Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Global Warming] On water vapor

Expand Messages
  • Wayne
    I had never considered that oxidation of CH4 had the effect of increasing water in the stratosphere. Climate science is complicated! I have browsed around on
    Message 1 of 21 , Feb 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I had never considered that oxidation of CH4 had the effect of
      increasing water in the stratosphere. Climate science is complicated! I
      have browsed around on this and learned a little. It is amazing how new
      paper can be spread over the internet as gospel and proof that global
      warming is a fallacy or vice versa. I think that much of this is the
      fault of an overzealous media that is more concerned with selling the
      news than reporting the news.


      On 1/31/2010 7:22 PM, coloradoken wrote:
      > Hi Wayne,
      >
      > Found this take at Skeptical Science. With details seems that CH4 my not be the major player here though transport (Troposphere-Stratosphere exchange) is still implicated.
      >
      > http://www.skepticalscience.com/role-of-stratospheric-water-vapor-in-global-warming.html
      >
      > Cheers,
      > Ken
      >
      > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "coloradoken"<kmcolo@...> wrote:
      >
      >> Hi Wayne,
      >>
      >> An intriguing find! I will have to read the article which, unfortunately, was published in a harder to access (i.e. non-institutional subscription) location thus I will need to wait. More than likely it will be judged as a change in exchange between the troposphere and the stratosphere, the why will have to wait. But this has some very interesting implications for the methane cycle which is the primary source of water vapor to the stratosphere. Much past that is speculation on my part. Very much not in Boulder any more.
      >>
      >> Regards,
      >> Ken
      >>
      >> --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne<kb0syf@> wrote:
      >>
      >>> Ken, would you comment on this? I am not sure I understand what Solomon
      >>> is saying. Is this a negative feedback or is this something caused by
      >>> changes in the sun or something else external?
      >>>
      >>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • taurusrc@comcast.net
      Or creating the news. Ora
      Message 2 of 21 , Feb 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Or creating the news.

        Ora

        On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:47:10 -0600, Wayne <kb0syf@...> wrote:
        > I think that much of this is the
        >fault of an overzealous media that is more concerned with selling the
        >news than reporting the news.
        >
      • ourphyl
        Hi Wayne. I agree. It s interesting that Ram et al pointed out in a piece they did for May 1989 Physics Today that large positive radiation feedback in the
        Message 3 of 21 , Feb 2, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Wayne.

          I agree. It's interesting that Ram et al pointed out in a piece they did
          for May 1989 Physics Today that large positive radiation feedback in the
          tropics almost canceled large negative feedback, an unstable balancing
          that had persisted up to then. It should be interesting to scientists
          because no one had a clue as to what the underlying physical phenomena
          were. Pity because, should the balance be disturbed and the tipping
          point tip, the results would probably be very disturbing to global
          climate and interesting as well as the rest of us.

          The article is in Physics Today, pages 22 to 32. It's a layered
          radiation budget description that starts with thermodynamic balance and
          proceeds step-by-step. I found it very informative and well worth
          reading. Should others wish to check it out it can be found here
          <http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/publications/Ram%20Barkstrom%20Harrison%\
          20PhysicsToday%2021-32%201989.pdf> .

          The list of some of what we didn't know then, including the discussion
          of the IR/IV balancing act is on page 32. AFAIK we haven't made much
          scientific progress in the 20+ years on clouds or water vapor
          understanding yet. Perhaps we've been too taken up with the politics.

          as ever,

          j
          http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/publications/Ram%20Barkstrom%20Harrison%2\
          0PhysicsToday%2021-32%201989.pdf

          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@...> wrote:
          >
          > I had never considered that oxidation of CH4 had the effect of
          > increasing water in the stratosphere. Climate science is complicated!
          I
          > have browsed around on this and learned a little. It is amazing how
          new
          > paper can be spread over the internet as gospel and proof that global
          > warming is a fallacy or vice versa. I think that much of this is the
          > fault of an overzealous media that is more concerned with selling the
          > news than reporting the news.


          >
          >
          > On 1/31/2010 7:22 PM, coloradoken wrote:
          > > Hi Wayne,
          > >
          > > Found this take at Skeptical Science. With details seems that CH4
          my not be the major player here though transport
          (Troposphere-Stratosphere exchange) is still implicated.
          > >
          > >
          http://www.skepticalscience.com/role-of-stratospheric-water-vapor-in-glo\
          bal-warming.html
          > >
          > > Cheers,
          > > Ken
          > >
          > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "coloradoken"kmcolo@ wrote:
          > >
          > >> Hi Wayne,
          > >>
          > >> An intriguing find! I will have to read the article which,
          unfortunately, was published in a harder to access (i.e.
          non-institutional subscription) location thus I will need to wait. More
          than likely it will be judged as a change in exchange between the
          troposphere and the stratosphere, the why will have to wait. But this
          has some very interesting implications for the methane cycle which is
          the primary source of water vapor to the stratosphere. Much past that
          is speculation on my part. Very much not in Boulder any more.
          > >>
          > >> Regards,
          > >> Ken
          > >>
          > >> --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne<kb0syf@> wrote:
          > >>
          > >>> Ken, would you comment on this? I am not sure I understand what
          Solomon
          > >>> is saying. Is this a negative feedback or is this something caused
          by
          > >>> changes in the sun or something else external?
          > >>>
          > >>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488
          > >>>
          > >>>
          > >>
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • poitsplace
          What keeps slipping past everyone s attention is that sensitivity is in the lowest range of the lowest models and yet everyone still says...CO2 sensitivity
          Message 4 of 21 , Feb 2, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            What keeps slipping past everyone's attention is that sensitivity is in the lowest range of the lowest models and yet everyone still says...CO2 sensitivity MUST be high to explain the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature

            and that's just it, it MUST be high to explain that sort of driving relationship BUT IT ISN'T. It is NOT high enough to explain that sort of relationship. Given that we still know so little about the climate system the obvious answer is that we don't know what's been causing what are obviously, largely natural fluctuations.



            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@...> wrote:
            >
            > I had never considered that oxidation of CH4 had the effect of
            > increasing water in the stratosphere. Climate science is complicated! I
            > have browsed around on this and learned a little. It is amazing how new
            > paper can be spread over the internet as gospel and proof that global
            > warming is a fallacy or vice versa. I think that much of this is the
            > fault of an overzealous media that is more concerned with selling the
            > news than reporting the news.
            >
            >
            > On 1/31/2010 7:22 PM, coloradoken wrote:
            > > Hi Wayne,
            > >
            > > Found this take at Skeptical Science. With details seems that CH4 my not be the major player here though transport (Troposphere-Stratosphere exchange) is still implicated.
            > >
            > > http://www.skepticalscience.com/role-of-stratospheric-water-vapor-in-global-warming.html
            > >
            > > Cheers,
            > > Ken
            > >
            > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "coloradoken"<kmcolo@> wrote:
            > >
            > >> Hi Wayne,
            > >>
            > >> An intriguing find! I will have to read the article which, unfortunately, was published in a harder to access (i.e. non-institutional subscription) location thus I will need to wait. More than likely it will be judged as a change in exchange between the troposphere and the stratosphere, the why will have to wait. But this has some very interesting implications for the methane cycle which is the primary source of water vapor to the stratosphere. Much past that is speculation on my part. Very much not in Boulder any more.
            > >>
            > >> Regards,
            > >> Ken
            > >>
            > >> --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne<kb0syf@> wrote:
            > >>
            > >>> Ken, would you comment on this? I am not sure I understand what Solomon
            > >>> is saying. Is this a negative feedback or is this something caused by
            > >>> changes in the sun or something else external?
            > >>>
            > >>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488
            > >>>
            > >>>
            > >>
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
          • ourphyl
            I have been unsuccessful over much of the past year trying to figure out what measurable physical effect climate sensitivity represented. My current
            Message 5 of 21 , Feb 3, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              I have been unsuccessful over much of the past year trying to figure out
              what measurable physical effect "climate sensitivity" represented.

              My current understanding is that climate sensitivity is an
              interpretation from a particular examination of past Paleolithic
              records. Models can be constructed to use it. It can be more or less
              useful to specialists.

              Is there any way to make climate sensitivity be more useful?

              cheers,

              j


              --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > What keeps slipping past everyone's attention is that sensitivity is
              in the lowest range of the lowest models and yet everyone still
              says...CO2 sensitivity MUST be high to explain the causal relationship
              between CO2 and temperature
              >
              > and that's just it, it MUST be high to explain that sort of driving
              relationship BUT IT ISN'T. It is NOT high enough to explain that sort
              of relationship. Given that we still know so little about the climate
              system the obvious answer is that we don't know what's been causing what
              are obviously, largely natural fluctuations.
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne kb0syf@ wrote:
              > >
              > > I had never considered that oxidation of CH4 had the effect of
              > > increasing water in the stratosphere. Climate science is
              complicated! I
              > > have browsed around on this and learned a little. It is amazing how
              new
              > > paper can be spread over the internet as gospel and proof that
              global
              > > warming is a fallacy or vice versa. I think that much of this is the
              > > fault of an overzealous media that is more concerned with selling
              the
              > > news than reporting the news.
              > >
              > >
              > > On 1/31/2010 7:22 PM, coloradoken wrote:
              > > > Hi Wayne,
              > > >
              > > > Found this take at Skeptical Science. With details seems that CH4
              my not be the major player here though transport
              (Troposphere-Stratosphere exchange) is still implicated.
              > > >
              > > >
              http://www.skepticalscience.com/role-of-stratospheric-water-vapor-in-glo\
              bal-warming.html
              > > >
              > > > Cheers,
              > > > Ken
              > > >
              > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "coloradoken"<kmcolo@>
              wrote:
              > > >
              > > >> Hi Wayne,
              > > >>
              > > >> An intriguing find! I will have to read the article which,
              unfortunately, was published in a harder to access (i.e.
              non-institutional subscription) location thus I will need to wait. More
              than likely it will be judged as a change in exchange between the
              troposphere and the stratosphere, the why will have to wait. But this
              has some very interesting implications for the methane cycle which is
              the primary source of water vapor to the stratosphere. Much past that
              is speculation on my part. Very much not in Boulder any more.
              > > >>
              > > >> Regards,
              > > >> Ken
              > > >>
              > > >> --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne<kb0syf@> wrote:
              > > >>
              > > >>> Ken, would you comment on this? I am not sure I understand what
              Solomon
              > > >>> is saying. Is this a negative feedback or is this something
              caused by
              > > >>> changes in the sun or something else external?
              > > >>>
              > > >>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488
              > > >>>
              > > >>>
              > > >>
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > ------------------------------------
              > > >
              > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • poitsplace
              The problem is the established science suggests sensitivity is so absurdly high from crazy feedbacks that it is physically impossible for the climate to EVER
              Message 6 of 21 , Feb 3, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                The problem is the "established science" suggests sensitivity is so absurdly high from crazy feedbacks that it is physically impossible for the climate to EVER be remotely stable. Excuse me while I rant for a moment...

                When your models ONLY work with impossibly high sensitivities (ie, they would falsify history its self...like our relatively stable interglacial) then the relationship is likely reversed. The climate CANNOT be as sensitive to CO2 as people think, CO2 must instead be sensitive to the climate(at least...until we started spewing the stuff). Yes, its quite likely that CO2 has a tiny impact on temperatures. BUT it is so incredibly weak that the feedbacks themselves would have a greater impact on themselves...than CO2 ever had (the glacial-interglacial transition probably does actually involve feedbacks operating within a range that causes run-away warming or cooling...until they're saturated)

                If I invert the relationship between rain and tree growth...and say that tree growth DRIVES rainfall (and honestly...to a tiny extent it does) then I must use impossibly high rain driving potential from tree growth to get it to work. The hypothesis would be crap but the models would work....for a while anyway.

                If I decide that the clutch of cars with manual transmissions is in fact the way people determine how fast the car goes... because I have ONE short example (like our short temperature history) and then only the averages of clutch use v/s speed for a longer history (proxies are VERY rough), I could make the models work. The past history would work out roughly and people would rightfully point out that people DO press the clutch in more when they accelerate. But its still a crap hypothesis and the fact that you've roughly modeled the behavior is meaningless...because unless you actually understand the system first it cannot be truly modeled (I suppose there's a one in a million shot you could guess all the correct variables/relationships)

                One could say that pressing the fast forward on a DVR causes commercials to be displayed. What??? You say there's a lag between the commercial starting and the button press...well DVRs are very complex so the lag isn't important...the science is settled...the button press CAUSES advertisements to be displayed. Do you see how absolutely retarded that sounds? Its like saying ice albedo has the potential to cause almost as much warming as it did during the glacial period...when there's less than 10% as much ice in the world and it's in a place that only ever gets 1/2 the amount of light.

                Climate alarmism is the greatest failure of science ever.



                --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" <701wizz@...> wrote:
                >
                > I have been unsuccessful over much of the past year trying to figure out
                > what measurable physical effect "climate sensitivity" represented.
                >
                > My current understanding is that climate sensitivity is an
                > interpretation from a particular examination of past Paleolithic
                > records. Models can be constructed to use it. It can be more or less
                > useful to specialists.
                >
                > Is there any way to make climate sensitivity be more useful?
                >
                > cheers,
                >
                > j
                >
                >
                > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > What keeps slipping past everyone's attention is that sensitivity is
                > in the lowest range of the lowest models and yet everyone still
                > says...CO2 sensitivity MUST be high to explain the causal relationship
                > between CO2 and temperature
                > >
                > > and that's just it, it MUST be high to explain that sort of driving
                > relationship BUT IT ISN'T. It is NOT high enough to explain that sort
                > of relationship. Given that we still know so little about the climate
                > system the obvious answer is that we don't know what's been causing what
                > are obviously, largely natural fluctuations.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne kb0syf@ wrote:
                > > >
                > > > I had never considered that oxidation of CH4 had the effect of
                > > > increasing water in the stratosphere. Climate science is
                > complicated! I
                > > > have browsed around on this and learned a little. It is amazing how
                > new
                > > > paper can be spread over the internet as gospel and proof that
                > global
                > > > warming is a fallacy or vice versa. I think that much of this is the
                > > > fault of an overzealous media that is more concerned with selling
                > the
                > > > news than reporting the news.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > On 1/31/2010 7:22 PM, coloradoken wrote:
                > > > > Hi Wayne,
                > > > >
                > > > > Found this take at Skeptical Science. With details seems that CH4
                > my not be the major player here though transport
                > (Troposphere-Stratosphere exchange) is still implicated.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > http://www.skepticalscience.com/role-of-stratospheric-water-vapor-in-glo\
                > bal-warming.html
                > > > >
                > > > > Cheers,
                > > > > Ken
                > > > >
                > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "coloradoken"<kmcolo@>
                > wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > >> Hi Wayne,
                > > > >>
                > > > >> An intriguing find! I will have to read the article which,
                > unfortunately, was published in a harder to access (i.e.
                > non-institutional subscription) location thus I will need to wait. More
                > than likely it will be judged as a change in exchange between the
                > troposphere and the stratosphere, the why will have to wait. But this
                > has some very interesting implications for the methane cycle which is
                > the primary source of water vapor to the stratosphere. Much past that
                > is speculation on my part. Very much not in Boulder any more.
                > > > >>
                > > > >> Regards,
                > > > >> Ken
                > > > >>
                > > > >> --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne<kb0syf@> wrote:
                > > > >>
                > > > >>> Ken, would you comment on this? I am not sure I understand what
                > Solomon
                > > > >>> is saying. Is this a negative feedback or is this something
                > caused by
                > > > >>> changes in the sun or something else external?
                > > > >>>
                > > > >>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488
                > > > >>>
                > > > >>>
                > > > >>
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > ------------------------------------
                > > > >
                > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • ourphyl
                poitsplace, While I agree with a lot of what you say, I m still stuck for better physical models. For instance, radiation feedback by clouds is presented in
                Message 7 of 21 , Feb 4, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  poitsplace,

                  While I agree with a lot of what you say, I'm still stuck for better
                  physical models.

                  For instance, radiation feedback by clouds is presented in the 1989
                  Physics Today
                  <http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/publications/Ram%20Barkstrom%20Harrison%\
                  20PhysicsToday%2021-32%201989.pdf> article as a combination of two
                  different physical effects. The first is due to water-vapor-temperature
                  coupling plus albedo modification which are described as physical
                  effects with large positive feedback. The second is increased emission
                  due to increased surface temperature - yet another physical concept with
                  large negative feedback. Their importance to me is the physics in back
                  of their descriptions*. I don't get that same feeling about "climate
                  sensitivity".

                  So what "really" is climate sensitivity anyway?

                  j
                  * Why they seem almost in balance was the subject of a previous post.

                  --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > The problem is the "established science" suggests sensitivity is so
                  absurdly high from crazy feedbacks that it is physically impossible for
                  the climate to EVER be remotely stable. Excuse me while I rant for a
                  moment...
                  >
                  > When your models ONLY work with impossibly high sensitivities (ie,
                  they would falsify history its self...like our relatively stable
                  interglacial) then the relationship is likely reversed. The climate
                  CANNOT be as sensitive to CO2 as people think, CO2 must instead be
                  sensitive to the climate(at least...until we started spewing the stuff).
                  Yes, its quite likely that CO2 has a tiny impact on temperatures. BUT
                  it is so incredibly weak that the feedbacks themselves would have a
                  greater impact on themselves...than CO2 ever had (the
                  glacial-interglacial transition probably does actually involve feedbacks
                  operating within a range that causes run-away warming or cooling...until
                  they're saturated)
                  >
                  > If I invert the relationship between rain and tree growth...and say
                  that tree growth DRIVES rainfall (and honestly...to a tiny extent it
                  does) then I must use impossibly high rain driving potential from tree
                  growth to get it to work. The hypothesis would be crap but the models
                  would work....for a while anyway.
                  >
                  > If I decide that the clutch of cars with manual transmissions is in
                  fact the way people determine how fast the car goes... because I have
                  ONE short example (like our short temperature history) and then only the
                  averages of clutch use v/s speed for a longer history (proxies are VERY
                  rough), I could make the models work. The past history would work out
                  roughly and people would rightfully point out that people DO press the
                  clutch in more when they accelerate. But its still a crap hypothesis
                  and the fact that you've roughly modeled the behavior is
                  meaningless...because unless you actually understand the system first it
                  cannot be truly modeled (I suppose there's a one in a million shot you
                  could guess all the correct variables/relationships)
                  >
                  > One could say that pressing the fast forward on a DVR causes
                  commercials to be displayed. What??? You say there's a lag between the
                  commercial starting and the button press...well DVRs are very complex so
                  the lag isn't important...the science is settled...the button press
                  CAUSES advertisements to be displayed. Do you see how absolutely
                  retarded that sounds? Its like saying ice albedo has the potential to
                  cause almost as much warming as it did during the glacial period...when
                  there's less than 10% as much ice in the world and it's in a place that
                  only ever gets 1/2 the amount of light.
                  >
                  > Climate alarmism is the greatest failure of science ever.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" 701wizz@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I have been unsuccessful over much of the past year trying to figure
                  out
                  > > what measurable physical effect "climate sensitivity" represented.
                  > >
                  > > My current understanding is that climate sensitivity is an
                  > > interpretation from a particular examination of past Paleolithic
                  > > records. Models can be constructed to use it. It can be more or less
                  > > useful to specialists.
                  > >
                  > > Is there any way to make climate sensitivity be more useful?
                  > >
                  > > cheers,
                  > >
                  > > j
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > What keeps slipping past everyone's attention is that sensitivity
                  is
                  > > in the lowest range of the lowest models and yet everyone still
                  > > says...CO2 sensitivity MUST be high to explain the causal
                  relationship
                  > > between CO2 and temperature
                  > > >
                  > > > and that's just it, it MUST be high to explain that sort of
                  driving
                  > > relationship BUT IT ISN'T. It is NOT high enough to explain that
                  sort
                  > > of relationship. Given that we still know so little about the
                  climate
                  > > system the obvious answer is that we don't know what's been causing
                  what
                  > > are obviously, largely natural fluctuations.
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne kb0syf@ wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > I had never considered that oxidation of CH4 had the effect of
                  > > > > increasing water in the stratosphere. Climate science is
                  > > complicated! I
                  > > > > have browsed around on this and learned a little. It is amazing
                  how
                  > > new
                  > > > > paper can be spread over the internet as gospel and proof that
                  > > global
                  > > > > warming is a fallacy or vice versa. I think that much of this is
                  the
                  > > > > fault of an overzealous media that is more concerned with
                  selling
                  > > the
                  > > > > news than reporting the news.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > On 1/31/2010 7:22 PM, coloradoken wrote:
                  > > > > > Hi Wayne,
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Found this take at Skeptical Science. With details seems that
                  CH4
                  > > my not be the major player here though transport
                  > > (Troposphere-Stratosphere exchange) is still implicated.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > >
                  http://www.skepticalscience.com/role-of-stratospheric-water-vapor-in-glo\
                  \
                  > > bal-warming.html
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Cheers,
                  > > > > > Ken
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "coloradoken"<kmcolo@>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >> Hi Wayne,
                  > > > > >>
                  > > > > >> An intriguing find! I will have to read the article which,
                  > > unfortunately, was published in a harder to access (i.e.
                  > > non-institutional subscription) location thus I will need to wait.
                  More
                  > > than likely it will be judged as a change in exchange between the
                  > > troposphere and the stratosphere, the why will have to wait. But
                  this
                  > > has some very interesting implications for the methane cycle which
                  is
                  > > the primary source of water vapor to the stratosphere. Much past
                  that
                  > > is speculation on my part. Very much not in Boulder any more.
                  > > > > >>
                  > > > > >> Regards,
                  > > > > >> Ken
                  > > > > >>
                  > > > > >> --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne<kb0syf@> wrote:
                  > > > > >>
                  > > > > >>> Ken, would you comment on this? I am not sure I understand
                  what
                  > > Solomon
                  > > > > >>> is saying. Is this a negative feedback or is this something
                  > > caused by
                  > > > > >>> changes in the sun or something else external?
                  > > > > >>>
                  > > > > >>>
                  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488
                  > > > > >>>
                  > > > > >>>
                  > > > > >>
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > ------------------------------------
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  >



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • poitsplace
                  ... Well the obvious answer is...a heck of a lot lower than it was during the glacial period. That s why temperatures don t fluctuate very much during the
                  Message 8 of 21 , Feb 4, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" <701wizz@...> wrote:

                    > So what "really" is climate sensitivity anyway?

                    Well the obvious answer is...a heck of a lot lower than it was during the glacial period. That's why temperatures don't fluctuate very much during the interglacial period. As I've mentioned before, the only time it seems capable of spiking significantly above the baseline of interglacial temperatures is during times africa is green.


                    > * Why they seem almost in balance was the subject
                    > of a previous post.

                    I'm pretty sure they are in balance OR simply appear to be in balance and are negative (due to observational errors that caused us to misunderstand relationships used within the models). The problem is that all of our good observational data comes only from what was already a natural warming period. This is why many of the systems have recently started acting in surprising ways...the northern hemisphere polar vortex and jet stream apparently didn't move north entirely because it was warm. Something else had changed their behavior and now it appears to be changing them back.
                  • ourphyl
                    Thanks poitsplace, So, is climate a mathematical concept - the sum of all the forcings I happen to be considering? j ... the glacial period. That s why
                    Message 9 of 21 , Feb 4, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks poitsplace,

                      So, is climate a mathematical concept - the sum of all the forcings I
                      happen to be considering?

                      j
                      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" 701wizz@ wrote:
                      >
                      > > So what "really" is climate sensitivity anyway?
                      >
                      > Well the obvious answer is...a heck of a lot lower than it was during
                      the glacial period. That's why temperatures don't fluctuate very much
                      during the interglacial period. As I've mentioned before, the only time
                      it seems capable of spiking significantly above the baseline of
                      interglacial temperatures is during times africa is green.
                      >
                      >
                      > > * Why they seem almost in balance was the subject
                      > > of a previous post.
                      >
                      > I'm pretty sure they are in balance OR simply appear to be in balance
                      and are negative (due to observational errors that caused us to
                      misunderstand relationships used within the models). The problem is
                      that all of our good observational data comes only from what was already
                      a natural warming period. This is why many of the systems have recently
                      started acting in surprising ways...the northern hemisphere polar vortex
                      and jet stream apparently didn't move north entirely because it was
                      warm. Something else had changed their behavior and now it appears to
                      be changing them back.
                      >
                    • poitsplace
                      Yes in that it obviously must be the sum of all forcings, feedbacks, etc... and no in that its querky behavior can moderate, sideline or redistribute energy
                      Message 10 of 21 , Feb 4, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yes in that it obviously must be the sum of all forcings, feedbacks, etc... and no in that its querky behavior can moderate, sideline or redistribute energy for centuries for no apparent reason, leading to temporary (apparent) imabalances.

                        The longer duration ocean currents are a good example. Its difficult to know what the heck drives them but they seem to cause "temporary" warming/cooling that lasts an entire human lifetime. The impacts from such incredibly huge changes in the energy distribution (several percent of the earth's total energy budget) can cause all kinds of things and its difficult to know what caused what. Dig the glaciers on Kilimanjaro recede because of moisture balance issues? Did general, world-wide warming do it? Did warming mostly on the continents do it? Did warming in it's region do it?

                        We CANNOT reproduce the local level weather changes in the models on long or short time scales yet everyone acts like they can make meaningful predictions. Were the previous temperatures warmer than we think and we just didn't notice because we didn't have sufficient readings of ocean temperatures. January was the hottest month EVER apparently, yet on the continents...the only part we really experience...we experienced one of the coldest months anyone alive has experienced. If it keeps doing this for another 30 years glaciers will almost certainly surge forward. Heck, for all we know the combination of warm oceans and cold continents is what causes the ice ages to kick in (it would cause huge snows)...something that must, to some extent be the case but is not likely to be what is happening now.

                        The earth is a nonlinear system... Even when the forcings and feedbacks total up to the exact same amount they did in another period, the earth may end up doing something radically different. That said, certain things DON'T seem to happen. The earth doesn't seem to easily get warmer than the interglacial periods or colder than the glacial periods. In the case of the glacial period it appears (from the wild fluctuations) that feedbacks remain high but begin to favor warming at a certain point) and in the case of the interglacial the feedbacks seem to saturate, leading to some stability...at least until the milankovitch cycles skew feedbacks into a configuration that favors cooling.




                        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" <701wizz@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Thanks poitsplace,
                        >
                        > So, is climate a mathematical concept - the sum of all the forcings I
                        > happen to be considering?
                        >
                        > j
                        > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@>
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" 701wizz@ wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > So what "really" is climate sensitivity anyway?
                        > >
                        > > Well the obvious answer is...a heck of a lot lower than it was during
                        > the glacial period. That's why temperatures don't fluctuate very much
                        > during the interglacial period. As I've mentioned before, the only time
                        > it seems capable of spiking significantly above the baseline of
                        > interglacial temperatures is during times africa is green.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > * Why they seem almost in balance was the subject
                        > > > of a previous post.
                        > >
                        > > I'm pretty sure they are in balance OR simply appear to be in balance
                        > and are negative (due to observational errors that caused us to
                        > misunderstand relationships used within the models). The problem is
                        > that all of our good observational data comes only from what was already
                        > a natural warming period. This is why many of the systems have recently
                        > started acting in surprising ways...the northern hemisphere polar vortex
                        > and jet stream apparently didn't move north entirely because it was
                        > warm. Something else had changed their behavior and now it appears to
                        > be changing them back.
                        > >
                        >
                      • ourphyl
                        Hi there, poitsplace Look, you are helping me a lot. I m trying to learn about climate science and I m very grateful to you for the help. In return I can give
                        Message 11 of 21 , Feb 5, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi there, poitsplace

                          Look, you are helping me a lot. I'm trying to learn about climate
                          science and I'm very grateful to you for the help. In return I can give
                          you my reactions to some of what you post. It should go without saying
                          that my reactions are only my point of view and I know that.

                          In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@...> wrote:
                          Yes in that it obviously must be the sum of all forcings, feedbacks,
                          etc... and no in that its quirky behavior can moderate, sideline or
                          redistribute energy for centuries for no apparent reason, leading to
                          temporary (apparent) imbalances.


                          thanks again. I'm glad to hear there is more scientific work for us to
                          do.


                          In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@...>continued
                          : The longer duration ocean currents are a good example. Its difficult
                          to know what the heck drives them but they seem to cause "temporary"
                          warming/cooling that lasts an entire human lifetime. The impacts from
                          such incredibly huge changes in the energy distribution (several percent
                          of the earth's total energy budget) can cause all kinds of things and
                          its difficult to know what caused what. Did the glaciers on Kilimanjaro
                          recede because of moisture balance issues? Did general, world-wide
                          warming do it? Did warming mostly on the continents do it? Did warming
                          in it's region do it?


                          It really doesn't matter. Paleoclimatology is messy. Data is not
                          reproducible. Correlation is often "mistaken" for causality. Etc...

                          All we really have and that only if we do our work carefully is
                          correlation. Precedence can not be used to scientifically establish
                          causality; a lot more structure is required. It doesn't matter that
                          temperatures in the paleoclimatology data rose 150,000 years before CO2.
                          As you say, climate systems are non-linear with storage. Correlation is
                          all we have. About all we can say scientifically is they seem to have
                          occurred together several times. A lot more is required for a causality
                          statement.


                          In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@...>continued
                          : We CANNOT reproduce the local level weather changes in the models on
                          long or short time scales yet everyone acts like they can make
                          meaningful predictions. Were the previous temperatures warmer than we
                          think and we just didn't notice because we didn't have sufficient
                          readings of ocean temperatures. January was the hottest month EVER
                          apparently, yet on the continents...the only part we really
                          experience...we experienced one of the coldest months anyone alive has
                          experienced. If it keeps doing this for another 30 years glaciers will
                          almost certainly surge forward. Heck, for all we know the combination
                          of warm oceans and cold continents is what causes the ice ages to kick
                          in (it would cause huge snows)...something that must, to some extent be
                          the case but is not likely to be what is happening now.


                          It takes a lot of time and money to model time series of stock prices.
                          Everyone brags about how successful their model "back tests" - models
                          that don't back test well are discarded. Projections are made - but - no
                          one counts (for long) on the projections. Except with religions almost
                          everyone knows the future can not be predicted. So why try to do it with
                          climate science time series?

                          The models were not designed to do weather, they were designed to do
                          climate. Climate and temperature were defined to be useful for the
                          models and trying to extend these to something real turns out to be just
                          plain stupid. The disagreements between reality and model outputs are
                          probably irreconcilable just based on the number of different
                          definitions. In weather, let alone climate, everyone has their own
                          definitions.

                          IPCC was mistaken to try to base their policies on climate science. The
                          problems in Copenhagen are problems whatever scientists, warmer or
                          denier, say. Everyone knows that now.


                          In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <poitsplace@...>continued
                          : The earth is a nonlinear system... Even when the forcings and
                          feedbacks total up to the exact same amount they did in another period,
                          the earth may end up doing something radically different. That said,
                          certain things DON'T seem to happen. The earth doesn't seem to easily
                          get warmer than the interglacial periods or colder than the glacial
                          periods. In the case of the glacial period it appears (from the wild
                          fluctuations) that feedbacks remain high but begin to favor warming at a
                          certain point) and in the case of the interglacial the feedbacks seem to
                          saturate, leading to some stability...at least until the milankovitch
                          cycles skew feedbacks into a configuration that favors cooling.

                          I agree and that's what I believe climate science should be about. It
                          can be and should be a challenging pursuit of knowledge, practiced with
                          the degree of skepticism every good science requires. That's how I am
                          trying to learn it.



                          j



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Angus MacLeod
                           January was the hottest month EVER apparently, yet on the continents.. .the only part we really experience.. .we experienced one of the coldest months anyone
                          Message 12 of 21 , Feb 5, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                             January was the hottest month EVER apparently, yet on the continents.. .the only part we really experience.. .we experienced one of the coldest months anyone alive has experienced.

                            First of all Poitsplace, thank you for presenting your viewpoints and evidence so clearly in your posts. Long and long ago I studied physics and logic systems but I'm not a scientist by any means although I can understand most of the posts here without resorting to researching terms and definitions.

                            The cold winter has grabbed headlines lately but I wonder if that's only because it's been cold in heavily populated regions where the media sits up and takes notice...? I've also seen reports of very cold weather in underpopulated places ( e.g. Mongolia, northern China ) but...

                            Most of Canada ( according to network news sources ) has experienced one of the warmest Januarys in history. In my location in the maritime provinces we had no snow until January 30 ( except for the bedraggled remnants of what fell before Dec. 10 ). Most days were above zero C and the grass was showing some green. ( highly unusual but not unheard of ) The jet stream dipped far to our south but the temperature didn't go down. Ontario has seen above average temperatures throughout the month and according to the Weather Network, parts of British Columbia were a full .9 degrees C above the previous record for the month. I don't have any information on the prairie provinces other than from a few friends who complained about too much snow because it was " too warm".

                            Is Canada anomalous? Is this winter anomalous? Is there a warming trend nearer the poles and a cooling trend in more temperate climes? Are weather patterns in some kind of flux? And if so, is it merely a winter's weather or is it indicative of change?

                            I don't have any answers and I'm not sure I have the right questions, but I think it's more complicated than warm oceans and cold continents.

                            You're spot on about the heavy snows that would be associated with warm oceans and cold land masses though. I've been watching that dynamic for about a week now. Let's call it... entertaining. : )

                            Tùs tuigse teagamh. ( The beginning of understanding is doubt. )
                            Aonghas













                            __________________________________________________________________
                            Reclaim your name @... or @.... Get your new email address now! Go to http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/jacko/

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Michael Lewis
                            ... Ever? My goodness, this would come as a shock to many geologists who are aware of data suggesting this isn t so. Perhaps since temperatures were
                            Message 13 of 21 , Feb 6, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Angus MacLeod wrote:
                              > January was the hottest month EVER apparently, yet on the continents.. .the only part we really experience.. .we experienced one of the coldest months anyone alive has experienced.
                              >

                              Ever? My goodness, this would come as a shock to many geologists who
                              are aware of data suggesting this isn't so. Perhaps since temperatures
                              were systematically recorded, say 1850.

                              > The cold winter has grabbed headlines lately but I wonder if that's only because it's been cold in heavily populated regions where the media sits up and takes notice...? I've also seen reports of very cold weather in underpopulated places ( e.g. Mongolia, northern China ) but...
                              >

                              It's cold. This will be a record cold winter. This is weather.

                              > Is Canada anomalous? Is this winter anomalous? Is there a warming trend nearer the poles and a cooling trend in more temperate climes? Are weather patterns in some kind of flux? And if so, is it merely a winter's weather or is it indicative of change?
                              >

                              Weather patterns are always in flux. It is far more rare to have
                              long periods of consistent weather than to have constant change.


                              > You're spot on about the heavy snows that would be associated with warm oceans and cold land masses though. I've been watching that dynamic for about a week now. Let's call it... entertaining. : )
                              >
                              > Tùs tuigse teagamh. ( The beginning of understanding is doubt. )
                              > Aonghas
                              >

                              Love the Gaelic quote, Aonghas
                              Ta for the noo

                              Michael

                              --
                              Hayduke Blogs
                              http://hayduke2000.blogspot.com/
                            • poitsplace
                              Obviously I mean within the relatively short temperature record when I say ever ...although you probably haven t seen me point out that it was likely warmer
                              Message 14 of 21 , Feb 8, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Obviously I mean within the relatively short temperature record when I say "ever"...although you probably haven't seen me point out that it was likely warmer during the medieval warm period and for most of this interglacial in general.

                                And yes...with the climate change seems to be the only "constant" :D


                                --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Michael Lewis <hayduke@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Angus MacLeod wrote:
                                > > January was the hottest month EVER apparently, yet on the continents.. .the only part we really experience.. .we experienced one of the coldest months anyone alive has experienced.
                                > >
                                >
                                > Ever? My goodness, this would come as a shock to many geologists who
                                > are aware of data suggesting this isn't so. Perhaps since temperatures
                                > were systematically recorded, say 1850.
                                >
                                > > The cold winter has grabbed headlines lately but I wonder if that's only because it's been cold in heavily populated regions where the media sits up and takes notice...? I've also seen reports of very cold weather in underpopulated places ( e.g. Mongolia, northern China ) but...
                                > >
                                >
                                > It's cold. This will be a record cold winter. This is weather.
                                >
                                > > Is Canada anomalous? Is this winter anomalous? Is there a warming trend nearer the poles and a cooling trend in more temperate climes? Are weather patterns in some kind of flux? And if so, is it merely a winter's weather or is it indicative of change?
                                > >
                                >
                                > Weather patterns are always in flux. It is far more rare to have
                                > long periods of consistent weather than to have constant change.
                                >
                                >
                                > > You're spot on about the heavy snows that would be associated with warm oceans and cold land masses though. I've been watching that dynamic for about a week now. Let's call it... entertaining. : )
                                > >
                                > > Tùs tuigse teagamh. ( The beginning of understanding is doubt. )
                                > > Aonghas
                                > >
                                >
                                > Love the Gaelic quote, Aonghas
                                > Ta for the noo
                                >
                                > Michael
                                >
                                > --
                                > Hayduke Blogs
                                > http://hayduke2000.blogspot.com/
                                >
                              • Wayne
                                LOL, he got you on that one! As you expect others to be precise, it must also apply to you.
                                Message 15 of 21 , Feb 8, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  LOL, he got you on that one! As you expect others to be precise, it must
                                  also apply to you.

                                  On 2/8/2010 9:54 AM, poitsplace wrote:
                                  > Obviously I mean within the relatively short temperature record when I say "ever"...although you probably haven't seen me point out that it was likely warmer during the medieval warm period and for most of this interglacial in general.
                                  >
                                  > And yes...with the climate change seems to be the only "constant" :D
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Michael Lewis<hayduke@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >> Angus MacLeod wrote:
                                  >>
                                  >>> January was the hottest month EVER apparently, yet on the continents.. .the only part we really experience.. .we experienced one of the coldest months anyone alive has experienced.
                                  >>>
                                  >>>
                                  >> Ever? My goodness, this would come as a shock to many geologists who
                                  >> are aware of data suggesting this isn't so. Perhaps since temperatures
                                  >> were systematically recorded, say 1850.
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>> The cold winter has grabbed headlines lately but I wonder if that's only because it's been cold in heavily populated regions where the media sits up and takes notice...? I've also seen reports of very cold weather in underpopulated places ( e.g. Mongolia, northern China ) but...
                                  >>>
                                  >>>
                                  >> It's cold. This will be a record cold winter. This is weather.
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>> Is Canada anomalous? Is this winter anomalous? Is there a warming trend nearer the poles and a cooling trend in more temperate climes? Are weather patterns in some kind of flux? And if so, is it merely a winter's weather or is it indicative of change?
                                  >>>
                                  >>>
                                  >> Weather patterns are always in flux. It is far more rare to have
                                  >> long periods of consistent weather than to have constant change.
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >>> You're spot on about the heavy snows that would be associated with warm oceans and cold land masses though. I've been watching that dynamic for about a week now. Let's call it... entertaining. : )
                                  >>>
                                  >>> Tùs tuigse teagamh. ( The beginning of understanding is doubt. )
                                  >>> Aonghas
                                  >>>
                                  >>>
                                  >> Love the Gaelic quote, Aonghas
                                  >> Ta for the noo
                                  >>
                                  >> Michael
                                  >>
                                  >> --
                                  >> Hayduke Blogs
                                  >> http://hayduke2000.blogspot.com/
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ------------------------------------
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • poitsplace
                                  Indeed, I should have thrown in in the satellite record which is what I was referring to as it was the only record that was available at the time. It is
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Feb 8, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Indeed, I should have thrown in "in the satellite record" which is what I was referring to as it was the only record that was available at the time. It is worth noting that our satellite record of the holocene optimum or other, obviously warmer periods...is questionable at best :D

                                    --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Wayne <kb0syf@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > LOL, he got you on that one! As you expect others to be precise, it must
                                    > also apply to you.
                                    >
                                    > On 2/8/2010 9:54 AM, poitsplace wrote:
                                    > > Obviously I mean within the relatively short temperature record when I say "ever"...although you probably haven't seen me point out that it was likely warmer during the medieval warm period and for most of this interglacial in general.
                                    > >
                                    > > And yes...with the climate change seems to be the only "constant" :D
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Michael Lewis<hayduke@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > >> Angus MacLeod wrote:
                                    > >>
                                    > >>> January was the hottest month EVER apparently, yet on the continents.. .the only part we really experience.. .we experienced one of the coldest months anyone alive has experienced.
                                    > >>>
                                    > >>>
                                    > >> Ever? My goodness, this would come as a shock to many geologists who
                                    > >> are aware of data suggesting this isn't so. Perhaps since temperatures
                                    > >> were systematically recorded, say 1850.
                                    > >>
                                    > >>
                                    > >>> The cold winter has grabbed headlines lately but I wonder if that's only because it's been cold in heavily populated regions where the media sits up and takes notice...? I've also seen reports of very cold weather in underpopulated places ( e.g. Mongolia, northern China ) but...
                                    > >>>
                                    > >>>
                                    > >> It's cold. This will be a record cold winter. This is weather.
                                    > >>
                                    > >>
                                    > >>> Is Canada anomalous? Is this winter anomalous? Is there a warming trend nearer the poles and a cooling trend in more temperate climes? Are weather patterns in some kind of flux? And if so, is it merely a winter's weather or is it indicative of change?
                                    > >>>
                                    > >>>
                                    > >> Weather patterns are always in flux. It is far more rare to have
                                    > >> long periods of consistent weather than to have constant change.
                                    > >>
                                    > >>
                                    > >>
                                    > >>> You're spot on about the heavy snows that would be associated with warm oceans and cold land masses though. I've been watching that dynamic for about a week now. Let's call it... entertaining. : )
                                    > >>>
                                    > >>> Tùs tuigse teagamh. ( The beginning of understanding is doubt. )
                                    > >>> Aonghas
                                    > >>>
                                    > >>>
                                    > >> Love the Gaelic quote, Aonghas
                                    > >> Ta for the noo
                                    > >>
                                    > >> Michael
                                    > >>
                                    > >> --
                                    > >> Hayduke Blogs
                                    > >> http://hayduke2000.blogspot.com/
                                    > >>
                                    > >>
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > ------------------------------------
                                    > >
                                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                  • Angus MacLeod
                                    ... From: Michael Lewis Subject: Re: [Global Warming] On water vapor To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com Received: Saturday, February
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Feb 8, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- On Sat, 2/6/10, Michael Lewis <hayduke@...> wrote:

                                      From: Michael Lewis <hayduke@...>
                                      Subject: Re: [Global Warming] On water vapor
                                      To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                                      Received: Saturday, February 6, 2010, 11:49 AM







                                       









                                      Angus MacLeod wrote:

                                      > January was the hottest month EVER apparently, yet on the continents.. .the only part we really experience.. .we experienced one of the coldest months anyone alive has experienced.

                                      >



                                      Ever? My goodness, this would come as a shock to many geologists who

                                      are aware of data suggesting this isn't so. Perhaps since temperatures

                                      were systematically recorded, say 1850.





                                      I didn't make it clear, but this was a quote from Poitsplace that I was answering, not my words. Glad you like the Gàidhlig!

                                      Beannachd leibh,Aonghas




                                      __________________________________________________________________
                                      Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.