O/T: Warm Enough

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:05:30 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>I can't disprove global warming, but we're currently on the high side
>of a sunspot cycle which fits with 100 degrees in the afternoon and 75
>degrees at night. Wouldn't true global warming also increase the
>nighttime temperatures?

This is ridiculous. It's a factual impossibility that man has not had
a noticeable affect on the weather of this planet. ALL that you
naysayers have to offer in rebuttal is half baked theories as to why
it probably is something else.

On 7/3/2012 3:30 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Idiot. He said supression of natural fires. That means putting them out,
> not stopping them from occuring in the first place (although Smokey has had
> some impact there, too).

First one word sentence in rebuttal is a sure sign that posters previous
argument carried little or no force. ;)

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 06:57:38 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 7/2/2012 7:48 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 7/2/2012 4:02 PM, CW wrote:
>>> "Jim Weisgram" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:18:00 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
>>>>> out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I don't have an argument against greenhouse gases affecting global
>>>> climate. But I believe the wildfires are as much to do with poor
>>>> forest management (suppressing files for 100 years has built up a huge
>>>> backlog of combustible material) than the warmer climate.
>>> =============================================================
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>
>> Utah's got a dozen fire going, most of them fueled by grasses and other
>> small plants that grew in abundance during last year when precipitation
>> was high and temperatures mild, that turned into tinderboxes this year
>> when precipitation was low and temperatures high. Some of them were
>> ignited by lightning, others by human stupidity. I'm just saying that's
>> not the result of forest mismanagement. All of which has nothing to do
>> with nonexistent man-made climate change.
>
>
>Looooooooooooooooooooong before there was any type of forest management
>there was "no forest management". There have always been wild fires.

Fires *were* the forest management. Some species of trees (feeble attempt at
bringing the discussion on topic ;) require fires to propagate.

Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 12:12:42 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>> Tobacco causes cancer? Science has YET to define the mechanism. All
>> that the health folks can say is that there is a very, very strong
>> correlation. But science also holds that correlation is not
>> causation.*
>
> You're actually going to sit there and suggest that smoking MAY not
> cause cancer? Are you fucking serious?
>

No, I'm not.

Whatever gave you that idea? Do you have a "fucking" reading comprehension
problem?

On 7/3/2012 2:52 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The thing to bring home from the above is regardless of how powerful you
>> may believe climate change to be, the FACT is that your daily weather is
>> driven by what is known as "short term meteorological phenomena".
>
> Agreed! Moreover, it is amazing how much more accurate short term weather
> forecasts are then even a few years ago (now good, most of the time for 4-5
> days). Even long-term forecasts (winterstorms) were pretty good last
> winter. Can't be due to only faster bigger computers, but must also be
> because of better models.

+1

:)


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 23:16:20 -0400, "[email protected]"
>A "factual impossibility"? What pompous certainty an ego. The Gaia religion
>is heard from.

And as usual, assholes like you are always at the forefront of the
'man can do no wrong' religion. You're the proverbial ostrich burying
your head with its stunted denial intellect in the ground.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:28:26 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>> That's the other trumpet call of alarmists... labeling CO2 as pollution
>> and thus tying it in with real, damaging pollution. This is much like
>> the race card. It takes attention away from the real problems that do
>> exist and make everyone skeptical of the honest, trustworthy people
>> trying to raise awareness to those real problem.

>+1

+1 as much as you want. Just like someone saying that there's no proof
that CO2 is not causing problems, the reverse can also be true. It may
be causing immense problems, just that nature has so far been able to
handle it.

If or when it is realized that nature is not able to handle it
anymore, better damned well hope that it's not too late for humanity
to do something about it.

On 6/30/2012 9:18 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
> out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.
>
> Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?
>
> Lew
>
>
>
Oh good God,ITS SUMMER!!!!!

The sky is not falling.

On 7/16/2012 1:43 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
> in 1533034 20120716 070515 "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Interesting
>>
>> Lew
>> -------------------------
>> http://tinyurl.com/7t2gre2
>
> Record high temperatures in Britain?
> What is he on?
>


How about the below averages we have been having in Houston since the 4th.

Han wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/3/2012 8:32 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 7/3/2012 2:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2012 2:02 PM, Jim Weisgram wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Presumably the milder winters are a result of global warming due
>>>>>> to greenhouse gases. However in this forum the "due to" part
>>>>>> isn't likely to be accepted. So be it.
>>>>>
>>>>> More than a wee bit of condescension, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider this:
>>>>>
>>>>> In 2010 the US experienced its coldest winter in 25 years,
>>>>> according to the National Climatic Data Center. At the same time,
>>>>> it was also Canada's warmest. Ditto for most of Europe, including
>>>>> this past winter where 600 perished from cold related causes ...
>>>>> ie, they fucking froze to death. How "mild" is that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hard to believe but the believers have actually concocted a
>>>> complicated explanation that the harsh winters are a result of
>>>> global warming.
>>>>
>>>> All along I have contended that winter following summer is the
>>>> leading cause for colder and and more harsh lower temperature.
>>>>
>>>> I get my prediction data from the world renown calendar.
>>>
>>> Just to get you back on track, Leon, one of the predictions of the
>>> global warming crowd is that it will lead to more extremes. Hope
>>> you guys get some rain soon ...
>>>
>>
>> We really do not need rain. We have had about 30 inches so far this
>> year. I got an inch on Sunday and about 4 inches about 3~4 weeks
>> ago.
>>
>> This simmer has been considerably cooler/less warm than last summer
>> but because of the rain it has been much more muggy. Last summer
>> was hotter but dryer so it was not so uncomfortable. IMHO it has
>> really only gotten rather warm in the last 30 days. Ten years ago
>> and for several years it was normal to be at these temperatures in
>> mid April.
>>
>> As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures
>> than in the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of
>> freezing temps every day in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in
>> 1989 we saw 7 degrees over night and I have never seen it that cold
>> here. In the last 5~7 years we have has measurable snow fall at
>> least 3 times, I had seen snow in Texas 2 times in the previous 50
>> years.
>
> Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
> areas of Texas more to the west.

Yep. Houston is closer to Florida than it is to El Paso (and El Paso is
closer to the Pacific Ocean than it is to Houston).

On 7/3/2012 10:21 AM, Han wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/3/2012 9:27 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 7/2/2012 5:38 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:4ff1d13e$0$26191$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm
>>>>>> the upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F.
>>>>> Easily enough done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Water surface area of the Earth: 362,000,000 km^2 = 3.62E8 km^2 =
>>>>> 3.62E14m^2 Thus the top 15 meters has a volume of approximately
>>>>> 5.43E15 m^3 = 5.43E18 liters Its mass is approximately 5.4E18 kg =
>>>>> 5.4E21 g Energy required to raise the temperature by 1 deg F = 0.56
>>>>> deg C = 5.4E21 * 0.56 = approx 3E21 cal = 1.3E22 joules
>>>>>
>>>>> Roughly 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (13 sextillion).
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would be very surprised if all
>>>>>> the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it
>>>>>> all went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to
>>>>>> accomplish that.
>>>>> It's close.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
>>>>
>>>> But very little of that energy goes into heating the oceans. Most
>>>> of it eventually radiates into space.
>>>
>>> The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into
>>> space is what makes global warming a fact and a problem.
>>>
>>
>> And yet no one can prove the degree of this assumption or if it is
>> just that, an assumption. No ill effects, no problem.
>
> There really is agreement that on average, the global temperature is
> increasing.

I think on average that there is an agreement that there certainly has
been global warming since the ice age. In the last 200 years there is
no significant proof that what ever "trend" we have happen to be in at
the moment, warming or cooling, that it will continue, or why it is
happening other than it is mother nature doing what she does.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:31:58 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 23:16:20 -0400, "[email protected]"
>>A "factual impossibility"? What pompous certainty an ego. The Gaia religion
>>is heard from.
>
>And as usual, assholes like you are always at the forefront of the
>'man can do no wrong' religion. You're the proverbial ostrich burying
>your head with its stunted denial intellect in the ground.

What a pompous ass.

On 7/3/2012 3:30 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>> On 7/3/2012 1:27 PM, Jim Weisgram wrote:
>>> [...snip...]
>>>>> Utah's got a dozen fire going, most of them fueled by grasses and other
>>>>> small plants that grew in abundance during last year when precipitation
>>>>> was high and temperatures mild, that turned into tinderboxes this year
>>>>> when precipitation was low and temperatures high. Some of them were
>>>>> ignited by lightning, others by human stupidity. I'm just saying that's
>>>>> not the result of forest mismanagement. All of which has nothing to do
>>>>> with nonexistent man-made climate change.
>>>
>>> I was referring to the fires in Colorado
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looooooooooooooooooooong before there was any type of forest management
>>>> there was "no forest management". There have always been wild fires.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right. The suppression of natural fires was the mismanagement I was
>>> talking about.
>>>
>>
>>
>> How does one suppress lightning strikes?
>
> Idiot. He said supression of natural fires. That means putting them out,
> not stopping them from occuring in the first place (although Smokey has had
> some impact there, too).
>


Scott, you are just too easy.... you take all of the bait I throw out
there. Leave some for some one else. ;~)

On 7/3/2012 3:29 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>> On 7/3/2012 12:17 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 7/3/12 11:24 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse. How
>>>> about a new direction.
>>>>
>>>> Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how much
>>>> we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution has caused.
>>>>
>>>
>>> CO2 is hardly "pollution."
>>>
>>> That's the other trumpet call of alarmists... labeling CO2 as pollution
>>> and thus tying it in with real, damaging pollution. This is much like
>>> the race card. It takes attention away from the real problems that do
>>> exist and make everyone skeptical of the honest, trustworthy people
>>> trying to raise awareness to those real problem.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> +10
>>
>> Those that believe we should limit CO2 should stop breathing, buyng
>> soda's, using dry ice, and driving cars.
>
>
> This statement shows astounding ignorance about the carbon cycle
> and the reasons that CO2 has risen from 230ppm to 400ppm in the
> last century and a half. I'll give you a hint - the CO2 you exhale
> is not CO2 that has been sequestered for millions of years in
> geologic coal or oil formations. Same applies to cow farts.

If "this statement shows astounding ignorance bla bla bla, why did you
mention it at all? Starting a statement with "this statement show
astounding ignorance" is not too smart if you want some one to take it
seriously.


OTOH

Did you reeeeeeeally think I was serious. Your are quite gullible.

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru out
> much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.
>
> Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?
>
> Lew
>
>
>This phase happened 10 and 20 years ago. The high heat and bad weather.
>Reason ??????? WW

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in news:4fefb356$0$44942
[email protected]:

> Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
> out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.
>
> Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?
>
> Lew
>

I'm not sure we have enough information to make a really informed
determination of what's going on. We've really only kept detailed
weather records on a national or even global scale for the past couple
hundred years at most, which could just be a "mood" the planet is going
through considering its apparent age.

From my time on this planet, heat waves during the summer are normal.
Don't see how global warming will affect that. It'll be 90 one week and
100 the next, that's just movement of the jet stream. If the jet stream
shifts to bring air down from Canada, it'll cool down again.

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

On 6/30/2012 8:18 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
> out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.
>
> Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?
>
> Lew
>
>
>
The main "greenhouse gas" is water vapor, so by your logic forest fires
are caused by high humidity.

"Steve Barker" wrote:

> it was hotter the entire year of 1934. Fuck your global warming
> that is a farce.
------------------------------------
Your command of the language to document your lack of knowledge of
existing information is comical.

Lew

"Puckdropper" wrote:

> I'm not sure we have enough information to make a really informed
> determination of what's going on. We've really only kept detailed
> weather records on a national or even global scale for the past
> couple
> hundred years at most, which could just be a "mood" the planet is
> going
> through considering its apparent age.
>
> From my time on this planet, heat waves during the summer are
> normal.
> Don't see how global warming will affect that. It'll be 90 one week
> and
> 100 the next, that's just movement of the jet stream. If the jet
> stream
> shifts to bring air down from Canada, it'll cool down again.
----------------------------------------
Core samples have documented a thermal foot print that goes back
several hundred years.

The last 10 years have shown a continuing increase in annual
temperatures.

Lew

"Swingman" wrote:

> Got Netflix?
----------------
Nope.
-----------------
> Bring up a copy of "Windfall" and watch it. A small town in upstate
> NY wrestling with the fallout from wind turbines and the resultant
> political, health, government and corporate greed issues.
>
> Ironic thing is that to a man, the opponents are all admitted
> liberals/progressives who vocally support "alternative energy" ...
> that is, until they experienced first hand exactly what that concept
> really brings in human costs.
<snip>
---------------------------------
Who funded the study?

Oil? Coal? Other?

Lew

"Jim Weisgram" wrote:

> I don't have an argument against greenhouse gases affecting global
> climate. But I believe the wildfires are as much to do with poor
> forest management (suppressing files for 100 years has built up a
> huge
> backlog of combustible material) than the warmer climate.
------------------------------------
An even bigger problem is the pine bark beetle which have killed
massive amounts of trees, especially here in SoCal.

Once dead, fires can't be far behind.

Lew

"Leon" <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote
>
> Strange how the oceans can raise so much from nothing being added and
> oddly it is only raising in certain locations. A reasonable person might
> suspect local conditions. Take Venice or Chocolate City for instance.

On the west coast (USA) the rate of water raise of the ocean varies
considerably from the Northwest to Kalifornia. Apparently the difference
has to do with the geological movement of the plates. It seems that the
Northwest coastline is rising, even as the ocean level is rising as well.
It means that the water level rises in the Northwest will be smaller than
Kalifornia.

I am not sure that is a goo thing. It seems as though a major earthquake
would be the inevitable outcome of all that plate movement.

So takes your choices. A little less ocean rise with a big mama earthquake
coming sometime soon, geologically. Or in Kalifornia, earthquakes more
often, but more ocean rise.
It is always something. Like the big rains and winds recently in Florida.
Mama nature is a bitch.

On 7/2/2012 10:10 AM, Han wrote:
> Overall, land masses have different tendencies to go up or down,
> sometimes associated with (they think) the fact that old, old glaciers
> from the ice ages aren't there anymore to weigh those land masses
> down. Scandinavia is one example. One of the scary reasons to pay
> attention to ocean warming is that much is really cold (like in the
> 30's and low 40's in Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms just a
> few degrees, it will expand, and thus the level will go up. Somebody
> ought to have the calculated data how much up that up is.

Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm the
upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F. I would be very surprised if all
the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it all
went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to accomplish that.

On 7/2/2012 10:03 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 7/2/2012 10:10 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> On 7/2/2012 9:12 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2012 7:44 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2012 7:41 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now that you have called everyone stupid, Please provide one paper
>>>>> that
>>>>> demonstrates that chemical or biological mechanisms for the
>>>>> components
>>>>> of smoke, tobacco or other wise causing the human cells to mutate
>>>>> from
>>>>> normal to a cancerous cell.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why, it's right there on the package ... something to do with a
>>>> surgeon
>>>> general ...
>>>>
>>>> (You obviously don't live in CA either) ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now you cant believe what a manufacturer tells you.... Bless their
>>> hearts.
>>
>> The manufacture put on his product what the lawyer told him, so he can
>> avoid law suit because some one swallow a wood screw and there was
>> nothing on the packaging to tell him not to.
>>
>> With lawyers intervention the facts on the packaging SOMETIME do have
>> pertinent facts.
>>
>> By the way have you ever read the government required MSDS sheet for
>> water. Here are a couple:
>>
>> http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927321
>> http://www.hsegroup.com/hse/text/water.htm
>> http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/majors/msdsfiles/msdswater.htm
>>
>> and you wonder with things cost so much. Lawyer are expensive
>
>
> There should be cancer warnings stamped on lawyers foreheads. That
> would do more good.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

On 7/2/2012 4:02 PM, CW wrote:
> "Jim Weisgram" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:18:00 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
>>> out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.
>>>
>>> Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>> I don't have an argument against greenhouse gases affecting global
>> climate. But I believe the wildfires are as much to do with poor
>> forest management (suppressing files for 100 years has built up a huge
>> backlog of combustible material) than the warmer climate.
> =============================================================
>
> Agreed.
>
>
Utah's got a dozen fire going, most of them fueled by grasses and other
small plants that grew in abundance during last year when precipitation
was high and temperatures mild, that turned into tinderboxes this year
when precipitation was low and temperatures high. Some of them were
ignited by lightning, others by human stupidity. I'm just saying that's
not the result of forest mismanagement. All of which has nothing to do
with nonexistent man-made climate change.

On 7/2/2012 5:15 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Han <[email protected]> wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
> 207.246.207.124:
>
>> One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
>> that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in Fahrenheit). If
>> all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it will expand, and thus the
>> level will go up. Somebody ought to have the calculated data how much up
>> that up is.
> Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical sciences.
>
> Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At 5 deg C (41 deg F) its
> density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50 deg F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW,
> warming from 4 deg C to 10 deg C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) =
> 1.00027, or about one-fortieth of one per cent.
>
> Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.
>
> [Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics]

From that date, io if the ocean was 36%F, and it rose to 38%F, the
water level would actually fall due to contraction, rather than rise due
to expansion.. Not that the facts will change the minds of those who
worship at the alter of AlGore.

On 7/2/2012 5:38 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:4ff1d13e$0$26191$882e7ee2
> @usenet-news.net:
>
>> Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm the
>> upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F.
> Easily enough done.
>
> Water surface area of the Earth: 362,000,000 km^2 = 3.62E8 km^2 = 3.62E14m^2
> Thus the top 15 meters has a volume of approximately 5.43E15 m^3 = 5.43E18 liters
> Its mass is approximately 5.4E18 kg = 5.4E21 g
> Energy required to raise the temperature by 1 deg F = 0.56 deg C = 5.4E21 * 0.56 = approx
> 3E21 cal = 1.3E22 joules
>
> Roughly 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (13 sextillion).
>
>> I would be very surprised if all
>> the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it all
>> went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to accomplish that.
> It's close.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

But very little of that energy goes into heating the oceans. Most of it
eventually radiates into space.

On 7/2/2012 6:44 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Dave <[email protected]> wrote in news:04c1v7p05eacj329fc3af82m3r2b4n6gkk@
> 4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:05:30 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>> I can't disprove global warming, but we're currently on the high side
>>> of a sunspot cycle which fits with 100 degrees in the afternoon and 75
>>> degrees at night. Wouldn't true global warming also increase the
>>> nighttime temperatures?
>> This is ridiculous. It's a factual impossibility that man has not had
>> a noticeable affect on the weather of this planet. ALL that you
>> naysayers have to offer in rebuttal is half baked theories as to why
>> it probably is something else.
> The earth receives more energy from the sun in *one hour* than human beings consume in
> an *entire year*. That's about five orders of magnitude.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
> And yet some people continue to insist that man has more influence on the climate than the
> sun has.
>
>
Global warming theorists (NOT me) claim that carbon dioxide acts as an
energy trap that lowers the amount of solar energy that re-radiates back
into space, that it's this increased retention of solar energy that is
killing all the polar bears.
Personally, I think that even if the globe was warming ( and I don't
think it is, at least not significantly, and if it is, it's not caused
by man), on a global scale it would probably be a good thing. More
energy inevitably would result in increased plant growth, which would
feed more animals as well. On a global scale it would be worth it to
push beachfront property farther inland in return for a global
environment that's more hospitable to life in general.

On 7/3/2012 8:27 AM, Han wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/2/2012 5:38 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:4ff1d13e$0$26191$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:
>>>
>>>> Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm
>>>> the upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F.
>>> Easily enough done.
>>>
>>> Water surface area of the Earth: 362,000,000 km^2 = 3.62E8 km^2 =
>>> 3.62E14m^2 Thus the top 15 meters has a volume of approximately
>>> 5.43E15 m^3 = 5.43E18 liters Its mass is approximately 5.4E18 kg =
>>> 5.4E21 g Energy required to raise the temperature by 1 deg F = 0.56
>>> deg C = 5.4E21 * 0.56 = approx 3E21 cal = 1.3E22 joules
>>>
>>> Roughly 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (13 sextillion).
>>>
>>>> I would be very surprised if all
>>>> the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it
>>>> all went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to
>>>> accomplish that.
>>> It's close.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
>> But very little of that energy goes into heating the oceans. Most of
>> it eventually radiates into space.
> The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into space is
> what makes global warming a fact and a problem.
>
The trouble with that statement is that it labels an unproven assumption
as a fact.

On 7/3/2012 12:53 PM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:24:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse.
>>> How about a new direction.
>>>
>>> Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how
>>> much we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution has
>>> caused.
>>>
>>> Acid rain:
>>>
>>> http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html
>>>
>>> Or ocean acidification:
>>>
>>> http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
>>>
>>> I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our carbon
>>> emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global warming, the
>>> effects of these would seem sufficient reason to curb air pollution.
>>>
>>> What reminded me of this was an article in this mornings paper about
>>> the failure of oysters to breed in Pacific Northwest waters due to
>>> increased acidity. See:
>>>
>>> <http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jul/03/ocean-acidification-puts-
>>> pressure-on-oyster/>
>>>
>>> I await the inevitable "it's not our fault" chorus from the usual
>>> suspects :-).
>> The EPA and NOAA, bastions of fair and balanced judgement.
>> Just ask Algore.
> Al Gore was a politician. EPA and NOAA are in a different business.
> Their predictions don't always pan out, but generally, I'd like less
> mercury in my air, not more.
>
>
You're concerned about mercury in the air? Really?

"woodstuff" wrote:


> When I graduated from high school I was fully capable of reading my
> diploma.
> I could also read my degree in later years. Perhaps I am not a
> genius, but
> I learned in elementary school what a percentage point is. So you
> are
> saying that CO2, a trace gas, at a concentration of 0.039% by volume
> in the
> atmosphere is causing global warming? Studies have shown that it
> has varied
> over the centuries and the recent Al Gore stuff is garbage. And
> what are
> "green house gasses"? One real killer is water!! Holy Crap!!!!
------------------------------------
During those years you were obtaining your training, did you bother to
learn what the by-products of combustion of carbon based fossil fuels
were?

HINT:

They include but are not limited to CO, CO2, NOX & SOX.
------------------------------

> Try really reading some links below and incorporate some common
> sense into
> your thoughts
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide and
> http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
>
----------------------------
Wikipedia is not a vetted source, so is not pertinert.

Lew

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:05:52 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>On 7/3/2012 12:17 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 7/3/12 11:24 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse. How
>>> about a new direction.
>>>
>>> Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how much
>>> we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution has caused.
>>>
>>
>> CO2 is hardly "pollution."
>>
>> That's the other trumpet call of alarmists... labeling CO2 as pollution
>> and thus tying it in with real, damaging pollution. This is much like
>> the race card. It takes attention away from the real problems that do
>> exist and make everyone skeptical of the honest, trustworthy people
>> trying to raise awareness to those real problem.
>>
>>
>
>
>+10
>
>Those that believe we should limit CO2 should stop breathing, buyng
>soda's, using dry ice, and driving cars.

How about those who think the Earth's population should be lower? How about
those who think government, or the UN, should do something about it?

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 08:39:53 -0500, Steve Turner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/3/2012 10:49 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 7/3/2012 8:32 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 7/3/2012 2:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2012 2:02 PM, Jim Weisgram wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Presumably the milder winters are a result of global warming due to
>>>>>> greenhouse gases. However in this forum the "due to" part isn't
>>>>>> likely to be accepted. So be it.
>>>>>
>>>>> More than a wee bit of condescension, eh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider this:
>>>>>
>>>>> In 2010 the US experienced its coldest winter in 25 years, according
>>>>> to the National Climatic Data Center. At the same time, it was also
>>>>> Canada's warmest. Ditto for most of Europe, including this past
>>>>> winter where 600 perished from cold related causes ... ie, they
>>>>> fucking froze to death. How "mild" is that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hard to believe but the believers have actually concocted a
>>>> complicated explanation that the harsh winters are a result of global
>>>> warming.
>>>>
>>>> All along I have contended that winter following summer is the leading
>>>> cause for colder and and more harsh lower temperature.
>>>>
>>>> I get my prediction data from the world renown calendar.
>>>
>>> Just to get you back on track, Leon, one of the predictions of the
>>> global warming crowd is that it will lead to more extremes. Hope you
>>> guys get some rain soon ...
>>>
>>
>> We really do not need rain. We have had about 30 inches so far this year. I
>> got an inch on Sunday and about 4 inches about 3~4 weeks ago.
>>
>> This simmer has been considerably cooler/less warm than last summer but because
>> of the rain it has been much more muggy. Last summer was hotter but dryer so
>> it was not so uncomfortable. IMHO it has really only gotten rather warm in the
>> last 30 days. Ten years ago and for several years it was normal to be at these
>> temperatures in mid April.
>>
>> As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures than in
>> the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of freezing temps every day
>> in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in 1989 we saw 7 degrees over night
>> and I have never seen it that cold here. In the last 5~7 years we have has
>> measurable snow fall at least 3 times, I had seen snow in Texas 2 times in the
>> previous 50 years.
>
>We've had "extremes" in weather for as long as I can remember (45+ years) and
>it's been going on for eons. Suddenly these "extremes" are now the result of
>global warming, which of course makes them a big problem that WE caused and
>should feel compelled to solve? Like I said earlier, even if we completely put
>the Earth back the way we found it, do we *really* think that Mother Nature is
>somehow going to behave herself and revert to "normal" weather patterns? Of
>course not, because the damage has already been done, and we can never forgive
>ourselves...

Nah, the left doesn't want to solve anything. If a problem gets solved, it
can't be taxed.

Interesting

Lew
-------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/7t2gre2

"Bob Martin" wrote:

> Record high temperatures in Britain?
> What is he on?
-----------------------------------
Confusing rain drops with sunshine maybe?

Lew

Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:58:07 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> In 20 years when this is all proven to be bullshit and Al Gore is
>> (more of) a laughing stock and possibly facing criminal charged for
>> defrauding the American public (and world) out of billions in tax
>> dollars to fund government mandated policies to deal with this myth,
>> I hope you have a good sense of humor about it.
>
> In 20 years, I expect to be long dead, so I won't be laughing at much.
> And if I am still alive, I don't expect I'll be laughing at very much
> either. So, NO, I won't have a good sense of humour about it.

Sure you will. You'll be sitting in your wheel chair with a plaid blanket
over your lap, mumbling and snickering to yourself while all the hotties in
the nurses garb are wondering what you're thinking...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Leon wrote:
> On 7/2/2012 2:25 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Now the sun certainly warms the waters considerably and has to warm
>>> the water to at least 80 degrees to a depth of 150 feet to even form
>>> and sustain a hurricane. Nothing man is doing will come close to
>>> doing that.
>>
>> 80 degrees, but not to a depth of 150 feet. That would be very
>> difficult, even for the sun. It does not penetrate water that far,
>> and the masses of cold water underneath the surface water (at 80
>> degrees), would overwhelm it and cool it significantly at 150 feet.
>>
>
>
> Yes 150 feet!
>
> http://suite101.com/article/how-do-hurricanes-form-a132343

I believe that means the water has to be at least 150 deep - not that the
temperature is 80 degrees to a depth of 150 feet.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 12:12:42 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>Tobacco causes cancer? Science has YET to define the mechanism. All that the
>health folks can say is that there is a very, very strong correlation. But
>science also holds that correlation is not causation.*

You're actually going to sit there and suggest that smoking MAY not
cause cancer? Are you fucking serious?

There comes a time when the same repeated result of some action
usually has the same consequence.

There's a hell of a lot of very knowledgeable people on this
newsgroup. But some of you knowledgeable people are pretty damned
stupid.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:15:43 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:38:09 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>>This sounds like an obamanism, it is somebody else fault. We all know
>>that the climate changes of the past 1,000,000 years were all the fault
>>of man and his destruction of the environment, in his greedy pursuit of
>>profits.
>
>You can try to dismiss it as much as you want, but man as a population
>is more now than anytime in history and his use of fossil fuels has
>never been so great.
>
>There always comes a point when the obvious (and common sense)
>supercedes any other explanation.

The explanation that "it's normal" and "it's always been this way" is far more
obvious and makes far more sense. But you're welcome to your religion of
Gaia, just don't ask me to feed your collection plate.

On 7/5/2012 10:46 AM, Han wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/5/2012 6:51 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:13:15 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/4/2012 1:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just limiting my discussion to fracking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poor baby ... bless her little pea picking heart. LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/86lbrg5
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I busted out laughing when I read that. I wander who got to her
>>>>> and how much she got.
>>>>>
>>>>> I laughed again when I learned that she could have changed her vote
>>>>> as long is it did not affect the outcome. What would be the
>>>>> point??
>>>>
>>>> I get a "Page not found" from both Firefox and Exploder.
>>>
>>> I do too now, but here is another link:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6ozqbgp or
>>> <http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/tillis-ignores-carneys-pleas-to-corr
>>> ect -her-vote-on-fracking-bill/Content?oid=3096728>
>>
>> Never mind the rules, never mind she made the mistake, slant it as
>> much as you can and blame it on the other party.
>>
>> That rag is exactly what's wrong with today's media.
>
> The stupidity of both the rules and the woman casting the deciding vote
> is what was funny. You know by now my feelings about fracking.

Actually, the point upon which I was commenting had nothing to do with
"fracking". <see the disclaimer>

But, while you're at it, to the above stupidities, add the absurdity of
allowing the son-in-law of a paid campaign worker to "report" on the
incident.

As always, "The written word is seldom the whole truth." ... no
exceptions for anyone. :)

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:05:30 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>> I can't disprove global warming, but we're currently on the high side
>> of a sunspot cycle which fits with 100 degrees in the afternoon and
>> 75 degrees at night. Wouldn't true global warming also increase the
>> nighttime temperatures?
>
> This is ridiculous. It's a factual impossibility that man has not had
> a noticeable affect on the weather of this planet. ALL that you
> naysayers have to offer in rebuttal is half baked theories as to why
> it probably is something else.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly equivalent to comparing the
chalk outline of a football referee to the entire field (including sidelines
and goals) after he was stabbed repeatedly by irate fans for making three
separate bad calls against the home team. The increase in CO2 for the past
century corresponds to the stain left on the field as he bled out.

P.S.
After this interruption, the remainder of the game, some nine minutes, was
played with NO penalty calls at all.

Han wrote:

>
> Agreed! Moreover, it is amazing how much more accurate short term
> weather forecasts are then even a few years ago (now good, most of
> the time for 4-5 days). Even long-term forecasts (winterstorms) were
> pretty good last winter. Can't be due to only faster bigger
> computers, but must also be because of better models.

You might just be the only person I have ever heard make that statement Han.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 7/4/2012 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
>>> areas of Texas more to the west.
>>
>> That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
>> region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
>> cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).
>>
>> It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
>> expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.
>>
>> That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
>> perception of "climate change".
>
> I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of Texas
> where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an abnormal wet
> period?

Han, almost without exception, those areas that "commit agriculture"
have never supported agriculture on any scale without modern irrigation
methods ... guaranteed.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:24:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse. How
>about a new direction.
>
>Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how much
>we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution has caused.
>
>Acid rain:
>
>http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html
>
>Or ocean acidification:
>
>http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
>
>I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our carbon
>emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global warming, the
>effects of these would seem sufficient reason to curb air pollution.
>
>What reminded me of this was an article in this mornings paper about the
>failure of oysters to breed in Pacific Northwest waters due to increased
>acidity. See:
>
><http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jul/03/ocean-acidification-puts-
>pressure-on-oyster/>
>
>I await the inevitable "it's not our fault" chorus from the usual
>suspects :-).

The EPA and NOAA, bastions of fair and balanced judgement.
Just ask Algore.

--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne

Leon wrote:

>
> Now the sun certainly warms the waters considerably and has to warm
> the water to at least 80 degrees to a depth of 150 feet to even form
> and sustain a hurricane. Nothing man is doing will come close to
> doing that.

80 degrees, but not to a depth of 150 feet. That would be very difficult,
even for the sun. It does not penetrate water that far, and the masses of
cold water underneath the surface water (at 80 degrees), would overwhelm it
and cool it significantly at 150 feet.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:37:02 -0400, "[email protected]"
>The explanation that "it's normal" and "it's always been this way" is far more
>obvious and makes far more sense. But you're welcome to your religion of
>Gaia, just don't ask me to feed your collection plate.

I doubt anybody who knows you would ever expect anything from you.
You're a self centred ahole and always have been.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:18:00 -0700, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
>out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.
>
>Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?

Will you change your mind next Winter? I didn't think so.

On 7/4/2012 1:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:
>
>>> Just limiting my discussion to fracking.
>
> Poor baby ... bless her little pea picking heart. LOL
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/86lbrg5
>


I busted out laughing when I read that. I wander who got to her and how
much she got.

I laughed again when I learned that she could have changed her vote as
long is it did not affect the outcome. What would be the point??

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 09:40:07 -0600, Swingman wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):

> On 7/4/2012 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
>>>> areas of Texas more to the west.
>>>
>>> That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
>>> region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
>>> cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).
>>>
>>> It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
>>> expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.
>>>
>>> That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
>>> perception of "climate change".
>>
>> I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of Texas
>> where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an abnormal wet
>> period?
>
> Han, almost without exception, those areas that "commit agriculture"
> have never supported agriculture on any scale without modern irrigation
> methods ... guaranteed.
>
>

Heh, there would be no "West Texas" if it wasn't for El Paso.

Almost all the agriculture out there consists of a round circle of plants
with a well in the center and a revolving irrigation system to sweep the
field like the hands of a giant clock. I really pity the poor farmer out
there that ever tried to grow a crop based on rainfall or surface water (even
in 'normal' precipitation years).

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:18:21 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 7/1/2012 9:27 AM, Dave wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 08:24:37 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?
>>
>>> Oh good God,ITS SUMMER!!!!!
>>> The sky is not falling.
>>
>> You mean it hasn't fallen *yet*.
>>
>
>
>No not down here in Texas, how about up in Canada? LOL
>
>It really agitates the believers that the world is not splitting open as
>we speak, so they blame the melting ice cube floating in the Olympic
>sized pool for raising the pool level 3'.
>
>Strange how the oceans can raise so much from nothing being added and
>oddly it is only raising in certain locations. A reasonable person
>might suspect local conditions. Take Venice or Chocolate City for instance.

Didn't Algore say FORTY FEET? More like 2.9mm/yr according to
satellite studies, which nets out at about 11.4" in a -century-.
And that's only if it continues. My SWAG is that Mother Nature will
self-correct at much less, as she's always done.

Tuvalu and Holland might need to go on piers, though.

--
If you're trying to take a roomful of people by
surprise, it's a lot easier to hit your targets
if you don't yell going through the door.
-- Lois McMaster Bujold

On 7/4/2012 11:03 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 09:20:02 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken areas
>>> of Texas more to the west.
>>
>> That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
>> region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
>> cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).
>>
>> It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow expect
>> all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.
>>
>> That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
>> perception of "climate change".
>
> Some clients just last week commented on the burden of having to water
> during the summer. They didn't water at all in Colorado, where they
> came from.
>
> We have double the rainfall here in Oregon that I did in LoCal (32 v.
> 13.69" annually) but it doesn't seem like it rains much more. LoCal
> was a very arid place.
>
> What? Houston gets 49.8" annually? Amazing.

This year a little wetter than normal, first half we have gotten over
30" where I live, official KHOU news reading 26.69"


OMG Local news reported about a week ago!!!!!!

Hottest weather since...last year!

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

> Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken areas
> of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow expect
all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
perception of "climate change".

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Leon wrote:
> On 7/16/2012 1:43 AM, Bob Martin wrote:
>> in 1533034 20120716 070515 "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Interesting
>>>
>>> Lew
>>> -------------------------
>>> http://tinyurl.com/7t2gre2
>>
>> Record high temperatures in Britain?
>> What is he on?
>>
>
>
> How about the below averages we have been having in Houston since the
> 4th.

thats Bushs fault

On 7/4/2012 2:58 PM, Han wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in news:cNadnWQRAt_fD2nSnZ2dnUVZ_h-
> [email protected]:
>
>>> On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:
>>
>>>> Just limiting my discussion to fracking.
>>
>> Poor baby ... bless her little pea picking heart. LOL
>>
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/86lbrg5
>
> As I said before, with the proper care, regulation and oversight, fracking
> is fine with me.

Actually, I feel sorry for her. As one who presses the wrong button 50%
of the time when checking out at the grocery store because the clerks
insist on saying "Please press the green button to approve the amount.",
that apparently rules me out for ever being a politician.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Not according to the A holes who say it's not happening.
But those of us with brains recognize that the past few years the
swings have been out of whack. Records everywhere. Record high temps in
the winters, record snow falls, record low temps.

The Deleware river has had 3 100 year floods in just a couple of years.


Those people who say its not global warming are the same people that say
tobacco doesn't cause cancer. And fracking is harmless. And so on..
Like our congress critters who say SS will be there for us.
The head up their ass guys and gals.





On 6/30/2012 10:18 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
> out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.
>
> Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?
>
> Lew
>
>
>

Good analogy! I was thinking the same thing.

----
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
By that logic a tenth of an ounce of black paint on your windhshield
won't have any effect on your driving. Try it sometime and let us know
how it works out for you.
Sorry, but he's right, you're showing collossal ignorance here. I
personally think that the anthropogenic part of AGW is a crock, but the
effect of CO2 on energy balance is fairly well understood. If you're
going to argue climate, learn something about it first.

---------
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >
> >
> > This statement shows astounding ignorance about the carbon cycle
> > and the reasons that CO2 has risen from 230ppm to 400ppm in the
> > last century and a half. I'll give you a hint - the CO2 you
> > exhale
> > is not CO2 that has been sequestered for millions of years in
> > geologic coal or oil formations. Same applies to cow farts.
> >
> > So long as the system is in equilibrium, i.e. no carbon is being
> > added to the system, the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere won't
> > change,
> > no matter how many people exhale, since the carbon they're exhaling
> > was recently (within a year or two) in the atmosphere (taken up by
> > plants, fed to cows, and eaten as hamburgers, then exhaled).
>
> Have you actually worked out how much 400 parts per million
> represents?
>
> A penny weighs 2.5 grams. One million pennies weighs 2.5 million
> grams, or
> about two and a quarter TONS. Four hundred pennies comes in at about
> two and
> a quarter POUNDS.
>
> This ratio is about equivalent to the weight of a coat of paint on a
> big
> diesel engine.
>
> Asserting that a CO2 concentration of 400ppm affects the atmosphere
> is
> exactly equivalent to claiming the coat of paint on a engine affects
> the
> engine's performance.

By that logic a tenth of an ounce of black paint on your windhshield
won't have any effect on your driving. Try it sometime and let us know
how it works out for you.

Sorry, but he's right, you're showing collossal ignorance here. I
personally think that the anthropogenic part of AGW is a crock, but the
effect of CO2 on energy balance is fairly well understood. If you're
going to argue climate, learn something about it first.

Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>
> This statement shows astounding ignorance about the carbon cycle
> and the reasons that CO2 has risen from 230ppm to 400ppm in the
> last century and a half. I'll give you a hint - the CO2 you exhale
> is not CO2 that has been sequestered for millions of years in
> geologic coal or oil formations. Same applies to cow farts.
>
> So long as the system is in equilibrium, i.e. no carbon is being
> added to the system, the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere won't change,
> no matter how many people exhale, since the carbon they're exhaling
> was recently (within a year or two) in the atmosphere (taken up by
> plants, fed to cows, and eaten as hamburgers, then exhaled).

Have you actually worked out how much 400 parts per million represents?

A penny weighs 2.5 grams. One million pennies weighs 2.5 million grams, or
about two and a quarter TONS. Four hundred pennies comes in at about two and
a quarter POUNDS.

This ratio is about equivalent to the weight of a coat of paint on a big
diesel engine.

Asserting that a CO2 concentration of 400ppm affects the atmosphere is
exactly equivalent to claiming the coat of paint on a engine affects the
engine's performance.

Leon wrote:
>
> As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures
> than in the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of freezing
> temps every day in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in 1989 we
> saw 7 degrees over night and I have never seen it that cold here. In
> the last 5~7 years we have has measurable snow fall at least 3 times,
> I had seen snow in Texas 2 times in the previous 50 years.

It's all about what you're used to.

Snow in Houston is a source of much amusement: Schools and businesses shut
down, the freeways are closed, citizens stock up on strawberry PopTarts and
beer, church pews get crowded, families gather in the den and proclaim how
much they love each other...

Conversely, when a hurricane enters the Gulf, visitors from northern climes
look down and say "Feet! Make tracks!" while natives universally exclaim:
"Party Time!"

Until you've seen a metal trash can (lawn chair, dog, etc.) sailing down the
street at 70 miles per hour...

On 7/3/2012 9:27 AM, Han wrote:

> The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into space is
^^^^
> what makes global warming a fact and a problem.


What is indeed a "fact" is that neither beliefs, nor model predictions,
qualify as scientific "fact" ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Jim Weisgram" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:18:00 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
>>out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.
>>
>>Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?
>>
>>Lew
>>
>>
> I don't have an argument against greenhouse gases affecting global
> climate. But I believe the wildfires are as much to do with poor
> forest management (suppressing files for 100 years has built up a huge
> backlog of combustible material) than the warmer climate.
=============================================================

Agreed.

On 7/3/2012 10:31 AM, tiredofspam wrote:

> Colorado has seperate mineral rights from land rights. So the people
> have no control. And wherever they are drilling the water gets polluted
> and contaminated. And eventually the problem spreads out much farther.
>
> But you're right, and I'm wrong.

Well, you are most definitely suspect in your condemning an entire
industry (an industry which has brought you the building blocks of most
of the modern conveniences of life since the late 1800's) based on your
above blanket belief/sentiment.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/3/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:

> FACT remains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane and a host of
> other "manmade" things, including blacktop on your street rather than
> dirt or grass. All absorb heat and prevent re-radiation.

And, to what extent is also a bone of contention ... just ask your
favorite denier, Dr Roy Spencer. <g,d &r>

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/4/2012 6:54 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>>
>> As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures
>> than in the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of freezing
>> temps every day in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in 1989 we
>> saw 7 degrees over night and I have never seen it that cold here. In
>> the last 5~7 years we have has measurable snow fall at least 3 times,
>> I had seen snow in Texas 2 times in the previous 50 years.
>
> It's all about what you're used to.
>
> Snow in Houston is a source of much amusement: Schools and businesses shut
> down, the freeways are closed, citizens stock up on strawberry PopTarts and
> beer, church pews get crowded, families gather in the den and proclaim how
> much they love each other...
>
> Conversely, when a hurricane enters the Gulf, visitors from northern climes
> look down and say "Feet! Make tracks!" while natives universally exclaim:
> "Party Time!"
>
> Until you've seen a metal trash can (lawn chair, dog, etc.) sailing down the
> street at 70 miles per hour...
>
>


Yeah those that have been through a rough hurricane don't say Party
Time, the strong storm is serious business. It is mostly those that
have been watching so-n-so Cantori on TWC and that are new to the coast
that say Party Time. A lawn chair going down the street at 70 mph is
really something you do not see unless it is a normal storm that just
popped up. It is not unusual to see a U-Haul trailer going through the
air, not on the ground, during a strong hurricane. The trailer I saw in
Corpus Christi in the early 70's ended up half in and half out of a
garage roof.

Think of a hundred tornadoes in the immediate vicinity and lasting 10~24
hours.

On 7/4/2012 10:48 AM, Han wrote:
> -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/4/12 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
>>>>> areas of Texas more to the west.
>>>>
>>>> That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in
>>>> the region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily
>>>> mesquite and cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).
>>>>
>>>> It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
>>>> expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.
>>>>
>>>> That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in
>>>> the perception of "climate change".
>>>
>>> I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of
>>> Texas where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an
>>> abnormal wet period?
>>>
>>
>> Your only error was in listening to news reports. :-)
>> I'm guessing these are the same type of weather folks who treat every
>> thunderstorm in TN with 24hr coverage and warnings and the rest of the
>> standard "crying wolf" fare.
>
> Karl and Mike: Thanks for correcting me.
>

LOL, Just remember Han, All TV and Radio is for your entertainment.
Some of what is broadcast has some truth, 99% is blown out of proportion
and or taken out of context.

On 7/4/2012 10:43 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 7/4/12 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
>>>> areas of Texas more to the west.
>>>
>>> That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
>>> region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
>>> cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).
>>>
>>> It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
>>> expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.
>>>
>>> That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
>>> perception of "climate change".
>>
>> I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of Texas
>> where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an abnormal wet
>> period?
>>
>
> Your only error was in listening to news reports. :-)
> I'm guessing these are the same type of weather folks who treat every
> thunderstorm in TN with 24hr coverage and warnings and the rest of the
> standard "crying wolf" fare.
>
>


They all come out of the same mold. It just blows me away to see a guy
on the scene in a hurricane, standing in the treacherous winds, his
words, leaning at a 20 degree angle and his wind breaker hardly moving
at all.

On 7/4/2012 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
>>> areas of Texas more to the west.
>>
>> That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
>> region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
>> cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).
>>
>> It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
>> expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.
>>
>> That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
>> perception of "climate change".
>
> I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of Texas
> where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an abnormal wet
> period?
>

You are using sensationalized data.

On 7/3/2012 1:44 PM, Han wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 7/3/2012 10:21 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 7/3/2012 9:27 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/2/2012 5:38 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
>>>>>>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:4ff1d13e$0$26191$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm
>>>>>>>> the upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F.
>>>>>>> Easily enough done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Water surface area of the Earth: 362,000,000 km^2 = 3.62E8 km^2 =
>>>>>>> 3.62E14m^2 Thus the top 15 meters has a volume of approximately
>>>>>>> 5.43E15 m^3 = 5.43E18 liters Its mass is approximately 5.4E18 kg =
>>>>>>> 5.4E21 g Energy required to raise the temperature by 1 deg F =
> 0.56
>>>>>>> deg C = 5.4E21 * 0.56 = approx 3E21 cal = 1.3E22 joules
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roughly 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (13 sextillion).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would be very surprised if all
>>>>>>>> the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it
>>>>>>>> all went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to
>>>>>>>> accomplish that.
>>>>>>> It's close.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But very little of that energy goes into heating the oceans. Most
>>>>>> of it eventually radiates into space.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into
>>>>> space is what makes global warming a fact and a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And yet no one can prove the degree of this assumption or if it is
>>>> just that, an assumption. No ill effects, no problem.
>>>
>>> There really is agreement that on average, the global temperature is
>>> increasing.
>>
>> I think on average that there is an agreement that there certainly has
>> been global warming since the ice age. In the last 200 years there is
>> no significant proof that what ever "trend" we have happen to be in at
>> the moment, warming or cooling, that it will continue, or why it is
>> happening other than it is mother nature doing what she does.
>
> Let me close this by stating that IMNSHO there is sufficient proof of
> global warming to think it is indeed happening, and that we are
> contributing to it.
> That is NOT to say that in the past Earth has not been hotter or colder
> through natural processes, only that now it is helped along by human
> activities.
>
Han no one that believes that global warming is actually happening knows
for sure. As you have mentioned time and again, you think something is
happening. Good data should prove with out a shadow of a doubt. It is
all in how you want to interpret the data.

The meteorologists would fore cast more accurately if they simply walked
out side and took a look around at what was actually happening before
giving a prediction, if they did they would be right more of the time.
I don't see any thing happening that is not normal.

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>On 7/3/2012 1:27 PM, Jim Weisgram wrote:
>> [...snip...]
>>>> Utah's got a dozen fire going, most of them fueled by grasses and other
>>>> small plants that grew in abundance during last year when precipitation
>>>> was high and temperatures mild, that turned into tinderboxes this year
>>>> when precipitation was low and temperatures high. Some of them were
>>>> ignited by lightning, others by human stupidity. I'm just saying that's
>>>> not the result of forest mismanagement. All of which has nothing to do
>>>> with nonexistent man-made climate change.
>>
>> I was referring to the fires in Colorado
>>>
>>>
>>> Looooooooooooooooooooong before there was any type of forest management
>>> there was "no forest management". There have always been wild fires.
>>>
>>
>> Right. The suppression of natural fires was the mismanagement I was
>> talking about.
>>
>
>
>How does one suppress lightning strikes?

Idiot. He said supression of natural fires. That means putting them out,
not stopping them from occuring in the first place (although Smokey has had
some impact there, too).

On 7/2/2012 7:41 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

> Now that you have called everyone stupid, Please provide one paper that
> demonstrates that chemical or biological mechanisms for the components
> of smoke, tobacco or other wise causing the human cells to mutate from
> normal to a cancerous cell.


Why, it's right there on the package ... something to do with a surgeon
general ...

(You obviously don't live in CA either) ;)

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Tell us something the ones not using killfilters didn't know.

Don't feed this troll boy from Seattle pretending to be a disabled
Canuck, for sympathy.

--------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
What a pompous ass.

---------
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:31:58 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
And as usual, assholes like you are always at the forefront of the
man can do no wrong' religion. You're the proverbial ostrich burying
your head with its stunted denial intellect in the ground.

On 7/3/2012 10:01 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 06:57:38 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/2012 7:48 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2012 4:02 PM, CW wrote:
>>>> "Jim Weisgram" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:18:00 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
>>>>>> out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lew
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have an argument against greenhouse gases affecting global
>>>>> climate. But I believe the wildfires are as much to do with poor
>>>>> forest management (suppressing files for 100 years has built up a huge
>>>>> backlog of combustible material) than the warmer climate.
>>>> =============================================================
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Utah's got a dozen fire going, most of them fueled by grasses and other
>>> small plants that grew in abundance during last year when precipitation
>>> was high and temperatures mild, that turned into tinderboxes this year
>>> when precipitation was low and temperatures high. Some of them were
>>> ignited by lightning, others by human stupidity. I'm just saying that's
>>> not the result of forest mismanagement. All of which has nothing to do
>>> with nonexistent man-made climate change.
>>
>>
>> Looooooooooooooooooooong before there was any type of forest management
>> there was "no forest management". There have always been wild fires.
>
> Fires *were* the forest management. Some species of trees (feeble attempt at
> bringing the discussion on topic ;) require fires to propagate.
>

Natural management!

On 7/3/2012 11:08 AM, Han wrote:
> Han <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 7/3/2012 10:40 AM, Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> FACT remains that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane and a host
>>>> of other "manmade" things, including blacktop on your street rather
>>>> than dirt or grass. All absorb heat and prevent re-radiation.
>>>
>>> And, to what extent is also a bone of contention ... just ask your
>>> favorite denier, Dr Roy Spencer. <g,d &r>
>>
>> You better run fast! That guy is a fraud, in my opinion. And, mind
>> you, he isn't the first fraud with a PhD or MD that I've gotten
>> acquainted with.
>
> But yes, touché!
>


Regardless of whether the studies are read forward or backwards to
create the result you are looking for if the government politicians are
involved the whole thing is certainly blown up way out of proportion.
The fact that the politicians are making off of the prevention of this
world crisis rather than actually preventing it from happening is proof
enough that is is a non problem.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 23:16:20 -0400, "[email protected]"
> >A "factual impossibility"? What pompous certainty an ego. The Gaia religion
> >is heard from.
>
> And as usual, assholes like you are always at the forefront of the
> 'man can do no wrong' religion. You're the proverbial ostrich burying
> your head with its stunted denial intellect in the ground.


As long as the gaia religion has been brought up, it might be
interesting to see what James Lovelock -the founder of the gaia
religion- has to say today. Apparently an honest man, he admits that his
and others climate predictions were wrong, and that we really don't
understand how the climate actually works at all well.


?The problem is we don?t know what the climate is doing. We thought we
knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books ? mine included ?
because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn?t happened,? Lovelock said.

?The climate is doing its usual tricks. There?s nothing much really
happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world
now,? he said.

?The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve
years is a reasonable time? it (the temperature) has stayed almost
constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is
rising, no question about that,? he added.

In article <[email protected]>, tiredofspam
says...
>
> On 7/1/2012 1:12 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> > tiredofspam wrote:
> >> Not according to the A holes who say it's not happening.
> >> But those of us with brains recognize that the past few years the
> >> swings have been out of whack. Records everywhere. Record high temps
> >> in the winters, record snow falls, record low temps.
> >>
> >> The Deleware river has had 3 100 year floods in just a couple of
> >> years.
> >>
> >> Those people who say its not global warming are the same people that
> >> say tobacco doesn't cause cancer. And fracking is harmless. And so
> >> on.. Like our congress critters who say SS will be there for us.
> >> The head up their ass guys and gals.
> >>
> >
> > Tobacco causes cancer? Science has YET to define the mechanism. All that the
> > health folks can say is that there is a very, very strong correlation. But
> > science also holds that correlation is not causation.*
> Really... you are a total misguided idiot.

Nope. If tobacco was the cause then everybody who smoked would get
cancer. It's not a cause, it's a predisposing factor. George Burns was
seldom seen without a cigar and lived to be over a hundred. If "smoking
causes cancer" he would certainly have gotten cancer. There are many
other examples of people who smoke heavily and live to ripe old ages and
never get cancer.

> > Fracking is harmless? Again, geologists and others have not yet
shown
> > whether fracking is or is not harmless.
>
> So the fact that people can light their water coming out of the tap on
> fire is nothing. No fact. You stick your head in the ground... far in
> the ground..

Prove that it was caused by fracking. Pennsylvania had high methane
levels in the water long before fracking. Heck, prove that the various
videos that are being shown are even tap water. For all you know there
could be a gasoline tank on the other side of the wall.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 18:06:22 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:
>
> >> Mike, are you saying that the oceans aren't getting more acidic? Or
> >> that there is no such thing as acid rain? Or that both situations
> >> exist but CO2 isn't the cause?
> >>
> >> Please be more specific.
> >>
> >>
> > I'm saying there are plenty of scientists who are much smarter than me,
> > who don't have a horse in the race, who say man caused global warming is
> > a bunch of bullshit and I agree with them.
>
> You didn't answer my question. Please see above.

Suppose that the oceans are getting more acidic and there is acid rain
and that CO2 is the cause. What of it? The issue is not whethere there
is CO2, the issue is why there is CO2.

We are supposed to be having a temperature spike with the greenland
icecap melting about now. There is a long term glaciation cycle in
which that event occurs periodically and we are at the point in the
cycle when it is expected to occur. After the temperature spike there
has in every previous cycle been a precipitate drop in temperature.
Instead of worrying about global warming, we should be worried about
what comes after it. Long Island is the rock and soil that was scraped
off of Quebec and New England in the cold part of the last glaciation
cycle.

But a certain group of "scientists" have figured out that by creating
panic they can get funding and they are going at it as hard as they can.

And I'm curious--did you vote for McCain or Obama in the last election?
I'd bet Obama, even though he had no plan to address global warming,
instead of McCain who spelled out what had to be done and intended to go
about doing it.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >
> >
> > This statement shows astounding ignorance about the carbon cycle
> > and the reasons that CO2 has risen from 230ppm to 400ppm in the
> > last century and a half. I'll give you a hint - the CO2 you exhale
> > is not CO2 that has been sequestered for millions of years in
> > geologic coal or oil formations. Same applies to cow farts.
> >
> > So long as the system is in equilibrium, i.e. no carbon is being
> > added to the system, the CO2 fraction in the atmosphere won't change,
> > no matter how many people exhale, since the carbon they're exhaling
> > was recently (within a year or two) in the atmosphere (taken up by
> > plants, fed to cows, and eaten as hamburgers, then exhaled).
>
> Have you actually worked out how much 400 parts per million represents?
>
> A penny weighs 2.5 grams. One million pennies weighs 2.5 million grams, or
> about two and a quarter TONS. Four hundred pennies comes in at about two and
> a quarter POUNDS.
>
> This ratio is about equivalent to the weight of a coat of paint on a big
> diesel engine.
>
> Asserting that a CO2 concentration of 400ppm affects the atmosphere is
> exactly equivalent to claiming the coat of paint on a engine affects the
> engine's performance.

By that logic a tenth of an ounce of black paint on your windhshield
won't have any effect on your driving. Try it sometime and let us know
how it works out for you.

Sorry, but he's right, you're showing collossal ignorance here. I
personally think that the anthropogenic part of AGW is a crock, but the
effect of CO2 on energy balance is fairly well understood. If you're
going to argue climate, learn something about it first.

On 6/30/2012 9:18 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

> Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
> out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.
>
> Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?

Got Netflix?

Bring up a copy of "Windfall" and watch it. A small town in upstate NY
wrestling with the fallout from wind turbines and the resultant
political, health, government and corporate greed issues.

Ironic thing is that to a man, the opponents are all admitted
liberals/progressives who vocally support "alternative energy" ... that
is, until they experienced first hand exactly what that concept really
brings in human costs.

Much more than a NIMBY presentation, it should be required viewing
BEFORE anyone runs their mouth on these issue without being fully
informed of the human, economic and social costs these programs entail
... including the enormous increase in greenhouse gas emission from the
collateral technologies required to run them.

Inform yourself, first ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/3/2012 12:36 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:28:26 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> That's the other trumpet call of alarmists... labeling CO2 as pollution
>>> and thus tying it in with real, damaging pollution. This is much like
>>> the race card. It takes attention away from the real problems that do
>>> exist and make everyone skeptical of the honest, trustworthy people
>>> trying to raise awareness to those real problem.
>
>> +1
>
> +1 as much as you want. Just like someone saying that there's no proof
> that CO2 is not causing problems, the reverse can also be true. It may
> be causing immense problems, just that nature has so far been able to
> handle it.

Then arguably it is not a problem, is it? :)

That notwithstanding, and I'll certainly give you the benefit of the
doubt in that very specific regard, the part of MIKE's post that
deserves a +1, which you may have missed, is that the real
danger/consequence is one of misguided, "chicken little" misdirection on
the part of those with a political agenda.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/1/2012 1:12 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> tiredofspam wrote:
>> Not according to the A holes who say it's not happening.
>> But those of us with brains recognize that the past few years the
>> swings have been out of whack. Records everywhere. Record high temps
>> in the winters, record snow falls, record low temps.
>>
>> The Deleware river has had 3 100 year floods in just a couple of
>> years.
>>
>> Those people who say its not global warming are the same people that
>> say tobacco doesn't cause cancer. And fracking is harmless. And so
>> on.. Like our congress critters who say SS will be there for us.
>> The head up their ass guys and gals.
>>
>
> Tobacco causes cancer? Science has YET to define the mechanism. All that the
> health folks can say is that there is a very, very strong correlation. But
> science also holds that correlation is not causation.*
Really... you are a total misguided idiot.


>
> Fracking is harmless? Again, geologists and others have not yet shown
> whether fracking is or is not harmless.

So the fact that people can light their water coming out of the tap on
fire is nothing. No fact. You stick your head in the ground... far in
the ground..
>
> SS will be there for us? We have no way of knowing for sure whether SS will
> be there, and we cannot know until the time arrives.
>
> Your examples are based on speculation, guesses, perhaps a tendency, but not
> on reproducible experiments. Just like global warming, er... "climate
> change."
>
> ---------
> * There is strong "evidence" (if you hold that correlation implies
> causation) that pickles are hazardous! Virtually everyone who ate at least
> one pickle before 1900 is, today, either dead or has white hair and no
> teeth.
>
>

"Keith Nuttle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When we talk of global warming we are talking the whole earth not just a
> few insignificantly few square miles of the tens or thousands of square
> miles on earth surface. So it may be 105 here but that has nothing to do
> with global warming.
>
> I snicker every time I see someone telling me the the total earth's
> atmosphere has changing 0.2 degree F when the temperature range on the
> earth surface varies over 100 degree from one end of the earth to the
> other on any given hour of the day.
>
> OR when the global warming "scientist" say that global warming has raised
> the sea level on one side of the Atlantic and not the other by 2mm, when
> the oceans changes 1000 mm on the average with every tide change. I see
> the water raise on one side of the bowl and not the other every time I get
> a drink.
>
> OR when they tell me the pH of the ocean has changed less the the accuracy
> of the pH standards they use in make the measurements.
>
> If they took these "statistical" analysis to generate these numbers to the
> FDA for the approval of a drug they would be laughed out of the building.
>
> With it so hot there have been days with NO air movement. ( Windmills need
> steady 12 mph winds to operate. The bigger they are the higher the wind
> speed.) I am sure the windmills provided a lot of supplemental
> electricity to assist the conventional and nuclear plant on these days
> when every ones air conditioners were at a maximum.
========================================
The reason it does not make sense to you is that you are looking at it all
wrong. Real science, logic and reason have no place in any conversation
about global warming. Now, throw all that out and say 15 hail Al Gores as
penence.

>

On 7/5/2012 6:51 AM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:13:15 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/4/2012 1:58 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2012 11:06 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Just limiting my discussion to fracking.
>>>>
>>>> Poor baby ... bless her little pea picking heart. LOL
>>>>
>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/86lbrg5
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I busted out laughing when I read that. I wander who got to her and
>>> how much she got.
>>>
>>> I laughed again when I learned that she could have changed her vote as
>>> long is it did not affect the outcome. What would be the point??
>>
>> I get a "Page not found" from both Firefox and Exploder.
>
> I do too now, but here is another link:
> http://tinyurl.com/6ozqbgp or
> <http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/tillis-ignores-carneys-pleas-to-correct
> -her-vote-on-fracking-bill/Content?oid=3096728>

Never mind the rules, never mind she made the mistake, slant it as much
as you can and blame it on the other party.

That rag is exactly what's wrong with today's media.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Han <[email protected]> writes:
>Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han <[email protected]> wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
>> 207.246.207.124:
>>
>>> One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
>>> that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in
>>> Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it
>>> will expand, and thus the level will go up. Somebody ought to have
>>> the calculated data how much up that up is.
>>
>> Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical
>> sciences.
>>
>> Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At 5
>> deg C (41 deg F) its density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50 deg
>> F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW, warming from 4 deg C to 10 deg
>> C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) = 1.00027, or
>> about one-fortieth of one per cent.
>>
>> Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.
>>
>> [Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics]
>
>My Handbook is upstairs. One of the very few books I took when I
>retired. It is really old, though still the larger format.
>
>OK, let's do the calculations.
>
>First let's assume that the ocean basins don't change in volume as the
>ocean warms up.
>
>From <http://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html>
>total volume: 1,335,000,000 km^3
>Total surface area 361,900,000 km^2
>
>Using your expansion factor as a very large approximation:
>Total volume becomes 1,335,000,000 * 1.00027 = 1,335,360,450 or
>360,450 km^3 more, which is divided over an area of 361,900,000 km^2.
>That is a height of 0.000995993368 km, i.e. 99.59 cm or over 3 feet.
>
>Your temperature rise is very large, so with a lower rise in temperature,
>the rise in sea level won't be as great. But, keep in mind that this is
>only the effect of warming of the whole ocean. I don't (yet) know what
>the expansion will be on average, because I don't know how fast a) the
>oceans will heat up, and b) how fast the oceans mix. However, we need to
>add the effects of glacier and icecap melts, and we have no idea really
>how the rate of melting is going to change. Overall (and there are vast
>variations), that rate seems likely to increase, rather than decrease.
>
>Of course, a couple of dozen Mt Pinatubo sized volcanic eruptions will
>likely cool things down for at least a few years, let alone Krakatao-
>sized ones ...

There are a number of factors that need to be considered when
thinking about the average sea level:

1) Isostatic rebound; some land surfaces in the Northern Hemisphere are still
rebounding (rising) from the last ice age. All things equal, this
results in relative lowering of sea level in such areas.

2) Subsidence due to loading (e.g. large river system deltas), all
things equal, this results in a relative rise of sea level in such
areas. Subsidence due to groundwater depletion also has local effects.

3) Thermal expansion due to heat content of the ocean. You've calculated
this above. Note that the thermal content of the ocean changes
relatively slowly as the thermohaline circulation moves water between
colder and warmer regions. The thermohaline circulation has a period
of about 1600 years (for water to make a complete cycle). The thermal
input is via thermal diffusion between the air and the water, so the
rate is governed by the difference in water and air temperatures. This
also implies that more than the top 50 feet of the ocean matters, since
the warm water sinks at the poles, moves equator-ward and upwells causing
warming at all levels to some extent.

4) Melting of land-bound ice (note that as floating ice (e.g. the Arctic)
melts, sea level is not affected) such as Greenland, the Antarctic
plateau (but not the floating sea-ice) and continental glaciers.
I'll note here that southern hemisphere ice extent hasn't changed
much at all since 1979 (if anything, it has increased), while the
northern hemisphere icecap has thinned and shrunk over the same
time period (there is no satellite data prior to 1979). There hasn't
yet been much change to Greenland (in fact, recent research has
significantly lower estimates of greenland ice loss).

5) Groundwater drawdown (since most of it ends up flowing to the ocean
via runoff or precipitation). Note that this has been calculated to
be a significant portion of the sea level rise to date, with different
studies showing different levels based on different assumptions as to
the amount of geologic water that has been withdrawn.

6) Currents caused by prevailing winds tend to cause surges in certain
areas; tidal effects thus vary (some areas have larger differences
between low and high tides than others). If the prevailing winds
change due to thermal radiation/circulation changes, then there will
be changes in the tidal response in various areas.

scott