with all practical no-regrets energy
efficiency measures.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mar 9, 10:17 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.

It makes no sense at all. And the hypothesis can be ruled out by
observational data. The sun has not changed brightness sufficiently in
the past few decades to explain the observed warming trend.

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 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).

The amount of change in solar output is about 0.1% or 1W/m^2 on around
1370W/M^2. It is way to small to be measurable directly although it is
thought perhaps to couple to some resonances in the long term weather/
oceanic currents.

There was a thread about this very topic in sci.astro.amateur last
week.
MSGID: BkYHh.31287$Du6.1493@edtnps82

Taken from one of the answers to that thread by Canopus56
--quote--
Moore, John; Grinsted, Aslak; Jevrejeva, Svetlana. 9/2006. Is there
evidence for sunspot forcing of climate at multi-year and decadal
periods? 2006GeoRL..3317705M
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...eoRL..3317705M

"We conclude that the 11-year cycle sometimes seen in climate proxy
records is unlikely to be driven by solar forcing, and most likely
reflects other natural cycles of the climate system such as the 14-
year cycle, or a harmonic combination of multi-year cycles."

Siquig, R. A.; Hoyt, D. V. 1979. Sunspot structure and the climate of
the last one hundred years. 1979LPICo.390...93S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...PICo.390...93S

Sunspot numbers as a proxy for solar luminence do not provide a better
fit to observed climate variations than pre-existing volcanic dust
models.
--end quote--

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article . com, dated
Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Martin Brown wrote
On Mar 9, 6:51 pm, 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.

You want one with a modified warm phosphor. Typically they are
packaged to look more like a chunky traditional light bulb/jamjar
hybrid. The economy ones with the tubes visible tend to have a classic
fluorescent green mercury line cast.

Thanks, I'll have a look for them - the only problem there is that if
they are the ones I'm thinking of, they are too big to fit in our
existing recessed kitchen ceiling lights...



--
Kate B

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

Caution urged on climate 'risks'
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm

On 17 Mar 2007 02:15:09 -0700, Bonos Ego wrote in
roups.com

Caution urged on climate 'risks'
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm

See posted by Martin Rowley
over two hours ago.

Ah I see you are using Google groups so that will probably be misunderstood
by your system:-(

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 17/03/2007 10:13:07 GMT

I posted under this thread, there are already enough threads on this
topic, and I don't see the point in opening new threads on the same/
similar topic.

It would be better if they could all be merged.

" Peter Clarke" wrote in message
...

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...

"Paul Hyett" wrote in message
...
Per Digiguide :

SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTARY: The Great Global Warming Swindle
On: Channel 4 (104)

Date: Thursday 8th March 2007 - 21:00 to 22:35

Polemical film challenging the consensus that man-made CO2 is heating up
the earth. Featuring leading academics, the film questions the science
behind the accepted reasons for global warming and argues other
explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email
me)

.Can't wait. Just overheard 6:30 pm ITV news item claim that "Antarctica
is melting before our very eyes" .

Don't get too excited. I hear that Piers Corbyn is taking part!

Peter Clarke

Well the problem with that statement is this: We all know that Piers is a
charlatan but I'm convinced he knows more about the subject than say Al
Gore, Michael Meacher and so on. Yet we listen to those types blathering on
al the bloody time.

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:19:57 +0000, Gianna wrote:

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.

Gianna, I agree with your recollection of the main thrust of this
programme.

The AGW people need to answer scientifically the claim that carbon
dioxide emissions _follow_ the temperature changes - the latter is
said to be caused by changes in solar activity. The historic
comparison graph used to demonstrate that seemed to be quite
persuasive but it left me with several questions unanswered.

For example:

- What is the margin of error in the dating used to produce the graph
(of carbon doxide lag)?

- Is it correct to say (as they did) that warmer ocean temperatures
lead to a greater release of carbon dioxide than cooler ocean
temperatures?

I have many more questions - and an equal number for the GW
protagonists. I find both cases to be seriously lacking in solid
evidence never mind proof, when I look at the underlying assumptions.

There is too much circumstantial evidence, too few hard facts and too
many assumptions for my liking, on both sides.

--
Dave

That's been known for some time: Take a warm can of coca cola and a very old
can, see wich one gives of the most Co2