"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 14, 8:59?am, "BillP" wrote:

Not to pick nits, but from the concluding sentence of the lead
paragraph:
"The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate
in recent years are a result of long term trends associated with
global warming."

How does one stretch from "not all of the large changes are associated
with global warming" to "most of the changes are not associated with
global warming"? Looks like an Olympic style broad jump, at least to
me.

Very simple- it is the writer of the article who states "The results suggest
not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a
result of long term trends associated with global warming.". The actual
scientist states "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean
circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends
caused by global warming".

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"BillP" wrote in message
news:3QF_i.13219$jH2.6882@trnddc01...

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 14, 7:25?am, "BillP" wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation
in
the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by
global
warming"

People should, indeed, read the article in its entirety and not assume
that the two lines pulled out of context by BillP represent the
general theme. The study in question is primarily limited to the
circulation patterns and salinity of sea water.

I agree, you should read the whole article but the statement still stands
on it's own.

Before this study was published the GW movement blamed CO2 warming for
the reduction in the ice cap, now NASA is stating that "most" of the
changes seen in the upper Arctic Ocean were not cause by GW.



Pulling stuff out of your ass again BillP?

Do you know of anyone in the GW movement that doesn't believe that CO2 isn't
the cause of the reduction in the ice cap?

"BillP" wrote in message
news:R9G_i.13221$jH2.5318@trnddc01...


Do you know of anyone in the GW movement that doesn't believe that CO2
isn't the cause of the reduction in the ice cap?



What they don't realize is that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
has virtually no effect on surface temperature. The first "layer" of CO2
had the most significant effect in earth's early history, raising the
temperature by about 6 degrees. Adding more CO2 now does nothing much ....
sorta like trying to insulate your house with 2 coats of paint.

Eisboch

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:18:51 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:25:58 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html
|
|
|
|"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in
|the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global
|warming"
|

And this *proves* what?

That whales fart, ducks swim and I will soon take over the universe in
my true form - Universal Galactic Overlord.

Prepare for my ordination. :)

On Nov 14, 10:25 am, "BillP" wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in
the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global
warming"

And I suppose, in your brain, this is the decide all that there is no
global warming?

On Nov 14, 11:52 am, "BillP" wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message

...





On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:25:58 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html
|
|
|
|"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation
in
|the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by
global
|warming"
|

And this *proves* what?

It proves at least one part of human induced GW theory is incorrect.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What part is that?

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 14, 10:25 am, "BillP" wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation
in
the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by
global
warming"

And I suppose, in your brain, this is the decide all that there is no
global warming?


Where did I say that, rocket surgeon?

By the way- what is the earths temperature supposed to be?

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 14, 11:52 am, "BillP" wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message

...





On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:25:58 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html
|
|
|
|"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean
circulation
in
|the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by
global
|warming"
|

And this *proves* what?

It proves at least one part of human induced GW theory is incorrect.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What part is that?


The part that says man made CO2 is causing the ice caps to melt.

On Nov 14, 5:59 pm, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

On Nov 14, 10:25 am, "BillP" wrote:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation
in
the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by
global
warming"

And I suppose, in your brain, this is the decide all that there is no
global warming?

Where did I say that, rocket surgeon?

Awe, childish name calling. That certainly helps prove your point,
huh? By the way, I never, ever said anywhere that you "said" anything.
Notice the word SUPPOSE???

By the way- what is the earths temperature supposed to be?

Lower than it is now.

On Nov 14, 6:02 pm, "BillP" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Nov 14, 11:52 am, "BillP" wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:25:58 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071113.html
|
|
|
|"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean
circulation
in
|the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by
global
|warming"
|

And this *proves* what?

It proves at least one part of human induced GW theory is incorrect.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What part is that?

The part that says man made CO2 is causing the ice caps to melt.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think you'd be well advised to learn to comprehend what you've read.
Where is it in that article that says that without a doubt man made
CO2 isn't causing the ice caps to melt? What proof do they provide to
back that claim?