| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
In article ,
"Larry" wrote: On 22 Apr 2007 04:18:41 -0700, wrote: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Featur...arming>1=924 6 That so-called "primer" neglects to mention that water vapor is a major greenhouse gas and that water vapor constitutes 95% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That makes water vapor (which comes mostly from the oceans) THE most important greenhouse gas because of its overwhelming presence. The "primer" also neglects to mention that the oceans absorb / release a great deal of atmospheric CO2 as their temperatures change, complicating any simple-minded attempt to relate atmospheric CO2 to human production of CO2. As the debate continues in the public realm, the average person is going to realize that the alarmists aren't making much scientific sense at all. That will be a good thing and may save all of us from needless and damaging public policy. The fact that Al Gore thinks that way is enough for me to run the other way. The guy is the biggest hypocrite BS artist around. Second place would go to that ditz Art Bell had on the last weekend. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
Art ditz Bell and George ditz Noory are laughing all the way to the
bank. cuhulin |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On Apr 22, 10:22 am, "Larry" wrote:
On 22 Apr 2007 04:18:41 -0700, wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.[9] Changes in water vapor may also have indirect effects via cloud formation. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Featur...GlobalWarming&... That so-called "primer" neglects to mention that water vapor is a major greenhouse gas and that water vapor constitutes 95% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That makes water vapor (which comes mostly from the oceans) THE most important greenhouse gas because of its overwhelming presence. The "primer" also neglects to mention that the oceans absorb / release a great deal of atmospheric CO2 as their temperatures change, complicating any simple-minded attempt to relate atmospheric CO2 to human production of CO2. As the debate continues in the public realm, the average person is going to realize that the alarmists aren't making much scientific sense at all. That will be a good thing and may save all of us from needless and damaging public policy. |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On 22 Apr 2007 10:34:09 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:22 am, "Larry" wrote: On 22 Apr 2007 04:18:41 -0700, wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. I've done lots of computer modeling in my time, and I know how terribly inaccurate computer models can be, even in the hands of trained scientists. First of all, computers use finite sized registers (only so many digits per number), and differential equations must be approximated by means of various numerical techniques. Often, the modelers who write the programs aren't really cognizant of truncation and roundoff errors and how those errors propagate throughout their calculations. It is quite easy to wind up with answers which are totally meaningless at the end of several hundred million arithmetic operations, because by then all you may have left is basically reproducible digital noise. It isn't enough to have a good mathematical model and good data when you start. You must also have an experienced numerical analyst examine and test your computer algorithms if you want to have any chance of avoiding digital oblivion. The algorithms must be completely tested with data that give a known answer before they can be used for anything else. Most atmospheric scientists are lousy numerical analysts. Most numerical analysts are lousy atmospheric scientists. Guess what you are likely to get when you use either individual by himself to produce a computer model? The modeling aside, it always makes me suspicious when someone invokes what amounts to an unstable equilibrium argument (a tipping point) to explain how a minority variable (CO2) can drastically influence the 95% majority greenhouse gas that is H2O. It's akin to arguing that the atmosphere is like a coin which has been carefully put down on its edge and which therefore only needs a slight shove to make it fall over. Nature constantly applies perturbations to the atmospheric system, and if it were that unstable, it would long ago have "tipped." The Wikipedia statement looks very much to me like rationalization. The writer is already invested in the idea that CO2 somehow is the key, and so he invents an argument to make things come out that way. That's not science; that's hand waving. Note that he apparently can't attach numbers or observations to the argument he has made. But there may be a resolution: According to one group of scientists which tracks solar irradiance, the observed cooling of the earth is going to accelerate. They claim that the earth will be significantly cooler than it is today by 2040. If that even comes partially true, then we will know that the CO2 advocates have been quite wrong. Stay tuned. |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:30:14 +0000 (UTC), "Larry"
wrote: It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...2006_warm.html |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On 22 Apr 2007 16:07:58 -0700, RHF wrote:
- The fact that Al Gore thinks that way is enough for me - to run the other way. The guy is the biggest hypocrite - BS artist around. Second place would go to that ditz - Art Bell had on the last weekend. That shows the extreme level of absurdity that passes for critical thinking these days. ''I refuse to believe it because then I'd have something in common with a thoroughly decent person whom I've been told I don't like (even though I've never met the fellow).'' |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On 22 Apr 2007 16:10:10 -0700, RHF wrote:
On Apr 22, 2:20 pm, David wrote: On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:30:14 +0000 (UTC), "Larry" wrote: It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...2006_warm.html David - Clearly we are keeping better Records now. ~ RHF Ahh... So, some guys on You Tube know more about the Earth's temperature than NASA? Is that your final answer? |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
in rec.radio.shortwave, David said about: ( OT) Global Warming, a primer . . On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:30:14 +0000 (UTC), "Larry" wrote: It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...2006_warm.html nasa.gov ??? That says: =============begin quotes 2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year in the past century 02.08.07 Graphic listing the top five warmest years recorded Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century. Image right: The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006. Credit: NASA Other groups that study climate change also rank these years as among the warmest, though the exact rankings vary depending upon details of the analyses. Results differ especially in regions of sparse measurements, where scientists use alternative methods of estimating temperature change. Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years. =============end quotes. Thanks David! -- When one gains a political certainty akin to a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776 |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
I am not a weather expert,but I know the weather here in
Jackson,Mississippi,for about the last year or so,has been,and still is,a little cooler than the way it was before.I reckon in about a month or two or three,the temps will be climbing on up into the 90s,,,,, and then al gore will be hollering more BS Hot Air louder and louder,,,,, it's Global Warming! al gore doesn't know S..T! Weather guy on local tv news said we might get some rain today,I Hope so. cuhulin |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On Apr 23, 7:19 am, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
in rec.radio.shortwave, David said about: ( OT) Global Warming, a primer . . On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:30:14 +0000 (UTC), "Larry" wrote: It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...2006_warm.html nasa.gov ??? That says: =============begin quotes 2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year in the past century 02.08.07 Graphic listing the top five warmest years recorded Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century. Image right: The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006. Credit: NASA Rank of the Years Year Temp C Anomaly Z score 2005 14.62 0.653 2.77 1998 14.56 0.593 2.51 2002 14.56 0.593 2.51 2003 14.54 0.573 2.43 2006 14.54 0.573 2.43 2004 14.48 0.513 2.17 2001 14.47 0.503 2.13 1997 14.39 0.423 1.79 1995 14.38 0.413 1.75 1990 14.37 0.403 1.71 1991 14.35 0.383 1.62 2000 14.33 0.363 1.54 1999 14.32 0.353 1.50 MEAN 13.967 0.000 0.00 1893 13.68 -0.287 -1.21 1913 13.68 -0.287 -1.21 1918 13.68 -0.287 -1.21 1894 13.67 -0.297 -1.26 1904 13.66 -0.307 -1.30 1908 13.66 -0.307 -1.30 1910 13.66 -0.307 -1.30 1911 13.66 -0.307 -1.30 1912 13.66 -0.307 -1.30 1887 13.65 -0.317 -1.34 1909 13.64 -0.327 -1.38 1890 13.63 -0.337 -1.43 1907 13.61 -0.357 -1.51 1917 13.60 -0.367 -1.55 These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt They represent the results of tens of millions of readings taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe over the last 128 years. Yes, the land data are corrected for the urban heat island effect. The sea data do not need to be. There are few urban centers in the sea. The last 127 yearly means of these data are graphed at: http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Glob...ean%20Temp.jpg Other groups that study climate change also rank these years as among the warmest, though the exact rankings vary depending upon details of the analyses. Results differ especially in regions of sparse measurements, where scientists use alternative methods of estimating temperature change. Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years. =============end quotes. Thanks David! -- When one gains a political certainty akin to a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776 |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
(whatever search engine you like)
al gore Doesn't Know S..T! You fill in the blanks. cuhulin |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:19:32 GMT, Doug Bashford wrote:
in rec.radio.shortwave, David said about: ( OT) Global Warming, a primer . . On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:30:14 +0000 (UTC), "Larry" wrote: It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...2006_warm.html nasa.gov ??? That says: Okay, let's stick with NASA. Last year, NASA published a report which said that earth's oceans have significantly cooled since 2003 (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006...n_Cooling.txt). The World Meteorological Organization's data show that 2006 was cooler than 2005, which was cooler than 2004, which was cooler than 2003, etc., and so the WMO agrees with the NASA observations. Since the oceans have a large thermal inertia, they cool and warm significantly later than does the atmosphere itself. Unfortunately, the WMO (http://www.wmo.ch) has moved its data since I last accessed it, so I'll have to keep on digging to find the graphs they produced. An Assistant Professor of physics at MIT has summarized the data on his blog at http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/20...r-in-last.html, and you can access part of it there. The question is not the temperature during the last decade as compared to earlier decades, but rather the TREND in the current average annual temperature (which is downward). As the NASA paper says, a downward trending temperature is something which is not predicted by current models, and NASA intends to improve its models to take this "speed bump" into account. Guess the models aren't that reliable after all ... [Newsgroups trimmed to original group.] |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
It's either in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazine about four
or five years ago.(I snail mail subscribe to both magazines,I have that particular magazine floatin around here somewhere.I am the most unorganized dude on earth,it would take me ten years to dig up that magazine) A woman whom retired from NASA,she said,,, NASA! YOU ARE BROKEN! Go look around in your local area libraries for that magazine,with what she said on the cover of that magazine,,, and there is a big article about that in the magazine too. cuhulin |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
|
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, In On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:43:12 +0000 (UTC), Larry said about: ( OT) Global Warming, a primer . . On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:19:32 GMT, Doug Bashford wrote: in rec.radio.shortwave, David said about: ( OT) Global Warming, a primer . . On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:30:14 +0000 (UTC), "Larry" wrote: It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...2006_warm.html See figure A on that page for a graph of all the temps from 1880 - 2007. I see a warming trend with plenty of spikes and valleys. ...a really fast rise after 1975. ============begin quotes Images above: The upper graph [A] shows global annual surface temperatures relative to 1951 to 1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature. Over the past 30 years the Earth has warmed by about 0.6°C or 1.08°F. The lower image is a color map of temperature anomalies in 2006 relative to the 1951 to 1980 mean. Areas that were warmest in 2006 are in red, and areas that have cooled are in blue. Note that the Arctic has warmed significantly. These temperatures are for the calendar year 2006. “2007 is likely to be warmer than 2006,” said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS, “and it may turn out to be the warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements. Increased warmth is likely this year because an El Nino is underway in the tropical Pacific Ocean and because of continuing increases in human-made greenhouse gases.” Still from animation showing world temps in 1884. Image left: This animation shows a basic demonstration of the increase in annual mean temperature in five year increments from 1880 through 2006. Warmest temperatures are in red. Click on image to view animation. + High resolution still Credit: NASA/GISS Most places on the globe have warmed in recent decades, with the greatest warming at high latitudes in the Arctic Ocean, Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Climatologists say that warming is not due to local effects of heat pollution in urban areas, a point demonstrated by warming in remote areas far from major cities. This graph shows temperature changes since 1950 for both the entire world and just for the low latitudes. Image above: This graph shows temperature changes since 1950 for both the entire world and just for the low latitudes (23.6? North to South). Since 1950, world temperatures rose by 0.6?C (1.08? F) while the low latitude temperatures rose by 0.4?C (0.72?F). Blue semi-circles mark La Niñas, red rectangles mark El Niños, and green triangles mark large volcanoes. Credit: NASA. In their analysis for the 2005 calendar year, GISS climatologists noted the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century. Goddard Institute for Space Studies ============end quotes Check out that animated map! nasa.gov ??? That says: Okay, let's stick with NASA. Last year, NASA published a report which said that earth's oceans have significantly cooled since 2003 (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006...n_Cooling.txt). The World Meteorological Organization's data show that 2006 was cooler than 2005, which was cooler than 2004, which was cooler than 2003, etc., and so the WMO agrees with the NASA observations. Since the oceans have a large thermal inertia, they cool and warm significantly later than does the atmosphere itself. Unfortunately, the WMO (http://www.wmo.ch) has moved its data since I last accessed it, so I'll have to keep on digging to find the graphs they produced. An Assistant Professor of physics at MIT .........snip, as you said, let's stick with NASA. The question is not the temperature during the last decade as compared to earlier decades, but rather the TREND in the current average annual temperature (which is downward). The paper you cite says: "But overall, the long-term trend is warming." http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006...an_Cooling.txt =======begin quote Researchers found the average temperature of the upper ocean rose by 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit from 1993 to 2003, and then fell 0.055 degrees Fahrenheit from 2003 to 2005. The recent decrease is a dip equal to about one-fifth of the heat gained by the ocean between 1955 and 2003. They analyzed data from a broad array of ocean moorings, floats and shipboard sensors, and supported their results with data from NASA's Jason and Topex/Poseidon satellites. Lyman said the recent cooling is not unprecedented. "While global ocean temperatures have generally increased over the past 50 years, there have also been substantial decadal decreases," he said. "Other studies have shown that a similar rapid cooling took place from 1980 to 1983. But overall, the long-term trend is warming." ======end quote Good paper! Much good stuff in there! Some dire. Thanks! As the NASA paper says, a downward trending temperature is something which is not predicted by current models, and NASA intends to improve its models to take this "speed bump" into account. Guess the models aren't that reliable after all ... Isn't that EXCITING!!?? grin [Newsgroups trimmed to original group.] Untrimmed. We may get better answers if we leave sci.environment in. There are some true experts there, as well as plenty of corporatist anti-environmental trolls and denialists. ** "Fascism should more properly be called ** corporatism, since it is the merger of state ** and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in it's essence is fascism: ownership of the government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power." -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, message to congress- 1938 Words mean something. --Doug -- When one gains a political certainty akin to a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776 |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:18:36 GMT, Doug Bashford wrote:
[flushed] [original news groups restored] I'm not going to wade through the badly formatted followup which also fails to have correct headers for the character set in use. Instead, after restoring the original news group, I will only comment that NO ONE IS DENYING THAT THE EARTH HAS WARMED!!! Got it? What is at issue is the claim that the warming is due to CO2. If CO2 is the culprit, you have to explain how CO2 levels can increase while NASA notices that the oceans have cooled to a depth of more than half a mile. You have to explain how CO2 -- which is a minority greenhouse gas -- can control other greenhouse gases such as water vapor (which makes up 95% of the greenhouse gases). An alternative hypothesis chosen both by astrophysicists and by dissenting climatologists is that variations in the solar output have a strong influence which has been ignored by the "blame mankind" crowd. That's right: That big yellow thing in the sky is important, and you're ignoring it! Mars is warming too, and the simplest explanation is that both Earth and Mars are warming due to increased solar irradiance. It's a nice, simple explanation which may account for events on two planets and one of Saturn's moons. Occam's razor applies. In the meantime, Doug Bashford can consider himself plonked. I do not respond to cut-and-paste, crossposting trolls. |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
I have explained several times before about the Van Oort Cloud,and why
Earth warms up and cools down. cuhulin |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On Apr 23, 8:00 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:19 am, (Doug Bashford) wrote: in rec.radio.shortwave, David said about: ( OT) Global Warming, a primer . . On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:30:14 +0000 (UTC), "Larry" wrote: It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...2006_warm.html nasa.gov ??? That says: =============begin quotes 2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year in the past century 02.08.07 Graphic listing the top five warmest years recorded Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century. Image right: The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006. Credit: NASA Rank of the Years Year Temp C Anomaly Z score 2005 14.62 0.653 2.77 1998 14.56 0.593 2.51 2002 14.56 0.593 2.51 2003 14.54 0.573 2.43 2006 14.54 0.573 2.43 2004 14.48 0.513 2.17 2001 14.47 0.503 2.13 1997 14.39 0.423 1.79 1995 14.38 0.413 1.75 1990 14.37 0.403 1.71 1991 14.35 0.383 1.62 2000 14.33 0.363 1.54 1999 14.32 0.353 1.50 MEAN 13.967 0.000 0.00 1893 13.68 -0.287 -1.21 1913 13.68 -0.287 -1.21 1918 13.68 -0.287 -1.21 1894 13.67 -0.297 -1.26 1904 13.66 -0.307 -1.30 1908 13.66 -0.307 -1.30 1910 13.66 -0.307 -1.30 1911 13.66 -0.307 -1.30 1912 13.66 -0.307 -1.30 1887 13.65 -0.317 -1.34 1909 13.64 -0.327 -1.38 1890 13.63 -0.337 -1.43 1907 13.61 -0.357 -1.51 1917 13.60 -0.367 -1.55 These globally averaged temperature data come from NASA:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt They represent the results of tens of millions of readings taken at thousands of land stations and ships around the globe over the last 128 years. Yes, the land data are corrected for the urban heat island effect. The sea data do not need to be. There are few urban centers in the sea. The last 127 yearly means of these data are graphed at:http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Glob...ean%20Temp.jpg Other groups that study climate change also rank these years as among the warmest, though the exact rankings vary depending upon details of the analyses. Results differ especially in regions of sparse measurements, where scientists use alternative methods of estimating temperature change. Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years. =============end quotes. Thanks David! -- When one gains a political certainty akin to a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - My God! Can it really be that the Earth has warmed that much in the 128 years? About 1 degree C.? On no!!!! We are all going to burn up. The Earth is doomed. The Global Warming Doom Prophets are right. We must force our governments to do something. We must all get rid of our cars and trucks and go back to horses and buggies, and sailing ships. Shut off your electricity. Goodbye computers. We must force every citizen of our countries to do as the Prophets of Doom and the governments dictate. 1 degree!!!!! My God, Now I won't be able to sleep at night. Pass me a few whiskys. Straight up. Cato |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
www.devilfinder.com Berit Kjos Global Warming - Green Lies And
Amazing Truths If y'all think Earth is warm now,,, stick around for about four and a half billion more years.It will be the end times,I tell you,it will be the end of everything. cuhulin |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On Apr 23, 1:17 pm, wrote:
www.devilfinder.com Berit Kjos Global Warming - Green Lies And Amazing Truths If y'all think Earth is warm now,,, stick around for about four and a half billion more years.It will be the end times,I tell you,it will be the end of everything. cuhulin cuhulin, that devil finder is pretty interesting. I never used it before. And that article hits the nail right on the head. I wish everyone would read it. Sure explains a lot. Cato |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On Apr 23, 1:17 pm, wrote: If y'all think Earth is warm now,,, stick around for about four and a half billion more years.It will be the end times,I tell you,it will be the end of everything. cuhulin I think that the 4.5 billion years may be quite an overestimate. I've read more conservative estimates of 1 to 1.5 billion years before the sun goes nova (Solar system warming?) I suspect that mankind will be long extinct by that time, or gone from the spent planet. |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On Apr 22, 9:22 am, "Larry" wrote:
On 22 Apr 2007 04:18:41 -0700, wrote: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Featur...GlobalWarming&... That so-called "primer" neglects to mention that water vapor is a major greenhouse gas and that water vapor constitutes 95% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That makes water vapor (which comes mostly from the oceans) THE most important greenhouse gas because of its overwhelming presence. The "primer" also neglects to mention that the oceans absorb / release a great deal of atmospheric CO2 as their temperatures change, complicating any simple-minded attempt to relate atmospheric CO2 to human production of CO2. As the debate continues in the public realm, the average person is going to realize that the alarmists aren't making much scientific sense at all. That will be a good thing and may save all of us from needless and damaging public policy. Some of the information here seems to indicate that a biproduct of the glaciers cooling is methane gas. Perhaps we should be looking to harnessing this source as a potential alternative fuel. See the following link for coalbed methane which is being widely developed in the midwest. http://coalbed.com/slides/sld001.htm Just a thought - should anyone want to start up a new business. |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
In article ,
(Doug Bashford) wrote: in rec.radio.shortwave, David said about: ( OT) Global Warming, a primer . . On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:30:14 +0000 (UTC), "Larry" wrote: It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...2006_warm.html nasa.gov ??? That says: =============begin quotes 2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year in the past century 02.08.07 Graphic listing the top five warmest years recorded Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century. Image right: The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006. Credit: NASA Other groups that study climate change also rank these years as among the warmest, though the exact rankings vary depending upon details of the analyses. Results differ especially in regions of sparse measurements, where scientists use alternative methods of estimating temperature change. Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years. =============end quotes. Thanks David! Yeah, thanks for nothing. It's been cooler around here on the coast. http://www.calclim.dri.edu/cgi-bin/anomimage.pl?cal1mTxdep.gif I guess the next ice age is just around the corner for the California coast. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
In article ,
David wrote: On 22 Apr 2007 16:07:58 -0700, RHF wrote: - The fact that Al Gore thinks that way is enough for me - to run the other way. The guy is the biggest hypocrite - BS artist around. Second place would go to that ditz - Art Bell had on the last weekend. That shows the extreme level of absurdity that passes for critical thinking these days. ''I refuse to believe it because then I'd have something in common with a thoroughly decent person whom I've been told I don't like (even though I've never met the fellow).'' OK, be the lemming and follow big Al over the cliff. Your choice. I know Big Al did not do his due diligence on the issue and I refuse to follow suit but you go right ahead and follow the new religion. Talk about absurd... it just can't get worse that this. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
In article ,
David wrote: On 22 Apr 2007 16:10:10 -0700, RHF wrote: On Apr 22, 2:20 pm, David wrote: On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:30:14 +0000 (UTC), "Larry" wrote: It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...2006_warm.html David - Clearly we are keeping better Records now. ~ RHF Ahh... So, some guys on You Tube know more about the Earth's temperature than NASA? Is that your final answer? We are headed for the next ice age. I'm freezing. Guess I'll have to buy one of those older tube radios just to keep warm. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Commentary: Hand Gonzales, Wolfowitz Pink Slips
http://www.andnetwork.com/index?serv...ory&sp=l303033
Commentary: Hand Gonzales, Wolfowitz Pink Slips April 23, 2007, 1 day, 1 hour and 5 minutes ago. By (AND) - www.andnetwork.com Margaret Carlson - Guest Columnist - Seattle Post-IntelligencerIn the real world, it takes about a week for someone who has disgraced himself like radio talk-show host Don Imus to lose his job. In Washington, World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales hang on to their jobs for what seems like forever. Wolfowitz was caught dissembling about how his girlfriend, World Bank employee Shaha Riza, got a raise that was double the size allowed and a guarantee of glowing reviews when she moved from the bank to the State Department to avoid cronyism charges. His legal team was unwilling to bend the rules, so he took it upon himself to dictate the terms. Petty corruption is never good but is particularly bad for Wolfowitz, who has made ending corruption in foreign countries his signature mission. Of course, nailing Wolfowitz for that is a little like getting Al Capone for tax evasion. Yet it's better than letting the architect of the war in Iraq and peddler of all its false pretenses get off scot-free and with a plum job to boot. After all, the Medal of Freedom was awarded to others incriminated in the Iraq debacle. |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
Brenda Ann wrote:
On Apr 23, 1:17 pm, wrote: If y'all think Earth is warm now,,, stick around for about four and a half billion more years.It will be the end times,I tell you,it will be the end of everything. cuhulin I think that the 4.5 billion years may be quite an overestimate. I've read more conservative estimates of 1 to 1.5 billion years before the sun goes nova (Solar system warming?) I suspect that mankind will be long extinct by that time, or gone from the spent planet. The sun doesn't have enough mass to go through the nova stage at the end of it's life. When it runs out of fuel for nuclear fusion, the sun will slowly expand to a red giant which dissipates into the solar system, leaving behind a white dwarf star. This star shines from residual heat instead of fusion. It has a much longer life span than the original star (sun). The white dwarf eventually becomes a black dwarf which emits radio waves instead of light but the universe is not old enough yet for black dwarf stars to exist. http://hea-www.harvard.edu/scied/SUN/sunpage.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dwarfs |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
"Whatever" wrote in message news:FViXh.1096$KB1.89@trndny09... Brenda Ann wrote: On Apr 23, 1:17 pm, wrote: If y'all think Earth is warm now,,, stick around for about four and a half billion more years.It will be the end times,I tell you,it will be the end of everything. cuhulin I think that the 4.5 billion years may be quite an overestimate. I've read more conservative estimates of 1 to 1.5 billion years before the sun goes nova (Solar system warming?) I suspect that mankind will be long extinct by that time, or gone from the spent planet. The sun doesn't have enough mass to go through the nova stage at the end of it's life. When it runs out of fuel for nuclear fusion, the sun will slowly expand to a red giant which dissipates into the solar system, leaving behind a white dwarf star. This star shines from residual heat instead of fusion. It has a much longer life span than the original star (sun). The white dwarf eventually becomes a black dwarf which emits radio waves instead of light but the universe is not old enough yet for black dwarf stars to exist. Thanks for the cosmology lesson. Never too old to learn something new. Either way, though, the Earth would get pretty warm as the red giant expands to engulf it. |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On Apr 24, 2:13 am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
"Whatever" wrote in message news:FViXh.1096$KB1.89@trndny09... Brenda Ann wrote: On Apr 23, 1:17 pm, wrote: If y'all think Earth is warm now,,, stick around for about four and a half billion more years.It will be the end times,I tell you,it will be the end of everything. cuhulin I think that the 4.5 billion years may be quite an overestimate. I've read more conservative estimates of 1 to 1.5 billion years before the sun goes nova (Solar system warming?) I suspect that mankind will be long extinct by that time, or gone from the spent planet. The sun doesn't have enough mass to go through the nova stage at the end of it's life. When it runs out of fuel for nuclear fusion, the sun will slowly expand to a red giant which dissipates into the solar system, leaving behind a white dwarf star. This star shines from residual heat instead of fusion. It has a much longer life span than the original star (sun). The white dwarf eventually becomes a black dwarf which emits radio waves instead of light but the universe is not old enough yet for black dwarf stars to exist. Thanks for the cosmology lesson. Never too old to learn something new. Either way, though, the Earth would get pretty warm as the red giant expands to engulf it.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - BAD, The Life Cycle of the Sun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sun_Life.png About - The Sun {Old Sol} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun wiki wiki ~ RHF |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:00:53 GMT, David wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:43:12 +0000 (UTC), "Larry" wrote: Okay, let's stick with NASA. Last year, NASA published a report which said that earth's oceans have significantly cooled since 2003 (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006...n_Cooling.txt). ''Significantly''? 0.055 degrees is ''significant''? I would say that the loss of 20% of the heat gained between 1955 and 2003 is quite definitely "significant" (see your quote below). The rate is impressive too. The heat gained in 48 years has supposedly decreased by 20% in only an additional three years (the date of the report). Another part of the paper says "Lyman said the cause of the recent cooling is not yet clear. Research suggests it may be due to a net loss of heat from the Earth." That would seem to eliminate the idea of the heat being moved from one part of the earth to another. ''Researchers found the average temperature of the upper ocean rose by 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit from 1993 to 2003, and then fell 0.055 degrees Fahrenheit from 2003 to 2005. The recent decrease is a dip equal to about one-fifth of the heat gained by the ocean between 1955 and 2003. They analyzed data from a broad array of ocean moorings, floats and shipboard sensors, and supported their results with data from NASA's Jason and Topex/Poseidon satellites. Lyman said the recent cooling is not unprecedented. "While global ocean temperatures have generally increased over the past 50 years, there have also been substantial decadal decreases," he said. "Other studies have shown that a similar rapid cooling took place from 1980 to 1983. But overall, the long-term trend is warming." Please allow me to reiterate my original point: I agree that the earth is warming. I just don't buy into the idea that carbon dioxide is the primary reason. CO2 levels continued to increase during the years that the oceans lost 20% of the heat they gained since 1955, and that should be yet another reason to question the orthodoxy of CO2 driven warming. Unfortunately, CO2 driven warming is the new religion of the environmental left, and they're not interested in the scientific facts. Witness some of the shrill posters in this forum (not you) who don't want anyone to question their religion. |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
Suppose there isn't anything at all beyond our Universe.It is a well
known fact that light has Mass/Light is a Physical thingy/Light does exert Pressure.If there isn't anything at all beyond our Universe,does Light escape from our Universe (actually,God's Universe) and into and beyond our Universe? If so,I think that means beyond our Universe,there is Matter/Atoms/Light beyond our Universe.A perfect Vacuum (in my opinion) does not have so much as one tiny Atom,or part of an Atom inside of a perfect Vacuum. I think only only The MAN upstairs knows for sure. cuhulin |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On Apr 24, 6:00 am, David wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:43:12 +0000 (UTC), "Larry" wrote: Okay, let's stick with NASA. Last year, NASA published a report which said that earth's oceans have significantly cooled since 2003 (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006...n_Cooling.txt). ''Significantly''? 0.055 degrees is ''significant''? ''Researchers found the average temperature of the upper ocean rose by 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit from 1993 to 2003, and then fell 0.055 degrees Fahrenheit from 2003 to 2005. The recent decrease is a dip equal to about one-fifth of the heat gained by the ocean between 1955 and 2003. They analyzed data from a broad array of ocean moorings, floats and shipboard sensors, and supported their results with data from NASA's Jason and Topex/Poseidon satellites. Lyman said the recent cooling is not unprecedented. "While global ocean temperatures have generally increased over the past 50 years, there have also been substantial decadal decreases," he said. "Other studies have shown that a similar rapid cooling took place from 1980 to 1983. But overall, the long-term trend is warming." The Earth is Warming -while- the Oceans are Cooling Why - It all on Big Hot Fudge Sun-Day ~ RHF |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
Brenda Ann wrote:
"Whatever" wrote in message news:FViXh.1096$KB1.89@trndny09... Brenda Ann wrote: On Apr 23, 1:17 pm, wrote: If y'all think Earth is warm now,,, stick around for about four and a half billion more years.It will be the end times,I tell you,it will be the end of everything. cuhulin I think that the 4.5 billion years may be quite an overestimate. I've read more conservative estimates of 1 to 1.5 billion years before the sun goes nova (Solar system warming?) I suspect that mankind will be long extinct by that time, or gone from the spent planet. The sun doesn't have enough mass to go through the nova stage at the end of it's life. When it runs out of fuel for nuclear fusion, the sun will slowly expand to a red giant which dissipates into the solar system, leaving behind a white dwarf star. This star shines from residual heat instead of fusion. It has a much longer life span than the original star (sun). The white dwarf eventually becomes a black dwarf which emits radio waves instead of light but the universe is not old enough yet for black dwarf stars to exist. Thanks for the cosmology lesson. Never too old to learn something new. Either way, though, the Earth would get pretty warm as the red giant expands to engulf it. The red giant could expand to the orbit of Mars! The earth would be a charred cinder. If humans survive the next few thousand years, we will probably have the technology to do most anything we want with the matter in the universe, thus preventing the earth's demise. But we might not have any need for a planet by then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On Apr 22, 10:22 am, "Larry" wrote:
On 22 Apr 2007 04:18:41 -0700, wrote: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Featur...GlobalWarming&... That so-called "primer" neglects to mention that water vapor is a major greenhouse gas and that water vapor constitutes 95% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That makes water vapor (which comes mostly from the oceans) THE most important greenhouse gas because of its overwhelming presence. - Link?? The "primer" also neglects to mention that the oceans absorb / release a great deal of atmospheric CO2 as their temperatures change, complicating any simple-minded attempt to relate atmospheric CO2 to human production of CO2. - Link ?? As the debate continues in the public realm, the average person is going to realize that the alarmists aren't making much scientific sense at all. That will be a good thing and may save all of us from needless and damaging public policy. - So, you're saying that man, and his activities, are NOT affecting Global Climate at all ?? http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/...385/index.html |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
Texas recently had some bad weather.Some of that weather is heading East
toward me right now. www.halandmals.com Mal's St.Paddy's Day,weather link.5:00 PM WAPT tv news is cranking up right now.Eleven dead,heavy property damage in Texas and Mexico.David South on WAPT www.wapt.com says no tornado warnings right now and he doesn't expect any.I hope he is right,he usually is.We need the rain,we don't need tornados. cuhulin |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
On 25 Apr 2007 08:32:52 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:22 am, "Larry" wrote: On 22 Apr 2007 04:18:41 -0700, wrote: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Featur...GlobalWarming&... That so-called "primer" neglects to mention that water vapor is a major greenhouse gas and that water vapor constitutes 95% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That makes water vapor (which comes mostly from the oceans) THE most important greenhouse gas because of its overwhelming presence. - Link?? The "primer" also neglects to mention that the oceans absorb / release a great deal of atmospheric CO2 as their temperatures change, complicating any simple-minded attempt to relate atmospheric CO2 to human production of CO2. - Link ?? As the debate continues in the public realm, the average person is going to realize that the alarmists aren't making much scientific sense at all. That will be a good thing and may save all of us from needless and damaging public policy. - So, you're saying that man, and his activities, are NOT affecting Global Climate at all ?? http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/...385/index.html And that the IPCC hasn't factored-in the natural processes... |
( OT) Global Warming, a primer . .
"Cato" wrote My God! Can it really be that the Earth has warmed that much in the 128 years? About 1 degree C.? A pretty spectacular rise given that a 2'C fall will produce another ice age. "Cato" wrote On no!!!! Classic Libertarian ignorance. I am afraid they will have to be exterminated. |
(OT) : So the Question is VD - Can You Handle It ?
On May 25, 1:45 pm, "Vendicar Decarian"
wrote: "Cato" wrote My God! Can it really be that the Earth has warmed that much in the 128 years? About 1 degree C.? A pretty spectacular rise given that a 2'C fall will produce another ice age. "Cato" wrote On no!!!! Classic Libertarian ignorance. I am afraid they will have to be exterminated. VD - Publish your real Name and Address here -and- I am sure that someone will show up at your Door for a real Face-to-Face exchange of Words and Ideas - No Physical Violence Please ! So the Question is VD - Can You Handle It ? oh the silence and eternal waiting ~ RHF |
(OT) : So the Question is VD - Can You Handle It ?
On May 25, 1:45 pm, "Vendicar Decarian"
wrote: "Cato" wrote My God! Can it really be that the Earth has warmed that much in the 128 years? About 1 degree C.? A pretty spectacular rise given that a 2'C fall will produce another ice age. "Cato" wrote On no!!!! Classic Libertarian ignorance. I am afraid they will have to be exterminated. VD - Publish your real Name and Address here -and- I am sure that someone will show up at your Door for a real Face-to-Face exchange of Words and Ideas - No Physical Violence Please ! So the Question is VD - Can You Handle It ? oh the silence and eternal waiting ~ RHF |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com