Well it's just finished and my first reaction -

I enjoyed it. Better than I expected. Some interesting science. Mr Corbyn,
though, added nothing and told a few porkies. As always I feel both sides have
something to offer and I feel that the politicisation of GW is unhelpful,
particularly the involvement of the UN. I would like to see the cosmic ray
theory tested properly and rigourously in our climate models as it makes sense
to me.

There we go! I did see Lawrence quite a bit in that film too (not literally).

Will.
--

" I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything
I cannot explain as fraud. Carl Jung "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A COL BH site in East Dartmoor at Haytor, Devon 310m asl (1017 feet).

mailto:
www: http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm

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

Just finished watching the programme, one word Brilliant.

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.


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.

Indeed very interesting. But what I don't understand is, assuming the
arguments of the program are correct, how the various computer models
have got it so very wrong. Surely they are modeling well understood
physical properties of CO2 and how they absorb long wave radiation?

"Will Hand" wrote in message
...
Well it's just finished and my first reaction -

I enjoyed it. Better than I expected. Some interesting science. Mr Corbyn,
though, added nothing and told a few porkies. As always I feel both sides
have
something to offer and I feel that the politicisation of GW is unhelpful,
particularly the involvement of the UN. I would like to see the cosmic ray
theory tested properly and rigourously in our climate models as it makes
sense
to me.

There we go! I did see Lawrence quite a bit in that film too (not
literally).

Will.
--

" I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything
I cannot explain as fraud. Carl Jung "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A COL BH site in East Dartmoor at Haytor, Devon 310m asl (1017 feet).

mailto:
www:
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm

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

------------------
.............. and people say the pro-global warming programmes are biased!
Personally I'm not sure about the man-made influence on global warming and
most rational people wouldn't be. I also tended to agree with some of the
social issues. But as for any science, sorry, but when someone says "every
single global warming model always puts in 1% per annum for man made CO2
when everyone knows it's 0.42%" (not word for word but pretty damn close and
abject rubbish) I'm afraid I completely turned off.

Dave

Yes, there was enough plausible stuff in amongst the political agenda that make
me think there needs to be a rebuttal of the science they put forward by the pro
CO2 majority.

I wouldn't want the presence of Piers Corbyn to allow the whole program be
dismissed as "crackpot" here.

Chris

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

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.


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.

In message .com,
writes
Indeed very interesting. But what I don't understand is, assuming the
arguments of the program are correct, how the various computer models
have got it so very wrong. Surely they are modeling well understood
physical properties of CO2 and how they absorb long wave radiation?


There are all sorts of feedback effects involved.

Firstly increased CO2 warms the atmosphere.

A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour, which increases the
temperature further, as water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.

A warmer atmosphere leads to warmer oceans. Both warmer oceans and water
atmosphere leads to a recession of glaciers and sea-ice, which reduces
the Earth's albedo, which causes further warming.

Whether clouds produce a negative or positive feedback isn't clear.

Presumably the argument would be that unrecognised or misquantified
feedback effects conspire to reduce or eliminate the warming effect of
anthropogenic CO2 (but strangely don't have the same effect for the
proposed alternative cause of the warming trend).
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Dave Cornwell wrote:

when everyone knows it's 0.42%" (not word for word but pretty damn close and
abject rubbish) I'm afraid I completely turned off.

Kindly illustrate your counter.

Simon

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

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.


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 was concerned, in advance, that the programme would waste the opportunity it
was afforded - and was delighted to see that it did not.

I agree completely with your post.


--
Gianna

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

On Mar 8, 10:52 pm, "Bonos Ego" wrote:
Just finished watching the programme, one word Brilliant.

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.

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.

Don't be so bloody silly. I never watched the programme so I may be
overlooking a cross reference not immediately apparent in your post
but...
Once the low ling air mass warms it rises and cools.

It then may rise again and warm but in doing so exposes the radiation
it emits to a one way shunt off planet.

The recent research into the way the sea surface temperatures behave
(wildly incomplete) relate it to the perhaps cyclical acceleration of
gyres. And the idea you propound, sounds like it never considered
anything to do with deep sea temperatures.

Which; if there is no massive increase in insolation, must be building
up a vast volume of relatively cold water not able to rise to the
surface. This incapability it would seem, also relates it to the
acceleration of gyres.

The thought then is that it might be palpably cyclical; as when such
gyres as have a negative acceleration gain their normal rotation once
more, global cooling will be seen as the major threat.

But here is a link to the sort of thing that both the BBC and
Independent Television is capable of:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000...odified-truth/

Enjoy.

In the meantime Mongolian researchers are seeing an increase in snow
fall -all due to the Chinese efforts to counteract US aggression.

On Mar 8, 11:30 pm, Simon Wyndham wrote:
Dave Cornwell wrote:
when everyone knows it's 0.42%" (not word for word but pretty damn close and
abject rubbish) I'm afraid I completely turned off.

Kindly illustrate your counter.

Percent of what?

As far as I am aware the ratio of non Oxygen non Nitrogen gasses in
the atmosphere at sea level is hardly different from what the early
researches claimed it to be.

I can't see how simple schoolboy mechanics needs huge supercomputers
to reason on a subject. Whether the globalls conspiracy gets a yea or
nay leaves one gaping gap in the whole college of theorists. The
events that are happening are unusual.

And have a simple, direct, quantifiable cause in each case.