http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/el...ied-about.html

Fraser laser Nelson

Very good article that puts into perspective the naive tripe about the austere measures needed in cutting C02.

Okay if Co2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas then reducing it is going to cool the planet according to the AGW theory. However, if apparently our current levels of C02 are causing severe winter misery then carbon taxes are going to add insult to injury with not only producing a far colder world as its taken from the atmosphere but making it f*&king miserable in the process of doing so with economic poverty in a global system already ready to keel over with debt.

It's a lose lose situation.

"Lawrence13" wrote in message
...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/el...ied-about.html

Fraser laser Nelson

Very good article that puts into perspective the naive tripe about the
austere measures needed in cutting C02.

Okay if Co2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas then reducing it is going to
cool the planet according to the AGW theory. However, if apparently our
current levels of C02 are causing severe winter misery then carbon taxes are
going to add insult to injury with not only producing a far colder world as
its taken from the atmosphere but making it f*&king miserable in the process
of doing so with economic poverty in a global system already ready to keel
over with debt.

It's a lose lose situation.

================================================== ==========================
Lawrence,

You are better than this. If you look at the weather patterns this is almost
the perfect example of a negative NAO which will give this type of weather
if we put CO2 levels to pre industrial levels or increased CO2 further.

I know you are a AGW sceptic and I am not but I had hoped you would have
agreed on the above. Otherwise when we are in a warm anti-cyclonic block in
summer I would be using that for my global warming evidence.

Although I believe man made AGW is a fact I don't believe this is the whole
story as there are natural effects in paly also. What has been noticed is
that there seems to be less of the mobile setups we used to have. This could
be due to long period of weaker solar activity or an effect of AGW however
AGW was also real in the 90s and the setup seemed very mobile in the winter
months then and the sun was in a very active phase. This lack of mobility
means that we seem to get stuck in one set of weather for a longer period of
time. Which raises the conflict prediction of an increase in chances of
drought but also the increased chance of extreme wet and also hot and cold.

Stan

On 29/03/13 08:57, Stan wrote:


"Lawrence13" wrote in message
...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/el...ied-about.html


Fraser laser Nelson

Very good article that puts into perspective the naive tripe about the
austere measures needed in cutting C02.

Okay if Co2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas then reducing it is going
to cool the planet according to the AGW theory. However, if apparently
our current levels of C02 are causing severe winter misery then carbon
taxes are going to add insult to injury with not only producing a far
colder world as its taken from the atmosphere but making it f*&king
miserable in the process of doing so with economic poverty in a global
system already ready to keel over with debt.

It's a lose lose situation.

================================================== ==========================

Lawrence,

You are better than this.

No he isn't.


I know you are a AGW sceptic

Calling Lawrence a skeptic is an insult to genuine skeptics.

On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:54:30 AM UTC, Lawrence13 wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/el...ied-about.html

"A few weeks ago, scientists at the University of Washington found that man’s contribution to global warming may have been exaggerated – by a factor of two. The natural cycle of heating and cooling, they discovered, plays a far bigger role than they had imagined."



As neither a denier, nor an alarmist, I found this research interesting, and would be interested as a teacher to read more about it. Anyone have a link?

Steve J

On Friday, 29 March 2013 09:44:45 UTC, Adam Lea wrote:
On 29/03/13 08:57, Stan wrote:





"Lawrence13" wrote in message

...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/el...ied-about.html





Fraser laser Nelson



Very good article that puts into perspective the naive tripe about the

austere measures needed in cutting C02.



Okay if Co2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas then reducing it is going

to cool the planet according to the AGW theory. However, if apparently

our current levels of C02 are causing severe winter misery then carbon

taxes are going to add insult to injury with not only producing a far

colder world as its taken from the atmosphere but making it f*&king

miserable in the process of doing so with economic poverty in a global

system already ready to keel over with debt.



It's a lose lose situation.



================================================== ==========================



Lawrence,



You are better than this.



No he isn't.





I know you are a AGW sceptic



Calling Lawrence a skeptic is an insult to genuine skeptics.

You see Adam I represent no one just me and what I see as right wrong or neutral.
Unfortunately for in your case, you represent the insurance industry and we all *know* how they strive, no effort too great, to keep premiums down.
The AGW bandwagon has been a boon for them.

On 29/03/2013 10:16, Steve Jackson wrote:
On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:54:30 AM UTC, Lawrence13 wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/el...ied-about.html

"A few weeks ago, scientists at the University of Washington found that man’s contribution to global warming may have been exaggerated – by a factor of two. The natural cycle of heating and cooling, they discovered, plays a far bigger role than they had imagined."



As neither a denier, nor an alarmist, I found this research interesting, and would be interested as a teacher to read more about it. Anyone have a link?

I think it's this one:

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058.short

"After reviewing evidence in both the latest global data (HadCRUT4) and
the longest instrumental record, Central England Temperature, a revised
picture is emerging that gives a consistent attribution for each
multidecadal episode of warming and cooling in recent history, and
suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been
overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century."

Looks like you will need to pay for the full article though.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On Friday, 29 March 2013 15:04:20 UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 29/03/2013 10:16, Steve Jackson wrote:

On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:54:30 AM UTC, Lawrence13 wrote:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/el...ied-about.html



"A few weeks ago, scientists at the University of Washington found that man’s contribution to global warming may have been exaggerated – by a factor of two. The natural cycle of heating and cooling, they discovered, plays a far bigger role than they had imagined."







As neither a denier, nor an alarmist, I found this research interesting, and would be interested as a teacher to read more about it. Anyone have a link?



I think it's this one:



http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058.short



"After reviewing evidence in both the latest global data (HadCRUT4) and

the longest instrumental record, Central England Temperature, a revised

picture is emerging that gives a consistent attribution for each

multidecadal episode of warming and cooling in recent history, and

suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been

overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century."



Looks like you will need to pay for the full article though.



--



Brian W Lawrence

Wantage

Oxfordshire

I just want to say the fact tht we both have a Lawrence in our names and is purely coincidental.

As Lindzen says there are not thousands and thousands of qualified climate scientist and only twenty years ago you would have been pressed to name more than a dozen. He also says the the extra warming put into the system by C02 is such a small effect and can be enhanced or negated at any given time by natural forcings. Those that seem to think that all hitreto climate change was diven by the tooth fairy who then handed over the resonsiblity to Co2.

On 29/03/2013 15:04, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 29/03/2013 10:16, Steve Jackson wrote:
On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:54:30 AM UTC, Lawrence13 wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/el...ied-about.html


"A few weeks ago, scientists at the University of Washington found
that man’s contribution to global warming may have been exaggerated –
by a factor of two. The natural cycle of heating and cooling, they
discovered, plays a far bigger role than they had imagined."



As neither a denier, nor an alarmist, I found this research
interesting, and would be interested as a teacher to read more about
it. Anyone have a link?

I think it's this one:

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058.short

"After reviewing evidence in both the latest global data (HadCRUT4) and
the longest instrumental record, Central England Temperature, a revised
picture is emerging that gives a consistent attribution for each
multidecadal episode of warming and cooling in recent history, and
suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been
overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century."

Looks like you will need to pay for the full article though.

More details he

"http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2012/10/17/new-paper-cuts-recent-anthropogenic-warming-trend-in-half/"

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:16:26 AM UTC, Steve Jackson wrote:


As neither a denier, nor an alarmist, I found this research interesting, and would be interested as a teacher to read more about it. Anyone have a link?


======

Why such pejorative terms?

The link was in the article: http://bit.ly/11VvieM

--

Stephen
Rochester

On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:16:26 AM UTC, Steve Jackson wrote:

As neither a denier, nor an alarmist, I found this research interesting, and would be interested as a teacher to read more about it. Anyone have a link?

======

Why such pejorative terms?

As both extremes are regularly evident on usw, I was merely placing my persective firmly in the middle, to distance myself from the 'loony left and right':-)

Thankyou for the link, though it wouldn't open for me!

Steve J