quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

Yeah, but you generally hold onto the wooden bit, don't you? I guess I could give it a try and see......

The "lead" is normally exposed at the blunt end as well as the sharp end. Could you expect a child to avoid that?

Try it anyway. Empiricism demands it and Faraday would be proud.

True Sceptic.

What's happened to legjoints? Been gone for more than two hours!

Best regards, suricat.

Any sign of LG yet???

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
Any sign of LG yet???

No, it was a shocking way to go...

True Sceptic.

Why haven't you responded to my postings?

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
True Sceptic.

Why haven't you responded to my postings?

Best regards, suricat.

Sorry, where? In this thread?

quote:

Leaving aside his strange ideas about CO2 figures, where can we check his claims about predicting the floods?

In July he predicted 3 more batches of floods, none of which arrived. He's a self-publicist rather than a publicist of his forecasts. He claims to have won a lot of money from Ladbrokes and had a right go at me when I suggested that the smug look on the face of a Ladbroke's representative when being interviewed about Piers suggested rather the opposite.

Just found this after a google.

quote:

The three periods for which Weather Action are 90% confident there will be severe damaging storms:

* October 26th to 31st or Nov 1st. Storm gusts of 80 to 100mph in
places. This is likely to be a major storm period but probably only a
'warm-up' for what is to come in November. It is good there is now no
election (eg on Nov 1st ) because the election period would have been
severely disrupted (NB warning of the storms was passed on to the
Labour leadership). The storm will track East and likely (80%
confident) affect Holland, Denmark, South Norway, South Sweden and
parts of North Germany.

Oops, one missed. Hope for 2 out of 3?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

In July he predicted 3 more batches of floods, none of which arrived. He's a self-publicist rather than a publicist of his forecasts. He claims to have won a lot of money from Ladbrokes and had a right go at me when I suggested that the smug look on the face of a Ladbroke's representative when being interviewed about Piers suggested rather the opposite.

Just found this after a google.

quote:

The three periods for which Weather Action are 90% confident there will be severe damaging storms:

* October 26th to 31st or Nov 1st. Storm gusts of 80 to 100mph in
places. This is likely to be a major storm period but probably only a
'warm-up' for what is to come in November. It is good there is now no
election (eg on Nov 1st ) because the election period would have been
severely disrupted (NB warning of the storms was passed on to the
Labour leadership). The storm will track East and likely (80%
confident) affect Holland, Denmark, South Norway, South Sweden and
parts of North Germany.

Oops, one missed. Hope for 2 out of 3?

Thanks, I saw those.Where is the evidence that in December last year he predicted the floods we did have?

True Sceptic.

Quote from True Sceptic.
quote:
Originally posted by suricat:
True Sceptic.

Why haven't you responded to my postings?

Best regards, suricat.

Sorry, where? In this thread?
EOQ.


Elsewhere and here. Thought I'd upset you, though if that isn't the case then its OK with me.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
True Sceptic

Elsewhere and here. Thought I'd upset you, though if that isn't the case then its OK with me.

Best regards, suricat.

Not at all. I enjoy reading your posts. It's a matter of time. This is not the only place I waste, err spend, my time and my memory is less than perfect!

I'll try and find your last response and get back to you.

BTW I know that you don't type directly into the website, but if you enclose quoted messages like so
[q u o t e]
Quoted stuff
[/q u o t e]
without the spaces, it makes it easier to read.

I'm still waiting to hear why JL and Roger etc feel there is no cause for alarm that the current levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere are higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years, and that this increase seems to be preceding the increase in temperature.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
I'm still waiting to hear why JL and Roger etc feel there is no cause for alarm that the current levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere are higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years, and that this increase seems to be preceding the increase in temperature.

I'm off out for the remainder of the day in a few minutes.

I'll respond tomorrow, assuming the moderators let me. They seem to have deleted some of my earlier replies.

True Sceptic.

Thanks for the 'code' pointer. I didn't think of using server codes on the site (though I think realprimate, or another site user, may have suggested this before).

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
I'm still waiting to hear why JL and Roger etc feel there is no cause for alarm that the current levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere are higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years, and that this increase seems to be preceding the increase in temperature.

Right, back from the concert yesterday. My voice hasn't recovered yet, but my typing fingers are OK!

Unless CO2 is in some way poisonous I don't see any reason to prefer one level of CO2 to another.

The increase might be preceding a rise in temperature, but that could be either a direct causal link (as you suggest) or simply a spurious time-lagged correlation. I see no reason to be panicked into leaving my scientific-sceptic philosophy behind and simply grabbing AGW theory because there has been a very modest rise in temperature. 0.8 degrees Celsius in 150 years does not send me into apopleptic fits. Sorry.

Originally posted by Lucibee:
Quote
.....the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years, ......
end quote

Can some one confirm that there is an internationally agreed protocol on how the present CO2 content of the atmosphere is measured and compared to past estimates? Without such an agreement I do not see how past and recent measurements can be compared with such certainty and dogma.

Geoman.

quote:

Can some one confirm that there is an internationally agreed protocol on how the present CO2 content of the atmosphere is measured and compared to past estimates? Without such an agreement I do not see how past and recent measurements can be compared with such certainty and dogma.

I'll second that. It's something I'd like cleared up as well.

suricat.

Further to my last posting concerning the question of agreed protocols for CO2 measurement,the same applies to the subject of Mean Global Temperature. This is a man-made concept that has no reality in science. For both temperature and CO2 a base reference should have been established with fixed sample points on the Earth's surface each with agreed methods of data reduction incorporating variables such as elevation, latitude, how do you measure temperature or CO2 and at what time of the day, how do you compensate for daily variations such as cloud cover, wind direction, how do you incorporate land and sea data etc, etc.
If these agreed protocols for the data reduction at these locations do not exist, or the sample points for the global computations are not consistent then what is measured and published over time is meaningless.

Geoman.

I'm sorry, it was presumptuous of me to assume that you had intended to include Lucibee's quote in its entirety. I would call for clarity as to whether CO2 increase was either 'leading' temperature increase, or 'lagging' it.

Mauna Loa is responsible for CO2 measurement data and they seem to have a good system going. The Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office are now responsible for temperature measurement data (having recently been given the responsibility from NASA). You can get Sea Surface Temps there as well. I think most would agree that they use the best possible protocols and provide, probably, the best data that we'll get.

I don't think that I really understand your point because science and accountancy are man-made concepts as well as average global temperature.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

I'm sorry, it was presumptuous of me to assume that you had intended to include Lucibee's quote in its entirety. I would call for clarity as to whether CO2 increase was either 'leading' temperature increase, or 'lagging' it.

In the ice core record, CO2 lags temperature by some 800 years. However, in recent years, it has overtaken temperature (presumably because of our huge emissions). Look at the graph here.

BTW, does it really matter whether it is directly causal or not? Even if there is an indirect association, the true causal route should be secondary to the effect, if the effect turns out to be damaging. Also, association doesn't necessarily indicate causality, but it does still indicate association!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
I'm still waiting to hear why JL and Roger etc feel there is no cause for alarm that the current levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere are higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years, and that this increase seems to be preceding the increase in temperature.

The OED has 'alarm' as: "frightened awareness of danger", so clearly your state of alarm is a triggered response to a perception of danger. Finding the "cause for alarm" would therefore involve thinking about the limits you place on what you perceive as a danger. If the limits are unrealistic, then any 'change' might be perceived as a 'danger' and so 'change' in itself would be felt to be intolerable.

Such a person may, for example, decide to seek the safety of a confined and highly familiar environment; from where they will write into web blogs campaigning for the world to be adjusted to one in which 'change' is removed... believing this demand to be a prerequisite for their participation in it. The wish here, of course, is that if the world can be made 'constant', then participation would be non-alarming. In other words, believing "If I control the world, I will never risk facing change and the alarm it triggers in me".

Clearly, the "cause for alarm" is anything that confirms the unwanted knowledge: "I am not omnipotent". And any campaign becomes a project against acknowledging this intolerable fact - the REAL prerequisite for risking participation in a world of constant change and development.

Oh dear, Roger58 - you do have it bad!

We are not denying that there is natural climate change, and I am not saying that natural climate change is bad and something we should try to reverse. What we are talking about here is anthropogenic climate change, which may well be bad - and not just for the human race. Why don't you read the links... you might learn something!

Oh - and why don't you answer my question?

If CO2 levels are higher than at any other point in the past 600,000 years - why are you not worried?

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
Oh - and why don't you answer my question?

If CO2 levels are higher than at any other point in the past 600,000 years - why are you not worried?

Lucibee - I have just explained why am not worried and you appear to reject my words. Perhaps another incapacitating symptom of someone in a "frightened awareness of danger" is a difficulty concentrating beyond what is immediately triggering that state as the means to finding its "cause". Something I have invited you to do... and recognising that you are an intelligent person who is perfectly capable of doing it.

No - you've explained why you think I am worried, not why you are not worried!