buctootim

No its correct. You need to take a basic chemistry course. C14 makes up less than 1 part per trillion of atmospheric carbon.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-christopher-monckton

So you didnt read the article, otherwise you would have seen much of it deals with the specious sunspot argument. I dont know whether you are trolling, psychologically fixed or just not very bright - but clearly you arent open to having your opinion altered by learning anything new so I guess we're done here.

Did you even read the article? otherwise you wouldnt be asking the question. Yes climate changes. Something needs to happen to cause it to change. Volcanic eruptions. sudden releases of subterraean methane. Industrial production of ghgs. Its not a tricky concept. Actually what I find odd is that climate change sceptics rarely dispute that one volcano going pop on the other side of the world (Krakatoa) could create a year without summer. Yet six billion people cutting down forests the size of Wales each year and burning long buried fossil fuels will have no effect at all.

Go on Dune. Report me for being racist. Everyone, including the mods Im sure, appreciate healthy doses of irony and hypocrisy.

Knowing that traffic increasaing by 1% a year leads to more cars on the road doesnt mean that is a reliable indicator of how many cars will be coming down your road on any particular tuesday morning. BIG difference, HUGE, between long term trends and individual local occurnces.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html

As Badger said, I was putting it in terms you recognise, not terms that I do.

Im not left wing Dune. Centrist to soft right if anything. Clearly I am to the left of you, but even thats hard to judge, what with you being in orbit and all.

£7billion pa to offset Britains current £10billion pa deficit in oil and gas, predicted to grow each year. I would have thought that apart from the economics adding up you would think reducing dependency on the fuzzy wuzzys was a good thing.

Which is an agency of the MoD.

A comparatively junior resercher sent some unwise emails about how to spin some results. Is that what you are referring to?

So? Lawson couldnt even get his own area of expertise right, remember the Lawson boom and crash? Trotting out Lawson and a Daily Express journo to rebut an overwhelming body of international opinion is frankly laughable.

Jesus, even for you this is weak. What has party politics got to with it? There is no right / left divide on the issue. Adair Turner ex CBI and FSA; Sam Laidlaw CEO of Centrica; John Bond ex Chair HSBC and dozens of other business figures recongnize and accept the reality. All those points you trotted are well worn and thoroughly rebutted. Here for example http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Tell us then which parts you dont believe - that different gases in the atmosphere trap different amounts of heat; that cutting down forests doesnt impact climate. And if man can influence climate locally - and man is spread all over the globe - how come we cant influence it globally?

Serious question Dune. Why do you believe the writings of a journo sat in an office, thinking how to appeal to his readership. Have you actually met any of them? They arent great intellectuals and for the most part dont even believe what they write, they simply follow the editorial line. In fact why do you post pages of this tripe as if sheer volume somehow balances out actual findings and research from NASA or NOAA or 100 credible organisations? TBH it makes you seem a bit thick if you aren't able to distinguish between the respective value of the two.

tbh it sounds like the kind of joke Id make to a mate if in the first half the keeper had a mare and at half time they asked me where id been (on the way back from having a slash / pie / mars bar).

Methane is a hydrocarbon - ie its made up of molecules formed from hydrogen and carbon atoms. Nitrogen is a different element, one cant turn into the other, as the alchemists who tried to make gold from lead found out.

Maybe is the definitive answer! A huge amount of methane is locked away in the Canadian and Russian permafrost and at very deep high pressure levels under the oceans. Methane is, as you say, around 2 0 times more powerful than CO2 as a ghg. However it breaks down more quickly, around 22 years for methane as opposed to over 100 years for C02. The impact on climate is hard to know. If the southern parts of Russian and Canadian tundra subsoil increases in temperature from -5 to -1 there wont really be an impact. If it increases from -5 to +0.5 ie the ground thaws it could have a devastating impact - potentially creating a self reinforcing spiral of methane relase creating more warming which melts more permafrost which releases more methane. Trees and plants dont create or destroy carbon during their lifecycle (they take it in as they grow and release it when they die - whether by rotting or burning). The truth is no-one really knows what the combined effects of permafrost melting, polar ice caps melting and deforestation will be. But even the most benign scenarios indicate high freshwater stress and crop failures in some of the most densely populated regions on earth. At worst large regions could become desertified. Yes vast tracts of Canadian and Russian wilderness may well become habitable and attractive for the first time, but the social and economic problems of relocating perhaps two billion people dont bear thinking about. Nobody has all the answers about exactly what will happen - there are too many variables. But given that the costs of adopting a low carbon economy are miniscule compared with the costs of social dislocation, it would be very strange indeed to do nothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/21/police-figures-unexpected-drop-crime http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/23/early-release-prison-numbers

Yeah, loser.. Its pity people often dont debate individual economic and political issues using their own knowedge and reasoning. Arguing 'my party is right and yours is crap' is sterile.

The detailed BBC forecast for my local area says clear blue skies and sun at 3pm. Its snowing.

I wonder what the total capacity of SMS would be if there was standing in say 40% of the ground. Could be around 10% higher at 36,000?

I work for an environmental charity. In my experience the vast majority of people who say climate change isnt real do so on the basis of what they see outside their bedroom window. The number of people who have read the science, understand the issues and still say climate change isnt real and isnt caused by ghg emissions is tiny.

No its the Inverse Morgan Conundrum. He does play for France, did score against Columbia, but would be crap against Thurrock.