|
Global Warming?
|
Global Warming?
Siberia?
"JimH" wrote in message ... http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3...2007002aa1.jpg Easter Sunday, 2007. |
Global Warming?
On Apr 8, 9:04 am, "Jim" wrote:
Siberia?"JimH" wrote in message ... http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3...2007002aa1.jpg Easter Sunday, 2007. Looks like it but I think it is sunny and 60F in Siberia. Friggin' winter won't go away. ;-( |
Global Warming?
"JimH" wrote in message ... http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3...2007002aa1.jpg Easter Sunday, 2007. Yup... exactly like my back deck. Just got back in from shovelling... the wife was out first doing our sidewalk and walkway. so I had to get out and show my face to the neighbours. ;-) |
Global Warming?
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. |
Global Warming?
"JimH" wrote in message ... http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3...2007002aa1.jpg Easter Sunday, 2007. Easter dinner on the deck today? |
Global Warming?
On Apr 8, 5:36?am, "JimH" wrote:
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3...2007002aa1.jpg Easter Sunday, 2007. Sorry to see you snowed in. I am cognizant that Easter is undoubtedly a very important day at your house, and you probably aren't used to adapting your egg hunts and other celebrations to a snow storm. Local weather disruptions are a symptom of larger climate changes. For a relatively last few seconds of geologic time (IOW, most of recorded human history) we have relied on a circulation of air and water between the tropics and the poles to generate the winds and currents that influence weather. This circulation has resulted from the difference in temperatures at the poles vs. the tropics. Now that the polar ice cap is so incredibly diminished, the relationship between the temperatures is changing. "Weird weather" (even if it's locally colder) can be a sign of climate shift. 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. If this problem proves to be as serious as some predict, we are all at risk of being regulated right out of our boats, cars, RV's, etc. That's why I advocate keeping an open mind and being prepared to take some small steps now if that means we won't have to take drastic steps in the future. |
Global Warming?
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ps.com... On Apr 8, 5:36?am, "JimH" wrote: http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3...2007002aa1.jpg Easter Sunday, 2007. 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. The subject heading was meant to be a joke Chuck. Jeesh. |
Global Warming?
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ps.com... If this problem proves to be as serious as some predict, we are all at risk of being regulated right out of our boats, cars, RV's, etc. That's why I advocate keeping an open mind and being prepared to take some small steps now if that means we won't have to take drastic steps in the future. If the scientific and other communities of alarmists who focus on man made global warming influences are correct, they also agree on something else that isn't talked about much. It's too late, even according to them. Whatever bad things that are predicted to happen are going to happen regardless of how much or quickly mankind changes their habits. Which kinda makes you wonder how much influence mankind had on it in the first place. Eisboch |
Global Warming?
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. |
Global Warming?
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. :) |
Global Warming?
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. |
Global Warming?
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 |
Global Warming?
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 08:36:07 -0400, "JimH"
wrote: http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3...2007002aa1.jpg Easter Sunday, 2007. I thought I saw that photo in a link posted here. The link had a bunch of snow pictures taken in upstate NY last winter when they were buried with snow. But I can't find the link. What's the who/what/when/where on this photo? And who is on first? --Vic |
Global Warming?
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. |
Global Warming?
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. :) |
Global Warming?
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 |
Global Warming?
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/ |
Global Warming?
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. |
Global Warming?
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. |
Global Warming?
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 |
Global Warming?
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 |
Global Warming?
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. |
Global Warming?
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 ~~ |
Global Warming?
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 |
Global Warming?
"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. |
Global Warming?
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? |
Global Warming?
"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. |
Global Warming?
"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. |
Global Warming?
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 |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com