A bit of ash in the air in the northern latitudes
might just start the next ice age. Liberals
prepare to change sides to global coolilng.
Helms A-Lee!

http://www.ktva.com/alaska/ci_4381772

he Alaska Volcano Observatory has increased it
level of concern for Fourpeaked Volcano to code
Yellow. It previously had NO warning level. This
action came as a result of weekend reports of an
unusually large cloud rising 20,000 feet from the
Cape Douglas area. Cape Douglas is 80 miles
northwest of Kodiak and within the Katmai National
Park and Preserve.

The AVO now confirms that the source of the large
cloud was volcanic. But the exact location of the
cloud is not known, yet. Observatory scientists say
satellite and radar data suggested a source low on
the flank of Fourpeaked Volcano. They anticipate
conducting an aerial fly-over for confirmation when
weather allows. The observatory says the last
volcanic activity at Fourpeaked was probably
ten-thousand years ago.

Bart wrote:

A bit of ash in the air in the northern latitudes
might just start the next ice age. Liberals
prepare to change sides to global coolilng.
Helms A-Lee!

Um, the difference between the sides on the global warming issue is not
liberal vs. conservative, but rather science vs. non-science.

Please get your terms right. Thank you.

Yes, it's possible that the scientific consensus may change. Right now
it's overwhelmingly in one direction - and one potential volcano
eruption won't change that. Although if it does blow we'll see a short
cooling period like we did after Mt St Helens.


http://www.ktva.com/alaska/ci_4381772


Interesting article.

//Walt

Here's the definitive book on the subject...

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Made-S...e=UTF8&s=books

or

http://tinyurl.com/l5ryp


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

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Bart wrote:

A bit of ash in the air in the northern latitudes
might just start the next ice age. Liberals
prepare to change sides to global coolilng.
Helms A-Lee!

Um, the difference between the sides on the global warming issue is not
liberal vs. conservative, but rather science vs. non-science.

Please get your terms right. Thank you.

Yes, it's possible that the scientific consensus may change. Right now
it's overwhelmingly in one direction - and one potential volcano eruption
won't change that. Although if it does blow we'll see a short cooling
period like we did after Mt St Helens.


http://www.ktva.com/alaska/ci_4381772


Interesting article.

//Walt

I think the Global Warming debate is whether mankind
is a significant factor. Too often scientist use the
media to further there own careers. While scientists
with opposing viewpoints are ignored and treated like
dirt.

There is no consensus. It is clear the dominant
factor is the sun--not man. With orbital tilt, wobble
and other factors being directly related to the amount
of sunlight incident on the earth determining the
temperature of the earth.

Next comes volcano's. It was one of these that caused
the Ross Ice shelf to break off--not man. And volcano's
have been proven to cause cooling. Do you blame man
for causing volcano's?

All the land mass on the earth--every continent can fit
into the area of the Pacific Ocean with room left over
for another South America. That is just the Pacific Ocean.
The ocean surface is huge. The influence of man is very
minor compared to other factors. The earth will always be
either warming or cooling. Since cooling tends to happen
more rapidly, we should be thankful the current trend is
for warming. If you don't like it, lobby for nuking unstable
volcano's to set them going again. A small amout of dust
in the air will end global warming.

I am not opposed to sensible measures to ensure we don't
destroy and pollute our planet. I am opposed to letting the
media decide to sensationalize global warming for the
Liberal political agenda.

Walt wrote:
Bart wrote:

A bit of ash in the air in the northern latitudes
might just start the next ice age. Liberals
prepare to change sides to global coolilng.
Helms A-Lee!

Um, the difference between the sides on the global warming issue is not
liberal vs. conservative, but rather science vs. non-science.

Please get your terms right. Thank you.

Yes, it's possible that the scientific consensus may change. Right now
it's overwhelmingly in one direction - and one potential volcano
eruption won't change that. Although if it does blow we'll see a short
cooling period like we did after Mt St Helens.


http://www.ktva.com/alaska/ci_4381772


Interesting article.

//Walt

There is absolute consensus. Human beings are a significant contributor, and
it's obvious if you look at the data. All reputable scientists understand
that.

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

"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...
I think the Global Warming debate is whether mankind
is a significant factor. Too often scientist use the
media to further there own careers. While scientists
with opposing viewpoints are ignored and treated like
dirt.

There is no consensus. It is clear the dominant
factor is the sun--not man. With orbital tilt, wobble
and other factors being directly related to the amount
of sunlight incident on the earth determining the
temperature of the earth.

Next comes volcano's. It was one of these that caused
the Ross Ice shelf to break off--not man. And volcano's
have been proven to cause cooling. Do you blame man
for causing volcano's?

All the land mass on the earth--every continent can fit
into the area of the Pacific Ocean with room left over
for another South America. That is just the Pacific Ocean.
The ocean surface is huge. The influence of man is very
minor compared to other factors. The earth will always be
either warming or cooling. Since cooling tends to happen
more rapidly, we should be thankful the current trend is
for warming. If you don't like it, lobby for nuking unstable
volcano's to set them going again. A small amout of dust
in the air will end global warming.

I am not opposed to sensible measures to ensure we don't
destroy and pollute our planet. I am opposed to letting the
media decide to sensationalize global warming for the
Liberal political agenda.

Walt wrote:
Bart wrote:

A bit of ash in the air in the northern latitudes
might just start the next ice age. Liberals
prepare to change sides to global coolilng.
Helms A-Lee!

Um, the difference between the sides on the global warming issue is not
liberal vs. conservative, but rather science vs. non-science.

Please get your terms right. Thank you.

Yes, it's possible that the scientific consensus may change. Right now
it's overwhelmingly in one direction - and one potential volcano
eruption won't change that. Although if it does blow we'll see a short
cooling period like we did after Mt St Helens.


http://www.ktva.com/alaska/ci_4381772


Interesting article.

//Walt

Capt. JG wrote:
There is absolute consensus. Human beings are a significant contributor, and
it's obvious if you look at the data. All reputable scientists understand
that.

Wonder who complained about all those dinosaurs pooping all over the
place making methane in their swamps and all....

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
There is absolute consensus. Human beings are a significant contributor,
and it's obvious if you look at the data. All reputable scientists
understand that.


Really?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;308/5723/847


ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...MPOSITE.v2.PDF

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...O_VIRGO.v2.PDF

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...crimsat_2.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...solar-warming/

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Gilligan wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote

There is absolute consensus. Human beings are a significant contributor,
and it's obvious if you look at the data. All reputable scientists
understand that.

Really?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;308/5723/847


ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...MPOSITE.v2.PDF

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...O_VIRGO.v2.PDF

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...crimsat_2.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...solar-warming/

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Yeah, really, Glen. From your links:

"We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000
global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming."

IOW, some scientists published a model where about a quarter of the
global warming is explained by solar variation. That hardly refutes the
fact that there's a consensus about the reality of the earth becoming
warmer. Or the consensus view that human behavior is a factor.

You are trying to stir up controversy where none exists, and then say
"see, there's no consensus". It's disingenuous, and I'm not sure what
you are attempting to accomplish by it.

Please see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 for
a survey view of consensus scientific opinion.

//Walt

Bart wrote:
A bit of ash in the air in the northern latitudes
might just start the next ice age. Liberals
prepare to change sides to global coolilng.
Helms A-Lee!



I wonder if Neandertals ran around blaming men with fire on the end of
the Ice age?

Joe








http://www.ktva.com/alaska/ci_4381772

he Alaska Volcano Observatory has increased it
level of concern for Fourpeaked Volcano to code
Yellow. It previously had NO warning level. This
action came as a result of weekend reports of an
unusually large cloud rising 20,000 feet from the
Cape Douglas area. Cape Douglas is 80 miles
northwest of Kodiak and within the Katmai National
Park and Preserve.

The AVO now confirms that the source of the large
cloud was volcanic. But the exact location of the
cloud is not known, yet. Observatory scientists say
satellite and radar data suggested a source low on
the flank of Fourpeaked Volcano. They anticipate
conducting an aerial fly-over for confirmation when
weather allows. The observatory says the last
volcanic activity at Fourpeaked was probably
ten-thousand years ago.

Joe wrote:
I wonder if Neandertals ran around blaming men with fire on the end of
the Ice age?


LOL Good one, Joe.

DSK