The Fireless Locomotive

Especially anything produced by the IPCC which is a political, not scientific, body.

MBQ

You can do better that that.

MBQ

Climate change, yes I accept that.

Anthropogenic, maybe.

Anything like as serious as the politicians want us to believe, NO!

I'm with these guys

MBQ

news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb-

Sure, but I'm looking through the other end of the telescope to you.

New Zealand is a small country (population wise) and our exports are the basis of our economy. Wool, mutton and lamb exports have over the last 50 years dropped by

50-80%, while beef and dairy products have doubled several time over the last couple of decades. Britain used to be our main export market, but now Europe is. From our point of view there's little difference in supplying a specific part of Europe, or spreading those exports over the whole of Europe. You get a choice of supply and we get a choice of customers.

Of course 'Canterbury Lamb' is superior to 'Welsh Lamb'.

Regards, Greg.P.

news:9bbb9633-bc1a-462d-92cb-

True, but humans also produce methane and there are vastly more humans than ever before so total methane production will be well up.

As the say goes, the only sure way to make money from the horses is to carry a bucket and spade!

N.America _is_ the bit north of the Panama canal >8^]

Regards, Greg.P.

Q: What do you call a blind buck ?

A: No idea.

beamendsltd wrote in news:c3514ab04f% snipped-for-privacy@btconnect.com:

S. American Beef, NZ dairy, European Beef and Dairy, sheep in Auz etc etc etc??? There's more to the world than our former colonies in the Northern areas of America

Wouldnt that increase human methane production ?

Cheers, Simon

Presumably you can pee in a buffalo though ?

Cheers, Simon

Given the results since then (ruling out 2nd order effects of solar variation, for one thing), it's probably in the

92-95% certainty range (though I've not worked out the stats, the 90% is fulloy worked including all quatifiable errors).

Given that the politicians want us to believe it's a lot less serious than all the scientific evidence points to, I'd be interested in the reasoning here.

Can't see that from here, so can't comment on how plausible or othwerwise they are.

But suggest you read the most comprehensive (though very cautious, and probably understated) assessment instead:

IPCC 2007, volume 1, Camb. Univ. Press. See above for title.

Library ought to be able to source it. At 90 UKP it's a bit much unless you need to have the details to hand at all times (which is why I bought it).

Tosh, unmitigated and absolute. There is political feed into IPCC reports. It has always manifested itself in demands to dilute the recommendations which emerge from the science.

You really, badly, need to talk to some of the people who know something about this stuff - or at the very least read some stuff - in order y=to get aa grasp of the science which underpins this work. Yes: it's ann attempt to grapple whith what is probably the most complex topic ever tackled scientifically, but the body of evidence ammassed is literally overwhelming. The science community who know about this stuff (and those on the fringes who keep up with the peoiple who know) are aA DAM' SIGHT MORE WORRIED than any hide-it-under-the-carpet bletherings from the politicians would suggest.

I'm now going to retire from this discussion for the good of my health. Please feel free to renew this discussion //AFTER// you have read and considered volume 1 of the IPCC 2007 report. I'll be happy to discuss points and issues then, once I have some confidence that you've considered some of the evidence.

North America is definitely Canada and the US. Mexico, maybe. Depends on which Mexicans you talk to. Quite a few of them are some sore about their gummint's deals with the US and Canada. The bits between Mexico and Colombia are Central America. Those bits in the ocean east and north of Central America are the Caribbean.

Don't matter squat what they teach in NZ schools.

The link points to:

The "31,000 scientists" listed are not described. The context implies they are people with science degrees (B.SC, MSC, and PH.D.)

[...]

Yes, I've seen this graph, and recent updates, too. I wasn't aware that some people called it "the" hockey stick graph (I guess I don't read the more polemical screeds.) Kinda silly, if you ask me. Maybe they are thinking of that curious game played on grass with a ball and a bent broomstick.

Daly's argument is that the "hockey stick graph" somehow denies the medieval warming and the little ice age. I think he misunderstands the graph. As I read it, the graph shows a general cooling trend that reverses ca. 1900-1950. Whether that reversal is a the beginning of a new trend, or another variation that will be subsumed by a longer-term cooling trend, we cannot tell, yet. What we can be sure of, though, is that we are conducting a test of the climate models proposed by the climatologists. Unfortunately, you and I are unlikely to see how that test turns out, since confirmation of the worst case scenario (climate "flip". ie, major change on a time-scale of 100 years or so) will occur around 2050 at the earliest, by which time I would be well over 100 years old.

Daly refers to historical anecdotes as evidence for climate (which they certainly are), so here are a couple of anecdotes for you: a) When I moved here to mid-northern Ontario in 1972, there were no raccoons here, as the winters were too long and too cold for them. They are now ubiquitous. b) We used to have frost in the ground by late October - early November. We now get frost in the ground in late November - early December. And it doesn't go as deep: it used to go down to 3 to 5 ft, now it goes down a foot or so. c) Up to the late 70s, the North Channel (between the mainland and Manitoulin Island) froze over enough that one could ride a snowmobile across (it's about 30 miles). Not any more. d) Business from snowmobilers has shrunk from an 8-10 week season in the

1970s to a month (or less) now. The snowmobile clubs that patrol the trails issue warnings as late as February about using the lake crossings - not enough ice to support a snowmobile.

BTW, Daly must be using some "free" HTML program to fancy up his website, because the pages do not display correctly in Firefox. The text wanders past the margins, which makes it difficult to read. Why does he want his website to look like a coil-bound notebook? Silly, if you ask me. He's also more than cheap and chintzy with the graphs, they aren't big enough to see detail clearly. Bah!

Yeah, they taught us that south of the equator is south (of the equator) and north of the equator is north (of trhe equator). Gee, they sure didn't know anything!

Greg.P.

And if you had quoted a reliable source I would believe you but you quoted Wikipedia instead, the best example of GI-GO on the planet.

Actually trees convert the carbon in CO2 to carbon in cellulose in the daytime however at night they use up some oxygen. The net result is positive in favour of CO2 conversion.

Wrong! You are taking the carbon locked up in the cellulose fiber and burning it with oxygen from the atmosphere to create CO2. You are in effect undoing what a tree did some time ago.

Bill Dixon

Surely it is pretty arbitrary anyway? My school's books didn't have a central America, just north and south - but they also had an APT... Are France and Denmark in North America?

I've noticed a lot of (US?) Americans won't believe that most of the UK, Ireland, Portugal, bits of Africa, and everywhere this side of Greenwich are in the west.

For what it's worth, "North American Market" in the automotive world, and probably other areas of endeavour, includes Mexico since Mexican legislation tends to mimic US/Candian rules. Other Central American markets tend to be lumped with South America, again due to legislation trends.

Cheers Richard