Conclusive physical evidence for AWG?

Who cares what the lunatic fringe of the Green movement thinks?

Until they learn to do better. It is called evolution in action - perfectly green.

As is pretty much everything else in the modern world. Chemists - and I've got a Ph.D. in the subject - do know how to keep nasty chemicals out of the environment. Some cheap-skate manufacturers do try and save money by neglecting to implement the - not very expensive - measures involved, but that might justify more inspectors, nt a ban on manufacturing solar cells.

Only the very lunatic fringe.

It is also an excellent source of plutonium - which is one of the reasons the French like them so much, and a worrying source of long- lived high level radioactive waste. Even perfectly sane greenies have legitimate anxieties about getting rid of the waste.

I'm no greenie, but I've still got reservations about nuclear waste.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

One could oppose the Severn Barrage without having any desire to move civilisation back to the Stone Age.

Most Greenies would be happy to settle for a sustainable economy, which wouldn't have to be much different from the one we live in. We could get by without burning any fossil carbon at all, though it would take quite a lot of capital investment to get there. If we start now, we've got enough time in hand to do it fairly slowly, without sacrificing any signficant part of our standard of living.

If we hung around too long, and had to make the changeover while coping with declining agricultural output and rising sea levels, it could involve a painful amount of belt-tightening.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The "historical" upper limit is an estimate that happens to match a physical limit based on the major albedo regulating parameters, biological (photosynthesis) on land, marine forams/diatoms, and the geological ocean to land ratio. The earth will regulate itself, with or without industrial activity. The upper limit is a "brick wall"

This is a pointless paragraph, you should stick to science. Humans have always adapted to any environmental changes, it's one of our defining characteristics.

Ice cores are short term, CO2 is at geologic lows for interglacials. Only a few million years ago, CO2 was far higher. C4 photosynthesis evolved because CO2 became so low.

Your observations are useless without scientific measurements.

Troll

A thoroughly stupid essay in guilt by association. The more rabid Greenie may well be pro AGW, but the converse doesn't hold.

Most people who believe in anthropogenic global warming also believe in a gradual transition to a sustainable economy. Despite the thoroughly dishonest denialist claims to the contrary, mainstream opinion is that we could have much the same standard of living in a fully sustainable economy that we have now; mass air transport seems likely to be the only luxury that we'd have to give up - hydrogen powered aircraft may be practicable, but they'd look very different from today's airliners and would take a while to develop.

George Monbiot's book "Heat" discusses the matter at length. You really ought to read it.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

This may be your opinion. I doubt if it is widely shared.

Remember that you are talking about the lunatic fringe of the environmental movement - basically people who are rabid enough that normal environmentalists wouldn't touch them with a barge-pole.

Pol Pot would never have got into power in Cambodia if the US hadn't destroyed the exisitng governement and installed an incompetent puppet government which turned out to be no match for Pol Pot's Kymer Rouge. In peace time, Pol Pot's psychological defects would have barred him from power, but they served him well as a guerrilla leader

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ALL??? Obviously not, the fossil fuel burning is a fraction of the total increase.

The amount of the atmospheric CO2 due to humans is less than 10 percent of the total, the carbon cycle is massively larger than you imply.

The rest of your post is a regurgitation of hysterical special interest psycosis. I doubt you understand any of the scientific arguments.

rote:

ote:

oling

nd

If your paper is correct. But it refers to magnetic activity, and says nothing about the heat outpu, which does vary - very slightly - with sunspot number, but not nearly enough to have any pereceptible effect on global temperature.

In your opinion, unsupported by anything in the paper you cite.

If you didn't have a consistent history of misunderstanding of the material you post, I'd accuse you of lying.

As it is, you have just illustrated, once again, that you don't know what you are talking about.

The ice core data only goes back half a million years. Geological data says that CO2 levels were as high as they are now some 20 million years ago, back before Antarctica was covered by an ice sheet.

They've been even higher at times in the even more distant past.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

cal

to

Wrong. There are a couple of global extinctions where the global temperatures got high enough to kill off the majority of land animals

- not just individuals but whole species and genera.

In one case the proximal cause seems to have been massive volcanic activity going through coal beds that put a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - it doesn't seem to have raised CO2 levels as fas as we are doing, but it went on for long enough to thoroughly wreck the biosphere.

rom

ine

Here's hoping we have enough sense to adapt to the current environmental change by slwoing down our contribution, rather than having to live with the consequences.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Which doesn't mean that the hockey stick isn't real. Mann's curve has been replicated by a dozen other researchers, all using statistical tools that would satisfy McIntyre and McKitrick's idiosyncratic criteria.

Wrong. There are a couple of global extinctions where the global temperatures got high enough to kill off the majority of land animals

- not just individuals but whole species and genera.

Those were meteor impacts.

In one case the proximal cause seems to have been massive volcanic activity going through coal beds that put a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - it doesn't seem to have raised CO2 levels as fas as we are doing, but it went on for long enough to thoroughly wreck the biosphere.

Any scientific citations for this fantasy?? I thought not, massive volcanic eruptions are always global cooling events, without exception.

Here's hoping we have enough sense to adapt to the current environmental change by slwoing down our contribution, rather than having to live with the consequences.

I don't care what you think. You will never be a judge my behavior, until you live in a yurt or teepee and walk to work. I always live near work and ride bicycles. If you want to change the environment, stop breathing.

Graph here shows UK shows electricity demand peaking at 57GW in the last 7 days:

Wikipedia shows scheme generating 15GW

This is well over 20% of peak electrical demand in the UK.

Wher did you get 0.6% from?

Made it up. That's allowed under the leftist weenie scheme of debate.

...Jim Thompson

I note that you did not answer the above question.

Do you doubt the accounts of growing grapes in England and Norse farmers in Greenland, or do you conjecture that it wasn't warm in places like the Americas that had not been discovered yet?

Why do you persist in providing a podium for Slowman? Ignored, Slowman's podium vanishes... as it should.

Maybe a petition to retract his PhD is in order?

...Jim Thompson

Since you deny the medieval warm period and the little ice age you will also deny the cooling of the Dalton minimum then I can understand why you snipped this bit:

The first of these oscillations may even turn out to be as strongly negative as around 1810, in which case a short Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton one might develop.