Told you so!

"The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
ice melts

The North Pole can now be circumnavigated for the first time in
history, sparking fears that the melting Arctic ice cap has entered a
'death spiral'.

Satellite images reveal an opening in the famed North-west and North-
east passages, with water stretching all the way round the Arctic.

Until recently both passages had been blocked by ice since the start
of the last Ice Age..."

More:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050990/The-North-Pole-island-time-history-ice-melts.html

So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
ago?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:bd3d0ed2-5d9b-4928-91d3-daf1f8193172@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Told you so!
>
> "The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
> ice melts
>
> The North Pole can now be circumnavigated for the first time in
> history, sparking fears that the melting Arctic ice cap has entered a
> 'death spiral'.

I guess being able to circumnavigate the pole makes it transport-related, 
but still OT, as it's not like it's circumnavigating the UK (hint: the clue 
is in the newsgroup name).

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:bd3d0ed2-5d9b-4928-91d3-daf1f8193172@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
...
> Satellite images reveal an opening in the famed North-west and North-
> east passages, with water stretching all the way round the Arctic.
>
> Until recently both passages had been blocked by ice since the start
> of the last Ice Age..."

That would come as something of surprise to Baron Nordenskjöld, who 
navigated the North East Passage in 1878-1879 and to Roald Amundsen, who 
navigated the North West Passage in 1903-1906.

...
> So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
> ago?

Must be one of your famous 'local effects', given that the global average 
temperature is only just above the 30 year average at present.

Colin Bignell

Doug wrote:
> Told you so!
> 
> "The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
> ice melts
> 
> The North Pole can now be circumnavigated for the first time in
> history, sparking fears that the melting Arctic ice cap has entered a
> 'death spiral'.
> 
> Satellite images reveal an opening in the famed North-west and North-
> east passages, with water stretching all the way round the Arctic.
> 
> Until recently both passages had been blocked by ice since the start
> of the last Ice Age..."
> 
> More:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050990/The-North-Pole-island-time-history-ice-melts.html
> 
> So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
> ago?
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

There is no land mass at the North Pole so it can't be an island.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:bd3d0ed2-5d9b-4928-91d3-daf1f8193172@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>  last Ice Age..."
Agreed that the last Ice Age was a good film, but not as good as the first 
!!

Tony Dragon wrote:
> 
> Doug wrote:
> > Told you so!
> >
> > "The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
> > ice melts
> >
> > The North Pole can now be circumnavigated for the first time in
> > history, sparking fears that the melting Arctic ice cap has entered a
> > 'death spiral'.
> >
> > Satellite images reveal an opening in the famed North-west and North-
> > east passages, with water stretching all the way round the Arctic.
> >
> > Until recently both passages had been blocked by ice since the start
> > of the last Ice Age..."
> >
> > More:
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050990/The-North-Pole-island-time-history-ice-melts.html
> >
> > So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
> > ago?
> >
> > --
> > UK Radical Campaigns
> > www.zing.icom43.net
> > "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
> 
> There is no land mass at the North Pole so it can't be an island.

Not only that, but the North Pole has no area, it's only a point. Melting 
a point has less effect than melting a singe ice molecule.

johannes wrote:
> 
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> Told you so!
>>>
>>> "The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
>>> ice melts
>>>
>>> The North Pole can now be circumnavigated for the first time in
>>> history, sparking fears that the melting Arctic ice cap has entered a
>>> 'death spiral'.
>>>
>>> Satellite images reveal an opening in the famed North-west and North-
>>> east passages, with water stretching all the way round the Arctic.
>>>
>>> Until recently both passages had been blocked by ice since the start
>>> of the last Ice Age..."
>>>
>>> More:
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050990/The-North-Pole-island-time-history-ice-melts.html
>>>
>>> So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
>>> ago?
>>>
>>> --
>>> UK Radical Campaigns
>>> www.zing.icom43.net
>>> "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
>> There is no land mass at the North Pole so it can't be an island.
> 
> Not only that, but the North Pole has no area, it's only a point. Melting 
> a point has less effect than melting a singe ice molecule.

Add geography to the things Doug does not understand.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:59:02 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>Told you so!
>
>"The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
>ice melts
>
>The North Pole can now be circumnavigated for the first time in
>history, sparking fears that the melting Arctic ice cap has entered a
>'death spiral'.

Nope, you're wrong - as is the journo who wrote the piece you so
carefully cut and pasted
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

Petert wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:59:02 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
> wrote:
> 
>> Told you so!
>>
>> "The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
>> ice melts
>>
>> The North Pole can now be circumnavigated for the first time in
>> history, sparking fears that the melting Arctic ice cap has entered a
>> 'death spiral'.
> 
> Nope, you're wrong - as is the journo who wrote the piece you so
> carefully cut and pasted


Did you notice how he ignored the last sentence in the article?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:12:02 +0100, Tony Dragon
 wrote:

>Petert wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:59:02 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Told you so!
>>>
>>> "The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
>>> ice melts
>>>
>>> The North Pole can now be circumnavigated for the first time in
>>> history, sparking fears that the melting Arctic ice cap has entered a
>>> 'death spiral'.
>> 
>> Nope, you're wrong - as is the journo who wrote the piece you so
>> carefully cut and pasted
>
>
>Did you notice how he ignored the last sentence in the article?

Do you mean this one?

"But Sarah Palin, John McCain's new running mate, believes that the
consensus that global warming is behind the melting Arctic ice is
unreliable."
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

Petert wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:12:02 +0100, Tony Dragon
>  wrote:
> 
>> Petert wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:59:02 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Told you so!
>>>>
>>>> "The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
>>>> ice melts
>>>>
>>>> The North Pole can now be circumnavigated for the first time in
>>>> history, sparking fears that the melting Arctic ice cap has entered a
>>>> 'death spiral'.
>>> Nope, you're wrong - as is the journo who wrote the piece you so
>>> carefully cut and pasted
>>
>> Did you notice how he ignored the last sentence in the article?
> 
> Do you mean this one?
> 
> "But Sarah Palin, John McCain's new running mate, believes that the
> consensus that global warming is behind the melting Arctic ice is
> unreliable."

That's the one.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:36:45 +0100, Tony Dragon
 wrote:

>Petert wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:12:02 +0100, Tony Dragon
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Petert wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:59:02 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Told you so!
>>>>>
>>>>> "The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
>>>>> ice melts
>>>>>
>>>>> The North Pole can now be circumnavigated for the first time in
>>>>> history, sparking fears that the melting Arctic ice cap has entered a
>>>>> 'death spiral'.
>>>> Nope, you're wrong - as is the journo who wrote the piece you so
>>>> carefully cut and pasted
>>>
>>> Did you notice how he ignored the last sentence in the article?
>> 
>> Do you mean this one?
>> 
>> "But Sarah Palin, John McCain's new running mate, believes that the
>> consensus that global warming is behind the melting Arctic ice is
>> unreliable."
>
>That's the one.

She would be the Sarah Palin that's from Alaska then - that's the
Alaska that is quite close to the north pole
-- 
Only some ghastly, dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemaster.
Ken Livingstone 2001.

PeterT - "Reply to" address is a spam trap - all replies to the group please

Doug  wrote:

> "The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
> ice melts

It's not the first time in history though, is it Duhng.

Or does the phrase "Northwest Passage" mean nothing to you?

Oh, and please feel free to produce evidence that the melting of Arctic
ice was  caused by cars, and indeed any evidence at all that the Arctic
is an "island".

On 31 Aug, 16:24, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:bd3d0ed2-5d9b-4928-91d3-daf1f8193172@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>
> > Satellite images reveal an opening in the famed North-west and North-
> > east passages, with water stretching all the way round the Arctic.
>
> > Until recently both passages had been blocked by ice since the start
> > of the last Ice Age..."
>
> That would come as something of surprise to Baron Nordenskjöld, who
> navigated the North East Passage in 1878-1879 and to Roald Amundsen, who
> navigated the North West Passage in 1903-1906.
>
> ...
>
> > So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
> > ago?
>
> Must be one of your famous 'local effects', given that the global average
> temperature is only just above the 30 year average at present.
>
What 30 year average? Source? I see the usual motorists suspects, who
dominate this transport newsgroup, are still in denial of
anthropogenic global warming. I wonder how much longer they will be
able to cling to their fond imaginings as an excuse for their
pollution?

The Mail has updated its version:

"The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human
history.

Startling satellite pictures taken three days ago show that melting
ice has opened up the fabled North-West and North-East Passages -
making it possible to sail around the Arctic ice cap.

The opening of the passages has been eagerly awaited by shipping
companies which hope they will be able to cut thousands of miles off
their routes..."

"..The pictures, produced by Nasa, mark the first time in at least
125,000 years that the two shortcuts linking the Atlantic and Pacific
oceans have been ice-free at the same time.

In 2005, the North-East Passage around Russia opened, while the
western one, across the top of Canada, remained closed, and last year
the position was reversed.

But the satellite data shows that the North-West passage opened last
weekend and the remaining tongue of ice blocking the North-Eastern one
dissolved a few days later.

Professor Serreze, of the U.S. government-funded National Snow and Ice
Data Center, told a Sunday newspaper: 'The passages are open. It is an
historic event.

'We are going to see this more and more as the years go by.'..."

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

Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> Must be one of your famous 'local effects', given that the global
>> average temperature is only just above the 30 year average at present.

> What 30 year average? Source? 

Bwaahahahahha

> I see the usual motorists suspects, who dominate this transport 
> newsgroup, are still in denial of anthropogenic global warming. I 
> wonder how much longer they will be able to cling to their fond 
> imaginings as an excuse for their pollution?

Until somebody comes up with some compelling _evidence_...

> "..The pictures, produced by Nasa, mark the first time in at least
> 125,000 years that the two shortcuts linking the Atlantic and Pacific
> oceans have been ice-free at the same time.

And they know this... how...?

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:4976a2f8-02e5-4796-a142-3a802cdc90bb@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On 31 Aug, 16:24, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:bd3d0ed2-5d9b-4928-91d3-daf1f8193172@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>
> > Satellite images reveal an opening in the famed North-west and North-
> > east passages, with water stretching all the way round the Arctic.
>
> > Until recently both passages had been blocked by ice since the start
> > of the last Ice Age..."
>
> That would come as something of surprise to Baron Nordenskjöld, who
> navigated the North East Passage in 1878-1879 and to Roald Amundsen, who
> navigated the North West Passage in 1903-1906.
>
> ...
>
> > So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
> > ago?
>
>> Must be one of your famous 'local effects', given that the global average
>> temperature is only just above the 30 year average at present.
>
> What 30 year average? Source?

To quote my own reply, from last time you asked for my source:

'You can choose a source from the Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate
Change, the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) or the Remote Sensing
System (RSS), all of which agree that temperatures have been decreasing
since 1998, with current temperatures barely above the 30 year average. Only
NASA still shows temperatures increasing, but they are based upon surface
temperature measurements, with some serious gaps in their geographic spread
and the figures keep changing, due to the way they are estimated.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964 explains how they have been re-writing
history.. Both UAH and RSS, which are considered to be the most reliable
sources, use satellite data, which cover the entire globe equally and which
have been consistent in their application since records began. the main
limitation of the data is that they began in 1978.'

> I see the usual motorists suspects, who
> dominate this transport newsgroup, are still in denial of
> anthropogenic global warming. I wonder how much longer they will be
> able to cling to their fond imaginings as an excuse for their
> pollution?

I wonder how long you are going to keep ignoring the growing evidence that 
climate change - there has been no warming since 1998, sources as above - is 
driven by nature and that, if man has had any effect, it is trival by 
comparison. As I have mentioned before, sun spot cycle 24 is running very 
late, a phenomenon that has previously preceeded periods of global cooling 
that lasted decades.

> The Mail has updated its version:
....
> "..The pictures, produced by Nasa, mark the first time in at least
> 125,000 years that the two shortcuts linking the Atlantic and Pacific
> oceans have been ice-free at the same time...

That is impossible to know. We can only know for certain what has happened 
since we started taking satellite images. Nobody was even looking for the 
passages until the late 15th century, so we have no written records from 
before that. However, like you, the Mail has never been one to allow the 
facts to get in the way.

Colin Bignell

Doug  wrote in news:bd3d0ed2-5d9b-4928-91d3-daf1f8193172
@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:



 <snips doug spittle>


I hope this means lower transport costs when we take advantage of the 
short-cut. 



-- 
The above post may contain traces of irony

"johannes"  wrote in message 
news:48BADDA3.905021BB@sizefit827263653ter.com...
>
>
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>
>> Doug wrote:
>> > Told you so!
>> >
>> > "The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
>> > ice melts
>> >
>> > The North Pole can now be circumnavigated for the first time in
>> > history, sparking fears that the melting Arctic ice cap has entered a
>> > 'death spiral'.
>> >
>> > Satellite images reveal an opening in the famed North-west and North-
>> > east passages, with water stretching all the way round the Arctic.
>> >
>> > Until recently both passages had been blocked by ice since the start
>> > of the last Ice Age..."
>> >
>> > More:
>> >
>> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050990/The-North-Pole-island-time-history-ice-melts.html
>> >
>> > So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
>> > ago?
>> >
>> > --
>> > UK Radical Campaigns
>> > www.zing.icom43.net
>> > "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
>>
>> There is no land mass at the North Pole so it can't be an island.
>
> Not only that, but the North Pole has no area, it's only a point. Melting
> a point has less effect than melting a singe ice molecule.

More precisely it's 4 points, maybe Doug can clear up which one?
Last time this was big in the news Top Gear did some good old driving and 
drove to the Magnetic north pole to prove it was a load of envyroloon crap.


-- 
If we diverted all funding from climate change research into an examination 
of the tooth fairy you'd have a list of BScs and PhDs as long as my arm with 
computer models of her wings and credible theories as to her phone number.

Member of D.N.A.
National Dyslexics Association

On Aug 31, 9:25 pm, Petert  wrote:
> "But Sarah Palin, John McCain's new running mate, believes that the
> consensus that global warming is behind the melting Arctic ice is
> unreliable."

At the risk of seeming like I'm siding with Doug, the opinion of some
politician who's running mate with a geriatric who believes the earth
was created in 6 days and presumably goes in for the whole talking
snake in the magic garden routine , is irrelevant. Its what the
scientists think that matters. If only they could come to a consensus!

B2003

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:59:02 +0100, Doug wrote
(in article 
):

> Told you so!
> 
> "The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
> ice melts
> 
> The North Pole can now be circumnavigated for the first time in
> history, sparking fears that the melting Arctic ice cap has entered a
> 'death spiral'.
> 
> Satellite images reveal an opening in the famed North-west and North-
> east passages, with water stretching all the way round the Arctic.
> 
> Until recently both passages had been blocked by ice since the start
> of the last Ice Age..."
> 
> More:
> 
> 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050990/The-North-Pole-island-time-
his
> tory-ice-melts.html
> 
> So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
> ago?
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".


It's not an island just a very large iceberg and, as we are informed, 
icebergs are melting due to the earths cyclic temperature changes, such vast 
amounts of energy are involved that running a 4x4 is going to make fuck all 
difference. In fact I think united mankind's total best efforts could not 
change this natural cycle, thus I dismiss all ecoloony spoutings as claptrap.

I do not want to indiscriminately pollute, for the benefit of other species 
at least, that we can do something about but thinking you are going to have 
any influence on global temperature cycles is as stupid as believing in god. 

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sep 1, 11:25 am, nik.morgan  wrote:
> It's not an island just a very large iceberg and, as we are informed,
> icebergs are melting due to the earths cyclic temperature changes, such vast
> amounts of energy are involved that running a 4x4 is going to make fuck all
> difference. In fact I think united mankind's total best efforts could not
> change this natural cycle, thus I dismiss all ecoloony spoutings as claptrap.

Just because people like Doug spout drivel on a daily basis doesn't
mean its all rubbish.

> I do not want to indiscriminately pollute, for the benefit of other species
> at least, that we can do something about but thinking you are going to have
> any influence on global temperature cycles is as stupid as believing in god.

Errm , no. C02 is a greenhouse gas, thats a scientific fact. End of.
Therefor if humanity increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
then there will be a greater greenhouse effect from the CO2 content. I
think the jury is still out on how this will effect the climate but
saying it will have no effect just because its man made is just as
daft as some of the rubbish that Doug as his yoghurt knitting friends
come up with.

B2003

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 11:39:50 +0100, Boltar wrote
(in article 
):

> On Sep 1, 11:25 am, nik.morgan  wrote:
>> It's not an island just a very large iceberg and, as we are informed,
>> icebergs are melting due to the earths cyclic temperature changes, such vast
>> amounts of energy are involved that running a 4x4 is going to make fuck all
>> difference. In fact I think united mankind's total best efforts could not
>> change this natural cycle, thus I dismiss all ecoloony spoutings as 
>> claptrap.
> 
> Just because people like Doug spout drivel on a daily basis doesn't
> mean its all rubbish.
> 
>> I do not want to indiscriminately pollute, for the benefit of other species
>> at least, that we can do something about but thinking you are going to have
>> any influence on global temperature cycles is as stupid as believing in god.
> 
> Errm , no. C02 is a greenhouse gas, thats a scientific fact. End of.
> Therefor if humanity increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
> then there will be a greater greenhouse effect from the CO2 content. I
> think the jury is still out on how this will effect the climate but
> saying it will have no effect just because its man made is just as
> daft as some of the rubbish that Doug as his yoghurt knitting friends
> come up with.
> 
> B2003
> 

Errm, Yes,  The combined co2 emissions of mankind is nothing compared to the 
natural cycles involving co2  now and for aeons before. 

The most realistic thing we could do environmentally, to aid the planet, 
would be to cull 90% of the humans who infest it.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sep 1, 11:56 am, nik.morgan  wrote:
> Errm, Yes,  The combined co2 emissions of mankind is nothing compared to the
> natural cycles involving co2  now and for aeons before.

Errm no. I suggest you read up more on the subject. Other than when
theres a massive voolcanic explosion or similar major event the carbon
cycle is more or in balance - the CO2 content in the atmosphere
generally remains the same until one of these events kicks it out of
kilter. Very few of these events have almost doubled the CO2 content
of the atmosphere which is what mankind has managed in the last few
hundred years. If you seriously think that doubling the amount of a
major greenhouse component in the atmosphere will have no effect then
you're deluding yourself.

> The most realistic thing we could do environmentally, to aid the planet,
> would be to cull 90% of the humans who infest it.

Wont disagree there. You going to volunteer though?

B2003

On Sep 1, 8:55 am, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> I wonder how long you are going to keep ignoring the growing evidence that
> climate change - there has been no warming since 1998, sources as above - is
> driven by nature and that, if man has had any effect, it is trival by
> comparison. As I have mentioned before, sun spot cycle 24 is running very
> late, a phenomenon that has previously preceeded periods of global cooling
> that lasted decades


Hmm yes , the sun. I bet none of those clever dick phd scientists with
decades of climate and meteorological research behind them ever
thought of that. You should write up your thesis now and show them up
for the fools they are.

B2003

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:09:06 +0100, Boltar wrote
(in article 
):

> On Sep 1, 11:56 am, nik.morgan  wrote:
>> Errm, Yes,  The combined co2 emissions of mankind is nothing compared to the
>> natural cycles involving co2  now and for aeons before.
> 
> Errm no. I suggest you read up more on the subject. Other than when
> theres a massive voolcanic explosion or similar major event the carbon
> cycle is more or in balance - the CO2 content in the atmosphere
> generally remains the same until one of these events kicks it out of
> kilter. Very few of these events have almost doubled the CO2 content
> of the atmosphere which is what mankind has managed in the last few
> hundred years. If you seriously think that doubling the amount of a
> major greenhouse component in the atmosphere will have no effect then
> you're deluding yourself.

Just one, even a minor one, of your unscheduled co2 events has more effect 
than humans have ever had, yet somehow the planet adjusts exactly as it has 
since time began. If these natural cycles result in the demise of our species 
then there is nothing we can do about it, the scale of the forces involved 
make our efforts puny by comparison,  if you think global climate change is 
man driven then you are delusional.

I would support efforts to cope with the effects of climate change, this is  
realistic compared with trying to evoke change.

> 
>> The most realistic thing we could do environmentally, to aid the planet,
>> would be to cull 90% of the humans who infest it.
> 
> Wont disagree there. You going to volunteer though?
> 
> B2003
> 

I've done my bit, I have no children.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sep 1, 12:48 pm, nik.morgan  wrote:
> Just one, even a minor one, of your unscheduled co2 events has more effect
> than humans have ever had, yet somehow the planet adjusts exactly as it has
> since time began. If these natural cycles result in the demise of our species
> then there is nothing we can do about it, the scale of the forces involved

Well thats the point isn't it. I don't think anyone is suggesting
we're going to turn the earth into a barren wasteland devoid of life ,
but we may (or may not) mess it up enough to make our lives pretty
unpleasant. Now you may not care about that but I do and so do plenty
of others.

> make our efforts puny by comparison,  if you think global climate change is
> man driven then you are delusional.

Similarly if you think what we do will have no effect then I think
you're being optimistic. There will probably be feedback effects that
kick in with raised temperatures such as more cloud cover etc that
could mitigate much of the change - problem is no one really knows ,
but pretending that we're not forcing the climate just as much as if
this CO2 rise had occurred naturally is just ignoring basic physics.
CO2 is CO2 whatever the source - it doesn't know or care about its
provenance.

B2003

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:11:00 +0100, Boltar wrote
(in article 
):

> On Sep 1, 12:48 pm, nik.morgan  wrote:
>> Just one, even a minor one, of your unscheduled co2 events has more effect
>> than humans have ever had, yet somehow the planet adjusts exactly as it has
>> since time began. If these natural cycles result in the demise of our 
>> species
>> then there is nothing we can do about it, the scale of the forces involved
> 
> Well thats the point isn't it. I don't think anyone is suggesting
> we're going to turn the earth into a barren wasteland devoid of life ,

Agreed, though we could if we engaged in global thermonecular war, but 
measured in geological time frames even that would only be temporary.

> but we may (or may not) mess it up enough to make our lives pretty
> unpleasant. Now you may not care about that but I do and so do plenty
> of others.

The crucial word here is 'may' signifying that this is, at best, a guess. 
Sorry I don't subscribe to the same conclusions. Got any hard evidence to 
back up the scaremongering?

> 
>> make our efforts puny by comparison,  if you think global climate change is
>> man driven then you are delusional.
> 
> Similarly if you think what we do will have no effect then I think
> you're being optimistic. 

Evidence?

There will probably be feedback effects that
> kick in with raised temperatures such as more cloud cover etc that
> could mitigate much of the change - problem is no one really knows ,

Probably, that's another good word, signifying yet again guesswork.

> but pretending that we're not forcing the climate just as much as if
> this CO2 rise had occurred naturally is just ignoring basic physics.

Evidence? 

> CO2 is CO2 whatever the source - it doesn't know or care about its
> provenance.

Seems you also don't care about facts, Daily Wail reader are we? 

CO2 is important, it''s a new label that governments can float rafts of new 
taxation on, use to form new quango's to deal with it and create a whole new 
industry with it's support systems, a real money spinner.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

I'm really thinking about changing my POV about the whole subject - car 
drivers are picked on more than any other "contributor" to GW

In Japan the Jazz will get new 1.3 and 1.5 litre engines that are cleaner in 
every respect except CO2 which European legislation seems to pick on so 
we'll get revised versions of the older engines

Even the same with refuse - the public contribut at most 10% of landfill 
refuse YET will Gov. or the EU even mention the 90% i.e big business ?

maybe it is a con to get more tax  after all it appears to have nothing to 
do with common sense ?

nik. morgan wrote:

> The crucial word here is 'may' signifying that this is, at best, a guess.
> Sorry I don't subscribe to the same conclusions. Got any hard evidence to
> back up the scaremongering?

Yes mate , its called physics. CO2 absorbs certain infra red
frequencies, converts the EM energy into kinetic and vibrational
energy and shares it out with the rest of the atmosphere via
mollecular collisions - ie it heats the other gases up. More CO2 =
more absorbtion of infra red = more heating of the atmosphere. Argue
away all you want , but you might as well argue that 2+2 doesn't equal
4. The effect this heating will have is the unknown, not the heating
itself.

B2003

Doug wrote:

> "The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
> ice melts

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050990/The-North-Pole-island-time-history-ice-melts.html
> 
> So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
> ago?

Says the Daily Mail. Care to post a link to a peer reviewed paper instead?

-- 
Abo

nightjar <cpb@ wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message 
> news:4976a2f8-02e5-4796-a142-3a802cdc90bb@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 31 Aug, 16:24, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:bd3d0ed2-5d9b-4928-91d3-daf1f8193172@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> ...
>>
>>> Satellite images reveal an opening in the famed North-west and North-
>>> east passages, with water stretching all the way round the Arctic.
>>> Until recently both passages had been blocked by ice since the start
>>> of the last Ice Age..."
>> That would come as something of surprise to Baron Nordenskjöld, who
>> navigated the North East Passage in 1878-1879 and to Roald Amundsen, who
>> navigated the North West Passage in 1903-1906.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
>>> ago?
>>> Must be one of your famous 'local effects', given that the global average
>>> temperature is only just above the 30 year average at present.
>> What 30 year average? Source?
> 
> To quote my own reply, from last time you asked for my source:
> 
> 'You can choose a source from the Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate
> Change, the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) or the Remote Sensing
> System (RSS), all of which agree that temperatures have been decreasing
> since 1998, with current temperatures barely above the 30 year average. Only
> NASA still shows temperatures increasing, but they are based upon surface
> temperature measurements, with some serious gaps in their geographic spread
> and the figures keep changing, due to the way they are estimated.
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964 explains how they have been re-writing
> history.. Both UAH and RSS, which are considered to be the most reliable
> sources, use satellite data, which cover the entire globe equally and which
> have been consistent in their application since records began. the main
> limitation of the data is that they began in 1978.'
> 
>> I see the usual motorists suspects, who
>> dominate this transport newsgroup, are still in denial of
>> anthropogenic global warming. I wonder how much longer they will be
>> able to cling to their fond imaginings as an excuse for their
>> pollution?
> 
> I wonder how long you are going to keep ignoring the growing evidence that 
> climate change - there has been no warming since 1998, sources as above - is 
> driven by nature and that, if man has had any effect, it is trival by 
> comparison. As I have mentioned before, sun spot cycle 24 is running very 
> late, a phenomenon that has previously preceeded periods of global cooling 
> that lasted decades.

Do you believe the opposite to be true, in that increased sun spot 
numbers leads to a warming of the Earth's climate?

-- 
Abo

On 1 Sep, 08:55, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:4976a2f8-02e5-4796-a142-3a802cdc90bb@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 31 Aug, 16:24, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> >news:bd3d0ed2-5d9b-4928-91d3-daf1f8193172@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com..> > > Satellite images reveal an opening in the famed North-west and North-
> > > east passages, with water stretching all the way round the Arctic.
>
> > > Until recently both passages had been blocked by ice since the start
> > > of the last Ice Age..."
>
> > That would come as something of surprise to Baron Nordenskjöld, who
> > navigated the North East Passage in 1878-1879 and to Roald Amundsen, who
> > navigated the North West Passage in 1903-1906.
>
> > ...
>
> > > So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
> > > ago?
>
> >> Must be one of your famous 'local effects', given that the global average
> >> temperature is only just above the 30 year average at present.
>
> > What 30 year average? Source?
>
> To quote my own reply, from last time you asked for my source:
>
> 'You can choose a source from the Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate
> Change,
>
Hmm, yes, quote Hadley Centre: "...A brief look at the graph depicting
January global average temperatures reveals large variability in our
climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term
almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases..."

"...In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to
remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this
kind."

Next time it would help if you actually read your source and also gave
the relevant URL.
>
> the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) or the Remote Sensing
> System (RSS), all of which agree that temperatures have been decreasing
> since 1998, with current temperatures barely above the 30 year average. Only
> NASA still shows temperatures increasing, but they are based upon surface
> temperature measurements, with some serious gaps in their geographic spread
> and the figures keep changing, due to the way they are estimated.http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964explains how they have been re-writing
> history.. Both UAH and RSS, which are considered to be the most reliable
> sources, use satellite data, which cover the entire globe equally and which
> have been consistent in their application since records began. the main
> limitation of the data is that they began in 1978.'
>
Checkout:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability.html
>
> > I see the usual motorists suspects, who
> > dominate this transport newsgroup, are still in denial of
> > anthropogenic global warming. I wonder how much longer they will be
> > able to cling to their fond imaginings as an excuse for their
> > pollution?
>
> I wonder how long you are going to keep ignoring the growing evidence that
> climate change - there has been no warming since 1998, sources as above - is
> driven by nature and that, if man has had any effect, it is trival by
> comparison. As I have mentioned before, sun spot cycle 24 is running very
> late, a phenomenon that has previously preceeded periods of global cooling
> that lasted decades.
>
See above, GW denier.
>
>
> > The Mail has updated its version:
> ....
> > "..The pictures, produced by Nasa, mark the first time in at least
> > 125,000 years that the two shortcuts linking the Atlantic and Pacific
> > oceans have been ice-free at the same time...
>
> That is impossible to know. We can only know for certain what has happened
> since we started taking satellite images. Nobody was even looking for the
> passages until the late 15th century, so we have no written records from
> before that. However, like you, the Mail has never been one to allow the
> facts to get in the way.
>
What about ice cores?

Check this out then:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/3.html

"...The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are
linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as
those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This
caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse
effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and
CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in
CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent
warming."

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

Doug wrote:
> On 1 Sep, 08:55, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:4976a2f8-02e5-4796-a142-3a802cdc90bb@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> On 31 Aug, 16:24, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>>> news:bd3d0ed2-5d9b-4928-91d3-daf1f8193172@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> ...
>>
>>>> Satellite images reveal an opening in the famed North-west and
>>>> North- east passages, with water stretching all the way round the
>>>> Arctic.
>>
>>>> Until recently both passages had been blocked by ice since the
>>>> start
>>>> of the last Ice Age..."
>>
>>> That would come as something of surprise to Baron Nordenskjöld, who
>>> navigated the North East Passage in 1878-1879 and to Roald
>>> Amundsen, who navigated the North West Passage in 1903-1906.
>>
>>> ...
>>
>>>> So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
>>>> ago?
>>
>>>> Must be one of your famous 'local effects', given that the global
>>>> average temperature is only just above the 30 year average at
>>>> present.
>>
>>> What 30 year average? Source?
>>
>> To quote my own reply, from last time you asked for my source:
>>
>> 'You can choose a source from the Met Office Hadley Centre for
>> Climate
>> Change,
>>
> Hmm, yes, quote Hadley Centre: "...A brief look at the graph depicting
> January global average temperatures reveals large variability in our
> climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term
> almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases..."
>
> "...In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to
> remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this
> kind."
>
> Next time it would help if you actually read your source and also gave
> the relevant URL.
>>
>> the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) or the Remote Sensing
>> System (RSS), all of which agree that temperatures have been
>> decreasing
>> since 1998, with current temperatures barely above the 30 year
>> average. Only
>> NASA still shows temperatures increasing, but they are based upon
>> surface
>> temperature measurements, with some serious gaps in their geographic
>> spread
>> and the figures keep changing, due to the way they are
>> estimated.http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964explains how they have
>> been re-writing history.. Both UAH and RSS, which are considered to
>> be the most reliable
>> sources, use satellite data, which cover the entire globe equally
>> and which
>> have been consistent in their application since records began. the
>> main
>> limitation of the data is that they began in 1978.'
>>
> Checkout:
>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability.html
>>
>>> I see the usual motorists suspects, who
>>> dominate this transport newsgroup, are still in denial of
>>> anthropogenic global warming. I wonder how much longer they will be
>>> able to cling to their fond imaginings as an excuse for their
>>> pollution?
>>
>> I wonder how long you are going to keep ignoring the growing
>> evidence that
>> climate change - there has been no warming since 1998, sources as
>> above - is
>> driven by nature and that, if man has had any effect, it is trival by
>> comparison. As I have mentioned before, sun spot cycle 24 is running
>> very
>> late, a phenomenon that has previously preceeded periods of global
>> cooling
>> that lasted decades.
>>
> See above, GW denier.
>>
>>
>>> The Mail has updated its version:
>> ....
>>> "..The pictures, produced by Nasa, mark the first time in at least
>>> 125,000 years that the two shortcuts linking the Atlantic and
>>> Pacific oceans have been ice-free at the same time...
>>
>> That is impossible to know. We can only know for certain what has
>> happened
>> since we started taking satellite images. Nobody was even looking
>> for the
>> passages until the late 15th century, so we have no written records
>> from
>> before that. However, like you, the Mail has never been one to allow
>> the
>> facts to get in the way.
>>
> What about ice cores?
>
> Check this out then:
>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/3.html
>
> "...The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are
> linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as
> those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This
> caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse
> effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and
> CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in
> CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent
> warming."

What dates are these quotes Doug?

nik.morgan wrote:

> Just one, even a minor one, of your unscheduled co2 events has more effect 
> than humans have ever had, yet somehow the planet adjusts exactly as it has 
> since time began. If these natural cycles result in the demise of our species 
> then there is nothing we can do about it, the scale of the forces involved 
> make our efforts puny by comparison,  if you think global climate change is 
> man driven then you are delusional.

Such as a volcanic eruption? The CO2 output due to eruptions is about 
200 millions tons per year. Humans put out about 30 billion tons in 
comparison.

-- 
Abo

"Boltar"  wrote in message 
news:a9803ba1-6ba8-47fe-b4cf-8055cf2714aa@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 1, 8:55 am, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> I wonder how long you are going to keep ignoring the growing evidence 
>> that
>> climate change - there has been no warming since 1998, sources as above - 
>> is
>> driven by nature and that, if man has had any effect, it is trival by
>> comparison. As I have mentioned before, sun spot cycle 24 is running very
>> late, a phenomenon that has previously preceeded periods of global 
>> cooling
>> that lasted decades
>
>
> Hmm yes , the sun. I bet none of those clever dick phd scientists with
> decades of climate and meteorological research behind them ever
> thought of that.

You would lose the bet. Russian climatologists have been predicting a global 
cooling cycle, starting around 2012, based upon solar activity, for some 
years now. However, most of the rest of the world's governments have nailed 
their flags to the mast of CO2 reduction, so anything that does not support 
that tends to get dismissed.

Colin Bignell

"Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
news:g9h5tc$55r$1@news.albasani.net...
> nightjar <cpb@ wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message 
>> news:4976a2f8-02e5-4796-a142-3a802cdc90bb@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> On 31 Aug, 16:24, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:bd3d0ed2-5d9b-4928-91d3-daf1f8193172@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Satellite images reveal an opening in the famed North-west and North-
>>>> east passages, with water stretching all the way round the Arctic.
>>>> Until recently both passages had been blocked by ice since the start
>>>> of the last Ice Age..."
>>> That would come as something of surprise to Baron Nordenskjöld, who
>>> navigated the North East Passage in 1878-1879 and to Roald Amundsen, who
>>> navigated the North West Passage in 1903-1906.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> So, warmest since the start of the last ice age about 90.000 years
>>>> ago?
>>>> Must be one of your famous 'local effects', given that the global 
>>>> average
>>>> temperature is only just above the 30 year average at present.
>>> What 30 year average? Source?
>>
>> To quote my own reply, from last time you asked for my source:
>>
>> 'You can choose a source from the Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate
>> Change, the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) or the Remote 
>> Sensing
>> System (RSS), all of which agree that temperatures have been decreasing
>> since 1998, with current temperatures barely above the 30 year average. 
>> Only
>> NASA still shows temperatures increasing, but they are based upon surface
>> temperature measurements, with some serious gaps in their geographic 
>> spread
>> and the figures keep changing, due to the way they are estimated.
>> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964 explains how they have been 
>> re-writing
>> history.. Both UAH and RSS, which are considered to be the most reliable
>> sources, use satellite data, which cover the entire globe equally and 
>> which
>> have been consistent in their application since records began. the main
>> limitation of the data is that they began in 1978.'
>>
>>> I see the usual motorists suspects, who
>>> dominate this transport newsgroup, are still in denial of
>>> anthropogenic global warming. I wonder how much longer they will be
>>> able to cling to their fond imaginings as an excuse for their
>>> pollution?
>>
>> I wonder how long you are going to keep ignoring the growing evidence 
>> that climate change - there has been no warming since 1998, sources as 
>> above - is driven by nature and that, if man has had any effect, it is 
>> trival by comparison. As I have mentioned before, sun spot cycle 24 is 
>> running very late, a phenomenon that has previously preceeded periods of 
>> global cooling that lasted decades.
>
> Do you believe the opposite to be true, in that increased sun spot numbers 
> leads to a warming of the Earth's climate?

Unlike Doug, I don't draw hard conclusions from incomplete data. However, 
the last half of the 20th century saw the sun in one of its most active 
periods for about 10,000 years and also saw a significant rise in global 
average temperatures. That does not show cause and effect, but it does give 
reason to question whether there is a link. Unfortunately, we only have 30 
years' worth of data for solar radiative energy, so there is nothing from 
before the recent global warming cycle began to compare it with. Overall, I 
would tend to the view that, if low solar activity is linked with low global 
temperatures, which history seems to suggest may be true, then the converse 
also ought to be true.

Colin Bignell

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:37:40 +0100, Boltar wrote
(in article 
):

> 
> nik. morgan wrote:
> 
>> The crucial word here is 'may' signifying that this is, at best, a guess.
>> Sorry I don't subscribe to the same conclusions. Got any hard evidence to
>> back up the scaremongering?
> 
> Yes mate , its called physics. CO2 absorbs certain infra red
> frequencies, converts the EM energy into kinetic and vibrational
> energy and shares it out with the rest of the atmosphere via
> mollecular collisions - ie it heats the other gases up. More CO2 =
> more absorbtion of infra red = more heating of the atmosphere. Argue
> away all you want , but you might as well argue that 2+2 doesn't equal
> 4. The effect this heating will have is the unknown, not the heating
> itself.
> 
> B2003
> 

That's not hard evidence, the physics bit is fine it's the scaremongering I 
was referring to, no proof, now there's a surprise.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:14:31 +0100, Abo wrote
(in article <g9h7tt$7f6$1@news.albasani.net>):

> nik.morgan wrote:
> 
>> Just one, even a minor one, of your unscheduled co2 events has more effect 
>> than humans have ever had, yet somehow the planet adjusts exactly as it has 
>> since time began. If these natural cycles result in the demise of our 
>> species 
>> then there is nothing we can do about it, the scale of the forces involved 
>> make our efforts puny by comparison,  if you think global climate change is 
>> man driven then you are delusional.
> 
> Such as a volcanic eruption? The CO2 output due to eruptions is about 
> 200 millions tons per year. Humans put out about 30 billion tons in 
> comparison.
> 
> 

Don't think so, how much by natural means? and by man? Man has only been 
industrially active on a large scale for a few years, hardly enough to 
scratch the surface of that which has gone before.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:166c4e7a-4b1c-4fef-970b-7fdc76fae01b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
....
>
> Hmm, yes, quote Hadley Centre: "...A brief look at the graph depicting
> January global average temperatures reveals large variability in our
> climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term
> almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases..."
>
> "...In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to
> remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this
> kind."
>
> Next time it would help if you actually read your source and also gave
> the relevant URL.

I am well aware of the views, presented as fact by a government body. 
However, I was looking at the data they produced, not the speculation. The 
Hadley Centre data also suffers from the same problem that the NASA data 
does; it is based on surface temperature measurements, which means fixed 
point measurements, more likely to be near centres of population than in 
remote areas, which makes it all the more surprising that they do not show 
any increase in global temperatures since 1998 - note the use of standard 
government fudge terms like 'underlying rise over the longer term' and 'is 
predicted to remain upwards' to avoid drawing attention to that by discusing 
actual figures.

I would give you URLs, but I'm not sure you would know what to do with the 
information. Here is one example:

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Translated, globally, June 2008 is provisionally 0.11C below the average for 
the past 20 years, while May is 0.18C below. This is based upon satellite 
data, which measures the whole globe from the surface to about 8km above sea 
level and is considered much more reliable than surface temperature 
measurements.

....
> > "..The pictures, produced by Nasa, mark the first time in at least
> > 125,000 years that the two shortcuts linking the Atlantic and Pacific
> > oceans have been ice-free at the same time...
>
> That is impossible to know. We can only know for certain what has happened
> since we started taking satellite images. Nobody was even looking for the
> passages until the late 15th century, so we have no written records from
> before that. However, like you, the Mail has never been one to allow the
> facts to get in the way.
>
> What about ice cores?

What about them? We know the passages were open no later than the early 20th 
century, so the ice covering them cannot be older than that.

> Check this out then:
>
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/3.html
>
> "...The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are
> linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as
> those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This
> caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse
> effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and
> CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in
> CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent
> warming."

That is, indeed, the official government line. I do not believe in the 
infallibility of governments, even if they do.

Colin Bignell

nik.morgan wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:14:31 +0100, Abo wrote
> (in article <g9h7tt$7f6$1@news.albasani.net>):
> 
>> nik.morgan wrote:
>>
>>> Just one, even a minor one, of your unscheduled co2 events has more effect 
>>> than humans have ever had, yet somehow the planet adjusts exactly as it has 
>>> since time began. If these natural cycles result in the demise of our 
>>> species 
>>> then there is nothing we can do about it, the scale of the forces involved 
>>> make our efforts puny by comparison,  if you think global climate change is 
>>> man driven then you are delusional.
>> Such as a volcanic eruption? The CO2 output due to eruptions is about 
>> 200 millions tons per year. Humans put out about 30 billion tons in 
>> comparison.
>>
>>
> 
> Don't think so, how much by natural means? and by man? Man has only been 
> industrially active on a large scale for a few years, hardly enough to 
> scratch the surface of that which has gone before.

I see what you're saying; if for arguements sake there has been an 
increase in CO2 due to man of 7.5% per year since the beginning of the 
industrial revolution (which kind of puts us at the 30 billion tons we 
chuck out today) then it was only about 65 years ago we overtook the CO2 
output from volcanos. But in that 65 years or so we've put out the same 
amount of CO2 as nearly 2000 years of vulcanism. If you go forward with 
that same 7.5% increase then in just ten years we've put out another 
2000 years vulcanism equivalent. Yes; back of the fag packet maths, I know.

Dunno what that 'proves'; maybe nothing? But IME we *do* put out a 
fuckload of CO2, and CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas. I agree with what has 
been said elsewherethough; whether it is enough to permanantly fuck up 
the climate is up for debate.

-- 
Abo

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 20:56:26 +0100, Abo wrote
(in article <g9hhdh$mqg$1@news.albasani.net>):

> nik.morgan wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:14:31 +0100, Abo wrote
>> (in article <g9h7tt$7f6$1@news.albasani.net>):
>> 
>>> nik.morgan wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Just one, even a minor one, of your unscheduled co2 events has more 
>>>> effect 
>>>> than humans have ever had, yet somehow the planet adjusts exactly as it 
>>>> has 
>>>> since time began. If these natural cycles result in the demise of our 
>>>> species 
>>>> then there is nothing we can do about it, the scale of the forces 
>>>> involved 
>>>> make our efforts puny by comparison,  if you think global climate change 
>>>> is 
>>>> man driven then you are delusional.
>>> Such as a volcanic eruption? The CO2 output due to eruptions is about 
>>> 200 millions tons per year. Humans put out about 30 billion tons in 
>>> comparison.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Don't think so, how much by natural means? and by man? Man has only been 
>> industrially active on a large scale for a few years, hardly enough to 
>> scratch the surface of that which has gone before.
> 
> I see what you're saying; if for arguements sake there has been an 
> increase in CO2 due to man of 7.5% per year since the beginning of the 
> industrial revolution (which kind of puts us at the 30 billion tons we 
> chuck out today) then it was only about 65 years ago we overtook the CO2 
> output from volcanos. But in that 65 years or so we've put out the same 
> amount of CO2 as nearly 2000 years of vulcanism. If you go forward with 
> that same 7.5% increase then in just ten years we've put out another 
> 2000 years vulcanism equivalent. Yes; back of the fag packet maths, I know.
> 
> Dunno what that 'proves'; maybe nothing? But IME we *do* put out a 
> fuckload of CO2, and CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas. I agree with what has 
> been said elsewherethough; whether it is enough to permanantly fuck up 
> the climate is up for debate.
> 
> 

And a sizeable perfectly natural eruption tomorrow will blow all the man made 
co2 arguments away.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
news:g9hhdh$mqg$1@news.albasani.net...
>
> Dunno what that 'proves'; maybe nothing? But IME we *do* put out a fuckload 
> of CO2,

Geocraft put Man made CO2 at 3.225% oddly the pro-CO2 = GW groups don't like 
to post total figures.


"The natural CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere and the Earths surface are 
typically much larger than the CO2 fluxes arising from manmade CO2 emissions, 
making the detection of regional anthropogenic CO2 emission signals quite 
difficult," Buchwitz (European Space Agency)


-- 
If we diverted all funding from climate change research into an examination 
of the tooth fairy you'd have a list of BScs and PhDs as long as my arm with 
computer models of her wings and credible theories as to her phone number.

Member of D.N.A.
National Dyslexics Association

On 1 Sep, 20:42, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:166c4e7a-4b1c-4fef-970b-7fdc76fae01b@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> ....
>
>
>
> > Hmm, yes, quote Hadley Centre: "...A brief look at the graph depicting
> > January global average temperatures reveals large variability in our
> > climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term
> > almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases..."
>
> > "...In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to
> > remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this
> > kind."
>
> > Next time it would help if you actually read your source and also gave
> > the relevant URL.
>
> I am well aware of the views, presented as fact by a government body.
> However, I was looking at the data they produced, not the speculation. The
> Hadley Centre data also suffers from the same problem that the NASA data
> does; it is based on surface temperature measurements, which means fixed
> point measurements, more likely to be near centres of population than in
> remote areas, which makes it all the more surprising that they do not show
> any increase in global temperatures since 1998 - note the use of standard
> government fudge terms like 'underlying rise over the longer term' and 'is
> predicted to remain upwards' to avoid drawing attention to that by discusing
> actual figures.
>
So now you are saying the source you gave was not much use after all
or even wrong?
>
> I would give you URLs, but I'm not sure you would know what to do with the
> information. Here is one example:
>
> http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
>
I don't see what you consider so special about the University of
Alabama, compared with, say, the specialist Met Office and IPCC. Also,
like all the other GW/CC motorist deniers on this newsgroup you make
the same odd mistake of confusing timescales as well as global/local.
1978-2008 is a mere fluctuation blip in GW, which has shown a
significant rise since the onset of the industrial revolution as all
records show.
>
> Translated, globally, June 2008 is provisionally 0.11C below the average for
> the past 20 years, while May is 0.18C below. This is based upon satellite
> data, which measures the whole globe from the surface to about 8km above sea
> level and is considered much more reliable than surface temperature
> measurements.
>
Again, 20 years is a mere blip.

What makes you seriously imagine that the Met Office, with all their
considerable experience and resources, is wrong with its
interpretation of data while you alone are correct?
> ....
>
> > > "..The pictures, produced by Nasa, mark the first time in at least
> > > 125,000 years that the two shortcuts linking the Atlantic and Pacific
> > > oceans have been ice-free at the same time...
>
> > That is impossible to know. We can only know for certain what has happened
> > since we started taking satellite images. Nobody was even looking for the
> > passages until the late 15th century, so we have no written records from
> > before that. However, like you, the Mail has never been one to allow the
> > facts to get in the way.
>
> > What about ice cores?
>
> What about them? We know the passages were open no later than the early 20th
> century, so the ice covering them cannot be older than that.
>
Ice cores are a very ancient record.
>
> > Check this out then:
>
> >http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/3.html
>
> > "...The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are
> > linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as
> > those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This
> > caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse
> > effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and
> > CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in
> > CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent
> > warming."
>
> That is, indeed, the official government line. I do not believe in the
> infallibility of governments, even if they do.
>
And I don't believe in the infallibility of individual motorist
polluters like you who have a vested interest in denying GW.

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

On 1 Sep, 18:17, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
wrote:
> "Boltar"  wrote in message
>
> news:a9803ba1-6ba8-47fe-b4cf-8055cf2714aa@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 8:55 am, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> I wonder how long you are going to keep ignoring the growing evidence
> >> that
> >> climate change - there has been no warming since 1998, sources as above -
> >> is
> >> driven by nature and that, if man has had any effect, it is trival by
> >> comparison. As I have mentioned before, sun spot cycle 24 is running very
> >> late, a phenomenon that has previously preceeded periods of global
> >> cooling
> >> that lasted decades
>
> > Hmm yes , the sun. I bet none of those clever dick phd scientists with
> > decades of climate and meteorological research behind them ever
> > thought of that.
>
> You would lose the bet. Russian climatologists have been predicting a global
> cooling cycle, starting around 2012, based upon solar activity, for some
> years now. However, most of the rest of the world's governments have nailed
> their flags to the mast of CO2 reduction, so anything that does not support
> that tends to get dismissed.
>
And how long is that cycle supposed to last? Aren't you once again
confusing short-term variability, caused by a number of factors, with
a long-term trend?

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

nik.morgan wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 20:56:26 +0100, Abo wrote
> (in article <g9hhdh$mqg$1@news.albasani.net>):
> 
>> nik.morgan wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:14:31 +0100, Abo wrote
>>> (in article <g9h7tt$7f6$1@news.albasani.net>):
>>>
>>>> nik.morgan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just one, even a minor one, of your unscheduled co2 events has more 
>>>>> effect 
>>>>> than humans have ever had, yet somehow the planet adjusts exactly as it 
>>>>> has 
>>>>> since time began. If these natural cycles result in the demise of our 
>>>>> species 
>>>>> then there is nothing we can do about it, the scale of the forces 
>>>>> involved 
>>>>> make our efforts puny by comparison,  if you think global climate change 
>>>>> is 
>>>>> man driven then you are delusional.
>>>> Such as a volcanic eruption? The CO2 output due to eruptions is about 
>>>> 200 millions tons per year. Humans put out about 30 billion tons in 
>>>> comparison.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Don't think so, how much by natural means? and by man? Man has only been 
>>> industrially active on a large scale for a few years, hardly enough to 
>>> scratch the surface of that which has gone before.
>> I see what you're saying; if for arguements sake there has been an 
>> increase in CO2 due to man of 7.5% per year since the beginning of the 
>> industrial revolution (which kind of puts us at the 30 billion tons we 
>> chuck out today) then it was only about 65 years ago we overtook the CO2 
>> output from volcanos. But in that 65 years or so we've put out the same 
>> amount of CO2 as nearly 2000 years of vulcanism. If you go forward with 
>> that same 7.5% increase then in just ten years we've put out another 
>> 2000 years vulcanism equivalent. Yes; back of the fag packet maths, I know.
>>
>> Dunno what that 'proves'; maybe nothing? But IME we *do* put out a 
>> fuckload of CO2, and CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas. I agree with what has 
>> been said elsewherethough; whether it is enough to permanantly fuck up 
>> the climate is up for debate.
>>
>>
> 
> And a sizeable perfectly natural eruption tomorrow will blow all the man made 
> co2 arguments away.

Have you a link, googling for figures is a pain in the arse and I've got 
to leave for work now :(

-- 
Abo

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:04:31 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:


>> > Hmm yes , the sun. I bet none of those clever dick phd scientists with
>> > decades of climate and meteorological research behind them ever
>> > thought of that.
>>
>> You would lose the bet. Russian climatologists have been predicting a global
>> cooling cycle, starting around 2012, based upon solar activity, for some
>> years now. However, most of the rest of the world's governments have nailed
>> their flags to the mast of CO2 reduction, so anything that does not support
>> that tends to get dismissed.
>>
>And how long is that cycle supposed to last? Aren't you once again
>confusing short-term variability, caused by a number of factors, with
>a long-term trend?

No, you are.

Derek

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

Confused infantile"proof by selected instances" <allsnipped>

>>
>And I don't believe in the infallibility of individual motorist
>polluters like you who have a vested interest in denying GW.

What about your pollution?

You won't need firelighters where you're going.

Derek

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:33:47 +0100, Abo wrote
(in article <g9imoi$rhl$1@news.albasani.net>):

> nik.morgan wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 20:56:26 +0100, Abo wrote
>> (in article <g9hhdh$mqg$1@news.albasani.net>):
>> 
>>> nik.morgan wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:14:31 +0100, Abo wrote
>>>> (in article <g9h7tt$7f6$1@news.albasani.net>):
>>>> 
>>>>> nik.morgan wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Just one, even a minor one, of your unscheduled co2 events has more 
>>>>>> effect 
>>>>>> than humans have ever had, yet somehow the planet adjusts exactly as it 
>>>>>> has 
>>>>>> since time began. If these natural cycles result in the demise of our 
>>>>>> species 
>>>>>> then there is nothing we can do about it, the scale of the forces 
>>>>>> involved 
>>>>>> make our efforts puny by comparison,  if you think global climate 
>>>>>> change 
>>>>>> is 
>>>>>> man driven then you are delusional.
>>>>> Such as a volcanic eruption? The CO2 output due to eruptions is about 
>>>>> 200 millions tons per year. Humans put out about 30 billion tons in 
>>>>> comparison.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> Don't think so, how much by natural means? and by man? Man has only been 
>>>> industrially active on a large scale for a few years, hardly enough to 
>>>> scratch the surface of that which has gone before.
>>> I see what you're saying; if for arguements sake there has been an 
>>> increase in CO2 due to man of 7.5% per year since the beginning of the 
>>> industrial revolution (which kind of puts us at the 30 billion tons we 
>>> chuck out today) then it was only about 65 years ago we overtook the CO2 
>>> output from volcanos. But in that 65 years or so we've put out the same 
>>> amount of CO2 as nearly 2000 years of vulcanism. If you go forward with 
>>> that same 7.5% increase then in just ten years we've put out another 
>>> 2000 years vulcanism equivalent. Yes; back of the fag packet maths, I know.
>>> 
>>> Dunno what that 'proves'; maybe nothing? But IME we *do* put out a 
>>> fuckload of CO2, and CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas. I agree with what has 
>>> been said elsewherethough; whether it is enough to permanantly fuck up 
>>> the climate is up for debate.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> And a sizeable perfectly natural eruption tomorrow will blow all the man 
>> made 
>> co2 arguments away.
> 
> Have you a link, googling for figures is a pain in the arse and I've got 
> to leave for work now :(
> 
> 

So have I

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:140f4cc7-9861-440e-9531-307641118e4e@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Sep, 18:17, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Boltar"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:a9803ba1-6ba8-47fe-b4cf-8055cf2714aa@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 1, 8:55 am, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >> I wonder how long you are going to keep ignoring the growing evidence
>> >> that
>> >> climate change - there has been no warming since 1998, sources as 
>> >> above -
>> >> is
>> >> driven by nature and that, if man has had any effect, it is trival by
>> >> comparison. As I have mentioned before, sun spot cycle 24 is running 
>> >> very
>> >> late, a phenomenon that has previously preceeded periods of global
>> >> cooling
>> >> that lasted decades
>>
>> > Hmm yes , the sun. I bet none of those clever dick phd scientists with
>> > decades of climate and meteorological research behind them ever
>> > thought of that.
>>
>> You would lose the bet. Russian climatologists have been predicting a 
>> global
>> cooling cycle, starting around 2012, based upon solar activity, for some
>> years now. However, most of the rest of the world's governments have 
>> nailed
>> their flags to the mast of CO2 reduction, so anything that does not 
>> support
>> that tends to get dismissed.
>>
> And how long is that cycle supposed to last?

The Maunder Minimum lasted from 1645 to 1715, with 50 sun spots recorded in 
the whole period - about 0.1% of normal. The Spoerer Minimum lasted from 
1450 to 1540. The Dalton Minimum lasted from 1790 to 1820.

> Aren't you once again
> confusing short-term variability, caused by a number of factors, with
> a long-term trend?

You consider several decades to be a short term variation?

Colin Bignell

In article <bd3d0ed2-5d9b-4928-91d3-daf1f8193172
@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> Told you so!
> 
> "The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as
> ice melts
> 
> The North Pole can now be circumnavigated for the first time in
> history, sparking fears that the melting Arctic ice cap has entered a
> 'death spiral'.
> 
Can you tell me why NSCIC reported a 30% increase on ice cover over 
last year, Doug?


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <9ada6fe7-45bd-4659-b09f-65829620ce41@
79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> What makes you seriously imagine that the Met Office, with all their
> considerable experience and resources, is wrong with its
> interpretation of data while you alone are correct?

The fact they're funded by H.M.Govt which is making a mint out of 
"green" taxes?
The fact they failed to spot a massive hurricane a decade ago even 
though it had already made landfall in the UK and people were phoning 
in to tell them?
Boscastle?

I can go on...


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Sep 1, 9:08 pm, nik.morgan  wrote:
> And a sizeable perfectly natural eruption tomorrow will blow all the man made
> co2 arguments away.

Well if that happens we're all screwed and theres nothing we can do
about it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to do something
about our own pollution in the meantime. While I'm a very long way
from being in the back-to-wigwams-in-the-woods camp some of the green
arguments do make sense and not just from an enviromental perspective
- being reliant on oil and gas from dodgy countries in the middle east
and russia is a poor energy policy no matter how you look at it.
Personally I think we should bulldoze those idiotic wind farms and
build a shed load of nuclear power plants in their place then we could
shut down our gas power stations and divert the saved gas to mostly
domestic and industrial use and rely more on whats left of north sea
gas for a lot longer and give the russians the finger in the meantime.

B2003

"Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
news:g9h4vl$3oc$2@news.albasani.net...
>
> Says the Daily