|
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
Al Gore take note.
Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really cold temperatures with wind. Our next few nights are forecast in the -5 to -10 range. The cattlemen are busy and nervous. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote:
Al Gore take note. Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really cold temperatures with wind. There is a difference between weather and climate. Also, the world is bigger than just North America. 2009 was Australia's 3rd hottest year on record since 1910 (and the warmest winter on record). It was South Korea's 5th warmest since 1912. There are probably other similar stats but those were just the first couple hits I found. Chris |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
"RonB" wrote in message ... Al Gore take note. Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really cold temperatures with wind. Our next few nights are forecast in the -5 to -10 range. The cattlemen are busy and nervous. Not going to change anybody's mind. According to the envirowakos, the cold weather you are seeing is due to global warming. I still haven't figured out how to make ice cubes in my oven but, according to them, it is possible. Guess I'm just not doing it right. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:00:34 -0800, "CW"
wrote: "RonB" wrote in message ... Al Gore take note. Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really cold temperatures with wind. Our next few nights are forecast in the -5 to -10 range. The cattlemen are busy and nervous. Not going to change anybody's mind. According to the envirowakos, the cold weather you are seeing is due to global warming. I still haven't figured out how to make ice cubes in my oven but, according to them, it is possible. Guess I'm just not doing it right. Proportional control swing? We are just on a low swing. ; Mark |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
"RonB" wrote in message ... Al Gore take note. Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really cold temperatures with wind. Our next few nights are forecast in the -5 to -10 range. The cattlemen are busy and nervous. I heard a couple from Central America commenting that you never had to wear a coat while there, for the last several years a coat is required. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On Jan 6, 5:58*pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote: Al Gore take note. Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state is unusual. * Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) *We make up for the really cold temperatures with wind. There is a difference between weather and climate. Also, the world is bigger than just North America. *2009 was Australia's 3rd hottest year on record since 1910 (and the warmest winter on record). *It was South Korea's 5th warmest since 1912. *There are probably other similar stats but those were just the first couple hits I found. Chris If the cold air is moving FROM the Arctic, could that warm the Arctic? Isn't that what Al Ghore is all in a tizzy about? You know, The Burj Dubai getting completely flooded G |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On 1/6/2010 4:47 PM, RonB wrote:
Al Gore take note. Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really cold temperatures with wind. Our next few nights are forecast in the -5 to -10 range. The cattlemen are busy and nervous. http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-...%20Age%20Scare -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 10/22/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On 1/6/2010 5:58 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote: Al Gore take note. Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really cold temperatures with wind. There is a difference between weather and climate. Also, the world is bigger than just North America. 2009 was Australia's 3rd hottest year on record since 1910 (and the warmest winter on record). It was South Korea's 5th warmest since 1912. There are probably other similar stats but those were just the first couple hits I found. Chris I believe if you will read the non algorian news you will find that the whole northern Hemisphere is experiencing the coldest weather on record. Record snows in America, Europe and in China. The best part of the Global warming conference was the fact that obama had trouble getting back into the US because the airports were closed because of record snow falls. I question any conclusion when some one tells me there is a 0.4 degree warming trend when at any given time the temperature variation across the total face of the earth on any given day is is over 100 degrees. Based on the precision of the average temperature measurements that is insignificant. If you know nothing else about statistic do the Student's T test on the data. In this data t = 0.1 to be significant it would need to be greater that 2.8. I suspect there would be that much variance (0,4 degrees)in the temperature with in a couple of hundred feet of any one temperature measurement point |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On 1/6/2010 5:56 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
I question any conclusion when some one tells me there is a 0.4 degree warming trend when at any given time the temperature variation across the total face of the earth on any given day is is over 100 degrees. Based on the precision of the average temperature measurements that is insignificant. If you know nothing else about statistic do the Student's T test on the data. In this data t = 0.1 to be significant it would need to be greater that 2.8. I suspect there would be that much variance (0,4 degrees)in the temperature with in a couple of hundred feet of any one temperature measurement point Uhh, uhm, Keith ... if you please, this is not science, this is politicoreligousity. Please keep that in mind when introducing scientific reasoning and accountability into an AGW discussions. The cabal thanks you ... there is no cabal -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 10/22/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On Jan 6, 6:05*pm, Swingman wrote:
Uhh, uhm, Keith ... if you please, this is not science, this is politicoreligousity. Please keep that in mind when introducing scientific reasoning and accountability into an AGW discussions. The cabal thanks you ... there is no cabal --www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 10/22/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's still room for doubt. Nantz |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
Chris Friesen writes:
On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote: Al Gore take note. Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really cold temperatures with wind. There is a difference between weather and climate. Also, the world is bigger than just North America. 2009 was Australia's 3rd hottest year on record since 1910 (and the warmest winter on Not based on rural stations. see the darwin station analysis. The "heat" in 2009 oz is mostly UHI. scott |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
In article , Nantz wrote:
When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's still room for doubt. Science does not operate by majority vote. Science operates by making a hypothesis, then testing it to see if it yields correct or incorrect predictions about the behavior of the real world. There was a time when 95% of the world's geologists believed that continents were fixed in place and did not move. There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat. If a position is based upon percentage agreement, it may be politics, it may be faith, it may be lunacy -- but it is not science. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On Jan 6, 7:05*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 1/6/2010 5:56 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote: I question any conclusion when some one tells me there is a 0.4 degree warming trend when at any given time the temperature variation across the total face of the earth on any given day is is over 100 degrees. Based on the precision of the average temperature measurements that is insignificant. If you know nothing else about statistic do the Student's T test on the data. In this data t = 0.1 to be significant it would need to be greater that 2.8. I suspect there would be that much variance (0,4 degrees)in the temperature with in a couple of hundred feet of any one temperature measurement point Uhh, uhm, Keith ... if you please, this is not science, this is politicoreligousity. Please keep that in mind when introducing scientific reasoning and accountability into an AGW discussions. The cabal thanks you ... there is no cabal --www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 10/22/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) AGW.... Al Ghore Witchcraft? |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:58:06 -0600, the infamous Chris Friesen
scrawled the following: On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote: Al Gore take note. Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really cold temperatures with wind. There is a difference between weather and climate. Also, the world is bigger than just North America. 2009 was Australia's 3rd hottest year on record since 1910 (and the warmest winter on record). It was South Korea's 5th warmest since 1912. There are probably other similar stats but those were just the first couple hits I found. That's what cracks me up about you alarmists. You say "W're all gonna die as it gets hotter and hotter." then you turn around and make quotes like that. "3rd hottest" and "5th warmest" mean that weather has already been hotter than now HOW MANY TIMES? The fact that the last decade hasn't become hotter should be a clue to you guys, too. Keep Googlin'! Eventually you'll stumble over an unpoliticized version of the truth. g -- We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10 |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:41:39 -0800 (PST), the infamous Nantz
scrawled the following: On Jan 6, 6:05*pm, Swingman wrote: Uhh, uhm, Keith ... if you please, this is not science, this is politicoreligousity. Please keep that in mind when introducing scientific reasoning and accountability into an AGW discussions. The cabal thanks you ... there is no cabal --www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 10/22/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's still room for doubt. See recent headlines for the CRU and East Anglia email, Nantz. -- We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10 |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
... Chris Friesen writes: On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote: Al Gore take note. Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really cold temperatures with wind. There is a difference between weather and climate. Also, the world is bigger than just North America. 2009 was Australia's 3rd hottest year on record since 1910 (and the warmest winter on Not based on rural stations. see the darwin station analysis. The "heat" in 2009 oz is mostly UHI. scott South Korea is also experiencing the greatest snowfalls in 70 years. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
"CW" wrote in message
m... "RonB" wrote in message ... Al Gore take note. Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really cold temperatures with wind. Our next few nights are forecast in the -5 to -10 range. The cattlemen are busy and nervous. Not going to change anybody's mind. According to the envirowakos, the cold weather you are seeing is due to global warming. I still haven't figured out how to make ice cubes in my oven but, according to them, it is possible. Guess I'm just not doing it right. If - and it's a big If - the Greenland sheet melts And all of the melt water dumps into the North Atlantic, the disturbance in oceanic currents could precipitate an Ice Age over most of Europe. The rest of the northern hemisphere might or might not follow. In this case there will be Falling sea levels and we'll need to get all the island economies to repay they aid they've been given. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On 1/6/2010 7:02 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Science does not operate by majority vote. Science operates by making a hypothesis, then testing it to see if it yields correct or incorrect predictions about the behavior of the real world. There was a time when 95% of the world's geologists believed that continents were fixed in place and did not move. There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat. If a position is based upon percentage agreement, it may be politics, it may be faith, it may be lunacy -- but it is not science. Absolute, pure, unadulterated .... PITHY! Well said, Doug!!! -- www.e-woodshop.net Last update: 10/22/08 KarlC@ (the obvious) |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:02:41 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat. Well, the Greeks certainly knew the Earth was round - one of them measured it :-). You must be speaking of the Middle Ages. There were no scientists then, the church wouldn't allow it. There were some in Arab countries, but the only ones I know of were mathematicians. Someone who knows more about Arab science of those times can chime in here. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
Doug Miller wrote: There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat. It would appear the Flat Earth Society still has an active membership. Lew |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:20:36 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote: Doug Miller wrote: There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat. It would appear the Flat Earth Society still has an active membership. FS: one slightly used, but still entirely functional rectilineator. Accepting offers. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:33:44 -0700, Revivul
wrote: On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:20:36 -0800, "Lew Hodgett" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat. It would appear the Flat Earth Society still has an active membership. FS: one slightly used, but still entirely functional rectilineator. Accepting offers. I'll trade two epicycles of Mars. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
"Chris Friesen" wrote in message el... On 01/06/2010 04:47 PM, RonB wrote: Al Gore take note. Kansas gets cold, but sub zero in the southeastern part of the state is unusual. Occasionally, we might see -1 or -3 and that is fairly rare (one or two times/year, if at all.) We make up for the really cold temperatures with wind. There is a difference between weather and climate. Anyone mention climate? |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
"Nantz" wrote in message ... On Jan 6, 6:05 pm, Swingman wrote: When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's still room for doubt. Nantz Apparently the climatologists are witnessing that they do not have enough data to form anything close to an accurate conclusion in their life times. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message ... Doug Miller wrote: There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat. It would appear the Flat Earth Society still has an active membership. And they are active in the global warming hoax, I bet. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:26:48 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy
scrawled the following: On Jan 6, 7:05*pm, Swingman wrote: On 1/6/2010 5:56 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote: I question any conclusion when some one tells me there is a 0.4 degree warming trend when at any given time the temperature variation across the total face of the earth on any given day is is over 100 degrees. Based on the precision of the average temperature measurements that is insignificant. If you know nothing else about statistic do the Student's T test on the data. In this data t = 0.1 to be significant it would need to be greater that 2.8. I suspect there would be that much variance (0,4 degrees)in the temperature with in a couple of hundred feet of any one temperature measurement point Uhh, uhm, Keith ... if you please, this is not science, this is politicoreligousity. Please keep that in mind when introducing scientific reasoning and accountability into an AGW discussions. The cabal thanks you ... there is no cabal AGW.... Al Ghore Witchcraft? Androgynous alGore Whorosity? Ackshully, you guys are missing the proper acronym. It's AGWK, or Anthropomorphic Global Warming, Kumbaya. You must pray afterward and anthro means man-made. We killed the planet and we're all gonna die! The only problem is, the water and air in the USA are cleaner now, with more population, than they were 30 years ago. The USA now has more forested land than it did a century ago. We have more people but the farms are more productive. We recycle a whole lot and we have no shortages of minerals. The idiot alarmists are wrong on absolutely everything they spout off about. For more REAL info, see Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_ and Huber's _Hard Green_. I wish everyone on the planet could read them. Then we could sit down and talk about how to truly fix our problems. People don't have to die from the "solutions". -- We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10 |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:02:41 +0000, Doug Miller wrote: There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat. Well, the Greeks certainly knew the Earth was round - one of them measured it :-). Aristarchus, I believe it was, and came up with a remarkably accurate estimate, too, considering the measuring tools he had available to him. You must be speaking of the Middle Ages. And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-) Mariners knew for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what other explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the masts of a distant ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures, though, had no such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right? There were no scientists then, the church wouldn't allow it. Actually, the main reason science stagnated in the Middle Ages is that once the Roman Empire fell, *everything* stagnated. There were some in Arab countries, but the only ones I know of were mathematicians. Someone who knows more about Arab science of those times can chime in here. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:02:41 +0000, Doug Miller wrote: There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat. Well, the Greeks certainly knew the Earth was round - one of them measured it :-). You must be speaking of the Middle Ages. There were no scientists then, the church wouldn't allow it. There were some in Arab countries, but the only ones I know of were mathematicians. Someone who knows more about Arab science of those times can chime in here. Actually he's talking about either a time long before the Greeks or one that was made up in a fantasy written by Washington Irving. Columbus defended his plans to cross the Atlantic to Torquemada, the guy who ran the Spanish Inquisition at its peak. If there was even a hint of heresy in it do you think that Torquemada would have signed off on it? The notion that the church wouldn't allow science is something that was made up in the 1800s. Modern historians have discovered that this was not the case. In fact some of the key ideas of modern science came from medieval monks. As for the Arabs, they're the ones who came up with the experimental method--one thing that held back progress in Europe (others being such things as barbarian raids and plagues and a climate that was friendly to book-rot) was that the Greco-Roman heritage placed an emphasis on theory over experiment. The Arabs figured out the experimental method which led to them pretty much inventing what came to be known as chemistry, as well as making discoveries in optics, astronomy, and many other fields. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
In article , "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Doug Miller wrote: There was a time when nearly 100% of the world's population, scientists and otherwise, believed the earth to be flat. It would appear the Flat Earth Society still has an active membership. :-( The forums at flatearthsociety.org make entertaining reading -- for a short time, at least. My tolerance for crazies is rather low, I'm afraid. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
In article , "Leon" wrote:
"Nantz" wrote in message ... On Jan 6, 6:05 pm, Swingman wrote: When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's still room for doubt. Nantz Apparently the climatologists are witnessing that they do not have enough data to form anything close to an accurate conclusion in their life times. And that's really the essence of the matter: thinking of climate in human-centric, rather than planet-centric, terms. The proponents of AGW make two UNstated assumptions beyond the obvious, stated one that human activity is causing the earth to get warmer. Both of these unstated assumptions are unproven at best, and at least one of them is almost certainly wrong: First, that conditions as they exist now are normal or typical. A good friend of mine has an MS in geology; he tells me that during most of the planet's existence, it's been *much* warmer than it is now, and that we're actually still *in* the last Ice Age. Second, that conditions as they exist now are optimal and desirable -- that any change from currrent conditions *must* be a change for the worse. In fact, most GW models project an increase mostly in nighttime temperatures (IOW, higher lows), which among other things will lengthen the growing season in many parts of the world, and make agriculture possible in places where it is not now. This strikes me as a Good Thing, not a Bad Thing. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
Doug Miller wrote:
And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-) Mariners knew for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what other explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the masts of a distant ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures, though, had no such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right? The answer to the ship-mast question can easily be answered by positing a hill (of water) between the ships. As to the conclusion "what other explanation can there be," ignorance of any other possibility is not a proof. Sherlock Holmes said: "If you eliminate all other possibilities, whatever is left must be the answer" is correct as far as it goes. The fact remains that one cannot eliminate all other possibilities. There always remain the cases of miracles, hallucination, lies, mistakes, and a host of others. Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything. As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a railroad (except for the hills), and so on. Just like Newtonian mechanics are the ultimate truths for bowling, billiards, or shooting a scrot who breaks into your shed. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
Leon wrote:
"Nantz" wrote in message ... On Jan 6, 6:05 pm, Swingman wrote: When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's still room for doubt. Nantz Apparently the climatologists are witnessing that they do not have enough data to form anything close to an accurate conclusion in their life times. Less than 50 years ago, 100% of geologists were convinced of the theory of "continental drift." In was only in the 1960's that the notion of "Plate Tectonics" became popular. Now 100% of geologists do NOT accept continental drift. A hundred years ago, 100% of physicists held that Newtonian mechanics was the cat's pajamas. Now, 0% of physicists accept Newton as the ultimate truth-teller. Be that as it may, there ARE disciplines where majority vote determines truth (Romance literature, history, etc.). In math and the hard sciences, truth is empirical. If something cannot be proven, it is not "truth." It is hypothesis. Or conjecture. Compare the two observational "sciences:" Climate Change and Astronomy. By careful measurement, astronomy has (with the help of other branches of physics and mathematics), worked out the movement of the planets, motions of the galaxies, wound back the clock to the first milliseconds of the universe, and projected everything into the unimaginable future. The Climate Change people's theories can't wind back their equations to get the climate 100 years ago and they can't predict the weather next month. The difference between Climate Change theoreticians and Astrologers is not great. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
"Doug Miller" wrote in message ... In article , "Leon" wrote: "Nantz" wrote in message ... On Jan 6, 6:05 pm, Swingman wrote: When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's still room for doubt. Nantz Apparently the climatologists are witnessing that they do not have enough data to form anything close to an accurate conclusion in their life times. And that's really the essence of the matter: thinking of climate in human-centric, rather than planet-centric, terms. The proponents of AGW make two UNstated assumptions beyond the obvious, stated one that human activity is causing the earth to get warmer. Both of these unstated assumptions are unproven at best, and at least one of them is almost certainly wrong: First, that conditions as they exist now are normal or typical. A good friend of mine has an MS in geology; he tells me that during most of the planet's existence, it's been *much* warmer than it is now, and that we're actually still *in* the last Ice Age. And the term "normal" used my most "weather readers" on the news is a pet peave of mine. Daily when they are trying to jazz up the news they recite that the temperature is "x" degrees above or below normal. That is the most stupid comment I have ever heard said over and over. First off when talking in terms of climate temperature "normal" is NOT a constant. It is normal for temperatures to constantly fluxuate from day to day, year to year, decade to decade. The term that the "weather readers" are searching for is "Average". The temp today is/was "x" degrees below/above "average". When you take data and add it up and divide by the number of pieces of data you don't get normal, you get an average. Second, that conditions as they exist now are optimal and desirable -- that any change from currrent conditions *must* be a change for the worse. In fact, most GW models project an increase mostly in nighttime temperatures (IOW, higher lows), which among other things will lengthen the growing season in many parts of the world, and make agriculture possible in places where it is not now. This strikes me as a Good Thing, not a Bad Thing. Exactly, who is to say what the actual optimum temperature is. So what if there is more coastal flooding, so what if the polar bears have to swim to the south pole to reach their paradise. Living creatures adapt. AAMOF Polar Bears were actually found in Texas, rounded up and returned to their northern home as mentioned in a recent Texas magazine publication. Coastal flooding, that is nothing new, happens every time there is a storm. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:26:48 -0800 (PST), the infamous Robatoy Snip AGW.... Al Ghore Witchcraft? Androgynous alGore Whorosity? Ackshully, you guys are missing the proper acronym. It's AGWK, or Anthropomorphic Global Warming, Kumbaya. You must pray afterward and anthro means man-made. We killed the planet and we're all gonna die! The only problem is, the water and air in the USA are cleaner now, with more population, than they were 30 years ago. The USA now has more forested land than it did a century ago. We have more people but the farms are more productive. We recycle a whole lot and we have no shortages of minerals. The idiot alarmists are wrong on absolutely everything they spout off about. For more REAL info, see Bailey's _Earth Report 2000_ and Huber's _Hard Green_. I wish everyone on the planet could read them. Then we could sit down and talk about how to truly fix our problems. People don't have to die from the "solutions". -- We rightly care about the environment. But our neurotic obsession with carbon betrays an inability to distinguish between pollution and the stuff of life itself. --Bret Stephens, WSJ 1/5/10 And just to put a different spin on things. This flock of sheep that buy into the global warming hoax are actually causing the problem themselves by their actions. When we were poluting something fierce back in in the 50's 60's and 70's we had no global warming. It was not until we started BS programs to clean up the environment that we caused GW. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
"Leon" wrote AAMOF Polar Bears were actually found in Texas, rounded up and returned to their northern home as mentioned in a recent Texas magazine publication. You guys had a polar bear invasion?? I never heard of that. They didn't walk all the way to Texas did they? Now this is a nature story that my missus would love to hear about. Any details? |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
"Leon" wrote And just to put a different spin on things. This flock of sheep that buy into the global warming hoax are actually causing the problem themselves by their actions. When we were poluting something fierce back in in the 50's 60's and 70's we had no global warming. It was not until we started BS programs to clean up the environment that we caused GW. You win the politically incorrect prize for the day. Greenies causing GW?? LOL Whenever a passionate greenie starts to lecture me on how I am damaging the planet, I tell them to kill themsilves to reduce the strain on the earth's ecosystems. That shuts them up pretty quickly. |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:11:42 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:
And you must be restricting your viewpoint to Europe only. :-) Mariners knew for a long time that the surface of the earth is curved -- what other explanation can there be for the fact that you can see the masts of a distant ship long before you can see the hull? Non-sea-faring cultures, though, had no such reference points -- the earth is "obviously" flat, right? Actually, I thought of mentioning that. But those mariners seem to have had a remarkable lack of success convincing the landlubbers of the facts as they saw them. And I seem to remember reading of a definite fear among some sailors of falling off the edge of the world. So it wasn't altogether a landlubber vs mariner thing. But it's refreshing to discuss history with you rather than politics :-). -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote: "Nantz" wrote in message ... On Jan 6, 6:05 pm, Swingman wrote: When 95% of the world's climatologists agree on this I have to believe them. When 95% of the world's politicians agree on something, there's still room for doubt. Nantz Apparently the climatologists are witnessing that they do not have enough data to form anything close to an accurate conclusion in their life times. Less than 50 years ago, 100% of geologists were convinced of the theory of "continental drift." In was only in the 1960's that the notion of "Plate Tectonics" became popular. Now 100% of geologists do NOT accept continental drift. Uh, try that one again. "Plate tectonics" _is_ "continental drift". remainder trimmed |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:18:13 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
As for the earth being flat, it is if you're building a house, surveying a lot, plowing a field, laying out a road, building a railroad (except for the hills), and so on. I can assure you that surveyors do take into account the curvature or the Earth because the distance between lines of longitude varies with the distance from the equator. I did surveying software back in the '70s and know whereof I speak :-). -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
OT - Let's Hear it for Global Warming!!
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:17:49 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
The notion that the church wouldn't allow science is something that was made up in the 1800s. Modern historians have discovered that this was not the case. In fact some of the key ideas of modern science came from medieval monks. "But it *does* move!" Quote from a somewhat famous heresy trial. -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter