Bill McKee wrote:
The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural cycles
of earth, or something else? How much is man to blame?

THe short answer- nobody knows for sure. There are good reasons... if
you understand the science... to believe man's activities has played a
large part in it.

... 10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it? 1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet. And has not come back. What caused this
warming?

There are much more and better documneted variations in macro climate.
Around 900AD there was a period called the "Little Climactic Optimum"
which changed the weather in Scandinavia to be more favorable for
crops... more population, same land, somebody had to go... hence the
Vikings. And Greenland was really green, for a while.

... Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

Hmm.. this is saying seems to have changed... I've heard it claimed many
times that 'Mt St Helens caused more air pollution in one month than all
mankind since the beginning of time' which blatantly ridiculous to
anybody who can do a little simple math. It went right along with the
ditto-head saying 'there are more trees in America now than when
Columbus landed.' These are an ignoramus' way of justifying destruction
of what little environment we still got left.

Specifically, what ozone killing chemicals did Mt St Helens spew? What
percentage of it's overall eruption gas?


... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970.

Not really.

... When that grant money dried up, they are now
touting man caused global warming.

Oh yeah, it's those gol-durn pointy-head scientist what cain't git real
jobs, trying to rip off us pore taxpayers!

I suggest you take at least a minute or two and look at the status of
Federal science funding. And turn off the Rush Limbaugh show, it seems
to be causing daim branage.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970.

Not really.

Apparently you were not able to recall a missive, the rallying point of
the enviros, called "The Population Bomb", was quite a best seller in the
60's. Most of us were going to be dead by now. You remember, food
riots and starvation not obesity was to be the crisis. Here are a couple
of quotes I got off Amazon....

1. on Page 39: "... in the average temperature of the Earth could be
very serious. With a few degrees of cooling , a new ice age might be upon
us, with rapid and drastic effects on the agricultural productivity of
the temperate regions. With a few ..." 2. on Page 60: "... effect was
obviously beyond the worst DOD projections-too much crap injected into
the stratosphere." "I think we've probably started an ice age spiral, but
it won't make much difference to us." ..."

I bet they have a copy at the library. Perhaps you should take a walk
down memory lane and read it.

del

Chuck,
Damn it Gould, please stop ruining this NG with topics concerning boating
and the ocean. This NG is for political posts and flame fest. I am willing
to let this post slide, but next time I am reporting you to your ISP.


wrote in message
oups.com...
An email this morning reads:

Chuck

I thought you may be interested in this detailed ocean/global warming
piece we just sent to our members since this topic is really heating
up.

You might think an angelfish in the waters off Massachusetts is one
confused and chilly little tropical critter, unless you know that
scientists have watched ocean temperatures rising since 1975. Check out
the new seven-part web feature on oceans and human-caused climate
change, featuring our own scientists and Doug's son Chris Rader, a
marine biologist in the Florida Keys. The feature gives you a run-down
of solutions and science, including the basics of glaciers, ecosystems
and the ocean's "conveyor belt." What were you doing the year that
corals were bleaching in nearly every ocean during the warmest 12-month
span on record? Piece -
http://www.oceansalive.org/explore.c...contentID=4704.

On 10 Aug 2005 08:56:15 -0700, wrote:

An email this morning reads:

Chuck

I thought you may be interested in this detailed ocean/global warming
piece we just sent to our members since this topic is really heating
up.

You might think an angelfish in the waters off Massachusetts is one
confused and chilly little tropical critter, unless you know that
scientists have watched ocean temperatures rising since 1975. Check out
the new seven-part web feature on oceans and human-caused climate
change, featuring our own scientists and Doug's son Chris Rader, a
marine biologist in the Florida Keys. The feature gives you a run-down
of solutions and science, including the basics of glaciers, ecosystems
and the ocean's "conveyor belt." What were you doing the year that
corals were bleaching in nearly every ocean during the warmest 12-month
span on record? Piece -
http://www.oceansalive.org/explore.c...contentID=4704.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for both Doug and Chris Rader
- they've done some great work in the vein of the Cousteaus.

However, they seem to consistently ignore the historical data, which
goes back at least 300 hundred years, about "grend 'y gloryus pfysh"
often seen in cycles along the New England coast. Happens every time
the Gulf Stream moves inshore you see tropical fish - often in
abundance. In fact, when the Mystic Aquarium was first established,
one of these cycles occurred and their collection was increased two
fold just by collecting the fish off Fort Wetherwell in Rhode Island.

I remember in the mid-sixties, right before I graduated, doing a dive
off Halfway Rock (off Marblehead) and seeing angel fish, trigger fish
and other interesting species normally associated with the tropics.

I'm not saying that climate change isn't a factor - I am saying that
there is historical data reaching back into an era where pollution
wasn't a factor that would seem to contradict some of the conclusions
of the article.

Later,

Tom

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 10 Aug 2005 08:56:15 -0700, wrote:

An email this morning reads:

Chuck

I thought you may be interested in this detailed ocean/global warming
piece we just sent to our members since this topic is really heating
up.

You might think an angelfish in the waters off Massachusetts is one
confused and chilly little tropical critter, unless you know that
scientists have watched ocean temperatures rising since 1975. Check out
the new seven-part web feature on oceans and human-caused climate
change, featuring our own scientists and Doug's son Chris Rader, a
marine biologist in the Florida Keys. The feature gives you a run-down
of solutions and science, including the basics of glaciers, ecosystems
and the ocean's "conveyor belt." What were you doing the year that
corals were bleaching in nearly every ocean during the warmest 12-month
span on record? Piece -
http://www.oceansalive.org/explore.c...contentID=4704.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for both Doug and Chris Rader
- they've done some great work in the vein of the Cousteaus.

However, they seem to consistently ignore the historical data, which
goes back at least 300 hundred years, about "grend 'y gloryus pfysh"
often seen in cycles along the New England coast. Happens every time
the Gulf Stream moves inshore you see tropical fish - often in
abundance. In fact, when the Mystic Aquarium was first established,
one of these cycles occurred and their collection was increased two
fold just by collecting the fish off Fort Wetherwell in Rhode Island.

I remember in the mid-sixties, right before I graduated, doing a dive
off Halfway Rock (off Marblehead) and seeing angel fish, trigger fish
and other interesting species normally associated with the tropics.

I'm not saying that climate change isn't a factor - I am saying that
there is historical data reaching back into an era where pollution
wasn't a factor that would seem to contradict some of the conclusions
of the article.

Later,

Tom

This is the fact that when you are heavily invested in hammers, you tend
to try to make everything out to be a nail. :-) It's human nature.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:18:35 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On 10 Aug 2005 08:56:15 -0700, wrote:

An email this morning reads:

Chuck

I thought you may be interested in this detailed ocean/global warming
piece we just sent to our members since this topic is really heating
up.

You might think an angelfish in the waters off Massachusetts is one
confused and chilly little tropical critter, unless you know that
scientists have watched ocean temperatures rising since 1975. Check out
the new seven-part web feature on oceans and human-caused climate
change, featuring our own scientists and Doug's son Chris Rader, a
marine biologist in the Florida Keys. The feature gives you a run-down
of solutions and science, including the basics of glaciers, ecosystems
and the ocean's "conveyor belt." What were you doing the year that
corals were bleaching in nearly every ocean during the warmest 12-month
span on record? Piece -
http://www.oceansalive.org/explore.c...contentID=4704.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for both Doug and Chris Rader
- they've done some great work in the vein of the Cousteaus.

However, they seem to consistently ignore the historical data, which
goes back at least 300 hundred years, about "grend 'y gloryus pfysh"
often seen in cycles along the New England coast. Happens every time
the Gulf Stream moves inshore you see tropical fish - often in
abundance. In fact, when the Mystic Aquarium was first established,
one of these cycles occurred and their collection was increased two
fold just by collecting the fish off Fort Wetherwell in Rhode Island.

I remember in the mid-sixties, right before I graduated, doing a dive
off Halfway Rock (off Marblehead) and seeing angel fish, trigger fish
and other interesting species normally associated with the tropics.

I'm not saying that climate change isn't a factor - I am saying that
there is historical data reaching back into an era where pollution
wasn't a factor that would seem to contradict some of the conclusions
of the article.

Later,

Tom

This is the fact that when you are heavily invested in hammers, you tend
to try to make everything out to be a nail. :-) It's human nature.

To deny that there are climate changes is foolish - of course there
are.

The question is why. Is it part of the natural weather cycle of the
atmosphere, is it caused by pollution, is it a combination of both -
what is going on.

It's not just a pat answer - it's a combination of factors and I'm not
convinced that we're just not in a natural cycle caused by sun spots
and the Earth's natural rhythms.