On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 19:25:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.

Here's the thing about global warming.

There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is
meaningless because of the temperature extremes from
climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. Not to
mention night and day.

From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add
them together then divide by the number of data sets used. While that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate. And as far as I know, and I could be wrong,
that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove
anything.

The general average method does not account for climate. If you take
a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40
that averages to 25.

If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is
still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different.
You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.

In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.

I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.

And the first person who points out the horrible typos will receive a
visit from my good friend Guido "Me Bone Breaker" Bonolini. :)

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 19:25:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.

There seems to be plenty of evidence that we are in a warming cycle of
some sort. The questions are, what is causing it, and can anything be
done about it? There's lots of honest controversy on those points.

Does anyone remember the sunspot maximum of 1957 and 1958? It was a
block buster. The whole thing could have started then as far as
anyone knows.

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:16:51 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

Does anyone remember the sunspot maximum of 1957 and 1958? It was a
block buster. The whole thing could have started then as far as anyone
knows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:57:29 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:16:51 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

Does anyone remember the sunspot maximum of 1957 and 1958? It was a
block buster. The whole thing could have started then as far as anyone
knows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

I blame Canada.

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:16:51 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

Does anyone remember the sunspot maximum of 1957 and 1958? It was a
block buster. The whole thing could have started then as far as
anyone knows.

I just pulled out my SWL logs from that time and the QSL cards are
from all over the planet.

Several of my favorites are small, 1k AM stations on nightime low
power. I also have SWL QSL cards from France, Ireland, West Germany
and a couple of other countries - all AM stuff.

The funniest one was from Liechtenstein. The engineer of the station
was a former Armed Forces Radio type and he wrote a three page letter
about living in a country the size of a postage stamp.

It's still funny now as it was when I was 12. :)

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:10:22 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I just pulled out my SWL logs from that time and the QSL cards are
from all over the planet.

I got my ham license in 1957 when I was 12 years old. I remember
coming home from school at lunch time in 1958 and hearing west coast
and european stations on the 6 meter band as loud as the locals, all
due to high sun spot levels of course.

Here's another datapoint for the greate climate debate of 2007, this
one from a professor at MIT:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 19:25:25 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.


I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.

Pollution studies don't pay as well as GW studies. In fact, Al Gore seems
to be doing quite well off Global Warming scams:

"So far, so good. But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by
The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's
report, Gore's spokesperson said Gore buys his carbon offsets through
Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and
others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other
projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe, she said...

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make
money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon
offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own
investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy
"carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys
stocks."

Taken from: http://tinyurl.com/2pqc52
--
*****Have a Spectacular Day!*****

John H

On Apr 8, 12:25�pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"

wrote:
You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.

Here's the thing about global warming.

There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is
meaningless because of the temperature extremes from
climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. *Not to
mention night and day.

From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add
them together then divide by the number of data sets used. *While that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate. *And as far as I know, and I could be wrong,
that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove
anything.

The general average method does not account for climate. *If you take
a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40
that averages to 25.

If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is
still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different.
You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.

In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.

I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.

Then riddle me this, Shortwave;

What's happening to all the polar ice if there is no global warming?

I think you'd find plenty of company among people who aren't quite
ready to blame it all on man's activities; but there are darn few
people who insist it isn't happening at all.

What's happening to all the polar ice if there is no global warming?

I'm really on the fence WRT this global warming stuff. But, to play devil's
advocate, what if this were the beginning of the end of the "ice age" when
most of the continents were covered in glaciers. Then the glaciers began
their retreat to the poles. We'd probably be screaming global warming then
as well. Could this not be a continuation of that trend?

If so, whose to say that the massive climate change that might occur, begins
another "ice age" to start the process all over again? Since no one was
around to take CO2 and methane measurements from the dinos, perhaps it's
similar to what man is doing?

I have NO scientific evidence or theories to back this up... just thinking
out loud here, and trying to introduce some food for thought.

--Mike

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 8, 12:25?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"

wrote:
You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.

Here's the thing about global warming.

There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is
meaningless because of the temperature extremes from
climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. Not to
mention night and day.

From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add
them together then divide by the number of data sets used. While that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate. And as far as I know, and I could be wrong,
that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove
anything.

The general average method does not account for climate. If you take
a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40
that averages to 25.

If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is
still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different.
You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.

In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.

I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.

Then riddle me this, Shortwave;

What's happening to all the polar ice if there is no global warming?

I think you'd find plenty of company among people who aren't quite
ready to blame it all on man's activities; but there are darn few
people who insist it isn't happening at all.

On Apr 8, 9:50?pm, "Mike" wrote:
What's happening to all the polar ice if there is no global warming?

I'm really on the fence WRT this global warming stuff. But, to play devil's
advocate, what if this were the beginning of the end of the "ice age" when
most of the continents were covered in glaciers. Then the glaciers began
their retreat to the poles. We'd probably be screaming global warming then
as well. Could this not be a continuation of that trend?

If so, whose to say that the massive climate change that might occur, begins
another "ice age" to start the process all over again? Since no one was
around to take CO2 and methane measurements from the dinos, perhaps it's
similar to what man is doing?

I have NO scientific evidence or theories to back this up... just thinking
out loud here, and trying to introduce some food for thought.

--Mike

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...
On Apr 8, 12:25?pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:





On 8 Apr 2007 09:27:31 -0700, "Chuck Gould"

wrote:
You won't catch me out on some limb claiming that it's all the
fault of mankind, but just because you've got snow in Ohio 1/4 of the
way through April doesn't mean that there's no global warming.

Here's the thing about global warming.

There is no such thing as mean global temperature - any such term is
meaningless because of the temperature extremes from
climate-to-climate and natural cycles of heating and cooling. Not to
mention night and day.

From what I've read, the method used is to take the data sets, add
them together then divide by the number of data sets used. While that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate. And as far as I know, and I could be wrong,
that is how the "average" is developed and that doesn't prove
anything.

The general average method does not account for climate. If you take
a climate that has a night time temperature of 10 and daytime of 40
that averages to 25.

If the night time and day time temperatures are 25, the average is
still 25. It's totally meaningless because the climates are different.
You can only evaluate change in context of it's environment.

In my opinion, I think that the most cynical aspect of the whole
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod is that they've take one
problem, pollution (which is real and much more of a threat in my
opinion) and cross-pollinated it to Global Warming.

I'm much more worrid about pollution than I am about Glocal Warming.
One is real, one is a myth.

Then riddle me this, Shortwave;

What's happening to all the polar ice if there is no global warming?

I think you'd find plenty of company among people who aren't quite
ready to blame it all on man's activities; but there are darn few
people who insist it isn't happening at all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's an item discussing how the plant is now the warmest it has been
in the lsat several hundred years, but admitting that there isn't much
accurate data available before 1600 aD.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...RecordID=11676