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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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/