"ATV"  wrote in message 
news:485FCB0F.668D47D@netvigator.com...
>
> Whenever it is a bit hot, we turn on the air conditioner to get cool.

Smart move, one button and nice and cool.

> It takes electricity to run the air conditioners.

Yes it dose, 100% for stating the bloody obvious.

> Where is the Electricity come from?  It is from "BURNING" coal or
> natural gas.

Plus: hydro, wind and the best option nuclear.

> It further generates "heat", carbon dioxide and water,

So what, unless you are stupid enough to believe the tiny, and it is 
absolutely tiny, amount of heat, CO2 or water released will have anything but 
a negligible impact. But that would require a complete ignorance of the basic 
laws of nature.

> So do you see that we are generate much much more heat to get some cool,

But that's not true.

> and we waste a lot of fuel and oxygen, and we generate a lot of
> green-house gas (carbon dioxide) in the process.

Nope wrong again.

>  How many families out
> there on the Earth are using air conditioners

A tiny percentage, that in turn use a tiny percentage of electricity 
generated, that in turn releases a tiny percentage of man made CO2 that in 
turn is less than a tiny percentage of overall CO2 released into the 
atmosphere.

> and how many office and
> shopping malls out there are running at 15 degree C?  How about buses,
> trains and cars?

None, 15c is below the normal operating temperature of most AC systems as 
it's "too cool" for optimum comfort. Still facts seem to have eluded you so 
far so no change there.

> God, we are going to burn all fuel,

Not for a few hundred years at the current rate and if the government gets 
off it's backside and builds a few more nuclear plants that won't be a 
problem ever.

> burn all oxygen,

Ah because we have such a limited supply? Maybe you can discuss Ozone with 
Doug.

"Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message 
news:d-idnfFkWKhUYMLVnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
>> It further generates "heat", carbon dioxide and water,
>
> So what, unless you are stupid enough to believe the tiny, and it is 
> absolutely tiny, amount of heat, CO2 or water released will have anything 
> but a negligible impact. But that would require a complete ignorance of 
> the basic laws of nature.

The amount of heat mankind produces is truly small compared to the amount 
from the sun. Water is not an issue. However, CO2 is undoubtedly a 
greenhouse gas. Mankind is producing a sizeable increase in the output of 
CO2. The only question is whether the earth is capable of soaking that up or 
not. It's an interesting question that we'll get the answer to in the next 
30 - 50 years. If the earth can soak it up, then our efforts to reduce CO2 
don't matter. If the earth can't soak up the extra CO2, we will get global 
warming, which will translate into major difficulties for us and future 
generations. In the circumstances of not knowing, the careful course is to 
work on the basis that it's a good thing to limit CO2 emissions.

GB  wrote:

> Water is not an issue. However, CO2 is undoubtedly a 
> greenhouse gas.

Try again bozo, water is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Tony Houghton wrote:

> Why is water not an issue? 

Because the water cycle is much larger, restricted to a smaller part of 
the atmosphere and the equilibrium concentration is disturbed less by 
evaporation.
The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is relatively low, which is why 
anthropogenic CO2 production is significant
Roger Thorpe

Depresion wrote:
> 
> A tiny percentage, that in turn use a tiny percentage of electricity 
> generated, that in turn releases a tiny percentage of man made CO2 that in 
> turn is less than a tiny percentage of overall CO2 released into the 
> atmosphere.

In developed countries refrigeration and air conditioning use about 15% 
of the electricity generated. (I should have better figures, but I'm 
sure that someone else can get them for you if you can't be bothered 
yourself) Across the world the fastest growing energy sectors are 
transport and air conditioning. The problem is not trivial.
Roger Thorpe

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ij0gz2.12hi5ty1ins6t1N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> GB  wrote:
>
>> Water is not an issue. However, CO2 is undoubtedly a
>> greenhouse gas.
>
> Try again bozo, water is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Thanks, I had forgotten what it was like to be called bozo. Immediate resort 
to going for the man not the ball, I see. You must be desperate for someone 
to insult.

The amount of water we produce is not significant. The amount of CO2 is. If 
you think otherwise, let's see your references.

On 24 Jun, 12:21, "GB"  wrote:
> "Steve Firth" <%ste...@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1ij0gz2.12hi5ty1ins6t1N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
> > GB  wrote:
>
> >> Water is not an issue. However, CO2 is undoubtedly a
> >> greenhouse gas.
>
> > Try again bozo, water is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
>
> Thanks, I had forgotten what it was like to be called bozo. Immediate resort
> to going for the man not the ball, I see. You must be desperate for someone
> to insult.

Have you ever read uk.transport?

GB  wrote:

> The amount of water we produce is not significant. The amount of CO2 is.

And do you have a source for that claim, bozo?

> If  you think otherwise, let's see your references.

No, it's your claim, you first, I insist.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ij1tyr.fa4opb1ekejx7N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> GB  wrote:
>
>> The amount of water we produce is not significant. The amount of CO2 is.
>
> And do you have a source for that claim, bozo?

Oh, I thought bozo was some sort of insult, but you're obviously using it 
instead of please. I think you're probably wrong there. Try waiting until 
somebody really big comes up to a door and see whether "after you, bozo, I 
insist" works well for you.

>
>> If  you think otherwise, let's see your references.
>
> No, it's your claim, you first, I insist.

No, after you, bozo, I insist.

GB  wrote:

> >> If  you think otherwise, let's see your references.
> >
> > No, it's your claim, you first, I insist.
> 
> No, after you, bozo, I insist.

You're the one claiming, on two occasions that water vapour is not a
significant greenhouse gas. It's up to you to prove your claim. Since
you apparently can't all that's left for you to do is to issue
continuing attempts at proof by assertion.

Please continue to fall over your big clown feet, bozo the clown.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ij260a.1seb7qd1s7h4dfN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> GB  wrote:
>
>> >> If  you think otherwise, let's see your references.
>> >
>> > No, it's your claim, you first, I insist.
>>
>> No, after you, bozo, I insist.
>
> You're the one claiming, on two occasions that water vapour is not a
> significant greenhouse gas.

I don't think so! Go see what I said.

> It's up to you to prove your claim. Since
> you apparently can't all that's left for you to do is to issue
> continuing attempts at proof by assertion.
>
> Please continue to fall over your big clown feet, bozo the clown.

Sigh, it's so bleeding obvious that I don't know why I bother to humour you. 
However, in a hope that you will stop making an arse of yourself, bozo (ie 
please) have a look at the following:
'Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the 
largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66%.[20] Water 
vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not 
directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for 
example, near irrigated fields)' This is from 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases

Now, let's see what I said: 'Water is not an issue.' That's it. No claim 
that water is not a greenhouse gas, merely that it's not an issue. The 
point, bozo, is that the amount of H20 we put directly into the atmosphere 
is very, very small compared to what is already there. The amount of CO2 we 
put into the atmosphere is significant compared to what is there. It's 
really simple, and bozo try to get your head around it.

Now let's sum this up. I said something that's perfectly correct. You 
misunderstood, and on the basis of that misunderstanding called me a fool.

GB  wrote:

> 'Water is not an issue.' That's it. 

But it is an issue. It's the most potent greenhouse gas.

Perhaps you should try to communicate what you mean to communicate?

> Now let's sum this up. I said something that's perfectly correct.

No, you didn't.

> You misunderstood,

No, I didn't.

> and on the basis of that misunderstanding called me a fool.

Oh there's no doubt that you're a fool, the only thing to decide is what
sort of fool.

On 23 Jun, 22:59, "GB"  wrote:
> "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>
> news:d-idnfFkWKhUYMLVnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
>
>
> >> It further generates "heat", carbon dioxide and water,
>
> > So what, unless you are stupid enough to believe the tiny, and it is
> > absolutely tiny, amount of heat, CO2 or water released will have anything
> > but a negligible impact. But that would require a complete ignorance of
> > the basic laws of nature.
>
> The amount of heat mankind produces is truly small compared to the amount
> from the sun. Water is not an issue. However, CO2 is undoubtedly a
> greenhouse gas. Mankind is producing a sizeable increase in the output of
> CO2. The only question is whether the earth is capable of soaking that up or
> not. It's an interesting question that we'll get the answer to in the next
> 30 - 50 years. If the earth can soak it up, then our efforts to reduce CO2
> don't matter. If the earth can't soak up the extra CO2, we will get global
> warming, which will translate into major difficulties for us and future
> generations. In the circumstances of not knowing, the careful course is to
> work on the basis that it's a good thing to limit CO2 emissions.

The CO2 being released from oil has been in the ground for millions of
years. How on earth can it ever be 'soaked up' within a human
timespan? The polluting motorists who dominate this transport
newsgroup would love to believe that their chosen mode of personal
transport doesn't affect the planet, to avoid blame, and consequently
they will do nothing to limit their CO2 emissions. Maybe though,
circumstances might dictate that they have to curb their emissions,
such as oil price/scarcity and government legislation. Maybe they will
decide to adopt a different status symbol, one of caring instead of
wrecking, and give up their gas-guzzlers to instead drive around in
modest little electric runabouts powered by the sun. How humble would
that be? Yeah sure! When Hell freezes over.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ij2h2w.y2zqxn1sumppiN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> GB  wrote:
>
>> 'Water is not an issue.' That's it.
>
> But it is an issue. It's the most potent greenhouse gas.
> Perhaps you should try to communicate what you mean to communicate?
>
>> Now let's sum this up. I said something that's perfectly correct.
>
> No, you didn't.
>
>> You misunderstood,
>
> No, I didn't.
>
>> and on the basis of that misunderstanding called me a fool.
>
> Oh there's no doubt that you're a fool, the only thing to decide is what
> sort of fool.

Yawn. You're like a toddler having an argument in the playground. Bozo, 
double-bozo, etc.

For some reason there's been some debate about global warming on the  u.c.h 
newsgroup, but you're not debating. You've put yourself in a totally 
untenable position, and the obvious thing to do is to admit it. Instead, 
your only response is to say fool, bozo, double-bozo with bells on (well, 
you haven't got to that one yet, but I'm sure it's imminent). You're just 
showing yourself up. Perhaps you were weaned too young or something like 
that.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:931c3349-f3c2-4a11-9797-4586c18a9693@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> The CO2 being released from oil has been in the ground for millions of
> years. How on earth can it ever be 'soaked up' within a human
> timespan?

Have a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:931c3349-f3c2-4a11-9797-4586c18a9693@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 23 Jun, 22:59, "GB"  wrote:
>> "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d-idnfFkWKhUYMLVnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> It further generates "heat", carbon dioxide and water,
>>
>> > So what, unless you are stupid enough to believe the tiny, and it is
>> > absolutely tiny, amount of heat, CO2 or water released will have 
>> > anything
>> > but a negligible impact. But that would require a complete ignorance of
>> > the basic laws of nature.
>>
>> The amount of heat mankind produces is truly small compared to the amount
>> from the sun. Water is not an issue. However, CO2 is undoubtedly a
>> greenhouse gas. Mankind is producing a sizeable increase in the output of
>> CO2. The only question is whether the earth is capable of soaking that up 
>> or
>> not. It's an interesting question that we'll get the answer to in the 
>> next
>> 30 - 50 years. If the earth can soak it up, then our efforts to reduce 
>> CO2
>> don't matter. If the earth can't soak up the extra CO2, we will get 
>> global
>> warming, which will translate into major difficulties for us and future
>> generations. In the circumstances of not knowing, the careful course is 
>> to
>> work on the basis that it's a good thing to limit CO2 emissions.
>
> The CO2 being released from oil has been in the ground for millions of
> years. How on earth can it ever be 'soaked up' within a human
> timespan?


It may have been in the ground for millions of years but it is only plants.
They grow fast enough if you let them.
It is the hacking down of the jungles that is causing the problems not 
burning a bit of fuel.
Hacking down the jungles slows down the earths ability to absorb CO2 and 
increases the amount of water vapour.

> The polluting motorists who dominate this transport
> newsgroup would love to believe that their chosen mode of personal
> transport doesn't affect the planet, to avoid blame, and consequently
> they will do nothing to limit their CO2 emissions.

The greens love to pick on motorists and forget that houses and industry and 
farming account for far more.
Its just an excuse to bump taxes up.
Look at what happened when the torys put a carbon tax on fuel (VAT) for 
houses, etc.

> Maybe though,
> circumstances might dictate that they have to curb their emissions,
> such as oil price/scarcity and government legislation. Maybe they will
> decide to adopt a different status symbol, one of caring instead of
> wrecking, and give up their gas-guzzlers to instead drive around in
> modest little electric runabouts powered by the sun. How humble would
> that be? Yeah sure! When Hell freezes over.

You find someone that will sell me a small electric car at a sensible price 
and supply me with CO2 free electricity I can afford and I will.

>
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
>
>

GB  wrote:

> For some reason there's been some debate about global warming on the  u.c.h
> newsgroup, but you're not debating. You've put yourself in a totally 
> untenable position, and the obvious thing to do is to admit it.

The "untenable position" is to claim that "Water is not an issue" as a
greenhouse gas.

Steve Firth wrote:
> GB  wrote:
> 
> 
>>For some reason there's been some debate about global warming on the  u.c.h
>>newsgroup, but you're not debating. You've put yourself in a totally 
>>untenable position, and the obvious thing to do is to admit it.
> 
> 
> The "untenable position" is to claim that "Water is not an issue" as a
> greenhouse gas.
>  
I understood what he said to mean
"anthropogenic water vapour is not an issue in global warming"
That's the only way it makes sense in this context.
What did you think he meant?
Or is teis one of those pedantic / disingenuous arguments that make this 
group (I'm reading uk.transport) so tedious?
Roger Thorpe

There are a couple of points that I'd like to make here, not to prove 
anyone wrong, but because I think they're interesting

Depresion wrote:

> "ATV"  wrote in message 

> 
>>It takes electricity to run the air conditioners.
> 
> 
> Yes it dose, 100% for stating the bloody obvious.
> 
Well, not completely true. there are more and more heat driven chillers 
these days. (remember gas fridges?) Usually industrial scale stuff, it's 
getting smaller and allows the use of solar thermal energy to drive air 
conditioning. This is where a lot of researchers, including important 
groups in germany and China are aiming to make progress towards 
commercialisation.
> 
>>Where is the Electricity come from?  It is from "BURNING" coal or
>>natural gas.
> 
>>It further generates "heat", carbon dioxide and water,
> 
> 
> So what, unless you are stupid enough to believe the tiny, and it is 
> absolutely tiny, amount of heat, CO2 or water released will have anything but 
> a negligible impact. But that would require a complete ignorance of the basic 
> laws of nature.
> 
If you deny global warming then it's another argument, but the energy 
consumed by aircon globally is significant and increasing.
> 
>>So do you see that we are generate much much more heat to get some cool,
> 

>>and how many office and
>>shopping malls out there are running at 15 degree C?  How about buses,
>>trains and cars?
> 
> 
> None, 15c is below the normal operating temperature of most AC systems as 
> it's "too cool" for optimum comfort. Still facts seem to have eluded you so 
> far so no change there.
> 
That's not been my experience, a lot of people seem to overdo aircon, 
just to prove they've got it. I've been to many hotels, conference 
rooms, cars and buses that were over-cooled.

Roger Thorpe

Roger Thorpe  wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
> > GB  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>For some reason there's been some debate about global warming on the
> >>u.c.h newsgroup, but you're not debating. You've put yourself in a
> >>totally untenable position, and the obvious thing to do is to admit it.
> > 
> > 
> > The "untenable position" is to claim that "Water is not an issue" as a
> > greenhouse gas.
> >  
> I understood what he said to mean
> "anthropogenic water vapour is not an issue in global warming"

One wonders why he did not say that, then.

Does he expect everyone to fill in the blanks in his argument?

If that was what he wanted to say, it's still not true. 

Water is a serious issue in global warming, but it's not a climate
forcing issue because the water vapour content of the atmosphere is a
function of temperature. However water vapour is involved in a positive
feedback mechanism, which means that as the temperature increases, the
water vapour content of the atmosphere increases which means that the
atmosphere can carry more water, etc. The fact that water vapour is the
most significant greenhouse gas cannot be overlooked nor can it be
dismissed as "not an issue".

This paper looks at the influence of water vapour on anthropogenic
global wamrming:

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html

"For the present, a consensus of selected high-level researchers at the
international level has agreed that the contribution of water vapor to
anthropogenic warming is assumed to be in the neighborhood of 50%."

50% doesn't sound like "not an issue" to me.

Steve Firth wrote:

> Roger Thorpe  wrote:

>>
>>I understood what he said to mean
>>"anthropogenic water vapour is not an issue in global warming"
> 
> 
> One wonders why he did not say that, then.
> 
> Does he expect everyone to fill in the blanks in his argument?
> 
> If that was what he wanted to say, it's still not true. 
> 
> Water is a serious issue in global warming, but it's not a climate
> forcing issue because the water vapour content of the atmosphere is a
> function of temperature. However water vapour is involved in a positive
> feedback mechanism, which means that as the temperature increases, the
> water vapour content of the atmosphere increases which means that the
> atmosphere can carry more water, etc. The fact that water vapour is the
> most significant greenhouse gas cannot be overlooked nor can it be
> dismissed as "not an issue".
> 
> This paper looks at the influence of water vapour on anthropogenic
> global wamrming:
> 
> http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html
> 
> "For the present, a consensus of selected high-level researchers at the
> international level has agreed that the contribution of water vapor to
> anthropogenic warming is assumed to be in the neighborhood of 50%."
> 
> 50% doesn't sound like "not an issue" to me.
This doesn't mean that *anthropogenic* water vapour has a significant GW 
effect.
What it's saying is that the *existing* water vapour amplifies the GW 
effect of CO2 etc (try "water vapour feedback effect") Basically the 
argument goes that, since warmer air can hold more water vapour then any 
atmospheric warming will increase the levels of water in the air and so 
increase the GW effect.


Do you want to discuss whether the levels of anthropogenic water vapour 
are significant or do we agree on that bit?

Roger Thorpe

P.S. if we're going to carry on then maybe we should reduce the 
crossposting. I'd prefer to leave it on u.t.

Roger Thorpe  wrote:

> This doesn't mean that *anthropogenic* water vapour has a significant GW
> effect.

Again, the OP did not make that clear in his post, stating that "water
vapur is not an issue." It is both an issue in global warmign and
specifically an issue in anthropogenic global warming.

> What it's saying is that the *existing* water vapour amplifies the GW
> effect of CO2 etc (try "water vapour feedback effect") Basically the 
> argument goes that, since warmer air can hold more water vapour then any
> atmospheric warming will increase the levels of water in the air and so
> increase the GW effect.

Grandmother, eggs, vacuum.

> Do you want to discuss whether the levels of anthropogenic water vapour
> are significant or do we agree on that bit?

Do you want a five minute argument or the full half hour?

> P.S. if we're going to carry on then maybe we should reduce the 
> crossposting. I'd prefer to leave it on u.t.

It has no relevance to uk.transport, since it is not transport related.
Nor does it really have any relevance to any of the groups to which it
is cross-posted.

Steve Firth wrote:

> Roger Thorpe  wrote:
> 
> 
>>This doesn't mean that *anthropogenic* water vapour has a significant GW
>>effect.
> 
> 
> Again, the OP did not make that clear in his post, stating that "water
> vapur is not an issue." It is both an issue in global warmign and
> specifically an issue in anthropogenic global warming.
> 
Ah, I see. were not trying to learn anything, it's just championship 
level disingenuousness semantics and nit-picking
> 
>>What it's saying is that the *existing* water vapour amplifies the GW
>>effect of CO2 etc (try "water vapour feedback effect") Basically the 
>>argument goes that, since warmer air can hold more water vapour then any
>>atmospheric warming will increase the levels of water in the air and so
>>increase the GW effect.
> 
> 
> 
> It has no relevance to uk.transport, since it is not transport related.
> Nor does it really have any relevance to any of the groups to which it
> is cross-posted.
> 
Now this is where we definitely agree and seems a convenient place to 
stop. (for me)
Roger Thorpe

Roger Thorpe  wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
> 
> > Roger Thorpe  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>This doesn't mean that *anthropogenic* water vapour has a significant GW
> >>effect.
> > 
> > 
> > Again, the OP did not make that clear in his post, stating that "water
> > vapur is not an issue." It is both an issue in global warmign and
> > specifically an issue in anthropogenic global warming.
> > 
> Ah, I see. were not trying to learn anything, it's just championship 
> level disingenuousness semantics and nit-picking

No, it's an attempt to keep statements made about global warming and the
influences upon it accurate and capable of rational interpretation.

> >>What it's saying is that the *existing* water vapour amplifies the GW
> >>effect of CO2 etc (try "water vapour feedback effect") Basically the
> >>argument goes that, since warmer air can hold more water vapour then any
> >>atmospheric warming will increase the levels of water in the air and so
> >>increase the GW effect.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > It has no relevance to uk.transport, since it is not transport related.
> > Nor does it really have any relevance to any of the groups to which it
> > is cross-posted.
> > 
> Now this is where we definitely agree and seems a convenient place to
> stop. (for me)
> Roger Thorpe

Random, whatever, or some such as young people are prone to saying.

"Paul Weaver"  wrote in message 
news:14837b6b-4b8b-4d41-bc72-4d1ff3e022aa@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

>> Thanks, I had forgotten what it was like to be called bozo. Immediate 
>> resort
>> to going for the man not the ball, I see. You must be desperate for 
>> someone
>> to insult.
>
> Have you ever read uk.transport?

No, this was cross-posted.  Some newsgroups are, ahem, more robust and frank 
than others, but I can't see the need for it.

GB wrote:
> "Paul Weaver"  wrote in message
> news:14837b6b-4b8b-4d41-bc72-4d1ff3e022aa@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Thanks, I had forgotten what it was like to be called bozo.
>>> Immediate resort
>>> to going for the man not the ball, I see. You must be desperate for
>>> someone
>>> to insult.
>>
>> Have you ever read uk.transport?
>
> No, this was cross-posted.  Some newsgroups are, ahem, more robust
> and frank than others, but I can't see the need for it.

Perhaps the level of robustness and frankness is in proportion to the 
bozoness of the contributors? :-)

Brimstone wrote:
> GB wrote:
> 
>>"Paul Weaver"  wrote in message
>>news:14837b6b-4b8b-4d41-bc72-4d1ff3e022aa@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>>Thanks, I had forgotten what it was like to be called bozo.
>>>>Immediate resort
>>>>to going for the man not the ball, I see. You must be desperate for
>>>>someone
>>>>to insult.
>>>
>>>Have you ever read uk.transport?
>>
>>No, this was cross-posted.  Some newsgroups are, ahem, more robust
>>and frank than others, but I can't see the need for it.
> 
> 
> Perhaps the level of robustness and frankness is in proportion to the 
> bozoness of the contributors? :-)
> 
> 
> 
The variations in newsgroups culture are quite surprising, one of the 
most "robust" groups on the uk branch is uk.rec.motorcycling yet you 
would have to look very hard to find name-calling flaming or trolling in 
that group. I don't know why that is so. But peep into 'birdwatching' or 
'waterways' and you'll find a nice bunch of people pestered by one or 
two loonies who just won't stop.
Doug is an angel in comparison, and I don't quite know why you let him 
get under your skin so much.
Roger Thorpe

Roger Thorpe wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>
>>> "Paul Weaver"  wrote in message
>>> news:14837b6b-4b8b-4d41-bc72-4d1ff3e022aa@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Thanks, I had forgotten what it was like to be called bozo.
>>>>> Immediate resort
>>>>> to going for the man not the ball, I see. You must be desperate
>>>>> for someone
>>>>> to insult.
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever read uk.transport?
>>>
>>> No, this was cross-posted.  Some newsgroups are, ahem, more robust
>>> and frank than others, but I can't see the need for it.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the level of robustness and frankness is in proportion to the
>> bozoness of the contributors? :-)
>>
>>
>>
> The variations in newsgroups culture are quite surprising, one of the
> most "robust" groups on the uk branch is uk.rec.motorcycling yet you
> would have to look very hard to find name-calling flaming or trolling
> in that group. I don't know why that is so. But peep into
> 'birdwatching' or 'waterways' and you'll find a nice bunch of people
> pestered by one or two loonies who just won't stop.
> Doug is an angel in comparison, and I don't quite know why you let him
> get under your skin so much.
>
What Doug provides is endless amusement. He is the Usenet equivalent of the 
village idiot. One or two appear to get their underwear in disarray over his 
comments at times but they tend to do that with other people as well.

Very good search.
Let's think about that,
If we keep burning all the fossil fuel, coal, oil and natural gas, and then
timber...
Are we going back to pre-green plant atmosphere?
Green plant turn carbon dioxide and water to oxygen + organic things
and that supports all animals....
Burning turns all organic things + oxygen back to carbon dioxide and water
Hell !
We are reversing the process fast and we are pushing the equilibrium.
The nature of equilibrium:
If you are pushing from a equilibrium point, it swings.
If you pushing it too much, over the ridge, it shifts very fast to another
equilibrium point and it is not reversible !
Can we live at that new new equilibrium point !



Roger Thorpe wrote:

> Roger T. wrote:
>
> > Carbon levels are 10 times LESS than what they were 1000 years ago.  Before
> > the industrial revolution in case you wondered.
> >
> Sorry mate, I think that this is quite simply wrong. Could you let us
> know where you got that figure from?
> Google(as they say) Is  Your Friend
> There's a graph at
> http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html
> which goes back to 400,000 years ago. Don't assume that the right hand
> end of that graph represents the current position, that data only goes
> up to 1950. The current CO2 level is around 385 ppmv.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
>
> Roger Thorpe



-- Posted on news://freenews.netfront.net - Complaints to news@netfront.net --

Carbon levels are 10 times LESS than what they were 1000 years ago.  Before
the industrial revolution in case you wondered.

Mount St. Helen's put more carbon into the atmosphere than the whole of
mankind in its existance has ever put into the atmosphere, and Mount St.
Helens was a small volcano, as volcanos go.

There are volcanos spewing carbon into the atmosphere all over the world,
all the time.

Carbon is what life on earth of formed from.

All this "carbon footprint" is just uninformed politicians jumping on the
carbon band wagon and using it as an excuse to raise taxes.

Where I'm sitting right now, 8,000 to 10,000  years ago was covered in one
mile of ice.  A few hundred thousand years before that, it was a tropical
forest.  In Roman times, they grew grapes from the Midlands down to southern
England.  In Nelson's time, the Thames froze over and there was an ice fair
every winter held on the frozen river.

Global warming is a natural cycle.

Man made global warming?   Bah, Humbug!


--
Cheers

Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:-
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Latitude:  48° 25' North
Longitude:  123° 21' West

Roger T. wrote:
> Carbon levels are 10 times LESS than what they were 1000 years ago.  Before
> the industrial revolution in case you wondered.
> 
> Mount St. Helen's put more carbon into the atmosphere than the whole of
> mankind in its existance has ever put into the atmosphere, and Mount St.
> Helens was a small volcano, as volcanos go.
> 
> There are volcanos spewing carbon into the atmosphere all over the world,
> all the time.
> 
> Carbon is what life on earth of formed from.
> 
> All this "carbon footprint" is just uninformed politicians jumping on the
> carbon band wagon and using it as an excuse to raise taxes.
> 
> Where I'm sitting right now, 8,000 to 10,000  years ago was covered in one
> mile of ice.  A few hundred thousand years before that, it was a tropical
> forest.  In Roman times, they grew grapes from the Midlands down to southern
> England.  In Nelson's time, the Thames froze over and there was an ice fair
> every winter held on the frozen river.

If you're sitting where I suspect you are[1], most maps I've seen put 
you right at the limit of glaciation in the last ice age.  Oceans are 
good things for keeping the ice back, where I am sitting now[2] escaped 
glaciation in the last ice age.

[1]
> Roger T.
> Latitude:  48° 25' North
> Longitude:  123° 21' West
[2] 50° 12' N, 0° 7' W

Robin

Roger T. wrote:

> Carbon levels are 10 times LESS than what they were 1000 years ago.  Before
> the industrial revolution in case you wondered.
>
Sorry mate, I think that this is quite simply wrong. Could you let us 
know where you got that figure from?
Google(as they say) Is  Your Friend
There's a graph at
http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html
which goes back to 400,000 years ago. Don't assume that the right hand 
end of that graph represents the current position, that data only goes 
up to 1950. The current CO2 level is around 385 ppmv.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Roger Thorpe

"R.C. Payne"

> If you're sitting where I suspect you are[1], most maps I've seen put you
> right at the limit of glaciation in the last ice age.  Oceans are good
> things for keeping the ice back, where I am sitting now[2] escaped
> glaciation in the last ice age.

You are correct.  I'm on Southern Vancouver Island, near the edge of
glaciation.

However, the point is, that there was about a mile of ice where I'm sitting
and it wasn't caused by mankind.  :-)

Global warming is a natural cycle and has little, if anything to do with
humankind.  If it did, then why is the temperature on Mars also rising?
Mmmmmm?



--
Cheers

Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:-
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Latitude:  48° 25' North
Longitude:  123° 21' West

> Sorry mate, I think that this is quite simply wrong. Could you let us know
> where you got that figure from?
> Google(as they say) Is  Your Friend

I read it in a book from the library about three months ago, written by a
scientist who disputes man-made global warming and I'll be damned if I can
recall the name of the book or the author.  Someone, possibly on this group,
also made reference to the same book a few weeks ago.  So, as I can't quote
the text, for now I'll conceed the point.

But as I wrote, in Roman times they grew grapes from the Midlands down to
the south and in Nelson's time, say from around 1750 or so to the 1820 or
so, the Thames used to freeze over and they have a winter fair and the rich
would drive their carriages across the ice.  One of the so-called mini
ice-ages.  The last one was from 1870 to 1950, I think.

> There's a graph at
> http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html
> which goes back to 400,000 years ago. Don't assume that the right hand end
> of that graph represents the current position, that data only goes up to
> 1950. The current CO2 level is around 385 ppmv.

Using the carbon graph above, you'll notice that there is a regular cycle of
peaks and valleys and we are about where we should be based on that almost
regular cycle.

However, using the temperature graph, that also seems to have regular
cycles, we are below were we should be.

Therefore, I guess I can still say, "Man made global warming?  Bah!
Humbug!"  :-)


--
Cheers

Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:-
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Latitude:  48° 25' North
Longitude:  123° 21' West

Roger T.  wrote:

> Where I'm sitting right now, 8,000 to 10,000  years ago was covered in one
> mile of ice.  A few hundred thousand years before that, it was a tropical
> forest.

<Dhug>
Local variation.
Milankovich cycles.
The UK was on the equator 125,000 years ago.
Nurse! Is it time for my bath yet?
</Dhug>

"ATV"  wrote in message 
news:486282FA.71EC1586@netvigator.com...
> Very good search.
> Let's think about that,
> If we keep burning all the fossil fuel, coal, oil and natural gas, and 
> then
> timber...
> Are we going back to pre-green plant atmosphere?
> Green plant turn carbon dioxide and water to oxygen + organic things
> and that supports all animals....
> Burning turns all organic things + oxygen back to carbon dioxide and water
> Hell !
> We are reversing the process fast and we are pushing the equilibrium.
> The nature of equilibrium:
> If you are pushing from a equilibrium point, it swings.
> If you pushing it too much, over the ridge, it shifts very fast to another
> equilibrium point and it is not reversible !
> Can we live at that new new equilibrium point !
>

That equilibrium point has nothing to do with carbon emissions.  The CO2 
level is driven by global temperature levels* (not the other way around, and 
is now known to lag around 80 years behind the temperature changes).  The 
temperature levels are outside of man's control.  But this doesn't fit with 
the environmentalist agenda where everything *has* to be the fault of man.

* The world is currently cooling and has been for 3 years (this is why the 
environmentalists have changed 'global warming' to the vaguer and more 
meaningless term 'climate change').

"M.I.5¾" wrote:
> That equilibrium point has nothing to do with carbon emissions.  The CO2
> level is driven by global temperature levels* (not the other way around, and
> is now known to lag around 80 years behind the temperature changes).  The
> temperature levels are outside of man's control.  But this doesn't fit with
> the environmentalist agenda where everything *has* to be the fault of man.

Do you have a reference for the 80 year lag? Google isn't turning
up anything which seems relevant.

How does this 80 year lag relate to the 800 year lag discussed
elsewhere, for example at http://tinyurl.com/2ssxek
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
?

Francis

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:34:54 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>The UK was on the equator 125,000 years ago.

No it wasn't. Not even 125M years ago.




-- 
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
Electronics for Visio        http://www.electronics.sandrila.co.uk/

Roger T. wrote:
>Roger Thorpe wrote
>>There's a graph at
>>http://carto.eu.org/article2481.html
>>which goes back to 400,000 years ago. Don't assume that the right hand end
>>of that graph represents the current position, that data only goes up to
>>1950. The current CO2 level is around 385 ppmv.
> 
> 
> Using the carbon graph above, you'll notice that there is a regular cycle of
> peaks and valleys and we are about where we should be based on that almost
> regular cycle.
> 
> However, using the temperature graph, that also seems to have regular
> cycles, we are below were we should be.
> 
> Therefore, I guess I can still say, "Man made global warming?  Bah!
> Humbug!"  :-)
I'd encourage you to go back and look at the scales on the graphs. 
(remember that Humans only evolved about 200,00 years ago).
The historic peak CO2 level is about 300 ppmv in the timeframe recorded 
there, and the current level is 385ppmv.  This level is rising at about 
1.45 ppmv per year. with business as usual there's no reason to think 
that this rate will decrease, in fact with global industrialization it 
would probably increase.
That rate of 1.45 mppv per year would put us at 446 mppv by 2050. I 
think that the last time it was at that kind of concentration the world 
was quite different. The real GW problem is not the climate as it is 
now, but what it might be like in the future.
The basic science behind the greenhouse effect is really quite simple 
and the greenhouse is a good analogy.
The simplified model is clear and the science behind it solid. The 
energy comes to earth as sunlight, but cannot easily leave the surface 
because the gases in the atmosphere reflect the longer wavelengths back 
to earth.
Of course the real situation is more complex, with the interplay of many 
processes including reflections by clouds, ice cover etc. etc. But those 
with any scientific competence who deny GW are very few in number.
I think that you can put together a reasonably good picture of the 
issues in an afternoon with wikipedia.

Roger Thorpe

Paul Herber  wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:34:54 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
> 
> > <Dhug>
> > Local variation.
> > Milankovich cycles.
> > The UK was on the equator 125,000 years ago.
> > Nurse! Is it time for my bath yet?
> > </Dhug>

.
> 
> No it wasn't. Not even 125M years ago.

  
  Whoosh
Your head

The <Dhug> tag was significant.

Roger Thorpe  wrote:

> (remember that Humans only evolved about 200,00 years ago).

20000 yers ago? I doubt it.

"Roger Thorpe"  wrote in message 
news:g3vptv$3v7$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...

> (remember that Humans only evolved about 200,00 years ago).

Humans are so more advanced than any other creatures on earth, some people 
reckon came from another planet, 1000s of years ago.

Steve Firth wrote:
> Roger Thorpe  wrote:
> 
> 
>>(remember that Humans only evolved about 200,00 years ago).
> 
> 
> 20000 yers ago? I doubt it.
Yeah, I dropped a zero. I dropped it on the floor and I think that the 
cat's eaten it.

Roger Thorpe

Doctor Drivel <killefitz@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> "Roger Thorpe"  wrote in message 
> news:g3vptv$3v7$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
> 
> > (remember that Humans only evolved about 200,00 years ago).
> 
> Humans are so more advanced than any other creatures on earth, some people
> reckon came from another planet, 1000s of years ago.

Warning to uk.t, Drivel is a net-loon who makes Toomy look sane. Drivel
is also a spammer and was responsible for posting "endorsements" for the
snake-oil product "cataclean" some years ago, which he claimed was a
product approved by the Lancashire police garage. When I called someone
at that garage to check ont he truth of the story, they sighed and said
they were aware of the stories but that the "approval" was a lie and had
not happened.

Drivel also morphs his "From:" line faster than Toomy does. A sure sign
of the trolling idiot.

Roger Thorpe  wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
> > Roger Thorpe  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>(remember that Humans only evolved about 200,00 years ago).
> > 
> > 
> > 20000 yers ago? I doubt it.
> Yeah, I dropped a zero. I dropped it on the floor and I think that the
> cat's eaten it.

Careful, you don't want the cat hyper-evolving

Steve Firth wrote:

> Roger Thorpe  wrote:
> 
> 
>>Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>>Roger Thorpe  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>(remember that Humans only evolved about 200,00 years ago).
>>>
>>>
>>>20000 yers ago? I doubt it.
>>
>>Yeah, I dropped a zero. I dropped it on the floor and I think that the
>>cat's eaten it.
> 
> 
> Careful, you don't want the cat hyper-evolving
I'd like to think that I'm broadminded but I don't want Danny John-Jules 
sitting on my lap.
Roger

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ij5ako.pfs83eu5d1ujN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Doctor Drivel <killefitz@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Roger Thorpe"  wrote in message
>> news:g3vptv$3v7$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
>>
>> > (remember that Humans only evolved about 200,00 years ago).
>>
>> Humans are so more advanced than any other creatures on earth, some 
>> people
>> reckon came from another planet, 1000s of years ago.
>
> Warning

Oh look!  A plantpot.

Roger Thorpe  wrote:

> I'd like to think that I'm broadminded but I don't want Danny John-Jules
> sitting on my lap.

Oh I dunno, he's at least more stylish that Craig Charles or the one
with a head like a novelty ice cube.

Steve Firth wrote:
> Roger Thorpe  wrote:
>
>> I'd like to think that I'm broadminded but I don't want Danny
>> John-Jules sitting on my lap.
>
> Oh I dunno, he's at least more stylish that Craig Charles or the one
> with a head like a novelty ice cube.

Presumably having Arnold Rimmer sitting on your lap would be too much like 
talking to yourself?

ATV wrote:

> Very good search.
> Let's think about that,
> If we keep burning all the fossil fuel, coal, oil and natural gas, and then
> timber...

These fossil fuel, coal, oil, natural gas and oxygen are accumulated thru' a very
very long period of time.
We are now reversing the process in ~50 years of time.

> Are we going back to pre-green plant atmosphere?
> Green plant turn carbon dioxide and water to oxygen + organic things
> and that supports all animals....
> Burning turns all organic things + oxygen back to carbon dioxide and water
> Hell !
> We are reversing the process fast and we are pushing the equilibrium.
> The nature of equilibrium:
> If you are pushing from a equilibrium point, it swings.
> If you pushing it too much, over the ridge, it shifts very fast to another
> equilibrium point and it is not reversible !
> Can we live at that new new equilibrium point !
>

:-)



-- Posted on news://freenews.netfront.net - Complaints to news@netfront.net --

"geoff"  wrote in message 
news:mf5iDWIW$$YIFwOV@ntlworld.com...
> In message <g4023t$gn9$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Doctor Drivel 
> <killefitz@invalid.invalid> writes
>>
>>"Roger Thorpe"  wrote in message 
>>news:g3vptv$3v7$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
>>
>>> (remember that Humans only evolved about 200,00 years ago).
>>
>>Humans are so more advanced than any other creatures on earth, some people 
>>reckon came from another planet, 1000s of years ago.
>>
> Well, we know that you did

Maxie, you are right. I am far more advanced than everyone else here. Yes, 
more advanced. You are right, I am.

> complete with Drivel physics

Maxie, you are right I do specialise in Doctor Drivel physics - the best 
sort. The sort that works.  Yes, you are right again Maxie.  Fantastic.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> In article <48601ce0$0$2490$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
> "GB"  writes:
>>
>> "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>> news:d-idnfFkWKhUYMLVnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>>
>>>> It further generates "heat", carbon dioxide and water,
>>>
>>> So what, unless you are stupid enough to believe the tiny, and it is
>>> absolutely tiny, amount of heat, CO2 or water released will have
>>> anything but a negligible impact. But that would require a complete
>>> ignorance of the basic laws of nature.
>>
>> The amount of heat mankind produces is truly small compared to the
>> amount from the sun. Water is not an issue. However, CO2 is
>> undoubtedly a greenhouse gas.
>
> You might want to take a peek back over the history of what we
> know of the greenhouse effect and CO2. CO2 was first hypothesised
> as responsible for the green house effect at the end of the 19th
> century, based on laboratory tests of its spectral absorbtion.
> The hypothesis was (and still is) quite plausible, but it was
> well beyond science at the time to prove it.
>
> As the ability of experimental science in the atmosphere moved on,
> people started embarking on tests to prove the earlier hypothesis.
> There have been many attempts, but the proof has been elusive. What
> has happened instead is that the tests have shown over the years
> that increasing numbers of other gasses are contributors to the
> greenhouse effect. So in the 1890's it was thought that CO2 was the
> cause based on the hypothesis. The subsequent testing has shown that
> other gasses are contributors too, but have not managed to show that
> CO2 is a contributor. So the hypothesis has been gradually modified
> to correct for CO2's dimishing contribution to the greenhouse effect
> us we understand the science better over the years. We are now up to
> the point where we can prove something of the order of 70-80% of the
> greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, methane, and ozone,
> (water vapour being by far the largest) and we still hypothsise that
> the remainer is caused by CO2 as we have no other explaination, and
> this is still plausible.
>
> However, your assertions that "water is not an issue" and "CO2 is
> undoubtedly a greenhouse gas" are not credible, based on what we
> currently know. Water is an issue (but possibly one over which we
> have no direct control). CO2 is still thought likely to be a
> greenhouse gas, but it's one that's not understood 110 years after
> the original hypothesis.

AIUI chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide are also responsible for climate 
change/global warming. Shouldn't they be banned?

"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
news:iY2dnUicgvH7WPnVnZ2dnUVZ8tjinZ2d@bt.com...

>> However, your assertions that "water is not an issue" and "CO2 is
>> undoubtedly a greenhouse gas" are not credible, based on what we
>> currently know. Water is an issue (but possibly one over which we
>> have no direct control). CO2 is still thought likely to be a
>> greenhouse gas, but it's one that's not understood 110 years after
>> the original hypothesis.
>
> AIUI chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide are also responsible for 
> climate change/global warming. Shouldn't they be banned?

I think that we all are aware that dihydrogen monoxide is a major component 
of acid rain.

In message <4864e06e$0$2475$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
          "GB"  wrote:

> 
> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> news:iY2dnUicgvH7WPnVnZ2dnUVZ8tjinZ2d@bt.com...
> 
> >> However, your assertions that "water is not an issue" and "CO2 is
> >> undoubtedly a greenhouse gas" are not credible, based on what we
> >> currently know. Water is an issue (but possibly one over which we
> >> have no direct control). CO2 is still thought likely to be a
> >> greenhouse gas, but it's one that's not understood 110 years after
> >> the original hypothesis.
> >
> > AIUI chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide are also responsible for 
> > climate change/global warming. Shouldn't they be banned?
> 
> I think that we all are aware that dihydrogen monoxide is a major component
> of acid rain.
> 

It's also a major cause of flooding.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

GB  wrote:

> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> news:iY2dnUicgvH7WPnVnZ2dnUVZ8tjinZ2d@bt.com...
> 
> >> However, your assertions that "water is not an issue" and "CO2 is
> >> undoubtedly a greenhouse gas" are not credible, based on what we
> >> currently know. Water is an issue (but possibly one over which we
> >> have no direct control). CO2 is still thought likely to be a
> >> greenhouse gas, but it's one that's not understood 110 years after
> >> the original hypothesis.
> >
> > AIUI chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide are also responsible for
> > climate change/global warming. Shouldn't they be banned?
> 
> I think that we all are aware that dihydrogen monoxide is a major component
> of acid rain.

So are you claiming that "water is not an issue " in acid rain?

You really did hit every branch on the way down when you fell out of the
fallacy tree.

Graeme Wall wrote:
> In message <4864e06e$0$2475$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
>           "GB"  wrote:
> 
>>"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
>>news:iY2dnUicgvH7WPnVnZ2dnUVZ8tjinZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>>>>However, your assertions that "water is not an issue" and "CO2 is
>>>>undoubtedly a greenhouse gas" are not credible, based on what we
>>>>currently know. Water is an issue (but possibly one over which we
>>>>have no direct control). CO2 is still thought likely to be a
>>>>greenhouse gas, but it's one that's not understood 110 years after
>>>>the original hypothesis.
>>>AIUI chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide are also responsible for 
>>>climate change/global warming. Shouldn't they be banned?
>>I think that we all are aware that dihydrogen monoxide is a major component
>>of acid rain.
>>
> 
> It's also a major cause of flooding.

Don't forget that it can cause death by the simple act of inhaling it. 
Moreover, almost all food is contaminated by it.

Robin

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:53:14 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>GB  wrote:
>
>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
>> news:iY2dnUicgvH7WPnVnZ2dnUVZ8tjinZ2d@bt.com...
>> 
>> >> However, your assertions that "water is not an issue" and "CO2 is
>> >> undoubtedly a greenhouse gas" are not credible, based on what we
>> >> currently know. Water is an issue (but possibly one over which we
>> >> have no direct control). CO2 is still thought likely to be a
>> >> greenhouse gas, but it's one that's not understood 110 years after
>> >> the original hypothesis.
>> >
>> > AIUI chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide are also responsible for
>> > climate change/global warming. Shouldn't they be banned?
>> 
>> I think that we all are aware that dihydrogen monoxide is a major component
>> of acid rain.
>
>So are you claiming that "water is not an issue " in acid rain?

Components are for men, issues are for the ladies.


-- 
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/              http://www.pherber.com/

Graeme Wall  wrote:

> 
> It's also a major cause of flooding.

"Water is not an issue" in flooding, I'm sure some knobhed will be along
to inform you, in due course.

In message <g42ror$h7u$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
          "R.C. Payne"  wrote:

> Graeme Wall wrote:
> > In message <4864e06e$0$2475$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
> >           "GB"  wrote:
> > 
> >>"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
> >>news:iY2dnUicgvH7WPnVnZ2dnUVZ8tjinZ2d@bt.com...
> >>
> >>>>However, your assertions that "water is not an issue" and "CO2 is
> >>>>undoubtedly a greenhouse gas" are not credible, based on what we
> >>>>currently know. Water is an issue (but possibly one over which we
> >>>>have no direct control). CO2 is still thought likely to be a
> >>>>greenhouse gas, but it's one that's not understood 110 years after
> >>>>the original hypothesis.
> > > > AIUI chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide are also responsible for 
> > > > climate change/global warming. Shouldn't they be banned?
> > > I think that we all are aware that dihydrogen monoxide is a major
> > > component of acid rain.
> >>
> > 
> > It's also a major cause of flooding.
> 
> Don't forget that it can cause death by the simple act of inhaling it. 
> Moreover, almost all food is contaminated by it.
> 

I take elaborate precautions to keep it out of my whisky.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:43:22 +0100, "GB" 
wrote:

>I think that we all are aware that dihydrogen monoxide is a major component 
>of acid rain.

And can cause suffocation, and failure of any electrical equipment in
contact with it, with possible electrocution of the user as well.

Nasty stuff, isn't it!

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:4865102b.446639785@news.individual.net...
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:43:22 +0100, "GB" 
> wrote:
>
> >I think that we all are aware that dihydrogen monoxide is a major
component
> >of acid rain.
>
> And can cause suffocation, and failure of any electrical equipment in
> contact with it, with possible electrocution of the user as well.
>
> Nasty stuff, isn't it!
>
In the low temperature solid phase its insulating properties can cause
problems for electrically operated railways, while its low coefficient of
friction can be hazardous for road vehicles.

Peter

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1ij77yo.2r92m71osur40N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...


> So are you claiming that "water is not an issue " in acid rain?
>
> You really did hit every branch on the way down when you fell out of the
> fallacy tree.

I try not to feed the trolls.

Graeme Wall wrote:
> In message <g42ror$h7u$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
>           "R.C. Payne"  wrote:
> 
>> Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> In message <4864e06e$0$2475$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
>>>           "GB"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:iY2dnUicgvH7WPnVnZ2dnUVZ8tjinZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>>>> However, your assertions that "water is not an issue" and "CO2 is
>>>>>> undoubtedly a greenhouse gas" are not credible, based on what we
>>>>>> currently know. Water is an issue (but possibly one over which we
>>>>>> have no direct control). CO2 is still thought likely to be a
>>>>>> greenhouse gas, but it's one that's not understood 110 years after
>>>>>> the original hypothesis.
>>>>> AIUI chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide are also responsible for 
>>>>> climate change/global warming. Shouldn't they be banned?
>>>> I think that we all are aware that dihydrogen monoxide is a major
>>>> component of acid rain.
>>>>
>>> It's also a major cause of flooding.
>> Don't forget that it can cause death by the simple act of inhaling it. 
>> Moreover, almost all food is contaminated by it.
>>
> 
> I take elaborate precautions to keep it out of my whisky.
> 
<pedant>Whisky is about 60% dihydrogen oxide anyway</pedant>

-- 
Jeremy Double  {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/

Brimstone wrote:
> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>> In article <48601ce0$0$2490$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
>> "GB"  writes:
>>> "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>>> news:d-idnfFkWKhUYMLVnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>>>> It further generates "heat", carbon dioxide and water,
>>>> So what, unless you are stupid enough to believe the tiny, and it is
>>>> absolutely tiny, amount of heat, CO2 or water released will have
>>>> anything but a negligible impact. But that would require a complete
>>>> ignorance of the basic laws of nature.
>>> The amount of heat mankind produces is truly small compared to the
>>> amount from the sun. Water is not an issue. However, CO2 is
>>> undoubtedly a greenhouse gas.
>> You might want to take a peek back over the history of what we
>> know of the greenhouse effect and CO2. CO2 was first hypothesised
>> as responsible for the green house effect at the end of the 19th
>> century, based on laboratory tests of its spectral absorbtion.
>> The hypothesis was (and still is) quite plausible, but it was
>> well beyond science at the time to prove it.
>>
>> As the ability of experimental science in the atmosphere moved on,
>> people started embarking on tests to prove the earlier hypothesis.
>> There have been many attempts, but the proof has been elusive. What
>> has happened instead is that the tests have shown over the years
>> that increasing numbers of other gasses are contributors to the
>> greenhouse effect. So in the 1890's it was thought that CO2 was the
>> cause based on the hypothesis. The subsequent testing has shown that
>> other gasses are contributors too, but have not managed to show that
>> CO2 is a contributor. So the hypothesis has been gradually modified
>> to correct for CO2's dimishing contribution to the greenhouse effect
>> us we understand the science better over the years. We are now up to
>> the point where we can prove something of the order of 70-80% of the
>> greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, methane, and ozone,
>> (water vapour being by far the largest) and we still hypothsise that
>> the remainer is caused by CO2 as we have no other explaination, and
>> this is still plausible.
>>
>> However, your assertions that "water is not an issue" and "CO2 is
>> undoubtedly a greenhouse gas" are not credible, based on what we
>> currently know. Water is an issue (but possibly one over which we
>> have no direct control). CO2 is still thought likely to be a
>> greenhouse gas, but it's one that's not understood 110 years after
>> the original hypothesis.
> 
> AIUI chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide are also responsible for climate 
> change/global warming. Shouldn't they be banned? 

Dihydrogen oxide is also found in 100% of all cancers...

-- 
Jeremy Double  {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/

On 27 Jun, 19:09, Jeremy Double  wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
> > Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> >> In article <48601ce0$0$2490$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> >> "GB"  writes:
> >>> "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> >>>news:d-idnfFkWKhUYMLVnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> >>>>> It further generates "heat", carbon dioxide and water,
> >>>> So what, unless you are stupid enough to believe the tiny, and it is
> >>>> absolutely tiny, amount of heat, CO2 or water released will have
> >>>> anything but a negligible impact. But that would require a complete
> >>>> ignorance of the basic laws of nature.
> >>> The amount of heat mankind produces is truly small compared to the
> >>> amount from the sun. Water is not an issue. However, CO2 is
> >>> undoubtedly a greenhouse gas.
> >> You might want to take a peek back over the history of what we
> >> know of the greenhouse effect and CO2. CO2 was first hypothesised
> >> as responsible for the green house effect at the end of the 19th
> >> century, based on laboratory tests of its spectral absorbtion.
> >> The hypothesis was (and still is) quite plausible, but it was
> >> well beyond science at the time to prove it.
>
> >> As the ability of experimental science in the atmosphere moved on,
> >> people started embarking on tests to prove the earlier hypothesis.
> >> There have been many attempts, but the proof has been elusive. What
> >> has happened instead is that the tests have shown over the years
> >> that increasing numbers of other gasses are contributors to the
> >> greenhouse effect. So in the 1890's it was thought that CO2 was the
> >> cause based on the hypothesis. The subsequent testing has shown that
> >> other gasses are contributors too, but have not managed to show that
> >> CO2 is a contributor. So the hypothesis has been gradually modified
> >> to correct for CO2's dimishing contribution to the greenhouse effect
> >> us we understand the science better over the years. We are now up to
> >> the point where we can prove something of the order of 70-80% of the
> >> greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, methane, and ozone,
> >> (water vapour being by far the largest) and we still hypothsise that
> >> the remainer is caused by CO2 as we have no other explaination, and
> >> this is still plausible.
>
> >> However, your assertions that "water is not an issue" and "CO2 is
> >> undoubtedly a greenhouse gas" are not credible, based on what we
> >> currently know. Water is an issue (but possibly one over which we
> >> have no direct control). CO2 is still thought likely to be a
> >> greenhouse gas, but it's one that's not understood 110 years after
> >> the original hypothesis.
>
> > AIUI chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide are also responsible for climate
> > change/global warming. Shouldn't they be banned?
>
> Dihydrogen oxide is also found in 100% of all cancers...
>

But like ozone, there is more than one type.
 NM

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:07:53 +0100, Jeremy Double
 wrote:

>Graeme Wall wrote:
>> In message <g42ror$h7u$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
>>           "R.C. Payne"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>> In message <4864e06e$0$2475$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
>>>>           "GB"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Brimstone"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:iY2dnUicgvH7WPnVnZ2dnUVZ8tjinZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, your assertions that "water is not an issue" and "CO2 is
>>>>>>> undoubtedly a greenhouse gas" are not credible, based on what we
>>>>>>> currently know. Water is an issue (but possibly one over which we
>>>>>>> have no direct control). CO2 is still thought likely to be a
>>>>>>> greenhouse gas, but it's one that's not understood 110 years after
>>>>>>> the original hypothesis.
>>>>>> AIUI chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide are also responsible for 
>>>>>> climate change/global warming. Shouldn't they be banned?
>>>>> I think that we all are aware that dihydrogen monoxide is a major
>>>>> component of acid rain.
>>>>>
>>>> It's also a major cause of flooding.
>>> Don't forget that it can cause death by the simple act of inhaling it. 
>>> Moreover, almost all food is contaminated by it.
>>>
>> 
>> I take elaborate precautions to keep it out of my whisky.
>> 
><pedant>Whisky is about 60% dihydrogen oxide anyway</pedant>
>
That however is within safe limits. It becomes a hazard when more is
added.

Graeme Wall wrote:

> In message <g42ror$h7u$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
>           "R.C. Payne"  wrote:
> 
> 
>>Graeme Wall wrote:
>>
>>>In message <4864e06e$0$2475$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
>>>          "GB"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Brimstone"  wrote in message 
>>>>news:iY2dnUicgvH7WPnVnZ2dnUVZ8tjinZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>However, your assertions that "water is not an issue" and "CO2 is
>>>>>>undoubtedly a greenhouse gas" are not credible, based on what we
>>>>>>currently know. Water is an issue (but possibly one over which we
>>>>>>have no direct control). CO2 is still thought likely to be a
>>>>>>greenhouse gas, but it's one that's not understood 110 years after
>>>>>>the original hypothesis.
>>>>>
>>>>>AIUI chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide are also responsible for 
>>>>>climate change/global warming. Shouldn't they be banned?
>>>>
>>>>I think that we all are aware that dihydrogen monoxide is a major
>>>>component of acid rain.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's also a major cause of flooding.
>>
>>Don't forget that it can cause death by the simple act of inhaling it. 
>>Moreover, almost all food is contaminated by it.
>>
> 
> 
> I take elaborate precautions to keep it out of my whisky.

If it is a single malt, then I would advise a few drops in it. If it was 
a blend, then the only thing to add would be another un measure  ;-)

Dave

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> 
> However, your assertions that "water is not an issue" and "CO2 is
> undoubtedly a greenhouse gas" are not credible, based on what we
> currently know. Water is an issue (but possibly one over which we
> have no direct control). CO2 is still thought likely to be a
> greenhouse gas, but it's one that's not understood 110 years after
> the original hypothesis.
> 

If I understood him correctly the "but possibly one over which we have 
no direct control" is the reason why it isn't an issue.

If we control the pollutants (such as CO2 and particulates) which affect 
temperature directly, that will (may?) control the changes in the water 
vapour levels.

Andy

> Dihydrogen oxide is also found in 100% of all cancers...


And 100% of the people who have cancer drink dihydrogen oxide.



--
Cheers

Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:-
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Latitude:  48° 25' North
Longitude:  123° 21' West

"Roger T."  wrote in message 
news:365dddabbf8b25f43630dab7792fa18c@grapevine.islandnet.com...
>
>
>> Dihydrogen oxide is also found in 100% of all cancers...
>
>
> And 100% of the people who have cancer drink dihydrogen oxide.

It's a slow-acting poison. If you drink DHMO, you will die.

In article news:, Brimstone wrote:
> AIUI chemicals such as dihydrogen monoxide are also responsible for climate 
> change/global warming. Shouldn't they be banned?

Before this thread gets too much longer ... the dangers of DHMO are already 
well documented -- no need to repeat them ALL here!
http://www.dhmo.org/

Cheers,
 Daniel.

Doug wrote:
>                                      .................drive around in
> modest little electric runabouts powered by the sun. How humble would
> that be? Yeah sure! When Hell freezes over.

Where are these modest little electric runabouts then? Don't talk about 
the non crash worthy G-Whiz either. Are they available at a non 
exorbitant cost, or have they yet to be invented?


-- 
John Wright

"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin