So much for global warming . . .
 

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global
warming alarmists and kook believers.

Wilbur Hubbard

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
anews.com...
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global
warming alarmists and kook believers.

Wilbur Hubbard

That don't mean nothing... One year all by itself don't change a trend.
Almost every scientist in the whole world believes in global warming. They
believe Al Gore. So should you. Next year the north pole is supposed to melt
completely away. Land will be showing. Russia will be drilling for oil as
they've claimed the whole continent up there.

Cheers,
Gwen Ives

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Gwen Ives" wrote in message
...
snip
.. Next year the north pole is supposed to melt
completely away. Land will be showing. Russia will be drilling for oil as
they've claimed the whole continent up there.

Now, that will be interesting, considering there's no dry land up there !

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:02 -0500, someone posting as Wilbur Hubbard
purportedly wrote:

snip

Where has the Arctic sea ice gone dumbass? Antarctic ice shelves
collapsing? Worldwide retreat of glaciers? Snows of Kilimanjaro?

you've been binned

--
poking dumbasses in the forehead, till my finger hurts.

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:54:40 -0500, "Gwen Ives"
wrote:


"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
tanews.com...
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global
warming alarmists and kook believers.

Wilbur Hubbard

That don't mean nothing... One year all by itself don't change a trend.
Almost every scientist in the whole world believes in global warming. They
believe Al Gore. So should you. Next year the north pole is supposed to melt
completely away. Land will be showing. Russia will be drilling for oil as
they've claimed the whole continent up there.

Cheers,
Gwen Ives

How about 9 of the last 10 years have been colder than normal?

How about they have all the scientists except most of the
climatologists. Seems like the folks who really have that area as
their specialty are the only sceptics...

;-)

So much for global warming . . .
 

wordsmith wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:02 -0500, someone posting as Wilbur Hubbard
purportedly wrote:

snip

Where has the Arctic sea ice gone dumbass? Antarctic ice shelves
collapsing? Worldwide retreat of glaciers? Snows of Kilimanjaro?

It's called "Summer."

you've been binned

You've been conned.

Stephen

So much for global warming . . .
 

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global
warming alarmists and kook believers.

Wilbur Hubbard



Wilbur,

Interesting article. It seems we have the battle of the institutes
going on here.

It seems your report is coming from the University of Illinois Arctic
Climate Research Center.

But..............

If you go to the National Snow and Ice Data Center you get a very
different picture.

They report that the ice growth period has ended with the growth being
"much slower, and should continue to slow"

They have an Arctic Ice Sea Extent graphic that compares the current ice
cover to both the 1979 to 2000 average and the 2006/7 extent. This
graph is updated daily. It shows that the ice extent is far below the
19792-2000 average and that it matches to 2006/7 (record low) minimum.

Then there is the additional concern that, since last years record low,
this cover is predominantly new ice (thin - low volume), not old
multi-year ice (thick - high volume.) Consequently the prediction is
that this summer will see an early breakup and further deterioration of
the overall ice cover.

Perhaps you would like to take a look for yourself at:

www.nsidc.org/articseaicenews/

Or, if you prefer, you could look to the Canadian ice site, 30 day
outlook which says (in part)

The freeze up pattern in the Gulf of Boothia region is very unusual this
year as new ice has barely started to form whereas one would typically
expect the area to be totally covered with new ice by now.

http://ice-glaces.ec.ge.ca

THEN I WENT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ARCTIC CLIMATE RESEARCH CENTER
SITE (ARCTIC.ATMOS.UIUC.EDU) AND FOUND THIS AT THE TOP OF THEIR PAGE.

Arctic temperature trend
Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region
are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4
degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas (shown left). We
provide Arctic temperature trends and changes of other primary surface
variables (e.g., sea level pressure, precipitation, sea ice cover)
archived in this climate summary, portions of which are published each
year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased
correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest change
has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%.
Decreases observed in winter are more modest. We maintain this updated
archive of sea ice concentrations and extents at the University of
Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

Cheers

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:17:51 -0500, hpeer wrote:

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global
warming alarmists and kook believers.

Wilbur Hubbard



Wilbur,

Interesting article. It seems we have the battle of the institutes
going on here.

It seems your report is coming from the University of Illinois Arctic
Climate Research Center.

But..............

If you go to the National Snow and Ice Data Center you get a very
different picture.

They report that the ice growth period has ended with the growth being
"much slower, and should continue to slow"

They have an Arctic Ice Sea Extent graphic that compares the current ice
cover to both the 1979 to 2000 average and the 2006/7 extent. This
graph is updated daily. It shows that the ice extent is far below the
19792-2000 average and that it matches to 2006/7 (record low) minimum.

Then there is the additional concern that, since last years record low,
this cover is predominantly new ice (thin - low volume), not old
multi-year ice (thick - high volume.) Consequently the prediction is
that this summer will see an early breakup and further deterioration of
the overall ice cover.

Perhaps you would like to take a look for yourself at:

www.nsidc.org/articseaicenews/

Or, if you prefer, you could look to the Canadian ice site, 30 day
outlook which says (in part)

The freeze up pattern in the Gulf of Boothia region is very unusual this
year as new ice has barely started to form whereas one would typically
expect the area to be totally covered with new ice by now.

http://ice-glaces.ec.ge.ca

THEN I WENT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ARCTIC CLIMATE RESEARCH CENTER
SITE (ARCTIC.ATMOS.UIUC.EDU) AND FOUND THIS AT THE TOP OF THEIR PAGE.

Arctic temperature trend
Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region
are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4
degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas (shown left). We
provide Arctic temperature trends and changes of other primary surface
variables (e.g., sea level pressure, precipitation, sea ice cover)
archived in this climate summary, portions of which are published each
year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased
correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest change
has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%.
Decreases observed in winter are more modest. We maintain this updated
archive of sea ice concentrations and extents at the University of
Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

Cheers


You are trying to flummox him with facts...won't work with Wilbur.
Wilbur knows what Wilbur knows and nothing as flimsy as facts is going
to change his mind.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

So much for global warming . . .
 

hpeer wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global
warming alarmists and kook believers.

Wilbur Hubbard


Wilbur,

Interesting article. It seems we have the battle of the institutes
going on here.

It seems your report is coming from the University of Illinois Arctic
Climate Research Center.

But..............

If you go to the National Snow and Ice Data Center you get a very
different picture.

They report that the ice growth period has ended with the growth being
"much slower, and should continue to slow"

They have an Arctic Ice Sea Extent graphic that compares the current ice
cover to both the 1979 to 2000 average and the 2006/7 extent. This
graph is updated daily. It shows that the ice extent is far below the
19792-2000 average and that it matches to 2006/7 (record low) minimum.

Then there is the additional concern that, since last years record low,
this cover is predominantly new ice (thin - low volume), not old
multi-year ice (thick - high volume.) Consequently the prediction is
that this summer will see an early breakup and further deterioration of
the overall ice cover.

Perhaps you would like to take a look for yourself at:

www.nsidc.org/articseaicenews/

Or, if you prefer, you could look to the Canadian ice site, 30 day
outlook which says (in part)

The freeze up pattern in the Gulf of Boothia region is very unusual this
year as new ice has barely started to form whereas one would typically
expect the area to be totally covered with new ice by now.

http://ice-glaces.ec.ge.ca

THEN I WENT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ARCTIC CLIMATE RESEARCH CENTER
SITE (ARCTIC.ATMOS.UIUC.EDU) AND FOUND THIS AT THE TOP OF THEIR PAGE.

Arctic temperature trend
Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region
are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4
degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas (shown left). We
provide Arctic temperature trends and changes of other primary surface
variables (e.g., sea level pressure, precipitation, sea ice cover)
archived in this climate summary, portions of which are published each
year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased
correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest change
has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%.
Decreases observed in winter are more modest. We maintain this updated
archive of sea ice concentrations and extents at the University of
Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

Cheers
I think that what you are seeing is what the Goreilites ignore, that
there is not a consensus on global warming. Climate studies are in
their infancy, and the millions of variables involved in global weather
are not understood. When computer models take a few of the know
variable and try to predict they show trends but not necessarily the
correct trend, because all of the variables and their strength are not
included.

If you take any set of random data, and run it through the correct
program, you may find trends, but because the data is random do not exist.

There are many good sites that show the current research papers on the
climate with out gorealizing the results.

So much for global warming . . .
 

Keith nuttle wrote:
Keith nuttle wrote:
hpeer wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global
warming alarmists and kook believers.

Wilbur Hubbard


Wilbur,

Interesting article. It seems we have the battle of the institutes
going on here.

It seems your report is coming from the University of Illinois Arctic
Climate Research Center.

But..............

If you go to the National Snow and Ice Data Center you get a very
different picture.

They report that the ice growth period has ended with the growth being
"much slower, and should continue to slow"

They have an Arctic Ice Sea Extent graphic that compares the current
ice cover to both the 1979 to 2000 average and the 2006/7 extent.
This graph is updated daily. It shows that the ice extent is far
below the 19792-2000 average and that it matches to 2006/7 (record
low) minimum.

Then there is the additional concern that, since last years record
low, this cover is predominantly new ice (thin - low volume), not old
multi-year ice (thick - high volume.) Consequently the prediction is
that this summer will see an early breakup and further deterioration
of the overall ice cover.

Perhaps you would like to take a look for yourself at:

www.nsidc.org/articseaicenews/

Or, if you prefer, you could look to the Canadian ice site, 30 day
outlook which says (in part)

The freeze up pattern in the Gulf of Boothia region is very unusual
this year as new ice has barely started to form whereas one would
typically expect the area to be totally covered with new ice by now.

http://ice-glaces.ec.ge.ca

THEN I WENT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ARCTIC CLIMATE RESEARCH
CENTER SITE (ARCTIC.ATMOS.UIUC.EDU) AND FOUND THIS AT THE TOP OF
THEIR PAGE.

Arctic temperature trend
Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region
are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4
degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas (shown left). We
provide Arctic temperature trends and changes of other primary surface
variables (e.g., sea level pressure, precipitation, sea ice cover)
archived in this climate summary, portions of which are published each
year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased
correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest
change has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding
30%. Decreases observed in winter are more modest. We maintain this
updated archive of sea ice concentrations and extents at the
University of Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

Cheers
I think that what you are seeing is what the Goreilites ignore, that
there is not a consensus on global warming. Climate studies are in
their infancy, and the millions of variables involved in global weather
are not understood. When computer models take a few of the know
variable and try to predict they show trends but not necessarily the
correct trend, because all of the variables and their strength are not
included.

If you take any set of random data, and run it through the correct
program, you may find trends, but because the data is random do not exist.

There are many good sites that show the current research papers on the
climate with out gorealizing the results.



hpeer wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global
warming alarmists and kook believers.

Wilbur Hubbard


Wilbur,

Interesting article. It seems we have the battle of the institutes
going on here.

It seems your report is coming from the University of Illinois Arctic
Climate Research Center.

But..............

If you go to the National Snow and Ice Data Center you get a very
different picture.

They report that the ice growth period has ended with the growth being
"much slower, and should continue to slow"

They have an Arctic Ice Sea Extent graphic that compares the current
ice cover to both the 1979 to 2000 average and the 2006/7 extent.
This graph is updated daily. It shows that the ice extent is far
below the 19792-2000 average and that it matches to 2006/7 (record
low) minimum.

Then there is the additional concern that, since last years record
low, this cover is predominantly new ice (thin - low volume), not old
multi-year ice (thick - high volume.) Consequently the prediction is
that this summer will see an early breakup and further deterioration
of the overall ice cover.

Perhaps you would like to take a look for yourself at:

www.nsidc.org/articseaicenews/

Or, if you prefer, you could look to the Canadian ice site, 30 day
outlook which says (in part)

The freeze up pattern in the Gulf of Boothia region is very unusual
this year as new ice has barely started to form whereas one would
typically expect the area to be totally covered with new ice by now.

http://ice-glaces.ec.ge.ca

THEN I WENT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ARCTIC CLIMATE RESEARCH
CENTER SITE (ARCTIC.ATMOS.UIUC.EDU) AND FOUND THIS AT THE TOP OF
THEIR PAGE.

Arctic temperature trend
Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region
are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4
degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas (shown left). We
provide Arctic temperature trends and changes of other primary surface
variables (e.g., sea level pressure, precipitation, sea ice cover)
archived in this climate summary, portions of which are published each
year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased
correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest
change has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding
30%. Decreases observed in winter are more modest. We maintain this
updated archive of sea ice concentrations and extents at the
University of Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

Cheers
I think that what you are seeing is what the Goreilites ignore, that
there is not a consensus on global warming. Climate studies are in
their infancy, and the millions of variables involved in global weather
are not understood. When computer models take a few of the know
variable and try to predict they show trends but not necessarily the
correct trend, because all of the variables and their strength are not
included.

If you take any set of random data, and run it through the correct
program, you may find trends, but because the data is random do not exist.

There are many good sites that show the current research papers on the
climate with out gorealizing the results.



To hell with Gore. Never saw the movie and don't care to. Gore is
trying to sensationalize it and goad people into action. He is only for
the converted. He is NOT a source authoritative info.

Still, my take on this is that serious researchers converge on there
being significant global warming. The conversation has moved from "if"
to "how sever."

I have been following this topic on another site for some time. There
has been a LOT of rancor over whether or not GW is happening. For what
it is worth I have been convinced that it is an issue of concern.

Take a look at the sites I listed above. They are mainstream government
programs.

So much for global warming . . .
 

"hpeer" wrote in message
m...
To hell with Gore. Never saw the movie and don't care to. Gore is trying
to sensationalize it and goad people into action. He is only for the
converted. He is NOT a source authoritative info.

Still, my take on this is that serious researchers converge on there
being significant global warming. The conversation has moved from "if" to
"how sever."

I have been following this topic on another site for some time. There has
been a LOT of rancor over whether or not GW is happening. For what it is
worth I have been convinced that it is an issue of concern.

Take a look at the sites I listed above. They are mainstream government
programs.

The Earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years, give or take. Had it
not been, we wouldn't be here but the skiing would be fantastic.

The only constant in the Earth's climate is change. Always has been, always
will be.

So much for global warming . . .
 

"hpeer" wrote in message
m...
Keith nuttle wrote:
Keith nuttle wrote:
hpeer wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global
warming alarmists and kook believers.

Wilbur Hubbard


Wilbur,

Interesting article. It seems we have the battle of the institutes
going on here.

It seems your report is coming from the University of Illinois Arctic
Climate Research Center.

But..............

If you go to the National Snow and Ice Data Center you get a very
different picture.

They report that the ice growth period has ended with the growth being
"much slower, and should continue to slow"

They have an Arctic Ice Sea Extent graphic that compares the current ice
cover to both the 1979 to 2000 average and the 2006/7 extent. This
graph is updated daily. It shows that the ice extent is far below the
19792-2000 average and that it matches to 2006/7 (record low) minimum.

Then there is the additional concern that, since last years record low,
this cover is predominantly new ice (thin - low volume), not old
multi-year ice (thick - high volume.) Consequently the prediction is
that this summer will see an early breakup and further deterioration of
the overall ice cover.

Perhaps you would like to take a look for yourself at:

www.nsidc.org/articseaicenews/

Or, if you prefer, you could look to the Canadian ice site, 30 day
outlook which says (in part)

The freeze up pattern in the Gulf of Boothia region is very unusual this
year as new ice has barely started to form whereas one would typically
expect the area to be totally covered with new ice by now.

http://ice-glaces.ec.ge.ca

THEN I WENT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ARCTIC CLIMATE RESEARCH CENTER
SITE (ARCTIC.ATMOS.UIUC.EDU) AND FOUND THIS AT THE TOP OF THEIR PAGE.

Arctic temperature trend
Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region
are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4
degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas (shown left). We
provide Arctic temperature trends and changes of other primary surface
variables (e.g., sea level pressure, precipitation, sea ice cover)
archived in this climate summary, portions of which are published each
year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased
correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest change
has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%.
Decreases observed in winter are more modest. We maintain this updated
archive of sea ice concentrations and extents at the University of
Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

Cheers
I think that what you are seeing is what the Goreilites ignore, that
there is not a consensus on global warming. Climate studies are in their
infancy, and the millions of variables involved in global weather are not
understood. When computer models take a few of the know variable and try
to predict they show trends but not necessarily the correct trend,
because all of the variables and their strength are not included.

If you take any set of random data, and run it through the correct
program, you may find trends, but because the data is random do not
exist.

There are many good sites that show the current research papers on the
climate with out gorealizing the results.



hpeer wrote:
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global
warming alarmists and kook believers.

Wilbur Hubbard


Wilbur,

Interesting article. It seems we have the battle of the institutes
going on here.

It seems your report is coming from the University of Illinois Arctic
Climate Research Center.

But..............

If you go to the National Snow and Ice Data Center you get a very
different picture.

They report that the ice growth period has ended with the growth being
"much slower, and should continue to slow"

They have an Arctic Ice Sea Extent graphic that compares the current ice
cover to both the 1979 to 2000 average and the 2006/7 extent. This
graph is updated daily. It shows that the ice extent is far below the
19792-2000 average and that it matches to 2006/7 (record low) minimum.

Then there is the additional concern that, since last years record low,
this cover is predominantly new ice (thin - low volume), not old
multi-year ice (thick - high volume.) Consequently the prediction is
that this summer will see an early breakup and further deterioration of
the overall ice cover.

Perhaps you would like to take a look for yourself at:

www.nsidc.org/articseaicenews/

Or, if you prefer, you could look to the Canadian ice site, 30 day
outlook which says (in part)

The freeze up pattern in the Gulf of Boothia region is very unusual this
year as new ice has barely started to form whereas one would typically
expect the area to be totally covered with new ice by now.

http://ice-glaces.ec.ge.ca

THEN I WENT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS ARCTIC CLIMATE RESEARCH CENTER
SITE (ARCTIC.ATMOS.UIUC.EDU) AND FOUND THIS AT THE TOP OF THEIR PAGE.

Arctic temperature trend
Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region
are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4
degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas (shown left). We
provide Arctic temperature trends and changes of other primary surface
variables (e.g., sea level pressure, precipitation, sea ice cover)
archived in this climate summary, portions of which are published each
year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased
correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest change
has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%.
Decreases observed in winter are more modest. We maintain this updated
archive of sea ice concentrations and extents at the University of
Illinois Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

Cheers
I think that what you are seeing is what the Goreilites ignore, that
there is not a consensus on global warming. Climate studies are in their
infancy, and the millions of variables involved in global weather are not
understood. When computer models take a few of the know variable and try
to predict they show trends but not necessarily the correct trend,
because all of the variables and their strength are not included.

If you take any set of random data, and run it through the correct
program, you may find trends, but because the data is random do not
exist.

There are many good sites that show the current research papers on the
climate with out gorealizing the results.



To hell with Gore. Never saw the movie and don't care to. Gore is trying
to sensationalize it and goad people into action. He is only for the
converted. He is NOT a source authoritative info.

Still, my take on this is that serious researchers converge on there
being significant global warming. The conversation has moved from "if" to
"how sever."

I have been following this topic on another site for some time. There has
been a LOT of rancor over whether or not GW is happening. For what it is
worth I have been convinced that it is an issue of concern.

Take a look at the sites I listed above. They are mainstream government
programs.


Keith has the same nuttle as Neal (aka Wilbur).

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

So much for global warming . . .
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"hpeer" wrote in message
m...
To hell with Gore. Never saw the movie and don't care to. Gore is
trying to sensationalize it and goad people into action. He is only for
the converted. He is NOT a source authoritative info.

Still, my take on this is that serious researchers converge on there
being significant global warming. The conversation has moved from "if"
to "how sever."

I have been following this topic on another site for some time. There
has been a LOT of rancor over whether or not GW is happening. For what
it is worth I have been convinced that it is an issue of concern.

Take a look at the sites I listed above. They are mainstream government
programs.

The Earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years, give or take. Had it
not been, we wouldn't be here but the skiing would be fantastic.

The only constant in the Earth's climate is change. Always has been,
always will be.



Big difference between normal trends and those that have taken place since
the Industrial Rev. era. The science is pretty conclusive at this point that
we've got a serious problem. It's not just about warming. There has and will
continue to be much larger fluctuations in conditions, among other things.

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

So much for global warming . . .
 

The Earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years, give or take. Had it
not been, we wouldn't be here but the skiing would be fantastic.

The only constant in the Earth's climate is change. Always has been, always
will be.



I think the bigger problem is not whether we're warming or cooling,
the problem is the premise that it's human caused and human fixable.
Gordon

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Gordon" wrote in message
m...

The Earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years, give or take. Had
it not been, we wouldn't be here but the skiing would be fantastic.

The only constant in the Earth's climate is change. Always has been,
always will be.

I think the bigger problem is not whether we're warming or cooling, the
problem is the premise that it's human caused and human fixable.
Gordon


The science is pretty clear that humans have contributed greatly to what is
going on and what will continue to happen. It's not clear that we have the
political will world-wide to fix it. Eventually, it'll fix itself, but the
human toll will be pretty high, especially for the coastal regions, food
production, etc.

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

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Gordon" wrote in message
m...

The Earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years, give or take. Had
it not been, we wouldn't be here but the skiing would be fantastic.

The only constant in the Earth's climate is change. Always has been,
always will be.

I think the bigger problem is not whether we're warming or cooling, the
problem is the premise that it's human caused and human fixable.
Gordon


The science is pretty clear that humans have contributed greatly

No, it is not clear at all. . .

to what is going on and what will continue to happen.

What's going on is the usual climate cycles primarily caused by how much
energy the Earth receives from the Sun.

It's not clear that we have the political will world-wide to fix it.

The usual climate cycles can never be affected by politics.

Eventually, it'll fix itself, but the human toll will be pretty high,
especially for the coastal regions, food production, etc.

A warmer climate will make it easier to produce more food so your assumption
there is false. As for flooding of the coastal regions, the most dire of
global warming kook forecasts predict a 4" rise in sea level by the end of
the century. That's a one-hundred year period. This will not even be
noticable in the lifespan of the average human being.

Get a clue. All that LSD has damaged your thought process.


Wilbur Hubbard

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"hpeer" wrote in message
m...
To hell with Gore. Never saw the movie and don't care to. Gore is
trying to sensationalize it and goad people into action. He is only for
the converted. He is NOT a source authoritative info.

Still, my take on this is that serious researchers converge on there
being significant global warming. The conversation has moved from "if"
to "how sever."

I have been following this topic on another site for some time. There
has been a LOT of rancor over whether or not GW is happening. For what
it is worth I have been convinced that it is an issue of concern.

Take a look at the sites I listed above. They are mainstream government
programs.

The Earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years, give or take. Had
it not been, we wouldn't be here but the skiing would be fantastic.

The only constant in the Earth's climate is change. Always has been,
always will be.



Big difference between normal trends and those that have taken place since
the Industrial Rev. era. The science is pretty conclusive at this point
that we've got a serious problem. It's not just about warming. There has
and will continue to be much larger fluctuations in conditions, among
other things.

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




Ya, but when you plug the last hundred years into the trendline for the past
several thousand years, it hardly makes a blip.

So much for global warming . . .
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"hpeer" wrote in message
m...
To hell with Gore. Never saw the movie and don't care to. Gore is
trying to sensationalize it and goad people into action. He is only
for the converted. He is NOT a source authoritative info.

Still, my take on this is that serious researchers converge on there
being significant global warming. The conversation has moved from "if"
to "how sever."

I have been following this topic on another site for some time. There
has been a LOT of rancor over whether or not GW is happening. For what
it is worth I have been convinced that it is an issue of concern.

Take a look at the sites I listed above. They are mainstream
government
programs.

The Earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years, give or take. Had
it not been, we wouldn't be here but the skiing would be fantastic.

The only constant in the Earth's climate is change. Always has been,
always will be.



Big difference between normal trends and those that have taken place
since the Industrial Rev. era. The science is pretty conclusive at this
point that we've got a serious problem. It's not just about warming.
There has and will continue to be much larger fluctuations in conditions,
among other things.

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




Ya, but when you plug the last hundred years into the trendline for the
past several thousand years, it hardly makes a blip.

No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less than 1000
years). We can do something about it if we have the political will.

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

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity. The one thing that I have
learned over the years is that we don't know half of what we think we do,
and what we do know, even if true in the short-term, may well turn out to be
false in the long run. I've been watching some tinkerers on television
creating "solutions" to "global warming," such as launching millions of
mirrors into space to partially block the sun. These people scare the
bejeesus out of me. More likely than not, if they ever succeed in getting
their half-baked ideas off the ground, is that they'll usher-in another ice
age thousands of years before it would have happened naturally.

So much for global warming . . .
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity. The one thing that I have
learned over the years is that we don't know half of what we think we do,
and what we do know, even if true in the short-term, may well turn out to
be false in the long run. I've been watching some tinkerers on television
creating "solutions" to "global warming," such as launching millions of
mirrors into space to partially block the sun. These people scare the
bejeesus out of me. More likely than not, if they ever succeed in getting
their half-baked ideas off the ground, is that they'll usher-in another
ice age thousands of years before it would have happened naturally.


IAWTP! How quickly they forget.

Wilbur Hubbard

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:16:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
reasolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity.

Only at *your* school.

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:16:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
areasolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity.

Only at *your* school.



I went to a few, in different states. They were all teaching the same thing.
Bang goes that theory, eh?

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:16:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
areasolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity.

Only at *your* school.


Time Magazine. Read the article. Get educated.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/posts

Same stupid unfounded hysteria - only about the coming, man-caused ice age.

Wilbur Hubbard

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:39:31 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:16:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
yareasolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity.

Only at *your* school.



I went to a few, in different states. They were all teaching the same thing.
Bang goes that theory, eh?


A couple of geography teachers do not make a "scientific concensus"

So much for global warming . . .
 

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity. The one thing that I have
learned over the years is that we don't know half of what we think we do,
and what we do know, even if true in the short-term, may well turn out to be
false in the long run. I've been watching some tinkerers on television
creating "solutions" to "global warming," such as launching millions of
mirrors into space to partially block the sun. These people scare the
bejeesus out of me. More likely than not, if they ever succeed in getting
their half-baked ideas off the ground, is that they'll usher-in another ice
age thousands of years before it would have happened naturally.


While I disagree with your opinions on GW I am with you on the
"tinkerers." They can only make it worse.

I think if you work through it you will find that the cooling you refer
to is still around, known now as "Global Dimming" due to contrails and
particulate matter. It tends to off-set the global warming. The
interaction between the two makes for some interesting thoughts.

So much for global warming . . .
 

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Gordon" wrote in message
m...
The Earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years, give or take. Had
it not been, we wouldn't be here but the skiing would be fantastic.

The only constant in the Earth's climate is change. Always has been,
always will be.
I think the bigger problem is not whether we're warming or cooling, the
problem is the premise that it's human caused and human fixable.
Gordon

The science is pretty clear that humans have contributed greatly

No, it is not clear at all. . .

to what is going on and what will continue to happen.

What's going on is the usual climate cycles primarily caused by how much
energy the Earth receives from the Sun.

It's not clear that we have the political will world-wide to fix it.

The usual climate cycles can never be affected by politics.

Eventually, it'll fix itself, but the human toll will be pretty high,
especially for the coastal regions, food production, etc.

A warmer climate will make it easier to produce more food so your assumption
there is false. As for flooding of the coastal regions, the most dire of
global warming kook forecasts predict a 4" rise in sea level by the end of
the century. That's a one-hundred year period. This will not even be
noticable in the lifespan of the average human being.

Get a clue. All that LSD has damaged your thought process.


Wilbur Hubbard




Wilbur - Oh Wilbur!

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:39:31 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:16:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
ayareasolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less
than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political
will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity.

Only at *your* school.



I went to a few, in different states. They were all teaching the same
thing.
Bang goes that theory, eh?


A couple of geography teachers do not make a "scientific concensus"

That's one serious case of denial you've got there. You might want to look
for an ointment.

So much for global warming . . .
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity. The one thing that I have
learned over the years is that we don't know half of what we think we do,
and what we do know, even if true in the short-term, may well turn out to
be false in the long run. I've been watching some tinkerers on television
creating "solutions" to "global warming," such as launching millions of
mirrors into space to partially block the sun. These people scare the
bejeesus out of me. More likely than not, if they ever succeed in getting
their half-baked ideas off the ground, is that they'll usher-in another
ice age thousands of years before it would have happened naturally.



I think we know a bit more than we did in the 70s...


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

So much for global warming . . .
 

"hpeer" wrote in message
m...
troll sh*t removed
Wilbur - Oh Wilbur!


He's obsessive compulsive...

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

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...

I think we know a bit more than we did in the 70s...


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




Possibly. And thirty years from now, we'll know even more. Perhaps we'll
know that it was one big stupid idea to try to stop the temporary warming
trend. ;-)

"All trends are temporary." -- Inescapable truth #257

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:56:14 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:39:31 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:16:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
news:OeydnZdp1v1tjPjUnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@posted. bayareasolutions...
No doubt. It's those blips that'll kill ya in the short term (less
than
1000 years). We can do something about it if we have the political
will.

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




I went through Jr. High and High School during the 70's. It was then the
"scientific concensus" that the Earth was experiencing global cooling,
caused by -- wait for it -- human activity.

Only at *your* school.



I went to a few, in different states. They were all teaching the same
thing.
Bang goes that theory, eh?


A couple of geography teachers do not make a "scientific concensus"

That's one serious case of denial you've got there. You might want to look
for an ointment.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:16:10 -0500, hpeer wrote
this crap:

To hell with Gore. Never saw the movie and don't care to. Gore is
trying to sensationalize it and goad people into action. He is only for
the converted. He is NOT a source authoritative info.


Gotta agree with you. In my town, the council is bitching because
they are paying too much for road salt. The last series of winters
have been so wicked, that all cities are buying lots of salt, and the
supplies are running slow, and the prices are going up.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:12:25 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote this crap:

I think we know a bit more than we did in the 70s...

I seriously doubt that you do.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

So much for global warming . . .
 

Bloody Horvath wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:16:10 -0500, hpeer wrote
this crap:

To hell with Gore. Never saw the movie and don't care to. Gore is
trying to sensationalize it and goad people into action. He is only for
the converted. He is NOT a source authoritative info.


Gotta agree with you. In my town, the council is bitching because
they are paying too much for road salt. The last series of winters
have been so wicked, that all cities are buying lots of salt, and the
supplies are running slow, and the prices are going up.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

That may be. Local disturbances are all over the place. Statistical
data points can be all over the place, it is the long term trends that
are of significance. The usual attack on these types of reports is to
cite the difference between "weather" and "climate. My sister, living
in Newfoundland, has been griping that it is too damn warm up there.
And has been for most of the last few years.

If you were to look at the site of the researchers cited in Wilbur's
post you will find that they are concerned about the effects of GW.

As I said, my review has led to the conclusion that the arctic ice sheet
is BOTH losing surface area and thinning. The VAST majority of
information sources lead in one direction, Global Warming. Even
Wilbur's cited experts.

So much for global warming . . .
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...

I think we know a bit more than we did in the 70s...


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




Possibly. And thirty years from now, we'll know even more. Perhaps we'll
know that it was one big stupid idea to try to stop the temporary warming
trend. ;-)

"All trends are temporary." -- Inescapable truth #257
I am sure you are right
In the meantime however, governments are going to hit us all with huge taxes
to pay for 'green' projects and justifying themselves by telling us it is
all for our own, or the planets good

So much for global warming . . .
 

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Ya, so if someone tells me that I did not experience something that I
experienced, I must not have experienced it.
It is true that the clamor over "global cooling" didn't begin to approach
the current levels of concern over "global warming. There are many reasons
for that. But to suggest that the reason is that they were wrong then, and
are right now, based solely upon the differences in concern, is ridiculous.
And to deny that the science existed then is an attempt to rewrite history.

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.

So much for global warming . . .
 

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:02:18 -0500, hpeer wrote:

As I said, my review has led to the conclusion that the arctic ice sheet
is BOTH losing surface area and thinning. The VAST majority of
information sources lead in one direction, Global Warming.

Although still a bit of a skeptic I have to agree that the artic ice
evidence is fairly compelling. There have been lots of historic
variations in artic ice of course, none of which had anything to do
with human activity. That is the crux of the issue in my opinion:
Is the warming a result of some natural influence over which we have
no control, or is it indeed a result of fossil fuel combustion, or
some combination of both? I think the jury is still out and likely to
remain so for quite a while. The quest for alternate fuels is a good
thing however and should proceed full speed ahead regardless.

So much for global warming . . .
 

KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.



At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should
be studied.

So much for global warming . . .
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 09:39:47 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Ya, so if someone tells me that I did not experience something that I
experienced, I must not have experienced it.
It is true that the clamor over "global cooling" didn't begin to approach
the current levels of concern over "global warming. There are many reasons
for that. But to suggest that the reason is that they were wrong then, and
are right now, based solely upon the differences in concern, is
ridiculous.
And to deny that the science existed then is an attempt to rewrite
history.

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.


Your memory is either faulty or selective.

The "Global Cooling" you remember was caused by an observable hole in
the ozone layer, created by the widespread indiscriminate use of
fluorocarbons. The ozone layer is needed because it is what enables
the greenhouse effect, which helps keep the surface temps where they
are. If we hadn't done something about it, the hole would have
eventually gotten bigger to the point where the earth would not be
able to maintain even temperatures. That problem was clearly man
made. That's why things such as Freon are no longer in production. The
Ozone layer has subsequently recovered, because earthlings stopped
destroying it. Now we have added so much CO2 to the atmosphere that
the greenhouse effect has strengthened beyond design specs. Too much
greenhouse effect is as bad, or worse than too little. It needs to be
"just right", which it was until we screwed it up.


There are too many logical and factual flaws in your argument for me to
address them all, so I won't even try. But you might want to do some
research on the Montreal Protocol and the current state of the "ozone hole."

As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely
subjective. There is no "normal and natural" climate on this planet. The
entire planet is in a constant state of flux -- we humans just happen to be
comfortable with the current climate and so we want to keep it this way. But
in doing so, we are fighting every natural process on Earth. Global Climate
Change is the norm, not an anomoly.

So much for global warming . . .
 

KLC Lewis wrote:

As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely
subjective.

I'm sure the dinosaurs were quite happy with the levvels of greenhouse
gasses present during their existence...as were teh whooly mammoths
during theirs. The earth changes. It always has, it always will and the
living beings on the earth either adapt or die. The onl;y difference
between us and the dinasaurs or mammoths is that we possess the hubris
to think we are capable of changing the earth to any but but slight
variances. I'm not saying that we should not be careful and guard what
we do for the preservationof our own species, but the idea that we are
responsible for global climitazation alone? The facts are that this
earth is cyclical and that it is presently entering a new cycle. Yes,
clean up the mess so we don't have to breathe it, eat it, or live in
swill but realize that the warming and cooling of the earth is beyond
our control short of a nuclear war.