On Jul 31, 8:51*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
tom wrote:
... bring on more cold summers!

Caused, no doubt, by Global Warming. :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, your observation regarding the breakage of the ice caps tells
us that we are moving back to a particular climate that in the past
was normal! We can learn about that and past environments by
examining the different layers of ice. The last ice cap to shear
revealed a
reed coracle occupied by people in animal fur holding stone tools.
None of these had green cards which emphasizes what goes around comes
around with additions supplied by man

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 31, 8:51 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
tom wrote:
... bring on more cold summers!
Caused, no doubt, by Global Warming. :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, your observation regarding the breakage of the ice caps tells
us that we are moving back to a particular climate that in the past
was normal!

There is no such thing as a normal climate. It changes over time, and
short term is very variable.



We can learn about that and past environments by
examining the different layers of ice. The last ice cap to shear
revealed a
reed coracle occupied by people in animal fur holding stone tools.
None of these had green cards which emphasizes what goes around comes
around with additions supplied by man

Man has no effect upon the weather? Fine, show me the mechanism by which
the retention of heat in the atmosphere is not affect by the percentage
of greenhouse gases and water vapor. We would not exist without the
effect, so discarding the effect is impossible.

So now, WHY is the increased percentage being negated. To show a heat
retention effect is not difficult, middle school students do it all the
time.

But what we get is political statements. A political statement declaring
that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist is just as valid as noting
that since the present administration has been in office, there haven't
been any hurricanes. So therefore, there are less hurricanes when
Democrats are in office. Of course that's a stupid statement. But both
statements are. non-sequitar maximus.

BTW, mining the available data to produce one anomalous result is just
as bogus. The creationists and lunar landing hoaxers have been doing
that for years. You have to produce the theory first, then find
supporting or refuting facts. The deniers don't produce an alternate
theory - they only try to disprove.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:
Man has no effect upon the weather? Fine, show me the mechanism by which
the retention of heat in the atmosphere is not affect by the percentage
of greenhouse gases and water vapor. We would not exist without the
effect, so discarding the effect is impossible.

Therefore, get rid of all the water and CO2? It
appears from the following graph that C02 density
is a lagging indicator introducing the next ice age.
25000 years from now, those greenhouse gases will
come in really handy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...core-petit.png
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Michael Coslo wrote:
Man has no effect upon the weather? Fine, show me the mechanism by which
the retention of heat in the atmosphere is not affect by the percentage
of greenhouse gases and water vapor. We would not exist without the
effect, so discarding the effect is impossible.

Therefore, get rid of all the water and CO2? It
appears from the following graph that C02 density
is a lagging indicator introducing the next ice age.
25000 years from now, those greenhouse gases will
come in really handy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...core-petit.png
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com
-
Besides that.....earth has bigger catastrophic threats than CO2.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
Man has no effect upon the weather? Fine, show me the mechanism by
which the retention of heat in the atmosphere is not affect by the
percentage of greenhouse gases and water vapor. We would not exist
without the effect, so discarding the effect is impossible.

Therefore, get rid of all the water and CO2?

Hmmm, did you get that I was inferring that from saying we would not
exist without the Greenhouse effect? I'm not trying to eliminate everyone.




It
appears from the following graph that C02 density
is a lagging indicator introducing the next ice age.
25000 years from now, those greenhouse gases will
come in really handy.

Aren't you arguing both sides of the issue now, Cecil? If Greenhouse
induced warming is bogus, then those gases won't come in handy, will they?

Given that climate change is going to happen regardless of human input,
I'd make a guess that at the turning point of a heating cycle, the
oceanic currents will shift, due to loss of ice blockage at the poles.
Then, the change is agumented/mitigated by solar output. Also
augumenting/repressing is effects such as atmospheric dust and sulfur
dioxide content, and yes, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

All this gives rise to varying average temperatures, and depending on
the timing, can make a greater or lesser cooling or heating effect.

Now given that there is a lot of natural variability, does it follow
that humans should pay no mind to their own additions to the load?

I believe that we need to find out the effect, and the extent of the effect.

Taking the idea of the greenhouse gases coming in handy, I can envision
being at one of those sharp drops in Temperature, and using gases to
moderate the temperature. There is a lot of Methane in the form of
clathrate hydrates, that might just spell the survival of humanity. Or
maybe not. Maybe we should know what it will do.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...core-petit.png

Looks to me like a pretty fair correlation, Cecil. Now what I am
interested in is the event that occurred at those peaks, and also the
valleys. It's fairly sharp. I don't doubt that as things rapidly cooled,
that there was a reduction in CO2 in the atmosphere. What was the cause?
It's a great graph for speculation. Interestingly regular.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

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?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

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 -

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

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 -

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