On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:23:45 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote:

mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote:

How does that explain ...snip
And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not
man-make?

Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend.
The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of
the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world.
What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this
simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above?

Watch the film that has been posted here. There is no clear consensus of
trained observers from around the world. The CO2 level in the atmosphere
follows the temperature of the earth, not vice versa.

and you are wrong as well

Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs
that depend on the theory of global warming being true?

your impugning the motives of academics renders whatever "argument" you
are intending to make, fallacious and therefore invalid.

* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 10:26 AM:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:13:06 -0400, "mr.b" said:

Of course and in fact, this anything you wish to make a government funded
career out of is barely detectable by the finest laboratory equipment at
this concentration level, you forgot to mention, in your grant
application.
Okay I've had enough. I had you in the idiot bin for 30 days because of
all the "jew banker" **** you were spewing a while back. This ad hominem
crap is intellectually dishonest.

So I take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial
interest at stake in the matter.

Perhaps you, Karen, Dave and Wilbur can
start your own newsgroup...alt.religion.republican?
alt.cognitive.dissonance? alt.blissful.ignorance?

Hey, I'm an agnostic on the issue. Seems to me that you're the religious
fanatic here--the one trying to stifle discussion of other viewpoints.

In other words, no one is paying you to take one side or the other.
You seem to believe that all positions are motivated by immediate
financial reward.

* Stephen Trapani wrote, On 3/30/2007 10:23 AM:
mr.b wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:22:17 -0500, linux57 wrote:

How does that explain ...snip
And how/why can this natural trend be stopped or reversed if its not
man-make?

Do you droids not read? The CO2 graphs are fairly simple to comprehend.
The fact is that we _are_ responsible. This is the clear concensus of
the overwhelming majority of trained observers from around the world.
What possible motivation could there be for someone not to grasp this
simple fact? Fear? Stupidity? Financial? All of the above?

Watch the film that has been posted here. There is no clear consensus of
trained observers from around the world.

Oh really? A "consensus" is only a majority. It would appear that
the "vast majority" of trained observers are in agreement. While its
true that there are skeptics, as there should be, there is, none the
less, a consensus.

The CO2 level in the atmosphere
follows the temperature of the earth, not vice versa.

Did you know that most of the experts touting global warming have jobs
that depend on the theory of global warming being true?

No. Do you have a peer-reviewed journal article that demonstrates
that? While there are certainly some that have made a career from
global warming, I seriously doubt that most of the research is funded
by some "global warming conspiracy."

Most of the scientists are simply academics doing whatever research
interests them, and what they can get grants for, and in this country,
the government has not been very eager to support GW research. On the
other hand, historically the skeptics have been funded to find flaws
in the theory. This is changing however, as even the major oil
companies are in agreement:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

* Dave wrote, On 3/30/2007 11:02 AM:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:50:14 -0400, Jeff said:

You seem to believe that all positions are motivated by immediate
financial reward.

What is the basis for that conclusion? The fact that I've asked the question
(to which the answer has not been received)? That's what inquiring minds do.
They ask questions. Each may draw his own conclusions from the answers.

You've been very quiet on the topic of Child Pornography lately. So I
take it from your silence on the point that you do have a financial
interest at stake in the matter.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:54:09 +0000, Larry wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
:

Myth 2 - Solar activity is the main driver of climate change
Temperature change, 1850-2000


Let's test it! Take away the sun for, say, a month. Then, if anyone
survives, we'll write a report noting how much effect the sun has on
climate change from April 1 to May 1, 2007.....unless, of course, it proves
our alarm department is looney, then we'll bury the truth with the victims
of the experiment.


You snipped the explanation. Naughty!

Larry

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:02:36 +0000, Larry wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
:

Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide
useful projections of climate change


Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can they
predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than the
computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm passes
directly over your position.

I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the demolished
neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of
Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were never
so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner!


Weather and climate prediction are different animals. To take a
trivial example, I can predict that next summer will be warmer than
next winter but I don't know how much wind there will be next week.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:02:36 +0000, Larry wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
m:

Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide
useful projections of climate change


Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can
they
predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than the
computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm
passes
directly over your position.

I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the
demolished
neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of
Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were
never
so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner!


Weather and climate prediction are different animals. To take a
trivial example, I can predict that next summer will be warmer than
next winter but I don't know how much wind there will be next week.


And you cannot accurately predict whether next summer will be warmer or
cooler than last summer; the most you can do is make a guess -- educated or
not.

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Ho...ngJudgment.pdf

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:08:51 +0000, Larry wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
:

The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the
causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the
future climate with a high degree of confidence. We now need to
provide more regional detail and more complete analysis of extreme
events.


OK, so what DID cause the Little Ice Age in the middle of the smoke
stacks during the height of the coal-fired industrial revolution??



Solar activity

Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon.During the period
1645–1715, right in the middle of the Little Ice Age, solar activity as
seen in sunspots was extremely low, with some years having no sunspots at
all. This period of low sunspot activity is known as the Maunder Minimum.
The precise link between low sunspot activity and cooling temperatures
has not been established, but the coincidence of the Maunder Minimum with
the deepest trough of the Little Ice Age is suggestive of such a
connection [22]. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a
significant cooling period during the Little Ice Age. Other indicators of
low solar activity during this period are levels of carbon-14 and
beryllium-10 [23]. The low solar activity is also well documented in
astronomical records. Astronomers in both Europe and Asia documented a
decrease in the number of visible solar spots during this time period.


Your source (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
provides a link below:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm


[edit] Volcanic activity
Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world also experienced heightened
volcanic activity. When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the
atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. This ash cloud blocks
out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling
that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by
eruptions is sulfur in the form of SO2 gas. When this gas reaches the
stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the
sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching the earth's
surface. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia blanketed the
atmosphere with ash; the following year, 1816, came to be known as the
Year Without A Summer, when frost and snow were reported in June and July
in both New England and Northern Europe.

Wikipedia is not very accurate here. The ash falls out in a few weeks,
it is the SO2-caused sulphuric acid aerosol that lasts about two
years that causes the bulk of the cooling. (based upon the last major
eruptions being typical)
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/4/244...-2441-2004.pdf

The effect of a volcano can be very large but a relatively short lived
reduction in solar heating.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:59:16 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:16:50 -0500, Cessna 310
wrote:

Larry wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote in news:K2EOh.3425$Jm7.2307
@newsfe03.lga:

I don't have a link for the video, but
if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

It came from BBC, not ITN...sorry.

Larry

Yeah. I had the link to the BBC video a few weeks ago, but when they
archived the video, the link went dead.

It is difficult to take scientific claims seriously when those making
them cannot even identify the channel which produced this video, after
a number of tries. It only takes a google search on the title.
It is British TV station Channel 4 which produced "The Great Global
Warming Swindle."
The google search will also find that it has already been discredited
by some of those who appeared in it. But they are probably simply
lying professional scientists out for grant money.
Carry on, "climatologists."

--Vic

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/couldn't+organize+a+****-up+in+a+brewery

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:00:00 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:02:36 +0000, Larry wrote:

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote in
:

Myth 5 - Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide
useful projections of climate change


Horse****! They can't even predict the weather next weekend. How can
they
predict the temperature in 2017? The Farmer's Almanac is closer than the
computer models, none of which EVER agree until the eye of the storm
passes
directly over your position.

I speak with some authority on this subject, having stood in the
demolished
neighborhood in the pitch black, staring in awe up through the eye of
Hurricane Hugo in '89 at midnight in Summerville, SC. The stars were
never
so beautiful as they were in the center of the big vacuum cleaner!


Weather and climate prediction are different animals. To take a
trivial example, I can predict that next summer will be warmer than
next winter but I don't know how much wind there will be next week.


And you cannot accurately predict whether next summer will be warmer or
cooler than last summer; the most you can do is make a guess -- educated or
not.

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Ho...ngJudgment.pdf

Fine but little dated now.