WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Dave wrote:
Be careful regarding 1750 bce.

That predates the industrial revolution by at least 100 years. This
indicates that natural factors are at work.

Petroleum products date from the 1880s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Automobiles date from the early 1910s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Deforestation dates from the mid 1950s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

The period of 1700 to 1750 is acknowledged as the end of the 'Little Ice
Age', not the beginning of manmade [man contributed] GW.

There are so many unknown contributors to the earth warming and cooling
cycles that blaming CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' for the major cause
is just irresponsible.

No it isn't - or at least look at your statement for a second.

Greenhouse gases are not responsible for the majority of atmospheric
heat retention. Water vapor is. And there isn't a lot we can do about that.

You are redefining my argument. I am saying CO2 and other gases such as
methane, which do indeed represent a portion of the heat retention, are
present as a greater percentage that they were in the past.

I'm also saying that the additions are such that an increase in the
atmosphere's heat retention capacity should be seen. Nothing odd about
that. It can be shown experimentally.

Then the main thing I am saying is that if it isn't, then WHY isn't it?
If we just say "we don't know", and can offer nothing except calling
people who think that global warming might exist, and offer evidence,
and our own evidence consists of insults and rhetoric - well that is
what I consider irresponsible.


IMO, GW = K1*d(solar activity)/dt + K2*d(volcanic activity)/dt + K3*d(El
Nino)/dt + K4*d(La Nina)/dt + K5*d(deforestation)/dt + K6*d(radio carbon
decay)/dt + K7*d(many other factors)/dt + Kn*d(n)/dt ...


What is known is that the earth warms and cools. Why? That is still open
to discovery.

Lots of reasons. Precession, Solar output, volcanic action, maybe a
stray asteroid or two. CO2 Methane, albedo.


PS: Most Christian Clergy of major denominations agree that the cosmos
was formed between 15 and 20 billion years ago. The 4004 bce calculation
is incorrect and is the result of poor biblical scholarship.

My bible in the hallway shelf says 4004 b.c.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Awesome name calling, Cecil! Seeing as how you are now hurling
insults, have you declared defeat? Shame on ya.

The truth is not an insult except to someone who
is denying the truth. Anyone who believes that
my life belongs to him/her is on my $hit list.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Dave wrote:
PS: Most Christian Clergy of major denominations agree that the cosmos
was formed between 15 and 20 billion years ago.

Most scientists say it was ~12.5 billion years ago.
That assumes constant length seconds which is an
illogical assumption. If the length of a second
has changed drastically, 7000 years may be correct.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote:

PS: Most Christian Clergy of major denominations agree that the cosmos
was formed between 15 and 20 billion years ago.


Most scientists say it was ~12.5 billion years ago.
That assumes constant length seconds which is an
illogical assumption.


If the length of a second has changed drastically, 7000 years may be
correct.
Possibly the most absurd thing I've read so far. A most disengenuous
argument.

Are we now going to abuse the theory of relativity to satisfy the
convenient lie of creationism?

Have we moved from Darwin to Einstein?

Are Copernicus and Galileo next?

How about Roger Bacon? (who?)

Oh, wait, it's Cecil. I'm fished-in again.

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Dave wrote:
Be careful regarding 1750 bce.

That predates the industrial revolution by at least 100 years. This
indicates that natural factors are at work.

Petroleum products date from the 1880s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Automobiles date from the early 1910s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Deforestation dates from the mid 1950s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Several large regional deforestations have taken place over Man's
history. Recall that Lebanon's flag is a cyprus tree...now nearly
desert, Lebanon serves as dramatic evidence of deforestation during the
Bronze and Iron ages. Deforestations occurred in Mayan lands around the
time of Christ.

The chief difference today is that deforestation occurs all around the
globe more-or-less at once.

The period of 1700 to 1750 is acknowledged as the end of the 'Little Ice
Age',

Yes, and there was a warming period near the end of the Roman
period...your point?

There are so many unknown contributors to the earth warming and cooling
cycles that blaming CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' for the major cause
is just irresponsible.
Hogwash. The grand majority of scientists working on these issues do
not refute manmade impacts on GW (excepting, of course, those receiving
paychecks from industries primarily responsible for them.) Unknown
factors will always exist, but scientific consensus has been already
been achieved on GW.

IMO, GW = K1*d(solar activity)/dt + K2*d(volcanic activity)/dt + K3*d(El
Nino)/dt + K4*d(La Nina)/dt + K5*d(deforestation)/dt + K6*d(radio carbon
decay)/dt + K7*d(many other factors)/dt + Kn*d(n)/dt ...

What is known is that the earth warms and cools. Why? That is still open
to discovery.
The argument for GW is no longer in dispute within the scientific
community. Cyclicity of global temperature does not negate the argument
that the current run of GW is something new and unprecedented. Right
now, governments are already planning for projected effects.

It's here, it's now, it's WOW.

/s/ DD

PS: Most Christian Clergy of major denominations agree that the cosmos
was formed between 15 and 20 billion years ago. The 4004 bce calculation
is incorrect and is the result of poor biblical scholarship.

Ask any Baptist and you'll get the 4004 answer...the "one-second-used-to
be-a-million-years" argument notwithstanding.

Again,
My understanding of the notion of GW is that human activity is now
PERTURBING the cyclicity that already exists. Pre-existing cyclicity of
global temperature cannot in itself refute the argument for the
existence of GW as a "new" phenomenon. They're intertwined.


/s/ DD

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

jawod wrote:
If the length of a second has changed drastically, 7000 years may be
correct.
Possibly the most absurd thing I've read so far. A most disengenuous
argument.

Not at all. We know the length of seconds change with
velocity. We could easily calculate an initial velocity
and a present velocity that would make the universe
7000 absolute years old. (absolute as opposed to relative)

Are we now going to abuse the theory of relativity to satisfy the
convenient lie of creationism?

Could be, they are both correct.

Have we moved from Darwin to Einstein?

Did you see the movie, "Inherit the Wind"? At the end of
the movie, Clarence Darrow weighed the value of both
Darwin and The Bible and tucked both under his arm.

Are Copernicus and Galileo next?

Can you prove that the earth is not at a fixed point in
space?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

jawod wrote:
Recall that Lebanon's flag is a cyprus tree...

Looks like a cedar tree to me. Lebanon's cedar
trees are mentioned in The Bible.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Richard Clark wrote:

For our apocalyptic hugging crowd inside the beltway, there were no
ice ages that long ago. There was no "that long ago" in the first
place for an earth only 7000 years old. Of course, that could be the
standard plausible deniability of the neo-cannibals at work to escape
blame - Rove is trying to elevate the discussion by blaming Clinton
for those ice ages.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

It was more like 4000 something according to people I am acquanted with
that believe in those fairy tales.

And I won't vote for either of your parties. Both are just as corrupt.
Like you Richard, who vote for a yellow-dog-democrats, I will vote for
anything that has breath that is Libertarian.

tom
K0TAR

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
jawod wrote:

Recall that Lebanon's flag is a cyprus tree...


Looks like a cedar tree to me. Lebanon's cedar
trees are mentioned in The Bible.

You got me. Yes, I think it IS a Cedar tree, not a cyprus.

Incidentally, I recall that the island of Cyprus is named for the
element copper, heavily mined on the island and smelted (with the help
of the CEDAR trees for the furnace).

:)

WHAT'S IT MADE FROM ???
 

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 22:21:56 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Like you Richard, who vote for a yellow-dog-democrats, I will vote for
anything that has breath that is Libertarian.

Hi Tom,

You want to look at that sentence again and propose just what it
means? You vote, like me, for yellow-dog-democrats? Or you (in
contrast to me) vote for Libertarians who are like
yellow-dog-democrats? Or you (a yellow-dog-democrat) vote for
Libertarians? You seem to be politically ambivalent. ;-)

Punctuation and grammar matters.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC