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

Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 09:18:32 +0100, "Amethyst Deceiver"
wrote:

Yes it does. That's the point of "recorded history". You can change
the definition to suit your argument but don't whine when people
pull you up for doing so.

And you can pretend that you didn't know what I was talking about in
order to create a spurious argument to disguise the fact that you have
nothing better, but don't expect people to be deceived.

I'm sorry, is that really the best you can do? Use my argument as your own?

Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Pyriform wrote:

CO2 is a vital component of the atmosphere. That doesn't mean that
the more of it there is, the better off we will all be. Too much
vitamin A will kill you. So will too much oxygen.

Agreed.

Too much CO2 will warm the planet to an uncomfortable extent for
mankind,

Unproven theory with which I and others vastly more qualified than I,
disagree. There is no evidence that the small increases in CO2 that
man has introduced is or will cause global warming.

There is a vast amount of evidence that it is the case! And what is "small"
about the 25 gigatonnes or so of CO2 that we introduced into the atmosphere
each year by burning fossil fuels (not to mention that added through cement
production and changes in land use)?

Who are these "vastly more qualified" people who disagree with basic
physics?

Owain wrote:
Pyriform wrote:
The increasing CO2 signal was submerged for a while by pollution from
sulphate aerosols, which has a cooling effect.

Well, that would seem to provide the answer then :-)

That way madness lies...

Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Pyriform wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:
What you are ignoring is the effect of sulphate aerosols. Besides
not producing anything like the level of CO2 we currently produce,
large quantities of sulphate aerosols were also produced which
increased the Earth's albedo cooling it.

Oh yes, I remember. These are the chemicals that damage the ozone
layer and let more of the sun's radiation in risking us all having
skin cancer. I also remember chemicals for fridges and other green
house gases being banned due to their global warming effect.

You are an idiot. Those were CFCs.

Yes indeed they are and now I'm told by your side they explain the
cooling effect from 1940 to 1980.

Different sodding chemicals! But I think I've worked out the source of your
confusion. CFCs were used as refridgerants and as the propellent gas in some
*aerosol sprays*. They had an adverse effect on the ozone layer. That's what
you think we mean when we talk about "sulphate aerosols". But you are
confusing cans of anti-perspirant (etc) with the technical meaning of an
aerosol - a particle or liquid droplet floating in the air. When we talk of
"sulphate aerosols", we mean the fraction of sulphur dioxide (e.g from coal
burning) that ends up in this way. European SO2 emissions have declined from
about 55Tg in 1980 to 15Tg in 2004, while CO2 emissions have continued to
rise. CO2 also remains in the atmosphere for many years, so it steadily
accumulates, whereas sulphate aerosols stay there for only a few days. If
you had any understanding of science, you would see why this makes the post
war cooling period entirely unsurprising.

You people want it all ways. The
facts are there, the CO2 global warming argument is tripe but you
still keep finding ways to wriggle out of the evidence to prolong the
nonsense.

You are an idiot.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:53:00 +0100, Scott
wrote:

It might be news to you but we came out of an ice age 10,000 years ago.
Pretending that we are still in one and just about to come out is plain silly.

In that case it's jolly good that I have not made any such ridiculous
suggestion. Still, it shows the standard of your comprehension
skills.

You wrote:

"Global warming has occured 5 times in recorded history in a regular cyclical
pattern. We are going through a phase of global warming that is in perfect
line with previous cycles."

"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."

As I have pointed out, we came out of the ice age 10,000 year ago and would (if
you believed the graphs as much as you imply), be well into a period of
declining temperatures. So where do you stand?

Exactly where I have unambiguously stated we are several times. Very
near the peak of the latest warming cycle. How you manage to
interpret that as meaning that I said that we are still in an ice age
is totally beyond me.

Warming has not been occuring continuously for anything like that past
1000 years,

I never said it had.

and data over any shorter time period is lost in the
noise.

A ridiculous assertion. Whether a trend can be isolated from a noisy signal is
a mathematical problem and not determined by your blind assertions.

So over what period do you claim it is possible to ascertain a
climatic trend? A year? 10 years? 50 years? A hundred years?

You can clearly see that many of the noise spikes in the graph easily
cover a 1000 year period, so I don't see how anyone could be certain
of a climatic trend by looking at data over any shorter period.

Climatic cycles are naturally occuring phenomenae.

Except the current warming is not part of any natural cycle and can be
attributed to elevated CO2 with a statistical certainty approaching 99%.

So you keep saying. More worryingly, I notice that the sea level
started rising at 10 o'clock this morning, and its rate of rise has
been increasing since that time. Similar cycles have occured before,
but maybe this particular change is being brought about by a totally
different mechanism to anything I have seen before (it just looks the
same), and the rising water is not going to stop like it previously
has? If it carries on at this rate, Brighton will be 50 feet
underwater by midnight. Do you think I should pay the council to
recycle my rubbish quickly to stop it? I bet that if I pay the
council, switch off my TV and cycle home instead of burning petrol, I
might *just* manage to stop the alarming rise in sea level by about 4
o'clock this afternoon, and my theory will be proven to have been
correct (with 99% statistical certainty). What do you think?

--
Cynic

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:53:13 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

No, the facts fit the theory extremely well, which is why you are a
fool to deny them.

Only if you start from the facts and work backwards to find a model
that fits them.

********. You have no understanding at all of the science.

Or perhaps it is *because* I have such an understanding that I
distrust it so much. Eh?

--
Cynic

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:21:26 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

The increasing CO2 signal was submerged for a while by pollution from
sulphate aerosols, which has a cooling effect.

Well, that would seem to provide the answer then :-)

That way madness lies...

Not at all. You are saying that man can influence the climate of the
entire World in either direction in just a few decades, depending on
what chemical we release into the atmosphere. We have done so
*accidentally* in both directions in recent decades.

Well, if it's that easy to do unintentionally by pure accident, it
should be a cinch to figure out what benign chemical we need to
release into the air in order to exactly balance out the present
global warming that we have created.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:53:13 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

No, the facts fit the theory extremely well, which is why you are a
fool to deny them.

Only if you start from the facts and work backwards to find a model
that fits them.

********. You have no understanding at all of the science.

Or perhaps it is *because* I have such an understanding that I
distrust it so much. Eh?

No.

Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:21:26 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

The increasing CO2 signal was submerged for a while by pollution
from sulphate aerosols, which has a cooling effect.

Well, that would seem to provide the answer then :-)

That way madness lies...

Not at all. You are saying that man can influence the climate of the
entire World in either direction in just a few decades, depending on
what chemical we release into the atmosphere. We have done so
*accidentally* in both directions in recent decades.

Well, if it's that easy to do unintentionally by pure accident, it
should be a cinch to figure out what benign chemical we need to
release into the air in order to exactly balance out the present
global warming that we have created.

There is nothing benign about SO2, and of course it has an exceedingly short
residence time. What did you have in mind?

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:20:08 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Only if you start from the facts and work backwards to find a model
that fits them.

********. You have no understanding at all of the science.

Or perhaps it is *because* I have such an understanding that I
distrust it so much. Eh?

No.

Scientists can be very similar to detectives. Find a theory (suspect)
and try to prove it. Just like detectives, except right at the
beginning, they tend to look for evidence that supports their theory
(suspicions) rather than deliberately looking for alternative
explanations and things that would disprove the theory. So evidence
of guilt is dug for, and dug deep. Evidence to the contrary would
have to hit them in the face before it was found - nobody is looking
seriously for any of that.

The findings in both cases (assuming honest detectives/scientists) are
100% factual. The science (evidence) is good. You do however tend to
get a "feel" in both cases about just how many hoops have had to have
been jumped through in order to keep the thoery (prosecution case)
hanging together.

With science, the final, and vital proof of the theory is in setting
up several experiments that produce predicted results that are
something that have never been seen before. That is akin to the
suspect not only confessing, but revealing things that only the
culprit would know (e.g. where the body is buried).

At present, I would rate the global warming (by man) theory as being
only slightly better than the case against Barry George, who was
indeed convicted of the murder of Jill Dando just as the theory is
widely accepted as being indisputable. There was nothing at all wrong
with any individual item of evidence, just as I have no arguments with
any individual bits of science. It's just that there have been a few
too many hoops that have needed to have been jumped through to glue
the theory together for my liking. And of course no way to carry out
the "proof of the pudding".

--
Cynic