All you Joe *******i sceptics had better brace yourself.....

http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bast...er=accuweather

RonB

"ronaldbutton" wrote in message
...
All you Joe *******i sceptics had better brace yourself.....

http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bast...er=accuweather

RonB
------------------------
Stirrer ;-)
I was impressed he was fluent in all those languages when he signed off last
time though Ron, although he forgot his best one - Gibberish.
I'm not reading it anymore, it only causes trouble ;-)
Dave

Is this a mis-print do you think? .....

" So if European leaders want to tell me that 2 ppm increase in a
trace gas ( that is 2 parts per million) is worth destroying mans
advance in lifestyle, (etc.) "

The CO2 global level in the early 1800s is put at around 280 ppmv, and
most researchers regard that (based on ice core studies) as having
been a stable figure for many centuries (millennia?) beforehand -
though of course a great distance back in time, much higher levels of
CO2 have been described.

In 1958, the start of the Mauna Loa record, the figure is ~315 ppmv
(parts per million by volume).

In 2000, the figure is ~367 ppmv

Latest figure is ~385 ppmv.

I make that an increase from roughly 'pre-industrial' of 105 ppmv
(+37%), and within the internally consistent Mauna Loa record, an
increase of (385-315 =) 70 ppmv, or ~22% over the past half-century.
Or have I mis-interpreted the original article?

Martin.

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

In article ,
says...
Is this a mis-print do you think? .....

" So if European leaders want to tell me that 2 ppm increase in a
trace gas ( that is 2 parts per million) is worth destroying mans
advance in lifestyle, (etc.) "

The CO2 global level in the early 1800s is put at around 280 ppmv, and
most researchers regard that (based on ice core studies) as having
been a stable figure for many centuries (millennia?) beforehand -
though of course a great distance back in time, much higher levels of
CO2 have been described.

In 1958, the start of the Mauna Loa record, the figure is ~315 ppmv
(parts per million by volume).

In 2000, the figure is ~367 ppmv

Latest figure is ~385 ppmv.

I make that an increase from roughly 'pre-industrial' of 105 ppmv
(+37%), and within the internally consistent Mauna Loa record, an
increase of (385-315 =) 70 ppmv, or ~22% over the past half-century.
Or have I mis-interpreted the original article?

Martin.



You interpreted Joe's article correctly. It appears that, shockingly,
Joe either completely made something up or made a large error.

Harold
--
Harold Brooks

Harold Brooks wrote:
In article ,
says...
Is this a mis-print do you think? .....

" So if European leaders want to tell me that 2 ppm increase in a
trace gas ( that is 2 parts per million) is worth destroying mans
advance in lifestyle, (etc.) "

The CO2 global level in the early 1800s is put at around 280 ppmv,
and most researchers regard that (based on ice core studies) as
having been a stable figure for many centuries (millennia?)
beforehand - though of course a great distance back in time, much
higher levels of CO2 have been described.

In 1958, the start of the Mauna Loa record, the figure is ~315 ppmv
(parts per million by volume).

In 2000, the figure is ~367 ppmv

Latest figure is ~385 ppmv.

I make that an increase from roughly 'pre-industrial' of 105 ppmv
(+37%), and within the internally consistent Mauna Loa record, an
increase of (385-315 =) 70 ppmv, or ~22% over the past half-century.
Or have I mis-interpreted the original article?

Martin.



You interpreted Joe's article correctly. It appears that, shockingly,
Joe either completely made something up or made a large error.

Harold

Perhaps it was a *stupid* mistake? :-)

Will
--

On Feb 24, 3:22*pm, "ronaldbutton" wrote:
All you Joe *******i sceptics had better brace yourself.....

http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bast...p?partner=accu....

RonB

Yay for Joe, without the burning and harnessing of fossil fuels we
would still be living in abject misery. Even against a exponentially
rising world popualation never have humans lived so well. Without the
industrial revolution the earth would have no history at least now due
to enrrgy we can look back increasingly further than at any other time
in the planets 4.5 billion year old history, we are more aware of the
planet around us and our position and can even look to the future with
certainty.
Over the last hundred odd years major causes of death are rapidly
being tagged and dealt with. There is nothing wrong with striving for
greater energy efficiency and less waste but nutters like Jame's
Hansen will take us back to the dark ages with certain religious
fundamentalist helping him out.


Isn't contoversy just great?

On Feb 24, 3:22*pm, "ronaldbutton" wrote:
All you Joe *******i sceptics had better brace yourself.....

http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bast...p?partner=accu....

RonB

Yay for Joe, without the burning and harnessing of fossil fuels we
would still be living in abject misery. Even against a exponentially
rising world popualation never have humans lived so well. Without the
industrial revolution the earth would have no history at least now due
to enrrgy we can look back increasingly further than at any other time
in the planets 4.5 billion year old history, we are more aware of the
planet around us and our position and can even look to the future with
certainty.
Over the last hundred odd years major causes of death are rapidly
being tagged and dealt with. There is nothing wrong with striving for
greater energy efficiency and less waste but nutters like Jame's
Hansen will take us back to the dark ages with certain religious
fundamentalist helping him out.


Isn't contoversy just great?

On 24 Feb, 19:07, "Will Hand" wrote:
Harold Brooks wrote:
In article ,
says...
Is this a mis-print do you think? .....

" So if European leaders want to tell me that 2 ppm increase in a
trace gas ( that is 2 parts per million) is worth destroying mans
advance in lifestyle, (etc.) "

The CO2 global level in the early 1800s is put at around 280 ppmv,
and most researchers regard that (based on ice core studies) as
having been a stable figure for many centuries (millennia?)
beforehand - though of course a great distance back in time, much
higher levels of CO2 have been described.

In 1958, the start of the Mauna Loa record, the figure is ~315 ppmv
(parts per million by volume).

In 2000, the figure is ~367 ppmv

Latest figure is ~385 ppmv.

I make that an increase from roughly 'pre-industrial' of 105 ppmv
(+37%), and within the internally consistent Mauna Loa record, an
increase of (385-315 =) 70 ppmv, or ~22% over the past half-century.
Or have I mis-interpreted the original article?

Martin.

You interpreted Joe's article correctly. *It appears that, shockingly,
Joe either completely made something up or made a large error.

Harold

Perhaps it was a *stupid* mistake? :-)

Will

Perhaps he's just stupid - or more likely simply a complete con -
quite a succesful one admittedly. He's forever quoting misinformation
(lies?) like that. (Not being paid by an oil company is he?)

Graham
Penzance

Harold Brooks wrote:

In article ,
says...
Is this a mis-print do you think? .....

" So if European leaders want to tell me that 2 ppm increase in a
trace gas ( that is 2 parts per million) is worth destroying mans
advance in lifestyle, (etc.) "

The CO2 global level in the early 1800s is put at around 280 ppmv, and
most researchers regard that (based on ice core studies) as having
been a stable figure for many centuries (millennia?) beforehand -
though of course a great distance back in time, much higher levels of
CO2 have been described.

In 1958, the start of the Mauna Loa record, the figure is ~315 ppmv
(parts per million by volume).

In 2000, the figure is ~367 ppmv

Latest figure is ~385 ppmv.

I make that an increase from roughly 'pre-industrial' of 105 ppmv
(+37%), and within the internally consistent Mauna Loa record, an
increase of (385-315 =) 70 ppmv, or ~22% over the past half-century.
Or have I mis-interpreted the original article?

Martin.



You interpreted Joe's article correctly. It appears that, shockingly,
Joe either completely made something up or made a large error.


Seems to fit the pattern of his previous article where he said the warming
of the air followed the change to a warmer PDO whereas it was the other way
round.

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

wrote:
On Feb 24, 3:22 pm, "ronaldbutton" wrote:
All you Joe *******i sceptics had better brace yourself.....

http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bast...p?partner=accu...

RonB

Yay for Joe, without the burning and harnessing of fossil fuels we
would still be living in abject misery. Even against a exponentially
rising world popualation never have humans lived so well. Without the
industrial revolution the earth would have no history at least now due
to enrrgy we can look back increasingly further than at any other time
in the planets 4.5 billion year old history, we are more aware of the
planet around us and our position and can even look to the future with
certainty.
Over the last hundred odd years major causes of death are rapidly
being tagged and dealt with. There is nothing wrong with striving for
greater energy efficiency and less waste but nutters like Jame's
Hansen will take us back to the dark ages with certain religious
fundamentalist helping him out.


That posting deserves two good thrashings Lawrence with fresh birch twigs!

You see how seriously I take all this climate change stuff.
:-)

Will
--