The following site is quite interesting

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Table 2 and Fig 2 suggest to me that time and money would be best spent
on finding ways of coping with the inevitable climate changes rather
than pussy-footing around trying (unsuccessfully?) to find ways of
reducing the growth in emissions by a few percent. But I suppose that
drawing up a plan for the evacuation of Central London within the next
50-100 years is not exactly a short-term vote winner :-)

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England

Norman Lynagh wrote:
The following site is quite interesting

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Table 2 and Fig 2 suggest to me that time and money would be best spent
on finding ways of coping with the inevitable climate changes rather
than pussy-footing around trying (unsuccessfully?) to find ways of
reducing the growth in emissions by a few percent. But I suppose that
drawing up a plan for the evacuation of Central London within the next
50-100 years is not exactly a short-term vote winner :-)



Very well said!

The issue of who or what is to blame seems to have more importance than working
out how to adapt to the consequences, when in fact it does not matter.

Those who favour the 'people did it' view automatically move along to the 'then
people will fix it' view, all the while missing the point that if their view is
correct, then it was always too late to try to mend something by damaging it a
bit less in future. There are more important things than their egos.

Your point about votes does highlight the main flaw in partisan representative
democracies ... they are very partisan, not very representative, and barely
democratic.



--
Gianna

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

"Norman Lynagh" wrote in
message ...
The following site is quite interesting

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Table 2 and Fig 2 suggest to me that time and money would be best spent on
finding ways of coping with the inevitable climate changes rather than
pussy-footing around trying (unsuccessfully?) to find ways of reducing the
growth in emissions by a few percent. But I suppose that drawing up a plan
for the evacuation of Central London within the next 50-100 years is not
exactly a short-term vote winner :-)

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England
-------------------------------

The graph on CFC's is interesting. Seems to be a clear decline since The
Montreal Protocol in 1989 so it shows that in some cases things can be done.
Dave

In message , Gianna
writes
Norman Lynagh wrote:
The following site is quite interesting
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Table 2 and Fig 2 suggest to me that time and money would be best
spent on finding ways of coping with the inevitable climate changes
rather than pussy-footing around trying (unsuccessfully?) to find
ways of reducing the growth in emissions by a few percent. But I
suppose that drawing up a plan for the evacuation of Central London
within the next 50-100 years is not exactly a short-term vote winner :-)


Very well said!

The issue of who or what is to blame seems to have more importance than
working out how to adapt to the consequences, when in fact it does not
matter.

If you insist on ignorance about the causes of global warming then you
are insisting on tying one hand behind your back when it comes to taking
remedial action.

Those who favour the 'people did it' view automatically move along to
the 'then people will fix it' view, all the while missing the point
that if their view is correct, then it was always too late to try to
mend something by damaging it a bit less in future. There are more
important things than their egos.

But you would seem to have it that if we've damaged the climate, it's OK
for us to go ahead and damage it even more. The problem isn't so much
the change to the climate that as already happened as the change that we
can foresee happening if we carry on with "business as usual".

Your point about votes does highlight the main flaw in partisan
representative democracies ... they are very partisan, not very
representative, and barely democratic.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Dave Cornwell wrote:


The graph on CFC's is interesting. Seems to be a clear decline since The
Montreal Protocol in 1989 so it shows that in some cases things can be done.
Dave


I get a rather less positive view from the data at

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ Table 2.


--
Gianna

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

In message , Dave
Cornwell writes

"Norman Lynagh" wrote in
message ...
The following site is quite interesting

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Table 2 and Fig 2 suggest to me that time and money would be best spent on
finding ways of coping with the inevitable climate changes rather than
pussy-footing around trying (unsuccessfully?) to find ways of reducing the
growth in emissions by a few percent. But I suppose that drawing up a plan
for the evacuation of Central London within the next 50-100 years is not
exactly a short-term vote winner :-)

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England
-------------------------------

The graph on CFC's is interesting. Seems to be a clear decline since The
Montreal Protocol in 1989 so it shows that in some cases things can be done.
Dave


And note that CFCs have longer atmospheric residence times; cutting
emissions of other greenhouse gases would have faster effects.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message , Gianna
writes
Norman Lynagh wrote:
The following site is quite interesting
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Table 2 and Fig 2 suggest to me that time and money would be best
spent on finding ways of coping with the inevitable climate changes
rather than pussy-footing around trying (unsuccessfully?) to find
ways of reducing the growth in emissions by a few percent. But I
suppose that drawing up a plan for the evacuation of Central London
within the next 50-100 years is not exactly a short-term vote winner
:-)


Very well said!

The issue of who or what is to blame seems to have more importance
than working out how to adapt to the consequences, when in fact it
does not matter.

If you insist on ignorance about the causes of global warming then you
are insisting on tying one hand behind your back when it comes to taking
remedial action.

LOL! Thank you for making my point for me.
As the OP implied, the need is to *adapt*, not delude one's self about 'remedial
action'.


Those who favour the 'people did it' view automatically move along to
the 'then people will fix it' view, all the while missing the point
that if their view is correct, then it was always too late to try to
mend something by damaging it a bit less in future. There are more
important things than their egos.

But you would seem to have it that if we've damaged the climate, it's OK
for us to go ahead and damage it even more. The problem isn't so much
the change to the climate that as already happened as the change that we
can foresee happening if we carry on with "business as usual".

Now whenever did I suggest anything remotely like that? Never!

Why do you completely overlook the change that *will continue* to happen even if
all 'problem' emissions cease completely right now (assuming AGW)?
In reality, global emissions will not cease, nor reduce significantly, in the
foreseeable future. If the UK ceases all emissions immediately, the effect on
the climate of the world will be zero.
What is 'right' or 'correct' has absolutely no relevance because what is
economically and politically viable for each country is what each country will
do. Why pretend otherwise?

Interestingly, I have done everything I can to reduce my emissions to the
minimum. I have done this as a believer in Natural Climate Change because there
is always the possibility that I might be wrong (and because it saves money).
I am also supporting the attempt to transform my local power station into the
first carbon capture station, in spite of the UK government attempts to
frustrate the plan.

Isn't it a shame that all those who believe that the change *is* their fault (as
members of the AGW causing human race) have not already done similarly. Isn't
it also a shame that they cannot conceive of the possibility that they might be
wrong - or is that why they resist using a smaller car, or changing their light
bulbs, or getting up off their bottoms to turn the TV off at night?

You can accuse me of ignorance if it makes you feel good, you can even claim to
cleverness too if it massages your ego, but what are you as an individual going
to do? Have you taken steps towards 'going green'? Have you done all you could
do? Are you ready for the new type of weather? Are you adapting?

Or are you just whining because someone disagrees with you?


--
Gianna

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

"Norman Lynagh" wrote in message
...
The following site is quite interesting

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Table 2 and Fig 2 suggest to me that time and money would be best spent
on finding ways of coping with the inevitable climate changes rather
than pussy-footing around trying (unsuccessfully?) to find ways of
reducing the growth in emissions by a few percent. But I suppose that
drawing up a plan for the evacuation of Central London within the next
50-100 years is not exactly a short-term vote winner :-)


We need to be doing both.

"Gianna" wrote in message
...
Dave Cornwell wrote:


The graph on CFC's is interesting. Seems to be a clear decline since The
Montreal Protocol in 1989 so it shows that in some cases things can be
done.
Dave

I get a rather less positive view from the data at

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ Table 2.


--
Gianna

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

-------------------------
The reference you site above quotes "CFCs have ceased the increase observed
before about 1992 and have either leveled off or are in decline (Montzka et
al., 1999). The latter is a response to decreased emissions related to the
Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. "

I am referring specifically to CFC's so I'm not quite sure what the less
positive view is as illustrated here?
Dave

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
In message , Dave
Cornwell writes

"Norman Lynagh" wrote in
message ...
The following site is quite interesting

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Table 2 and Fig 2 suggest to me that time and money would be best spent
on
finding ways of coping with the inevitable climate changes rather than
pussy-footing around trying (unsuccessfully?) to find ways of reducing
the
growth in emissions by a few percent. But I suppose that drawing up a
plan
for the evacuation of Central London within the next 50-100 years is not
exactly a short-term vote winner :-)

Norman.
(delete "thisbit" twice to e-mail)
--
Norman Lynagh Weather Consultancy
Chalfont St Giles 85m a.s.l.
England
-------------------------------

The graph on CFC's is interesting. Seems to be a clear decline since The
Montreal Protocol in 1989 so it shows that in some cases things can be
done.
Dave


And note that CFCs have longer atmospheric residence times; cutting
emissions of other greenhouse gases would have faster effects.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
-----------------------------
What I don't understand is why there has to be a them and us standpoint. I
can see absolutely no advantage in individuals and governments not trying to
reduce emissions irrespective of which side of the fence you decide to stand
and whether it makes a difference or not. It's a bit like deliberately
swimming in a dangerous area with a red flag flying because the "nanny
state" is telling me not to. I have taken a more prudent approach and have
also saved money. I've not stopped flying abroad for my holiday etc. but
have gone in for as many ways of doing "my bit" that have not caused me any
hardship. Surely it is obvious that even if man-made global warming turns
out to be a complete myth we would be better off by taking some action. We
will have a less polluted world, our beloved fossil fuels which have done so
much good (as well as harm) will last longer and we will potentially save a
good deal of money. What's the problem?

Dave

Dave