On 17/06/2011 14:32, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Jun 17, 8:27 am, Paul wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 at 22:24:34, duffel coat
wrote in uk.sci.weather :

On 16/06/2011 10:06 PM, Dawlish wrote:

You asked for an opinion. I gave you one. If you don't like it. don't
ask. This is complete BS. If it isn't; show me how.

denier

I bet I'm not the only GW sceptic who is tired the 'denier' label, with
its hidden subtext of being almost equivalent to 'holocaust denier'.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

It depends what you're sceptical about. If you are saying the
earth has not got warmer then you are the equivalent of a flat-earther
and can be dismissed instantly. If, on the other hand, you are saying
that man's contribution to this warming is less significant than the
current consensus you should provide strong evidence for your view.

That seems quite reasonable to me. The scientific consensus including
the true sceptics (as opposed to deniers for hire) is that about half of
the warming since 1850 is due to changes in insolation and the rest is
due to GHG forcing which only really became significant from ~1970.

I am inclined to the view that some of the very steep rise seen in the
last three decades of the twentieth century was at least partly due to a
periodic component with a period of about 60 years (hence the small
peaks at 1940 and 1880 in HADCRUT). However we are now on the downside
of that periodic term and temperatures are still holding up.

So despite the fact that I do think AGW is both real and a potential
long term threat to civilisation I also believe that extrapolating from
the very steep rise in the 1970-2000 period exaggerates the problem.

Frankly, you are not in a position to do so. Neither am I and nor is
almost everyone else on this group; it's a very technical subject, not
a belief or philosophy. The only scepticism one can justify is to
query some of the doom-laden predictions one reads in the press
because these are nearly always made by people with little knowledge
of the subject.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet.
Both extremes insist that they are right and make wild predictions.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:26:40 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

On 17/06/2011 14:32, Tudor Hughes wrote:

It depends what you're sceptical about. If you are saying the
earth has not got warmer then you are the equivalent of a flat-earther
and can be dismissed instantly. If, on the other hand, you are saying
that man's contribution to this warming is less significant than the
current consensus you should provide strong evidence for your view.

That seems quite reasonable to me. The scientific consensus including
the true sceptics (as opposed to deniers for hire) is that about half of
the warming since 1850 is due to changes in insolation and the rest is
due to GHG forcing which only really became significant from ~1970.

Could you point me to some references? My impression was that the
consensus was that changes in insolation were fairly small and had had
little effect on temperature. Also, I don't see how insolation can have
warmed the tropopshere yet cooled the higher atmosphere. That cooling was
only predicted by CO2 theory as far as I know.

Solar activity was high during the post-war period when slight cooling of
the troposphere occurred and during the early part of the rise from 1970
to around '85 but has been falling slowly since then. I find it hard to
see much correlation between solar activity and temperature changes.


I am inclined to the view that some of the very steep rise seen in the
last three decades of the twentieth century was at least partly due to a
periodic component with a period of about 60 years (hence the small
peaks at 1940 and 1880 in HADCRUT). However we are now on the downside
of that periodic term and temperatures are still holding up.

I took an interest in climate cycles around forty years ago but don't
recall a 60-yr cycle. A large study of cycles published in 1975 had a 100-
yr cycle peaking near 1940 but nothing shorter. Other research I heard of
in the late 60s also found 100-yr cycles, both globally and locally. From
these, we were supposed to cool globally until 1990 and the UK was
supposed to experience cold springs from 1970 to 2020. In my experience,
cycles are relatively easy to see in past data but are really unreliable
when extrapolated into the future.



So despite the fact that I do think AGW is both real and a potential
long term threat to civilisation I also believe that extrapolating from
the very steep rise in the 1970-2000 period exaggerates the problem.

I haven't extrapolated that temperature rise. However, I have used a 1980
prediction of the likely effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. The
graph of the predicted rise is a reasonable match to that which has
occurred. It's certainly better than the prediction from climate
cycles. ;-)

See http://tinyurl.com/66jsa5k




--
Graham Davis, Bracknell
Whilst it's true that money can't buy you happiness, at least you can
be miserable in comfort.

On Jun 17, 4:26*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 17/06/2011 14:32, Tudor Hughes wrote:





On Jun 17, 8:27 am, Paul *wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 at 22:24:34, duffel coat
*wrote in uk.sci.weather :

On 16/06/2011 10:06 PM, Dawlish wrote:

You asked for an opinion. I gave you one. If you don't like it. don't
ask. This is complete BS. If it isn't; show me how.

* denier

I bet I'm not the only GW sceptic who is tired the 'denier' label, with
its hidden subtext of being almost equivalent to 'holocaust denier'.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

* * * It depends what you're sceptical about. *If you are saying the
earth has not got warmer then you are the equivalent of a flat-earther
and can be dismissed instantly. *If, on the other hand, you are saying
that man's contribution to this warming is less significant than the
current consensus you should provide strong evidence for your view.

That seems quite reasonable to me. The scientific consensus including
the true sceptics (as opposed to deniers for hire) is that about half of
the warming since 1850 is due to changes in insolation and the rest is
due to GHG forcing which only really became significant from ~1970.

I am inclined to the view that some of the very steep rise seen in the
last three decades of the twentieth century was at least partly due to a
periodic component with a period of about 60 years (hence the small
peaks at 1940 and 1880 in HADCRUT). However we are now on the downside
of that periodic term and temperatures are still holding up.

So despite the fact that I do think AGW is both real and a potential
long term threat to civilisation I also believe that extrapolating from
the very steep rise in the 1970-2000 period exaggerates the problem.

Frankly, you are not in a position to do so. *Neither am I and nor is
almost everyone else on this group; it's a very technical subject, not
a belief or philosophy. *The only scepticism one can justify is to
query some of the doom-laden predictions one reads in the press
because these are nearly always made by people with little knowledge
of the subject.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet.
Both extremes insist that they are right and make wild predictions.

Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


"The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part
of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet"

That is an outrageous bitter nasty remark to make.
People like you detest America and would leave us defencless against
far darker forces.

Pray tell us who you prefer to America and Americans?

Lawrence13 wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:26 pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 17/06/2011 14:32, Tudor Hughes wrote:





On Jun 17, 8:27 am, Paul wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 at 22:24:34, duffel coat
wrote in uk.sci.weather :
On 16/06/2011 10:06 PM, Dawlish wrote:
You asked for an opinion. I gave you one. If you don't like it. don't
ask. This is complete BS. If it isn't; show me how.
denier
I bet I'm not the only GW sceptic who is tired the 'denier' label, with
its hidden subtext of being almost equivalent to 'holocaust denier'.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)
It depends what you're sceptical about. If you are saying the
earth has not got warmer then you are the equivalent of a flat-earther
and can be dismissed instantly. If, on the other hand, you are saying
that man's contribution to this warming is less significant than the
current consensus you should provide strong evidence for your view.
That seems quite reasonable to me. The scientific consensus including
the true sceptics (as opposed to deniers for hire) is that about half of
the warming since 1850 is due to changes in insolation and the rest is
due to GHG forcing which only really became significant from ~1970.

I am inclined to the view that some of the very steep rise seen in the
last three decades of the twentieth century was at least partly due to a
periodic component with a period of about 60 years (hence the small
peaks at 1940 and 1880 in HADCRUT). However we are now on the downside
of that periodic term and temperatures are still holding up.

So despite the fact that I do think AGW is both real and a potential
long term threat to civilisation I also believe that extrapolating from
the very steep rise in the 1970-2000 period exaggerates the problem.

Frankly, you are not in a position to do so. Neither am I and nor is
almost everyone else on this group; it's a very technical subject, not
a belief or philosophy. The only scepticism one can justify is to
query some of the doom-laden predictions one reads in the press
because these are nearly always made by people with little knowledge
of the subject.
Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.
The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet.
Both extremes insist that they are right and make wild predictions.

Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


"The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part
of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet"

That is an outrageous bitter nasty remark to make.
People like you detest America and would leave us defencless against
far darker forces.

Pray tell us who you prefer to America and Americans?
----------------------
I'd quite like to stake a claim for the Scandinavians - they never get
on their High horse these days.
Dave

On Jun 17, 4:26*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:

The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet.
Both extremes insist that they are right and make wild predictions.

Regards,
Martin Brown

There aren't any greens wanting you to live in a cave. That is just a
slander produced by the likes of Lawrence and his friends on the other
side of the Pond. What I am saying is if you wait until they are
convinced that global warming is happening before we take action, then
we will all end up living in caves :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

In article aaa64d96-a53b-45a5-9003-
,
says...
What I am saying is if you wait until they are
convinced that global warming is happening before we take action, then
we will all end up living in caves :-(


What realistic action do you think can be taken, that would make more of
a difference than say a small delay in the inevietable?

All this talk of 'action' is little more than pie in the sky at this
stage, and probably has been for 30 years or so...

--
Alan LeHun

On Jun 17, 7:40*pm, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Lawrence13 wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:26 pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 17/06/2011 14:32, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Jun 17, 8:27 am, Paul *wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 at 22:24:34, duffel coat
*wrote in uk.sci.weather :
On 16/06/2011 10:06 PM, Dawlish wrote:
You asked for an opinion. I gave you one. If you don't like it. don't
ask. This is complete BS. If it isn't; show me how.
* denier
I bet I'm not the only GW sceptic who is tired the 'denier' label, with
its hidden subtext of being almost equivalent to 'holocaust denier'.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)
* * * It depends what you're sceptical about. *If you are saying the
earth has not got warmer then you are the equivalent of a flat-earther
and can be dismissed instantly. *If, on the other hand, you are saying
that man's contribution to this warming is less significant than the
current consensus you should provide strong evidence for your view.
That seems quite reasonable to me. The scientific consensus including
the true sceptics (as opposed to deniers for hire) is that about half of
the warming since 1850 is due to changes in insolation and the rest is
due to GHG forcing which only really became significant from ~1970.

I am inclined to the view that some of the very steep rise seen in the
last three decades of the twentieth century was at least partly due to a
periodic component with a period of about 60 years (hence the small
peaks at 1940 and 1880 in HADCRUT). However we are now on the downside
of that periodic term and temperatures are still holding up.

So despite the fact that I do think AGW is both real and a potential
long term threat to civilisation I also believe that extrapolating from
the very steep rise in the 1970-2000 period exaggerates the problem.

Frankly, you are not in a position to do so. *Neither am I and nor is
almost everyone else on this group; it's a very technical subject, not
a belief or philosophy. *The only scepticism one can justify is to
query some of the doom-laden predictions one reads in the press
because these are nearly always made by people with little knowledge
of the subject.
Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.
The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet..
Both extremes insist that they are right and make wild predictions.

Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part
of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet"

That is an outrageous bitter nasty remark to make.
People like you detest America and would leave us defencless against
far darker forces.

Pray tell us who you prefer to America and Americans?

----------------------
I'd quite like to stake a claim for the Scandinavians - they never get
on their High horse these days.
Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Scandinavians stayed neutral in world war II which with their natural
resources of 49% hydro made them a very wealthy country. Of course
many could have stayed neutral and have been far better off
economically. The irony is however that Germany and Japan the
protagonist for WWII came out best of all-besides the USA that is.

On Jun 17, 9:23*pm, Alastair wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:26*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:

The hair shirt greens who want us living in caves are as much a part of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet.
Both extremes insist that they are right and make wild predictions.

Regards,
Martin Brown

There aren't any greens wanting you to live in a cave. That is just a
slander produced by the likes of Lawrence and his friends on the other
side of the Pond. What I am saying is if you wait until they are
convinced that global warming is happening before we take action, then
we will all end up living in caves :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

And if we do take action we will end up living in caves, but this
really is a funny old business Alastair

On Jun 17, 9:42*pm, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article aaa64d96-a53b-45a5-9003-
,
says...

*What I am saying is if you wait until they are
convinced that global warming is happening before we take action, then
we will all end up living in caves :-(

What realistic action do you think can be taken, that would make more of
a difference than say a small delay in the inevietable?

All this talk of 'action' is little more than pie in the sky at this
stage, and probably has been for 30 years or so...

--
Alan LeHun

The first thing we have to do is stop burning fossil fuels like there
is no tomorrow. That means going back to life like our grandfathers,
who did not live in caves and were just as happy (and as miserable as
Lawrence and his friends over the water) as we are :-)

The second thing is we have to do is forget about growth. .Growth can
only go on for so long. Resources are finite. Oil, the secret of our
indolent lifestyle, is now running out. When we have used it all up,
then we will have to go back to using coal. Unless we use miners (Who
now would do that job?) it means oven cast mining, i.e. destruction
of mountain ranges and less agricultural land. But we need that land
to feed a growing global population. We in the UK are consuming twice
the productivity of the biosphere per head of population. In the USA
it is three times. As global population increases then, if our
standard of living remains the same, our personal share of global
resources will increase, and the others will consume more as they try
to reach our standard of living.

But the truth hurts, as will our readjustment, if we attempt it. But
it will hurt even more if we wait for the inevitable.

Cheers, (a tipsy) Alastair.

In message
,
Lawrence13 writes
of
the problem as the fat ugly Americans and their SUVs for a dead planet"

That is an outrageous bitter nasty remark to make.
People like you detest America and would leave us defencless against
far darker forces.


What darker forces are they Lawrence? Interesting or wot?


Pray tell us who you prefer to America and Americans?

The list is long.



Cheers

--

Jim