The ANTARCTIC
 

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100855

http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=24

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_Antarctica/index.html

The ANTARCTIC
 

It seems an undersea volcano caused the Larsen B
ice shelf to collaspe. I didn't see this in the news.
*****************************************

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus
from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice
sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up
several years ago.

Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is
unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of
thousands of years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...0385&from=news

The ANTARCTIC
 

And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
It seems an undersea volcano caused the Larsen B
ice shelf to collaspe. I didn't see this in the news.
*****************************************

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus
from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice
sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up
several years ago.

Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is
unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of
thousands of years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...0385&from=news

The ANTARCTIC
 

Yeah, some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=776766

Lloyd



"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
It seems an undersea volcano caused the Larsen B
ice shelf to collaspe. I didn't see this in the news.
*****************************************

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus
from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice
sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up
several years ago.

Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is
unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of
thousands of years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...0385&from=news

The ANTARCTIC
 

Yes, thanks for point that out.

"In the past 10 years, the warmer temperatures over the eastern part of the
Antarctic ice sheet have allowed that air to gather more moisture. Snow has
been falling and causing part of the ice sheet to thicken slowing the rise
of the sea level by a tiny amount."

Operative word, "tiny."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
Yeah, some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=776766

Lloyd



"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
It seems an undersea volcano caused the Larsen B
ice shelf to collaspe. I didn't see this in the news.
*****************************************

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus
from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice
sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up
several years ago.

Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is
unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of
thousands of years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...0385&from=news

The ANTARCTIC
 

What about this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...ts_thickening/

In the northern hemisphere where the "warming" is supposed to be the most.

But then:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0130074839.htm

And growing glaciers:

http://www.awra.org/state/alaska/nre.../aknr0301.html

Now I'm really, really worried:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

Now sea ice is declining:

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928...scontinue.html

When ice melts in a full glass does the glass overflow?

Melting sea ice actually causes a drop in sea level.

Lloyd


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yes, thanks for point that out.

"In the past 10 years, the warmer temperatures over the eastern part of
the Antarctic ice sheet have allowed that air to gather more moisture.
Snow has been falling and causing part of the ice sheet to thicken slowing
the rise of the sea level by a tiny amount."

Operative word, "tiny."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
Yeah, some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=776766

Lloyd



"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
It seems an undersea volcano caused the Larsen B
ice shelf to collaspe. I didn't see this in the news.
*****************************************

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus
from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice
sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up
several years ago.

Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is
unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of
thousands of years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...0385&from=news

The ANTARCTIC
 

Well, it's pretty clear that you don't believe that global warming is
happening and that we can do something about it. So, good for you. Perhaps
you should post a few dozen more links... like I'm going to take the time
out of my busy schedule! Bwahahahahaaaaa

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
What about this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...ts_thickening/

In the northern hemisphere where the "warming" is supposed to be the most.

But then:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0130074839.htm

And growing glaciers:

http://www.awra.org/state/alaska/nre.../aknr0301.html

Now I'm really, really worried:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

Now sea ice is declining:

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928...scontinue.html

When ice melts in a full glass does the glass overflow?

Melting sea ice actually causes a drop in sea level.

Lloyd


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yes, thanks for point that out.

"In the past 10 years, the warmer temperatures over the eastern part of
the Antarctic ice sheet have allowed that air to gather more moisture.
Snow has been falling and causing part of the ice sheet to thicken
slowing the rise of the sea level by a tiny amount."

Operative word, "tiny."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
Yeah, some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=776766

Lloyd



"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message
...
It seems an undersea volcano caused the Larsen B
ice shelf to collaspe. I didn't see this in the news.
*****************************************

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus
from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice
sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up
several years ago.

Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is
unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of
thousands of years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...0385&from=news

The ANTARCTIC
 

I never said whether I believe global warming exists or not, furthermore
whether I believe it or not ,means nothing. I can show data from the ERB and
GOES satellites that clearly show solar irradiance has increased in step
with increases in measured surface temperatures. Mars has shown the same
correlated temperature rise. If you those facts are causal rather than just
correlated then what exactly do you propose to do to negate the effects of
the sun's increased output? I'm all ears for your suggestions. Should we
stop driving cars, using hairspray and plant more trees?


Lloyd





"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, it's pretty clear that you don't believe that global warming is
happening and that we can do something about it. So, good for you. Perhaps
you should post a few dozen more links... like I'm going to take the time
out of my busy schedule! Bwahahahahaaaaa

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
What about this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...ts_thickening/

In the northern hemisphere where the "warming" is supposed to be the
most.

But then:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0130074839.htm

And growing glaciers:

http://www.awra.org/state/alaska/nre.../aknr0301.html

Now I'm really, really worried:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

Now sea ice is declining:

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928...scontinue.html

When ice melts in a full glass does the glass overflow?

Melting sea ice actually causes a drop in sea level.

Lloyd


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yes, thanks for point that out.

"In the past 10 years, the warmer temperatures over the eastern part of
the Antarctic ice sheet have allowed that air to gather more moisture.
Snow has been falling and causing part of the ice sheet to thicken
slowing the rise of the sea level by a tiny amount."

Operative word, "tiny."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
Yeah, some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=776766

Lloyd



"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message
...
It seems an undersea volcano caused the Larsen B
ice shelf to collaspe. I didn't see this in the news.
*****************************************

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus
from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice
sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up
several years ago.

Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is
unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of
thousands of years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...0385&from=news

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

Not true. There is evidence that the net ice mass change in Antarctica is
positive, not negative. Satellite and ground station date both point to a
slight cooling trend in Antarctica over the past 20 years.

Joughin, I, and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice
Streams, West Antarctica," Science 295: 476-80.

Thompson, D.W.J., and Solomon, S., 2002, "Interpretation of recent Southern
Hemisphere climate change," Science 296: 895-99.

Comiso, J.C., 2000, Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures
from in situ and satellite infrared measurements," Journal of Climate 13:
1674-96.

Look 'em up.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

Yeah, some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=776766

Lloyd

There is a positive mass balance in the West ice sheet as well. I provided
a reference in my other post to Jon.

Considering that Antarctica comprises 90% of the world's ice, that's
significant.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, it's pretty clear that you don't believe that global warming is
happening and that we can do something about it.

I know you directed this to Lloyd, but I hope you'll accept my answer, too.

I believe that global warming *is* happening, and I do believe that the net
effects of human inhabitation are at least part of the cause. The best
prediction by most scientists is that the mean temp of the Earth will rise
by less than 1 degree F by the year 2100. What no one knows is whether one
degree will be signficant enough to cause the sort of potentially
catastrophic effects that may imperil our existence. My point is--we know
almost nothing about the potential effects of global warming. How are we
supposed to know how to curb the process? Literally every attempt by man to
control major global climatic effects has been a dismal failure. For
example, some recommend efforts to reduce the level of CO2 in the
atmosphere, but we *do* know that CO2 is necessary for plant life, and that
reducing it may result in a significant reduction of global foliage, causing
a rapid increase in temperature. Conundrum.

So, good for you. Perhaps you should post a few dozen more links... like
I'm going to take the time out of my busy schedule! Bwahahahahaaaaa

Ah, so you aren't worried about global warming. Okay.

Not to worry--we'll all be long gone anyway when the next ice age hits in
about 2000 years.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

You're a lot more than all ears. But, being a gentleman I won't say what
else is the larger contribution.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
I never said whether I believe global warming exists or not, furthermore
whether I believe it or not ,means nothing. I can show data from the ERB
and GOES satellites that clearly show solar irradiance has increased in
step with increases in measured surface temperatures. Mars has shown the
same correlated temperature rise. If you those facts are causal rather
than just correlated then what exactly do you propose to do to negate the
effects of the sun's increased output? I'm all ears for your suggestions.
Should we stop driving cars, using hairspray and plant more trees?


Lloyd





"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, it's pretty clear that you don't believe that global warming is
happening and that we can do something about it. So, good for you.
Perhaps you should post a few dozen more links... like I'm going to take
the time out of my busy schedule! Bwahahahahaaaaa

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
What about this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11...ts_thickening/

In the northern hemisphere where the "warming" is supposed to be the
most.

But then:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0130074839.htm

And growing glaciers:

http://www.awra.org/state/alaska/nre.../aknr0301.html

Now I'm really, really worried:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

Now sea ice is declining:

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928...scontinue.html

When ice melts in a full glass does the glass overflow?

Melting sea ice actually causes a drop in sea level.

Lloyd


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Yes, thanks for point that out.

"In the past 10 years, the warmer temperatures over the eastern part of
the Antarctic ice sheet have allowed that air to gather more moisture.
Snow has been falling and causing part of the ice sheet to thicken
slowing the rise of the sea level by a tiny amount."

Operative word, "tiny."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
Yeah, some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=776766

Lloyd



"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message
...
It seems an undersea volcano caused the Larsen B
ice shelf to collaspe. I didn't see this in the news.
*****************************************

Evidence of the volcano came as an unintended bonus
from a research plan to investigate why a massive ice
sheet, known as the Larsen B, collapsed and broke up
several years ago.

Scientists hope to understand whether such a collapse is
unique or part of a cycle that extends over hundreds of
thousands of years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...0385&from=news

The ANTARCTIC
 

Actually, it's a lot worse than that. I don't have the time or inclination
to cite the references, but it's much worse than one degree in 100 years.

We know lots about the effects and we're learning more by the day. Every
credible scientist can see that there's a huge problem coming, and we need
to get to it now.

It's easy to claim that things are hopeless or "unclear" and do nothing and
try nothing.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Well, it's pretty clear that you don't believe that global warming is
happening and that we can do something about it.

I know you directed this to Lloyd, but I hope you'll accept my answer,
too.

I believe that global warming *is* happening, and I do believe that the
net effects of human inhabitation are at least part of the cause. The
best prediction by most scientists is that the mean temp of the Earth will
rise by less than 1 degree F by the year 2100. What no one knows is
whether one degree will be signficant enough to cause the sort of
potentially catastrophic effects that may imperil our existence. My point
is--we know almost nothing about the potential effects of global warming.
How are we supposed to know how to curb the process? Literally every
attempt by man to control major global climatic effects has been a dismal
failure. For example, some recommend efforts to reduce the level of CO2
in the atmosphere, but we *do* know that CO2 is necessary for plant life,
and that reducing it may result in a significant reduction of global
foliage, causing a rapid increase in temperature. Conundrum.

So, good for you. Perhaps you should post a few dozen more links... like
I'm going to take the time out of my busy schedule! Bwahahahahaaaaa

Ah, so you aren't worried about global warming. Okay.

Not to worry--we'll all be long gone anyway when the next ice age hits in
about 2000 years.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

Here's a good reference for a potential cause of cloud cover:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133.stm


This articles references the sun as a source of ion causing radiation.

The decrease in the earth's magnetic field also allows the creation of more
ions, hence more clouds and more insular effect of the clouds.

The other thing to consider is the core of the earth. The core's rotation is
slowing and may reverse or change direction. The heat conduction to the
outer crust will increase with slowing core velocity.

I feel guilty about being a human and humans are the cause of global warming
and total planetary destruction. I want to do something so I can feel better
about this whole tragedy (the tragedy being the external world changing
before my eyes). I will make myself feel better by forcing my neighbor to
drive a car (only on odd numbered days) powered by his own fecal matter.
There, I feel better now. Symbolic gestures are always better than real
action and understanding in solving the world's problems. Symbolism gives me
immediate gratification.


Lloyd


"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

Yeah, some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=776766

Lloyd

There is a positive mass balance in the West ice sheet as well. I
provided a reference in my other post to Jon.

Considering that Antarctica comprises 90% of the world's ice, that's
significant.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You're a lot more than all ears. But, being a gentleman I won't say what
else is the larger contribution.

A real gentleman would have carried on the conversation and answered the
question rather than allude to a personal attack. Any discussion with you
(by anyone) winds up with you flinging personal attacks. Is that the
hallmark of a gentlemen?

I have not attacked you in any way. I've presented factual scientific
evidence, for both sides no less, and somehow you feel threatened.

Life is tough enough already, why make it tougher?


Lloyd

The ANTARCTIC
 

Jon,

Relax and enjoy the new weather, Buy 15 ft above water level and wait
for ocean front property.

I doubt humans have caused global warming myself and if they have
Mother earth will shake it off and start over. The old saying goes we
do not own the earth, the earth owns us.

If you need to worry about something start thinking bird flu Pandemic
or comets/astroids hitting us. Atomic terrorist, dirty bombs,
ect..ect............

Joe

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Please show me where I attacked you personally? I don't even know you, but
I can guess.

You have not presented much in the way of "evidence."

Yes I have.

Global warming is happening.

What is the time span of this warming? How long will it continue? What will
cause it to stop.

Human beings are responsible for much of it.

The earth has been much warmer in the past. In fact, the temperature
fluctuates with known periodic cycles. The one problem is that there were no
humans around during previous temperature increases. What caused the earth
to warm up then?

Here's a possibility: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

How do you know the earth is warming?

How do you know humans are the cause of it?


The ice sheets of the world are melting a lot faster than we originally
thought. Those are the facts. It's time to do something about it.

You were just presented with data showing the Greenland icecap and Antartic
ice caps are getting thicker. Those are facts too.

So what should we do about it?

How do you know the correction we do won't launch us into an ice age?





--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You're a lot more than all ears. But, being a gentleman I won't say what
else is the larger contribution.

A real gentleman would have carried on the conversation and answered the
question rather than allude to a personal attack. Any discussion with you
(by anyone) winds up with you flinging personal attacks. Is that the
hallmark of a gentlemen?

I have not attacked you in any way. I've presented factual scientific
evidence, for both sides no less, and somehow you feel threatened.

Life is tough enough already, why make it tougher?


Lloyd

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, it's a lot worse than that. I don't have the time or inclination
to cite the references, but it's much worse than one degree in 100 years.

If you make the claim, cite the references, or shut up. I can cite the
references for scientists predicting roughly a one degree change. I can
also cite references for an equal number of scientists claiming somewhat
less than that.

We know lots about the effects and we're learning more by the day.

Really? What's your reference for this: the movie The Day After Tomorrow?

Every credible scientist can see that there's a huge problem coming, and we
need to get to it now.

So you're saying all the scientists who are claiming otherwise aren't
credible? I'm willing to listen. Provide your references, or shut up.

It's easy to claim that things are hopeless or "unclear" and do nothing
and try nothing.

It's also equally easy to propose meaningless solutions that might actually
make things worse, which is precisely what attempts at controlling climate
have done heretofore.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You're a lot more than all ears. But, being a gentleman I won't say what
else is the larger contribution.

A real gentleman would have carried on the conversation and answered the
question rather than allude to a personal attack. Any discussion with you
(by anyone) winds up with you flinging personal attacks. Is that the
hallmark of a gentlemen?

It's the hallmark of the environmental wackos who have nothing but their
dogma as a counterpose to verifiable scientific research that refutes, or
fails to support, their claims.

I have not attacked you in any way. I've presented factual scientific
evidence, for both sides no less, and somehow you feel threatened.

Life is tough enough already, why make it tougher?

When presented with scientific fact, they respond pretty much as Jon has.
Ad hominem attacks are rampant in any discussion of global warming, thanks
to a lack of credible evidence to support their claims.


Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Please show me where I attacked you personally? I don't even know you, but
I can guess.

You're a lot more than all ears. But, being a gentleman I won't say what
else is the larger contribution.

That is your paragraph. And that's a personal attack.


You have not presented much in the way of "evidence."

Oh. Lloyd provided numerous references. I provided several. So far you
haven't provided any. Your point?

Global warming is happening. Human beings are responsible for much of it.
The ice sheets of the world are melting a lot faster than we originally
thought. Those are the facts. It's time to do something about it.

When presented with scientific facts that fail to support anything you've
claimed in the foregoing paragraph, you deem the scientists who generated
those reports to lack credibility, you attack the poster personally, and you
provide no evidence to the contrary beyond your own regurgitation of the
pop-science dogma surrounding global warming. Now give me one reason why
anyone would believe you over Lloyd?


Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...


I doubt humans have caused global warming myself and if they have
Mother earth will shake it off and start over. The old saying goes we
do not own the earth, the earth owns us.

I've always found the statement "save the Earth" to be a bit naive. Fact is
the Earth will be here, flourishing with all sorts of healthy species long
after humans have disappeared from the planet.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

It is not a personal attack. Please show me where I attacked him in the
sentence. I think you're ascribing negative connotations to it. I could have
easily been referring to his cranium size.

The preponderance of evidence suggests and most reputable scientists agree
that human beings are the primary cause of global warming. Even Bush said
it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Please show me where I attacked you personally? I don't even know you,
but I can guess.

You're a lot more than all ears. But, being a gentleman I won't say what
else is the larger contribution.

That is your paragraph. And that's a personal attack.


You have not presented much in the way of "evidence."

Oh. Lloyd provided numerous references. I provided several. So far you
haven't provided any. Your point?

Global warming is happening. Human beings are responsible for much of it.
The ice sheets of the world are melting a lot faster than we originally
thought. Those are the facts. It's time to do something about it.

When presented with scientific facts that fail to support anything you've
claimed in the foregoing paragraph, you deem the scientists who generated
those reports to lack credibility, you attack the poster personally, and
you provide no evidence to the contrary beyond your own regurgitation of
the pop-science dogma surrounding global warming. Now give me one reason
why anyone would believe you over Lloyd?


Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

I haven't attacked anyone, but it sure seems like you are. You just called
me an environmentalist wacko, which I'm not.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You're a lot more than all ears. But, being a gentleman I won't say what
else is the larger contribution.

A real gentleman would have carried on the conversation and answered the
question rather than allude to a personal attack. Any discussion with you
(by anyone) winds up with you flinging personal attacks. Is that the
hallmark of a gentlemen?

It's the hallmark of the environmental wackos who have nothing but their
dogma as a counterpose to verifiable scientific research that refutes, or
fails to support, their claims.

I have not attacked you in any way. I've presented factual scientific
evidence, for both sides no less, and somehow you feel threatened.

Life is tough enough already, why make it tougher?

When presented with scientific fact, they respond pretty much as Jon has.
Ad hominem attacks are rampant in any discussion of global warming, thanks
to a lack of credible evidence to support their claims.


Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

I don't have to do either. I don't have the time to do your research for
you, and since you're not my dad, I don't have to agree to shut up.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, it's a lot worse than that. I don't have the time or
inclination to cite the references, but it's much worse than one degree
in 100 years.

If you make the claim, cite the references, or shut up. I can cite the
references for scientists predicting roughly a one degree change. I can
also cite references for an equal number of scientists claiming somewhat
less than that.

We know lots about the effects and we're learning more by the day.

Really? What's your reference for this: the movie The Day After
Tomorrow?

Every credible scientist can see that there's a huge problem coming, and
we need to get to it now.

So you're saying all the scientists who are claiming otherwise aren't
credible? I'm willing to listen. Provide your references, or shut up.

It's easy to claim that things are hopeless or "unclear" and do nothing
and try nothing.

It's also equally easy to propose meaningless solutions that might
actually make things worse, which is precisely what attempts at
controlling climate have done heretofore.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Even Bush said it.

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
..com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, it's a lot worse than that. I don't have the time or
inclination to cite the references, but it's much worse than one degree
in 100 years.

If you make the claim, cite the references, or shut up. I can cite the
references for scientists predicting roughly a one degree change. I can
also cite references for an equal number of scientists claiming somewhat
less than that.

We know lots about the effects and we're learning more by the day.

Really? What's your reference for this: the movie The Day After
Tomorrow?

Every credible scientist can see that there's a huge problem coming, and
we need to get to it now.

So you're saying all the scientists who are claiming otherwise aren't
credible? I'm willing to listen. Provide your references, or shut up.

It's easy to claim that things are hopeless or "unclear" and do nothing
and try nothing.

It's also equally easy to propose meaningless solutions that might
actually make things worse, which is precisely what attempts at
controlling climate have done heretofore.

I don't have to do either. I don't have the time to do your research for
you, and since you're not my dad, I don't have to agree to shut up.

Well, that does it, Jon--you aren't invited to my birthday party. So there.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
It is not a personal attack. Please show me where I attacked him in the
sentence. I think you're ascribing negative connotations to it. I could
have easily been referring to his cranium size.

The preponderance of evidence suggests and most reputable scientists agree
that human beings are the primary cause of global warming. Even Bush said
it.

All we're asking you to do is provide some references to that "preponderance
of evidence."

I tend to think you are inclined to accept whatever position happens to
agree with your personal brand of political dogma, without reviewing the
evidence for and against. In other words, don't confuse you with the facts,
your mind is made up.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

The Earth's climate cycles between long periods of ice age
in which the sea level is much lower than it is today, and in
which temperatures gradually rise, and much warmer climates.
Only 11,000 years ago the sea level was 400 feet lower than
it is today. Up until 150 years ago, the Earth was in cold
period that lasted three hundred years. Past Ice Ages have
nearly covered the Earth with the exception of a narrow
band at the Equator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Ice Age cycles are cause by a number of factors. CO2,
the Earth's changes in axial tilt, precession, and the location
of large land masses near the poles. Mankind has little
effect on the climate.

The Little Ice was caused by a combination of reduced solar
activity, and increased volcanic activity. Both of these factors
are beyond human control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Factors like undersea volcano's have proven dramatic effect
on things like melting the Ross Ice Shelf. Volcanic dust in
the atmosphere can cause a sudden shift downwards in
temperatures--not is a slow single degree per century rate,
but very fast drops in temperatures with widespread impact
on the climate.

One new theory has it that most human kind descended from
a small pool of about 1000 people 74,000 years back in time.
Analysis of mitochondrial DNA has revealed living humans are
strangely homogeneous genetically, presumably because they
originated recently from a small group or their ancestors
underwent a population bottleneck that wiped out most of
mankind.
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/neander/neander.htm

This is interesting because there was a major eruption of a
volcano 75000 years ago that would have had Apocalypse
consequences. Both geological and biological evidence
support each other.

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/...esia/toba.html

It was projected that another ice age should already have
started. Many feel that industrialization forestalled the "Little
Ice Age". Perhaps it did. It could easily have been an
increase in solar flux. The Sun is far more significant than
mankind. However one theory is that methane produced
by farming, not the burning fossil fuels has delayed the onset
of another ice age.

The Earth will be either cooling or warming. Given a choice,
a slight warming trend is preferable to a fast cooling one.
However, there is a theory that slow warming eventually leads
to the slowdown of the Global Conveyor which could causes
fast cooling--another Ice Age.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

So it seems that either we should have started a new Ice
Age a few hundred years ago, and we have been lucky
that global warming has postponed it, or perhaps that the
warming trend will lead to a shut down of the Global
Conveyor and this will lead to the fast onset of another Ice
Age.

The bottom line it that it will continue to get warmer, until
it gets much colder. We know that Ice Ages occur in just
a few short years. During the last ice age, ice covered the
area north of a line drawn between Cape May, New
Jersey and Seattle Washington. Here is a map showing
the typical coverage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...th_ice_map.jpg

Look at this chart. The next Ice Age has started. Smart
people are moving south or west.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

The ANTARCTIC
 

Max, instead of trying unsuccessfully to insult me, try typing in "evidence
for global warming" and see what you get. Here's one of 18 million links.
Good night and good luck...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGE1BECPI1.DTL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
It is not a personal attack. Please show me where I attacked him in the
sentence. I think you're ascribing negative connotations to it. I could
have easily been referring to his cranium size.

The preponderance of evidence suggests and most reputable scientists
agree that human beings are the primary cause of global warming. Even
Bush said it.

All we're asking you to do is provide some references to that
"preponderance of evidence."

I tend to think you are inclined to accept whatever position happens to
agree with your personal brand of political dogma, without reviewing the
evidence for and against. In other words, don't confuse you with the
facts, your mind is made up.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

But, I can still wish you a good one! :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, it's a lot worse than that. I don't have the time or
inclination to cite the references, but it's much worse than one degree
in 100 years.

If you make the claim, cite the references, or shut up. I can cite the
references for scientists predicting roughly a one degree change. I can
also cite references for an equal number of scientists claiming somewhat
less than that.

We know lots about the effects and we're learning more by the day.

Really? What's your reference for this: the movie The Day After
Tomorrow?

Every credible scientist can see that there's a huge problem coming, and
we need to get to it now.

So you're saying all the scientists who are claiming otherwise aren't
credible? I'm willing to listen. Provide your references, or shut up.

It's easy to claim that things are hopeless or "unclear" and do nothing
and try nothing.

It's also equally easy to propose meaningless solutions that might
actually make things worse, which is precisely what attempts at
controlling climate have done heretofore.

I don't have to do either. I don't have the time to do your research for
you, and since you're not my dad, I don't have to agree to shut up.

Well, that does it, Jon--you aren't invited to my birthday party. So
there.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Mys Terry" wrote
Only because you want to be obtuse. When people talk about "saving the earth"
they are obviously talking about saving it as a habitat for life, rather than
turning it into a lifeless stone.

With all due respect we pitiful humans lack the ability to turn Earth into a
"lifeless stone". Life will persist altho we may not be here.

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Maxprop" wrote

Really? What's your reference for this: the movie The Day After Tomorrow?


Dumb as it sounds that's prolly as good as any )c:

The ANTARCTIC
 

Jon, if human beings are responsible for global warming how do you explain
the presence of oil deposits in Alaska and coal in Spitzbergen and (I
believe) also in Antartica?


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You have not presented much in the way of "evidence." Global warming is
happening. Human beings are responsible for much of it.

The ANTARCTIC
 

We haven't gotten to them yet?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Edgar" wrote in message
...
Jon, if human beings are responsible for global warming how do you
explain
the presence of oil deposits in Alaska and coal in Spitzbergen and (I
believe) also in Antartica?


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You have not presented much in the way of "evidence." Global warming is
happening. Human beings are responsible for much of it.

The ANTARCTIC
 

Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental
scientists. I believe their concern was that it was too "Hollywood" to be
taken seriously. And, obviously many things in the movie are just Hollywood
flash.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote

Really? What's your reference for this: the movie The Day After
Tomorrow?


Dumb as it sounds that's prolly as good as any )c:

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Mys Terry" wrote


You are wrong. There are enough nuclear weapons in
existence to trash
the world several times over. The only survivors will be
cockroaches,
twinkies, and Keith Richards.


Twinkies who live under rocks, like you?

SV

The ANTARCTIC
 

He's act more like a cockroach, yet true..... he is about as sharp as a
twinkie.

Joe

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Max, instead of trying unsuccessfully to insult me, try typing in
"evidence for global warming" and see what you get. Here's one of 18
million links. Good night and good luck...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGE1BECPI1.DTL

What evidence are you referring to? I see only a report based on talks
given at a meeting of the AAAS. I'd love to see the actual papers upon
which those talks were based, not just some reporter's interpretation of
what he heard. You still haven't provided any references or evidence.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental
scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may not be.
It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to see anything
of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children or their
children.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

Nor is it my job to do so. You're a smart guy... look it up yourself. I even
gave you the google string.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Max, instead of trying unsuccessfully to insult me, try typing in
"evidence for global warming" and see what you get. Here's one of 18
million links. Good night and good luck...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGE1BECPI1.DTL

What evidence are you referring to? I see only a report based on talks
given at a meeting of the AAAS. I'd love to see the actual papers upon
which those talks were based, not just some reporter's interpretation of
what he heard. You still haven't provided any references or evidence.

Max