" wrote in
:

On 03 Jul 2012 18:57:54 GMT, Han wrote:

Doug Miller wrote in
:

Larry Blanchard wrote in
:

OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse.
How about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how
much we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution
has caused.

Acid rain:

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html

Or ocean acidification:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our
carbon emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global
warming, the effects of these would seem sufficient reason to curb
air pollution.

Actually, the principal culprit in acid rain is sulfur emissions,
not carbon dioxide. And that is indeed a "sufficient reason to curb
air pollution" -- as coal-fired power plants have been doing for a
few decades now.

CO2 dissolved in water is only a very weak acid; SO2 and SO3, on the
other hand, make very strong acids.

True. But, removal of CO2 from the blood through our breathing is
what keeps the pH of our blood at the right level. Just a bit either
way, and you're in trouble. Obviously, atmospheric CO2 won't any time
soon cause problems, but apparently changes in pH and temprature are
doing damage to some coral formations.

Locally. Any evidence of a global problem?

Going by memory, which isn't what it was some decades ago, but anyway.
Some socalled scientists say it is more than a local problem. They have
data to show that some kinds of coral when put in water with more CO2,
i.e. slightly more acidic, die off. Apparently not all corals, but an
significant fraction. I haven't re-read things, but a google for
"coral die-off co2" gives lots of hits. I'm not really fluent in those
sciences, so please, be my guest and do the hard research for me grin.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 22:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:17:11 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

and in particular, Al Gore,
who stands to make billions from the whole cap-n-trade bull****.

I'll see your Al Gore and raise you two Sarah Palins :-).

Well, if you go that way, it's really none of my business.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 2:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 2:02 PM, Jim Weisgram wrote:

Presumably the milder winters are a result of global warming due to
greenhouse gases. However in this forum the "due to" part isn't
likely to be accepted. So be it.

More than a wee bit of condescension, eh?

Consider this:

In 2010 the US experienced its coldest winter in 25 years, according
to the National Climatic Data Center. At the same time, it was also
Canada's warmest. Ditto for most of Europe, including this past
winter where 600 perished from cold related causes ... ie, they
****ing froze to death. How "mild" is that?


Hard to believe but the believers have actually concocted a
complicated explanation that the harsh winters are a result of global
warming.

All along I have contended that winter following summer is the leading
cause for colder and and more harsh lower temperature.

I get my prediction data from the world renown calendar.

Just to get you back on track, Leon, one of the predictions of the
global warming crowd is that it will lead to more extremes. Hope you
guys get some rain soon ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 22:34:54 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:41:21 -0400, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

In fact, higher temperatures are for the most part, good. Plants and
animals like warm. Ice ages aren't a time for parties.

Higher temperatures? We were talking about acid rain and ocean
acidification. What are your opinions on those subjects?

Maybe you changed the subject, but the topic was AGW. If you don't believe
me, perhaps you could read at least the subject line? OTOH, maybe you can't.

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:59:33 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
omeone wrote:

The earth receives more energy from the sun in *one hour* than human
beings consume in
an *entire year*. That's about five orders of magnitude.

An air conditioner uses a small amount of energy to move a much larger
amount of heat from one place to another. It's not so farfetched to think
that human activites have an effect on climate.

Where are the compressor and the expansion coils in the atmosphere? Like all
religions, you *assume* something exists then go about "proving" it with
whatever data you can fit to your hypothesis.

On 7/3/12 8:32 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 2:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 2:02 PM, Jim Weisgram wrote:

Presumably the milder winters are a result of global warming due to
greenhouse gases. However in this forum the "due to" part isn't
likely to be accepted. So be it.

More than a wee bit of condescension, eh?

Consider this:

In 2010 the US experienced its coldest winter in 25 years, according
to the National Climatic Data Center. At the same time, it was also
Canada's warmest. Ditto for most of Europe, including this past
winter where 600 perished from cold related causes ... ie, they
****ing froze to death. How "mild" is that?


Hard to believe but the believers have actually concocted a
complicated explanation that the harsh winters are a result of global
warming.

All along I have contended that winter following summer is the leading
cause for colder and and more harsh lower temperature.

I get my prediction data from the world renown calendar.

Just to get you back on track, Leon, one of the predictions of the
global warming crowd is that it will lead to more extremes. Hope you
guys get some rain soon ...


Yeah, because Texas is a rain forest.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 13:58:07 -0500, -MIKE-
In 20 years when this is all proven to be bull**** and Al Gore is
(more of) a laughing stock and possibly facing criminal charged for
defrauding the American public (and world) out of billions in tax
dollars to fund government mandated policies to deal with this myth,
I hope you have a good sense of humor about it.

In 20 years, I expect to be long dead, so I won't be laughing at much.
And if I am still alive, I don't expect I'll be laughing at very much
either. So, NO, I won't have a good sense of humour about it.

Sure you will. You'll be sitting in your wheel chair with a plaid blanket
over your lap, mumbling and snickering to yourself while all the hotties in
the nurses garb are wondering what you're thinking...

--

-Mike-

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:54:33 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Sure you will. You'll be sitting in your wheel chair with a plaid blanket
over your lap, mumbling and snickering to yourself while all the hotties in
the nurses garb are wondering what you're thinking...

Hell, I'm already doing that now. Some of the thought processes
include thinking about how I can initiate some physical contact with
some of those hotties. And, I suspect the nurses already know what
we're thinking.

Assuming I'm still alive in twenty years, I'm wondering if I'll still
be thinking the same thoughts. I'll defer the answer to that question
to some of you older guys.

But, I guess I can answer that one too. I still feel eighteen inside,
the body just doesn't agree with that viewpoint. I'm betting that
never changes.

On 7/3/2012 8:32 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 2:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 2:02 PM, Jim Weisgram wrote:

Presumably the milder winters are a result of global warming due to
greenhouse gases. However in this forum the "due to" part isn't
likely to be accepted. So be it.

More than a wee bit of condescension, eh?

Consider this:

In 2010 the US experienced its coldest winter in 25 years, according
to the National Climatic Data Center. At the same time, it was also
Canada's warmest. Ditto for most of Europe, including this past
winter where 600 perished from cold related causes ... ie, they
****ing froze to death. How "mild" is that?


Hard to believe but the believers have actually concocted a
complicated explanation that the harsh winters are a result of global
warming.

All along I have contended that winter following summer is the leading
cause for colder and and more harsh lower temperature.

I get my prediction data from the world renown calendar.

Just to get you back on track, Leon, one of the predictions of the
global warming crowd is that it will lead to more extremes. Hope you
guys get some rain soon ...


We really do not need rain. We have had about 30 inches so far this
year. I got an inch on Sunday and about 4 inches about 3~4 weeks ago.

This simmer has been considerably cooler/less warm than last summer but
because of the rain it has been much more muggy. Last summer was hotter
but dryer so it was not so uncomfortable. IMHO it has really only
gotten rather warm in the last 30 days. Ten years ago and for several
years it was normal to be at these temperatures in mid April.

As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures
than in the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of freezing
temps every day in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in 1989 we saw
7 degrees over night and I have never seen it that cold here. In the
last 5~7 years we have has measurable snow fall at least 3 times, I had
seen snow in Texas 2 times in the previous 50 years.

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 22:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:17:11 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

and in particular, Al Gore,
who stands to make billions from the whole cap-n-trade bull****.

I'll see your Al Gore and raise you two Sarah Palins :-).

I'll see your Palins and raise you a James Hansen.

(Han, Hansen is the NOAA's "chief political officer" and all-around
Alarmist's Alarmist.)

--
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

On 7/3/2012 8:27 AM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 5:38 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
news:4ff1d13e$0$26191$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm
the upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F.
Easily enough done.

Water surface area of the Earth: 362,000,000 km^2 = 3.62E8 km^2 =
3.62E14m^2 Thus the top 15 meters has a volume of approximately
5.43E15 m^3 = 5.43E18 liters Its mass is approximately 5.4E18 kg =
5.4E21 g Energy required to raise the temperature by 1 deg F = 0.56
deg C = 5.4E21 * 0.56 = approx 3E21 cal = 1.3E22 joules

Roughly 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (13 sextillion).

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.
It's close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
But very little of that energy goes into heating the oceans. Most of
it eventually radiates into space.
The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into space is
what makes global warming a fact and a problem.

The trouble with that statement is that it labels an unproven assumption
as a fact.

On 7/3/2012 12:53 PM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:24:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse.
How about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how
much we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution has
caused.

Acid rain:

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html

Or ocean acidification:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our carbon
emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global warming, the
effects of these would seem sufficient reason to curb air pollution.

What reminded me of this was an article in this mornings paper about
the failure of oysters to breed in Pacific Northwest waters due to
increased acidity. See:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...fication-puts-
pressure-on-oyster/

I await the inevitable "it's not our fault" chorus from the usual
suspects :-).
The EPA and NOAA, bastions of fair and balanced judgement.
Just ask Algore.
Al Gore was a politician. EPA and NOAA are in a different business.
Their predictions don't always pan out, but generally, I'd like less
mercury in my air, not more.


You're concerned about mercury in the air? Really?

On 7/3/2012 1:44 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
Coal-fired power plants are a complete disgrace to humanity. Electric
cars should be cheap enough for everyone to have at least one ...

And what will be the source of energy to generate the electricity to
power that many electric cars? Little hampsters scurrying in cages
under the hoods?

Dave wrote:

Assuming I'm still alive in twenty years, I'm wondering if I'll still
be thinking the same thoughts. I'll defer the answer to that question
to some of you older guys.

Oh, you'll still be thinking those thoughts. But, for the first time in
your life, you will begin to think that (on a case by case basis, of
course) it may not be worth the bother.

--
www.ewoodshop.com

Han wrote:


Agreed! Moreover, it is amazing how much more accurate short term
weather forecasts are then even a few years ago (now good, most of
the time for 4-5 days). Even long-term forecasts (winterstorms) were
pretty good last winter. Can't be due to only faster bigger
computers, but must also be because of better models.

You might just be the only person I have ever heard make that statement Han.

--

-Mike-

Leon wrote:

As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures
than in the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of freezing
temps every day in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in 1989 we
saw 7 degrees over night and I have never seen it that cold here. In
the last 5~7 years we have has measurable snow fall at least 3 times,
I had seen snow in Texas 2 times in the previous 50 years.

It's all about what you're used to.

Snow in Houston is a source of much amusement: Schools and businesses shut
down, the freeways are closed, citizens stock up on strawberry PopTarts and
beer, church pews get crowded, families gather in the den and proclaim how
much they love each other...

Conversely, when a hurricane enters the Gulf, visitors from northern climes
look down and say "Feet! Make tracks!" while natives universally exclaim:
"Party Time!"

Until you've seen a metal trash can (lawn chair, dog, etc.) sailing down the
street at 70 miles per hour...

Larry Jaques wrote in
news
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 22:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:17:11 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

and in particular, Al Gore,
who stands to make billions from the whole cap-n-trade bull****.

I'll see your Al Gore and raise you two Sarah Palins :-).

I'll see your Palins and raise you a James Hansen.

(Han, Hansen is the NOAA's "chief political officer" and all-around
Alarmist's Alarmist.)

http://tinyurl.com/75o6oos
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...mes-hansen-is-
correct-about-catastrophic-projections-for-us-drought-if-we-dont-act-
now/

Perhaps it is the duty of Cassandra to warn, knowing (s)he will be
vilified. The thought of California's Central Valley running out of
irrigation water is just a tad frightening.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in news:4ff3ee05$0$14761$882e7ee2@usenet-
news.net:

On 7/3/2012 1:44 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
Coal-fired power plants are a complete disgrace to humanity. Electric
cars should be cheap enough for everyone to have at least one ...

And what will be the source of energy to generate the electricity to
power that many electric cars? Little hampsters scurrying in cages
under the hoods?

Nuclear power.

in 1531860 20120704 125447 "HeyBub" wrote:
Leon wrote:

As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures
than in the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of freezing
temps every day in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in 1989 we
saw 7 degrees over night and I have never seen it that cold here. In
the last 5~7 years we have has measurable snow fall at least 3 times,
I had seen snow in Texas 2 times in the previous 50 years.

It's all about what you're used to.

Snow in Houston is a source of much amusement: Schools and businesses shut
down, the freeways are closed, citizens stock up on strawberry PopTarts and
beer, church pews get crowded, families gather in the den and proclaim how
much they love each other...

Conversely, when a hurricane enters the Gulf, visitors from northern climes
look down and say "Feet! Make tracks!" while natives universally exclaim:
"Party Time!"

Until you've seen a metal trash can (lawn chair, dog, etc.) sailing down the
street at 70 miles per hour...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gpM5...layer_embedded

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 8:27 AM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 5:38 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
news:4ff1d13e$0$26191$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm
the upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F.
Easily enough done.

Water surface area of the Earth: 362,000,000 km^2 = 3.62E8 km^2 =
3.62E14m^2 Thus the top 15 meters has a volume of approximately
5.43E15 m^3 = 5.43E18 liters Its mass is approximately 5.4E18 kg =
5.4E21 g Energy required to raise the temperature by 1 deg F = 0.56
deg C = 5.4E21 * 0.56 = approx 3E21 cal = 1.3E22 joules

Roughly 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (13 sextillion).

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.
It's close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
But very little of that energy goes into heating the oceans. Most
of it eventually radiates into space.
The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into
space is what makes global warming a fact and a problem.

The trouble with that statement is that it labels an unproven
assumption as a fact.

There are data to support this statement. Example:
http://www.roperld.com/Science/GlobalWarmingRadiation.htm

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 12:53 PM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:24:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse.
How about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how
much we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution
has caused.

Acid rain:

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html

Or ocean acidification:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our
carbon emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global
warming, the effects of these would seem sufficient reason to curb
air pollution.

What reminded me of this was an article in this mornings paper
about the failure of oysters to breed in Pacific Northwest waters
due to increased acidity. See:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...idification-pu
ts- pressure-on-oyster/

I await the inevitable "it's not our fault" chorus from the usual
suspects :-).
The EPA and NOAA, bastions of fair and balanced judgement.
Just ask Algore.
Al Gore was a politician. EPA and NOAA are in a different business.
Their predictions don't always pan out, but generally, I'd like less
mercury in my air, not more.


You're concerned about mercury in the air? Really?

Just in case you didn't know, mercury emissions from powerplants were the
subject of a fight by the power companies. They didn't want to reduce
them as the EPA had ordered. Mercury volatilized in this manner is
apparently a problem:
"Ms. Jackson said that mercury and the other emissions covered by the
rule damaged the nervous systems of fetuses and children, aggravated
asthma and caused lifelong health damage for hundreds of thousands of
Americans. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/sc...rth/17epa.html


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


Agreed! Moreover, it is amazing how much more accurate short term
weather forecasts are then even a few years ago (now good, most of
the time for 4-5 days). Even long-term forecasts (winterstorms) were
pretty good last winter. Can't be due to only faster bigger
computers, but must also be because of better models.

You might just be the only person I have ever heard make that
statement Han.

Thanks, Mike! But I think others have said that too. Just google
"progress in accuracy of weather forecasts"
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 8:32 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 2:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 2:02 PM, Jim Weisgram wrote:

Presumably the milder winters are a result of global warming due to
greenhouse gases. However in this forum the "due to" part isn't
likely to be accepted. So be it.

More than a wee bit of condescension, eh?

Consider this:

In 2010 the US experienced its coldest winter in 25 years, according
to the National Climatic Data Center. At the same time, it was also
Canada's warmest. Ditto for most of Europe, including this past
winter where 600 perished from cold related causes ... ie, they
****ing froze to death. How "mild" is that?


Hard to believe but the believers have actually concocted a
complicated explanation that the harsh winters are a result of global
warming.

All along I have contended that winter following summer is the
leading
cause for colder and and more harsh lower temperature.

I get my prediction data from the world renown calendar.

Just to get you back on track, Leon, one of the predictions of the
global warming crowd is that it will lead to more extremes. Hope you
guys get some rain soon ...


We really do not need rain. We have had about 30 inches so far this
year. I got an inch on Sunday and about 4 inches about 3~4 weeks ago.

This simmer has been considerably cooler/less warm than last summer but
because of the rain it has been much more muggy. Last summer was
hotter
but dryer so it was not so uncomfortable. IMHO it has really only
gotten rather warm in the last 30 days. Ten years ago and for several
years it was normal to be at these temperatures in mid April.

As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures
than in the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of freezing
temps every day in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in 1989 we saw
7 degrees over night and I have never seen it that cold here. In the
last 5~7 years we have has measurable snow fall at least 3 times, I had
seen snow in Texas 2 times in the previous 50 years.

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken areas
of Texas more to the west.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 8:32 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 2:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 2:02 PM, Jim Weisgram wrote:

Presumably the milder winters are a result of global warming due to
greenhouse gases. However in this forum the "due to" part isn't
likely to be accepted. So be it.

More than a wee bit of condescension, eh?

Consider this:

In 2010 the US experienced its coldest winter in 25 years, according
to the National Climatic Data Center. At the same time, it was also
Canada's warmest. Ditto for most of Europe, including this past
winter where 600 perished from cold related causes ... ie, they
****ing froze to death. How "mild" is that?


Hard to believe but the believers have actually concocted a
complicated explanation that the harsh winters are a result of global
warming.

All along I have contended that winter following summer is the
leading
cause for colder and and more harsh lower temperature.

I get my prediction data from the world renown calendar.

Just to get you back on track, Leon, one of the predictions of the
global warming crowd is that it will lead to more extremes. Hope you
guys get some rain soon ...


We really do not need rain. We have had about 30 inches so far this
year. I got an inch on Sunday and about 4 inches about 3~4 weeks ago.

This simmer has been considerably cooler/less warm than last summer but
because of the rain it has been much more muggy. Last summer was
hotter
but dryer so it was not so uncomfortable. IMHO it has really only
gotten rather warm in the last 30 days. Ten years ago and for several
years it was normal to be at these temperatures in mid April.

As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures
than in the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of freezing
temps every day in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in 1989 we saw
7 degrees over night and I have never seen it that cold here. In the
last 5~7 years we have has measurable snow fall at least 3 times, I had
seen snow in Texas 2 times in the previous 50 years.

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken areas
of Texas more to the west.


Far west, you mean the desert area of Texas where the unusually wet is
going back to the normal dry?

On 7/3/2012 10:49 PM, Leon wrote:
On 7/3/2012 8:32 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 2:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 2:02 PM, Jim Weisgram wrote:

Presumably the milder winters are a result of global warming due to
greenhouse gases. However in this forum the "due to" part isn't
likely to be accepted. So be it.

More than a wee bit of condescension, eh?

Consider this:

In 2010 the US experienced its coldest winter in 25 years, according
to the National Climatic Data Center. At the same time, it was also
Canada's warmest. Ditto for most of Europe, including this past
winter where 600 perished from cold related causes ... ie, they
****ing froze to death. How "mild" is that?


Hard to believe but the believers have actually concocted a
complicated explanation that the harsh winters are a result of global
warming.

All along I have contended that winter following summer is the leading
cause for colder and and more harsh lower temperature.

I get my prediction data from the world renown calendar.

Just to get you back on track, Leon, one of the predictions of the
global warming crowd is that it will lead to more extremes. Hope you
guys get some rain soon ...


We really do not need rain. We have had about 30 inches so far this year. I
got an inch on Sunday and about 4 inches about 3~4 weeks ago.

This simmer has been considerably cooler/less warm than last summer but because
of the rain it has been much more muggy. Last summer was hotter but dryer so
it was not so uncomfortable. IMHO it has really only gotten rather warm in the
last 30 days. Ten years ago and for several years it was normal to be at these
temperatures in mid April.

As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures than in
the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of freezing temps every day
in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in 1989 we saw 7 degrees over night
and I have never seen it that cold here. In the last 5~7 years we have has
measurable snow fall at least 3 times, I had seen snow in Texas 2 times in the
previous 50 years.

We've had "extremes" in weather for as long as I can remember (45+ years) and
it's been going on for eons. Suddenly these "extremes" are now the result of
global warming, which of course makes them a big problem that WE caused and
should feel compelled to solve? Like I said earlier, even if we completely put
the Earth back the way we found it, do we *really* think that Mother Nature is
somehow going to behave herself and revert to "normal" weather patterns? Of
course not, because the damage has already been done, and we can never forgive
ourselves...

--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken areas
of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow expect
all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
perception of "climate change".

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

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:52:41 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 22:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:17:11 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

and in particular, Al Gore,
who stands to make billions from the whole cap-n-trade bull****.

I'll see your Al Gore and raise you two Sarah Palins :-).

I'll see your Palins and raise you a James Hansen.

(Han, Hansen is the NOAA's "chief political officer" and all-around
Alarmist's Alarmist.)

I'll add a Phil Jones[*] to the pot.
[*]The head of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (AKA the
principal perpetrator of climategate).

On 04 Jul 2012 12:14:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
news
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 22:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:17:11 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

and in particular, Al Gore,
who stands to make billions from the whole cap-n-trade bull****.

I'll see your Al Gore and raise you two Sarah Palins :-).

I'll see your Palins and raise you a James Hansen.

(Han, Hansen is the NOAA's "chief political officer" and all-around
Alarmist's Alarmist.)

http://tinyurl.com/75o6oos
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...mes-hansen-is-
correct-about-catastrophic-projections-for-us-drought-if-we-dont-act-
now/

Perhaps it is the duty of Cassandra to warn, knowing (s)he will be
vilified. The thought of California's Central Valley running out of
irrigation water is just a tad frightening.

There is a difference between "warning" and "lying". A scientist should know
this difference. Don't you agree?

On 04 Jul 2012 12:14:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
news
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 22:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:17:11 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

and in particular, Al Gore,
who stands to make billions from the whole cap-n-trade bull****.

I'll see your Al Gore and raise you two Sarah Palins :-).

I'll see your Palins and raise you a James Hansen.

(Han, Hansen is the NOAA's "chief political officer" and all-around
Alarmist's Alarmist.)

http://tinyurl.com/75o6oos
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...mes-hansen-is-
correct-about-catastrophic-projections-for-us-drought-if-we-dont-act-
now/

Perhaps it is the duty of Cassandra to warn, knowing (s)he will be
vilified.

Point proven. Alarmist's Alarmist.


The thought of California's Central Valley running out of
irrigation water is just a tad frightening.

Right, but the West is a part of several deserts (Mojave and Sonoran
for two) and have always been extensively arid.

The Central Valley is fed by canals from the Sacramento River. The
rest of California, Nevada, and Aridzona are made possible only by the
Colorado River. It has always been iffy out here.

Google "California drought" and get 16,800,000 hits.

--
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

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:20:35 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Just Wondering wrote in news:4ff3ee05$0$14761$882e7ee2@usenet-
news.net:

On 7/3/2012 1:44 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
Coal-fired power plants are a complete disgrace to humanity. Electric
cars should be cheap enough for everyone to have at least one ...

And what will be the source of energy to generate the electricity to
power that many electric cars? Little hampsters scurrying in cages
under the hoods?

Nuclear power.

....and just where are these licenses for nuke plants? How many have been
approved in the last thirty years?

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 06:54:47 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Leon wrote:

As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures
than in the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of freezing
temps every day in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in 1989 we
saw 7 degrees over night and I have never seen it that cold here. In
the last 5~7 years we have has measurable snow fall at least 3 times,
I had seen snow in Texas 2 times in the previous 50 years.

It's all about what you're used to.

Snow in Houston is a source of much amusement: Schools and businesses shut
down, the freeways are closed, citizens stock up on strawberry PopTarts and
beer, church pews get crowded, families gather in the den and proclaim how
much they love each other...

Hell, that's no different than Alabama and snow is a lot more common (once or
twice a year for the last three). In AL, they shut down on the forecast of
snow. It's no wonder, seeing how people drive when it gets just a little
slick.

Conversely, when a hurricane enters the Gulf, visitors from northern climes
look down and say "Feet! Make tracks!" while natives universally exclaim:
"Party Time!"

You betcha! I'm a few hundred miles inland, though if I were on the coast I'd
be gone.

Until you've seen a metal trash can (lawn chair, dog, etc.) sailing down the
street at 70 miles per hour...

I've seen that in Yankeeland. The recent storms in the Midwest to DC had that
sort of action.

On 04 Jul 2012 01:21:23 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

Yeah, mercury and dioxin don't digest well. Agreed. But try their
silly agenda against silicone implants, asbestos, lead, and a dozen or

Silicone implants appear to have had a rather bad reputation, due to
faulty manufacture, ingredients and/or surgical technique. They were
appropriately banned.

Show me cites where they actually proved the silicone implants to be
bad, not just people claiming it.


There is asbestos and asbestos. The kind that is easily friable and
airborn AND contains the really long needle-like crystals is the kind you
might very easily get cancer from (I could go into more biochemical
details). All other kinds (if any) are fine.

90% of all asbestos ever mined was the gentle kind, non-crocidolite.
The only way to get asbestosis or mesothelioma is to have worked in a
dusty asbestos plant--with no respirator for decades.


Lead is toxic as the divalent cation (it mimics calcium, but does not
have the necessary properties to be a good substitute).

Why fine property owners for poor parenting?


And, mercury as the fluid metal is fine. Just don't get too much as an
organic compound. I never understood why some people recognized the
hazrds of mercury, and still used mercurochrome insteaad of iodine
tincture.

I use Triple Antibiotic cream, tea tree oil, or lavender essential
oil.

--
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

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 08:39:53 -0500, Steve Turner
wrote:

On 7/3/2012 10:49 PM, Leon wrote:
On 7/3/2012 8:32 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 2:39 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 7/3/2012 2:02 PM, Jim Weisgram wrote:

Presumably the milder winters are a result of global warming due to
greenhouse gases. However in this forum the "due to" part isn't
likely to be accepted. So be it.

More than a wee bit of condescension, eh?

Consider this:

In 2010 the US experienced its coldest winter in 25 years, according
to the National Climatic Data Center. At the same time, it was also
Canada's warmest. Ditto for most of Europe, including this past
winter where 600 perished from cold related causes ... ie, they
****ing froze to death. How "mild" is that?


Hard to believe but the believers have actually concocted a
complicated explanation that the harsh winters are a result of global
warming.

All along I have contended that winter following summer is the leading
cause for colder and and more harsh lower temperature.

I get my prediction data from the world renown calendar.

Just to get you back on track, Leon, one of the predictions of the
global warming crowd is that it will lead to more extremes. Hope you
guys get some rain soon ...


We really do not need rain. We have had about 30 inches so far this year. I
got an inch on Sunday and about 4 inches about 3~4 weeks ago.

This simmer has been considerably cooler/less warm than last summer but because
of the rain it has been much more muggy. Last summer was hotter but dryer so
it was not so uncomfortable. IMHO it has really only gotten rather warm in the
last 30 days. Ten years ago and for several years it was normal to be at these
temperatures in mid April.

As far as extremes go ten years ago we had more extreme temperatures than in
the pas 6 or so years. In 1983 I saw 2 full weeks of freezing temps every day
in Houston. That is extremely rare, and in 1989 we saw 7 degrees over night
and I have never seen it that cold here. In the last 5~7 years we have has
measurable snow fall at least 3 times, I had seen snow in Texas 2 times in the
previous 50 years.

We've had "extremes" in weather for as long as I can remember (45+ years) and
it's been going on for eons. Suddenly these "extremes" are now the result of
global warming, which of course makes them a big problem that WE caused and
should feel compelled to solve? Like I said earlier, even if we completely put
the Earth back the way we found it, do we *really* think that Mother Nature is
somehow going to behave herself and revert to "normal" weather patterns? Of
course not, because the damage has already been done, and we can never forgive
ourselves...

Nah, the left doesn't want to solve anything. If a problem gets solved, it
can't be taxed.

On 7/4/12 7:29 AM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 12:53 PM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:24:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and worse.
How about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does how
much we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our pollution
has caused.

Acid rain:

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html

Or ocean acidification:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our
carbon emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global
warming, the effects of these would seem sufficient reason to curb
air pollution.

What reminded me of this was an article in this mornings paper
about the failure of oysters to breed in Pacific Northwest waters
due to increased acidity. See:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...idification-pu
ts- pressure-on-oyster/

I await the inevitable "it's not our fault" chorus from the usual
suspects :-).
The EPA and NOAA, bastions of fair and balanced judgement.
Just ask Algore.
Al Gore was a politician. EPA and NOAA are in a different business.
Their predictions don't always pan out, but generally, I'd like less
mercury in my air, not more.


You're concerned about mercury in the air? Really?

Just in case you didn't know, mercury emissions from powerplants were the
subject of a fight by the power companies. They didn't want to reduce
them as the EPA had ordered. Mercury volatilized in this manner is
apparently a problem:
"Ms. Jackson said that mercury and the other emissions covered by the
rule damaged the nervous systems of fetuses and children, aggravated
asthma and caused lifelong health damage for hundreds of thousands of
Americans. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/sc...rth/17epa.html


Thank God Al Gore forced us all to use CFL's so now we'll get less
exposure to mercury.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

" wrote in
:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:52:41 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 22:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:17:11 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

and in particular, Al Gore,
who stands to make billions from the whole cap-n-trade bull****.

I'll see your Al Gore and raise you two Sarah Palins :-).

I'll see your Palins and raise you a James Hansen.

(Han, Hansen is the NOAA's "chief political officer" and all-around
Alarmist's Alarmist.)

I'll add a Phil Jones[*] to the pot.

[*]The head of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (AKA
the principal perpetrator of climategate).

So you believe out of context, stolen materials more than research ina
well-known institution? Yeah ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On 04 Jul 2012 01:21:23 GMT, Han wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote in
m:

Yeah, mercury and dioxin don't digest well. Agreed. But try their
silly agenda against silicone implants, asbestos, lead, and a dozen
or

Silicone implants appear to have had a rather bad reputation, due to
faulty manufacture, ingredients and/or surgical technique. They were
appropriately banned.

Show me cites where they actually proved the silicone implants to be
bad, not just people claiming it.

Sorry, you'll have to find them yourself.

There is asbestos and asbestos. The kind that is easily friable and
airborn AND contains the really long needle-like crystals is the kind
you might very easily get cancer from (I could go into more
biochemical details). All other kinds (if any) are fine.

90% of all asbestos ever mined was the gentle kind, non-crocidolite.
The only way to get asbestosis or mesothelioma is to have worked in a
dusty asbestos plant--with no respirator for decades.

And be a heavy smoker. Nevertheless, ever try to sell a house with
asbestos? And, mind you, I would be careful with all potential
irritants. Note: The way the bad asbestos gets you is via its crystals,
that are too big for macrophages to ingest and then dispose of. The macs
get irritated and start secreting stuff that is full of degrading enzymes
and oxidants. The body isn't designed to neutralize those substances in
excess. It's a similar mechanism that gets you gout, the uric acid
crystals do similar things. Why uric acid gets the joints, I don't know.
The green parts of rhubarb contain a lot of calcium oxalate needle-like
crystals, which are similarly toxic in a way.

Lead is toxic as the divalent cation (it mimics calcium, but does not
have the necessary properties to be a good substitute).

Why fine property owners for poor parenting?

Having been in the situation where I rented an apartment I was glad that
I could ascertain and remedy the (minor) lead problems. Lead should be
removed everywhere it can be removed. In most cases lead is not
necessary.

And, mercury as the fluid metal is fine. Just don't get too much as
an organic compound. I never understood why some people recognized
the hazrds of mercury, and still used mercurochrome insteaad of iodine
tincture.

I use Triple Antibiotic cream, tea tree oil, or lavender essential
oil.

I'm sure it works for you. My first treatment is iodine or the triple
antibiotic plus antifungal.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

-MIKE- wrote in
:

On 7/4/12 7:29 AM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/3/2012 12:53 PM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:24:43 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

OK, we've beaten this to death with facts, suppositions, and
worse. How about a new direction.

Forget global warming. Whether or not it exists and if it does
how much we contribute to it. Take a look at what else our
pollution has caused.

Acid rain:

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html

Or ocean acidification:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that our
carbon emissions are causing these. Even disregarding global
warming, the effects of these would seem sufficient reason to
curb air pollution.

What reminded me of this was an article in this mornings paper
about the failure of oysters to breed in Pacific Northwest waters
due to increased acidity. See:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...acidification-
pu ts- pressure-on-oyster/

I await the inevitable "it's not our fault" chorus from the usual
suspects :-).
The EPA and NOAA, bastions of fair and balanced judgement.
Just ask Algore.
Al Gore was a politician. EPA and NOAA are in a different
business. Their predictions don't always pan out, but generally,
I'd like less mercury in my air, not more.


You're concerned about mercury in the air? Really?

Just in case you didn't know, mercury emissions from powerplants were
the subject of a fight by the power companies. They didn't want to
reduce them as the EPA had ordered. Mercury volatilized in this
manner is apparently a problem:
"Ms. Jackson said that mercury and the other emissions covered by the
rule damaged the nervous systems of fetuses and children, aggravated
asthma and caused lifelong health damage for hundreds of thousands of
Americans. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/sc...rth/17epa.html


Thank God Al Gore forced us all to use CFL's so now we'll get less
exposure to mercury.

I plan to dispose of the CFL's responsibly. Hope you all will too.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
areas of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
perception of "climate change".

I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of Texas
where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an abnormal wet
period?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/4/2012 10:16 AM, Han wrote:

So you believe out of context, stolen materials more than research ina
well-known institution? Yeah ...

Only as much as those, a la Peter Glieck, in the infamous FakeGate
scandal perpetrated by the "alarmist" (and for which he both admitted
and apologized).

There's a tit for every tat, Han.

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

On 7/4/2012 10:28 AM, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/4/2012 7:34 AM, Han wrote:

Sorry, Leon. I forgot how far Houston is from the drought-stricken
areas of Texas more to the west.

That part of Texas is historically dry ... even the plant types in the
region prove that as a fact (IOW, when you see primarily mesquite and
cactus, don't expect a lot of rain).

It's only "drought-stricken" in the newcomer's mind, who somehow
expect all places to have the same "weather" from whence they came.

That bit of ignorance, in a nutshell, certainly plays its part in the
perception of "climate change".

I'm going by the news reports that complain of drought in areas of Texas
where they commit agriculture. Or was that a fad during an abnormal wet
period?

Han, almost without exception, those areas that "commit agriculture"
have never supported agriculture on any scale without modern irrigation
methods ... guaranteed.

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