 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Cliff wrote in
: On 24 Sep 2005 22:22:01 GMT, D Murphy wrote: Cliff wrote in m: On 24 Sep 2005 01:10:01 GMT, D Murphy wrote: Cliff wrote in news:ctm8j1tphc5mtmbcspp8nr75pivpm7n4n9@ 4ax.com: He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase. Well that statement is flat out wrong. An absolute lie in fact. How reliable is the rest of the BS you're posting? Sheesh .... That was a DIRECT QUOTE from the link that was posted by someone objecting to global warming ... and shown as such, IIRC. And it's quite probably true if any of it is. Recall that it's a 20 year average type of statement ... it does not claim that the usual sunspot cycle is not in effect. Nice back peddle. Still not true. You should be able to search some of the primary solar observatories for data BTW. And don't forget Helios-type data either. Someone from the Hubble might be lurknig about ... Harvard and Max Planck good enough for you? http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...eningSuni.html "We're not saying that variations in solar activity account for all of the global rise in temperature that we are experiencing," "The increased activity, everyone agrees, is tied to a cycle that sees the Sun dimming, then brightening, every 11 years or so." "Also, a 0.14 percent jump in brightness is not enough to account for the approximately 1 degree F rise in temperature on Earth in the past 100 years. What's more, various observations show that our planet is almost 2 degrees F warmer than it was around the year 1700. " "However, a significant number of researchers insist that solar changes are not great enough to produce the warming we are experiencing. They maintain that human activity is the main cause of rising temperatures that threaten widespread flooding, increased storminess, and potentially disruptive shifts in croplands." BTW, That is from 1997 ..... perhaps you need something newer? Wow take a class. Start with reading comprehension 101. I pointed out that your stolen blog or whatever it was was wrong. You back pedaled and then asked for some data. The next link was more up to date, but I didn't know you needed up to the minute data. Why did you copy and paste the bit that talks about solar activity not being enough to account for ALL of the global warming? So what??? I already read it. http://www.linmpi.mpg.de/english/projekte/sun- climate/group/sunearth.html It's not C14 that is the problem. BTW, When did they start keeping good sunspot records? And you are worried about a .2 degree F change in one partial hemisphere (land-air) over a decade or so? Something else to for you to read. http://www.techcentralstation.com/072303C.html "the periodic warming and cooling of the planet, on a fairly predictable cycle of about 135 million years." Sigh, missed the bit about solar winds and such like? [Veizer and Shaviv calculated that the solar brightening of the past 150 years by itself might account for one-third of the warming during that time. But add to that their new discovery that solar wind gusts prevent the formation of cooling clouds by blocking cosmic rays, and the effects of brightening alone are greatly magnified. (Solar winds were unusually strong during the 20th century.) So how great is the magnification of solar brightening caused by solar winds' effects on cosmic rays and clouds? Veizer thinks it is enough to explain away all of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, without any contribution by carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gasses. Shaviv worries anthropogenic CO2 may have some fractional effect. ] How long is a few degrees over 135 million year cycles compared to a few degrees per decade or so? Cites? Good point about the Galaxy rotating .... let's blame it on that & not worry. Wow again. You seem to jump to the faulty conclusion every time. Your problem is that you only think in absolutes. If data doesn't agree with you presupposition, you ridicule it. If you find some bit of k00k science or bad reporting that supports your conclusion you cross post it all over the usenet. -- Dan |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote: On 23 Sep 2005 14:23:17 -0700, wrote: DAGS "Mauna Loa Observatory". "Department of Accounting and General Services" ? -- LOL "Do a Google Search" -- FF |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24 Sep 2005 22:22:01 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
Sheesh .... That was a DIRECT QUOTE from the link that was posted by someone objecting to global warming ... and shown as such, IIRC. And it's quite probably true if any of it is. Recall that it's a 20 year average type of statement ... it does not claim that the usual sunspot cycle is not in effect. Nice back peddle. Still not true. Gee ..... How can *I* "backpeddle" when I just pointed out a direct quote from a cited source of someone else's? -- Cliff |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24 Sep 2005 16:23:17 -0700, wrote:
http://www.alternet.org/story/17711/ "While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, .." Interesting point. Why do you suppose that is? Faith-based science yet again? Not enough donations from the PACs? -- Cliff |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24 Sep 2005 21:55:04 -0700, wrote:
Cliff wrote: On 23 Sep 2005 14:23:17 -0700, wrote: DAGS "Mauna Loa Observatory". "Department of Accounting and General Services" ? LOL "Do a Google Search" How do you think that I found that the Mauna Loa Observatory has a Department of Accounting and General Services? GG -- Cliff |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve W. wrote:
"Mecoman" wrote in message ... "Lew Hartswick" wrote in message link.net... clay wrote: any ideas or basis on why the dramatic drop right after 1948? ca The way I use to hear it was: It's all that nuclear testing. :-) No, that's when I was born. And I'm sooooooooooooo kewl.....:-) -- Jeff It is preferential to refrain from the utilization of sesquipedalian verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualization can be verbalized using compararatively simplistic lexicographical entitities. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html What a shock. Global warming is caused by the Sun getting hotter.... Yes. That would also explain Mars Warming. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2....htm?list52754 But if you notice, Cliff sticks his head up his ass and claims to not see any facts and data that conflicts with his socialist dreams. He clings to the lies like maggots on ****. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , DaveB wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 09:55:57 -0700, mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote: snip the sierra nevada snow pack is melting early the california reservoir was designed to hold a steady flow into summer instead of it all coming down in spring floods A few quotes form various sources, amazing we were still skiing in California until late May early June one of the longest seasons on record. great way to obscure the issue are you intentionally ignorant or does it come naturally? the issue isnt the size of the snowpack but how long it stays as snow the system was designed with snow that keeps melting into august rather than flooding it all during the spring thaw so that reservoirs only had to manage the spring floods and not hold all of them into the summer Must have stayed colder longer, just a guess a bad guess the snow doesnt come from the mountains it comes from the pacific ocean how much comes depends on how warm the ocean gets and which way the wind blows it falls as snow because 5000 to 10000 feet is cold in the winter even when lower elevations are warm hence things summer snowcapped mountains on the equator in south america and africa for whitewater rafters the only numbers that matter are the snowpack what matters to farmers and city dwellers is how much water is available in august september and october once all the snow melts it depends on what was captured earlier in reservoirs we get the same thing here on a smaller scale every winter has some snow on mt hamilton but rarely on the valley floor and while an el nino can refill the scvwcd reservoirs and percolation ponfs after a drought once theyre full all the rest of the rainwater flows into the bay unused arf meow arf - dogs and cats living together if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:26:48 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote: Bushes fault for not singing Kyoto. Everybody knows that!!!! You think that karaoke was part of the treaty? |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:48:34 -0400, Cliff wrote:
Since 1970 the world's oceans have gotten warmer by about 1 degree Fahrenheit. Since 1970 the duration & intensity of oceanic storms (hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, monsoons & etc.) has about doubled. Below a certain ocean temperature there can be no hurricanes. Above that temperature their number & strength grows exponentially it seems. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/20...ricaneQA.shtml http://news.findlaw.com/wash/s/20050...919141944.html http://www.livescience.com/forcesofn...urricanes.html IIRC New York City is not designed to resist a Category 5 storm. Here is a nice little chart of projected global waming: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/fig1.gif NOTE THAT IT IS IN DEGREES C so do your own conversion. The short version: by about 2050 expect a rise of 4.5 degrees F more .... and rising rapidly. "Anne Waple, a research climatologist at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., said it was the second warmest summer on record for the planet, based upon temperatuers in June, July and August recorded from more than 800 stations around the globe." Sacramento Bee article, 9.25.05 by Edie Lau, Bee Science Writer -- Regards, Curly ------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Sep 2005 21:41:22 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote in : In article , Cliff wrote: On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:21:48 -0700, mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote: vaughn bode "Cartoon Carnival". An odd way to die though. ive heard so many versions of how he died Autoerotic asphyxiation. Otherwise known as coming and going. In a closet? Hanging upside down? Given that he died in 1975, the details weren't given. Initially it was reported as a motorcycle accident. That didn't hold up to scrutiny and became "died in a mystical experiment gone wrong." Which opened the door to all sorts of crackpot theories. The man could draw. You can see his influence everywhere today. He had a strip in Galaxy Magazine just before they went out of business for almost a year IIRC. -- Cliff |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:39:18 +0100, Guido wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:26:48 GMT, Gunner Asch wrote: Bushes fault for not singing Kyoto. Everybody knows that!!!! You think that karaoke was part of the treaty? Who told gunner that he had any such skills (sober)? Bill Clinton was musical .... perhaps that's what has gunner confused. -- Cliff |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote: On 24 Sep 2005 16:23:17 -0700, wrote: http://www.alternet.org/story/17711/ "While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, .." Interesting point. Why do you suppose that is? Why that is ? Or why that is typed that way ? Is it because that page as all others have an agenda ? There is proof you believe EVERYTHING you read....... Obviously you do, if and when it lines up with your "party". Grummy |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Sep 2005 02:07:19 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
"shu" wrote in news:48bf0$4335e6c2$18d6c3f0$1522 : here check this out http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html Heh. I've pointed that out to him before. But some are still confused G. I also had to show him that most ozone depleters are greenhouse gasses, and far stronger than CO2. Fortunately CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas Too bad that we release so many millions of tons of it compared to the few pounds of all the rest. See how it works yet? and much of it is re-absorbed by the ocean and stored away in plants. "Much" is by no means all ... that's why it's concentration is going up & what the problems is. Part of it, anyway. In addition, many of the forests are no more. Even if they were their storage capacity is quite finite. The wood, when burned, rotted or eaten, releases even more CO2. Gasses dissolve in water. As the water warms up they become less soluable and the water my release them .... and all of that Methane as well (see "other greenhouse gasses" above). It's also not how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere that matters. Gee, where does it go? It makes for some impressive sounding numbers the scare mongers use "Chicken Little" style. The resulting reduction in free Oxygen may make a few slower too. The only CO2 that has any effect is what gets trapped in the upper atmosphere. How much does it matter -- the altitude? More a matter of depth I think ....... Do you have this confused with the Ozone layer? If the CO2 in the upper atmosphere were doubled it would raise temps by 1 degree. Who sez? And how much has it risen already? What are the projected rises? And that would be over a long time. 250 million year cycles again? CO2's weak effects are not immediate. Out of sight, out of mind? Let the grandkids curse your name? We have clear effects NOW. And it can become rapidly worse. -- Cliff |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Sep 2005 18:48:29 -0700, wrote:
Cliff wrote: On 24 Sep 2005 16:23:17 -0700, wrote: http://www.alternet.org/story/17711/ "While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, .." Interesting point. Why do you suppose that is? Why that is ? Or why that is typed that way ? Is it because that page as all others have an agenda ? There is proof you believe EVERYTHING you read....... Obviously you do, if and when it lines up with your "party". Umm ..... *I'm* not the one that cited it? You did VBG. -- Cliff |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Sep 2005 18:50:24 -0700, wrote:
What do i look like, SpongeBob ? Have some pics? -- Cliff |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:25:35 -0400, Kirk Gordon wrote: Since about 8,000 BC, the world's oceans have gotten warmer by about 35 degrees Fahrenheit. I rather doubt it. Look it up, Cliff. 10,000 years ago was the beginning of the end of the current ice age. Glaciation as far south as the Ohio River valley, and substantial non-contiguous ice fields far south of that. Oceans in total MUCH smaller than now, because of all the water containted in glaciers. And average ocean temps 30 to 40 degrees F lower than at present. Geologists and other "Earth science" types are often pretty good at what they do, especially when they're working with something so (relatively) recent. Where you live, what's under your feet is mostly sand, put there when glaciers scraped out the basin of Lake Michigan. My earlier statement wasn't politicallly motivated. I was just making an observation that seems to be very well grounded in serious science, and in mountains of (literally) rock-solid evidence. KG |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kirk Gordon wrote: Cliff wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:25:35 -0400, Kirk Gordon wrote: Since about 8,000 BC, the world's oceans have gotten warmer by about 35 degrees Fahrenheit. I rather doubt it. Look it up, Cliff. How about if you tell us where you looked it up? 10,000 years ago was the beginning of the end of the current ice age. Glaciation as far south as the Ohio River valley, and substantial non-contiguous ice fields far south of that. Oceans in total MUCH smaller than now, because of all the water containted in glaciers. And average ocean temps 30 to 40 degrees F lower than at present. Just what is the 'average ocean temperature' today? Unless it is greater than 67 F, or the average includes ice, I daresay it was not EVER 30 - 40 degrees F cooler than today. If that average does includes ice the latent heat, is also a very important consideration, right? ... My earlier statement wasn't politicallly motivated. I was just making an observation that seems to be very well grounded in serious science, and in mountains of (literally) rock-solid evidence. I don't know if the evidence is solid but water at 32 F IS. -- FF |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Scheldroup" wrote:
Maybe I should by a Prius, drop a Northstar in it and gear it up for the lighter weight. Maybe I could get 45-50MPG with the 300HP and no crazy batterys or electronics. Hybrid Cars Gas Mileage Impact Calculator Cadillac Sedan Deville/Toyota Prius http://home.centurytel.net/cty90143/...ges/hcgmic.JPG Begin http://www.hybridcars.com/calculator/index.php John I don't understand the prius craze. I retired my Ford 4x4 in favor of a used saturn sl1. The truck broke a ring and was getting 18W 20S for mpg. Running the numbers at 1.69 gallon gas at the time, it made buying a econocar a no brainer. At the time it was close to free and even if I fixed the truck for nothing, I still needed 400 bucks worth of tires. I get 34 mpg winter 36 mpg summer based on 55,000 miles of history. I drive 30+ miles each way to work with 2 to 6 full stops so nothing a prius can do for me is a plus. Maybe in stop and go stuff it has an edge but if you are running the a/c to keep cool, I have a feeling the advantage is lessened to a great degree. My plan so far is to buy a used low mileage car with the model having a good history based on google and usenet that gets good mileage with good marks on longevity whenever my current ride bites the dirt. I also change oil at 3000 MI and trans fluid at 30,000 and don't drive like speed racer. Almost forgot my point. Break it down to cost per mile. That is where so many people get lost. They focus on the mileage w/o looking at total cost of ownership per mile. So far I have spent 1659.00 on gas for the last 12 months. 548.00 on service and sadly, (Michigan) 1142.00 on insurance and I have a great driving record. BTW, I bought a 5x8 trailer and have recieved more utility from it than my truck. If I put a bunch of roofing, discards, whatever in my truck bed, I needed to deal with it. With the trailer, I can let it sit for months before dealing with it. By that time it is a bit heavy for my Saturn but many of my family have a truck and will pull it for me for gas money. Usually, they put their stuff on top of my pile and I just pay to get rid of the stuff and they pull it for me. Everyone comes out happy. My Saturn has no problems dragging the trailer 30 miles to get 3 sheets of plywood which is what my truck normally did occasionally. You also can get 10ft 2x4's, rain gutter, pipe, ect into most encono cars while closing the trunk. the rear seats fold and you can angle into the passenger side foot wells. I just wish they had more ground clearance. I'm looking at a Saturn Vue for the next car in 2008, an outback is way too expensive and not US made. Wes -- Reply to: Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Alpha Charlie Echo Golf Romeo Oscar Paul dot Charlie Charlie Lycos address is a spam trap. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
Since 1970 the world's oceans have gotten warmer by about 1 degree
Fahrenheit. Since 1970 the duration & intensity of oceanic storms (hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, monsoons & etc.) has about doubled. Below a certain ocean temperature there can be no hurricanes. Above that temperature their number & strength grows exponentially it seems. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/20...ricaneQA.shtml http://news.findlaw.com/wash/s/20050...919141944.html http://www.livescience.com/forcesofn...urricanes.html IIRC New York City is not designed to resist a Category 5 storm. Here is a nice little chart of projected global waming: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/fig1.gif NOTE THAT IT IS IN DEGREES C so do your own conversion. The short version: by about 2050 expect a rise of 4.5 degrees F more .... and rising rapidly. Maybe it's already been posted, but this from Michael Chrichton was very much on target, in my opinion. http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...s_quote04.html |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote: Umm ..... *I'm* not the one that cited it? You did VBG. YOU Quoted from my cite: "While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, .." THEN YOU said "Why do you suppose that is?" As if it was absolutely factual...... Having trouble concentrating ?? Had nothing to do with the cite. No wonder you are popular in alt.kooks........ Grummy |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Kirk Gordon wrote: Cliff wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:25:35 -0400, Kirk Gordon wrote: Since about 8,000 BC, the world's oceans have gotten warmer by about 35 degrees Fahrenheit. I rather doubt it. Look it up, Cliff. How about if you tell us where you looked it up? In truth, I didn't look it up. At least not recently What I wrote was just a summary perspective based on reading and sources too numerous to remember. But, for the fun of it, here are some web articles that might help anyone interested: http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBo...f_climate.html http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/...hap15/lgm.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/story_paleo.html 10,000 years ago was the beginning of the end of the current ice age. Glaciation as far south as the Ohio River valley, and substantial non-contiguous ice fields far south of that. Oceans in total MUCH smaller than now, because of all the water containted in glaciers. And average ocean temps 30 to 40 degrees F lower than at present. Just what is the 'average ocean temperature' today? According to NOAA, it's about 17C, or 62.6F, and ranges from -2C (28.4F) at high latitudes to over 36C (96.8) in very warm spots, like the Persian Gulf. Unless it is greater than 67 F, or the average includes ice, I daresay it was not EVER 30 - 40 degrees F cooler than today. If that average does includes ice the latent heat, is also a very important consideration, right? I don't know what latent heat you're talking about. I'm just discussing general water temperatures. And no, the numbers I mentioned, and those I've quoted above, don't include ice. You may be assuming that liquid water can't ever get below 0 degrees C, or 32 degrees F. Those numbers only work for pure water. Ocean water, filled with electrolitic salts, can get much, MUCH colder than those numbers, and remain liquid. At this moment, somewhere near Iceland, there's liquid water flowing around at several degrees BELOW what we normally think of as the freezing point. My earlier statement wasn't politicallly motivated. I was just making an observation that seems to be very well grounded in serious science, and in mountains of (literally) rock-solid evidence. I don't know if the evidence is solid but water at 32 F IS. Think about the anti-freeze you put in your car's cooling system. A bit of methanol or ethylene glycol added to ordinary tap water can reduce the freezing point to 30 or 40 (or more) degrees Fahrenheit below normal freezing temperatures. Oceans salts have exactly the same effect, which is why ocean water doesn't freeze even when freshwater is solid as rock at the same temperature. The polar ice caps, all glaciers, and even ice-bergs floating in the ocean, are made of fresh water. Interestingly, when glaciers expand, and when they hold a larger and larger percentage of the Earth's total water, the freezing temps of the oceans would likely get even lower. That's because the volume of salts in the oceans doesn't change much, even though the water volume does. If the same salts are disolved in less water, the salt concentration goes up, and freezing temps are reduced to even more extreme values - WAY below 32F. KG |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just what is the 'average ocean temperature' today?
Unless it is greater than 67 F, or the average includes ice, I daresay it was not EVER 30 - 40 degrees F cooler than today. If that average does includes ice the latent heat, is also a very important consideration, right? The world wide average ocean surface temperature currently is 62.6F. Below about 4,000 ft the temperature decreases fairly constantly from 40F to 32F. Minor changes in the sea surface temperature can cause (or be the effect of) major changes in climate. The average ocean surface temperature during the Younger Dryas ( the end of the last major ice age 11-12,000 years ago) was about 9F colder. At that time ocean levels were about 300 feet below the present level. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cliff wrote in
: On 25 Sep 2005 02:07:19 GMT, D Murphy wrote: "shu" wrote in news:48bf0$4335e6c2$18d6c3f0$1522 : here check this out http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html Heh. I've pointed that out to him before. But some are still confused G. I also had to show him that most ozone depleters are greenhouse gasses, and far stronger than CO2. Fortunately CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas Too bad that we release so many millions of tons of it compared to the few pounds of all the rest. See how it works yet? I do, but apparently you are having some trouble. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today is around 380 ppm. Or .038% Of the anthropogenic releases the ocean alone is absorbing roughly 50% of it. Compare that to H2O which varies up to 4% of the atmosphere. Water accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 is around 2.5%. and much of it is re-absorbed by the ocean and stored away in plants. "Much" is by no means all ... that's why it's concentration is going up & what the problems is. Part of it, anyway. In addition, many of the forests are no more. Even if they were their storage capacity is quite finite. The wood, when burned, rotted or eaten, releases even more CO2. Gasses dissolve in water. As the water warms up they become less soluable and the water my release them .... and all of that Methane as well (see "other greenhouse gasses" above). In the ocean it's plankton that "eat" the CO2. They convert it to calcium, etc. die, then the carbon ends up on the ocean floor. Subduction send it ever deeper into the earth. It's also not how much CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere that matters. Gee, where does it go? It makes for some impressive sounding numbers the scare mongers use "Chicken Little" style. The resulting reduction in free Oxygen may make a few slower too. The only CO2 that has any effect is what gets trapped in the upper atmosphere. How much does it matter -- the altitude? More a matter of depth I think ....... Do you have this confused with the Ozone layer? Nope. Is CO2 heavier or lighter than air? If the CO2 in the upper atmosphere were doubled it would raise temps by 1 degree. Who sez? Look it up. And how much has it risen already? What are the projected rises? In the last one hundred years temps have risen between .3 and .6 degrees depending on which numbers are used. None of that rise can be attributed with any degree of certainty to anthropogenic causes. There is no scientific way to project the long term temperature rise or decline. And there is where the problem lies. The underlying data used in computer models is/was bad, and much of the input is prejudiced speculation. These "scientists" can't predict the weather 24 hours in advance and yet you believe they can predict it 100 years in advance? What will the sun's output be for the month of June in 2021? Where will the water vapor be concentrated in May of 2011? How about Ocean currents? Will the NAO be positive or negative? What about solar winds? When will the giant caldera in Yellowstone erupt? And that would be over a long time. 250 million year cycles again? No. CO2's weak effects are not immediate. Out of sight, out of mind? Let the grandkids curse your name? So the world will be the same 100 years from now? No new technologies? In 1900 did anyone predict nuclear power? The automobile as primary transportation? Etc.. You would have been running around predicting the world in the year 2000 would be buried in horse **** due to the population growth and everyone owning a horse. We have clear effects NOW. And it can become rapidly worse. Clear effects of CO2? The only effect that is clear is worry over wildly speculative conclusions based on some pretty shakey data. It started out that bad things would happen when the earth warmed by five or more degrees. Now bad things are happening over a tenth of a degree according to the "experts". All of which reminds me, you stated that anthropogenic CO2 caused the oceans to warm by one degree IIRC. I asked you how that was possible since the air temperature hasn't risen by that amount. Air is a lot easier to heat than water. I don't remember your answer. What is it anyway? -- Dan |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Sep 2005 21:08:09 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
cooking up carbon dioxide theories Which go how, exactly? Follow the breadcrumbs ..... -- Cliff |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Sep 2005 21:08:09 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
Cliff wrote in : On 25 Sep 2005 01:45:39 GMT, D Murphy wrote: If you find some bit of k00k science or bad reporting that supports your conclusion you cross post it all over the usenet. If you or the other wingers did not find it & cite it first it might be a bit harder to do GGG. I'm a winger now, eh? That's funny. I'll keep that in mind the next time I vote for a democrat. That may be a while since most out here are being investigated by the Feds. Interesting. How many republicans are the current neocon crowd "investigating"? Pretty close to "none"? Recall their last witchhunt? -- Cliff |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message news:1127759213.1dac75c7e1cc9487cc0941f8364983ae@t eranews... wrote: Kirk Gordon wrote: Cliff wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:25:35 -0400, Kirk Gordon wrote: Since about 8,000 BC, the world's oceans have gotten warmer by about 35 degrees Fahrenheit. I rather doubt it. Look it up, Cliff. How about if you tell us where you looked it up? In truth, I didn't look it up. At least not recently What I wrote was just a summary perspective based on reading and sources too numerous to remember. But, for the fun of it, here are some web articles that might help anyone interested: http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBo...f_climate.html http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/...hap15/lgm.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/story_paleo.html I don't know if the evidence is solid but water at 32 F IS. Think about the anti-freeze you put in your car's cooling system. A bit of methanol or ethylene glycol added to ordinary tap water can reduce the freezing point to 30 or 40 (or more) degrees Fahrenheit below normal freezing temperatures. Oceans salts have exactly the same effect, which is why ocean water doesn't freeze even when freshwater is solid as rock at the same temperature. For those non-mechanically minded, make sure your mechanic does not put the anti-freeze/coolant into your car radiator at full strength. Surprising, but some of my friends will do just that. Water inside the radiator initiates your engines radiator to allow it to dissipate heat. In a closed system like a radiator, the water provides this boiling point to protect against such catastrophes like overheating engines. Kirk, also isn't the opposite hold true, that with proper UV radiation, salts provide the catalyst for the water to boil off or steam faster ?. Exactly what I mean by faster might have a need for expansion upon, that I hoped you'd gladly fill in G KG John |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 25 Sep 2005 21:08:09 GMT, D Murphy wrote:
Temperatures over the United States when adjusted for urban factors show little net change over the past 70 years. Well, that explains why the arctic ice packs and the glaciers are not melting and why the temps of the seas worldwide have not risen, right? And all the other observatiuons ... OTOH The very chart that they show seems to say otherwise .... -- Cliff |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kirk Gordon wrote: wrote: Kirk Gordon wrote: Cliff wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:25:35 -0400, Kirk Gordon wrote: Since about 8,000 BC, the world's oceans have gotten warmer by about 35 degrees Fahrenheit. I rather doubt it. Look it up, Cliff. How about if you tell us where you looked it up? In truth, I didn't look it up. At least not recently What I wrote was just a summary perspective based on reading and sources too numerous to remember. But, for the fun of it, here are some web articles that might help anyone interested: http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBo...f_climate.html http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/...hap15/lgm.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/story_paleo.html 10,000 years ago was the beginning of the end of the current ice age. Glaciation as far south as the Ohio River valley, and substantial non-contiguous ice fields far south of that. Oceans in total MUCH smaller than now, because of all the water containted in glaciers. And average ocean temps 30 to 40 degrees F lower than at present. Just what is the 'average ocean temperature' today? Unless it is greater than 67 F, or the average includes ice, I daresay it was not EVER 30 - 40 degrees F cooler than today. According to NOAA, it's about 17C, or 62.6F, and ranges from -2C (28.4F) at high latitudes to over 36C (96.8) in very warm spots, like the Persian Gulf. There is a reason why it is around 28.4 degrees F at high latitudes, see below. If that average does includes ice the latent heat, is also a very important consideration, right? I don't know what latent heat you're talking about. Here is an explanation of latent heat of fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat_of_fusion I'm just discussing general water temperatures. And no, the numbers I mentioned, and those I've quoted above, don't include ice. OK. You may be assuming that liquid water can't ever get below 0 degrees C, or 32 degrees F. Those numbers only work for pure water. Ocean water, filled with electrolitic salts, can get much, MUCH colder than those numbers, and remain liquid. At this moment, somewhere near Iceland, there's liquid water flowing around at several degrees BELOW what we normally think of as the freezing point. About three and one-half degrees F below the freezing point of pure water. My earlier statement wasn't politicallly motivated. I was just making an observation that seems to be very well grounded in serious science, and in mountains of (literally) rock-solid evidence. I don't know if the evidence is solid but water at 32 F IS. Think about the anti-freeze you put in your car's cooling system. A bit of methanol or ethylene glycol added to ordinary tap water can reduce the freezing point to 30 or 40 (or more) degrees Fahrenheit below normal freezing temperatures. Oceans salts have exactly the same effect, which is why ocean water doesn't freeze even when freshwater is solid as rock at the same temperature. The polar ice caps, all glaciers, and even ice-bergs floating in the ocean, are made of fresh water. I am familiar with the concept of freezing point suppression. Regarding the Arctic ice cap being freshwater, that is partly because when seawater freezes the salts are mostly 'excreted' (for want of a better term) from the ice. Some of the Arctic ice cap is freshwater because it is formed by precipitation on top of the sea ice. Based on the following information it would appear that today the freezing point of seawater is around 28.4 degrees F. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freezing-point_depression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_water http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/gen99263.htm http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2ofreezecalc.html Interestingly, when glaciers expand, and when they hold a larger and larger percentage of the Earth's total water, the freezing temps of the oceans would likely get even lower. That's because the volume of salts in the oceans doesn't change much, even though the water volume does. If the same salts are disolved in less water, the salt concentration goes up, and freezing temps are reduced to even more extreme values - WAY below 32F. If the salinity were twice what it is today then the freezing point would be about 25 degrees F. That does not agree well with the assertion that the average ocean temperature was 30 to 40 degrees cooler ten thousand years ago, or ever. -- FF |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Scheldroup wrote:
For those non-mechanically minded, make sure your mechanic does not put the anti-freeze/coolant into your car radiator at full strength. Surprising, but some of my friends will do just that. Water inside the radiator initiates your engines radiator to allow it to dissipate heat. In a closed system like a radiator, the water provides this boiling point to protect against such catastrophes like overheating engines. Kirk, also isn't the opposite hold true, that with proper UV radiation, salts provide the catalyst for the water to boil off or steam faster ?. Exactly what I mean by faster might have a need for expansion upon, that I hoped you'd gladly fill in G I don't know what UV has to do with it; but any kind of salt or electrolytic additive that lowers water's freezing point also raises it's boiling temperature. That's why your antifreeze is most often called antifreeze/coolant by its manufacturers. The same stuff that prevents freeze-up in wintertime will help prevent boiling on a hot summer day, when you're pulling your boat up a long hill. Typical engine operating temperatures these days are well over 200 degrees; but boilover is rare. Pressure inside the cooling systems is one reason, antifreeze-antiboil additives are the other. The only way I know of to lower the boiling point is to reduce pressure. At high altitudes, water boils at significantly lower than 212 degrees F. That's one of the reasons why the coffee you get on an airplane usually sucks. The cabin's pressurized; but not to a full atmosphere, and the water for the coffee won't get hot enough to make a good cup. KG |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
There is a reason why it is around 28.4 degrees F at high latitudes, see below. Here is an explanation of latent heat of fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat_of_fusion About three and one-half degrees F below the freezing point of pure water. I am familiar with the concept of freezing point suppression. Regarding the Arctic ice cap being freshwater, that is partly because when seawater freezes the salts are mostly 'excreted' (for want of a better term) from the ice. Some of the Arctic ice cap is freshwater because it is formed by precipitation on top of the sea ice. Based on the following information it would appear that today the freezing point of seawater is around 28.4 degrees F. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freezing-point_depression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_water http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/gen99263.htm http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2ofreezecalc.html If the salinity were twice what it is today then the freezing point would be about 25 degrees F. That does not agree well with the assertion that the average ocean temperature was 30 to 40 degrees cooler ten thousand years ago, or ever. I'm not a great fan of Wikipedia; but even the articles you cite say that salinity varies a lot. If the water near Iceland really freezes at 28.4, then that's probably because those same waters are some of the freshest. Although, as I understand what I've read, no one suggests that the sea is freezing around Iceland or Greenland. Rather, freshwater glaciers form at high altitudes, away from the sea, flow downhill toward the sea, and then break into icebergs. If the sea water cold really freeze at 28.4, then there'd be coastal ice around Northern places in winter, just like you see in lakes and ponds. I'm not aware that any such thing exists, or ever has existed. In places where salinity is high, freezing points will be much lower. And, as I said earlier, when lots of the Earth's total water turns to ice, then there's less liquid water to contain the same amounts of salt. Salinity rises, freezing points drop, and you still have only fresh water in a solid state, with sea water increasingly resistant to cold. In fact, it occurs to me that there may be some self-governing mechanism at work. No matter how cold it gets, there might ALWAYS be liquid water on Earth. Each little bit of sea water that evaporates, freezes, and then returns to Earth in a fresh and frozen state, leaves its salts behind in the water that remains liquid, thereby protecting that liquid from freezing. It's possible that even the most extreme cold that can occur on this planet won't be cold enough to freeze all the water, or to freeze out all the life-forms. That would also work if sea water actually "excretes" its salt, though I've never heard of that before, and have a hard time seeing how it could work. I don't think heat of fusion has much to do with overall temperatures. That's really just a little bit of hysteresis in the freeze/melt cycle. But heat that has to be withdrawn from water to solidify it also has to be returned before the water can re-liquify. A zero sum game. And, since Earth's water is part liquid, and part solid, the game is always giving at the same time it's taking. I can't see how that would make much difference in average temperature. It might make a tiny difference in how much water is solid, and how much is liquid, at any given temperature; but it doesn't change the total kinetic energy involved. Certainly, any effect it might have would zero out over the length of a complete warming cooling cycle. KG |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:59:06 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote: Cliff wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:25:35 -0400, Kirk Gordon wrote: Since about 8,000 BC, the world's oceans have gotten warmer by about 35 degrees Fahrenheit. I rather doubt it. Look it up, Cliff. 10,000 years ago was the beginning of the end of the current ice age. Glaciation as far south as the Ohio River valley, and substantial non-contiguous ice fields far south of that. Oceans in total MUCH smaller than now, because of all the water containted in glaciers. And average ocean temps 30 to 40 degrees F lower than at present. Geologists and other "Earth science" types are often pretty good at what they do, especially when they're working with something so (relatively) recent. Where you live, what's under your feet is mostly sand, put there when glaciers scraped out the basin of Lake Michigan. My earlier statement wasn't politicallly motivated. I was just making an observation that seems to be very well grounded in serious science, and in mountains of (literally) rock-solid evidence. Kirk, I strongly doubt your 35 to 40 degree number. http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuse...ge2/03_2.shtml [ From time to time small changes in climate led to sudden surging of large glaciers which covered much of the North Atlantic with icebergs. ] [ In addition, the air trapped in the ice can be analyzed for trace gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. This was done in laboratories in France (in Grenoble, by the physicist Claude Lorius and his co-workers) and in Switzerland (in Bern, by the physicist Hans Oeschger and his team). Results show that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere closely follows the ups and downs of temperature. Whenever it was cold, carbon dioxide and methane were low in concentration, whenever it was warm, they were both high. ] It does not take huge changes to result in large effects. Fairly small changes in ocean currents, as an example, can have huge effects. IIRC During the ice ages the tropics may even have warmed up. Any *good* cites for your 35 to 40 degree number? Not just local ones ... you need global. -- Cliff |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT there is "significant global warming" | Metalworking | |||
| OT - Global Warming (Was "Lying Liberals.") | Metalworking | |||
| Completely OT Preparing for life with global warming | Metalworking | |||
| Global warming - timber frames | UK diy | |||
Linear Mode
