"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
wrote:
An email this morning reads:
Chuck
I thought you may be interested in this detailed ocean/global warming
piece we just sent to our members since this topic is really heating
up.
You might think an angelfish in the waters off Massachusetts is one
confused and chilly little tropical critter, unless you know that
scientists have watched ocean temperatures rising since 1975. Check
out
the new seven-part web feature on oceans and human-caused climate
change, featuring our own scientists and Doug's son Chris Rader, a
marine biologist in the Florida Keys. The feature gives you a
run-down
of solutions and science, including the basics of glaciers,
ecosystems
and the ocean's "conveyor belt." What were you doing the year that
corals were bleaching in nearly every ocean during the warmest
12-month
span on record? Piece -
http://www.oceansalive.org/explore.c...contentID=4704.
Now, Chuck, you know darn good and well that there isn't such a thing
as global warming. That's just something those unpatriotic, terrorist
loving, well educated, liberal scientists are using to undermine the
war on terror in Iraq. Now, everybody back in line, and goose step.
I'm blaming my new depthsounder, but I have been getting summer water
temperature readings that are consistently 1 degree higher and in some
cases 2-3 degrees higher than readings in the same areas in previous
years.
It isn't unusual to have one warm year, or one cool year, and the
climate does fluctuate- but we shouldn't be willing to accept any
extreme amount of change we observe as a natural phenomenon. The ozone
"hole" is a good example; since the use of CFC's was generally banned
the hole seems to be repairing itself. (Although some free marketeers
would claim the ozone hole would have stabilized, anyway, and that
removing certain chemical compounds from the environment had nothing to
do with it. You can still find people to insist there's no medical
evidence linking smoking with lung cancer, too)
Changes in the ocean environment certainly impact how we use and enjoy
our boats. Small changes can effect the number of fish, and even the
species of fish, available to catch. A trend of generally warmer water
temps have played hell with out Pacific NW salmon runs for several
years, although we did enjoy a couple of years where the temps dropped
parially back toward the historic norms and we had (relatively)adequate
runs of fish.
Oceans (as well as green plants on shore) are vital to the existence of
life as we know it on this planet. There is always a chance that just
maybe some guy grousing one minute about how salmon fishing ain't what
it used to be and gd'ing "them liberal environmentalists and their
global warming crap" the next isn't seeing the big picture.
The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural
cycles
of earth, or something else? How much is man to blame? 10k years ago was
a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it? 1860 or there abouts 20 miles
of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet. And has not come back. What caused this
warming? Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one
eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years. The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions. Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?
Another good explanation for causes of "global warming"
"Blame it on the Sun
So what drives global climate, if not greenhouse gas concentrations? Well,
maybe it's the sun.
There are three variables affecting the Earth's orbit--orbit shape, tilt,
and wobble--which profoundly affect weather patterns. The Earth's orbit does
not form a circle as it moves around the sun--it forms an ellipse, passing
further away from the sun at one end of the orbit than it does at the other
end.
During a 100,000-year cycle, the tug of other planets on the Earth causes
its orbit to change shape. It shifts from a short, broad ellipse that keeps
the Earth closer to the sun, to a long flat ellipse that allows it to move
farther from the sun and back again.
At the same time the Earth is orbiting, it also spins around an axis that
tilts lower and then higher during a 41,000-year cycle. Close to the poles,
the contrast between winter and summer is greatest when the tilt is large.
The Earth wobbles because it is spinning around an axis that tilts back and
forth. Thus, a temperature drop occurs in the Northern Hemisphere when it
tilts away from the sun; then the same thing happens in the Southern
Hemisphere and again in the North, in a 22,000-year cycle.
We know from simple physics that the additional energy added to the climate
system by the doubling of atmospheric CO2 is about four watts per square
meter (W/m2)--a very small amount of energy when compared to the 342 watts
per square meter added by the sun's radiation at the top of the atmosphere,
and small also when compared to natural variations in the amount of
radiation the sun sends toward the Earth.
The possible increase in energy stored in the atmosphere due to human
activity is also small when compared to uncertainties in the computer
simulations of the Earth's climate used to predict global warming. For
example, knowledge of the amount of energy flowing from the equator to the
poles is uncertain by an amount equivalent to 25 to 30 W/m2. The amount of
sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected by the surface is also
uncertain, by as much as 25 W/m2. Some computer models include adjustments
to the energy flows of as much as 100 W/m2. Imprecise treatment of the
effect of clouds may introduce another 25 W/m2 of uncertainty into the basic
computations. (2)
These uncertainties are many times larger than the four W/m2 input of energy
believed to result from a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
It is difficult to see how the climate impact of the four W/m2 can be
accurately calculated in the face of such huge uncertainties. As a
consequence, forecasts based on the computer simulations of climate may not
even be meaningful at this time."
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15726
Of course harry, kevin and crowd will "blame it on Bush" like they do
everything else......regardless of the facts