|
Angelfish off MASS and bleaching coral....(link to global warming series)
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. |
Angle fish, no way. A one eyed flounder, maybe.
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. |
wrote: 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. Now, Chuck, you know darn good and well that there isn't such a thing as global warming. That's just something those unpatriotic, terrorist loving, well educated, liberal scientists are using to undermine the war on terror in Iraq. Now, everybody back in line, and goose step. I'm blaming my new depthsounder, but I have been getting summer water temperature readings that are consistently 1 degree higher and in some cases 2-3 degrees higher than readings in the same areas in previous years. It isn't unusual to have one warm year, or one cool year, and the climate does fluctuate- but we shouldn't be willing to accept any extreme amount of change we observe as a natural phenomenon. The ozone "hole" is a good example; since the use of CFC's was generally banned the hole seems to be repairing itself. (Although some free marketeers would claim the ozone hole would have stabilized, anyway, and that removing certain chemical compounds from the environment had nothing to do with it. You can still find people to insist there's no medical evidence linking smoking with lung cancer, too) Changes in the ocean environment certainly impact how we use and enjoy our boats. Small changes can effect the number of fish, and even the species of fish, available to catch. A trend of generally warmer water temps have played hell with out Pacific NW salmon runs for several years, although we did enjoy a couple of years where the temps dropped parially back toward the historic norms and we had (relatively)adequate runs of fish. Oceans (as well as green plants on shore) are vital to the existence of life as we know it on this planet. There is always a chance that just maybe some guy grousing one minute about how salmon fishing ain't what it used to be and gd'ing "them liberal environmentalists and their global warming crap" the next isn't seeing the big picture. |
wrote in message oups.com... wrote: 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. Now, Chuck, you know darn good and well that there isn't such a thing as global warming. That's just something those unpatriotic, terrorist loving, well educated, liberal scientists are using to undermine the war on terror in Iraq. Now, everybody back in line, and goose step. I'm blaming my new depthsounder, but I have been getting summer water temperature readings that are consistently 1 degree higher and in some cases 2-3 degrees higher than readings in the same areas in previous years. It isn't unusual to have one warm year, or one cool year, and the climate does fluctuate- but we shouldn't be willing to accept any extreme amount of change we observe as a natural phenomenon. The ozone "hole" is a good example; since the use of CFC's was generally banned the hole seems to be repairing itself. (Although some free marketeers would claim the ozone hole would have stabilized, anyway, and that removing certain chemical compounds from the environment had nothing to do with it. You can still find people to insist there's no medical evidence linking smoking with lung cancer, too) Changes in the ocean environment certainly impact how we use and enjoy our boats. Small changes can effect the number of fish, and even the species of fish, available to catch. A trend of generally warmer water temps have played hell with out Pacific NW salmon runs for several years, although we did enjoy a couple of years where the temps dropped parially back toward the historic norms and we had (relatively)adequate runs of fish. Oceans (as well as green plants on shore) are vital to the existence of life as we know it on this planet. There is always a chance that just maybe some guy grousing one minute about how salmon fishing ain't what it used to be and gd'ing "them liberal environmentalists and their global warming crap" the next isn't seeing the big picture. 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? 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? Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption than man put up in 10-20 years. The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes the problems. Does not seem to bring solutions. Which part of human life is causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field? |
Bill McKee wrote: The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural cycles of earth, or something else? Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps, etc. How much is man to blame? An awful lot. 10k years ago was a mini ice age, what did man do to cause it? Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges. 1860 or there abouts 20 miles of glacier in Glacier Bay meltet. It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming. What caused this warming? Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass. Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption than man put up in 10-20 years. that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE. The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes the problems. Does not seem to bring solutions. Horse****. Which part of human life is causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field? Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease? Stick to the subject. |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message oups.com... wrote: 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. Now, Chuck, you know darn good and well that there isn't such a thing as global warming. That's just something those unpatriotic, terrorist loving, well educated, liberal scientists are using to undermine the war on terror in Iraq. Now, everybody back in line, and goose step. I'm blaming my new depthsounder, but I have been getting summer water temperature readings that are consistently 1 degree higher and in some cases 2-3 degrees higher than readings in the same areas in previous years. It isn't unusual to have one warm year, or one cool year, and the climate does fluctuate- but we shouldn't be willing to accept any extreme amount of change we observe as a natural phenomenon. The ozone "hole" is a good example; since the use of CFC's was generally banned the hole seems to be repairing itself. (Although some free marketeers would claim the ozone hole would have stabilized, anyway, and that removing certain chemical compounds from the environment had nothing to do with it. You can still find people to insist there's no medical evidence linking smoking with lung cancer, too) Changes in the ocean environment certainly impact how we use and enjoy our boats. Small changes can effect the number of fish, and even the species of fish, available to catch. A trend of generally warmer water temps have played hell with out Pacific NW salmon runs for several years, although we did enjoy a couple of years where the temps dropped parially back toward the historic norms and we had (relatively)adequate runs of fish. Oceans (as well as green plants on shore) are vital to the existence of life as we know it on this planet. There is always a chance that just maybe some guy grousing one minute about how salmon fishing ain't what it used to be and gd'ing "them liberal environmentalists and their global warming crap" the next isn't seeing the big picture. 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? 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? Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption than man put up in 10-20 years. The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes the problems. Does not seem to bring solutions. Which part of human life is causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field? In the early middle ages there was another warming trend that allowed the Vikings to establish colonies in Greenland, and had much to do with the development of the European continent during that time. The enviro wackos have jumped on the "global warming" bandwagon because that is where the money is. "Scientific conclusions should be based on observable facts, not political agendas. Yet politics is driving the global warming debate. "Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens," Dr. Lindzen lamented in his Wall Street Journal article. "This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions." Yet rational decisions can be made. All that is necessary is to separate the politics from the science and examine the known facts: .. Climate variability: The climate is constantly changing, not just season to season but year to year, century to century, and millennium to millennium. In his Journal article, Dr. Lindzen pointed out that "two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling." During the global cooling scare of the 1970s, some observers even worried that the planet was on the verge of a new ice age. .. The actual temperature record: The global mean temperature is approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago. Based on surface readings, the temperature rose prior to 1940, perhaps in response to the end of the little ice age, which lasted until the 19th century. From about 1940 until about 1975, the temperature dropped, sparking the above-mentioned global cooling scare. More recently the temperature has been rising again, sparking concerns about global warming. The accuracy of the surface temperature record must be kept in mind when evaluating trends measured in fractions of a degree. One significant problem is the extent to which the data may be skewed as a result of urbanization. Atmospheric physicist Dr. S. Fred Singer wrote in a letter that appeared in the May issue of Science: "The post-1940 global warming claimed by the IPCC comes mainly from distant surface stations and from tropical sea surface readings, with both data sets poorly controlled (in both quality and location)." On the other hand, "surface data from well-controlled U.S. stations (after removing the urban 'heat-island' effects) show the warmest years as being around 1940." In his testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee on July 18th of last year, Singer bluntly stated: "The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible." Dr. Singer, who established the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and served as its first director, is just one of many scientists who believe that temperature data collected by weather satellites provides a far better measuring stick than the surface readings. After all, the satellite data is truly global, and it is not skewed by the urban heat effect. The satellite data from January 1979 (when this data first became available) through May 2001 shows a warming trend of 0.038 degrees Celsius per decade - or less than four-tenths of one degree per century. This minuscule rate of increase, which could change, is far less than the dramatic increases in temperature the forecasters of doom have been warning against. .. Man's effect on the climate: In the interest of scrupulous accuracy, Dr. Lindzen acknowledged in his May 2nd Senate testimony that "man, like the butterfly, has some impact on climate." Obviously this was true when the Vikings were able to cultivate Greenland, Iceland, and Newfoundland. But it is true even today. In the April 3rd issue of the Wall Street Journal, George Melloan noted that, according to "serious scientists," "the greenhouse gases are a fundamental part of the biosphere, necessary to all life, and . industrial activity generates less than 5% of them, if that." .. Carbon dioxide's effect on climate: According to the global warming theory, the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which has been established, is causing the global temperature to rise. Most of the increase in the surface temperature during the past century occurred before most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. The temperature in 1940, recall, was not much different than it is now. Yet, as astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas pointed out in a letter published in the August 5, 1999 Wall Street Journal, "more than 80% of the manmade carbon dioxide has entered the air since the ' 40s." One reason why the global warming theory may be flawed is that the amount of atmospheric CO2 is not the only variable determining the earth's temperature. It is not even the main "greenhouse" gas. In a chapter appearing in the compendium Earth Report 2000, Dr. Roy Spencer, senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, noted: "It is estimated that water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of the earth 's natural greenhouse effect, whereas carbon dioxide contributes most of the remaining 5 percent. Global warming projections assume that water vapor will increase along with any warming resulting from the increases in carbon dioxide concentrations." The projected "positive feedback" to the initial CO2-induced warming may not occur to the extent that global warming theorists are predicting, however. As Dr. Spencer points out, "there remain substantial uncertainties in our understanding of how the climate system will respond to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." Moreover, the natural greenhouse effect that heats the earth is moderated by natural cooling processes. "In other words," concluded Dr. Spencer, "the natural greenhouse effect cannot be considered in isolation as a process warming the earth, without at the same time accounting for cooling processes that actually keep the greenhouse effect from scorching us all." .. The sun's effect on climate: One factor global warming theorists ignore is the effect that the sun's changing activity may have on the global temperature. A brighter sun may cause the global temperature to rise, and vice versa. Dr. Baliunas, in the Wall Street Journal letter referenced above, explained how the sun's activity can be measured by the length of the sunspot cycle (the shorter the cycle, the more active the sun). Dr. Baliunas ' letter included a chart showing a close correlation between changes in the length of the sunspot cycle and Northern Hemisphere land temperature for 1750-1978. Climate Models The known facts do not point to catastrophic global warming. That prediction is not based on the known temperature record but on complicated computer models that have been grossly inaccurate in the past. Those models do a very poor job of properly applying all the myriad factors that shape the world's climate, in large part because much of the mechanisms of climate remain largely unknown. Dr. Frederick Seitz warned against relying on computer models of the climate in the Wall Street Journal for April 19th: "According to climate change models, the earth's surface temperature should have increased substantially in the past few decades because of man-made carbon dioxide already added to the atmosphere. However, actual temperature measurements show that these computer models have exaggerated the amount of warming by at least a factor of two." In light of this failure, Dr. Seitz reasoned: "Since the computer estimates of global warming for the past few decades have been cut back by a factor of two or more, to bring them in line with the measured temperature increases, the same correction should be applied to temperature predictions for the coming century. This would reduce the projected warming in 2100 to well within the range of natural variability of climate - the normal fluctuations that occur in nature without any human influence." Dangerous Solution To head off the theoretical global warming threat, America and other developed nations are supposed to subject themselves to a global warming treaty that would result in an energy crisis so severe as to make California 's energy shortfall appear mild by comparison. Full implementation of Kyoto would not save the earth from catastrophic global warming since no such threat exists. It would, however, reduce our standard of living and consolidate more power into the hands of those who intend to control and allocate the earth's supposedly limited resources. It is not too surprising that the Clinton-Gore White House supported Kyoto, considering that administration's overt radicalism. Nor is it surprising that Clinton never submitted the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for ratification. He knew that the treaty would be dead on arrival, since that body had earlier voted 95-0 not to ratify any global warming treaty that did not include commitments on the part of developing nations such as India and China. What is surprising is that George W. Bush is now being cast as an anti-environment, anti-Mother Earth ignoramus for having criticized Kyoto in its present form when he should have stated that no global warming threat exists." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435624/posts |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message oups.com... wrote: 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. Now, Chuck, you know darn good and well that there isn't such a thing as global warming. That's just something those unpatriotic, terrorist loving, well educated, liberal scientists are using to undermine the war on terror in Iraq. Now, everybody back in line, and goose step. I'm blaming my new depthsounder, but I have been getting summer water temperature readings that are consistently 1 degree higher and in some cases 2-3 degrees higher than readings in the same areas in previous years. It isn't unusual to have one warm year, or one cool year, and the climate does fluctuate- but we shouldn't be willing to accept any extreme amount of change we observe as a natural phenomenon. The ozone "hole" is a good example; since the use of CFC's was generally banned the hole seems to be repairing itself. (Although some free marketeers would claim the ozone hole would have stabilized, anyway, and that removing certain chemical compounds from the environment had nothing to do with it. You can still find people to insist there's no medical evidence linking smoking with lung cancer, too) Changes in the ocean environment certainly impact how we use and enjoy our boats. Small changes can effect the number of fish, and even the species of fish, available to catch. A trend of generally warmer water temps have played hell with out Pacific NW salmon runs for several years, although we did enjoy a couple of years where the temps dropped parially back toward the historic norms and we had (relatively)adequate runs of fish. Oceans (as well as green plants on shore) are vital to the existence of life as we know it on this planet. There is always a chance that just maybe some guy grousing one minute about how salmon fishing ain't what it used to be and gd'ing "them liberal environmentalists and their global warming crap" the next isn't seeing the big picture. 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? 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? Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption than man put up in 10-20 years. The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes the problems. Does not seem to bring solutions. Which part of human life is causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field? Another good explanation for causes of "global warming" "Blame it on the Sun So what drives global climate, if not greenhouse gas concentrations? Well, maybe it's the sun. There are three variables affecting the Earth's orbit--orbit shape, tilt, and wobble--which profoundly affect weather patterns. The Earth's orbit does not form a circle as it moves around the sun--it forms an ellipse, passing further away from the sun at one end of the orbit than it does at the other end. During a 100,000-year cycle, the tug of other planets on the Earth causes its orbit to change shape. It shifts from a short, broad ellipse that keeps the Earth closer to the sun, to a long flat ellipse that allows it to move farther from the sun and back again. At the same time the Earth is orbiting, it also spins around an axis that tilts lower and then higher during a 41,000-year cycle. Close to the poles, the contrast between winter and summer is greatest when the tilt is large. The Earth wobbles because it is spinning around an axis that tilts back and forth. Thus, a temperature drop occurs in the Northern Hemisphere when it tilts away from the sun; then the same thing happens in the Southern Hemisphere and again in the North, in a 22,000-year cycle. We know from simple physics that the additional energy added to the climate system by the doubling of atmospheric CO2 is about four watts per square meter (W/m2)--a very small amount of energy when compared to the 342 watts per square meter added by the sun's radiation at the top of the atmosphere, and small also when compared to natural variations in the amount of radiation the sun sends toward the Earth. The possible increase in energy stored in the atmosphere due to human activity is also small when compared to uncertainties in the computer simulations of the Earth's climate used to predict global warming. For example, knowledge of the amount of energy flowing from the equator to the poles is uncertain by an amount equivalent to 25 to 30 W/m2. The amount of sunlight absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected by the surface is also uncertain, by as much as 25 W/m2. Some computer models include adjustments to the energy flows of as much as 100 W/m2. Imprecise treatment of the effect of clouds may introduce another 25 W/m2 of uncertainty into the basic computations. (2) These uncertainties are many times larger than the four W/m2 input of energy believed to result from a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. It is difficult to see how the climate impact of the four W/m2 can be accurately calculated in the face of such huge uncertainties. As a consequence, forecasts based on the computer simulations of climate may not even be meaningful at this time." http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15726 Of course harry, kevin and crowd will "blame it on Bush" like they do everything else......regardless of the facts |
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 |
P. Fritz cut-n-pasted:
We know from simple physics that the additional energy added to the climate system by the doubling of atmospheric CO2 is about four watts per square meter (W/m2)--a very small amount of energy when compared to the 342 watts per square meter If the guys who published this think that a 1% net increase in the Earth's average temperature is insignificant, then you might as well not bother to follow any of the rest of their "science." This same article goes on to babble about the uncertainty of effects of cloud cover and atmospheric movement, which is basically admitting they have no idea what the effect of that claimed 1% increase in energy would be. But then, who cares if they're spouting ignorant BS as long as it supports your political agenda. Every once in a while, a state or local gov't body gets the bright idea to make PI equal three. Boy wouldn't that be simpler? But it just doesn't work. Nor do legislative attempts to make water run up hill. DSK |
wrote in message ups.com... Bill McKee wrote: The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural cycles of earth, or something else? Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps, etc. How much is man to blame? An awful lot. 10k years ago was a mini ice age, what did man do to cause it? Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges. 1860 or there abouts 20 miles of glacier in Glacier Bay meltet. It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming. What caused this warming? Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass. Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption than man put up in 10-20 years. that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE. The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes the problems. Does not seem to bring solutions. Horse****. Which part of human life is causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field? Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease? Stick to the subject. Just as much evidence that man's hand is causing the global warming as there is that we are causing the magnetic field decrease. Very little. Krakatoa in Indonesia almost killed the prairie settlers of the time. Caused a 3 year dip in temps where they had snow in July in the midwest and the crops failed. All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the global warming. The Kyoto Agreement was done by 99% non-hard science people. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming. Burning too much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun goes through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove it!! |
"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 |
... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970.
Not really. Del Cecchi wrote: Apparently you were not able to recall a missive, the rallying point of the enviros Actually, I do remember it. Perhaps I should have explained a little better... it's not the same people, and not the same argument. In fact, the ice age predicters might not have been wrong... we might be entering an ice age, except for pollution & greenhouse gasses. If you don't believe in global warming, or believe that it's due to completely unknown sources, then you can't dismiss that possibility. I bet they have a copy at the library. Perhaps you should take a walk down memory lane and read it. perhaps you should stop and ask yourself, 'does the increased caribou population really mean that we can go ahead and destroy the arctic, too?' Maybe you should ask yourself if Vice President Cheney doesn't have a teensy little motive *other* than the good of the nation. Got kids? Grandkids? DSK |
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. |
Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill McKee wrote: The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural cycles of earth, or something else? Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps, etc. How much is man to blame? An awful lot. 10k years ago was a mini ice age, what did man do to cause it? Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges. 1860 or there abouts 20 miles of glacier in Glacier Bay meltet. It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming. What caused this warming? Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass. Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption than man put up in 10-20 years. that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE. The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes the problems. Does not seem to bring solutions. Horse****. Which part of human life is causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field? Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease? Stick to the subject. All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the global warming. heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!! . The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming. Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may cause a particular body of water to warm. Burning too much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun goes through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove it!! It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!: New proof that man has caused global warming From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world's oceans. The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed. The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday. "The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable." In the study, Dr Barnett's team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world's oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change. It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely. Then read this: The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster by Steve Connor Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere. The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say. Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?" The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans." He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no. "We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming." America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon. Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said. The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center. They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming. "Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming." Those two articles should at least get your brain to work enough to realize that the hand of man is, indeed bad for the earth. If not, let me know, there's thousands and thousands of articles to back up the fact. |
wrote in message oups.com... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill McKee wrote: The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural cycles of earth, or something else? Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps, etc. How much is man to blame? An awful lot. 10k years ago was a mini ice age, what did man do to cause it? Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges. 1860 or there abouts 20 miles of glacier in Glacier Bay meltet. It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming. What caused this warming? Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass. Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption than man put up in 10-20 years. that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE. The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes the problems. Does not seem to bring solutions. Horse****. Which part of human life is causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field? Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease? Stick to the subject. All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the global warming. heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!! . The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming. Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may cause a particular body of water to warm. Burning too much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun goes through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove it!! It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!: IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN! IF IT WAS PROVEN, THEN THE DEBATE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTANT! Now where is the proof there is a Guzzi Desmo model? |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill McKee wrote: The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural cycles of earth, or something else? Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps, etc. How much is man to blame? An awful lot. 10k years ago was a mini ice age, what did man do to cause it? Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges. 1860 or there abouts 20 miles of glacier in Glacier Bay meltet. It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming. What caused this warming? Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass. Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption than man put up in 10-20 years. that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE. The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes the problems. Does not seem to bring solutions. Horse****. Which part of human life is causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field? Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease? Stick to the subject. All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the global warming. heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!! . The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming. Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may cause a particular body of water to warm. Burning too much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun goes through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove it!! It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!: IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN! IF IT WAS PROVEN, THEN THE DEBATE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTANT! Now where is the proof there is a Guzzi Desmo model? Kevin=Chicken little. He will provide the proof after he finishes drinking his "schnapps whiskey" LOL |
"DSK" wrote in message ... ... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970. Not really. Del Cecchi wrote: Apparently you were not able to recall a missive, the rallying point of the enviros Actually, I do remember it. Perhaps I should have explained a little better... it's not the same people, and not the same argument. Of course it isn't the same people and the same argument. Then it was Paul Erlich, mass starvation and an ice age. He sold his books, had his 15 minutes of fame. Now it is rampant obesity and global warming and a new crop of doomsayers. Why should I think these folks know what they are talking about any more than Erlich did? In fact, the ice age predicters might not have been wrong... we might be entering an ice age, except for pollution & greenhouse gasses. If you don't believe in global warming, or believe that it's due to completely unknown sources, then you can't dismiss that possibility. I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to pollute a carefully calibrated amount. I bet they have a copy at the library. Perhaps you should take a walk down memory lane and read it. perhaps you should stop and ask yourself, 'does the increased caribou population really mean that we can go ahead and destroy the arctic, too?' Maybe you should ask yourself if Vice President Cheney doesn't have a teensy little motive *other* than the good of the nation. Got kids? Grandkids? Ah, the last refuge of an environmentalist with no facts. It's for the children and Cheney's Oil Buddies. I presume this is some sort of reference to proposed drilling in ANWAR. The harm to my grandchildren from drilling in ANWAR is way down on my list of things to worry about. Some criminal or terrorist harming them, or them getting run over by a bus or a car is much higher. Tell me, if greenhouse gases are really such a threat to the environment, why are Chinese, Indian, Mexican greenhouse gases not just as much a problem as American and European greenhouse gases? Were there climate fluctuations over the last say 1000 years before mankind was adding many gases to the atmosphere? Why? Why are today's fluctuations man's fault when the previous ones weren't? Have you ever done any computer modeling? What is your degree in? DSK |
"Del Cecchi" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message ... ... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970. Not really. Del Cecchi wrote: Apparently you were not able to recall a missive, the rallying point of the enviros Actually, I do remember it. Perhaps I should have explained a little better... it's not the same people, and not the same argument. Of course it isn't the same people and the same argument. Then it was Paul Erlich, mass starvation and an ice age. He sold his books, had his 15 minutes of fame. Now it is rampant obesity and global warming and a new crop of doomsayers. Why should I think these folks know what they are talking about any more than Erlich did? In fact, the ice age predicters might not have been wrong... we might be entering an ice age, except for pollution & greenhouse gasses. If you don't believe in global warming, or believe that it's due to completely unknown sources, then you can't dismiss that possibility. I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to pollute a carefully calibrated amount. I bet they have a copy at the library. Perhaps you should take a walk down memory lane and read it. perhaps you should stop and ask yourself, 'does the increased caribou population really mean that we can go ahead and destroy the arctic, too?' Maybe you should ask yourself if Vice President Cheney doesn't have a teensy little motive *other* than the good of the nation. Got kids? Grandkids? Ah, the last refuge of an environmentalist with no facts. It's for the children and Cheney's Oil Buddies. I presume this is some sort of reference to proposed drilling in ANWAR. The harm to my grandchildren from drilling in ANWAR is way down on my list of things to worry about. Some criminal or terrorist harming them, or them getting run over by a bus or a car is much higher. Tell me, if greenhouse gases are really such a threat to the environment, why are Chinese, Indian, Mexican greenhouse gases not just as much a problem as American and European greenhouse gases? Were there climate fluctuations over the last say 1000 years before mankind was adding many gases to the atmosphere? Why? Why are today's fluctuations man's fault when the previous ones weren't? Your last paragraph is key. The Kyoto accords were just a method of letting rich countries buy pollution credits from poor countries. Nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. |
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:17:22 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:
I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to pollute a carefully calibrated amount. It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood with any certainty. There are scientists who believe that a warming trend would slow the Gulf Stream thereby causing an "Ice Age". http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html Now if you could just enlighten us on that "carefully calibrated" amount of pollution, I'll be glad to do my part. |
Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill McKee wrote: The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural cycles of earth, or something else? Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps, etc. How much is man to blame? An awful lot. 10k years ago was a mini ice age, what did man do to cause it? Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges. 1860 or there abouts 20 miles of glacier in Glacier Bay meltet. It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming. What caused this warming? Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass. Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption than man put up in 10-20 years. that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE. The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes the problems. Does not seem to bring solutions. Horse****. Which part of human life is causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field? Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease? Stick to the subject. All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the global warming. heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!! . The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming. Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may cause a particular body of water to warm. Burning too much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun goes through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove it!! It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!: IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN! IF IT WAS PROVEN, THEN THE DEBATE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTANT! Now where is the proof there is a Guzzi Desmo model? Hmm, you need to look, I proved my point. Now, why are you trying to change the subject, Bill? It's your typical m.o. because you are almost always shown to be wrong, then you change the subject!!!! Do you not call *7 MILLION OBSERVATIONS* conclusive??? Does that mean that you've seen over seven million Autolite carbs that have a tag on a bolt? |
Del Cecchi wrote:
I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to pollute a carefully calibrated amount. Especially putting mercury & lead in the drinking water. That's the really helpful part, ice-age-wise. thunder wrote: It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood with any certainty. What's funny to me is the way the right wing whackos are insisting that it's perfectly OK to trash what's left of the environment because 'Global Warming Is Junk Science' and declare that nobody knows how the environment really works, but at the same time insist that *they* know for sure mankind isn't the cause. "As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know that we don't know." -Donald Rumsfeld Maybe Dell, Bill, Scooby, John, Bert, Nobby, and all the other Bush/Cheney Cheerleaders will take this guys word for it? DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message ... "As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know that we don't know." -Donald Rumsfeld Maybe Dell, Bill, Scooby, John, Bert, Nobby, and all the other Bush/Cheney Cheerleaders will take this guys word for it? Anyone with an analytical mind will understand the above quote as they read it. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:17:22 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote: I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to pollute a carefully calibrated amount. It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood with any certainty. There are scientists who believe that a warming trend would slow the Gulf Stream thereby causing an "Ice Age". http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html Now if you could just enlighten us on that "carefully calibrated" amount of pollution, I'll be glad to do my part. I'm not the one that said there was an ice age and global warming, I was just mocking it. But the Gulf Stream is not in any danger. Read about it in http://www.realclimate.org The press and lay folks have the gulf stream which is driven by winds and the jet stream as affected by the rocky mountains with the Thermo Haline Cycle which is driven by salt and temperature and is what might break down. The realclimate site seems to be objective and populated by actual scientists and enviros and lay folks, to a pretty good extent. del |
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:41:49 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:17:22 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote: I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to pollute a carefully calibrated amount. It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood with any certainty. There are scientists who believe that a warming trend would slow the Gulf Stream thereby causing an "Ice Age". http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html Now if you could just enlighten us on that "carefully calibrated" amount of pollution, I'll be glad to do my part. I'm not the one that said there was an ice age and global warming, I was just mocking it. First, thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of that site. But the Gulf Stream is not in any danger. Read about it in http://www.realclimate.org The Gulf Stream is not in any danger? How do you know? Certainly, not from that site. The final line in that article sums it up, "Thus while continued monitoring of this key climatic area is clearly warranted, the imminent chilling of the Europe is a ways off yet." The press and lay folks have the gulf stream which is driven by winds and the jet stream as affected by the rocky mountains with the Thermo Haline Cycle which is driven by salt and temperature and is what might break down. Uh, and what causes the wind? Look, I don't know if we are headed for an Ice Age. I'm not even sure if this period of global warming is natural or man made, but prudence would dictate treading carefully. I have great faith in Mother Natures ability to heal herself. Unfortunately, I fear, as a species we might not like the healing process. The realclimate site seems to be objective and populated by actual scientists and enviros and lay folks, to a pretty good extent. del |
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 |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:41:49 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:17:22 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote: I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to pollute a carefully calibrated amount. It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood with any certainty. There are scientists who believe that a warming trend would slow the Gulf Stream thereby causing an "Ice Age". http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html Now if you could just enlighten us on that "carefully calibrated" amount of pollution, I'll be glad to do my part. I'm not the one that said there was an ice age and global warming, I was just mocking it. First, thanks for the link. I wasn't aware of that site. But the Gulf Stream is not in any danger. Read about it in http://www.realclimate.org The Gulf Stream is not in any danger? How do you know? Certainly, not from that site. The final line in that article sums it up, "Thus while continued monitoring of this key climatic area is clearly warranted, the imminent chilling of the Europe is a ways off yet." The press and lay folks have the gulf stream which is driven by winds and the jet stream as affected by the rocky mountains with the Thermo Haline Cycle which is driven by salt and temperature and is what might break down. Uh, and what causes the wind? Look, I don't know if we are headed for an Ice Age. I'm not even sure if this period of global warming is natural or man made, but prudence would dictate treading carefully. I have great faith in Mother Natures ability to heal herself. Unfortunately, I fear, as a species we might not like the healing process. The realclimate site seems to be objective and populated by actual scientists and enviros and lay folks, to a pretty good extent. del I think the scientific position is that what is commonly known as the gulf stream is a shallow current driven by wind. Wind is driven by the atmospheric circulation, and I haven't heard anyone saying it will quit blowing or the jet stream is in danger due to global warming. The current or circulation pattern folks are worried about is THC which is a convective thing driven by cold salty water sinking in the north. If too much fresh water comes from the melting ice, then this could weaken and that would be a problem. That's the global warming connection. My point wasn't that there may not be a concern or a problem or however you want to put it, but that calling the phenomenum in question the "Gulf Stream" wasn't really correct. They are interconnected but different. Or so that site led me to believe. |
"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. |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... Bill McKee wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill McKee wrote: The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural cycles of earth, or something else? Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps, etc. How much is man to blame? An awful lot. 10k years ago was a mini ice age, what did man do to cause it? Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges. 1860 or there abouts 20 miles of glacier in Glacier Bay meltet. It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming. What caused this warming? Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass. Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption than man put up in 10-20 years. that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE. The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes the problems. Does not seem to bring solutions. Horse****. Which part of human life is causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field? Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease? Stick to the subject. All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the global warming. heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!! . The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming. Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may cause a particular body of water to warm. Burning too much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun goes through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove it!! It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!: IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN! IF IT WAS PROVEN, THEN THE DEBATE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTANT! Now where is the proof there is a Guzzi Desmo model? Another few holes in kevins 'proof' http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...b62Em4,00.html By JAMES SCHLESINGER August 8, 2005 "Almost unnoticed, the theology of global warming has in recent weeks suffered a number of setbacks. In referring to the theology of global warming, one is not focusing on evidence of the earth's warming in recent decades, particularly in the Arctic, but rather on the widespread insistence that such warming is primarily a consequence of man's activities -- and that, if only we collectively had the will, we could alter our behavior and stop the warming of the planet. It was Michael Crichton who pointed out in his Commonwealth Club lecture some years ago that environmentalism had become the religion of Western elites. Indeed it has. Most notably, the burning of fossil fuels (a concomitant of economic growth and rising living standards) is the secular counterpart of man's Original Sin. If only we would repent and sin no more, mankind's actions could end the threat of further global warming. By implication, the cost, which is never fully examined, is bearable. So far the evidence is not convincing. It is notable that 13 of the 15 older members of the European Union have failed to achieve their quotas under the Kyoto accord -- despite the relatively slow growth of the European economies. The drumbeat on global warming was intended to reach a crescendo during the run-up to the summit at Gleneagles. Prime Minister Blair has been a leader in the global warming crusade. (Whether his stance reflects simple conviction or the need to propitiate his party's Left after Iraq is unknown.) In the event, for believers, Gleneagles turned out to be a major disappointment. On the eve of the summit, the Economic Committee of the House of Lords released a report sharply at variance with the prevailing European orthodoxy. Some key points were reported in the Guardian, a London newspaper not hostile to that orthodoxy: . The science of climate change leaves "considerable uncertainty" about the future. . There are concerns about the objectivity of the international panel of scientists that has led research into climate change. . The Kyoto agreement to limit carbon emissions will make little difference and is likely to fail. . The U.K.'s energy and climate policy contains "dubious assumptions" about renewable energy and energy efficiency. Most notably, the Committee itself concluded that there are concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process and about the IPCC's crucial emissions scenario exercise".......................... "Much has been made of the assertion, repeated regularly in the media, that "the science is settled," based upon a supposed "scientific consensus." Yet, some years ago in the "Oregon Petition" between 17,000 and 18,000 signatories, almost all scientists, made manifest that the science was not settled, declaring: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Several additional observations are in order. First, the "consensus" is ostensibly based upon the several Assessment Reports of the IPCC. One must bear in mind that the summary reports are political documents put together by government policy makers, who, to put it mildly, treat rather cavalierly the expressed uncertainties and caveats in the underlying scientific reports. Moreover, the IPCC was created to support a specific political goal. It is directed to support the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. In turn, the Convention calls for an effective international response to deal with "the common concern of all mankind" -- in short, to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Statements by the leaders of the IPCC have been uninhibitedly political. Second, science is not a matter of consensus, as the histories of Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, Einstein and others will attest. Science depends not on speculation but on conclusions verified through experiment. Verification is more than computer simulations -- whose conclusions mirror the assumptions built in the model. Irrespective of the repeated assertions regarding a "scientific consensus," there is neither a consensus nor is consensus science." |
It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964) |
"thunder" wrote in message ... It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964) Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and SF author. He didn't know jack about why intelligence and self awareness arises. It certainly happened to man long before the impact of available resources would have been felt. Was socrates not highly intelligent? High Intelligence is not the same as technology. For example, who is to say a technology based on ceramics isn't possible? And all those metals are still here. Our followers could mine cities and landfills and junkyards. More blather from someone liking the sound of his own voice. del |
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. |
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:00:07 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964) Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and SF author. He didn't know jack about why intelligence and self awareness arises. It certainly happened to man long before the impact of available resources would have been felt. Was socrates not highly intelligent? High Intelligence is not the same as technology. For example, who is to say a technology based on ceramics isn't possible? And all those metals are still here. Our followers could mine cities and landfills and junkyards. More blather from someone liking the sound of his own voice. Ellison did a great story about that, but I can't remember the name. There has been a number of scifi themed stories along these lines in fact - mining dumps and stuff - quite intriguing. Personally, I think we need to find new frontiers to send all these folks who want to impose their own brand of rule on others. Like maybe Mars for starters. Let them pray to their spirit leader of choice while they are terraforming the planet. Hell, let's start Moon colony's - each bubble can be a different faction and they can either win or die. Make it tough for 'em. :) |
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:00:07 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message ... It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964) Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and SF author. He didn't know jack about why intelligence and self awareness arises. It certainly happened to man long before the impact of available resources would have been felt. Was socrates not highly intelligent? High Intelligence is not the same as technology. For example, who is to say a technology based on ceramics isn't possible? And all those metals are still here. Our followers could mine cities and landfills and junkyards. More blather from someone liking the sound of his own voice. del One of man's special gifts is the ability to contemplate a future. Ignore that gift at your will. |
Del Cecchi wrote:
I'm not the one that said there was an ice age and global warming, I was just mocking it. With near total ignorance on both subjects. Way to go. Since you align yourself with people who deny that there is sucha thing as global warming, why mock the opposite possiblity? Cleary, the Earth's climate can only do 1 of 3 possible actions: get warmer (ruled out by your cronies), get cooler (ruled out by the political affiliation of those who suggested it back in the 1960s) and stay exactly the same temperature... is this what you believe? If you admit that global warming is taking place, but insist that mankind can't be the cause, then what is the cause? If you don't know, why rule out man's activity? If you don't know, why mock a very real possibility ? Other than ignorance, I mean? DSK |
Del Cecchi wrote:
Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and SF author. He didn't know jack about why intelligence and self awareness arises. It certainly happened to man long before the impact of available resources would have been felt. Was socrates not highly intelligent? You totally missed the point. More blather from someone liking the sound of his own voice. Translation: "I don't know what this guy was talking about and his intelligent statements annoy me." DSK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com