Dan wrote:

*So know you are Tim, Kevin?*

Say what! ..and you claim to be an engineer?
maybe sanitary engineer.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I do refuse to believe in single cause theory if only because of what
you detailed in your post. There are any number of factors for the
cause, it can be part of a natural cycle or we may be in for another
period of more temperate climates.

Nobody knows for sure and to single out one factor as the cause for
the sky falling is not only silly, but short sighted.

Well that straw man is certainly down for the count, but
seriously I've not heard any one claim there is only one
cause but rather discuss those that we could affect.

"scbafreak via BoatKB.com" u25927@uwe wrote in message
news:6ab5e3ba16976@uwe...
"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

All this means is that they don't feel that using these trends to measure
effects of global warming may not be accurate. This doesn't actually say
anything about wether or not itactually is happening. If you read a
little
bit further, as in the next paragraph, you see this:

This analysis implies that deficiencies of present-day models, such as the
oversimplification of ice dynamics, make simulation of fundamental
ice-albedo
feedback most difficult.

Translation = It is hard to tell what exactly is going on with these
specific
methods that they are testing. Again no examination of Global warming.

On top of all of that the original article did not show what tests they
used
to measure any global warming but did talk about the recedance of ice and
the
low rate of ice return. This sort of calculation is done every year when
the
weatherman says how many inches snow has fallen and then it melts
afterwards.
Not to complicated. The scientists are simply stating that less ice being
created and more being melted is a sign of something.

Maybe you should actually read the stuff you are quoting and not pick out
a
sentence or two that you have no idea what it means and spew it out as
gospel.

You missed where they stated that a possible reason for less Artic Sea Ice
was that weather patterns are
moving some of the ice south where it melts faster. NOT that the Sea Ice is
melting because of warmer temps.
This seems to make some sense since the temps haven't gone up to have that
much effect (8% decrease in sea ice
as viewed from a satellite).

AND a reason we find fault with articles posted (basskisser) by you is that
you play with the subject titles. To say that artic ice is melting is
incorrect, it's only Artic SEA ice. Temps would have to increase
drastically beyond what is predicted for 2040 for artic ice to melt.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
"scbafreak via BoatKB.com" u25927@uwe wrote in message
news:6ab5e3ba16976@uwe...
"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php
All this means is that they don't feel that using these trends to measure
effects of global warming may not be accurate. This doesn't actually say
anything about wether or not itactually is happening. If you read a
little
bit further, as in the next paragraph, you see this:

This analysis implies that deficiencies of present-day models, such as the
oversimplification of ice dynamics, make simulation of fundamental
ice-albedo
feedback most difficult.

Translation = It is hard to tell what exactly is going on with these
specific
methods that they are testing. Again no examination of Global warming.

On top of all of that the original article did not show what tests they
used
to measure any global warming but did talk about the recedance of ice and
the
low rate of ice return. This sort of calculation is done every year when
the
weatherman says how many inches snow has fallen and then it melts
afterwards.
Not to complicated. The scientists are simply stating that less ice being
created and more being melted is a sign of something.

Maybe you should actually read the stuff you are quoting and not pick out
a
sentence or two that you have no idea what it means and spew it out as
gospel.

You missed where they stated that a possible reason for less Artic Sea Ice
was that weather patterns are
moving some of the ice south where it melts faster. NOT that the Sea Ice is
melting because of warmer temps.
This seems to make some sense since the temps haven't gone up to have that
much effect (8% decrease in sea ice
as viewed from a satellite).

AND a reason we find fault with articles posted (basskisser) by you is that
you play with the subject titles. To say that artic ice is melting is
incorrect, it's only Artic SEA ice. Temps would have to increase
drastically beyond what is predicted for 2040 for artic ice to melt.


The Artic is all sea ice, only Antarctica has land mass.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:37:13 -0800, -rick- wrote:


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I do refuse to believe in single cause theory if only because of what
you detailed in your post. There are any number of factors for the
cause, it can be part of a natural cycle or we may be in for another
period of more temperate climates.

Nobody knows for sure and to single out one factor as the cause for
the sky falling is not only silly, but short sighted.

Well that straw man is certainly down for the count, but
seriously I've not heard any one claim there is only one
cause but rather discuss those that we could affect.


Perhaps among the more enlightened like us who actually look at other
issues. Other schmucks follow Al Gore and company blindly into the
pits of Global Warming.


Exactly. If the entire population of the world spit into the ocean at
the same time, the ocean level would rise.....but it would not be
significant.

The GW debate has become far too political, as can been seen by who's
"side" the major players politics lie. A second red flag is the was the
GW alarmists frame the "debate" such as "consensus" "the science is
settled" "those opposed are in the pockets of big oil" etc.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
. ..
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"scbafreak via BoatKB.com" u25927@uwe wrote in message
news:6ab5e3ba16976@uwe...
"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php
All this means is that they don't feel that using these trends to
measure
effects of global warming may not be accurate. This doesn't actually
say
anything about wether or not itactually is happening. If you read a
little
bit further, as in the next paragraph, you see this:

This analysis implies that deficiencies of present-day models, such as
the
oversimplification of ice dynamics, make simulation of fundamental
ice-albedo
feedback most difficult.

Translation = It is hard to tell what exactly is going on with these
specific
methods that they are testing. Again no examination of Global warming.

On top of all of that the original article did not show what tests they
used
to measure any global warming but did talk about the recedance of ice
and the
low rate of ice return. This sort of calculation is done every year
when the
weatherman says how many inches snow has fallen and then it melts
afterwards.
Not to complicated. The scientists are simply stating that less ice
being
created and more being melted is a sign of something.

Maybe you should actually read the stuff you are quoting and not pick
out a
sentence or two that you have no idea what it means and spew it out as
gospel.

You missed where they stated that a possible reason for less Artic Sea
Ice was that weather patterns are
moving some of the ice south where it melts faster. NOT that the Sea Ice
is melting because of warmer temps.
This seems to make some sense since the temps haven't gone up to have
that much effect (8% decrease in sea ice
as viewed from a satellite).

AND a reason we find fault with articles posted (basskisser) by you is
that you play with the subject titles. To say that artic ice is melting
is incorrect, it's only Artic SEA ice. Temps would have to increase
drastically beyond what is predicted for 2040 for artic ice to melt.
The Artic is all sea ice, only Antarctica has land mass.

Huh?

Sam wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...


As far as the above goes, I've stated that
the machine wouldn't be anymore effective with the ice in an ice chest
or in a cardboard box, because the water flowing across the ice would
melt the ice at the same rate. Then Sam started that childish name
calling. And STILL hasn't shown anything to the contrary.


I can prove it to you (yet again) if you agree to answer just a few simple
yes or no questions.

Are you game?

Why would I need to answer any questions for you to prove it?

Dan wrote:

Conspiracy? Nice try!

Every single post I make, there you are stalking!!!

Infatuation......
Infatuation......
It's driving Dan crazy.....
It's making Dan CRAAAZZZYYY.......

Dan wrote:

Wrong. There's the Don and Harry show. It's a 3-way circle jerk that
the boy leans on whenever it benefits him and is moronic BS.


"It's often noted that in persons with infatuation disorders, they
often react to rejection with negative feelings toward the very person
they are infatuated with."

Infatuation......
Infatuation....
It's driving Dan crazy.....
It's making Dan CRRRAAAZZZYYY.....

Don White wrote:
Dan wrote:

*So know you are Tim, Kevin?*

Say what! ..and you claim to be an engineer?
maybe sanitary engineer.

Dan claims to be an engineer??
BWAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!