Dave wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 12:12:42 -0500, "HeyBub"
Tobacco causes cancer? Science has YET to define the mechanism. All
that the health folks can say is that there is a very, very strong
correlation. But science also holds that correlation is not
causation.*

You're actually going to sit there and suggest that smoking MAY not
cause cancer? Are you ****ing serious?


No, I'm not.

Whatever gave you that idea? Do you have a "****ing" reading comprehension
problem?

Dave wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:05:30 -0400, wrote:
I can't disprove global warming, but we're currently on the high side
of a sunspot cycle which fits with 100 degrees in the afternoon and
75 degrees at night. Wouldn't true global warming also increase the
nighttime temperatures?

This is ridiculous. It's a factual impossibility that man has not had
a noticeable affect on the weather of this planet. ALL that you
naysayers have to offer in rebuttal is half baked theories as to why
it probably is something else.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly equivalent to comparing the
chalk outline of a football referee to the entire field (including sidelines
and goals) after he was stabbed repeatedly by irate fans for making three
separate bad calls against the home team. The increase in CO2 for the past
century corresponds to the stain left on the field as he bled out.

P.S.
After this interruption, the remainder of the game, some nine minutes, was
played with NO penalty calls at all.

On 7/1/2012 4:27 PM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 12:12:42 -0500, "HeyBub"
Tobacco causes cancer? Science has YET to define the mechanism. All that the
health folks can say is that there is a very, very strong correlation. But
science also holds that correlation is not causation.*

You're actually going to sit there and suggest that smoking MAY not
cause cancer? Are you ****ing serious?

There comes a time when the same repeated result of some action
usually has the same consequence.

There's a hell of a lot of very knowledgeable people on this
newsgroup. But some of you knowledgeable people are pretty damned
stupid.


Now that you have called everyone stupid, Please provide one paper that
demonstrates that chemical or biological mechanisms for the components
of smoke, tobacco or other wise causing the human cells to mutate from
normal to a cancerous cell.

On 7/2/2012 7:41 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Now that you have called everyone stupid, Please provide one paper that
demonstrates that chemical or biological mechanisms for the components
of smoke, tobacco or other wise causing the human cells to mutate from
normal to a cancerous cell.


Why, it's right there on the package ... something to do with a surgeon
general ...

(You obviously don't live in CA either)

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 7/2/2012 7:01 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/1/2012 9:11 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:

Got Netflix?
----------------
Nope.
-----------------
Bring up a copy of "Windfall" and watch it. A small town in upstate
NY wrestling with the fallout from wind turbines and the resultant
political, health, government and corporate greed issues.

Ironic thing is that to a man, the opponents are all admitted
liberals/progressives who vocally support "alternative energy" ...
that is, until they experienced first hand exactly what that concept
really brings in human costs.
snip
---------------------------------
Who funded the study?

Oil? Coal? Other?

Who said anything about a "study"??

... could that possibly be part of the problem? That folks simply
don't take the time to read past their preconceived notions and
political kneejerk reactions?



That is exactly why people believe in global warming, they believe what
the KoolAid distributors are telling them and that is gospel cause it
was on TV.

On 7/1/2012 9:24 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Mike O. wrote in news:kvr1v71pamehnqrq62pnpir4b14kelm9rn@
4ax.com:


Globally, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1987.

Oddly enough, they've all occurred since the collapse of the Soviet Union -- and the
consequent shutdown of a large number of temperature monitoring stations in one of the
coldest parts of the world, because the Russians could no longer afford to maintain them.

Ya think that might skew the average a bit higher?



And none of the doomsdayers seem to factor in the that Antarctica is
growing by leaps and bounds.

On 7/2/2012 7:44 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/2/2012 7:41 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Now that you have called everyone stupid, Please provide one paper that
demonstrates that chemical or biological mechanisms for the components
of smoke, tobacco or other wise causing the human cells to mutate from
normal to a cancerous cell.


Why, it's right there on the package ... something to do with a surgeon
general ...

(You obviously don't live in CA either)



Now you cant believe what a manufacturer tells you.... Bless their hearts.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:44:53 -0500, Swingman wrote:
Why, it's right there on the package ... something to do with a surgeon
general ...

(You obviously don't live in CA either)

We ever meet and I'm going to try my best to hurt you.

On 7/1/2012 9:27 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 08:24:37 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?

Oh good God,ITS SUMMER!!!!!
The sky is not falling.

You mean it hasn't fallen *yet*.



No not down here in Texas, how about up in Canada? LOL

It really agitates the believers that the world is not splitting open as
we speak, so they blame the melting ice cube floating in the Olympic
sized pool for raising the pool level 3'.

Strange how the oceans can raise so much from nothing being added and
oddly it is only raising in certain locations. A reasonable person
might suspect local conditions. Take Venice or Chocolate City for instance.

On 7/2/2012 8:18 AM, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:44:53 -0500, Swingman wrote:
Why, it's right there on the package ... something to do with a surgeon
general ...

(You obviously don't live in CA either)

We ever meet and I'm going to try my best to hurt you.

LOL The longer we wait, the better your chances.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:23:24 -0500, Swingman wrote:
LOL The longer we wait, the better your chances.

Sure thing. When you get too old to run and I trade in my manual
wheelchair for an electric, I'll just run you down.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:31:58 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 23:16:20 -0400, "
A "factual impossibility"? What pompous certainty an ego. The Gaia religion
is heard from.

And as usual, assholes like you are always at the forefront of the
'man can do no wrong' religion. You're the proverbial ostrich burying
your head with its stunted denial intellect in the ground.

What a pompous ass.

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote

Strange how the oceans can raise so much from nothing being added and
oddly it is only raising in certain locations. A reasonable person might
suspect local conditions. Take Venice or Chocolate City for instance.

On the west coast (USA) the rate of water raise of the ocean varies
considerably from the Northwest to Kalifornia. Apparently the difference
has to do with the geological movement of the plates. It seems that the
Northwest coastline is rising, even as the ocean level is rising as well.
It means that the water level rises in the Northwest will be smaller than
Kalifornia.

I am not sure that is a goo thing. It seems as though a major earthquake
would be the inevitable outcome of all that plate movement.

So takes your choices. A little less ocean rise with a big mama earthquake
coming sometime soon, geologically. Or in Kalifornia, earthquakes more
often, but more ocean rise.
It is always something. Like the big rains and winds recently in Florida.
Mama nature is a bitch.

Tell us something the ones not using killfilters didn't know.

Don't feed this troll boy from Seattle pretending to be a disabled
Canuck, for sympathy.

--------
wrote in message ...
What a pompous ass.

---------
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 02:31:58 -0400, Dave wrote:
And as usual, assholes like you are always at the forefront of the
man can do no wrong' religion. You're the proverbial ostrich burying
your head with its stunted denial intellect in the ground.

On 7/2/2012 9:12 AM, Leon wrote:
On 7/2/2012 7:44 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/2/2012 7:41 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Now that you have called everyone stupid, Please provide one paper that
demonstrates that chemical or biological mechanisms for the components
of smoke, tobacco or other wise causing the human cells to mutate from
normal to a cancerous cell.


Why, it's right there on the package ... something to do with a surgeon
general ...

(You obviously don't live in CA either)



Now you cant believe what a manufacturer tells you.... Bless their hearts.

The manufacture put on his product what the lawyer told him, so he can
avoid law suit because some one swallow a wood screw and there was
nothing on the packaging to tell him not to.

With lawyers intervention the facts on the packaging SOMETIME do have
pertinent facts.

By the way have you ever read the government required MSDS sheet for
water. Here are a couple:

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927321
http://www.hsegroup.com/hse/text/water.htm
http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/major.../msdswater.htm

and you wonder with things cost so much. Lawyer are expensive

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:37:02 -0400, "
The explanation that "it's normal" and "it's always been this way" is far more
obvious and makes far more sense. But you're welcome to your religion of
Gaia, just don't ask me to feed your collection plate.

I doubt anybody who knows you would ever expect anything from you.
You're a self centred ahole and always have been.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:07:24 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 7/1/2012 9:24 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Mike O. wrote in news:kvr1v71pamehnqrq62pnpir4b14kelm9rn@
4ax.com:


Globally, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1987.

Oddly enough, they've all occurred since the collapse of the Soviet Union -- and the
consequent shutdown of a large number of temperature monitoring stations in one of the
coldest parts of the world, because the Russians could no longer afford to maintain them.

Ya think that might skew the average a bit higher?



And none of the doomsdayers seem to factor in the that Antarctica is
growing by leaps and bounds.

No, they only see that little ice shelf breaking off and cry wolf.
They see the glaciers receding but don't pay attention to others which
have grown and expanded. They're in their own little world, and God
help anyone who tries to point them in a logical direction.

--
If you're trying to take a roomful of people by
surprise, it's a lot easier to hit your targets
if you don't yell going through the door.
-- Lois McMaster Bujold

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:18:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 7/1/2012 9:27 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 08:24:37 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?

Oh good God,ITS SUMMER!!!!!
The sky is not falling.

You mean it hasn't fallen *yet*.



No not down here in Texas, how about up in Canada? LOL

It really agitates the believers that the world is not splitting open as
we speak, so they blame the melting ice cube floating in the Olympic
sized pool for raising the pool level 3'.

Strange how the oceans can raise so much from nothing being added and
oddly it is only raising in certain locations. A reasonable person
might suspect local conditions. Take Venice or Chocolate City for instance.

Didn't Algore say FORTY FEET? More like 2.9mm/yr according to
satellite studies, which nets out at about 11.4" in a -century-.
And that's only if it continues. My SWAG is that Mother Nature will
self-correct at much less, as she's always done.

Tuvalu and Holland might need to go on piers, though.

--
If you're trying to take a roomful of people by
surprise, it's a lot easier to hit your targets
if you don't yell going through the door.
-- Lois McMaster Bujold

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 11:28:29 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:37:02 -0400, "
The explanation that "it's normal" and "it's always been this way" is far more
obvious and makes far more sense. But you're welcome to your religion of
Gaia, just don't ask me to feed your collection plate.

I doubt anybody who knows you would ever expect anything from you.
You're a self centred ahole and always have been.

Wow! Now there's a pot. Ever look in a mirror?

On 7/2/2012 10:50 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:18:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 7/1/2012 9:27 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 08:24:37 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?

Oh good God,ITS SUMMER!!!!!
The sky is not falling.

You mean it hasn't fallen *yet*.



No not down here in Texas, how about up in Canada? LOL

It really agitates the believers that the world is not splitting open as
we speak, so they blame the melting ice cube floating in the Olympic
sized pool for raising the pool level 3'.

Strange how the oceans can raise so much from nothing being added and
oddly it is only raising in certain locations. A reasonable person
might suspect local conditions. Take Venice or Chocolate City for instance.

Didn't Algore say FORTY FEET? More like 2.9mm/yr according to
satellite studies, which nets out at about 11.4" in a -century-.
And that's only if it continues.

Which I claim horse hoey. Satellite studies put my old home in an
expensive flood insurance catagory, from $236 per year to $3600 per
year. I paid to have an elevation survey and my rates dropped back down.




My SWAG is that Mother Nature will
self-correct at much less, as she's always done.

Yeah but the all knowing don't use old data or trends.

On 7/2/2012 10:10 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 7/2/2012 9:12 AM, Leon wrote:
On 7/2/2012 7:44 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/2/2012 7:41 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Now that you have called everyone stupid, Please provide one paper that
demonstrates that chemical or biological mechanisms for the components
of smoke, tobacco or other wise causing the human cells to mutate from
normal to a cancerous cell.


Why, it's right there on the package ... something to do with a surgeon
general ...

(You obviously don't live in CA either)



Now you cant believe what a manufacturer tells you.... Bless their
hearts.

The manufacture put on his product what the lawyer told him, so he can
avoid law suit because some one swallow a wood screw and there was
nothing on the packaging to tell him not to.

With lawyers intervention the facts on the packaging SOMETIME do have
pertinent facts.

By the way have you ever read the government required MSDS sheet for
water. Here are a couple:

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927321
http://www.hsegroup.com/hse/text/water.htm
http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/major.../msdswater.htm

and you wonder with things cost so much. Lawyer are expensive


There should be cancer warnings stamped on lawyers foreheads. That
would do more good.

On 7/2/2012 8:18 AM, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:44:53 -0500, Swingman wrote:
Why, it's right there on the package ... something to do with a surgeon
general ...

(You obviously don't live in CA either)

We ever meet and I'm going to try my best to hurt you.



LOL

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Take Venice

Venice is an exception (probably shared with New Orleans and Bangla Desh).
The really bad thing is that the ground is sinking due to compaction of the
mud it's built on. That is more important then the rising sea level.
Also, in the case of Venice and Bangla Desh, they are at the apex of long
fairly narrow bodies of water, the Adriatic sea and Bay of Bengal, and if
tides and wind maliciously cooperate, there is an enormous surge of water
flowing NW into those shallow lagoons, where it has nowhere to go but up.

Overall, land masses have different tendencies to go up or down, sometimes
associated with (they think) the fact that old, old glaciers from the ice
ages aren't there anymore to weigh those land masses down. Scandinavia is
one example. One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in Fahrenheit). If
all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it will expand, and thus the
level will go up. Somebody ought to have the calculated data how much up
that up is.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/2/2012 11:10 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Take Venice

Venice is an exception (probably shared with New Orleans and Bangla Desh).
The really bad thing is that the ground is sinking due to compaction of the
mud it's built on. That is more important then the rising sea level.
Also, in the case of Venice and Bangla Desh, they are at the apex of long
fairly narrow bodies of water, the Adriatic sea and Bay of Bengal, and if
tides and wind maliciously cooperate, there is an enormous surge of water
flowing NW into those shallow lagoons, where it has nowhere to go but up.

Overall, land masses have different tendencies to go up or down, sometimes
associated with (they think) the fact that old, old glaciers from the ice
ages aren't there anymore to weigh those land masses down. Scandinavia is
one example. One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in Fahrenheit). If
all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it will expand, and thus the
level will go up. Somebody ought to have the calculated data how much up
that up is.


I am not buying the water expanding hunch at all. The tides make much
more of a difference and wave action would add to that. A couple of
more inches from temperature expansion would be unnoticed.

On 02 Jul 2012 16:10:29 GMT, Han wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
m:

Take Venice

Venice is an exception (probably shared with New Orleans and Bangla Desh).
The really bad thing is that the ground is sinking due to compaction of the
mud it's built on. That is more important then the rising sea level.
Also, in the case of Venice and Bangla Desh, they are at the apex of long
fairly narrow bodies of water, the Adriatic sea and Bay of Bengal, and if
tides and wind maliciously cooperate, there is an enormous surge of water
flowing NW into those shallow lagoons, where it has nowhere to go but up.

Aren't Venice, IT and Florida both sinking from depleting the aquifers
which are directly under them?

--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 23:16:20 -0400, "
A "factual impossibility"? What pompous certainty an ego. The Gaia religion
is heard from.

And as usual, assholes like you are always at the forefront of the
'man can do no wrong' religion. You're the proverbial ostrich burying
your head with its stunted denial intellect in the ground.


As long as the gaia religion has been brought up, it might be
interesting to see what James Lovelock -the founder of the gaia
religion- has to say today. Apparently an honest man, he admits that his
and others climate predictions were wrong, and that we really don't
understand how the climate actually works at all well.


?The problem is we don?t know what the climate is doing. We thought we
knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books ? mine included ?
because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn?t happened,? Lovelock said.

?The climate is doing its usual tricks. There?s nothing much really
happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world
now,? he said.

?The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve
years is a reasonable time? it (the temperature) has stayed almost
constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is
rising, no question about that,? he added.

On 7/2/2012 11:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On 02 Jul 2012 16:10:29 GMT, Han wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Take Venice

Venice is an exception (probably shared with New Orleans and Bangla Desh).
The really bad thing is that the ground is sinking due to compaction of the
mud it's built on. That is more important then the rising sea level.
Also, in the case of Venice and Bangla Desh, they are at the apex of long
fairly narrow bodies of water, the Adriatic sea and Bay of Bengal, and if
tides and wind maliciously cooperate, there is an enormous surge of water
flowing NW into those shallow lagoons, where it has nowhere to go but up.

Aren't Venice, IT and Florida both sinking from depleting the aquifers
which are directly under them?


Nooooooo it is because of Global Warming!!!! Or is it Butch's fault?

On 7/2/2012 10:10 AM, Han wrote:
Overall, land masses have different tendencies to go up or down,
sometimes associated with (they think) the fact that old, old glaciers
from the ice ages aren't there anymore to weigh those land masses
down. Scandinavia is one example. One of the scary reasons to pay
attention to ocean warming is that much is really cold (like in the
30's and low 40's in Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms just a
few degrees, it will expand, and thus the level will go up. Somebody
ought to have the calculated data how much up that up is.

Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm the
upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F. I would be very surprised if all
the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it all
went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to accomplish that.

On 7/2/2012 10:03 AM, Leon wrote:
On 7/2/2012 10:10 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 7/2/2012 9:12 AM, Leon wrote:
On 7/2/2012 7:44 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/2/2012 7:41 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Now that you have called everyone stupid, Please provide one paper
that
demonstrates that chemical or biological mechanisms for the
components
of smoke, tobacco or other wise causing the human cells to mutate
from
normal to a cancerous cell.


Why, it's right there on the package ... something to do with a
surgeon
general ...

(You obviously don't live in CA either)



Now you cant believe what a manufacturer tells you.... Bless their
hearts.

The manufacture put on his product what the lawyer told him, so he can
avoid law suit because some one swallow a wood screw and there was
nothing on the packaging to tell him not to.

With lawyers intervention the facts on the packaging SOMETIME do have
pertinent facts.

By the way have you ever read the government required MSDS sheet for
water. Here are a couple:

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927321
http://www.hsegroup.com/hse/text/water.htm
http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/major.../msdswater.htm

and you wonder with things cost so much. Lawyer are expensive


There should be cancer warnings stamped on lawyers foreheads. That
would do more good.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

On 7/2/2012 11:50 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 7/2/2012 10:10 AM, Han wrote:
Overall, land masses have different tendencies to go up or down,
sometimes associated with (they think) the fact that old, old glaciers
from the ice ages aren't there anymore to weigh those land masses
down. Scandinavia is one example. One of the scary reasons to pay
attention to ocean warming is that much is really cold (like in the
30's and low 40's in Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms just a
few degrees, it will expand, and thus the level will go up. Somebody
ought to have the calculated data how much up that up is.

Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm the
upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F. I would be very surprised if all
the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it all
went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to accomplish that.



Now the sun certainly warms the waters considerably and has to warm the
water to at least 80 degrees to a depth of 150 feet to even form and
sustain a hurricane. Nothing man is doing will come close to doing that.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
news
I am not buying the water expanding hunch at all. The tides make much
more of a difference and wave action would add to that. A couple of
more inches from temperature expansion would be unnoticed.

Apparently the estimates of sea level rises solely due to expansion of the
oceans as they warm up is between 11 and 43 cm, or ~4" to 1 1/2 ft. That's
just the warming.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 02 Jul 2012 16:10:29 GMT, Han wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
om:

Take Venice

Venice is an exception (probably shared with New Orleans and Bangla
Desh). The really bad thing is that the ground is sinking due to
compaction of the mud it's built on. That is more important then the
rising sea level. Also, in the case of Venice and Bangla Desh, they
are at the apex of long fairly narrow bodies of water, the Adriatic
sea and Bay of Bengal, and if tides and wind maliciously cooperate,
there is an enormous surge of water flowing NW into those shallow
lagoons, where it has nowhere to go but up.

Aren't Venice, IT and Florida both sinking from depleting the aquifers
which are directly under them?

Maybe the case for Florida? Not sure about Venice, and I don't know what
you mean by IT.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon wrote:


Now the sun certainly warms the waters considerably and has to warm
the water to at least 80 degrees to a depth of 150 feet to even form
and sustain a hurricane. Nothing man is doing will come close to
doing that.

80 degrees, but not to a depth of 150 feet. That would be very difficult,
even for the sun. It does not penetrate water that far, and the masses of
cold water underneath the surface water (at 80 degrees), would overwhelm it
and cool it significantly at 150 feet.

--

-Mike-

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 10:10 AM, Han wrote:
Overall, land masses have different tendencies to go up or down,
sometimes associated with (they think) the fact that old, old
glaciers from the ice ages aren't there anymore to weigh those land
masses down. Scandinavia is one example. One of the scary reasons to
pay attention to ocean warming is that much is really cold (like in
the 30's and low 40's in Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms
just a few degrees, it will expand, and thus the level will go up.
Somebody ought to have the calculated data how much up that up is.

Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm the
upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F. I would be very surprised if
all the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it
all went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to
accomplish that.

If the earth absorbs more energy from the sun, whatever the mechanism(s),
those oceans were in 2001 already thought to expand to the tune of a rise
in sealevel by 2100 of between 11 and 43 cm, solely due to water
expansion in the oceans. By that time my teeth won't hurt me anymore,
but still.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 02 Jul 2012 19:22:44 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 02 Jul 2012 16:10:29 GMT, Han wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
news:c72dncDJNaA9AmzSnZ2dnUVZ5tednZ2d@giganews. com:

Take Venice

Venice is an exception (probably shared with New Orleans and Bangla
Desh). The really bad thing is that the ground is sinking due to
compaction of the mud it's built on. That is more important then the
rising sea level. Also, in the case of Venice and Bangla Desh, they
are at the apex of long fairly narrow bodies of water, the Adriatic
sea and Bay of Bengal, and if tides and wind maliciously cooperate,
there is an enormous surge of water flowing NW into those shallow
lagoons, where it has nowhere to go but up.

Aren't Venice, IT and Florida both sinking from depleting the aquifers
which are directly under them?

Maybe the case for Florida? Not sure about Venice, and I don't know what
you mean by IT.

ITaly.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/veni...ng-120326.html
"Indeed, Venice subsided about 120 mm ( 4.72 inches) in the 20th
century due to natural processes and groundwater extraction, plus it
saw a sea level rise of about 110 mm (4.33 inches) at the same time."



--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
...
When we talk of global warming we are talking the whole earth not just a
few insignificantly few square miles of the tens or thousands of square
miles on earth surface. So it may be 105 here but that has nothing to do
with global warming.

I snicker every time I see someone telling me the the total earth's
atmosphere has changing 0.2 degree F when the temperature range on the
earth surface varies over 100 degree from one end of the earth to the
other on any given hour of the day.

OR when the global warming "scientist" say that global warming has raised
the sea level on one side of the Atlantic and not the other by 2mm, when
the oceans changes 1000 mm on the average with every tide change. I see
the water raise on one side of the bowl and not the other every time I get
a drink.

OR when they tell me the pH of the ocean has changed less the the accuracy
of the pH standards they use in make the measurements.

If they took these "statistical" analysis to generate these numbers to the
FDA for the approval of a drug they would be laughed out of the building.

With it so hot there have been days with NO air movement. ( Windmills need
steady 12 mph winds to operate. The bigger they are the higher the wind
speed.) I am sure the windmills provided a lot of supplemental
electricity to assist the conventional and nuclear plant on these days
when every ones air conditioners were at a maximum.
========================================
The reason it does not make sense to you is that you are looking at it all
wrong. Real science, logic and reason have no place in any conversation
about global warming. Now, throw all that out and say 15 hail Al Gores as
penence.

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
On 7/1/2012 9:24 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Mike O. wrote in
news:kvr1v71pamehnqrq62pnpir4b14kelm9rn@
4ax.com:


Globally, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1987.

Oddly enough, they've all occurred since the collapse of the Soviet
Union -- and the
consequent shutdown of a large number of temperature monitoring stations
in one of the
coldest parts of the world, because the Russians could no longer afford
to maintain them.

Ya think that might skew the average a bit higher?



And none of the doomsdayers seem to factor in the that Antarctica is
growing by leaps and bounds.
================================================== ==============================
Think it's bad now? Wait until they figure out that it is caused by our
orbit. There will be people saying that we need to build rockets to push the
earth back into a comfortable orbit.

"Jim Weisgram" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:18:00 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.

Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?

Lew


I don't have an argument against greenhouse gases affecting global
climate. But I believe the wildfires are as much to do with poor
forest management (suppressing files for 100 years has built up a huge
backlog of combustible material) than the warmer climate.
================================================== ===========

Agreed.

Han wrote in :

Doug Miller wrote in
:

Mike O. wrote in
news:kvr1v71pamehnqrq62pnpir4b14kelm9rn@ 4ax.com:


Globally, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1987.

Oddly enough, they've all occurred since the collapse of the Soviet
Union -- and the consequent shutdown of a large number of temperature
monitoring stations in one of the coldest parts of the world, because
the Russians could no longer afford to maintain them.

Ya think that might skew the average a bit higher?

I'd hope that they use a correction factor for that of some kind.

I wouldn't. I'd hope they would drop those stations from the earlier calculations too.

I don't trust this bunch *at all* to apply a correction factor honestly -- remember that they've
already been caught at least once applying "correction factors" when the actual data didn't
support their preordained conclusions.

OTOH, when my parents moved their last time, in 1947, the street was
dirt, as were many of the adjoining streets, however small their number
was. Since, the streets have all been blacktopped, and widened. Moreover
the surface area of paved roads in Holland has probably been increased
10-20 fold if not more. Somewhere there ought to be statistics on that.

There are; see http://www.surfacestations.org/ .

When you pave dirt with blacktop, build housing (read roofs), you
probably increase the heat retention of those surface several fold.

That's correct. And when temperature monitoring stations are right next to blacktop surfaces
http://www.surfacestations.org/image...50008_rear.jpg
or next to a burn barrel
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/Tahoe_city3.JPG
or next to other heat sources
http://www.surfacestations.org/image...g_OR_USHCN.jpg
then one might legitimately wonder just how accurate those measurements are.

Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in Fahrenheit). If
all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it will expand, and thus the
level will go up. Somebody ought to have the calculated data how much up
that up is.

Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At 5 deg C (41 deg F) its
density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50 deg F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW,
warming from 4 deg C to 10 deg C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) =
1.00027, or about one-fortieth of one per cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

[Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics]