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.
--
Cliff

**** off, troll garbage.

ral

And the temperature of the Sun has gone up, and so (possibly) has the
tempurature of Mercury. So what exactly it seems, is the point?

looking at the graph, it appears that there is a similar pattern from
low to high from 1960 to now, as there was about the period from 1910 to
where it peaks (almost the same as now) around 1948. And then it begins
a definite downward trend for the next 25 years or so. So how do they
assume that the trend will continue to climb from this point in time on?

any ideas or basis on why the dramatic drop right after 1948?

ca

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.

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. :-)
...lew...

"clay" wrote in message
...
And the temperature of the Sun has gone up, and so (possibly) has the
tempurature of Mercury. So what exactly it seems, is the point?

looking at the graph, it appears that there is a similar pattern from low
to high from 1960 to now, as there was about the period from 1910 to where
it peaks (almost the same as now) around 1948. And then it begins a
definite downward trend for the next 25 years or so. So how do they assume
that the trend will continue to climb from this point in time on?

any ideas or basis on why the dramatic drop right after 1948?

ca


That was about the time that the "Cold" war started.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Cliff's posts are a lot more entertaining after
you've downed a bottle of Smirnoff Ice.

Steve.

Oh hummm

I guess you missed the news story that indicated the Sun is getting hotter - buy
a large amount.

And warming from what to what ? - Getting to normal now or hotter than normal ?
Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



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.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
nk.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.

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
Oh hummm

I guess you missed the news story that indicated the Sun is getting
hotter - buy
a large amount.


Is that Bush's fault?

Chris

"Chris" wrote in message ...
|
| "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
| ...
| Oh hummm
|
| I guess you missed the news story that indicated the Sun is getting
| hotter - buy
| a large amount.
|
|
| Is that Bush's fault?
|
| Chris

Of course! Everything bad that ever happens in the world is his fault
(that logic never applied to Clinton, of course!)

"carl mciver" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Chris" wrote in message
...
|
| "Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
| ...
| Oh hummm
|
| I guess you missed the news story that indicated the Sun is getting
| hotter - buy
| a large amount.
|
|
| Is that Bush's fault?
|
| Chris

Of course! Everything bad that ever happens in the world is his fault
(that logic never applied to Clinton, of course!)


Ok, just wanted to make sure.

Chris

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:54:32 GMT, clay wrote:

And the temperature of the Sun has gone up, and so (possibly) has the
tempurature of Mercury.

How do you assume that one?
Who fed that one to you?

LOL .....
--
Cliff

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:54:32 GMT, clay wrote:

looking at the graph, it appears that there is a similar pattern from
low to high from 1960 to now, as there was about the period from 1910 to
where it peaks (almost the same as now) around 1948. And then it begins
a definite downward trend for the next 25 years or so. So how do they
assume that the trend will continue to climb from this point in time on?

The "observed" has clearly been climbing since about 1900.
The "model" prior to 1950 or so is based on uncertain estimates.
The effects of CO2 & the greenhouse effect are well known,
documented & researched.
Notice the sharp rise after 1950 as the world's population
grew and more people used more fossil fuels releasing more CO2.

Prior to 1950 a lot of coal was freely burned and it's ash &
byproducts may have had something to do with providing a bit of
cooling to somewhat offset the CO2. My guess and just a guess.

BTW, I don't think that this is worst case by a long shot .....
--
Cliff

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:18:33 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:

**** off, troll garbage.

ral

Yet another winger in denial G.
Probably still thinks the neocons tell the truth too.
--
Cliff

"Mecoman" wrote in message
...

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
nk.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....



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 22:39:22 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

Oh hummm

I guess you missed the news story that indicated the Sun is getting hotter - buy
a large amount.

The shrubbie told you that one too? Or was it Exxon & Faux "news"?

LOL .....
--
Cliff

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:38:15 GMT, "carl mciver"
wrote:

| Is that Bush's fault?
|
| Chris

Of course! Everything bad that ever happens in the world is his fault

And they are just so proud of it too ......
--
Cliff

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:41:10 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:


"Mecoman" wrote in message
...

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
nk.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....

"the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have
seen in the past 50 years or so"

"Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of
East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that
the sun did have an effect on global warming."

[
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.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as
the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate
"the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr
Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not
incorporated other potential climate change factors.
]

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005.../junk-science/
"Climate change denial, as David Bellamy’s claims show, is based on
pure hocus pocus"

The effects of global warming due to incereased CO2 levels
are added to any possible warming due to solar effects G.
Matters are just made worse.
--
Cliff

check this out

http://sptimes.com/2005/09/13/Weathe...is_not_a.shtml

--
**********
shu



"clay" wrote in message
...
And the temperature of the Sun has gone up, and so (possibly) has the
tempurature of Mercury. So what exactly it seems, is the point?

looking at the graph, it appears that there is a similar pattern from
low to high from 1960 to now, as there was about the period from 1910 to
where it peaks (almost the same as now) around 1948. And then it begins
a definite downward trend for the next 25 years or so. So how do they
assume that the trend will continue to climb from this point in time on?

any ideas or basis on why the dramatic drop right after 1948?

ca

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.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:41:10 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

What a shock. Global warming is caused by the Sun getting hotter....



What a shock the "Torygraph" as it is known in the UK is talking out
of its arse again. According to one of the report's authors:

"In the 2002 Harold Jeffreys Lecture to the Royal Astronomical
Society in London, Solanki said: After 1980, however, the
Earth's temperature exhibits a remarkably steep rise, while
the sun's irradiance displays at the most a weak secular trend.
Hence the sun cannot be the dominant source of this latest
temperature increase, with man-made greenhouse gases being
the likely dominant alternative."

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-04zzd.html

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 16:00:54 -0400, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:41:10 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html


[

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr
Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not
incorporated other potential climate change factors.
]

One should also add that the report is based on a study of a single
ice core.

Beware of newspapers reporting science.

Guido wrote:

...

One should also add that the report is based on a study of a single
ice core.

Beware of newspapers reporting science.

DAGS "Mauna Loa Observatory".

That particular study may have been based on a singel ice core
but there is ample other evidence of change in the composition
of the atmosphere. One needs to understand some basic Physics
to understand the inevitable consequences of such a change so
predictions of that consequwence remain controversial.

--

FF

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?


--

Dan

Cliff wrote in
:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:54:32 GMT, clay wrote:

looking at the graph, it appears that there is a similar pattern from
low to high from 1960 to now, as there was about the period from 1910
to
where it peaks (almost the same as now) around 1948. And then it begins
a definite downward trend for the next 25 years or so. So how do they
assume that the trend will continue to climb from this point in time
on?

The "observed" has clearly been climbing since about 1900.
The "model" prior to 1950 or so is based on uncertain estimates.
The effects of CO2 & the greenhouse effect are well known,
documented & researched.

According to the Greenhouse Theory the CO2 and other gasses in the upper
atmosphere trap heat which eventually warms the surface of the planet. If
the Greenhouse Theory (which remains unproven) is correct and is
responsible for the increase in surface and ocean temps, why have the
surface temps risen more than the temp of the atmosphere?

Notice the sharp rise after 1950 as the world's population
grew and more people used more fossil fuels releasing more CO2.

Correlation does not prove causation.


Prior to 1950 a lot of coal was freely burned and it's ash &
byproducts may have had something to do with providing a bit of
cooling to somewhat offset the CO2. My guess and just a guess.

BTW, I don't think that this is worst case by a long shot .....

Here's another theory for you to fret over.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/2/11/11


--

Dan

On 23 Sep 2005 14:23:17 -0700, wrote:


Guido wrote:

...

One should also add that the report is based on a study of a single
ice core.

Beware of newspapers reporting science.

DAGS "Mauna Loa Observatory".

That particular study may have been based on a singel ice core
but there is ample other evidence of change in the composition
of the atmosphere.

Yep.

One needs to understand some basic Physics
to understand the inevitable consequences of such a change

Yep. Or at least have heard of the word "Physics".

so
predictions of that consequwence remain controversial.

It's not faith-based which confuses the wingers & fundies no end
.... but still, a bit of education (or just knowing what the subject
is in the first place) would help them a lot. Some of the silly season
stuff they fall for .. over & over again ..... reminds me of those WMD
fairy tales ....
--
Cliff

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.

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 ...
--
Cliff

On 24 Sep 2005 02:07:16 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 23:54:32 GMT, clay wrote:

looking at the graph, it appears that there is a similar pattern from
low to high from 1960 to now, as there was about the period from 1910
to
where it peaks (almost the same as now) around 1948. And then it begins
a definite downward trend for the next 25 years or so. So how do they
assume that the trend will continue to climb from this point in time
on?

The "observed" has clearly been climbing since about 1900.
The "model" prior to 1950 or so is based on uncertain estimates.
The effects of CO2 & the greenhouse effect are well known,
documented & researched.

According to the Greenhouse Theory the CO2 and other gasses in the upper
atmosphere trap heat

Consider exactly how they "trap heat".

which eventually warms the surface of the planet.

Among other things.

If
the Greenhouse Theory (which remains unproven) is correct and is
responsible for the increase in surface and ocean temps, why have the
surface temps risen more than the temp of the atmosphere?

Have they? Where, *exactly*?
Would it matter?

By your very own statements (again) the temps of both
have risen .... VBG. So what, exactly, are you in denial about?

Notice the sharp rise after 1950 as the world's population
grew and more people used more fossil fuels releasing more CO2.

Correlation does not prove causation.

Got BB's lint today?

Prior to 1950 a lot of coal was freely burned and it's ash &
byproducts may have had something to do with providing a bit of
cooling to somewhat offset the CO2. My guess and just a guess.

BTW, I don't think that this is worst case by a long shot .....

Here's another theory for you to fret over.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/2/11/11

Not much of an effect but it might confuse C14 dating
results ... if true .... BUT the C14 dating methodology,
was calibrated (over it's limits & it is limited) by other
methods quite a few times by many different groups
& researchers -- even using multiple methods.

So any such effect should have been well known by
now from the calibrations already long ago done.

Take a look at that calibration G.
--
Cliff

Guys like Cliff make me tired. He's SO ****ing stupid. And there are
billions of Cliffs out there. He's just a damned animal with the ability
to gibber like a thinking being, really.

I not talking about the big lie here about how capitalist societies are
the cause of global warming, I've debunked that crap a zillion times.
Morons like Cliff just come back after I'm gone awhile and spew the same
idiot **** again! Damned Parrot. I'm talking about how stupid people are
for trying to spread such lies, and many other lies just like them.

The truth is, people vote for the political whore who has the slickest
TV ads. If a candidate has the right advertising people who know what
currently clicks in the pea brains of most people, that candidate gets
elected. It doesn't matter that every candidate out there is a dirty
crook; and I admit that some are far worse than others, but people are,
as large masses, stupid sheep easy to control. You aren't allowed to
vote on the real issues. On the real issues, the candidates are united.
You're given some red herring social issue, like "can you stab your baby
in the back of the head with a scissors as he's born, in order to kill
it." People on both sides eat that up. Meanwhile, your jobs are going
overseas, your country is being taken over by illegal aliens (a better
breed of sheep), and your republic is being flushed down the toilet.

Most people wouldn't know an objective fact from a subjective
interpretation if it kicked them in the ass. I've tried to point out the
long accepted rational seperation from observation and interpretation,
and I always get at least a few morons (usually from the left) who are
so damned stupid as to say it isn't so! The left have this theory that
there is no objective reality, so they can tell any damned lie they want
and claim that is their opinion, and their opinioon is as valid as any
other. Idiots. Complete and utter idiots. These morons are the ones that
claim to understand science, yet if there is no objective reality, then
there can be no science, period. People like that should be forced to
live in caves, and shot when they're thirty (their natural life span) as
objective reality is what has made the modern world possible.

It's not like the political right is immune. The whole Kansas city
School board issue with "Intelligent Design" proves that the right is
not immune. Even a brief inspection of the logic of "Intelligent Design"
shows the logical inconsistancy: if the complexity of a human being
proves the existance of an intelligent designer, the same logic requires
an intelligent designer of the intelligent designer that made man. That
is, who made "God"? By inspection, this requires an infinite number of
intelligent designers and there can be no beginning. A beginning
requires someone arising without a designer. If so, why postulate the
need for an intelligent designer. Ergo, reject the theory.

The capacity for people to believe what they want to believe is almost
infinite. Like all you guys with the big 4wd SUV bug out vehicles who
live in big cities. Look at New Orleans and Houston evacuations - you're
not going anywere. But you won't leave the city before the destruction!
It's just like the old Biblical story about the destruction of Sodom; if
you wait until you smell the sulpher of the fire and brimstone, you've
waited too long. It was true thousands of years ago, and people are no
wiser now.

Come on, people! Sit down and think about what you believe and WHY you
believe it. Try to get back objective facts and logic.

One last thing: I'm not saying that we should throw out our culture. Far
from it! Culture, like the human body, evolved. It, too, is a marvel of
evolution. Just because we don't understand our culture, a culture that
has been incredibly productive, is no reason to toss it out wholesale.
Just as our bodies are wonderous holoistic biological machines, so our
culture is, as a whole, a wonderous tool for its people to live by; and
yes, that includes the religion. Religion is just another part of
culture, perhaps the most important part. You have to understand how it
works and what it does before you dare make any changes to it; and
brother, you can't let these idiot leftist, who are hell bent on killing
you, mess with it. I think science is a better way of understanding our
world than religion is; but we don't yet understand ourselves well
enough to know why religion worked to make us the most productive
culture the world has ever seen. I am sure that once we DO understand
the workings of our religion, we would implement values very much
consistant with what religion teaches; same way the wings of the firat
airplanes has a great deal in common with the wings of birds; there is a
fundamental scientific truth behind both.

Cliff wrote:
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.

Which does not change the fact that the statement, taken
at its face, is so incorrect as to warrant a strong suspicion
of dishonesty.

o

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.

By which I suppose you mean that the total number of sunspots
over the last two cycles has been the same as over previous
cycles.

Assuming I am correct about what you mean and you are correct
about what the source meant and teh source was accurately quoted
(which assumptions may at least be plausible) the original
statement was at best ill-considered as it literally meant
something very differene than the speaker ostensibly intended.

Personally, it sounds more like an example of a person blurting
out some supposed fact they don't really understand but have
been told is supportive of the position they have chosen to
favor for other reasons.

--

FF

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.

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.


Since about 8,000 BC, the world's oceans have gotten warmer by about
35 degrees Fahrenheit. Musta been a direct result of those godawful
humans discovering fire.

KG

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:25:35 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

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.


Since about 8,000 BC, the world's oceans have gotten warmer by about
35 degrees Fahrenheit. Musta been a direct result of those godawful
humans discovering fire.

KG

Bushes fault for not singing Kyoto.

Everybody knows that!!!!

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On 23 Sep 2005 14:23:17 -0700, wrote:

DAGS "Mauna Loa Observatory".

"Department of Accounting and General Services" ?
--
Cliff

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:11:07 -0400, wrote:

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.

How does this correlate with the suns output of energy? I seem to
remember something in the news about global warming on Mars.

Gee .... What causes the "seasons"?
Per a recent study of Harvard graduates ~9 out of 10 say
it's because the sun gets closer & more distant from
the sun.

A study of Harvard grads, probably MBAs ...

[
A study conducted several years ago by the Harvard School of Education
showed that 21 out of 24 graduates of Harvard responded incorrectly to
basic questions about the basis for the seasons as well as the phases
of the moon. How could this be?
]

http://www.imagiworks.com/Pages/ForT...thGraders.html
Guess who attended there ......
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote in
:

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

http://www.linmpi.mpg.de/english/pro.../sunearth.html

Something else to for you to read.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/072303C.html


--

Dan

On 24 Sep 2005 07:59:41 -0700, wrote:


Cliff wrote:
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.

Which does not change the fact that the statement, taken
at its face, is so incorrect as to warrant a strong suspicion
of dishonesty.

How so?
You think it's bush & his cronies again?

Which do you object to: The fact of global warming or the fact
that there's nothing unusual about sunspots?

This chart suggests that the latest cycle may have had a few
less than previous cycles *where they can be observed* but
says nothing about net energy outputs:
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cyclcomp.html

o

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.

By which I suppose you mean that the total number of sunspots
over the last two cycles has been the same as over previous
cycles.

They are never quite the same. So what?

Assuming I am correct about what you mean and you are correct
about what the source meant and teh source was accurately quoted

By the newspaper? I don't know .... my quote from the link was,
however, accurate.

Go fish or do some research I suppose, if it concerns you.
How much would it matter, exactly?

Consider the mass of the sun and it's temperature.
Let's assume fro the sake of argument that the nuclear
reactions that power the sun went out in it's core today.

How long would it take for it to drop 1 degree Centigrade?

Remember that almost all energy radiated is by black body
radiation ..... even if there can be slight local brief variations
in specific areas from time to time.

How much would that 1 degree centigrade drop matter
in the total energy output radiated? And that would matter
here how much?

Or are you concerned about the last 11 years of a 22 year cycle?

(which assumptions may at least be plausible) the original
statement was at best ill-considered as it literally meant
something very differene than the speaker ostensibly intended.

Such as?

Personally, it sounds more like an example of a person blurting
out some supposed fact they don't really understand but have
been told is supportive of the position they have chosen to
favor for other reasons.

And yours is?
--
Cliff

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.
--
Cliff

On 24 Sep 2005 21:46:53 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in news:stebj155dnkg8rqr7asijg264p1j6ko7fh@
4ax.com:

Everything in the US and Europe and Asia put together isn't one volcano.

It is, in fact, much, much more in terms of CO2 emissions.
Just ask Shu.

Over what period of time? Volcanos erupt then settle down in a fairly short
period of time. Man puts out CO2 continuously. Volcanic eruptions are
relatively rare. Over the long term man puts out more CO2 than volcanic
activity by a factor of 100-150 times.

As was explained in some detail to Shu a bit back when she'd
just made the same silly claim G.

Subject "Everything in the US and Europe and Asia put together"
Predicate "isn't one volcano".
--
Cliff

Gunner Asch wrote:
Bushes fault for not singing Kyoto.

Everybody knows that!!!!

You'd think that the people who believe that anyone can "Fix" GW (if it
exists) would stop breathing and passing gas (14 times a day according
to some reports). They would help us all out by doing their part by
refraining from Breathing out CO2.

If Cliff is half the verbal windbag that he appears to be in typed
text, heck, that might add years for the rest of us!

What is scary for the CNC group, is I'm wondering how many months from
now it will be before Cliffy (of Clown fame) starts whining about the
fast approaching Ice Age as listed on this site with MoveOn.org
advertisements..... (it is clear he likes that "Side" in particular, so
I would think he would BELIEVE it more than other sites)

http://www.alternet.org/story/17711/

(yep, not only are we going to "burn up" from Global Warming, but it
also looks like then we will freeze after that. Somebody quick, tell
the administration Oh my !)

I also get to thinking about the poor "Ice Man" they dug out a while
back under many feet of ice..... It must have caught him by suprise
because he was pretty intact for being dead for so many years.

If he, would only have had the internet and CNC newsgroups to use, in
order to BLAME somebody, in order to belittle people and act as if he
knew all......

Yes, If he would have had a news group to whine and complain as if he
is begging people to jump to action and recognize that a sheet of ice
was coming so fast that there was no way they would survive.......

And that there was no stopping it unless the "administration" (just one
I guess) did something.......

Oh, If only the ADMINISTRATION at that time would have listened
!!!....... They could have stopped people from doing the things that
were making it 'happen', and people would have lived !!! (they would
have waited for the feds to evac them I guess)

So whats the deal Cliff ? After this Global Warming, are we all going
to be suddenly captured by a radical Ice Flow ?? What are YOU going to
DO about it ???

Maybe the Administration should fire up blow torches

Grummy

(BTW cliffy... Which Brand/Color Lipstick do you find best ? Are you
sure it wasn't made in some way that just might be trashing the earth ?
The process emitting CO2? I sure hope not. You will give all clowns a
bad name)

On 24 Sep 2005 22:22:01 GMT, D Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
:

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?

http://www.linmpi.mpg.de/english/pro.../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."

How long is a few degrees over 135 million year
cycles compared to a few degrees per decade or so?
Good point about the Galaxy rotating .... let's blame
it on that & not worry.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

Gee .... What causes the "seasons"?

it's because the sun gets closer & more distant from
the sun.

Is that what they REALLY say ?

The Sun gets closer and Farther from the Sun ??

Wow..... Another new one on me. Stupid High Scholl Teacher told me it
was the earths cyclic tilting..... Bad teacher I guess.



Grummy