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

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.

You might enjoy reading the EPA's page on the subject. The item
"Uncertainties" somewhat agrees with your position- but essentially
concludes that while there is some uncertainty about the relationship
between atmospheric compostion and climate change it is primarily
based on the *amount* of human influence on the climate, not whether
any human inflence exists.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...rtainties.html

On 8 Apr 2007 21:34:29 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

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. ot 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. hile that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate.
nd 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. f 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'm not sure that they are "melting" - it may be part of a long term
cycle which some scientists are now beginning to think happens on a
600 to 700 year cycle. And it's not like it hasn't happened before -
remember Greenland? You know - the Vikings who discovered China,
India and colonized Kansas? And it's Spring - ice melts in the
Spring.

Why are the inner and nearer outer planets warming up? Why is Pluto
(or whatever it's called now) brighter? Think it might have anything
to do with the sun?

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.

I'm firmly in the camp of it may have some effect, but it is not a
total cause. I'm also noticing that this scientific "consensus" that
the members of the Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod claim to
enjoy is seemingly falling apart as more scientists are beginning to
jump off the wagon and listen to those who never climbed on.

And I still think that the whole pollution fight, one that needs to be
fought, has been co-opted by the global warming crowd.

I might also point out that these kinds of popular crisis predictions
have been around for a long time. Anybody remember Global Cooling
because of all the pollution would increase the albedo of the
atmosphere resulting in lower temperatures and a new Ice Age? Or the
population crisis ZPG maniacs who predicted, quite logically and with
mathematical certainty that we'd all be standing hip deep in people by
now with no room to move or breathe?

Apocalyptic visions of the future are as old as man. Global Warming
is just another version of the same old same old.

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 22:20:09 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

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/

Well, we can't believe him because he's a denier and mere apostate
with no qualifications to judge.

~~ snerk ~~

On 8 Apr 2007 23:33:13 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

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. ot 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. hile that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate.
nd 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. f 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.

You might enjoy reading the EPA's page on the subject. The item
"Uncertainties" somewhat agrees with your position- but essentially
concludes that while there is some uncertainty about the relationship
between atmospheric compostion and climate change it is primarily
based on the *amount* of human influence on the climate, not whether
any human inflence exists.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...rtainties.html


Given the lack of knowledge the 'amount' of human influence, and given
that trillions of dollars will, at best, have a small overall effect,
wouldn't it be better to use a few billion to eradicate HIV-AIDS?
--
*****Have a Spectacular Day!*****

John H

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message
...
In message ups.com,
basskisser sprach forth the following:

On Apr 8, 8:36 am, "JimH" wrote:
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3...2007002aa1.jpg

Easter Sunday, 2007.

Only a complete imbicile would acertain that because of a late season
snow storm, global warming doesn't exist.

And if there's anybody who knows about being a complete imbecile (note the
correct spelling - you knocked the irony meter right off the charts,
dip****), it's asslicker.


Best to ignore him so he can spend more time looking for the 'clue' he lost
sometime during his childhood.

On Apr 9, 8:27 am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:
In oglegroups.com,
basskisser sprach forth the following:

On Apr 8, 8:36 am, "JimH" wrote:
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3...2007002aa1.jpg

Easter Sunday, 2007.

Only a complete imbicile would acertain that because of a late season
snow storm, global warming doesn't exist.

And if there's anybody who knows about being a complete imbecile (note the
correct spelling - you knocked the irony meter right off the charts,
dip****), it's asslicker.

And your childish, and boorish name calling does wonders for your
credibility. Are you too stupid to debate anything without?

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
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.

I think only Eastern Canada.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
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.

It's caused by Haliburton. Those secret mines on the Sun.

On Apr 9, 8:18 am, John H. wrote:
On 8 Apr 2007 23:33:13 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:





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. ot 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. hile that
is a valid way to gather an "average", it doesn't account for
variations in climate.

nd 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. f 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.

You might enjoy reading the EPA's page on the subject. The item
"Uncertainties" somewhat agrees with your position- but essentially
concludes that while there is some uncertainty about the relationship
between atmospheric compostion and climate change it is primarily
based on the *amount* of human influence on the climate, not whether
any human inflence exists.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...limateUncertai...

Given the lack of knowledge the 'amount' of human influence, and given
that trillions of dollars will, at best, have a small overall effect,
wouldn't it be better to use a few billion to eradicateHIV-AIDS?
--
*****Have a Spectacular Day!*****

John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/805

Presenting Plasma HIV RNA Level and Rate of CD4 T-Cell Decline

To the Editor: The study by Dr Rodriguez and colleagues1 concludes
that presenting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) plasma RNA viral
load only minimally predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline in
individuals with HIV infection and hypothesizes that a significant
(90%) amount of HIV disease progression and pathogenesis is
*****due to factors other than viral load.******

The results are portrayed as casting doubt on the utility of an early
viral load measurement to predict disease outcome in individuals.

CONCLUSIONS: Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell
decline only minimally in untreated persons. Other factors, as yet
undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection.

http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com
Important video relating to HIV and AIDS.

rocketscience