Wanting hurricanes
 

On May 13, 3:53 pm, wrote:
As a several generation N. FL native, I DO want hurricanes to hit
here. This says nothing about wanting anybody to die. Anybody with
any sense gets out of their way, anybody who stays is helping the gene
pool. The coastal ecology requires hurricanes here. Inland, we need
the rainfall storms provide. If you dont want hurricanes, go
somehwere else, they are part of the deal here.
My families older friends who owned fishing shacks near the coast
would not consider building on the beach (why would you want to live
there?) because of the wave action during storms. They built their
fishing shacks a few hundered feet from the shore and counted on
having em flooded. All eleictrical stuff was up in the attic to give
it a better chance of surviving. After the surge receded, they'd toss
the old bedding in the trash and go to thrift store for more.
YES, I DO WANT TO SEE YOUR CONDO WASHED AWAY. It has no business
being built on the beach where I have to subsidize its insurance. I
shouldn't have to pay to have your beach recovered with sand when it
washes away. Here in FL, the insuranee situation on waterfront stuff
got so bad that the state REQUIRES an insurance company to insure
coastal property if they are also going to insure inland properties,
of course, the state helps subsidize it with a state owned company.
Take your damned trained mouse and all other Disney trash theme parks
and go home, go back to your rust belt and leave FL to natives. Y'all
can come visit but dont stay. I cant even go to one of MY state parks
anymore cuz trhey so are filled with million dollar RVs there is no
room for us cheap tent campers. Best thing would be to genetically
engineer an organism that eats refrigerant so AC wont work. You'd all
go home then.

This rant makes you sound like thoses hillbilly hicks we see on TV
everytime a trialer park gets nailed in your area. Sorry you were not
successful enough to get yourself into a better place. We work hard
all our lives, so our tax money can support your paradise but then
when we retire you tell us to stay out! You are a mad old man, screw
off!

Wanting hurricanes
 

On Tue, 15 May 2007 10:09:46 -0400, gene.boating wrote:


As far as I know, the sun is the ONLY cause of warming of the earth.
Fossil fuels are only stored solar energy and the current debate is over
how man may be affecting the release of that energy and the dynamics of
how that energy may be affecting the radiation of that energy.

Well, there is at least one other possible source, the earth's core.
Friction from fluid movements keep the core quite hot. There are a few
scientists who have postulated, that changes there, may in fact, be
heating the oceans and contributing to global warming. I'm sorry but I
can't find the links where I read this.

Wanting hurricanes
 

On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:46:46 -0400, gene.boating wrote:


Well, there is at least one other possible source, the earth's core.
Friction from fluid movements keep the core quite hot. There are a few
scientists who have postulated, that changes there, may in fact, be
heating the oceans and contributing to global warming. I'm sorry but I
can't find the links where I read this.


I don't buy their science or logic, but I think this is a representative
link:
http://bioresonant.com/news.htm

Nah, that deep-earth reactor theory, I believe, comes from Herndon:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...gi?artid=58687

But, it is not what I was referring to. Somewhere, I was reading that
the earth's core is not symmetrical, but, IIRC, more pumpkin shaped, and
due to movement, was heating the earth's crust with variable output. I
don't know if I buy it. My theory is, there are scientists who have
spent there entire careers studying climate. If they can't be sure, I
figure neither can I, even with the help of Google. ;-)

Wanting hurricanes
 

On Tue, 15 May 2007 10:09:46 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:51:07 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 14 May 2007 13:46:53 -0400,
wrote:

On 14 May 2007 15:07:31 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:

In message , sprach forth
the following:

To me, common sense, and every weather textbook I have ever read leads
me to conclude that warmer waters will affect hurricane activity.

This chart:

http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlit...unclimate.html

shows a near 1:1 correlation between solar activity (sunspots) and
temperature on earth. Can you produce a similar chart showing correlation
between temperature and hurricanes?

In northwestern Europe, there is a 1:1 relationship between the number
of storks per square mile and the birth rate. Therefore, the fact that
storks bring children is as statistically relevant as your suggestion
that sunspots somehow mystically determines the temperature on earth.

Let's look at some 50 year old numbers (prior to global warming?) that
describe the effect of water temperature on hurricanes:
http://tinyurl.com/yvlhwm

Sure would like to see the stork site.


Not sure there is one, but it is a pretty stock example that
correlation is not a sufficient determinant of causality. See any
elementary statistics text.

Are you trying to imply there's no causal relationship between the sun and
the warming of the earth?

As far as I know, the sun is the ONLY cause of warming of the earth.
Fossil fuels are only stored solar energy and the current debate is
over how man may be affecting the release of that energy and the
dynamics of how that energy may be affecting the radiation of that
energy.

I remain skeptical of data that suggests that solar wind has the
effect of blowing away the protection of cloud cover, which then
causes heating of the earth.

Rather than being some gloom and doom prognosticator, I'd just like to
keep an open mind that man might (and I think does) have an impact on
global warming. Those that say than man "just couldn't" have any
effect are trying to form a negative proof in lieu of scientific
method and must, therefore, have some other agenda (political, most
likely) rather than science or logic.

I think you've said it all when you say, "I remain skeptical of data
that suggests..." That's the problem many of us are having with the
'data' that suggests man is the root cause of global warming.

Wanting hurricanes
 

On Tue, 15 May 2007 10:09:46 -0400,
wrote:

I remain skeptical of data that suggests that solar wind has the
effect of blowing away the protection of cloud cover, which then
causes heating of the earth.

What creates clouds Gene? How are the dynamics of weather given their
energy?

I mean - come on - you're a smart guy - hell of a lot smarter than
most of the folks who hang out here.

Rather than being some gloom and doom prognosticator, I'd just like to
keep an open mind that man might (and I think does) have an impact on
global warming.

There is a difference of opinon of just how much of an impact. Is
there a pollution problem? Of course. Bad air is bad air and most of
it comes from industrial countries and of course cars. Can't argue
that.

But does that effect/affect/impact global warming? Is there a
correlation between pollution and global warming? Hell, there really
isn't any correlation between carbon dioxide and global warming.

On the other hand, there is direct observational evidence that the Sun
may be entering a very active radiation cycle - Venus is hotter, Mars
is hotter and I just saw something the other day about the
luminessence of Jupiter and Saturn increasing.

We're a hell of a lot closer to the Sun than those planets (except for
Venus) and if they are warming/getting brighter and apprently warmer,
don't you think that it could happen here? Only the effect is
mitigated by a rather thick atmosphere, orbital mechanics and Earth's
somewhat odd wobble and eccentric orbit?


Those that say than man "just couldn't" have any effect are trying to
form a negative proof in lieu of scientific method and must, therefore,
have some other agenda (political, most likely) rather than science or
logic.

Not true at all. In fact, it's just the opposite. The "truth" is
based on incomplete science, deliberate misrepresentation, ignoring
historical and scientific data to the contrary and doing exactly what
any propoganda minister would do - demonize those who do not accept
their "science" as the truth.

As to logic, explain to me exactly how global warming temperature is
obtained - exactly how do you develop a "global" temperature average?

Explain to me how the Koyoto Treaty isn't going to come close to even
their own goals and why it's a completel failure, but is touted as
being the only way the planet can be saved.

If you believe, you believe. However, putting the label of illogic and
agenda's on it is exactly what the proponents want - because it then
becomes a political issue which is usually illogical and based
strictly on who has the most power to get what they want.

Wanting hurricanes
 

On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:46:46 -0400,
wrote:

I don't buy their science or logic, but I think this is a
representative link:
http://bioresonant.com/news.htm

Why don't you buy it?

Wanting hurricanes
 

On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:40:33 -0000, thunder
wrote:

My theory is, there are scientists who have
spent there entire careers studying climate. If they can't be sure, I
figure neither can I, even with the help of Google. ;-)

Carefull - you might be considered a "denier" thus hostile to the
Church of Global Warming, Al Gore Synod.

Wanting hurricanes
 

On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:06:16 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

I think that makes the point of unquestioned wholehearted acceptance
of an ill considered position a lot better than I ever could
have......

Tell me one thing that was ill considered.

Just one.

Wanting hurricanes
 

On Tue, 15 May 2007 22:36:55 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2007 10:09:46 -0400,
wrote:

I remain skeptical of data that suggests that solar wind has the
effect of blowing away the protection of cloud cover, which then
causes heating of the earth.

What creates clouds Gene? How are the dynamics of weather given their
energy?

I mean - come on - you're a smart guy - hell of a lot smarter than
most of the folks who hang out here.

Rather than being some gloom and doom prognosticator, I'd just like to
keep an open mind that man might (and I think does) have an impact on
global warming.

There is a difference of opinon of just how much of an impact. Is
there a pollution problem? Of course. Bad air is bad air and most of
it comes from industrial countries and of course cars. Can't argue
that.

But does that effect/affect/impact global warming? Is there a
correlation between pollution and global warming? Hell, there really
isn't any correlation between carbon dioxide and global warming.

On the other hand, there is direct observational evidence that the Sun
may be entering a very active radiation cycle - Venus is hotter, Mars
is hotter and I just saw something the other day about the
luminessence of Jupiter and Saturn increasing.

We're a hell of a lot closer to the Sun than those planets (except for
Venus) and if they are warming/getting brighter and apprently warmer,
don't you think that it could happen here? Only the effect is
mitigated by a rather thick atmosphere, orbital mechanics and Earth's
somewhat odd wobble and eccentric orbit?


Those that say than man "just couldn't" have any effect are trying to
form a negative proof in lieu of scientific method and must, therefore,
have some other agenda (political, most likely) rather than science or
logic.

Not true at all. In fact, it's just the opposite. The "truth" is
based on incomplete science, deliberate misrepresentation, ignoring
historical and scientific data to the contrary and doing exactly what
any propoganda minister would do - demonize those who do not accept
their "science" as the truth.

As to logic, explain to me exactly how global warming temperature is
obtained - exactly how do you develop a "global" temperature average?

Explain to me how the Koyoto Treaty isn't going to come close to even
their own goals and why it's a completel failure, but is touted as
being the only way the planet can be saved.

If you believe, you believe. However, putting the label of illogic and
agenda's on it is exactly what the proponents want - because it then
becomes a political issue which is usually illogical and based
strictly on who has the most power to get what they want.

Hooo Rah!

Wanting hurricanes
 

On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:06:16 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:45:40 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:



Hooo Rah!

I think that makes the point of unquestioned wholehearted acceptance
of an ill considered position a lot better than I ever could
have......

Bull hockey. It was well written and considered. Not the politically
inspired crap that is way too prevalent.