About Us

May 19th 05, 03:01 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:17:40 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
The history of the earth's climate is well documented back to the
begining of the earth's creation...grammar school basic earth and
science taught this. Carbon dating confirms much and plays a large part
of the techniques used to arrive at such widely accepted and mainstream
taught scientific facts.

Again, we know what the climate was, but not

conclusively how it got that way.

It's called weather. Weather coupled with other events.

There are

many good theories, but that's all they are.

Changing the topic from one of you learning how global warming is
defined, studied, and confirmed to another serves only to solidify your
pain in ebing incorrect.

Like I told Frank, science can tell us that, for

instance, it was once tropical in Montana, and

that Glaciers covered much of the northern

United States during different time periods.

This proves that the earth's climate has

vacillated in a fairly wide range. But what this

DOESN'T tell us is how much of the current

global warming cycle can be attributed to

natural cyclic climatic changes, and how much
of it is a direct result of man made pollution.

Sure it can, and does. The amount of many chemical releases in the
atmosphere are man made. Many are not man made.

Exactly, which is why it is extremely difficult to

make a positive determination as to the

percentage of man's contribution to the total

amount of global warming.

It's not difficult at all. I just taught you that the concentration of
such gases, such as methane gas, is but a single method by which is
measured.
Some are both. However,
science has methods of measuring
each,,including natural occurring vs. manmade chemicals,,,such as
methane gases.

Yes, and that "science" is in much dispute

right now as there are many scientists who do

not accept the findings of others as

conclusive. There are still many assumptions

being made.

Not regarding global warming. Twenty years ago, yes..today, it is widely
accepted and taught mainstream.

Without a point of reference, it is extremely

difficult to positively determine how much we

are changing the climate.

The point of reference is the richness/ concentration of the gas.

Which we cannot positively ascertain because

we do not know how much of that gas truly

came as a result of man-made pollution

versus that which is naturally occurring.

But we do.

One large volcano eruption, for instance, can

drastically effect the concentration of methane

.gasses in the atmosphere.

Yes, but it does not dilute or enrich what is already there, it simply
adds quantity to one or the other. Such an example is very easily taken
into consideration and calculations allow for the exact molecular
configuration when determining such factors. This is done by the precise
and absolute measuremtn of related contributions, such as time of
eruption, length of eruption, velocity of eruption, etc., etc.

_
An
example can be the amount of methane in a predetermined air sample.
Higher concentrations of the gas can be attributed to manmade releases
and emissions.

Or a volcano eruption. Methane gas does not

have a "tag" which says "man made" or

natural.

We can only measure the total concentration.
=A0

Which is the exact manner in which to tell man-made from natural.
=A0It's elementary for anyone with a fair retainment value that took
college science classes.

Since you called it "elementary", it's obvious

that you've never studied it, as it is far too

complex a process to be called "elementary".

Umm,,no. Go back and reread just what I called "elementary"... not what
you felt the need to misrepresent here.

By attempting to make this issue simpler than

it really is, you also disparage the scientists

who do this for a living.

It is very simple for anyone who has ever taken college science classes,
but gases are introduced in elementary school science.
_
Chloroflourocarbons released by the burning of fossil fuels is directly
linked to global warming.

No argument. But you can't positively

determine the rate of global warming that

might still be occurring if we suddenly stopped
using fossil fuels today.

Sure you can. One measures the rate of speed the studied glaciers melt.
If they suddenly stopped melting and began growing, the figured
equations and calculations are all that's left to give you the answer
you seek.
Global warming was proved by the continual shrinkage of the polar ice
cap confirmed by 24-7 high tech monitoring of such. Villages that reside
in the frozen tundra watch their mountains of ice shrink each year.

How much of that shrinkage would still be

occurring without man made pollution?

As you referred, the climate is thought to adhere to cycles, When the
cycles suddenly deviate substantially from the norm, it's dedeucedly

dedeucedly? Do you mean deductively?

Ha,,no I meant "deucedly", as in wickedly confirmed. I was watching the
penguin on the Dudley Doright cartoons and my fingers did their own
thing..

And

you chastise MY vocabulary and grammar.......

Huge difference. I admit my mistakes whereas you scream bloody murder or
try to ignore yours because of the pain they cause you.

_
decided and accepted that something is
amiss.

First of all, there is no "norm" when it comes to

clim`atic shifts.

When "deviation from the norm" is used in such a reference, it means
deviation from the usual patterns. -You- were first to claim weather
patterns in his topic, now you again, self-contradict yourself.

Many of those shifts occurred as the direct

result of an external random event, such as

the asteroid strike which is generally the

current accepted theory for precipitating the

extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the

Cretaceous period.

Not any more. Perhaps when you were i grammar school, but the most
compelling andgenerally accepted theory now is they simply died out. The
meteor that caused the ice age that was originally thought to have
brought about the extinction of such creatures is now believed to have
occured many, many years after the dinosaurs have already become
extinct.

There are other craters all over the planet, as

evidence of other such strikes.

Yea,,and if you ever were west of the Mississippi, you would have
undoubtedly had the chance to see one.

There is also

evidence of large volcano eruptions,

..in 'patterns' of eras of high activity.

which

can spew enough particulate matter into the

atmosphere, that an "ice age" would likely

result.

And did.

The climatic shifts which occur between

these significant events is likely only the result
of climatic balance or a normalization from the
extremes caused by the random external

events. It's also conceivable that over the last

billion years, that the solar energy output from

the sun could have deviated to some degree

as well, which can certainly affect surface

temperature here.

It's not conceivable, it's been proved the sun's harmful rays have
intensified over time. This is because of the damage in the ozone layer.
This is called global warming.
Again, you come full circle. My work on this topic is done.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1419 Â October 22, 2004	Radionews	CB	2	October 23rd 04 03:53 AM
Amateur Radio NewslineÃ¢â€žÂ¢ Report 1419 Ã‚Â October 22, 2004	Radionews	Dx	0	October 22nd 04 08:00 PM
Amateur Radio NewslineÃ¢â€žÂ¢ Report 1419 Ã‚Â October 22, 2004	Radionews	Dx	0	October 22nd 04 08:00 PM
OLD motorola trunking information	jack smith	Scanner	1	December 12th 03 09:48 AM

Menu

About Us