I Will Never Understand Wind

The last two issues of New Yorker Magazine contain a series on global
warming that might broaden your understanding of the issue. You're not
seeing the forest for the trees.


Denny wrote:
We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
"warming" continues apace and on schedule... Being that there was no
industrial activity, CFC spray cans, or SUV's, around some 20,000 -
30,000 years ago when the latest ice age reversed itself, global
warming replaced global cooling, the glaciers began retreating, and the
sea began rising, I doubt that a science based connection between
modern activity and global warming can be established with any degree
of verifiability or certainty... Of course, those who are emotionally
invested in the Kyoto Treaty, etc. and/or have an agenda will totally
ignore the scientific fact that we have been in a state of massive
global warming for more than 20,000 years, not just the last 150 years
since the industrial revolution...

Another pertinent point is that the ice age (our ice age with a glacial
moraine just a half dozen miles from where I sit) just past is simply
the most recent one in a sequence of some 30 to 50 ice ages covering a
span in excess of one quarter of a billion years.... Which company or
government do we blame for the previous 30-50 global warmings?

cheers ... denny

The chemistry is pretty straightforward (I'm told) and it is a near
certaintly that humans are contributing to global warming through greenhouse
gasses as well as deforesting. The real issue, as you point out, is that we
don't know what would be happening if humans were not contributing. We
could be a small part of the problem or a large one, there is no way to
know. Climate data is so chaotic that it is difficult to filter the signal
from the noise.

Of course, there are other good reasons to be more efficient with fossil
fuels besides global warming.

Mike
MU-2


"Denny" wrote in message
oups.com...
We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
"warming" continues apace and on schedule... Being that there was no
industrial activity, CFC spray cans, or SUV's, around some 20,000 -
30,000 years ago when the latest ice age reversed itself, global
warming replaced global cooling, the glaciers began retreating, and the
sea began rising, I doubt that a science based connection between
modern activity and global warming can be established with any degree
of verifiability or certainty... Of course, those who are emotionally
invested in the Kyoto Treaty, etc. and/or have an agenda will totally
ignore the scientific fact that we have been in a state of massive
global warming for more than 20,000 years, not just the last 150 years
since the industrial revolution...

Another pertinent point is that the ice age (our ice age with a glacial
moraine just a half dozen miles from where I sit) just past is simply
the most recent one in a sequence of some 30 to 50 ice ages covering a
span in excess of one quarter of a billion years.... Which company or
government do we blame for the previous 30-50 global warmings?

cheers ... denny

We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
"warming" continues apace and on schedule...

Uh... I don't know about that. How much of a temperature rise was there
in the last fifty years? How much of a temperature rise was there in
the last twenty thousand years?

Are they on the same straight line?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

Uh... I don't know about that. How much of a temperature rise was there
in the last fifty years?

Actually, we haven't had a measurable rise on a global scale in 100 years. We've
had some strong local swings, however. New York has gone up over 5 degrees
average. Vienna has gone down. Over the last 20 years, ice has thickened
everywhere in Antarctica *except* the Ross ice shelf, where it's thinning (guess
what part gets the air play).

The weirdest guy I've heard is the clown who argues that the Greenland ice cap
will melt over the course of the next 1,000 years. The thing is, most of the
media people run that as a straight story -- only they leave off the "next 1,000
years" part and follow it up with a crack about "better sell your beachfront
property". NPR at least ran it straight.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

So you're so sure you're right, and a solid majority of the climate
scientists are wrong, then?

Bullsquat.

Further, when the "climate scientists" (what a farcical name!) can tell me
what the weather is going to do this weekend, I MIGHT start listening to
their dire warnings about the next 400 years.

Until then, they rank right up there amongst the many other snake oil and
Chicken Little charlatans of the world.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Thu, 05 May 2005 14:24:35 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

(Take THAT all you "global warming" pessimists!)

Why do you insist on doing this Jay?

Are you really that proud of your ignorance?

Sorry -- I simply enjoy watching people like you go apoplectic...

:-)

We're all going to freeze in hell.

Mike Weller

On Fri, 06 May 2005 01:57:31 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:



Of course, there are other good reasons to be more efficient with fossil
fuels besides global warming.

Mike
MU-2


Yes. Running the lawn mowers around a nuclear plant to charge
electrical cars. Someone will complain about that.

Mike Weller
"Denny" wrote in message
roups.com...
We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
"warming" continues apace and on schedule... Being that there was no
industrial activity, CFC spray cans, or SUV's, around some 20,000 -
30,000 years ago when the latest ice age reversed itself, global
warming replaced global cooling, the glaciers began retreating, and the
sea began rising, I doubt that a science based connection between
modern activity and global warming can be established with any degree
of verifiability or certainty... Of course, those who are emotionally
invested in the Kyoto Treaty, etc. and/or have an agenda will totally
ignore the scientific fact that we have been in a state of massive
global warming for more than 20,000 years, not just the last 150 years
since the industrial revolution...

Another pertinent point is that the ice age (our ice age with a glacial
moraine just a half dozen miles from where I sit) just past is simply
the most recent one in a sequence of some 30 to 50 ice ages covering a
span in excess of one quarter of a billion years.... Which company or
government do we blame for the previous 30-50 global warmings?

cheers ... denny

In article daBee.50320$r53.11838@attbi_s21, Jay Honeck wrote:
Further, when the "climate scientists" (what a farcical name!) can tell me
what the weather is going to do this weekend, I MIGHT start listening to
their dire warnings about the next 400 years.

There is a HUGE difference between climatology and meteorology. If you
don't understand the difference between a climatologist and a
meteorologist it's no wonder you have the misconceptions you do about
climate change.

A climatologist is NOT a meterologist. They don't try and predict the
weather tomorrow or this weekend; that's up to the meteorologist. Think
of it this way: a climatologist might be able to tell you that
generally, the weather in the north Irish Sea for the last 300 years has
followed a certain pattern (mild, wet winters seldom going much below
freezing, mild, wet summers seldom going above 20 degrees Celcius). A
meteorologist will tell you 'there is a 30% chance of isolated
thunderstorms this afternoon'. Although the two fields are related, they
are VERY different.

As a metaphor for this, imagine a large pan of water on a gas stove and
turn the gas on full. You can predict quite accurately that the water
will boil, and when it will boil. However, predicting where individual
bubbles of boiling water, or a specific convection in the pan of boiling
water is a completely different science. The meteorologist is predicting
the bubbles and convection, where it will occur and what effect it will
have on a specific square millimetre of the pan's surface, the
climatologist is saying some time in the future the water in the pan as
a whole will boil, based on calculating the energy going in, the energy
being lost, the specific heat capacity of water etc.

Equally, it is proven scientific fact that if you increase the
concentration of carbon dioxide, more solar radiation is trapped. The
concentration of carbon dioxide has provably increased in the last 50
years. The concentration of chloroflourocarbons ahs provably increased
in the last 50 years. The concentration of methane has provably
increased. Given the proven fact that CO2, CFCs and CH4 reduce the
escape of infrared radiation from the planet, and that the sun's output
has not decreased, just as 1+1=2, the planet's energy balance (heat in
versus heat out) has also changed towards keeping more heat in. It
doesn't even take a degree in climatology to prove that this is true.

Just as it's difficult to predict where the bubbles appear in a pot of
water being brought to the boil, it's difficult to predict what effect
it will have on the day to day meteorology of a given location on the
Earth's surface. But just like turning the stove from low heat to full
power, the fact that more energy is being added to the system is easy to
say with certainty (even though in the case of the whole planet it's
undoubtedly difficult to say exactly how much due to the number of
variables).

Those that deny otherwise are simply in denial about the laws of
physics.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

But just like turning the stove from low heat to full
power, the fact that more energy is being added to the system is easy to
say with certainty (even though in the case of the whole planet it's
undoubtedly difficult to say exactly how much due to the number of
variables).

Therein lies the rub, eh?

It's those pesky variables (like a single volcano releasing the equivalent
of 400 years of man-made air pollution) that throw the whole "science" of
"global warming" into the realm of mere speculation.

Even worse, it's speculation driven by transparently political motives -- at
least here in the U.S.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Of course, there are other good reasons to be more efficient with
fossil
fuels besides global warming.


Mike
MU-2

************************************************** ******************************

YES, absolutely - the more efficient we are with conserving fossil
fuels the MORE fuel we have left to put through an airplane engine...
Now I see the light oh rapture

Now, having been facetious, I'll get serious... Your points are valid,
we simply don't know what the contribution of CO2 by our activities is
doing to the rate of warming... As you point out, it is a tiny signal
buried in a very noisy bandwidth... And I have little, to no, patience
with the hyper emotional who substitute endorphin stimulation for
critical thought... They have to be aware that one good volcano fart
equals total human production of CO2, CO, sulphur, etc., for a
considerable time period...

BTW, the image of a volcano fart came from John Galban's post... kudos,
John, you had me chuckling with that one....

I will correct one item I rattled off on the spur of the moment and
that is CFC's... The data is there to support the theory that CFC
emanations do injure the ozone layers, and therefore reduction of CFC's
being loosed into the atmosphere is necessary...

denny