Nothing wrong with the RSPB per se, just the idiotic way they go about fund raising. Oh and BTW the Labour Party didn't sling all the Lefties out by a long chalk, and those they did went into Education and read the Guardian.

Chris?...I didn't think we had school education any more but just training on
how to pass exams without being subject educated first. You might as well
call the Guardian newspaper, "The Daily Argentina" cos no one takes much
notice of or even influenced by either of them...Idea on this nicked from
Chris's Argentina reference in another Thread...(Ho-ho)

But to stick to the topic of this thread, if we banned the Guardian this would
cut down on carbon emission?

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

That is a typical graph deliberately designed to distort the figures to a gullible public. A quick first glance looks like the CO2 has doubled, in fact the average level has only increased by 2% over the last 5 years.

Exactly.

OK, any regularly observed increase in CO2 levels is not to be welcomed, but it is not quite so dire as some would have us believe. It is usual political practice to vastly overstate your case with lurid claims, in the belief that more of it will stick, and the warmists are no different.

However on the other side of the coin, if that CO2 trend carries on, then it will be 50% higher in 125 years time. It takes time to convince the world that there is a long term problem, so starting to bang the drum now is probably a good move. As more Nations industrialise, what will be more important is the rate of increase, i.e. if the graph goes exponential. Then we start worrying.

Agreed.

Is the planet warming? Seems so. AGW? Don't think anyone knows for sure, yet.
Presentation of graphs like the above is disgraceful, for the reasons stated in the posts below it. It is because of downright misleading information such as that that I begin to doubt everything they say.
You know, for me the most annoying thing about the Warmist cause if their Holier tha Thou attitude. Question the evidence, and you are of course:
a)A knuckle dragging Troglodite.
b)Paid for by Big Oil.
c)Both of the above.
Their evidence cannot, must not be questiond or you will be humiliated.(I almost wrote "terminated" :-))
While I still have a questioning nature, I will not fall into line with this new evangelism/fad.

Bingo!

A previous post had a link to a climate center. After some digging around I found links to the raw CO2 data. Many stations only collect data about 1/2 the year. Amazingly which half year seems to depend on which hemisphere they are in. Since we know that CO2 varies summer/winter ... need I draw the conclusion?

The thing I find most disingenuous is what they say has to be done to stop it. Their own data puts the lie to it. Look at the top of the volcano plot on CO2. It has gone exponential! Frankly it should. Human population has gone exponential. Even if we cut use per human by 1000 times, in just a few years time the exponential growth in humans would overwhelm the cut. Even if we were able to cut to zero CO2 use per human, eventually our breathing would convert the atmosphere to 100% CO2.

If they refuse to discuss the exponential then the conclusion to draw is, one or all of: they know they cooked the books, they can't read their own charts, they don't believe their own data, they are deluding themselves ... All of which lead to very strong skepticism over their conclusions.

Interesting aside, right after 9/11 when US air traffic was grounded NOAA found temperatures were considerably changed. Why? No contrails from jets. As air travel increases it seems the planet is getting warmer. Oh, don't forget water is a many times stronger global warming agent than CO2. I wonder if the warmists are focused on the wrong thing.

---

Interesting aside, right after 9/11 when US air traffic was grounded NOAA found temperatures were considerably changed. Why? No contrails from jets. As air travel increases it seems the planet is getting warmer. Oh, don't forget water is a many times stronger global warming agent than CO2. I wonder if the warmists are focused on the wrong thing.

Gary, music to my ears, I'm glad you have mentioned this above regarding
"contrails". I became aware of this more so during the time we had that volcanic
eruption in Iceland back a year or so ago. What became so evident during this
time, that due to the grounding of all flights above the UK, the sky above
was much deeper in the colour blue. As soon as flights were permitted again the
sky became milky-blue in colour. During these observation I noted how the
contrails tended to occupy about a half of the area of the sky at times. So oh
yes, aircraft are causing bigger problems when in flight more so than most
people realise especially over the Northern Hemisphere. So it is only during
the times when the upper atmosphere is fairly moist does this phenomena
expose itself.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Nothing wrong with the RSPB per se, just the idiotic way they go about fund raising. Oh and BTW the Labour Party didn't sling all the Lefties out by a long chalk, and those they did went into Education and read the Guardian.

Or could that be er.. Re education, because Ian, or whatever his name is in English (of the Guardian) believes only English voters vote for the Prime Minister?

Like I said, there are a lot of people around here that would disagree with that.

:-)

Kind Regards,

Andy.

Bless The Guardian.

---

But to stick to the topic of this thread, if we banned the Guardian this would cut down on carbon emission?

Maybe not, but it would certainly cut down on emissions of hot air !

What became so evident during this time, that due to the grounding of all flights above the UK, the sky abovewas much deeper in the colour blue. As soon as flights were permitted again the sky became milky-blue in colour.

I'm gonna have to call you on this one. Is this just your personal opinion or have others corroborated it?

Yep. I remember that day. It was a beautiful blue sky day. Means nothing, I have seen them before, will see them again. Flights were not all grounded in the UK. Flights to the US were grounded. Aircraft in flight were diverted. I live in South Wales, which is right underneath the UK-US flightpath.

Best regards,

Andy

---

Bless The Guardian.

Now look here my good man. You can't call for divine intervention for the Grauniad unless you wear open toed sandals, have a goatee beard, fancy Polly Toynbee, and drink 1/2's of John Smiths.

ROTF Really!

I have a son called Tarquin,I do wear sandals, with the Obligatory White Socks.
Working on the beard, have a wooly jumper for the Camera meetings, bought a Pius, er.. sorry Prius, like I refuse to admit where electricity comes from.

Bless you Chris. :-)

A

---

Deleted due to drunken incompetence. But, we did win the Grand Slam, so there.

Beast regards,

Andy

---

It is a well known phenomena that aircraft vapour trails dissipate at 35,000 feet in the lower reaches of the stratosphere. This optimizes fuel burn, mostly thanks to the low temperatures encountered near the tropopause and low air density, reducing parasitic drag on the airframe. It also allows them to stay above hard weather (extreme turbulence).

I did not say that. Why the quote?

A

---

Yep. I remember that day. It was a beautiful blue sky day. Means nothing, I have seen them before, will see them again. Flights were not all grounded in the UK. Flights to the US were grounded. Aircraft in flight were diverted. I live in South Wales, which is right underneath the UK-US flightpath.


A

---

Contrails:
http://facstaff.uww.edu/travisd/pdf/climatepapermar04.pdf

Interesting thing happened. Remember water is an extremely strong greenhouse gas, many many times stronger than CO2, well, in the lab.

---

Now here's some stuff on "gases" affecting climate and temperature that I could give credence to.

Water vapor definitely affects ground temperature (i.e. clouds). They confirm what we know: actual shade in the daytime and a blanket at night. Relatively modest correlation, however, presented in the article though the low p-value indicates that there is strong evidence that the effects seen are due to the variation in the independent variable rather than random variation.

What is the net effect and is it large enough to forecast a long-term temperature excursion for the planet?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa-global-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017.html

Is NASA playing fast and loose with climate change science? That's the contention of a group of 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.

On March 28 the group sent a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., blasting the agency for making unwarranted claims about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, Business Insider reported.

---