.... BBC2 2100-2200, first of three programmes; not sure if it's any
good (or more importantly, balanced), but according to Radio Times, it
does investigate the 'Ice Age cometh' scare that we lived through in
the 1970s.

Martin.


--
Martin Rowley
West Moors, East Dorset (UK): 17m (56ft) amsl
Lat: 50.82N Long: 01.88W
NGR: SU 082 023

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 at 17:35:56, Martin Rowley
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

... BBC2 2100-2200, first of three programmes; not sure if it's any
good (or more importantly, balanced), but according to Radio Times, it
does investigate the 'Ice Age cometh' scare that we lived through in
the 1970s.

Thanks for the heads-up.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

I stuck through it which for me is something. Thought were were going to get
up to Al Gores speech, but not this week. Good to see how the US political
climate just called for another report until one is made that tells them
what they want to hear.... only to have some facts get in the way of a good
theory.

Phil

Martin Rowley wrote:

... BBC2 2100-2200, first of three programmes; not sure if it's any
good (or more importantly, balanced), but according to Radio Times, it
does investigate the 'Ice Age cometh' scare that we lived through in
the 1970s.


What disappointed me was that he seemed to say that we had cooling in the
50s and 60s so someone came up with the new "ice age" theory and then we
had warming in the 70s so someone else came up with the global warming
theory.

I wish he could have got his history right. It was before the warming of the
late 70s - which wasn't noticed until the 80s - that scientists were
warning of the threat of global warming due to increased CO2. And how can
anyone cover this subject without mentioning Arhennius?


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy

On Sep 8, 7:37*am, Graham P Davis wrote:
Martin Rowley wrote:
... BBC2 2100-2200, first of three programmes; not sure if it's any
good (or more importantly, balanced), but according to Radio Times, it
does investigate the 'Ice Age cometh' scare that we lived through in
the 1970s.

What disappointed me was that he seemed to say that we had cooling in the
50s and 60s so someone came up with the new "ice age" theory and then we
had warming in the 70s so someone else came up with the global warming
theory.

I wish he could have got his history right. It was before the warming of the
late 70s - which wasn't noticed until the 80s - that scientists were
warning of the threat of global warming due to increased CO2. And how can
anyone cover this subject without mentioning Arhennius?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy

I missed the broadcast. Does anyone know when it will be repeated?
The BBC website is useless! Searching for Climate Wars brings up a
2004 radio program, and when I did get the correct web page, all it
had was the time of the next program..

Cheers, Alastair.

On Sep 10, 12:01*pm, Alastair wrote:
On Sep 8, 7:37*am, Graham P Davis wrote:





Martin Rowley wrote:
... BBC2 2100-2200, first of three programmes; not sure if it's any
good (or more importantly, balanced), but according to Radio Times, it
does investigate the 'Ice Age cometh' scare that we lived through in
the 1970s.

What disappointed me was that he seemed to say that we had cooling in the
50s and 60s so someone came up with the new "ice age" theory and then we
had warming in the 70s so someone else came up with the global warming
theory.

I wish he could have got his history right. It was before the warming of the
late 70s - which wasn't noticed until the 80s - that scientists were
warning of the threat of global warming due to increased CO2. And how can
anyone cover this subject without mentioning Arhennius?

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy

I missed the broadcast. *Does anyone know when it will be repeated?
The BBC website is useless! Searching for Climate Wars brings up a
2004 radio program, and when I did get the correct web page, all it
had was the time of the next program..

Cheers, Alastair.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's on BBC iplayer, Alistair. Download the iplayer, then it is listed
under "Earth"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00dhlgl/

Cheers, Paul

"Alastair" wrote...
I missed the broadcast. Does anyone know when it will be repeated?

.... From 'Radio Times': Sunday 14th September, 1645-1745, BBC2.

Martin.



--
Martin Rowley
West Moors, East Dorset (UK): 17m (56ft) amsl
Lat: 50.82N Long: 01.88W
NGR: SU 082 023

On Sep 10, 4:51*pm, "Martin Rowley"
wrote:
"Alastair" wrote...

I missed the broadcast. *Does anyone know when it will be repeated?

... From 'Radio Times': Sunday 14th September, 1645-1745, BBC2.

When it hits the other "digi" channels, it will be on about 5 times in
6 months. Or is that 10 times in 5 months?

Nothing against the presenter though, he's as good as they come. Not
that that is a particularly high esteem on the BBC. However if it
includes all categories, then it is.

Is it balanced? There is a massive environmental problem but getting
anyone who counts to look a little deeper than the atmosphere is
criminally difficult.

On Sep 10, 5:52*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sep 10, 4:51*pm, "Martin Rowley"

wrote:
"Alastair" wrote...

I missed the broadcast. *Does anyone know when it will be repeated?

... From 'Radio Times': Sunday 14th September, 1645-1745, BBC2.

When it hits the other "digi" channels, it will be on about 5 times in
6 months. Or is that 10 times in 5 months?

Nothing against the presenter though, he's as good as they come. Not
that that is a particularly high esteem on the BBC. However if it
includes all categories, then it is.

Is it balanced? There is a massive environmental problem but getting
anyone who counts to look a little deeper than the atmosphere is
criminally difficult.

Thanks Martin. I was too late to get a Radio Times this week but I
thought it would be repeated.

Thanks Paul. I watched it on the I-player. As usual Iain Stewart was
entertaining and well informed.

I suspect the bias towards US scientists was because they hope to sell
the series there. But that is where the politicians have been most
(in)active.

Of course, the amateur British climatologist G.S. Callendar had
already spotted that the climate was warming and CO2 rising in 1938.
Charles Keeling's professor, Revelle, had shown that the oceans would
not act as a sink for anthropogenic CO2 as had been expected, so
global warming did not really start with him.

A second point is that abrupt climate change had already been
discovered in 1970 by G. Russell Coope, a British earth scientist, who
had used fossil beetles to show that the climate in the UK had
switched from temperate to polar, and again from polar to temperate in
periods of less than 40 years. His, and other evidence, helped cause
the panic about a new ice age, since it would have started abruptly.
These abrupt changes were only confirmed when the Camp Century cores
became available, and now we suspect they can happen in as short a
period as three years.

What Stewart did miss, as does every one else, is that when abrupt
climate change was proved, they did not change the computer models.
They are still using models which cannot reproduce rapid change.
Models which they proudly boast give similar results to those of
Arrhenius in 1898. His methods were shown to be wrong by Karl
Angstrom. Moreover his calculations were based on CO2 absorption in
the near infrared, but the greenhouse effect is in the mid infrared.

As explained at RealClimate the current models don't work -
"The simplest approach to calculating the Earth's surface temperature
would be to treat the atmosphere as a single uniform slab, like a pane
of glass suspended above the surface (much as we see in elementary
explanations of the "greenhouse" effect). But the equations do not
yield a number for global warming that is even remotely plausible."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...mple-answer-no

It is easy to see why. Iain Stewart demonstrated the greenhouse
effect with a cylinder of gas without glass at either end. It is the
CO2 gas which absorbs the radiation, not the glass. The greenhouse
effect warms the air at the base of the atmosphere, not high in the
troposphere as the modelers will tell you. That is why the satellite
(and radiosonde) data does not agree with the models. The models are
wrong.

While the scientists are spending £4,000,000,000 investigating what
happened one second into the Big Bang, an amateur scientist like me
can produce the answer to a problem that IS important for human
civilization for free!

Cheers, Alastair.

On Sep 10, 9:02*pm, Alastair wrote:
On Sep 10, 5:52*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:



On Sep 10, 4:51*pm, "Martin Rowley"

wrote:
"Alastair" wrote...

I missed the broadcast. *Does anyone know when it will be repeated?

... From 'Radio Times': Sunday 14th September, 1645-1745, BBC2.

When it hits the other "digi" channels, it will be on about 5 times in
6 months. Or is that 10 times in 5 months?

Nothing against the presenter though, he's as good as they come. Not
that that is a particularly high esteem on the BBC. However if it
includes all categories, then it is.

Is it balanced? There is a massive environmental problem but getting
anyone who counts to look a little deeper than the atmosphere is
criminally difficult.

Thanks *Martin. *I was too late to get a Radio Times this week but I
thought it would be repeated.

Thanks Paul. *I watched it on the I-player. *As usual Iain Stewart was
entertaining and well informed.

Thanks Alastair, no problem.

Of course, the amateur British climatologist G.S. Callendar had
already spotted that the climate was warming and CO2 rising in 1938.
Charles Keeling's professor, Revelle, had shown that the oceans would
not act as a sink for anthropogenic CO2 as had been expected, so
global warming did not really start with him.

Who was the one who mooted that the dispersal of iron ore in the
middle of the oceans could produce an ice age.

"The simplest approach to calculating the Earth's surface temperature
would be to treat the atmosphere as a single uniform slab, like a pane
of glass suspended above the surface (much as we see in elementary
explanations of the "greenhouse" effect). But the equations do not
yield a number for global warming that is even remotely plausible."http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question...

It is easy to see why. *Iain Stewart demonstrated the greenhouse
effect with a cylinder of gas without glass at either end. *It is the
CO2 gas which absorbs the radiation, not the glass. *The greenhouse
effect *warms the air at the base of the atmosphere, not high in the
troposphere as the modelers will tell you. *That is why the satellite
(and radiosonde) data does not agree with the models. *The models are
wrong.

Would a 30 " layer of lead or mercury still be transparent I wonder?

While the scientists are spending £4,000,000,000 investigating what
happened one second into the Big Bang, an amateur scientist like me
can produce the answer to a problem that IS important for human
civilization for free!

And you can get it wrong, like them.

(When you are spending money on that scale it is best viewed as
something to do with public works. It's only a quid for every 12 or so
people. Granted it would feed and water several that are now going to
die.

But who cares about some brown skinned people in a distant country?)

Hot air rises and taking the heat with it, disposes of it from whence
it came. Star light goes to the stars. It may be the reasson why the
heavens are predominantly black.

The real bad effect is on the subterranean interface where untold
damage to the as yet unexplored ecosystems there can reach the
irreversible in unknown timeframes.

Or not as the case may be.

As with the Romans and Egypt, the removal of trees unassuaged, will
cause expansion of deserts.

(The local population has to become itinerant as they turn to strip
grazing to make a living and the Sahel expands and contracts according
to the seasons, their bounty and the number of camels and goats that
survived from the last drought.)

Just because we think of the tropics as lush, it doesn't follow that
they can't be damaged beyond easy recovery.

It has only recently been discovered that some of the trees there,
assumed to be rapid growing, are in fact very slow to produce mature
specimens.

How much more so when the necessary fungi and above ground flora and
fauna have been eradicated to grow beans for 2 or 3 years?

That is in a region that could always use a little more carbon
dioxide.