| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
29 Dec 2006 08:54:41 AM |
| Object: |
Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
From The Associated Press, 12/29/06:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/29/america/NA_GEN_Canada_Arctic_Ice_Break.php
Ancient ice shelf snaps and breaks free from the Canadian Arctic
The Associated Press
TORONTO:
A giant ice shelf has snapped free from an island south of the North
Pole, scientists said Thursday, citing climate change as a "major"
reason for the event.
The Ayles Ice Shelf — 66 square kilometers (41 square miles) of it —
broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about
800 kilometers (500 miles) south of the North Pole in the Canadian
Arctic.
Scientists discovered the event by using satellite imagery.
Within one hour of breaking free, the shelf had formed as a new ice
island, leaving a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake.
Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions,
traveled to the newly formed ice island and was amazed at the sight.
"This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing
remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for
many thousands of years," Vincent said.
"We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset of
accelerated change ahead."
__________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
30 Dec 2006 06:02:49 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:3cmdp2t3o7g4sos8g3ear8ov2v65evb7tv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:12:50 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ovcdp29a3meioctthnvt689iiesrnm8cgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com>
wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope
<rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis
This is not correct.. Predictions can be made and confirmed or denied.
If you make the prediction that it will be 5 C. warmer in 100 years
then I can't evaluate your claim except by waiting 100 years.
So what?
Who made you the arbitrer of scientific theory?
Or were you trying to say that certain exeriments cannot be performed?
That
man-made and naturqal influences cannot be separated?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Again, so what?
Addressed below.
In either case, it does not matter.
F/ ex/, whether the ource of the CO2 is human or natural does not matter.
Only the partial pressure of CO2 is important, and the effects caused by
differing amounts in the atmosphere.
The "problem" is warming. The cause of the warming is in dispute.
Only by those who refuse to accept current scientific analysis.
The vast majority of climatotlogist gree on warming and its causes.
Without the ability to control the variable of atmospheric CO2 there
is no way to prove causation. Paleoclimate records show no such
causation.
Yes, there is.
ut you don;t want to accept the science.
From that the level of human influence can be extrapolated and a
determination can be made whether or not that influence is significant.
and computer modeling.
Which are getting better and better at predicting change.
It is interesting tht each generation of computer omdel predicts _worse_
effects than the previous, not better. This is an indicator that their
basic
assumptions are correct.
Bwahahahah!
What it also means is that all previous computer models were wrong.
No.
It means that they were not perfect.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful". -- George E. P. Box
You really like pithy quotes, don;t you? O f course, you don;t mention that
Box was a professor of engineering who made a living off of modelling.
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on 20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
Frankly, what you think is irreelvant.
Climateis not cyclical, it is avriable. Cyclical implies regularity and
predictability, which are not evident.
http://www.geocraft.com/geocraft/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Pa blum.
An indicator of this is that climate has been cooling over history. F.
ex.
the 4 great ice ages have only occured in the last 750 million years or
so --- there were none in the first 4 billion years of earth history.
Concomittant with that is the fact that hot periods are moderating, we are
not seeing the worldwide tropical conditions of billions of years ago.
The earth was quite tropical during much of the Triassic, Jurassic,
Cretaceuos and the first half of the Tertiary this is as little as 50
million years ago. The current ice age began a mere 2 million years
ago.
So wehat?
It was not a tropical as it was 3 billion years ago, and again, there were
no icesagesuntil the relatively recent geological eras.
As in _very_ varailble system, whether it is a spinning top or the universe
it is moving to zero entropy. DOesn;t mean that , even towards the end, that
there cannot be significnat variation.
The solution to either theory is adaptation.
We are past the point of easy adaptation. Billions will die.
The global population is just over 6.5 billion people. Within 50 years
half of these people will be dead. This is irrespective of the global
climate.
You are arguing more froma religiuos point of view than a scientific one.
What does religion have to do with climatic history?
Shhesh, brain fart, can't think of the name..
The christian belief about the end of the world.
Larry
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
30 Dec 2006 11:02:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:02:49 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:3cmdp2t3o7g4sos8g3ear8ov2v65evb7tv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:12:50 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ovcdp29a3meioctthnvt689iiesrnm8cgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com>
wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope
<rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis
This is not correct.. Predictions can be made and confirmed or denied.
If you make the prediction that it will be 5 C. warmer in 100 years
then I can't evaluate your claim except by waiting 100 years.
So what?
Who made you the arbitrer of scientific theory?
So you want me to accept this claim on faith?
Prescience is not science -- Captain Compassion
Or were you trying to say that certain exeriments cannot be performed?
That
man-made and naturqal influences cannot be separated?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Again, so what?
Not into hypothesis testing en?
Addressed below.
In either case, it does not matter.
F/ ex/, whether the ource of the CO2 is human or natural does not matter.
Only the partial pressure of CO2 is important, and the effects caused by
differing amounts in the atmosphere.
The "problem" is warming. The cause of the warming is in dispute.
Only by those who refuse to accept current scientific analysis.
The vast majority of climatotlogist gree on warming and its causes.
Without the ability to control the variable of atmospheric CO2 there
is no way to prove causation. Paleoclimate records show no such
causation.
Yes, there is.
So you say.
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/correlaEng.html
ut you don;t want to accept the science.
How rational people accept what is unprovable?
From that the level of human influence can be extrapolated and a
determination can be made whether or not that influence is significant.
and computer modeling.
Which are getting better and better at predicting change.
It is interesting tht each generation of computer omdel predicts _worse_
effects than the previous, not better. This is an indicator that their
basic
assumptions are correct.
Bwahahahah!
What it also means is that all previous computer models were wrong.
No.
It means that they were not perfect.
But current models are?
"All models are wrong, but some are useful". -- George E. P. Box
You really like pithy quotes, don;t you? O f course, you don;t mention that
Box was a professor of engineering who made a living off of modelling.
So he would understand the limitations inherent with modeling? Right.
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on 20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
Frankly, what you think is irreelvant.
Climateis not cyclical, it is avriable. Cyclical implies regularity and
predictability, which are not evident.
http://www.geocraft.com/geocraft/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Pa blum.
An indicator of this is that climate has been cooling over history. F.
ex.
the 4 great ice ages have only occured in the last 750 million years or
so --- there were none in the first 4 billion years of earth history.
Concomittant with that is the fact that hot periods are moderating, we are
not seeing the worldwide tropical conditions of billions of years ago.
The earth was quite tropical during much of the Triassic, Jurassic,
Cretaceuos and the first half of the Tertiary this is as little as 50
million years ago. The current ice age began a mere 2 million years
ago.
So wehat?
It was not a tropical as it was 3 billion years ago, and again, there were
no icesagesuntil the relatively recent geological eras.
As in _very_ varailble system, whether it is a spinning top or the universe
it is moving to zero entropy. DOesn;t mean that , even towards the end, that
there cannot be significnat variation.
The solution to either theory is adaptation.
We are past the point of easy adaptation. Billions will die.
The global population is just over 6.5 billion people. Within 50 years
half of these people will be dead. This is irrespective of the global
climate.
You are arguing more froma religiuos point of view than a scientific one.
What does religion have to do with climatic history?
Shhesh, brain fart, can't think of the name..
The christian belief about the end of the world.
Apocalyptic?
What makes predictions of a coming climate catastrophe any different
than the Christian view of the coming Apocalypse? What color horse
does Global Warming ride? -- Captain Compassion
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is
environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice
for urban atheists. -- Michael Crichton
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
31 Dec 2006 01:24:22 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:gqeep2905sdkh7e9bkkrigs91nuj002vud@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:02:49 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:3cmdp2t3o7g4sos8g3ear8ov2v65evb7tv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:12:50 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ovcdp29a3meioctthnvt689iiesrnm8cgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com>
wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope
<rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis
This is not correct.. Predictions can be made and confirmed or denied.
If you make the prediction that it will be 5 C. warmer in 100 years
then I can't evaluate your claim except by waiting 100 years.
So what?
Who made you the arbitrer of scientific theory?
So you want me to accept this claim on faith?
Prescience is not science -- Captain Compassion
Faith has nothign to do with it.
You accept millions of scientific conclusion eery day. You accept theories
of electormagnitsm every time you flick the switch. You acccept theories of
quantum physics every time you turn on the tv. You accept throies of gravity
every time you get in an elevator.
You are exhibiting more fath that the theories are inaccurate than I amin
supporting htem. YOu are relying on faith --- becuase according to your own
standards, there is n o way of knowing wha tthe future holds --- the global
waming is a hoax.
larry
Or were you trying to say that certain exeriments cannot be performed?
That
man-made and naturqal influences cannot be separated?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Again, so what?
Not into hypothesis testing en?
Addressed below.
In either case, it does not matter.
F/ ex/, whether the ource of the CO2 is human or natural does not
matter.
Only the partial pressure of CO2 is important, and the effects caused by
differing amounts in the atmosphere.
The "problem" is warming. The cause of the warming is in dispute.
Only by those who refuse to accept current scientific analysis.
The vast majority of climatotlogist gree on warming and its causes.
Without the ability to control the variable of atmospheric CO2 there
is no way to prove causation. Paleoclimate records show no such
causation.
Yes, there is.
So you say.
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/correlaEng.html
ut you don;t want to accept the science.
How rational people accept what is unprovable?
From that the level of human influence can be extrapolated and a
determination can be made whether or not that influence is significant.
and computer modeling.
Which are getting better and better at predicting change.
It is interesting tht each generation of computer omdel predicts _worse_
effects than the previous, not better. This is an indicator that their
basic
assumptions are correct.
Bwahahahah!
What it also means is that all previous computer models were wrong.
No.
It means that they were not perfect.
But current models are?
"All models are wrong, but some are useful". -- George E. P. Box
You really like pithy quotes, don;t you? O f course, you don;t mention
that
Box was a professor of engineering who made a living off of modelling.
So he would understand the limitations inherent with modeling? Right.
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on 20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
Frankly, what you think is irreelvant.
Climateis not cyclical, it is avriable. Cyclical implies regularity and
predictability, which are not evident.
http://www.geocraft.com/geocraft/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Pa blum.
An indicator of this is that climate has been cooling over history. F.
ex.
the 4 great ice ages have only occured in the last 750 million years or
so --- there were none in the first 4 billion years of earth history.
Concomittant with that is the fact that hot periods are moderating, we
are
not seeing the worldwide tropical conditions of billions of years ago.
The earth was quite tropical during much of the Triassic, Jurassic,
Cretaceuos and the first half of the Tertiary this is as little as 50
million years ago. The current ice age began a mere 2 million years
ago.
So wehat?
It was not a tropical as it was 3 billion years ago, and again, there were
no icesagesuntil the relatively recent geological eras.
As in _very_ varailble system, whether it is a spinning top or the
universe
it is moving to zero entropy. DOesn;t mean that , even towards the end,
that
there cannot be significnat variation.
The solution to either theory is adaptation.
We are past the point of easy adaptation. Billions will die.
The global population is just over 6.5 billion people. Within 50 years
half of these people will be dead. This is irrespective of the global
climate.
You are arguing more froma religiuos point of view than a scientific
one.
What does religion have to do with climatic history?
Shhesh, brain fart, can't think of the name..
The christian belief about the end of the world.
Apocalyptic?
What makes predictions of a coming climate catastrophe any different
than the Christian view of the coming Apocalypse? What color horse
does Global Warming ride? -- Captain Compassion
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is
environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice
for urban atheists. -- Michael Crichton
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
31 Dec 2006 03:32:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:24:22 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:gqeep2905sdkh7e9bkkrigs91nuj002vud@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:02:49 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:3cmdp2t3o7g4sos8g3ear8ov2v65evb7tv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:12:50 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ovcdp29a3meioctthnvt689iiesrnm8cgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com>
wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope
<rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis
This is not correct.. Predictions can be made and confirmed or denied.
If you make the prediction that it will be 5 C. warmer in 100 years
then I can't evaluate your claim except by waiting 100 years.
So what?
Who made you the arbitrer of scientific theory?
So you want me to accept this claim on faith?
Prescience is not science -- Captain Compassion
Faith has nothign to do with it.
You accept millions of scientific conclusion eery day. You accept theories
of electormagnitsm every time you flick the switch. You acccept theories of
quantum physics every time you turn on the tv. You accept throies of gravity
every time you get in an elevator.
You are exhibiting more fath that the theories are inaccurate than I amin
supporting htem. YOu are relying on faith --- becuase according to your own
standards, there is n o way of knowing wha tthe future holds --- the global
waming is a hoax.
The intellectual state needed to reject unprovable hypothesis is not
faith but skepticism. The future is predictable. Mystics and prophets
do it all the time.
Prediction is difficult, especially of the future. -- Niels Bohr
Or were you trying to say that certain exeriments cannot be performed?
That
man-made and naturqal influences cannot be separated?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Again, so what?
Not into hypothesis testing en?
Addressed below.
In either case, it does not matter.
F/ ex/, whether the ource of the CO2 is human or natural does not
matter.
Only the partial pressure of CO2 is important, and the effects caused by
differing amounts in the atmosphere.
The "problem" is warming. The cause of the warming is in dispute.
Only by those who refuse to accept current scientific analysis.
The vast majority of climatotlogist gree on warming and its causes.
Without the ability to control the variable of atmospheric CO2 there
is no way to prove causation. Paleoclimate records show no such
causation.
Yes, there is.
So you say.
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/correlaEng.html
ut you don;t want to accept the science.
How rational people accept what is unprovable?
From that the level of human influence can be extrapolated and a
determination can be made whether or not that influence is significant.
and computer modeling.
Which are getting better and better at predicting change.
It is interesting tht each generation of computer omdel predicts _worse_
effects than the previous, not better. This is an indicator that their
basic
assumptions are correct.
Bwahahahah!
What it also means is that all previous computer models were wrong.
No.
It means that they were not perfect.
But current models are?
"All models are wrong, but some are useful". -- George E. P. Box
You really like pithy quotes, don;t you? O f course, you don;t mention
that
Box was a professor of engineering who made a living off of modelling.
So he would understand the limitations inherent with modeling? Right.
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on 20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
Frankly, what you think is irreelvant.
Climateis not cyclical, it is avriable. Cyclical implies regularity and
predictability, which are not evident.
http://www.geocraft.com/geocraft/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Pa blum.
An indicator of this is that climate has been cooling over history. F.
ex.
the 4 great ice ages have only occured in the last 750 million years or
so --- there were none in the first 4 billion years of earth history.
Concomittant with that is the fact that hot periods are moderating, we
are
not seeing the worldwide tropical conditions of billions of years ago.
The earth was quite tropical during much of the Triassic, Jurassic,
Cretaceuos and the first half of the Tertiary this is as little as 50
million years ago. The current ice age began a mere 2 million years
ago.
So wehat?
It was not a tropical as it was 3 billion years ago, and again, there were
no icesagesuntil the relatively recent geological eras.
As in _very_ varailble system, whether it is a spinning top or the
universe
it is moving to zero entropy. DOesn;t mean that , even towards the end,
that
there cannot be significnat variation.
The solution to either theory is adaptation.
We are past the point of easy adaptation. Billions will die.
The global population is just over 6.5 billion people. Within 50 years
half of these people will be dead. This is irrespective of the global
climate.
You are arguing more froma religiuos point of view than a scientific
one.
What does religion have to do with climatic history?
Shhesh, brain fart, can't think of the name..
The christian belief about the end of the world.
Apocalyptic?
What makes predictions of a coming climate catastrophe any different
than the Christian view of the coming Apocalypse? What color horse
does Global Warming ride? -- Captain Compassion
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is
environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice
for urban atheists. -- Michael Crichton
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
30 Dec 2006 04:40:01 PM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:12:50 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ovcdp29a3meioctthnvt689iiesrnm8cgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis
This is not correct.. Predictions can be made and confirmed or denied.
If you make the prediction that it will be 5 C. warmer in 100 years
then I can't evaluate your claim except by waiting 100 years.
Ha, 5c in 10 years at the polls - the environment is NON-LINEAR in its
response to CO2. You won't have to wait all that long. Then what?
Well, guess what, the homo-sapien rein is ending.
Or were you trying to say that certain exeriments cannot be performed? That
man-made and naturqal influences cannot be separated?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
In either case, it does not matter.
F/ ex/, whether the ource of the CO2 is human or natural does not matter.
Only the partial pressure of CO2 is important, and the effects caused by
differing amounts in the atmosphere.
The "problem" is warming. The cause of the warming is in dispute.
Without the ability to control the variable of atmospheric CO2 there
is no way to prove causation. Paleoclimate records show no such
causation.
From that the level of human influence can be extrapolated and a
determination can be made whether or not that influence is significant.
and computer modeling.
Which are getting better and better at predicting change.
It is interesting tht each generation of computer omdel predicts _worse_
effects than the previous, not better. This is an indicator that their basic
assumptions are correct.
Bwahahahah!
What it also means is that all previous computer models were wrong.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful". -- George E. P. Box
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on 20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
Frankly, what you think is irreelvant.
Climateis not cyclical, it is avriable. Cyclical implies regularity and
predictability, which are not evident.
http://www.geocraft.com/geocraft/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
An indicator of this is that climate has been cooling over history. F. ex.
the 4 great ice ages have only occured in the last 750 million years or
so --- there were none in the first 4 billion years of earth history.
Concomittant with that is the fact that hot periods are moderating, we are
not seeing the worldwide tropical conditions of billions of years ago.
The earth was quite tropical during much of the Triassic, Jurassic,
Cretaceuos and the first half of the Tertiary this is as little as 50
million years ago. The current ice age began a mere 2 million years
ago.
The solution to either theory is adaptation.
We are past the point of easy adaptation. Billions will die.
The global population is just over 6.5 billion people. Within 50 years
half of these people will be dead. This is irrespective of the global
climate.
You are arguing more froma religiuos point of view than a scientific one.
What does religion have to do with climatic history?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
30 Dec 2006 05:32:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:40:01 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:12:50 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ovcdp29a3meioctthnvt689iiesrnm8cgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis
This is not correct.. Predictions can be made and confirmed or denied.
If you make the prediction that it will be 5 C. warmer in 100 years
then I can't evaluate your claim except by waiting 100 years.
Ha, 5c in 10 years at the polls - the environment is NON-LINEAR in its
response to CO2. You won't have to wait all that long. Then what?
Well, guess what, the homo-sapien rein is ending.
Not only is it non-linear it's chaotic. That's why it cant be
predicted.
Or were you trying to say that certain exeriments cannot be performed? That
man-made and naturqal influences cannot be separated?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
In either case, it does not matter.
F/ ex/, whether the ource of the CO2 is human or natural does not matter.
Only the partial pressure of CO2 is important, and the effects caused by
differing amounts in the atmosphere.
The "problem" is warming. The cause of the warming is in dispute.
Without the ability to control the variable of atmospheric CO2 there
is no way to prove causation. Paleoclimate records show no such
causation.
From that the level of human influence can be extrapolated and a
determination can be made whether or not that influence is significant.
and computer modeling.
Which are getting better and better at predicting change.
It is interesting tht each generation of computer omdel predicts _worse_
effects than the previous, not better. This is an indicator that their basic
assumptions are correct.
Bwahahahah!
What it also means is that all previous computer models were wrong.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful". -- George E. P. Box
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on 20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
Frankly, what you think is irreelvant.
Climateis not cyclical, it is avriable. Cyclical implies regularity and
predictability, which are not evident.
http://www.geocraft.com/geocraft/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
An indicator of this is that climate has been cooling over history. F. ex.
the 4 great ice ages have only occured in the last 750 million years or
so --- there were none in the first 4 billion years of earth history.
Concomittant with that is the fact that hot periods are moderating, we are
not seeing the worldwide tropical conditions of billions of years ago.
The earth was quite tropical during much of the Triassic, Jurassic,
Cretaceuos and the first half of the Tertiary this is as little as 50
million years ago. The current ice age began a mere 2 million years
ago.
The solution to either theory is adaptation.
We are past the point of easy adaptation. Billions will die.
The global population is just over 6.5 billion people. Within 50 years
half of these people will be dead. This is irrespective of the global
climate.
You are arguing more froma religiuos point of view than a scientific one.
What does religion have to do with climatic history?
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
31 Dec 2006 11:16:48 PM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:40:01 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:12:50 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ovcdp29a3meioctthnvt689iiesrnm8cgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis
This is not correct.. Predictions can be made and confirmed or denied.
If you make the prediction that it will be 5 C. warmer in 100 years
then I can't evaluate your claim except by waiting 100 years.
Ha, 5c in 10 years at the polls - the environment is NON-LINEAR in its
response to CO2. You won't have to wait all that long. Then what?
Well, guess what, the homo-sapien rein is ending.
Not only is it non-linear it's chaotic. That's why it cant be
predicted.
It's easily predicted. Entropy always increases.
Or were you trying to say that certain exeriments cannot be performed? That
man-made and naturqal influences cannot be separated?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
In either case, it does not matter.
F/ ex/, whether the ource of the CO2 is human or natural does not matter.
Only the partial pressure of CO2 is important, and the effects caused by
differing amounts in the atmosphere.
The "problem" is warming. The cause of the warming is in dispute.
Without the ability to control the variable of atmospheric CO2 there
is no way to prove causation. Paleoclimate records show no such
causation.
From that the level of human influence can be extrapolated and a
determination can be made whether or not that influence is significant.
and computer modeling.
Which are getting better and better at predicting change.
It is interesting tht each generation of computer omdel predicts _worse_
effects than the previous, not better. This is an indicator that their basic
assumptions are correct.
Bwahahahah!
What it also means is that all previous computer models were wrong.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful". -- George E. P. Box
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on 20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
Frankly, what you think is irreelvant.
Climateis not cyclical, it is avriable. Cyclical implies regularity and
predictability, which are not evident.
http://www.geocraft.com/geocraft/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
An indicator of this is that climate has been cooling over history. F. ex.
the 4 great ice ages have only occured in the last 750 million years or
so --- there were none in the first 4 billion years of earth history.
Concomittant with that is the fact that hot periods are moderating, we are
not seeing the worldwide tropical conditions of billions of years ago.
The earth was quite tropical during much of the Triassic, Jurassic,
Cretaceuos and the first half of the Tertiary this is as little as 50
million years ago. The current ice age began a mere 2 million years
ago.
The solution to either theory is adaptation.
We are past the point of easy adaptation. Billions will die.
The global population is just over 6.5 billion people. Within 50 years
half of these people will be dead. This is irrespective of the global
climate.
You are arguing more froma religiuos point of view than a scientific one.
What does religion have to do with climatic history?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
01 Jan 2007 12:08:27 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:16:48 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:40:01 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:12:50 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ovcdp29a3meioctthnvt689iiesrnm8cgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis
This is not correct.. Predictions can be made and confirmed or denied.
If you make the prediction that it will be 5 C. warmer in 100 years
then I can't evaluate your claim except by waiting 100 years.
Ha, 5c in 10 years at the polls - the environment is NON-LINEAR in its
response to CO2. You won't have to wait all that long. Then what?
Well, guess what, the homo-sapien rein is ending.
Not only is it non-linear it's chaotic. That's why it cant be
predicted.
It's easily predicted. Entropy always increases.
Entropy is merely an increase of chaos within a system.
Or were you trying to say that certain exeriments cannot be performed? That
man-made and naturqal influences cannot be separated?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
In either case, it does not matter.
F/ ex/, whether the ource of the CO2 is human or natural does not matter.
Only the partial pressure of CO2 is important, and the effects caused by
differing amounts in the atmosphere.
The "problem" is warming. The cause of the warming is in dispute.
Without the ability to control the variable of atmospheric CO2 there
is no way to prove causation. Paleoclimate records show no such
causation.
From that the level of human influence can be extrapolated and a
determination can be made whether or not that influence is significant.
and computer modeling.
Which are getting better and better at predicting change.
It is interesting tht each generation of computer omdel predicts _worse_
effects than the previous, not better. This is an indicator that their basic
assumptions are correct.
Bwahahahah!
What it also means is that all previous computer models were wrong.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful". -- George E. P. Box
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on 20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
Frankly, what you think is irreelvant.
Climateis not cyclical, it is avriable. Cyclical implies regularity and
predictability, which are not evident.
http://www.geocraft.com/geocraft/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
An indicator of this is that climate has been cooling over history. F. ex.
the 4 great ice ages have only occured in the last 750 million years or
so --- there were none in the first 4 billion years of earth history.
Concomittant with that is the fact that hot periods are moderating, we are
not seeing the worldwide tropical conditions of billions of years ago.
The earth was quite tropical during much of the Triassic, Jurassic,
Cretaceuos and the first half of the Tertiary this is as little as 50
million years ago. The current ice age began a mere 2 million years
ago.
The solution to either theory is adaptation.
We are past the point of easy adaptation. Billions will die.
The global population is just over 6.5 billion people. Within 50 years
half of these people will be dead. This is irrespective of the global
climate.
You are arguing more froma religiuos point of view than a scientific one.
What does religion have to do with climatic history?
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
01 Jan 2007 04:20:08 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:p69hp29mg8l6ucnk2nbav5cpcq2h80d26b@4ax.com...
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:16:48 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:40:01 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:12:50 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ovcdp29a3meioctthnvt689iiesrnm8cgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com>
wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com>
wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope
<rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is
obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis
This is not correct.. Predictions can be made and confirmed or
denied.
If you make the prediction that it will be 5 C. warmer in 100 years
then I can't evaluate your claim except by waiting 100 years.
Ha, 5c in 10 years at the polls - the environment is NON-LINEAR in its
response to CO2. You won't have to wait all that long. Then what?
Well, guess what, the homo-sapien rein is ending.
Not only is it non-linear it's chaotic. That's why it cant be
predicted.
It's easily predicted. Entropy always increases.
Entropy is merely an increase of chaos within a system.
No. Entropy is a measure of the spread of energy in a system. Increasing
entropy (the second law of thermodynamics) means that the energy in a system
disperses, making reactions less likely
The classic example is a melting ice cube in a room. Heat energy flows form
the air to the ice, melting it, resulting in cooler air and warmer water.
Increasing entropy mean that it becomes less likely that there will be a hot
spot in the room or a crystal of ice in the water. Or, another way of
putting it, extremes get moderated.
larry
Or were you trying to say that certain exeriments cannot be
performed? That
man-made and naturqal influences cannot be separated?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
In either case, it does not matter.
F/ ex/, whether the ource of the CO2 is human or natural does not
matter.
Only the partial pressure of CO2 is important, and the effects caused
by
differing amounts in the atmosphere.
The "problem" is warming. The cause of the warming is in dispute.
Without the ability to control the variable of atmospheric CO2 there
is no way to prove causation. Paleoclimate records show no such
causation.
From that the level of human influence can be extrapolated and a
determination can be made whether or not that influence is
significant.
and computer modeling.
Which are getting better and better at predicting change.
It is interesting tht each generation of computer omdel predicts
_worse_
effects than the previous, not better. This is an indicator that
their basic
assumptions are correct.
Bwahahahah!
What it also means is that all previous computer models were wrong.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful". -- George E. P. Box
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate
conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on
20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
Frankly, what you think is irreelvant.
Climateis not cyclical, it is avriable. Cyclical implies regularity
and
predictability, which are not evident.
http://www.geocraft.com/geocraft/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
An indicator of this is that climate has been cooling over history.
F. ex.
the 4 great ice ages have only occured in the last 750 million years
or
so --- there were none in the first 4 billion years of earth
history.
Concomittant with that is the fact that hot periods are moderating,
we are
not seeing the worldwide tropical conditions of billions of years
ago.
The earth was quite tropical during much of the Triassic, Jurassic,
Cretaceuos and the first half of the Tertiary this is as little as 50
million years ago. The current ice age began a mere 2 million years
ago.
The solution to either theory is adaptation.
We are past the point of easy adaptation. Billions will die.
The global population is just over 6.5 billion people. Within 50 years
half of these people will be dead. This is irrespective of the global
climate.
You are arguing more froma religiuos point of view than a scientific
one.
What does religion have to do with climatic history?
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
01 Jan 2007 05:32:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:20:08 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:p69hp29mg8l6ucnk2nbav5cpcq2h80d26b@4ax.com...
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:16:48 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:40:01 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:12:50 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ovcdp29a3meioctthnvt689iiesrnm8cgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com>
wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com>
wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope
<rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is
obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis
This is not correct.. Predictions can be made and confirmed or
denied.
If you make the prediction that it will be 5 C. warmer in 100 years
then I can't evaluate your claim except by waiting 100 years.
Ha, 5c in 10 years at the polls - the environment is NON-LINEAR in its
response to CO2. You won't have to wait all that long. Then what?
Well, guess what, the homo-sapien rein is ending.
Not only is it non-linear it's chaotic. That's why it cant be
predicted.
It's easily predicted. Entropy always increases.
Entropy is merely an increase of chaos within a system.
No. Entropy is a measure of the spread of energy in a system. Increasing
entropy (the second law of thermodynamics) means that the energy in a system
disperses, making reactions less likely
The classic example is a melting ice cube in a room. Heat energy flows form
the air to the ice, melting it, resulting in cooler air and warmer water.
Increasing entropy mean that it becomes less likely that there will be a hot
spot in the room or a crystal of ice in the water. Or, another way of
putting it, extremes get moderated.
Fair enough.
Or were you trying to say that certain exeriments cannot be
performed? That
man-made and naturqal influences cannot be separated?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
In either case, it does not matter.
F/ ex/, whether the ource of the CO2 is human or natural does not
matter.
Only the partial pressure of CO2 is important, and the effects caused
by
differing amounts in the atmosphere.
The "problem" is warming. The cause of the warming is in dispute.
Without the ability to control the variable of atmospheric CO2 there
is no way to prove causation. Paleoclimate records show no such
causation.
From that the level of human influence can be extrapolated and a
determination can be made whether or not that influence is
significant.
and computer modeling.
Which are getting better and better at predicting change.
It is interesting tht each generation of computer omdel predicts
_worse_
effects than the previous, not better. This is an indicator that
their basic
assumptions are correct.
Bwahahahah!
What it also means is that all previous computer models were wrong.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful". -- George E. P. Box
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate
conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on
20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
Frankly, what you think is irreelvant.
Climateis not cyclical, it is avriable. Cyclical implies regularity
and
predictability, which are not evident.
http://www.geocraft.com/geocraft/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
An indicator of this is that climate has been cooling over history.
F. ex.
the 4 great ice ages have only occured in the last 750 million years
or
so --- there were none in the first 4 billion years of earth
history.
Concomittant with that is the fact that hot periods are moderating,
we are
not seeing the worldwide tropical conditions of billions of years
ago.
The earth was quite tropical during much of the Triassic, Jurassic,
Cretaceuos and the first half of the Tertiary this is as little as 50
million years ago. The current ice age began a mere 2 million years
ago.
The solution to either theory is adaptation.
We are past the point of easy adaptation. Billions will die.
The global population is just over 6.5 billion people. Within 50 years
half of these people will be dead. This is irrespective of the global
climate.
You are arguing more froma religiuos point of view than a scientific
one.
What does religion have to do with climatic history?
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
30 Dec 2006 04:36:28 PM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis and computer modeling.
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on 20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
If the earth were a globe sitting on your desk, the varnish on the
surface is our 'atmosphere', ie, the place we live. It is very small,
and we are destroying it.
Know why Apr 14, 1935 is called Black Sunday? It was the largest dust
bowl storm ever, and, after acknowledging we overused the land, we vowed
Never Again.
But, it's a new generation, and we forgot the message.
What message?
We need to live in harmony with nature, in a sustainable way.
Over the next 50 years, we'll dump oil as an energy source. Who needs to
continually sacrifice our young in the name of 'freedom' for oil anyway?
The solution to either theory is adaptation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
30 Dec 2006 05:46:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:36:28 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis and computer modeling.
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on 20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
If the earth were a globe sitting on your desk, the varnish on the
surface is our 'atmosphere', ie, the place we live. It is very small,
and we are destroying it.
Know why Apr 14, 1935 is called Black Sunday? It was the largest dust
bowl storm ever, and, after acknowledging we overused the land, we vowed
Never Again.
But, it's a new generation, and we forgot the message.
What message?
We need to live in harmony with nature, in a sustainable way.
Over the next 50 years, we'll dump oil as an energy source. Who needs to
continually sacrifice our young in the name of 'freedom' for oil anyway?
Sounds like you have lots of excess eco-guilt.
http://www.foresightdesign.org/ecopardons/
The solution to either theory is adaptation.
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "PagCal" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
31 Dec 2006 11:14:51 PM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:36:28 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis and computer modeling.
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on 20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
If the earth were a globe sitting on your desk, the varnish on the
surface is our 'atmosphere', ie, the place we live. It is very small,
and we are destroying it.
Know why Apr 14, 1935 is called Black Sunday? It was the largest dust
bowl storm ever, and, after acknowledging we overused the land, we vowed
Never Again.
But, it's a new generation, and we forgot the message.
What message?
We need to live in harmony with nature, in a sustainable way.
Over the next 50 years, we'll dump oil as an energy source. Who needs to
continually sacrifice our young in the name of 'freedom' for oil anyway?
Sounds like you have lots of excess eco-guilt.
http://www.foresghtdesign.org/ecopardons/
What is this, as scam?
No eco-guilt, just eco-action, one CO2 molecule at a time.
The solution to either theory is adaptation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
01 Jan 2007 12:05:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:14:51 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:36:28 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 03:45:42 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Larry Hewitt wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Like Holocost deniers, the 'capt' clings to the notion that Global
Warming won't happen and even if it did, there would be no human
consequences.
The question is not whether global warming is happening. It is obvious
that the earth's climate has warmed much sense the end of the last
glacial 15,000 years ago. The question is why and what can be done
about it.
It is your theory that current climate conditions are unique and are
caused by human activity. This theory is based on untestable
hypothesis and computer modeling.
It is my theory that climate is cyclic and current climate conditions
are normal and within earths climatic record. My theory is based on 20
or so warming and cooling cycles within the last 2 million years.
If the earth were a globe sitting on your desk, the varnish on the
surface is our 'atmosphere', ie, the place we live. It is very small,
and we are destroying it.
Know why Apr 14, 1935 is called Black Sunday? It was the largest dust
bowl storm ever, and, after acknowledging we overused the land, we vowed
Never Again.
But, it's a new generation, and we forgot the message.
What message?
We need to live in harmony with nature, in a sustainable way.
Over the next 50 years, we'll dump oil as an energy source. Who needs to
continually sacrifice our young in the name of 'freedom' for oil anyway?
Sounds like you have lots of excess eco-guilt.
http://www.foresghtdesign.org/ecopardons/
What is this, as scam?
No eco-guilt, just eco-action, one CO2 molecule at a time.
It's sortta like the indulgences from the Catholic Church during the
dark ages. You merely have to believe that they work.
Actually this is serious stuff.
SAN FRANCISCO - Jill Cody used to feel guilty whenever she drove her
car or flew on an airplane. She worried about pumping heat-trapping
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and contributing to global warming.
But the San Jose professor found a way to ease her conscience. She
paid a San Francisco company called TerraPass to offset emissions from
her car and air travel by investing in wind power and reducing farm
pollution.
http://www.examiner.com/a-448168~The_Eco_Conscious_Pay_to_Ease_Guilt.html
You realize how stupid this all looks don't you?
--
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"There are no absolute certainties in this universe. A man must try to
whip order into a yelping pack of probabilities, and uniform success is
impossible." -- Jack Vance
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
31 Dec 2006 11:22:02 PM |
|
|
What a perfect chance to fly in tons of liberal Democrats. They can be
tossed out of aircraft on the ice shelf and will more than supply the
dietary needs of those poor, starving polar bears trapped on the ice shelf.
Polar bears are equal opportunity eaters, and wouldn't balk at eating
liberals on bit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Giant ice shelf breaks free south of the North Pole |
29 Dec 2006 10:48:41 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:19:25 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:dvjbp2toda24troqa5n7jr5dfi5o0jpapb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:30:38 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:6r1bp29j46ptb6kfesfn7mngkvs9kb7r0d@4ax.com...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:24:00 -0500, PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:54:41 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
From The Associated Press, 12/29/06:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/29/america/NA_GEN_Canada_Arctic_Ice_Break.php
Ancient ice shelf snaps and breaks free from the Canadian Arctic
The Associated Press
TORONTO:
A giant ice shelf has snapped free from an island south of the North
Pole, scientists said Thursday, citing climate change as a "major"
reason for the event.
The Ayles Ice Shelf - 66 square kilometers (41 square miles) of it -
broke clear 16 months ago from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about
800 kilometers (500 miles) south of the North Pole in the Canadian
Arctic.
Scientists discovered the event by using satellite imagery.
Within one hour of breaking free, the shelf had formed as a new ice
island, leaving a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake.
Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions,
traveled to the newly formed ice island and was amazed at the sight.
"This is a dramatic and disturbing event. It shows that we are losing
remarkable features of the Canadian North that have been in place for
many thousands of years," Vincent said.
"We are crossing climate thresholds, and these may signal the onset
of
accelerated change ahead."
The assumption here is that before man that the climate was constant.
Stuff for you to consider:
1) Fluctuations in the past weren't as severe as what we are seeing
today.
See Younger Dryas.
Again, it was precipitated by a catastrophic event of global proportions,
and the recovery was equally rapid as the imbalance righted itself.
2) Are we ready to cause another mass extinction, this time including
man-kind, that may reduce the worlds human population from 3-4b to under
1b?
I suspect that humans will have as much success stopping mass
extinctions as the Dinosaur and the Mammalian megafauna.
Especially if we continue to cause rapid climate changes.
Following your logic, mass extinctions have occurred before, so no big
deal. Right?
I suspect that this will happen in the next 1,000,000 years.
Potentially a lot sooner, if global warming theorists are correct.
DHS ( I forget which specific agency now) did a study n the effects of a
nuclear winter on the US. It basically consluded that our society would
disappear. Masive population igration sout woudl start horrific border
wars.
Fodd produciotn would plummet, leasing to epidemics nd hunger.
Increased demand for fuel oil would starve industry and transportation,
further worsening hunger and disease,
Tens of millions would die in a few years, and the damage to out
infrastructure would be peremanent.
Been there done that.
W | |
