Global Warming?
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"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.

Your worse nightmare Kalif man.

Global Warming?
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"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 the pollution issue I think we have alot of work to do as well. One
topic I would like to learn more about is the fertilizer concentrations
that are claimed to be building in the Gulf of Mex and other areas of
the worlds oceans. These should be easly measured concentrations that
appear to be lifeless. Why we looking into this and trying to curb the
discharges into rivers of these chemicals is a mystery to me.

On the radio in the past few weeks I ran across some folks talking about
this subject and that they expected it to increase with the use of
biofuels. Apparently the effect of using biofuels have increased the
cost of corn products with Mexico's poor. Fears that increased
deforestation in South America and increased use of fertilizers may have
increasing effects on our Oceans as well.

Shrimpers in the Gulf are having to stay closer to shore to get their
catches. This is causing shrimpers who use to go far off shore to
compete more directly with those who stay in close. The guy on the radio
where I picked up this story reported.

Can't recall where I was when I heard this. But most likely it was NPR
since that is what I listen to in my car when not listening to music.

Capt Jack R..

Global Warming?
 

On Apr 9, 4:11�pm, Jack Redington wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"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 the pollution issue I think we have alot of work to do as well. One
topic I would like to learn more about is the fertilizer concentrations
that are claimed to be building in the Gulf of Mex and other areas of
the worlds oceans. These should be easly measured concentrations that
appear to be lifeless. Why we looking into this and trying to curb the
discharges into rivers of these chemicals is a mystery to me.

On the radio in the past few weeks I ran across some folks talking about
* this subject and that they expected it to increase with the use of
biofuels. Apparently the effect of using biofuels have increased the
cost of corn products with Mexico's poor. Fears that increased
deforestation in South America and increased use of fertilizers may have
increasing effects on our Oceans as well.

Shrimpers in the Gulf are having to stay closer to shore to get their
catches. This is causing shrimpers who use to go far off shore to
compete more directly with those who stay in close. The guy on the radio
where I picked up this story reported.

Can't recall where I was when I heard this. But most likely it was NPR
since that is what I listen to in my car when not listening to music.

Capt Jack R..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Soaps. fertilizers, pesticides, septic tank runoff- all of those
factors affect a waterway. Hood Canal is a "dead end" arm of Puget
Sound, and where there were once thriving fisheries for salmon and a
wide array of shellfish the pickings have become pretty slim.
Biologists say there is a lack of oxygen in the water. The politically
correct thing to do is to blame it on recreational boaters, but the
unique aspect of Hood Canal is that it just might be the most *under*
utilized cruising ground in the area. Not that many facilities except
for
very small boats, and there's that pesky dead end. (OTOH, the scenery
is beautiful, with the Olympic Mts appearing to rise up almost
immediately beyond the shoreline).

Most of the stuff running into Hood Canal isn't originating aboard a
boat. As the number, size, and complexity of the former "beach cabins"
all along the canal continues to increase, so does the load on the
environment. Perhaps the most environmentally polluting thing the
average family does, aside from running internal combustion engines,
is to grow grass. Enormous amounts of
fertilizer get washed into the watershed by equally enormous amounts
of wasted water. The enriched runoff water fosters a lot of microbes
that die off and use oxygen when they decompose.

Global Warming?
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"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.

Your worse nightmare Kalif man.


Heck, Western Canada, doesn't like the eastern part either.

Global Warming?
 

On 9 Apr 2007 17:05:39 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

fertilizer get washed into the watershed by equally enormous amounts
of wasted water. The enriched runoff water fosters a lot of microbes
that die off and use oxygen when they decompose.

We have two lakes in my immediate area right now that are being
subject to fertilizer use for land owners. The lakes are so overgrown
with aquatic weeds (non-invasive) that you can't even start your boat
or move ten feet without fouling on the weeds.

The talk is that one of the lakes is going to be completely drained,
stripped of weeds, allowed to sit for a year, then refilled.

Pretty drastic and all because of overdevelopment of the shore line.
Beautiful lawns, crappy lake.

Global Warming?
 

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 23:11:53 GMT, Jack Redington
wrote:

Can't recall where I was when I heard this. But most likely it was NPR
since that is what I listen to in my car when not listening to music.

It's been around for a while on various news outlets. I think the NYT
did a short series on the corn shortage in Mexico which is driving up
the price of tortillas so high that the average schmuck can't afford
to buy them.

And I just read this morning about the economic impact on Third World
countries where instead of food, they are changing over to marginal
crops that are good for ethanol but not for food.

Weird.

Global Warming?
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 17:05:39 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


fertilizer get washed into the watershed by equally enormous amounts
of wasted water. The enriched runoff water fosters a lot of microbes
that die off and use oxygen when they decompose.


We have two lakes in my immediate area right now that are being
subject to fertilizer use for land owners. The lakes are so overgrown
with aquatic weeds (non-invasive) that you can't even start your boat
or move ten feet without fouling on the weeds.

The talk is that one of the lakes is going to be completely drained,
stripped of weeds, allowed to sit for a year, then refilled.

Pretty drastic and all because of overdevelopment of the shore line.
Beautiful lawns, crappy lake.


Being on Lake Hartwell we are subject to the Army corps or engineers
setback restrictions. Basically you do not own the properity to the
lake. You own the properity that is next to Army COE properity.

This creates a love/hate relationship as they dictate if you can have a
dock - it's size and any other access request. (walking paths, electric
to a dock etc) I do like the setbacks that they maintain as it keeps the
lake from having the trouble you are mentioning.

The rules are pretty clear on what one can do and what one can't. But
before you can do anything you better ask. I have to admit they have not
granted every request. But they have been very responsive to all my
inquiries.

Capt Jack R..

Global Warming?
 

On Apr 10, 10:31 pm, Jack Redington wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 17:05:39 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

fertilizer get washed into the watershed by equally enormous amounts
of wasted water. The enriched runoff water fosters a lot of microbes
that die off and use oxygen when they decompose.

We have two lakes in my immediate area right now that are being
subject to fertilizer use for land owners. The lakes are so overgrown
with aquatic weeds (non-invasive) that you can't even start your boat
or move ten feet without fouling on the weeds.

The talk is that one of the lakes is going to be completely drained,
stripped of weeds, allowed to sit for a year, then refilled.

Pretty drastic and all because of overdevelopment of the shore line.
Beautiful lawns, crappy lake.

Being on Lake Hartwell we are subject to the Army corps or engineers
setback restrictions. Basically you do not own the properity to the
lake. You own the properity that is next to Army COE properity.

This creates a love/hate relationship as they dictate if you can have a
dock - it's size and any other access request. (walking paths, electric
to a dock etc) I do like the setbacks that they maintain as it keeps the
lake from having the trouble you are mentioning.

The rules are pretty clear on what one can do and what one can't. But
before you can do anything you better ask. I have to admit they have not
granted every request. But they have been very responsive to all my
inquiries.

Capt Jack R..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Same exact thing with Lanier.

Global Warming?
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 17:05:39 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

fertilizer get washed into the watershed by equally enormous amounts
of wasted water. The enriched runoff water fosters a lot of microbes
that die off and use oxygen when they decompose.

We have two lakes in my immediate area right now that are being
subject to fertilizer use for land owners. The lakes are so overgrown
with aquatic weeds (non-invasive) that you can't even start your boat
or move ten feet without fouling on the weeds.

The talk is that one of the lakes is going to be completely drained,
stripped of weeds, allowed to sit for a year, then refilled.

Pretty drastic and all because of overdevelopment of the shore line.
Beautiful lawns, crappy lake.

Fortunately we don't ahve that problem with the lakes we have around
here.

Carlyle, Omega, Shelbyville, Decatur, and Ren Lake[s] are all river .

Basicly dammed up rivers which have a constant flow. Not saying tthere
may be some kind of a clean out in the future, but draining them would
be almost impossible.

Global Warming?
 

On 11 Apr 2007 06:32:59 -0700, "Tim" wrote:


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 17:05:39 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

fertilizer get washed into the watershed by equally enormous amounts
of wasted water. The enriched runoff water fosters a lot of microbes
that die off and use oxygen when they decompose.

We have two lakes in my immediate area right now that are being
subject to fertilizer use for land owners. The lakes are so overgrown
with aquatic weeds (non-invasive) that you can't even start your boat
or move ten feet without fouling on the weeds.

The talk is that one of the lakes is going to be completely drained,
stripped of weeds, allowed to sit for a year, then refilled.

Pretty drastic and all because of overdevelopment of the shore line.
Beautiful lawns, crappy lake.

Fortunately we don't ahve that problem with the lakes we have around
here.

Carlyle, Omega, Shelbyville, Decatur, and Ren Lake[s] are all river .

Basicly dammed up rivers which have a constant flow. Not saying tthere
may be some kind of a clean out in the future, but draining them would
be almost impossible.

Draining river pools is a lot easier said than done. A couple of
years ago a barge cut loose on the Ohio River and managed to wedge
itself into a dam's sluice gate (I believe it was the Bellevile lock &
dam). In any case, it was stuck in such a way that it held the gate
open and the water level on that pool had to be dropped significantly
and for a couple weeks in order to extricate it. As the water level
dropped, properties all along the river and its tributaries began to
collapse. It seems the water pressure and water table help hold up the
land near the river. My brother owns a piece of property on the Little
Kanawa river - a tributary of the Ohio near Parkersburg, WV. It has
been in our family for about 45 years. I was amazed at the damages.
For about 30 feet or so from the river the banks had simply collapsed.
They didn't fall into the river like erosion, they dropped vertically
about 6 feet pushing the underlying, fairly liquid, dirt underneath
out in to river. When the river was brought back to level there were
numerous trees out in the river standing straight up, but with their
bases 3 to 4 feet under water. What a mess. Barge company (and/or its
insurance companies) paid a LOT of money in repair damages to property
owners, although it was only a partial coverage of actual costs to
repair and you can never get those 80 year old trees back.

Dave Hall