Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
What was the cause?

Certainly not homo sapiens. I strongly suspect
the primary source of energy in our solar system
is the cause. Now what could that be?

Some would say God....... ;^)


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
What was the cause?

Certainly not homo sapiens.

Okay, then what is the mitigating mechanism for mankind to not have an
effect? We are increasing the percentage of greenhous gases. Why does it
not have an effect?



I strongly suspect
the primary source of energy in our solar system
is the cause. Now what could that be?

It would take an absolute idiot to not think that the sun was the major
influence on the temperature of the earth. But I don't think that it
follows that man has no effect on the system.

A prime example is the planet Mercury. It catches quite a bit more solar
radiation than we do on earth. But the parts not catching the solar
radiation aren't warm at all. And Venus, which catches more than we do,
has temperatures that are much higher than would otherwise be expected,
and these temps are not in areas directly exposed by the sun.


Now what could that be?

That was a little condescending wasn't it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:27:48 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

Some would say God....... ;^)

They might also say it was retribution for those satan worshiping
Neanderthals except for the fact the world has been around only as
long as the first quarter inch of the graph.

Maybe the 394 thousand years before creation was an annealing process.
The latest news of McCain voting down the Clunker's Bill (What? not
going to give us back our own money? Still some bankers without their
last year bonus?) suggests the latest spike is to anneal out the
remaining Neanderthal DNA.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Michael Coslo wrote:
Okay, then what is the mitigating mechanism for mankind to not have an
effect? We are increasing the percentage of greenhous gases. Why does it
not have an effect?

The Global-Warming/Ice-Age cycle has been primary and we
are 8000 years into the next ice age. If man has any effect
at all, it will be to delay the onslaught of the next ice age.
Indeed, this ice age cycle seems to be somewhat delayed
compared to the previous ones.

Seems that you are asking for proof that man doesn't have
any effect. That's a lot like asking for proof that God
doesn't exist. The onus of proof is upon those who assert
the positive. Nobody has proven that man is or can be the
anywhere near the primary cause of global warming. The
ice-core temperatures prove that the most severe global
warming(s) occurred before man ever existed.

But I don't think that it
follows that man has no effect on the system.

I think you would agree that plants have much more of an
effect than man? Plants love CO2 and produce O2. There
was a time in the past when the oxygen level was double
what it is today and dragonflies had a wingspan equal to
my armspan. Believing that man has a drastic effect on the
present global temperatures is akin to believing that the
earth is the center of the universe, i.e. delusions of
grandeur, e.g. Al Gore.

Now what could that be?

That was a little condescending wasn't it?

It's called a rhetorical question. :-)
I ask a lot of rhetorical questions.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jul 30, 11:35*pm, tom wrote:
J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Dear Group: * While I attend only now-and-then, it seems as it has been days
since new communications have been posted.

Something might have changed with my ISP or I asserted some secret
instruction.

73, * Mac * N8TT

You're fine. *Sometimes it's just quiet.

Art is in an institution or fresh back with good meds. *Others are
probably busy with it being summer. *Those of us in the upper midwest
haven't had a "normal" summer yet this year which is just fine by me.
Bring on the drought, bring on more cold summers!

tom
K0TAR

Hes back things should pick up.

well your still here 2 years on....