ON the other hand ...........
Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly
influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on;
and .........
1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the
Holocene interglacial epoch).
2. The eminating particles from the sun are increasingly striking the
earth and are creating more nuclei for cloud formation than during
other solar cycles.
3. The earth is warming due to increase solar output, and the heat is
being trapped by the increase of cloud cover.
4. Due to the increase insolation (sun and re-reflection) by clouds the
oceans are now warmer.
5. Carbon dioxide has LESS solubility in seawater when the water is
warmer: hence, higher atmospheric CO2. (All the current data shows
that the oceanic water temperature rise PRECEDES CO2 increase ....
simple chemistry of gas solubility in a liquid at work!! Atmospheric
CO2 FOLLOWS oceanic temperature rise.
Al Gore is (was) a politician and has absolutely NO scientific
credentials, yet an 'agenda'. .
Most of the 2500 scientists (UN / IPCC) reporting global warming due to
human caused CO2 .... their jobs depend on Global Warming, etc.
Objectivitiy???? This is simply all "great Satan Envy".

No thanks, I think Ill wait it out and without advocating squandering a
major portion of national treasure on something that is most plausibly
'entirely out of the control of arrogant mankind'.
Whats being proposed will have NO effect on global warming, other
'cycles' in the past have been warmer than now (and with higher
atmospheric CO2) .... This is the complimentary "nonsense" of the
1960s/70s when Global cooling and a new ICE AGE was immediately
inevitable. This nonsense will only stop when the 'feel-gooders' stop
or cease all advances of civilization, force the return to primitive
subsistance living (except for China and India) .... and all the poor
in the third world countries suffer even more because of our arrogant
insanity. This is simply anti-capitalism at its finest .... its so
'political' , so politically correct, etc. that noone wants to be
called the emperor with no clothes. Wait another 50 years, then you
can tell me I was right. :-)


In article , KLC Lewis
wrote:

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore's worst predictions are
snip
in order to reduce them, utterly redundant an unnecessary.

"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...
ON the other hand ...........
Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly
influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on;
and .........
1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the

big snip to make things easier to read

This is simply anti-capitalism at its finest .... its so
'political' , so politically correct, etc. that noone wants to be
called the emperor with no clothes.

So, warming is occurring, but there's discussion about the cause.

Post cause, there's an effect. There's (so far in this discussion) been an
assumption by many that the effect is 'disaster', therefore action is needed
to cool things down.

There will be change. The degree of change will be incertain. It will almost
certainly mean an increase in navigable waters (good news for sailors - lets
get back OT) and less space for landlubbers (tough if you haven't got a
boat; and tough for those who own sea level property, who will have to
depreciate their assets as the threat becomes more obvious). Hilltops may
become prime land for building. Farmers will not be 'wiped out', though
that's what will happen to those who don't adapt to growing different
crops - just part of normal economic change through bankruptcy. And so on.
Fur coats may even go out of fashion, replaced by more rainwear. Nudity may
spread (like obesity? Hmm. Hope not).

Darwinism works wonders . . . those who adapt to change will survive . . . .
people or businesses or governments.

That'll prepare us for the day when the galaxy starts to cool . . . . or a
volcanic island takes off into the stratosphere . . . . or that asteroid
smashes into the earth.

Don't resist change, go with the flow.

JimB
www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
Comparing (the nicer) European Cruise areas

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:27:19 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

ON the other hand ...........
Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly
influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on;
and .........
1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the
Holocene interglacial epoch).
No
2. The eminating particles from the sun are increasingly striking the
earth and are creating more nuclei for cloud formation than during
other solar cycles.
No
3. The earth is warming due to increase solar output, and the heat is
being trapped by the increase of cloud cover.
No
4. Due to the increase insolation (sun and re-reflection) by clouds the
oceans are now warmer.
No
5. Carbon dioxide has LESS solubility in seawater when the water is
warmer: hence, higher atmospheric CO2. (All the current data shows
that the oceanic water temperature rise PRECEDES CO2 increase ....
simple chemistry of gas solubility in a liquid at work!! Atmospheric
CO2 FOLLOWS oceanic temperature rise.
Yes, unless you start burning carbon.

Al Gore is (was) a politician and has absolutely NO scientific
credentials, yet an 'agenda'. .
Most of the 2500 scientists (UN / IPCC) reporting global warming due to
human caused CO2 .... their jobs depend on Global Warming, etc.
Objectivitiy???? This is simply all "great Satan Envy".

No thanks, I think Ill wait it out and without advocating squandering a
major portion of national treasure on something that is most plausibly
'entirely out of the control of arrogant mankind'.
Whats being proposed will have NO effect on global warming, other
'cycles' in the past have been warmer than now (and with higher
atmospheric CO2) .... This is the complimentary "nonsense" of the
1960s/70s when Global cooling and a new ICE AGE was immediately
inevitable. This nonsense will only stop when the 'feel-gooders' stop
or cease all advances of civilization, force the return to primitive
subsistance living (except for China and India) .... and all the poor
in the third world countries suffer even more because of our arrogant
insanity. This is simply anti-capitalism at its finest .... its so
'political' , so politically correct, etc. that noone wants to be
called the emperor with no clothes. Wait another 50 years, then you
can tell me I was right. :-)


In article , KLC Lewis
wrote:

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore's worst predictions are
snip
in order to reduce them, utterly redundant an unnecessary.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:27:19 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

ON the other hand ...........
Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly
influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on;
and .........
1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the
Holocene interglacial epoch).
No
2. The eminating particles from the sun are increasingly striking the
earth and are creating more nuclei for cloud formation than during
other solar cycles.
No
3. The earth is warming due to increase solar output, and the heat is
being trapped by the increase of cloud cover.
No
4. Due to the increase insolation (sun and re-reflection) by clouds the
oceans are now warmer.
No
5. Carbon dioxide has LESS solubility in seawater when the water is
warmer: hence, higher atmospheric CO2. (All the current data shows
that the oceanic water temperature rise PRECEDES CO2 increase ....
simple chemistry of gas solubility in a liquid at work!! Atmospheric
CO2 FOLLOWS oceanic temperature rise.
Yes, unless you start burning carbon.

Al Gore is (was) a politician and has absolutely NO scientific
credentials, yet an 'agenda'. .
Most of the 2500 scientists (UN / IPCC) reporting global warming due to
human caused CO2 .... their jobs depend on Global Warming, etc.
Objectivitiy???? This is simply all "great Satan Envy".

No thanks, I think Ill wait it out and without advocating squandering a
major portion of national treasure on something that is most plausibly
'entirely out of the control of arrogant mankind'.
Whats being proposed will have NO effect on global warming, other
'cycles' in the past have been warmer than now (and with higher
atmospheric CO2) .... This is the complimentary "nonsense" of the
1960s/70s when Global cooling and a new ICE AGE was immediately
inevitable. This nonsense will only stop when the 'feel-gooders' stop
or cease all advances of civilization, force the return to primitive
subsistance living (except for China and India) .... and all the poor
in the third world countries suffer even more because of our arrogant
insanity. This is simply anti-capitalism at its finest .... its so
'political' , so politically correct, etc. that noone wants to be
called the emperor with no clothes. Wait another 50 years, then you
can tell me I was right. :-)

Well, that certainly settles the issue.

Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:27:19 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

ON the other hand ...........
Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly
influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on;
and .........
1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the
Holocene interglacial epoch).
No
2. The eminating particles from the sun are increasingly striking the
earth and are creating more nuclei for cloud formation than during
other solar cycles.
No
3. The earth is warming due to increase solar output, and the heat is
being trapped by the increase of cloud cover.
No
4. Due to the increase insolation (sun and re-reflection) by clouds the
oceans are now warmer.
No
5. Carbon dioxide has LESS solubility in seawater when the water is
warmer: hence, higher atmospheric CO2. (All the current data shows
that the oceanic water temperature rise PRECEDES CO2 increase ....
simple chemistry of gas solubility in a liquid at work!! Atmospheric
CO2 FOLLOWS oceanic temperature rise.
Yes, unless you start burning carbon.

Al Gore is (was) a politician and has absolutely NO scientific
credentials, yet an 'agenda'. .
Most of the 2500 scientists (UN / IPCC) reporting global warming due to
human caused CO2 .... their jobs depend on Global Warming, etc.
Objectivitiy???? This is simply all "great Satan Envy".

No thanks, I think Ill wait it out and without advocating squandering a
major portion of national treasure on something that is most plausibly
'entirely out of the control of arrogant mankind'.
Whats being proposed will have NO effect on global warming, other
'cycles' in the past have been warmer than now (and with higher
atmospheric CO2) .... This is the complimentary "nonsense" of the
1960s/70s when Global cooling and a new ICE AGE was immediately
inevitable. This nonsense will only stop when the 'feel-gooders' stop
or cease all advances of civilization, force the return to primitive
subsistance living (except for China and India) .... and all the poor
in the third world countries suffer even more because of our arrogant
insanity. This is simply anti-capitalism at its finest .... its so
'political' , so politically correct, etc. that noone wants to be
called the emperor with no clothes. Wait another 50 years, then you
can tell me I was right. :-)

Well, that certainly settles the issue.

Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

No.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

No.


Yes.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

No.


Yes.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

It does not say that "all the CO2 (in the atmosphere) generated by
humans pales in comparison to that which is generated by the natural
processes of this planet." Far from it.

"Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2."

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


The 'man made' part can be distiguished from 'natural sources' by
carbon isotope ratios.

"Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p
256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils" etc.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to
that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

No.


Yes.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

It does not say that "all the CO2 (in the atmosphere) generated by
humans pales in comparison to that which is generated by the natural
processes of this planet." Far from it.

"Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2."

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


The 'man made' part can be distiguished from 'natural sources' by
carbon isotope ratios.

"Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p
256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils" etc.



It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you might
like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while
they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to that
which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate
it.

Here's another little link for you to pick-apart:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.
No.

Yes.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

It does not say that "all the CO2 (in the atmosphere) generated by
humans pales in comparison to that which is generated by the natural
processes of this planet." Far from it.

"Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2."

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


The 'man made' part can be distiguished from 'natural sources' by
carbon isotope ratios.

"Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p
256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils" etc.



Sorry, C14 is present in natural sources and man-made sources. Sorry,
its physics.

And anybody that uses Wiki as a source should have all of their
information questioned.

Karen,

You need to read your references more carefully. The referenced text
states, among other things that:

"Overall, a natural disturbance causing the recent CO2 rise is
extremely unlikely."

And; "From 1991 to 1993, the terrestrial
biosphere probably was a net CO2 sink, in 1994 the CO2 rise was
back to its usual pace. [Battle] [Bender] [C.Keeling] [R.Keeling]
[Schimel 95, figure 2.2]"

The whole is a treatise discussing burning fossil fuels as the prime
culprit in the increased atmospheric CO2 levels. The data discussed
demonstrates shortterm variations due to various macroclimatic events,
but overall a decided increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Hardly
supportive of your position.

Keith Hughes

KLC Lewis wrote:

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.

No.



Yes.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html