"Lawrence" wrote in message


Mind you Will you've already retired I believe .
There will be millions though not so fortunate.

I'll settle for being fortunate now instead. I wish I could put off
getting older though.

So; it seems it's all decided that we are getting warmer then?

Someone tell me where "they" proved that fossils were responsible for it
all.

Talking of fossils; didn't "that woman" do her bit for the environment
by shutting down the coal mines? I rather think that was to slight a
certain member of a different political party. One who had a hand in
getting compensation out of her government for the lung diseases that
the miners suffer/suffered.

(Not that I believe for one moment she was lead by anything more
idealistic than the bill for that bill.)

No child should go to bed hungry anywhere in the world let alone starve
to death while governments have money to waste on space travel and
environmental issues. If we can't trust politicians to sort out that
crying shame now, what use is it to trust the *******s with the future?


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In article lgate.org,
says...
Someone tell me where "they" proved that fossils were responsible for it
all.


Traditionally, the isotopic composition of carbon within the atmosphere
was accepted as being 99% C13 and 1% the radioactive C14.

The carbon in fossil deposits is entirely C13 as the C14 isotope has a
half life of only a little over 5700 years and has therefore all decayed
millennia ago.

By measuring the current composition of isotopes of Carbon within the
atmosphere, it is possible to determine how much is natural and how much
has come from fossil fuels.

The last I heard, about 20% of atmospheric methane has been shown to
originate from fossil fuels. I don't have a figure for CO2 but 30% has
been mentioned.

ICBW, being no more than an interested spectator to the GW debate.

--
Alan LeHun

"Alan LeHun" wrote in message


In article lgate.org,
says...

Someone tell me where "they" proved that fossils were responsible for it
all.

Traditionally, the isotopic composition of carbon within the atmosphere
was accepted as being 99% C13 and 1% the radioactive C14.

I don't want to get into global warming debates either nor history ones,
come to that.

People blindly using the phrase "fossil fuels" goad me though. If they
are fossil fuels, why did the sulphur and phosphorous beds separate out
from them and migrate to pastures new?

And how?

But it all become irrelevant when the whole crux is not atmospheric
pollution but the solar heat output that must have changed. A mere half
a degree sustained difference from normal would represent quite a large
and very noticeable change in solar output measured at source.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

In message lgate.org,
Michael Mcneil writes
"Alan LeHun" wrote in message


In article lgate.org,
says...

Someone tell me where "they" proved that fossils were responsible for it
all.

Traditionally, the isotopic composition of carbon within the atmosphere
was accepted as being 99% C13 and 1% the radioactive C14.

I don't want to get into global warming debates either nor history ones,
come to that.

Nor the facts or anything involving the determining the scientific truth
- just like a lawyer.

People blindly using the phrase "fossil fuels" goad me though. If they
are fossil fuels, why did the sulphur and phosphorous beds separate out
from them and migrate to pastures new?

And how?

Ever heard of chemistry?

But it all become irrelevant when the whole crux is not atmospheric
pollution but the solar heat output that must have changed.

The solar flux is being measured and has been accurately monitored by
satellites over the past 3 decades. There is no scope for using that as
a way to pretend that effects of increasing anthropogenic CO2 are
negligible.

and very noticeable change in solar output measured at source.

Something which has been continuously monitored by satellites for more
than thirty years. It has increased by a small amount, but nothing like
enough to explain the observed global warming.

Baliunas and Soon (two global warming sceptics) have various papers on
reconstructing the solar constant over the past century and were forced
to conclude that without including the contributions of greenhouse
gasses it is impossible to obtain energy balance in the latter part of
the 20th century.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message


Nor the facts or anything involving the determining the scientific truth
- just like a lawyer.

People blindly using the phrase "fossil fuels" goad me though. If they
are fossil fuels, why did the sulphur and phosphorous beds separate out
from them and migrate to pastures new?

And how?

Ever heard of chemistry?

As a matter of fact I worked in a laboratory at one time. Physical
Chemistry. Just washing glasses as ot happens but I maintained a passing
interest in the subject.
Are you aware there are beds of sulphur and layers of guanoturned to
phosphate beds of strata. One of them is a fossil fuel is it not? No
carbon present funnily enough.

In or off the coast of Sweden a geological reasearch project brought up
oil from below or between granite. There is EVERY reason to suppose that
the oil and coal deposits are not fossils.

FACTS are what I was asking for fool!

Baliunas and Soon (two global warming sceptics) have various papers on
reconstructing the solar constant over the past century and were forced
to conclude that without including the contributions of greenhouse
gasses it is impossible to obtain energy balance in the latter part of
the 20th century.

Unless there is an alternative they overlooked.

Meanwhile, the physics and the chemistry of the carbon dioxide cycle
belittle and bedevil do they not?

(Would someone more acceptable to him than I care to elucidate?)




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Peter McLelland" wrote in message
...

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
In message , lawrence jenkins
writes
OT but I can't resist it. That well known and loved environmentalist
David
Bellamy has come out and ....wait for it.... .......attacked what he
calls
"the great global warming scam". In an article in the Mail on Sunday
Bellamy
rails against claims that "mans actions could ultimately destroy the
planet"
as the 'biggest scam to hit the world'.

He may be an "environmentalist" when it suits him, but his extreme right
wing political stance prevents him from having an objective view on GW.
He is probably just after some free publicity for his book launch
anyway.

Even former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who first picked up on
Global Warming as a serious issue wasn't so far off to the right that
she ignored good scientific advice.

is scientifically proven that 99 per cent of the worlds greenhouse
emissions
come from natural sources over which we have no control. Yet millions
are
being spent which will have no effect whatsoever on global warming.

How odd then that the observed build up of CO2 gas in the atmosphere
shows the characteristic isotopic signature of fossil fuels...

Part of what he says is true - we cannot spend on alternatives or
improve energy efficiency fast enough to prevent significant GW so we
are going to have to adapt to it. Rising sea levels and modified
rainfall patterns are two likely consequences that are already beginning
to show up on insurance claims.

We must wait patiently until something obviously caused by GW seriously
affects the US. Only then will the subject be taken seriously.

Rising sea levels may well at least help their voting system as much of
Florida is not much above sea level.

Peter


Erm.... What rising sea-levels?