Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

In message , R D S
writes

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...
tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and
down, this is because
our field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide. Thats why you
lose which line you are on read a reall wide post.

When you watch TV you don't work from left to right and then move down a
line do you? You aren't reading it!

You mean you don't following that little dot that draws the picture on
the screen, scanning from left to right, and moving from the top to the
bottom of the screen?

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In article , cynic_999
@yahoo.co.uk says...
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:55:37 +0100, foghollow
wrote:

Here is the link again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

Now tell me that you cannot see any obvious cycle in that graph.

Got anything that shows human population on that timescale?
Coz it doesn't matter what's causing it, if it's gonna kill us we ought to try to mitigate it.

Well according to another poster, *all* mammels get wiped out.


And yet there still are some. So that can't be right.
Anything that goes much past decimating the human race is going to be very very messy though.
--
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:36:32 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Oh for goodness' sake! Did you not see my other post in which I
put a link?

No. It never got to the server I use.

Here is the link again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

Now tell me that you cannot see any obvious cycle in that graph.

I see a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global
temperatures. Was that what you had in mind?

No. Sorry you cannot understand what I was pointing out. Oh, and
BTW, the correlation between CO2 and temperature show that CO2 change
*follows* temperature change.

In the ice core record, yes. That's completely unsurprising, given that
increases in atmospheric CO2 do not initiate recovery from ice ages, but
instead serve to amplify the warming. In the present (acyclic) warming,
increases in atmospheric CO2 lead the temperature rise, as you would expect
from a consideration of the physics involved. A couple of decades of warming
will follow even if CO2 remains at the present levels, until the planet
establishes a new radiative equilibrium at a higher temperature.

What did you think you were pointing out again?

Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Pyriform wrote:

I see a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global
temperatures. Was that what you had in mind?

Indeed there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. The
trouble is that CO2 is the product of temperature rise not the cause.
Close examination of all the ice core samples taken to date shows
that C02 levels closely match temperatures but around 800 years
*behind*.

That's hardly surprising, given that increases in atmospheric CO2 do not
initiate recovery from ice ages! However, CO2 produced as a result of
increased (principally oceanic) activity amplifies the effect of the
recovery, and is thus an important feedback to the climate system. Current
warming is acyclic. The planet is warming because we are pumping CO2 into
the atmosphere.

The oceans give off enormous quantities of CO2 as the temperature
rises and absorb C02 as the temperature falls. The vast size and
depth of the oceans means that temperature changes only effect the
oceans over much larger time scales and this results in the 800 year
lag.

You make the classic error of imagining that CO2 cannot be both a feedback
and a forcing. You view is also grossly oversimplified - the oceans are
still a net sink of CO2, despite the fact that the planet is warming.

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 13:36:04 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

No. Sorry you cannot understand what I was pointing out. Oh, and
BTW, the correlation between CO2 and temperature show that CO2 change
*follows* temperature change.

In the ice core record, yes.

Wasn't that what you were commenting on? Were you perhaps attempting
to persuade people to draw a false conclusion?

That's completely unsurprising, given that
increases in atmospheric CO2 do not initiate recovery from ice ages, but
instead serve to amplify the warming.

So what prevents a runaway situation in that case?

In the present (acyclic) warming,

How can you call this warming "acyclic" when it very clearly fits the
cyclic pattern very well?

increases in atmospheric CO2 lead the temperature rise, as you would expect
from a consideration of the physics involved. A couple of decades of warming
will follow even if CO2 remains at the present levels, until the planet
establishes a new radiative equilibrium at a higher temperature.

What did you think you were pointing out again?

You have a short retention period.

I was pointing out that the graph would strongly indicate that global
warming would be expected right now whether man was on the planet or
not.

Of course, I could also claim that despite the fact that the weather
has become colder in Winter and warmer in Summer on a cyclical basis
since records began, *this* year the change in weather will be caused
by Tony Blair's resignation and have nothing whatsoever to do with
what appears to be a natural cycle.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 13:36:04 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

No. Sorry you cannot understand what I was pointing out. Oh, and
BTW, the correlation between CO2 and temperature show that CO2 change
*follows* temperature change.

In the ice core record, yes.

Wasn't that what you were commenting on? Were you perhaps attempting
to persuade people to draw a false conclusion?

That's completely unsurprising, given that
increases in atmospheric CO2 do not initiate recovery from ice ages, but
instead serve to amplify the warming.

So what prevents a runaway situation in that case?


CO2 is pumped rapidly into the atmosphere so natural mechanisms can eventually
cope.

In the present (acyclic) warming,

How can you call this warming "acyclic" when it very clearly fits the
cyclic pattern very well?

It does no such thing. What graph are you looking at?


increases in atmospheric CO2 lead the temperature rise, as you would expect
from a consideration of the physics involved. A couple of decades of warming
will follow even if CO2 remains at the present levels, until the planet
establishes a new radiative equilibrium at a higher temperature.

What did you think you were pointing out again?

You have a short retention period.

I was pointing out that the graph would strongly indicate that global
warming would be expected right now whether man was on the planet or
not.


You are trying to claim black is white. It strongly indicates that global
cooling would be expected. The current warming is due to CO2 (a vertical green
line to a level of 383 should be added to account for CO2, together with a
vertical blue line of length 0.7 to account for the temperature rise over the
last century).

"R D S" wrote in message
...

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...
tall because our eyes cannot track as well side ways as they can up and
down, this is because
our field of binocular vision is taller than it is wide. Thats why you
lose which line you are on read a reall wide post.

When you watch TV you don't work from left to right and then move down a
line do you? You aren't reading it!

Can't you get teletext or similar.
Must be a very old set you have.

"Pyriform" wrote in message
...
:
: You make the classic error of imagining that CO2 cannot be both a feedback
: and a forcing.

and you make the classic error of falling victim of a very clever financial
scheme. Do some research and you'll find Al Gore is invested heavily in
*carbon trading*. Conflict of interest?

Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Pyriform wrote:
Cynic wrote:

No. Sorry you cannot understand what I was pointing out. Oh, and
BTW, the correlation between CO2 and temperature show that CO2
change *follows* temperature change.

In the ice core record, yes. That's completely unsurprising, given
that increases in atmospheric CO2 do not initiate recovery from ice
ages, but instead serve to amplify the warming. In the present
(acyclic) warming, increases in atmospheric CO2 lead the temperature
rise, as you would expect from a consideration of the physics
involved. A couple of decades of warming will follow even if CO2
remains at the present levels, until the planet establishes a new
radiative equilibrium at a higher temperature.

You're just determined to believe it even though you admit the
evidence says the opposite.

It does nothing of the sort. How can I help it if you are too stupid to
understand what is obvious to anyone with any scientific training? I expect
you watched Martin Durkin's idiotic documentary on the telly and believed
it.

Bob Latham wrote:
I see a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global
temperatures. Was that what you had in mind?

Indeed there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature.
The trouble is that CO2 is the product of temperature rise not the
cause. Close examination of all the ice core samples taken to date
shows that C02 levels closely match temperatures but around 800
years *behind*.

That's hardly surprising, given that increases in atmospheric CO2 do
not initiate recovery from ice ages! However, CO2 produced as a
result of increased (principally oceanic) activity amplifies the
effect of the recovery, and is thus an important feedback to the
climate system. Current warming is acyclic. The planet is warming
because we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

My turn to say utter rubbish. The CO2 argument is about economics and
politics and nothing to do with good science. I

Since you clearly know nothing at all about science, how would you presume
to know?

In the last 150 years the earth's temperature has gone up just over
0.5deg and most of that was before 1940 when we there was vastly less
man made CO2. Then we had the post war economic boom with CO2
production flying up and 4 decades of falling temperatures till 1980.

You are an idiot.

During this time we had dire warnings of another ice age and crops
failing because of global cooling. I can remember the song and dance
at the time.

What you remember was never anything remotely approaching a scientific
consensus. There was a lot of media interest, based on a bit of speculation.
You can read about it he http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

You view is also grossly oversimplified - the oceans are still a net
sink of CO2, despite the fact that the planet is warming.

Not according to many scientists who are not suckered in to this
rubbish theory.

Give me their names. I could do with a laugh! If you think the increase in
atmospheric CO2 is caused by CO2 release from the oceans, how do you account
for the ratios of carbon isotopes we find in the air? How do you account for
the detailed CO2 flux measurements which demonstrate that the ocean is
sinking much of our current CO2 emissions? How do you account for ocean
acidification?