I just saw a couple scary hours of History Channel.
The first hour described millions of years of climate change, then how
mankind has accelerated global warming since the industrial
revolution. It's getting worse at a faster pace as China and India
come on line, and soon the methane released from permafrost decay will
further speed things up. Disaster every damn place you look.
The second hour covered some of the same territory, but focused on
flooding caused by rising sea levels, warming seas causing more
damaging hurricanes than ever, whereby Washington, DC, New York,
Boston and Baltimore are inundated by the sea. I don't know why
Galveston was ignored, but for some reason Havre De Grace, MD was
prominently mentioned.
This episode was called "Mega-Disasters." And our beautiful planet of
waterways was depicted as ending up almost FUBAR.
Anyway, this was all pretty worrying, and I was thinking something
should be done before panic sets in and screws up recreational boating
before I even get a boat.
Boaters are a resourceful lot, and when put to the test usually come
through with the answer.
Having read this group for about a year now, I've got a pretty good
idea of some of the group members' capabilities.
Many engineers, mechanics, writers and businessmen participate here,
and of course we have many vets.
Let's just all pitch in and see what we can come up with.
I was Navy, but I do know what Gung Ho means, even if I would never
say that.
Right. I'll start off.
Some years ago - cold war, maybe early '70's - I read a Popular
Mechanics article about how we could destroy Ruskie naval
capabilities. The plan was simple. Some number of C-130's are filled
with pulverized coal dust. The dust is dropped over the arctic and
antarctic ice sheets. As the blackened ice ABSORBS the sun's energy,
it melts. Sea levels rise, and the Ruskie naval ports become useless.
Okay, that's one side of the issue - the wrong side for now, since the
ice is already melting, and the Ruskies aren't a threat..
Where I need your help is to come up with something to drop from the
C-130's that will REFLECT the sun's energy. This will halt the
warming, and get the ice freezing up again.
I thought of a few things that might work, like Johnson & Johnson baby
powder, Christmas tree foil, etc., and looked in my tackle box - which
has a lot of reflective lures - for ideas on materials, but really
couldn't come up with anything with which I was confident.
I admit I'm not an engineer, but I can caulk.
Coal dust is cheap and works. In its own dark way it's "green" too,
being naturally occurring. Try to find its counterpart.
Now, listen up.
You guys come up with the reflective material, get all the logistics
worked out with SAC, and launch operation "Freeze."
You can rename the mission if you want. Don't worry about my
feelings. Knock it around with the team.
In the meantime, I'm going to be on eBay looking for somebody selling
old Popular Mechanics magazines to find that article about the coal
dust mission, because I can't remember the details.
So that means I'm commanding operation "Melt."
Anybody got a problem with that? Good.
I figure I'll find the article in time to stop the Ice Age you've
started with operation "Freeze" before the glaciers reach Chicago.
Then we join forces and start tweaking the missions.
Let's just hope I don't get outbid by some lowlife sniper on eBay.
I hate it when that happens, and this is a bad time for that.
I don't need to say anything else. You know what this means.
To America. To the World. To Boating.
Men, let's do it!

--Vic

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

You know what this means.

Yeah - it's bull****.

On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith

wrote:
You know what this means.

Yeah - it's bull****.

I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand!

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith

wrote:
You know what this means.

Yeah - it's bull****.

I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand!


More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel"
has to say about global warming:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith

wrote:
You know what this means.
Yeah - it's bull****.
I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand!


More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel"
has to say about global warming:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/

Eisboch




The "founder" of the weather channel, I believe, has absolutely no
university credentials in weather science.

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith

wrote:
You know what this means.
Yeah - it's bull****.
I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand!


More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather
Channel" has to say about global warming:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/

Eisboch



The "founder" of the weather channel, I believe, has absolutely no
university credentials in weather science.

Why does that matter? People become experts in fields through study and
experience outside of educational institutions every day.

The most important record we have is the geologic record. And, that
record shows a cycle of heating and cooling without the benefit of human
caused CO2. We are on an upward swing with the global temperature and we
have man tens of thousands of years before we reach the peak which will
be followed be a steep decline in global temperature.

When making observations of the Earth's temperature you have to look at
the other planets and determine if their temperature is constant,
falling or rising. Without these observations you cannot ascribe the sum
of the Earth's warming to humans alone.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:22:42 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 12, 7:40 am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:17:17 -0600, Vic Smith

wrote:
You know what this means.
Yeah - it's bull****.
I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand!


More food for thought .... here's what the founder of "The Weather Channel"
has to say about global warming:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...lobal_warming/

Eisboch




The "founder" of the weather channel, I believe, has absolutely no
university credentials in weather science.

Hehe. Can't believe this guy founded the Weather Channel, but
apparently he did, whatever that means.
He was - to me - the biggest jerk on TV here in Chicago, starting
that "happy talk" crap on WLS-7 Chicago.
That "news" crew were known as clowns here, and compared poorly
to Curtis/Jacobson on WBBM-2.
I saw Coleman once near the Sears Tower on my commute to Union
Station, and could have sworn he gave me the eye.
Not making any judgements on his weather expertise.
Just that - to me - he was a clown.

--Vic

wrote in message

I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand!

Do The Math
1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas.
Water Vapor is the major component (95%).
2- All atmospheric CO2 from all sources is less than (three hundredths) .03
of the total of all greenhouse gases.
3- All man made atmospheric CO2 is less than (nine ten thousandths) .0009 of
all greenhouse gases.
4- All US produced atmospheric CO2 is less than (three hundred twenty four
millionths) .000324 of all greenhouse gases.
5- The Kyoto Protocol requires the US to reduce our atmospheric CO2
production by (four hundred eighty six ten millionths) .0000486 of all
greenhouse gases.
6- This US CO2 reduction is equivalent to reducing a full to the brim
standard US bathtub by 3/4 of a teaspoon. A ratio of 1 to 20,576.

A- It is mathematically unlikely that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global
warming.
B- It is mathematically improbable that MAN MADE atmospheric CO2 causes
global warming.
C- It is mathematically impossible that US PRODUCED atmospheric CO2 is a
cause of global warming.
D- It is mathematically 20,576 times MORE IMPOSSIBLE that reducing US
produced atmospheric CO2 will have ANY IMPACT at all on global warming.

Do you want to raise all US prices by 32%, raise unemployment by 300%, and
give up US sovereignty to the United Nations in order to remove 3/4 teaspoon
of water from a full bathtub?

Cutting US CO2 production to the levels required by the Kyoto Protocols
results in NO STATISTICAL IMPACT on total atmospheric CO2 and NO PRACTICAL
IMPACT on global warming.

CONCLUSION

There can be only 3 logical reasons why some people are man-made global
warming proponents.
They are either:

1- Ignorant: They don't know the truth.
2- Delusional: They know the truth but refuse to believe it.
3- Liars: They know the truth and believe it, but they promote the lie for
personal benefit.

The world is warming but not because of man's activity.

On Nov 12, 9:14 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand!

Do The Math
1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas.
Water Vapor is the major component (95%).
2- All atmospheric CO2 from all sources is less than (three hundredths) .03
of the total of all greenhouse gases.
3- All man made atmospheric CO2 is less than (nine ten thousandths) .0009 of
all greenhouse gases.
4- All US produced atmospheric CO2 is less than (three hundred twenty four
millionths) .000324 of all greenhouse gases.
5- The Kyoto Protocol requires the US to reduce our atmospheric CO2
production by (four hundred eighty six ten millionths) .0000486 of all
greenhouse gases.
6- This US CO2 reduction is equivalent to reducing a full to the brim
standard US bathtub by 3/4 of a teaspoon. A ratio of 1 to 20,576.

A- It is mathematically unlikely that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global
warming.
B- It is mathematically improbable that MAN MADE atmospheric CO2 causes
global warming.
C- It is mathematically impossible that US PRODUCED atmospheric CO2 is a
cause of global warming.
D- It is mathematically 20,576 times MORE IMPOSSIBLE that reducing US
produced atmospheric CO2 will have ANY IMPACT at all on global warming.

Do you want to raise all US prices by 32%, raise unemployment by 300%, and
give up US sovereignty to the United Nations in order to remove 3/4 teaspoon
of water from a full bathtub?

Cutting US CO2 production to the levels required by the Kyoto Protocols
results in NO STATISTICAL IMPACT on total atmospheric CO2 and NO PRACTICAL
IMPACT on global warming.

CONCLUSION

There can be only 3 logical reasons why some people are man-made global
warming proponents.
They are either:

1- Ignorant: They don't know the truth.
2- Delusional: They know the truth but refuse to believe it.
3- Liars: They know the truth and believe it, but they promote the lie for
personal benefit.

The world is warming but not because of man's activity.

Yeah, sure, a very few scientists, and only one's with an agenda, come
up with that drivel, while thousands upon thousands (and yes, some of
them have an agenda too) have good hard data to show otherwise. People
like you and Shortwave prefer to stick your heads in the sand and
ignore that data, and will only look at data that you THINK helps make
your point.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 12, 9:14 am, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

I notice your head is still firmly planted in the sand!

Do The Math
1- Atmospheric CO2 is not the only, not even the primary greenhouse gas.
Water Vapor is the major component (95%).
2- All atmospheric CO2 from all sources is less than (three hundredths)
.03
of the total of all greenhouse gases.
3- All man made atmospheric CO2 is less than (nine ten thousandths) .0009
of
all greenhouse gases.
4- All US produced atmospheric CO2 is less than (three hundred twenty
four
millionths) .000324 of all greenhouse gases.
5- The Kyoto Protocol requires the US to reduce our atmospheric CO2
production by (four hundred eighty six ten millionths) .0000486 of all
greenhouse gases.
6- This US CO2 reduction is equivalent to reducing a full to the brim
standard US bathtub by 3/4 of a teaspoon. A ratio of 1 to 20,576.

A- It is mathematically unlikely that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of
global
warming.
B- It is mathematically improbable that MAN MADE atmospheric CO2 causes
global warming.
C- It is mathematically impossible that US PRODUCED atmospheric CO2 is a
cause of global warming.
D- It is mathematically 20,576 times MORE IMPOSSIBLE that reducing US
produced atmospheric CO2 will have ANY IMPACT at all on global warming.

Do you want to raise all US prices by 32%, raise unemployment by 300%,
and
give up US sovereignty to the United Nations in order to remove 3/4
teaspoon
of water from a full bathtub?

Cutting US CO2 production to the levels required by the Kyoto Protocols
results in NO STATISTICAL IMPACT on total atmospheric CO2 and NO
PRACTICAL
IMPACT on global warming.

CONCLUSION

There can be only 3 logical reasons why some people are man-made global
warming proponents.
They are either:

1- Ignorant: They don't know the truth.
2- Delusional: They know the truth but refuse to believe it.
3- Liars: They know the truth and believe it, but they promote the lie
for
personal benefit.

The world is warming but not because of man's activity.

Yeah, sure, a very few scientists, and only one's with an agenda, come
up with that drivel, while thousands upon thousands (and yes, some of
them have an agenda too) have good hard data to show otherwise. People
like you and Shortwave prefer to stick your heads in the sand and
ignore that data, and will only look at data that you THINK helps make
your point.


I gave you the data- prove any of it wrong.