| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Captain Compassion" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2006 10:15:13 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 14:41:51 GMT, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 07:16:42 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 01:27:15 -0700, HyperSlit <megasmega@mucous.com>
wrote:
Believe it or not folks, this is just the beginning, the 'baby steps'.
The worst is yet to come.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severe Storms Leave 14 Dead in Midwest
Severe Thunderstorms Sweep Across Tennessee, Missouri and Illinois,
Killing at Least 14
The Associated Press
DYERSBURG, Tenn. - Severe storms swept across the Midwest on Sunday,
killing at least 14 people in Tennessee, Missouri and Illinois,
officials said.
Local emergency officials reported eight deaths in west Tennessee's
Dyer County, and three in neighboring Gibson County, said Kurt
Pickering, spokesman for the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency.
Details on the deaths weren't immediately available.
Record Tahoe Snowfall
http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_091193714.html
Is this an example of a coming Ice Age?
Nope - increased precipitation is another indicator of global warming
and climate change. Comprende?
GW theory is neat. It seems that all those little mysteries of the
natural world can now can be explained with one grand unified theory.
Too much rain, Drought, heat waves, Cold snaps, strange diseases,
animal extinctions, wars, famines, blizzards, hurricanes. All these
can be now be easily explained.
What folks used to call God's will is now called man's fault. Makes it
easy to explain things eh?
--
"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
"Civilizaton is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
04 Apr 2006 10:50:42 AM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:ho2532l7t009r3qfk582228kie7a0j09ek@4ax.com...
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 14:41:51 GMT, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 07:16:42 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 01:27:15 -0700, HyperSlit <megasmega@mucous.com>
wrote:
Believe it or not folks, this is just the beginning, the 'baby steps'.
The worst is yet to come.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severe Storms Leave 14 Dead in Midwest
Severe Thunderstorms Sweep Across Tennessee, Missouri and Illinois,
Killing at Least 14
The Associated Press
DYERSBURG, Tenn. - Severe storms swept across the Midwest on Sunday,
killing at least 14 people in Tennessee, Missouri and Illinois,
officials said.
Local emergency officials reported eight deaths in west Tennessee's
Dyer County, and three in neighboring Gibson County, said Kurt
Pickering, spokesman for the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency.
Details on the deaths weren't immediately available.
Record Tahoe Snowfall
http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_091193714.html
Is this an example of a coming Ice Age?
Nope - increased precipitation is another indicator of global warming
and climate change. Comprende?
GW theory is neat. It seems that all those little mysteries of the
natural world can now can be explained with one grand unified theory.
Too much rain, Drought, heat waves, Cold snaps, strange diseases,
animal extinctions, wars, famines, blizzards, hurricanes. All these
can be now be easily explained.
What folks used to call God's will is now called man's fault. Makes it
easy to explain things eh?
lol Why did you even bother?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
04 Apr 2006 12:43:48 PM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
GW theory is neat. It seems that all those little mysteries of the
natural world can now can be explained with one grand unified theory.
Too much rain, Drought, heat waves, Cold snaps, strange diseases,
animal extinctions, wars, famines, blizzards, hurricanes. All these
can be now be easily explained.
What folks used to call God's will is now called man's fault. Makes it
easy to explain things eh?
You ever boil a pot of water? You notice how as it heats up there is a
lot of convection, more swirling, more motion? Not surprising because
you're pumping more energy into the system?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
04 Apr 2006 03:10:56 PM |
|
|
On 4 Apr 2006 10:43:48 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
GW theory is neat. It seems that all those little mysteries of the
natural world can now can be explained with one grand unified theory.
Too much rain, Drought, heat waves, Cold snaps, strange diseases,
animal extinctions, wars, famines, blizzards, hurricanes. All these
can be now be easily explained.
What folks used to call God's will is now called man's fault. Makes it
easy to explain things eh?
You ever boil a pot of water? You notice how as it heats up there is a
lot of convection, more swirling, more motion? Not surprising because
you're pumping more energy into the system?
On the earth the energy comes from the sun so are you saying that the
sun is getting hotter? You understand that's not what GW theory is
saying.
--
"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
"Civilizaton is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
04 Apr 2006 03:34:55 PM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 10:43:48 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
GW theory is neat. It seems that all those little mysteries of the
natural world can now can be explained with one grand unified theory.
Too much rain, Drought, heat waves, Cold snaps, strange diseases,
animal extinctions, wars, famines, blizzards, hurricanes. All these
can be now be easily explained.
What folks used to call God's will is now called man's fault. Makes it
easy to explain things eh?
You ever boil a pot of water? You notice how as it heats up there is a
lot of convection, more swirling, more motion? Not surprising because
you're pumping more energy into the system?
On the earth the energy comes from the sun so are you saying that the
sun is getting hotter?
No, are you?
You understand that's not what GW theory is
saying.
Yes, do you?
Here's a hint:
net energy accumulation = energy absorbed minus energy radiated.
Let us know when you get that far.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
04 Apr 2006 08:48:11 PM |
|
|
On 4 Apr 2006 13:34:55 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 10:43:48 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
GW theory is neat. It seems that all those little mysteries of the
natural world can now can be explained with one grand unified theory.
Too much rain, Drought, heat waves, Cold snaps, strange diseases,
animal extinctions, wars, famines, blizzards, hurricanes. All these
can be now be easily explained.
What folks used to call God's will is now called man's fault. Makes it
easy to explain things eh?
You ever boil a pot of water? You notice how as it heats up there is a
lot of convection, more swirling, more motion? Not surprising because
you're pumping more energy into the system?
On the earth the energy comes from the sun so are you saying that the
sun is getting hotter?
No, are you?
You understand that's not what GW theory is
saying.
Yes, do you?
Here's a hint:
net energy accumulation = energy absorbed minus energy radiated.
Let us know when you get that far.
But your example added additional energy. Even in a greenhouse all
energy is eventually radiated back. The difference is that it is
radiated back slower.
--
"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
"Civilizaton is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "c-bee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
04 Apr 2006 11:33:38 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:b886321anfp0pf4eqc3drsrctabsbdjp4q@4ax.com...
On 4 Apr 2006 13:34:55 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 10:43:48 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
GW theory is neat. It seems that all those little mysteries of the
natural world can now can be explained with one grand unified
theory.
Too much rain, Drought, heat waves, Cold snaps, strange diseases,
animal extinctions, wars, famines, blizzards, hurricanes. All these
can be now be easily explained.
What folks used to call God's will is now called man's fault. Makes
it
easy to explain things eh?
You ever boil a pot of water? You notice how as it heats up there is a
lot of convection, more swirling, more motion? Not surprising because
you're pumping more energy into the system?
On the earth the energy comes from the sun so are you saying that the
sun is getting hotter?
No, are you?
You understand that's not what GW theory is
saying.
Yes, do you?
Here's a hint:
net energy accumulation = energy absorbed minus energy radiated.
Let us know when you get that far.
But your example added additional energy.
Ye, just like the sun.
Even in a greenhouse all
energy is eventually radiated back. The difference is that it is
radiated back slower.
Yup, as heat. Next, you'll be telling us it's not hotter in ovens because
all the energy radiates away. lol
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
05 Apr 2006 12:01:08 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 04:33:38 GMT, "c-bee1" <c-bee1@insightbb.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:b886321anfp0pf4eqc3drsrctabsbdjp4q@4ax.com...
On 4 Apr 2006 13:34:55 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 10:43:48 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
GW theory is neat. It seems that all those little mysteries of the
natural world can now can be explained with one grand unified
theory.
Too much rain, Drought, heat waves, Cold snaps, strange diseases,
animal extinctions, wars, famines, blizzards, hurricanes. All these
can be now be easily explained.
What folks used to call God's will is now called man's fault. Makes
it
easy to explain things eh?
You ever boil a pot of water? You notice how as it heats up there is a
lot of convection, more swirling, more motion? Not surprising because
you're pumping more energy into the system?
On the earth the energy comes from the sun so are you saying that the
sun is getting hotter?
No, are you?
You understand that's not what GW theory is
saying.
Yes, do you?
Here's a hint:
net energy accumulation = energy absorbed minus energy radiated.
Let us know when you get that far.
But your example added additional energy.
Ye, just like the sun.
Even in a greenhouse all
energy is eventually radiated back. The difference is that it is
radiated back slower.
Yup, as heat. Next, you'll be telling us it's not hotter in ovens because
all the energy radiates away. lol
It's hotter if you add heat. As soon as the additional heat input
stops then it cools.
--
"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
"Civilizaton is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
05 Apr 2006 12:58:47 PM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:3mj632pjfj0p0mijausa8liu6k9b2pto08@4ax.com...
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 04:33:38 GMT, "c-bee1" <c-bee1@insightbb.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:b886321anfp0pf4eqc3drsrctabsbdjp4q@4ax.com...
On 4 Apr 2006 13:34:55 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 10:43:48 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
GW theory is neat. It seems that all those little mysteries of the
natural world can now can be explained with one grand unified
theory.
Too much rain, Drought, heat waves, Cold snaps, strange diseases,
animal extinctions, wars, famines, blizzards, hurricanes. All
these
can be now be easily explained.
What folks used to call God's will is now called man's fault.
Makes
it
easy to explain things eh?
You ever boil a pot of water? You notice how as it heats up there is
a
lot of convection, more swirling, more motion? Not surprising
because
you're pumping more energy into the system?
On the earth the energy comes from the sun so are you saying that the
sun is getting hotter?
No, are you?
You understand that's not what GW theory is
saying.
Yes, do you?
Here's a hint:
net energy accumulation = energy absorbed minus energy radiated.
Let us know when you get that far.
But your example added additional energy.
Ye, just like the sun.
Even in a greenhouse all
energy is eventually radiated back. The difference is that it is
radiated back slower.
Yup, as heat. Next, you'll be telling us it's not hotter in ovens
because
all the energy radiates away. lol
It's hotter if you add heat. As soon as the additional heat input
stops then it cools.
Stop the sun and we're golden, eh? lol
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
05 Apr 2006 03:25:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:58:47 -0500, "ouroboros rex"
<c-bee1@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:3mj632pjfj0p0mijausa8liu6k9b2pto08@4ax.com...
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 04:33:38 GMT, "c-bee1" <c-bee1@insightbb.com>
wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:b886321anfp0pf4eqc3drsrctabsbdjp4q@4ax.com...
On 4 Apr 2006 13:34:55 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 10:43:48 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
GW theory is neat. It seems that all those little mysteries of the
natural world can now can be explained with one grand unified
theory.
Too much rain, Drought, heat waves, Cold snaps, strange diseases,
animal extinctions, wars, famines, blizzards, hurricanes. All
these
can be now be easily explained.
What folks used to call God's will is now called man's fault.
Makes
it
easy to explain things eh?
You ever boil a pot of water? You notice how as it heats up there is
a
lot of convection, more swirling, more motion? Not surprising
because
you're pumping more energy into the system?
On the earth the energy comes from the sun so are you saying that the
sun is getting hotter?
No, are you?
You understand that's not what GW theory is
saying.
Yes, do you?
Here's a hint:
net energy accumulation = energy absorbed minus energy radiated.
Let us know when you get that far.
But your example added additional energy.
Ye, just like the sun.
Even in a greenhouse all
energy is eventually radiated back. The difference is that it is
radiated back slower.
Yup, as heat. Next, you'll be telling us it's not hotter in ovens
because
all the energy radiates away. lol
It's hotter if you add heat. As soon as the additional heat input
stops then it cools.
Stop the sun and we're golden, eh? lol
The average temperature of the universe is 2.7281 degrees Kelvin.
--
"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
"Civilizaton is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
05 Apr 2006 09:18:39 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
It's hotter if you add heat. As soon as the additional heat input
stops then it cools.
Well, I can see you're not a good candidate for an insulation salesman
to visit.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
05 Apr 2006 09:17:31 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 13:34:55 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 10:43:48 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
GW theory is neat. It seems that all those little mysteries of the
natural world can now can be explained with one grand unified theory.
Too much rain, Drought, heat waves, Cold snaps, strange diseases,
animal extinctions, wars, famines, blizzards, hurricanes. All these
can be now be easily explained.
What folks used to call God's will is now called man's fault. Makes it
easy to explain things eh?
You ever boil a pot of water? You notice how as it heats up there is a
lot of convection, more swirling, more motion? Not surprising because
you're pumping more energy into the system?
On the earth the energy comes from the sun so are you saying that the
sun is getting hotter?
No, are you?
You understand that's not what GW theory is
saying.
Yes, do you?
Here's a hint:
net energy accumulation = energy absorbed minus energy radiated.
Let us know when you get that far.
But your example added additional energy. Even in a greenhouse all
energy is eventually radiated back. The difference is that it is
radiated back slower.
If the energy is radiated back slower, then the system is acquiring
energy. You can't keep putting energy in faster than you are taking it
out without it piling up.
--
"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
"Civilizaton is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
05 Apr 2006 10:27:12 AM |
|
|
On 5 Apr 2006 07:17:31 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 13:34:55 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 10:43:48 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
GW theory is neat. It seems that all those little mysteries of the
natural world can now can be explained with one grand unified theory.
Too much rain, Drought, heat waves, Cold snaps, strange diseases,
animal extinctions, wars, famines, blizzards, hurricanes. All these
can be now be easily explained.
What folks used to call God's will is now called man's fault. Makes it
easy to explain things eh?
You ever boil a pot of water? You notice how as it heats up there is a
lot of convection, more swirling, more motion? Not surprising because
you're pumping more energy into the system?
On the earth the energy comes from the sun so are you saying that the
sun is getting hotter?
No, are you?
You understand that's not what GW theory is
saying.
Yes, do you?
Here's a hint:
net energy accumulation = energy absorbed minus energy radiated.
Let us know when you get that far.
But your example added additional energy. Even in a greenhouse all
energy is eventually radiated back. The difference is that it is
radiated back slower.
If the energy is radiated back slower, then the system is acquiring
energy. You can't keep putting energy in faster than you are taking it
out without it piling up.
So the temperature of the body absorbing the energy will eventually
reach the temperature of the body radiating the energy?
--
"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
"Civilizaton is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
05 Apr 2006 11:59:37 AM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
So the temperature of the body absorbing the energy will eventually
reach the temperature of the body radiating the energy?
1) About 30% of the radiation that falls on the Earth is reflected
directly back out into space. That's why astronauts can see it.
2) The rest of the radiant energy is absorbed by the Earth, warming it
up. The more it absorbs, the hotter it gets.
3) As the Earth warms up, it in turn radiates energy back out into
space. The hotter it gets, the more it radiates.
4) Any body such as the Earth that has radiant energy falling on it
warms up or cools down until it is losing energy by radiation at the
same rate it absorbs it, reaching equilibrium. (Of course, such true
precise equilibrium is never exactly maintained for long, as all the
parameters in the system vary slightly one way or the other).
5) Averaged over long periods of time, however, the Earth can be
considered to be most of the time in a steady state equilibrium with
the Sun, neither gaining nor losing energy. That is the primary
determinant of the temperature at the surface of the Earth; the
temperature where the radiated energy = the absorbed energy, on the
average.
6) Because of the inverse square law, the total energy density per area
falling on the surface of the Earth from the Sun, even before
reflection, etc. is a tiny fraction of the total energy density at the
surface of the Sun per area. The total energy leaving the Sun is the
same whether measured over the entire surface of the Sun, or at a
distance of 93 million miles; since the total area of the sphere
covering the approximately even distribution of the energy is much
greater in the latter case, the same total energy divided by greater
area results in lower energy per area. Since the area of a sphere rises
as the square of the radius, the energy density falls as the inverse of
the square of the radius. Since the Earth's radius is 6,000 kM, its
cross-sectional area is (6*10^3km/1.5*10^8km)^2 = approximately 10^-9
of the total area of a 93 million mile radius sphere. Thus the Earth
receives only about 1 billionth of the Sun's total energy.
7) The Earth radiates energy, however, from its total surface area.
Thus at equilibrium the energy radiated from the Earth's total surface
will be equal to the energy received by the half of the Earth that
faces the Sun, i.e. approximately 10^-9 the Sun's total energy. So at
equilibrium the Earth must radiate approximately one billionth of the
energy the Sun radiates, in total.
8) Since the sun's radius is 7*10^5 kM, the surface area of the sun is
(7*10^5km/6*10^3km)^2 larger than that of the Earth, therefore the
energy density at the surface is about 10^9/10^4 larger. Since
temperature (absolute) is proportional to the fourth root of energy
density, that puts the temperature at the surface of the Earth about
10^(-4/5) that at the surface of the sun (absolute temp), around 1/10
the Sun's surface temperature.
9) While this is true for the Moon, it is too low for the Earth, due to
the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, which recaptures about 90% of
the energy being radiated, thus requiring the temperature of the Earth
to be higher to increase radiation so as to reach equilibrium. Since so
little energy is escaping, a relatively small increase in absorbtion
corresponds to a relatively large decrease in actual radiation; i.e. a
1% increase in absorbtion due to greenhouse gas results in a 9%
reduction in total radiation, requiring a 2% increase in temperature
(the fourth root of 1.09), all else remaining the same.
10) Of course, all else does not remain the same, the climate is a
nightmare of positive and negative nonlinear feedback systems, that's
just the basic underpinnings.
I hope that clears up your confusion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
04 Apr 2006 02:16:24 PM |
|
|
In article <ho2532l7t009r3qfk582228kie7a0j09ek@4ax.com>,
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net says...
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 14:41:51 GMT, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 07:16:42 -0700, Captain Compassion
<daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 01:27:15 -0700, HyperSlit <megasmega@mucous.com>
wrote:
Believe it or not folks, this is just the beginning, the 'baby steps'.
The worst is yet to come.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severe Storms Leave 14 Dead in Midwest
Severe Thunderstorms Sweep Across Tennessee, Missouri and Illinois,
Killing at Least 14
The Associated Press
DYERSBURG, Tenn. - Severe storms swept across the Midwest on Sunday,
killing at least 14 people in Tennessee, Missouri and Illinois,
officials said.
Local emergency officials reported eight deaths in west Tennessee's
Dyer County, and three in neighboring Gibson County, said Kurt
Pickering, spokesman for the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency.
Details on the deaths weren't immediately available.
Record Tahoe Snowfall
http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_091193714.html
Is this an example of a coming Ice Age?
Nope - increased precipitation is another indicator of global warming
and climate change. Comprende?
GW theory is neat. It seems that all those little mysteries of the
natural world can now can be explained with one grand unified theory.
Too much rain, Drought, heat waves, Cold snaps, strange diseases,
animal extinctions, wars, famines, blizzards, hurricanes. All these
can be now be easily explained.
Will people ever learn history or will they continue to
make fools of yourselves on a daily basis by blaming global warming for
storms and other weather events that have always existed?
John Black
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
05 Apr 2006 12:24:43 PM |
|
|
John Black wrote:
Will people ever learn history or will they continue to
make fools of yourselves on a daily basis by blaming global warming for
storms and other weather events that have always existed?
Things that always existed should be in equilibrium by now, instead of
setting new records every year. When you start seeing record highs and
lows, record storm frequencies and intensities, and the records keep
getting reset every year or two, you don't have to be Stephen Hawking
to see that the system has become unstable in comparison to its
historical behavior.
In the past 30 years, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes
globally has almost doubled.
It used to be "impossible" to have a hurricane in the South Atlantic.
In 2004 we had the first one, in Brazil.
Japan had 10 typhoons in 2004. The previous record was seven.
Northeastern US cities set 38 new high temperature records and tied 15
old ones in 2001.
In 2005, more than 200 cities in the United States broke all-time heat
records.
In 2005, Reno, Nev., set a new record with 10 consecutive days above
100 degrees.
In 2005, Tucson, Ariz., tied its all-time record of 39 consecutive days
above 100 degrees.
In 2005, New Orleans and the surrounding waters of the Gulf hit an
all-time temperature high.
In 2005, parts of India received record rainfall -- 37 inches fell in
Mumbai in 24 hours, killing more than 1,000 people.
In 1990 Britain set a new high temperature record. In 2003, it broke
that record.
In nine out of the past 12 years, average temperatures worldwide have
been higher than at any time since records began in the 19th century.
It is probable that the 1990s were the warmest decade in the past 1000
years.
Sea temperatures in the Mediterranean region are two to three degrees
warmer and reach their peak a month earlier than previously.
Australia set a new mean temperature record in 1998. It broke that
record in 2005.
Australia set a new mean monthly temperature record in 2002. It broke
that record in 2005.
In fact, Australia broke 150 temperature records in 2005.
That's just a quick sampling, not including shrinking glaciers,
shrinking polar ice, growing deserts, species migrating northwards,
extinction of species that can't shift their range, etc. etc. etc. etc.
etc., phenomena that have **never** existed in human history.
"They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved
to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful
to be impotent. The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of
soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In
its place, we are entering a period of consequences." -Winston
Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alohacyberian" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
08 Apr 2006 04:13:28 AM |
|
|
"z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1144257883.287903.269220@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
In the past 30 years, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes
globally has almost doubled.
That may be true, but, a hundred years ago, just after the turn of the
Century, the United States had many more and much more severe hurricanes
than have been witnessed recently, not that there's any demonstrable
connection between the global warming hoax and hurricanes in the United
States. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI or
CNN, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards & 150 foreign languages
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
05 Apr 2006 03:08:55 PM |
|
|
In article <1144257883.287903.269220@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
John Black wrote:
Will people ever learn history or will they continue to
make fools of themselves on a daily basis by blaming global warming for
storms and other weather events that have always existed?
Things that always existed should be in equilibrium by now, instead of
setting new records every year. When you start seeing record highs and
lows, record storm frequencies and intensities, and the records keep
getting reset every year or two, you don't have to be Stephen Hawking
to see that the system has become unstable in comparison to its
historical behavior.
Your arrogance is matched only by your cluelessness. There never has
been anything like equilibrium with regard to the climate of the earth.
There have been many warming and cooling periods in the past. It has
been warmer than it is now. It has also been colder. Records are only
records because we have only been keeping accurate records for a hundred
or so years which is NO TIME at all when looking at climate history.
In the past 30 years, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes
globally has almost doubled.
You must not realize that hurricanes go in about 30 year cycles. We are
not experiencing record hurricanes now by any means, either in number or
intensity. Do some real research. Start at the National Hurricane
Center.
In 2005, New Orleans and the surrounding waters of the Gulf hit an
all-time temperature high.
No it didn't. As I've said the earth has been through warmer periods.
All of the record highs you are talking about are not all time records.
They are the record over the past hundred years or so. There are also
lots of record lows being set every year. Are they proof of global
cooling or do you just dismiss them and focus on the record highs.
That's just a quick sampling, not including shrinking glaciers,
shrinking polar ice, growing deserts, species migrating northwards,
extinction of species that can't shift their range, etc. etc. etc. etc.
etc., phenomena that have **never** existed in human history.
People paniced about glaciers receding must not realize that glaciers
have been receding for 18,000 years now. People paniced about possible
rising sea levels must not realize that sea level has risen over 300
feet (not inches, feet) over the past 20,000 years. This idea of an
equilibrium is an illusion of the shortness of our lifespan in
comparison to the lifespan of the earth. All the weather we see today
has existed in the past and has been worse.
John Black
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
06 Apr 2006 10:29:36 AM |
|
|
John Black wrote:
In article <1144257883.287903.269220@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
John Black wrote:
Will people ever learn history or will they continue to
make fools of themselves on a daily basis by blaming global warming for
storms and other weather events that have always existed?
Things that always existed should be in equilibrium by now, instead of
setting new records every year. When you start seeing record highs and
lows, record storm frequencies and intensities, and the records keep
getting reset every year or two, you don't have to be Stephen Hawking
to see that the system has become unstable in comparison to its
historical behavior.
Your arrogance is matched only by your cluelessness. There never has
been anything like equilibrium with regard to the climate of the earth.
There have been many warming and cooling periods in the past. It has
been warmer than it is now. It has also been colder. Records are only
records because we have only been keeping accurate records for a hundred
or so years which is NO TIME at all when looking at climate history.
In the past 30 years, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes
globally has almost doubled.
You must not realize that hurricanes go in about 30 year cycles. We are
not experiencing record hurricanes now by any means, either in number or
intensity. Do some real research. Start at the National Hurricane
Center.
In 2005, New Orleans and the surrounding waters of the Gulf hit an
all-time temperature high.
No it didn't. As I've said the earth has been through warmer periods.
All of the record highs you are talking about are not all time records.
They are the record over the past hundred years or so. There are also
lots of record lows being set every year. Are they proof of global
cooling or do you just dismiss them and focus on the record highs.
That's just a quick sampling, not including shrinking glaciers,
shrinking polar ice, growing deserts, species migrating northwards,
extinction of species that can't shift their range, etc. etc. etc. etc.
etc., phenomena that have **never** existed in human history.
People paniced about glaciers receding must not realize that glaciers
have been receding for 18,000 years now. People paniced about possible
rising sea levels must not realize that sea level has risen over 300
feet (not inches, feet) over the past 20,000 years. This idea of an
equilibrium is an illusion of the shortness of our lifespan in
comparison to the lifespan of the earth. All the weather we see today
has existed in the past and has been worse.
John Black
So your belief that the climate now is no different from what the
climate has been for thousands of years is based on your belief that we
have no idea what the climate has been for thousands of years?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
06 Apr 2006 12:22:13 PM |
|
|
In article <1144337376.129518.12300@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
John Black wrote:
In article <1144257883.287903.269220@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
John Black wrote:
Will people ever learn history or will they continue to
make fools of themselves on a daily basis by blaming global warming for
storms and other weather events that have always existed?
Things that always existed should be in equilibrium by now, instead of
setting new records every year. When you start seeing record highs and
lows, record storm frequencies and intensities, and the records keep
getting reset every year or two, you don't have to be Stephen Hawking
to see that the system has become unstable in comparison to its
historical behavior.
Your arrogance is matched only by your cluelessness. There never has
been anything like equilibrium with regard to the climate of the earth.
There have been many warming and cooling periods in the past. It has
been warmer than it is now. It has also been colder. Records are only
records because we have only been keeping accurate records for a hundred
or so years which is NO TIME at all when looking at climate history.
In the past 30 years, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes
globally has almost doubled.
You must not realize that hurricanes go in about 30 year cycles. We are
not experiencing record hurricanes now by any means, either in number or
intensity. Do some real research. Start at the National Hurricane
Center.
In 2005, New Orleans and the surrounding waters of the Gulf hit an
all-time temperature high.
No it didn't. As I've said the earth has been through warmer periods.
All of the record highs you are talking about are not all time records.
They are the record over the past hundred years or so. There are also
lots of record lows being set every year. Are they proof of global
cooling or do you just dismiss them and focus on the record highs.
That's just a quick sampling, not including shrinking glaciers,
shrinking polar ice, growing deserts, species migrating northwards,
extinction of species that can't shift their range, etc. etc. etc. etc.
etc., phenomena that have **never** existed in human history.
People paniced about glaciers receding must not realize that glaciers
have been receding for 18,000 years now. People paniced about possible
rising sea levels must not realize that sea level has risen over 300
feet (not inches, feet) over the past 20,000 years. This idea of an
equilibrium is an illusion of the shortness of our lifespan in
comparison to the lifespan of the earth. All the weather we see today
has existed in the past and has been worse.
John Black
So your belief that the climate now is no different from what the
climate has been for thousands of years is based on your belief that we
have no idea what the climate has been for thousands of years?
No, we do know what the climate has been for thousands of years and
longer. But the "record highs" and "record lows" that are being quoted
are not real records over the history of thousands (or more) of years.
They are records over a mere blip in time that doesn't span any of the
warming or cooling trends that the earth has experienced because those
trends take much longer to develop than the hundred or so years the
records have been accurately kept. Do you really think that if the news
reports that Chicago set a record high today for March 5th, they really
mean that they know it was not hotter some March 5th in say the 1100s or
in 1653?
John Black
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
07 Apr 2006 12:30:04 PM |
|
|
John Black wrote:
In article <1144337376.129518.12300@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
John Black wrote:
In article <1144257883.287903.269220@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
John Black wrote:
Will people ever learn history or will they continue to
make fools of themselves on a daily basis by blaming global warming for
storms and other weather events that have always existed?
Things that always existed should be in equilibrium by now, instead of
setting new records every year. When you start seeing record highs and
lows, record storm frequencies and intensities, and the records keep
getting reset every year or two, you don't have to be Stephen Hawking
to see that the system has become unstable in comparison to its
historical behavior.
Your arrogance is matched only by your cluelessness. There never has
been anything like equilibrium with regard to the climate of the earth.
There have been many warming and cooling periods in the past. It has
been warmer than it is now. It has also been colder. Records are only
records because we have only been keeping accurate records for a hundred
or so years which is NO TIME at all when looking at climate history.
In the past 30 years, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes
globally has almost doubled.
You must not realize that hurricanes go in about 30 year cycles. We are
not experiencing record hurricanes now by any means, either in number or
intensity. Do some real research. Start at the National Hurricane
Center.
In 2005, New Orleans and the surrounding waters of the Gulf hit an
all-time temperature high.
No it didn't. As I've said the earth has been through warmer periods.
All of the record highs you are talking about are not all time records.
They are the record over the past hundred years or so. There are also
lots of record lows being set every year. Are they proof of global
cooling or do you just dismiss them and focus on the record highs.
That's just a quick sampling, not including shrinking glaciers,
shrinking polar ice, growing deserts, species migrating northwards,
extinction of species that can't shift their range, etc. etc. etc. etc.
etc., phenomena that have **never** existed in human history.
People paniced about glaciers receding must not realize that glaciers
have been receding for 18,000 years now. People paniced about possible
rising sea levels must not realize that sea level has risen over 300
feet (not inches, feet) over the past 20,000 years. This idea of an
equilibrium is an illusion of the shortness of our lifespan in
comparison to the lifespan of the earth. All the weather we see today
has existed in the past and has been worse.
John Black
So your belief that the climate now is no different from what the
climate has been for thousands of years is based on your belief that we
have no idea what the climate has been for thousands of years?
No, we do know what the climate has been for thousands of years and
longer. But the "record highs" and "record lows" that are being quoted
are not real records over the history of thousands (or more) of years.
They are records over a mere blip in time that doesn't span any of the
warming or cooling trends that the earth has experienced because those
trends take much longer to develop than the hundred or so years the
records have been accurately kept. Do you really think that if the news
reports that Chicago set a record high today for March 5th, they really
mean that they know it was not hotter some March 5th in say the 1100s or
in 1653?
John Black
I'm not sure how your argument is relevant. When the doctor points out
to me that at every checkup I'm a couple of pounds heavier than the
year before and therefore I should eat less and exercise more, I don't
argue with him on the grounds that my weight goes up and down from day
to day and besides, it naturally increased a lot between birth and age
20. If I notice that the door to my basement is too hot to touch all of
a sudden, I don't just figure that the temperature in the house goes up
and down from hour to hour and month to month, and I don't know for
sure that it never got that hot in the past, so it's probably nothing
to worry about. Are you suggesting that anthropogenic climate change is
not a problem because the world was an incandescent ball of lava before
there was life?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
07 Apr 2006 01:17:47 PM |
|
|
In article <1144431004.113564.99380@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
John Black wrote:
In article <1144337376.129518.12300@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
John Black wrote:
In article <1144257883.287903.269220@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
John Black wrote:
Will people ever learn history or will they continue to
make fools of themselves on a daily basis by blaming global warming for
storms and other weather events that have always existed?
Things that always existed should be in equilibrium by now, instead of
setting new records every year. When you start seeing record highs and
lows, record storm frequencies and intensities, and the records keep
getting reset every year or two, you don't have to be Stephen Hawking
to see that the system has become unstable in comparison to its
historical behavior.
Your arrogance is matched only by your cluelessness. There never has
been anything like equilibrium with regard to the climate of the earth.
There have been many warming and cooling periods in the past. It has
been warmer than it is now. It has also been colder. Records are only
records because we have only been keeping accurate records for a hundred
or so years which is NO TIME at all when looking at climate history.
In the past 30 years, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes
globally has almost doubled.
You must not realize that hurricanes go in about 30 year cycles. We are
not experiencing record hurricanes now by any means, either in number or
intensity. Do some real research. Start at the National Hurricane
Center.
In 2005, New Orleans and the surrounding waters of the Gulf hit an
all-time temperature high.
No it didn't. As I've said the earth has been through warmer periods.
All of the record highs you are talking about are not all time records.
They are the record over the past hundred years or so. There are also
lots of record lows being set every year. Are they proof of global
cooling or do you just dismiss them and focus on the record highs.
That's just a quick sampling, not including shrinking glaciers,
shrinking polar ice, growing deserts, species migrating northwards,
extinction of species that can't shift their range, etc. etc. etc. etc.
etc., phenomena that have **never** existed in human history.
People paniced about glaciers receding must not realize that glaciers
have been receding for 18,000 years now. People paniced about possible
rising sea levels must not realize that sea level has risen over 300
feet (not inches, feet) over the past 20,000 years. This idea of an
equilibrium is an illusion of the shortness of our lifespan in
comparison to the lifespan of the earth. All the weather we see today
has existed in the past and has been worse.
John Black
So your belief that the climate now is no different from what the
climate has been for thousands of years is based on your belief that we
have no idea what the climate has been for thousands of years?
No, we do know what the climate has been for thousands of years and
longer. But the "record highs" and "record lows" that are being quoted
are not real records over the history of thousands (or more) of years.
They are records over a mere blip in time that doesn't span any of the
warming or cooling trends that the earth has experienced because those
trends take much longer to develop than the hundred or so years the
records have been accurately kept. Do you really think that if the news
reports that Chicago set a record high today for March 5th, they really
mean that they know it was not hotter some March 5th in say the 1100s or
in 1653?
John Black
I'm not sure how your argument is relevant. When the doctor points out
to me that at every checkup I'm a couple of pounds heavier than the
year before and therefore I should eat less and exercise more, I don't
argue with him on the grounds that my weight goes up and down from day
to day and besides, it naturally increased a lot between birth and age
20. If I notice that the door to my basement is too hot to touch all of
a sudden, I don't just figure that the temperature in the house goes up
and down from hour to hour and month to month, and I don't know for
sure that it never got that hot in the past, so it's probably nothing
to worry about. Are you suggesting that anthropogenic climate change is
not a problem because the world was an incandescent ball of lava before
there was life?
Its relevant because there is debate as to if the current warming is in
fact anthropogenic. If we really were experiencing record highs, then
that would favor the anthropogenic argument. If it has been warmer in
the past naturally, then that favors the explanation of natural
variation, or at least casts doubt on the anthopogenic component. And
we are not talking about when the world was an incandescent ball --
we're talking about the middle ages for example.
John Black
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alohacyberian" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
08 Apr 2006 04:13:29 AM |
|
|
"John Black" <jblack@texas.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ea068c91a706856989ba0@news.chi.sbcglobal.net...
In article <1144431004.113564.99380@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
I'm not sure how your argument is relevant. When the doctor points out
to me that at every checkup I'm a couple of pounds heavier than the
year before and therefore I should eat less and exercise more, I don't
argue with him on the grounds that my weight goes up and down from day
to day and besides, it naturally increased a lot between birth and age
20. If I notice that the door to my basement is too hot to touch all of
a sudden, I don't just figure that the temperature in the house goes up
and down from hour to hour and month to month, and I don't know for
sure that it never got that hot in the past, so it's probably nothing
to worry about. Are you suggesting that anthropogenic climate change is
not a problem because the world was an incandescent ball of lava before
there was life?
Its relevant because there is debate as to if the current warming is in
fact anthropogenic. If we really were experiencing record highs, then
that would favor the anthropogenic argument. If it has been warmer in
the past naturally, then that favors the explanation of natural
variation, or at least casts doubt on the anthopogenic component. And
we are not talking about when the world was an incandescent ball --
we're talking about the middle ages for example.
John Black
It is even more amusing that the same people who are now predicting
catastrophic global warming were predicting precisely the opposite not 30
years ago, an imminent ice age. "Global warming" is not about temperature,
it's about control, of countries, industries, and people. The earth has been
warmer than it is now, in recorded history, long before the advent of the
Industrial Age, that the socialist Luddites wish to turn back. If you really
believe in global warming, and in liberty, find a way to change it that
doesn't require massive increases in government control of everything and
everyone.
Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive
study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more
than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither
the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most
extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the
findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings,
ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate
temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.
The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between
the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher
even than today.
They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during
which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm
up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it
implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when
the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of
today's temperature rise.
According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's
"unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature
change over too short a period of time.
~ Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent, "Middle Ages were warmer than
today, say scientists"
~
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI or
CNN, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards & 150 foreign languages
Visit Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
09 Apr 2006 10:33:57 AM |
|
|
Alohacyberian wrote:
It is even more amusing that the same people who are now predicting
catastrophic global warming were predicting precisely the opposite not 30
years ago, an imminent ice age.
OK, I'll bite; name one. Just one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
09 Apr 2006 11:27:09 PM |
|
|
In article <1144596837.182637.74580@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
Alohacyberian wrote:
It is even more amusing that the same people who are now predicting
catastrophic global warming were predicting precisely the opposite not 30
years ago, an imminent ice age.
OK, I'll bite; name one. Just one.
Stephen H. Schneider, Climatologist and author of the book Global
Warming is one. Here are some more quotes from the era.
----
"The continued rapid cooling of the earth is also in accord with the
increased global air pollution associated with industrialization . . ."
-- Reid Bryson in Environmental Roulette 1971
"However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time,
when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe
they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the
past three decades." Not only did that supposedly alarming trend show
"no indication of reversing," but "Climatological Cassandras are
becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are
studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." The Time article even
included a map depicting the "expanding Arctic" and referenced one
scientific finding that "the area of the ice and snow cover" in the
Northern Hemisphere "had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971" and that
this increase "has persisted ever since." "Areas of Baffin Island in the
Canadian Arctic ... were once totally free of any snow in the summer,"
Time observed. "[N]ow they are covered year round."
-- Time Magazine 6/24/1974
"The cooling has already killed thousands of people in poor nations ...
If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the
cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war,
and this could all come about by the year 2000." (Lowe Ponte, The
Cooling, 1976)
"The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into
past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new Ice age must now
stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and
misery for mankind." (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, in
International, Wildlife, July 1975) "In the Grip of the New Ice Age"
In 1974 the "National Science Board", observing a thirty-year-long
decline in world temperature, predicted the end of temperate times and
the dawning of the next glacial age. Meteorologists, Newsweek reported,
were "almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce
agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."
Steven Schneider, a prominent Environmental Scientist, served as a
climate researcher for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in
Boulder, Colorado for two decades.:
"The dramatic importance of climate changes [global cooling] to the
world's future has been dangerously underestimated by many, ... But
this well-written book points out in clear language that the climate
threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive
world-wide actions to hedge against that threat [of global cooling]
deserve immediate consideration." (FYI, Schneider is now a global
warming alarmist)
"Are We Headed for a New Ice Age?" Current, May/June 1976
"Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age?" D. Collingan, Science Digest, Feb
1975
According to the February 1973 issue of Science Digest, "Once the freeze
starts, it will be too late."
"There are ominous signs that the Earth?s weather patterns have begun to
change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline
in food production? with serious political implications for just about
every nation on Earth. ... A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray
Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals
a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern
Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia
University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in
Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study
released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of
sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3%
between 1964 and 1972. ... Climatologists are pessimistic that political
leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic
change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more
spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by
covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create
problems far greater than those they solve."
-- Newsweek 4/28/1975 "The Cooling World"
That final couple of sentences are chilling, no pun intended and
ironically similar to what we have today. Dire doomsday preditcions
from climatologists who didn't really know what they were talking about
proposing drastic and costly action. By current logic that I hear, we
SHOULD have gone ahead and melted the Arctic ice cap -- just in case...
If the skeptics are right, then all we would have to deal with is some
more water around but if the Climatologists are right, then we'll all
freeze to death! We should have erred on the side of caution...
Thank goodness our leaders back then had the sense not to implement
those "solutions". And thanks U.S. senators for voting against Kyoto,
95-0.
John Black
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
10 Apr 2006 01:55:04 AM |
|
|
Care to give us YOUR source for this information???
Much more comprehensive:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
The bottom line here is you, "Captain Compassion" and a small minority
of others have some political outlook incompatible with the
enlightenment, science, and civilized behavior.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
10 Apr 2006 11:11:24 AM |
|
|
On 9 Apr 2006 23:55:04 -0700, wrote:
Care to give us YOUR source for this information???
Much more comprehensive:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
The bottom line here is you, "Captain Compassion" and a small minority
of others have some political outlook incompatible with the
enlightenment, science, and civilized behavior.
"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees
colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees
colder by the year 2000.This is about twice what it would take to put
us in an ice age." --Kenneth E. F. Watt on air pollution and global
cooling, Earth Day 1970
"If it were only a few degrees, that would be serious, but we could
adapt to it. But the danger is the warming process might be unstable
and run away. We could end up like Venus, covered in clouds and with
the surface temperature of 400 degrees. It could be too late if we
wait until the bad effects of warming become obvious. We need action
now to reduce emission of carbon dioxide." -- Stephen Hawking,
Physicist, on Larry King Live, Dec 25, 1999
You seem to believe that others are obligated to buy into your belief
systems. Which one of the above statements is true?
--
"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
"Civilizaton is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
10 Apr 2006 12:36:57 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 04:27:09 GMT, John Black <jblack@texas.net> wrote:
In article <1144596837.182637.74580@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
Alohacyberian wrote:
It is even more amusing that the same people who are now predicting
catastrophic global warming were predicting precisely the opposite not 30
years ago, an imminent ice age.
OK, I'll bite; name one. Just one.
Stephen H. Schneider, Climatologist and author of the book Global
Warming is one. Here are some more quotes from the era.
----
"The continued rapid cooling of the earth is also in accord with the
increased global air pollution associated with industrialization . . ."
-- Reid Bryson in Environmental Roulette 1971
"However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time,
when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe
they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the
past three decades." Not only did that supposedly alarming trend show
"no indication of reversing," but "Climatological Cassandras are
becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are
studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." The Time article even
included a map depicting the "expanding Arctic" and referenced one
scientific finding that "the area of the ice and snow cover" in the
Northern Hemisphere "had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971" and that
this increase "has persisted ever since." "Areas of Baffin Island in the
Canadian Arctic ... were once totally free of any snow in the summer,"
Time observed. "[N]ow they are covered year round."
-- Time Magazine 6/24/1974
"The cooling has already killed thousands of people in poor nations ...
If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the
cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war,
and this could all come about by the year 2000." (Lowe Ponte, The
Cooling, 1976)
"The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into
past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new Ice age must now
stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and
misery for mankind." (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, in
International, Wildlife, July 1975) "In the Grip of the New Ice Age"
In 1974 the "National Science Board", observing a thirty-year-long
decline in world temperature, predicted the end of temperate times and
the dawning of the next glacial age. Meteorologists, Newsweek reported,
were "almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce
agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."
Steven Schneider, a prominent Environmental Scientist, served as a
climate researcher for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in
Boulder, Colorado for two decades.:
"The dramatic importance of climate changes [global cooling] to the
world's future has been dangerously underestimated by many, ... But
this well-written book points out in clear language that the climate
threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive
world-wide actions to hedge against that threat [of global cooling]
deserve immediate consideration." (FYI, Schneider is now a global
warming alarmist)
"Are We Headed for a New Ice Age?" Current, May/June 1976
"Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age?" D. Collingan, Science Digest, Feb
1975
According to the February 1973 issue of Science Digest, "Once the freeze
starts, it will be too late."
"There are ominous signs that the Earth?s weather patterns have begun to
change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline
in food production? with serious political implications for just about
every nation on Earth. ... A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray
Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals
a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern
Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia
University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in
Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study
released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of
sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3%
between 1964 and 1972. ... Climatologists are pessimistic that political
leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic
change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more
spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by
covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create
problems far greater than those they solve."
-- Newsweek 4/28/1975 "The Cooling World"
That final couple of sentences are chilling, no pun intended and
ironically similar to what we have today. Dire doomsday preditcions
from climatologists who didn't really know what they were talking about
proposing drastic and costly action. By current logic that I hear, we
SHOULD have gone ahead and melted the Arctic ice cap -- just in case...
If the skeptics are right, then all we would have to deal with is some
more water around but if the Climatologists are right, then we'll all
freeze to death! We should have erred on the side of caution...
Thank goodness our leaders back then had the sense not to implement
those "solutions". And thanks U.S. senators for voting against Kyoto,
95-0.
My Favorite,
"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees
colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees
colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put
us in an ice age." --Kenneth E. F. Watt on air pollution and global
cooling Earth Day 1970
In 1970 no one could Falsify Dr. Watt's statement. In 2006 it is easy
to do so.
--
"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
"Civilizaton is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
10 Apr 2006 02:23:01 PM |
|
|
In article <moqj321r2julnng8atskj2p0qisl7a8iti@4ax.com>,
daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net says...
"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees
colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees
colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put
us in an ice age." --Kenneth E. F. Watt on air pollution and global
cooling Earth Day 1970
Wow. Since he attributed the cooling to air pollution, I'm sure he was
advocating the same types of solutions (reduced emmisions) being
advocated now because its obviously "man's" fault. (even though there
have been many such coolings and warmings in the past)
John Black
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby steps of Global Warming |
06 Apr 2006 11:11:16 AM |
|
|
On 6 Apr 2006 08:29:36 -0700, "z" <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
John Black wrote:
In article <1144257883.287903.269220@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
gzuckier@snail-mail.net says...
John Black wrote:
Will people ever learn history or will they continue to
make fools of themselves on a daily basis by blaming global warming for
storms and other weather events that have always existed?
Things that always existed should be in equilibrium by now, instead of
setting new records every year. When you start seeing record highs and
lows, record storm f | | | | | |
