"This Afternoon: A 30 percent chance of showers. Mostly cloudy, with a high
near 78. South wind around 11 mph."

Winterizing? You've got to be kidding!

Global Warming.....Is there a downside?

"Larry" wrote in message
...
"This Afternoon: A 30 percent chance of showers. Mostly cloudy, with a
high
near 78. South wind around 11 mph."

Winterizing? You've got to be kidding!

Global Warming.....Is there a downside?


Bring it on! I wanna grow bananas in Wisconsin.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in news:I-KdnTjNcar-
:

Bring it on! I wanna grow bananas in Wisconsin.


9:45 PM............68F! Have some bananas...(c;


Larry
--
If we eliminate religion, will they stop murdering each other?

I suggest you take a look at some of the more conservative sea level rise
estimates and sit down with a chart of your beloved cruising areas and
ponder what they will look like.

I meet a lot of physical oceanographers and other such people in my line of
work. Believe me, they aren't talking about this stuff because it helps
them get grants. Quite the opposite. The idiot who couldn't find oil in
Texas but thought he could rebuild a society he knows nothing about with a
handful (relatively) of soldiers tried to get it set up that you couldn't
get funding if you talked about global warming. They persisted because they
are scientists. About the only ones who don't believe it now are those who
think it can't get warm because it is flat (which is why NASA had to fake
the moon landing).


Larry wrote:
"This Afternoon: A 30 percent chance of showers. Mostly cloudy, with
a high near 78. South wind around 11 mph."

Winterizing? You've got to be kidding!

Global Warming.....Is there a downside?

--
-- Roger Long

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
I suggest you take a look at some of the more conservative sea level rise
estimates and sit down with a chart of your beloved cruising areas and
ponder what they will look like.

I meet a lot of physical oceanographers and other such people in my line
of work. Believe me, they aren't talking about this stuff because it
helps them get grants. Quite the opposite. The idiot who couldn't find
oil in Texas but thought he could rebuild a society he knows nothing about
with a handful (relatively) of soldiers tried to get it set up that you
couldn't get funding if you talked about global warming. They persisted
because they are scientists. About the only ones who don't believe it now
are those who think it can't get warm because it is flat (which is why
NASA had to fake the moon landing).


The error here is in thinking that there is a "normal" state to the Earth.
We are currently between Ice Age cycles, and warming is a natural part of
that cycle. Sea levels rise and drop along with the ice -- just because we
have settled low-lying areas does not mean that the Earth's climate cycles
must respect our decisions.

On the bright side, think of all the NEW cruising grounds the rising sea
levels will give us!

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:43:11 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

The error here is in thinking that there is a "normal" state to the Earth.

nothing in what Roger posted suggested a "normal" state to the Earth

We are currently between Ice Age cycles, and warming is a natural part
of that cycle. Sea levels rise and drop along with the ice

true, but you aren't ignoring the dissolved gas evidence in ice core
samples at both poles that indicate that this current rise and rate of
rise of temperature is beyond anything recorded in those samples are you?
And that CO2, primarily as a result of fossil fuel burning by us clever
tool-making monkeys is the cause. Of course the gullible and weak-minded
acolytes of the flathead from Texas will attribute the real cause
to bovine flatulence; yet another insidious plot of international
terrorism

"Roger Long" wrote in
:

I suggest you take a look at some of the more conservative sea level
rise estimates and sit down with a chart of your beloved cruising
areas and ponder what they will look like.



Although I live on the Ashley River, my elevation is 55 ft up the slope
from it. Downtown, historic Charleston, is not so lucky. The whole
historic district would be flooded if the sea rose 10', easy. Only King
Street, the shopping district, would be above high tide, which here is 5
to 6' normally.

I read a lot of ebooks, most way beyond my educational level. Unable to
afford college in 1964, I joined the Navy to avoid being drafted (by
nearly 4 hours), instead of dying for no reason in a rice field in
Vietnam. There were no other decisions. A lot of us were "drafted" into
the Navy, the backdoor way. I became a fine electronics technician and
have a long history of outstanding ratings from the Navy, its civil
service at Charleston Naval Shipyard and government contractors. Today,
I repaired a 1969 Hammond organ that 3 technicians couldn't fix. At 60,
I'm still a hot tech...(c;...especially with RF and analog.

I just got through reading a book on this subject posted Nov 28th on
alt.binaries.e-book.technical:
"Radiative Forcing of Climate Change (US NRC, 2005) WW.pdf:
NRC loves graphs and this document is no exception. Many of the graphs
are very telling of our situation, some of which is not what they'd like
us to believe that we are just going to roast-in-hell in 5 more years,
the same as they told us 5 years ago. For instance, refer to the graphs
on document page 55, figure 2-7. From 1985 to 2002, over 17 years, it
shows a downward "trend" from 287 to 282 Dobson units of total ozone.
But, if you look at the actual graphic data, notice how the sun blows
this all away in 1990 when global ozone peaked just as high as it peaked
in 1985. Notice how the solar cycles vary the graph so widely around
that trend line, which indicates the SUN is controlling it, and can blow
away the statistics any ol' time it wants. The bottom graph, the graph
of UV irradiance, again where the sun makes the graph just go crazy at
its will, really hasn't varied one iota since 1985. Of course, the govt
bureaucrats didn't like that so there is no "trend line" calculated to
show how flat it really is...against policy to the contrary. So, they
took away Americans' (ONLY by the way) R-12, 68c/lb refridgerant and
replaced it with $7-8/lb R-134a..etc., etc., and UV light didn't change a
BIT...and the Ozone depletion caused by the big corporations (gasp!) and
the sun CONTINUES....as it's not the CONSUMERS' CARS' FAULT.... The sun
goes on doing what it has been doing for millions of years (unless you
are a fundamentalist Christian, then it's only been doing it for 3000
years, ignoring a mountain of evidence bigger than Mt Everest.)

Now, look over on document page 62 at figure 2-10....

According to the intense media propaganda, AMERICA is a bunch of dirty
*******s just screwing the world using up the oil and converting it to
LAMP BLACK, Black Carbon. Did you see the movie of the average AMERICAN
family's carbon load with huge blocks of carbon accumulating over all the
houses in the neighborhood and spewing out of the cars? How awful! We
need to walk to our gardens and shut off all the power! But,
wait....back to Figure 2-10. This figure, entitled:
"FIGURE 2-10 Velocity potential for the lower troposphere (850 hPa or
about 1.5 km) in the lower panel and for the upper troposphere (200 hPa)
in the upper panel. The solar heating by absorbing aerosols, mainly due
to black carbon, is concentrated over South Asia and the North Indian
Ocean (i.e., over the red shaded regions in the lower panel)."

Look at the good ol' wasteful USA on the map. Notice all that carbon
black just eating SE Asia and the North Indian Ocean, the "red zone" is
GREEN over America!

On the lower panel, where the caption is:
"The red region in the lower panel shows areas of convergence of
air or alternately rising motions in response to the solar heating of the
lower atmosphere by black carbon. The convergence at the lower levels is
followed by divergence (air flowing out of the region) at the upper
levels (the blue shaded region in the upper troposphere) over the source
region. SOURCE: Adapted from Chung and Ramanathan (2003)."

Look at the "red zone" when it swings, VIOLENTLY, the other way...The
"red zone" is from the Amazon Jungle EAST to Malaysia! Look, again, at
AMERICA on this TOMS satellite-generated map. Do you see ANY anomaly
HOLE of just awful air flow caused by all that Black Carbon AMERICANS are
always said to be responsible for that's "KILLING THE EARTH"? No, you do
not. The "red zone" is HUGE, half the planet, and we are in the FRINGE.

If the propaganda Gestapo were correct, would these two world maps have
just awful intense zones, the worst on the planet over AMERICA? They do
not. The zones are caused by SOLAR ACTIVITY....and have been since
before man started walking upright, I suspect.

The whole next chapter is the most damning of my reading so far......

Look on document page 67 at Figure 3-2. The top graph is the Atmospheric
concentration of CO2, not since 1925, but for the last 600 MILLION years.
(Fundamentalist Christians, please stop reading here and consult your
pastor to get his permission to read such outlandish lies.) Hmm...let's
see....500M years ago, Geocarb III, the bureaucrat's own massive program
running on data the tax payers paid dearly for, says we peaked out around
7,500 ppm CO2! Wow...that's a lot! ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY IS THE RIGHT
SIDE OF THIS GRAPH NEARLY TOO NARROW TO SEE ON MY 21" MONITOR. Oops!
Something's wrong! Aha! It's the SCALE of the graph! ALL the
activities of ALL the humans since they began to have less hair and walk
upright hasn't varied the right end of this graph the width of the LINE!
THIS IS NOT THE GRAPH THEY WANT YOU TO SEE to justify the extra $20K of
crap on a new car. We've all made NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL! The ice age
that killed most of the life on the planet and covered it with glaciers
(reflecting the sun power away, of course) made a helluva difference in
the middle of the graph. But, man, especially AMERICAN man, the target
of every jealous zealot on the planet, over there on the right side where
the CO2 concentration is damned near ZERO in comparison to any peak on
the graph....has made so little difference you have to EXPAND the graph a
LOT to see the wiggle human history has made.

Now, slide down to the bottom graph of the same time frame....Delta T (in
C)...

During the last ice age, 300M years ago, yes, the planet was COOLER than
it is today. I don't wanna live there, do you? Look at how hot the
planet got when there was 7,500 ppm of CO2 in the air....up 8C! Whoa!
Waitaminit! Open up any alarm document being published at great public
expense. The temperature of Earth will rise something like this IN THE
NEXT 10 YEARS, according to them! What's wrong with this picture?
Notice that for the last 250M years...after that ice age caused by the
meteor blast...WE'RE IN THE COLDEST PERIOD IN EARTH'S HISTORY, outside
the catastrophic ice age event....in the last 600M years! See the little
upward curl at the end of the chart? That is the UPWARD trend of the
Earth's temperature in the LAST 10,000,000 YEARS...and that continues
with or without us. The temperature of the Earth over this 600M years
APPEARS to be related to SOLAR RADIATION RECEIVED. Only the catastrophic
event of near total blockout of the SOLAR RADIATION, 300M years ago has
EVER caused the planet to cool off MORE THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW!

I don't believe we have near enough fossil fuels, all of them combined,
to ever come anywhere near close to the CO2 choking concentrations in our
planet's history. I was appalled to see these graphs of LONG history.
Weren't they supposed to have log function swings OFF-THE-GRAPH where
man's CFC consumption and intense agriculture happened at the right end
of the chart?....not that tiny trend that's been going on for 10,000,000
years!

Look at the expanded graph on page 73, figure 3-4....

The steady rise in greenhouse gases, CO2 and CH4 have been going on on
this graph for 5,000 years. The scale is far expanded. Remember our
peak was 7,500, which on this graph is about 34,000 ft over your monitor
at this scale setting. 5000 years....NOT since the invention of the 2-
stroke outboard motor and CFC refridgerators!....5000 years! The big
spike, hardly any spike at all compared to the 600Ma graphs scales,
started 500 years ago, not when Henry Ford started building Model Ts.

Did we cause the spike starting 500 years ago? NOT. 500 years ago they
had camp fires and candles....killing each other, same as today, over
stupid religious insanity, same as today, but with far less efficient
killing machines.

Sorry, Roger. IN light of tons of evidence like the government graphs
I've shown you...Man has very little control over the temperature of this
planet or its gas bag being blasted 24/7 by the solar wind:
http://spaceweather.com/

What worries me lots more is at the bottom of this webpage. Dec 2 and
Dec 5 there are two rather large NEARs passing only 7 lunar distances
from MY HOUSE! ON Dec 5, this one:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/db?name=2006+WB
is 1/3 longer than a football field. I don't see how many thousand tons
it weighs but it could ruin our whole weekend if it were just a TINY bit
closer. Fool with NASA's java prog and look at how CLOSE it really is!

If we're going to pour money into a program, JPL's NEAR program gets my
budget approval. We only know of 835 of 'em...so far....out of the
thousands that pass us every day. Look up at the top of this, one of my
favorite webpages. Read the article about the just past Leonids Meteor
Shower striking the MOON:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...unarleonid.htm
It wasn't even a great shower, this year. We stayed up all night on Nov
18th and were quite disappointed, unlike a few years ago when the shower
from our very dark vantage point in the SC countryside was very intense
just after midnight. We even HEARD one explode...long delayed by sound's
speed.

I doubt we can measure the temperature rise caused by Evinrudes,
Mercuries and Yamahas...(c;

Larry

"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et:

We are currently between Ice Age cycles,

Actually, if you look at the graph I referenced from a downloadable PDF
file in alt.binaries.e-book.technical someone posted Nov 28th, we're in one
of the coldest periods of Earth's history, only a couple of C warmer than
the ice age 300M years ago.

They keep manipulating the graphs to only show the NARROW picture they want
you to see, not the whole graph where the CO2 was so intense it would have
killed us all...NOT caused by man, especially AMERICANS, as is always
reported....

Larry
--
If we eliminate religion, will they stop murdering each other?

Larry wrote:
"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et:

We are currently between Ice Age cycles,

Actually, if you look at the graph I referenced from a downloadable PDF
file in alt.binaries.e-book.technical someone posted Nov 28th, we're in one
of the coldest periods of Earth's history, only a couple of C warmer than
the ice age 300M years ago.

They keep manipulating the graphs to only show the NARROW picture they want
you to see, not the whole graph where the CO2 was so intense it would have
killed us all...NOT caused by man, especially AMERICANS, as is always
reported....

Larry

Let's face it,You just don't like Al Gore!! He wrote the book on
global warming right after he invented the internet so he must know his
stuff! And, like Al says, even if it ain't so, look at all the good we
get from it!!
Just pokin fun
Gordon

"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:43:11 -0600, KLC Lewis wrote:

The error here is in thinking that there is a "normal" state to the
Earth.

nothing in what Roger posted suggested a "normal" state to the Earth

We are currently between Ice Age cycles, and warming is a natural part
of that cycle. Sea levels rise and drop along with the ice

true, but you aren't ignoring the dissolved gas evidence in ice core
samples at both poles that indicate that this current rise and rate of
rise of temperature is beyond anything recorded in those samples are you?
And that CO2, primarily as a result of fossil fuel burning by us clever
tool-making monkeys is the cause. Of course the gullible and weak-minded
acolytes of the flathead from Texas will attribute the real cause
to bovine flatulence; yet another insidious plot of international
terrorism

Interesting position -- anyone who doesn't sign-on to "Humans are the cause
of global warming" is gullible and weak-minded, and/or a Bu****e?

Do humans *contribute* to increased CO2 levels? Naturally. But the primary
cause of global warming remains, IMO, natural fluctuations that we are
powerless to alter.

Forget the cows. It's the termites we need to worry about. ;-)