Global Cooling is Now on Us.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
Phil Chapman | April 23, 2008
THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com,
where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and
Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium
point between solar and terrestrial gravity.
What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny
sunspot.
Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the
average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined
during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global
temperature is falling precipitously.
All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate
Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and
Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by
about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the
instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the
temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that
global warming is over.
<snip>
knews4...@yahoo.com
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C23583376-50134...
>
> Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
>
> Phil Chapman | April 23, 2008
>
And another article:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Earth/Are_we_heading_to_ice_age/articleshow/2975016.cms
"Blattus Slafaly ? (3) ¼ :)"
--
Blattus Slafaly ? 3 :) 7/8
Paul Thomas, CPA
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
Well good Lord. It's not global warming? You're now pimping that it's a
global cooling?
--
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For
those who do not, none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Kirby M. Wilson
wrote:
> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
>
> Well good Lord. It's not global warming? You're now pimping that it's a
> global cooling?
remember, "knews4u2chew" pimps every possible (perceived) catastrophe
- warming, cooling, financial, hunger, ice caps melting, flooding,
Jewish, space aliens ... it's a very long list
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C23583376-50134...
Inexperienced meteorologists often find themselves "chasing"
observations. That is a useless exercise. I imagine climatologists
do the same thing to the same end.
When I was in high school, were were facing an ice age. Oil would run
out by Y2K. And we were switching to the metric system.
A little later, Howard Ruff predicted an impending economic collapse
and the Hunt brothers tried to corner the silver market.
I just don't get excited by the fear mongers anymore.
Bob Brock
We are Y2k+8. Noticed anything significant happening to oil prices
during that time frame? Yeah, I know you want to blame Bush.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Yeh. Stop the pumps. There's no more oil. Bush made it all go away.
> >A little later, Howard Ruff predicted an impending economic collapse
> >and the Hunt brothers tried to corner the silver market.
>
> >I just don't get excited by the fear mongers anymore.
I just don't get excited by the fear mongers onymore.
Bob Brock
If you are prepared, you shouldn't be afraid. If you aren't prepared
after being told about the risks, the cleansing of the gene pool will
not only be refreshing, it will be entertaining.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote
> If you are prepared, you shouldn't be afraid.
> If you aren't prepared after being told about
> the risks, the cleansing of the gene pool will
> not only be refreshing, it will be entertaining.
Let me ask you this: Wouldn't the African Pigmy Tribes be more able to
survive a total depletion of oil better than the wired and fired hi-tech
world of New Yorkers? And the best part is, they won't even know what's
happening - if indeed it happens as you want desperately to believe.
So in the end, "the least of you" will inherit what's left of the earth
rings true.
z
> Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the
> average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined
> during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the
show us the graph.
z
> I just don't get excited by the fear mongers onymore.- Hide quoted text -
well, that's a little out of my expertise, but have you tried viagra?
Paul Thomas, CPA
"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote
Well, some people vowed it'd be a "cold day in hell" when they would file a
tax return again, but the lure of getting a couple of hundred bucks had them
lining up on April 15th - the coldest it's ever been on April 15th in eons -
to file their returns.
Oh yeah, the end of April (well, ok, it was last night) had frost and freeze
warnings through all north Georgia.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
Dan
There really is no suitable preparation for the next ice age (triggered
by the current global warming).
> If you aren't prepared
> after being told about the risks, the cleansing of the gene pool will
> not only be refreshing, it will be entertaining.
But you have no idea what genes will permit survival under conditions to
prevail at a later date, so that is a silly statement.
Dan
Curly Surmudgeon
That's the problem with using a single data point to make decisions.
Apr 30 2008 6:31pm from rss
Subject: Global warming? Next decade could be cooler, says study
PARIS (AFP) - Global warming could take a break in the next decade thanks
to a natural shift in ocean circulations, although Earth's temperature will
rise as previously expected over the longer term, according to a study
published on Thursday in the British journal Nature.
http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/newsmlmmd.270e667b80745062919fc6e8c448
db78.251.html
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporting a Mad President is Unpatriotic
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Brock
<paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote
>> If you are prepared, you shouldn't be afraid.
>> If you aren't prepared after being told about
>> the risks, the cleansing of the gene pool will
>> not only be refreshing, it will be entertaining.
>
>
>
>
>
>Let me ask you this: Wouldn't the African Pigmy Tribes be more able to
>survive a total depletion of oil better than the wired and fired hi-tech
>world of New Yorkers? And the best part is, they won't even know what's
>happening - if indeed it happens as you want desperately to believe.
>
>So in the end, "the least of you" will inherit what's left of the earth
>rings true.
I would venture to say that there are some tribes and communities that
would hardly notice the demise of civilization via economic collapse.
A major cooling would possibly benefit some places.
Bob Brock
Mankind's predecessors didn't completely die out during the last one.
I think that something else, or perhaps several something else's, will
cull mankind before we reach the next ice age. Oil depletion being
one of them. Which is why I pointed out that current oil prices
support peak oil theory.
>
>> If you aren't prepared
>> after being told about the risks, the cleansing of the gene pool will
>> not only be refreshing, it will be entertaining.
>
>But you have no idea what genes will permit survival under conditions to
>prevail at a later date, so that is a silly statement.
There are things that one can do to prepare for oil shortages,
economic collapse, and the wars to control energy supplies.
Dan
With the simple exception that humans are MOBILE, and some people, if it
came to it, would try to move in on the areas inhabited by the [tribe of
choice]. The people coming might well have the numbers, weapon
superiority, and desperation to at least cause a dent in the knowledge
bank of the tribe.
Things will get very ugly under such circumstances, and it will be a
crapshoot as to what genes are lucky enough to survive (as it has always
been).
Dan
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
> With the simple exception that humans are MOBILE,
Much less so these days without petroleum fuels.
> and some people, if it came to it, would try to move
> in on the areas inhabited by the [tribe of choice].
To what end? There's nothing there that anyone wants. Those people don't
have food, oil, housing, health care, etc.
The point is that they haven't had these things for eons, or at least not to
the point of dependency upon them. How much pain are they feeling "at the
pump" when they still get around on foot, a cart pulled by oxen, etc. How
difficult will their lives be when the world's electrical grid goes dark,
since they live without electricity and in the dark their whole lives.
> Things will get very ugly under such circumstances,
Yeah, "Wow, there's no oil or electricity here, let's go to Sub-Africa to
have a better life."
> and it will be a crapshoot as to what genes are lucky enough to survive
No computer, no cell phone, no TV, no Wii, no car, no heat, no AC, no
grocery......
You'd be lucky to last a week.
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Dan
They certainly both had adaptable skills and adapted (mentally) on the
fly. Their starting population was such that there was very little
intraspecific competition. I'm talking about the batman survivalists
("I'll make a tool and resource set that will let me survive several
generations").
Preparation will not necessarily be needed, of a resource kind, as there
will be tools and other things galore after the first few die offs, but
the actual genetic necessities will be totally unknown until after the
fact, as is the case in all geological-time-scale biological events.
> I think that something else, or perhaps several something else's, will
> cull mankind before we reach the next ice age. Oil depletion being
> one of them. Which is why I pointed out that current oil prices
> support peak oil theory.
Lots of Capitalism at work independent of actual production capability
in the short term. Humans are very clever, just none too smart.
If the trigger point is reached (melting of Arctic Ice Cap), the flip to
ice age can be less than one generation, if the science is correct.
>>> If you aren't prepared
>>> after being told about the risks, the cleansing of the gene pool will
>>> not only be refreshing, it will be entertaining.
>> But you have no idea what genes will permit survival under conditions to
>> prevail at a later date, so that is a silly statement.
>
> There are things that one can do to prepare for oil shortages,
> economic collapse, and the wars to control energy supplies.
Population density will have a lot to say about that, even in our
loosely populated (by comparison) continent. There is a lot of farmland
in the Great American Desert (remember that phrase - it is the current
breadbasket of the continent) that is inhospitable without a cheap
source of natural gas. Think Dust Bowl for what it used to be like.
The Oglala Aquifer is getting smaller by the day, as it is a fossil
remnant of the last ice age being pumped out at much faster than its
recharge rate.
Dan
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
> There is a lot of farmland in the Great American Desert
> (remember that phrase - it is the current breadbasket of
> the continent) that is inhospitable without a cheap source
> of natural gas. Think Dust Bowl for what it used to be like.
What an idiot you are. Do you just not know the mechanics of what caused
the dust bowl era here in the US? Prior to that time, it was fertile for
the types of natural crops and grasses that it reaped.
If anything, irrigation (water) is more important than gas in farming those,
or almost any other lands.
Dan
> "Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> With the simple exception that humans are MOBILE,
>
> Much less so these days without petroleum fuels.
People can travel long distances on foot.
>> and some people, if it came to it, would try to move
>> in on the areas inhabited by the [tribe of choice].
>
> To what end? There's nothing there that anyone wants. Those people don't
> have food, oil, housing, health care, etc.
Were there nothing, the [tribe of choice] would not be still living
there. When circumstances change, so will expectations.
> The point is that they haven't had these things for eons, or at least not to
> the point of dependency upon them.
So they all died off? But the OP said they were there...
> How much pain are they feeling "at the
> pump" when they still get around on foot, a cart pulled by oxen, etc. How
> difficult will their lives be when the world's electrical grid goes dark,
> since they live without electricity and in the dark their whole lives.
When EVERYONE is desperate, things will not be quite as they are today...
>> Things will get very ugly under such circumstances,
>
> Yeah, "Wow, there's no oil or electricity here, let's go to Sub-Africa to
> have a better life."
Where did you get that? Are you of the opinion that there are only
rural tribes in Africa. How charmingly naive.
>> and it will be a crapshoot as to what genes are lucky enough to survive
> No computer, no cell phone, no TV, no Wii, no car, no heat, no AC, no
> grocery......
>
> You'd be lucky to last a week.
That was supposed to be an insult, right? Just checking...
And a CPA is going to survive on, what again?
Dan
Dan
> "Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> There is a lot of farmland in the Great American Desert
>> (remember that phrase - it is the current breadbasket of
>> the continent) that is inhospitable without a cheap source
>> of natural gas. Think Dust Bowl for what it used to be like.
>
> What an idiot you are. Do you just not know the mechanics of what caused
> the dust bowl era here in the US? Prior to that time, it was fertile for
> the types of natural crops and grasses that it reaped.
Which is, of course, why the people traveling through it named it The
Great American Desert...
> If anything, irrigation (water) is more important than gas in farming those,
> or almost any other lands.
You are remarkable. Ignorant, and willing to demonstrate it to all.
Look up exactly WHEN the area became "fertile." Look up the
circumstances of this transition, and the exact nature of the REASONS
for the transformation.
When you have researched that, come back and we can have a civilized
talk on the subject.
Next time, have at least SOME information at your disposal before you
start talking on a subject which you know nothing about. oh, and nice
clippage: go back to the stuff you cut out, it will be a great starting
point for your researches, since I did include most of the pertinent
information (but very succinctly, so you do need to understand the
events to know that it was a complete outline summary).
Dan
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
>> "Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> With the simple exception that humans are MOBILE,
>>
>> Much less so these days without petroleum fuels.
>
> People can travel long distances on foot.
I'm sure of that. But at a much more slower pace, with much less luggage.
So you tell me, are they carying tons of guns and ammo, or food to eat on
their quest to "cause a dent" in some third world country for reasons yet to
be known.
>> How much pain are they feeling "at the pump" when they still get around
>> on foot, a cart pulled by oxen, etc. How difficult will their lives be
>> when the world's electrical grid goes dark, since they live without
>> electricity and in the dark their whole lives.
>
> When EVERYONE is desperate, things will not be quite as they are today...
Not in rural Burkina Faso. They'll not be as desperate as say, you will be.
>> Yeah, "Wow, there's no oil or electricity here,
>> let's go to Sub-Africa to have a better life."
>
> Where did you get that?
From you. You're the one who proposed that massive groups of armed men,
women and children wil desend upon places that can (because they do) survive
on nothing.
> Are you of the opinion that there are only rural tribes in Africa. How
> charmingly naive.
Yet, you proclaimed that:
"With the simple exception that humans are MOBILE,
and some people, if it came to it, would try to move in
on the areas inhabited by the [tribe of choice]. The
people coming might well have the numbers, weapon
superiority, and desperation to at least cause a dent
in the knowledge bank of the tribe."
Are you of the opinion that there are only rural unarmed, inept at
protecting themselves, tribes in Africa?
Seem as if you believe that someone who hasn't the food to ewat will carry
heavy weaponry across water - on foot - to do battle with people who have
been surviving on their lands for decades without running water in some
cases.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Look up exactly WHEN the area became "fertile."
Apparently, according to you, shortly after someone brought a gallon of gas
out west.
But the fact remains, you can take 600,000 cubic feet of natural gas to both
poles of the earth and not have anything close to fertile soil for crops.
And the fact remains that 100 billion cubic feet of natural gas can't make a
flower grow in the desert sands.
In fact, gas is pretty far down the list of things necessary to grow crops.
Water, nutrients, oxygen, and a seed are necessary. Soil would be oh so
helpful, but you can grow plants in almost anything, even a sponge, plastic
mulch, and other synthetic fibers. Gas - petroleum gas - isn't on the list
of necessary things.
So, why was it that you predicted armed groups of people would walk across
water to invade some third world country again?
z
wrote:
ah, so the evidence which convinced you that "the average temperature
on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past
decade" is "April 15th - the coldest it's ever been on April 15th in
eons" and "the end of April (well, ok, it was last night) had frost
and freeze warnings through all north Georgia."
well then, that's damn convincing, i would definitely submit a paper
if i were you.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote
> ah, so the evidence which convinced you that "the
> average temperature on Earth has remained steady
> or slowly declined during the past decade"
I never said that.
Check your sources.
Bob Brock
If you say so. What happens when unprecedented things happen are
unprecedented. However, if you look at similar events throughout
history, you don't see people moving into the rainforests and jungles
to live. They tend to stay pretty much where they are familiar with
their surroundings until the end.
Dan
> "Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
>>> "Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> With the simple exception that humans are MOBILE,
>>> Much less so these days without petroleum fuels.
>> People can travel long distances on foot.
>
> I'm sure of that. But at a much more slower pace, with much less luggage.
> So you tell me, are they carying tons of guns and ammo, or food to eat on
> their quest to "cause a dent" in some third world country for reasons yet to
> be known.
Who said anything about traveling TO a third world country?
>>> How much pain are they feeling "at the pump" when they still get around
>>> on foot, a cart pulled by oxen, etc. How difficult will their lives be
>>> when the world's electrical grid goes dark, since they live without
>>> electricity and in the dark their whole lives.
>> When EVERYONE is desperate, things will not be quite as they are today...
>
> Not in rural Burkina Faso. They'll not be as desperate as say, you will be.
But the people in URBAN Burkina Faso may be.
>
>>> Yeah, "Wow, there's no oil or electricity here,
>>> let's go to Sub-Africa to have a better life."
>> Where did you get that?
>
> From you.
Nope, you made it up.
> You're the one who proposed that massive groups of armed men,
> women and children wil desend upon places that can (because they do) survive
> on nothing.
Well, they are obviously NOT surviving on nothing...
>
>> Are you of the opinion that there are only rural tribes in Africa. How
>> charmingly naive.
>
> Yet, you proclaimed that:
> "With the simple exception that humans are MOBILE,
> and some people, if it came to it, would try to move in
> on the areas inhabited by the [tribe of choice]. The
> people coming might well have the numbers, weapon
> superiority, and desperation to at least cause a dent
> in the knowledge bank of the tribe."
Yes, I said that.
> Are you of the opinion that there are only rural unarmed, inept at
> protecting themselves, tribes in Africa?
Not at all. Nowhere in that text can that be inferred.
> Seem as if you believe that someone who hasn't the food to ewat will carry
> heavy weaponry across water - on foot - to do battle with people who have
> been surviving on their lands for decades without running water in some
> cases.
I believe no such thing. That is YOUR take on the situation, not what I
wrote.
Your biases are blinding you to the obvious. Take the step outside your
box, and read what I said, and assume it makes sense (because it does).
Then the actual meaning should become clear.
Dan
Dan
> "Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Look up exactly WHEN the area became "fertile."
>
>
>
>
>
> Apparently, according to you, shortly after someone brought a gallon of gas
> out west.
Are you this lazy in your job, too?
> But the fact remains, you can take 600,000 cubic feet of natural gas to both
> poles of the earth and not have anything close to fertile soil for crops.
Well, they do use natural gas in making fertilizer, but that is not what
I am getting at.
You made some silly statements, I just corrected them. YOU do the
legwork to acquire the needed background knowledge to understand the
actual situation, then come back and talk reasonably.
> And the fact remains that 100 billion cubic feet of natural gas can't make a
> flower grow in the desert sands.
It sure can, when used correctly (as it was and is). Good thing you
were not in charge of the development project, isn't it!
> In fact, gas is pretty far down the list of things necessary to grow crops.
Not a farmer, either. Well, that was obvious from the start.
> Water, nutrients, oxygen, and a seed are necessary.
2 out of 4 of those were generated by __________ (fill in the blank).
> Soil would be oh so
> helpful, but you can grow plants in almost anything, even a sponge, plastic
> mulch, and other synthetic fibers. Gas - petroleum gas - isn't on the list
> of necessary things.
If you say so. You MIGHT want to ask a farmer.
> So, why was it that you predicted armed groups of people would walk across
> water to invade some third world country again?
I never said that, you did. Why do YOU think they would?
Dan
Dan
Some do, some are more adventurous.
Dan
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Apr 24, 8:14 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C23583376-50134...
>
> > Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
>
> > Phil Chapman | April 23, 2008
>
And this week....
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2238317.0.Doubt_is_cast_over_global_warming.php
Bob Brock
Since it's unprecedented, your opinion is as valid as mine. Me? I'll
prepare for my opinion and live with the consequences should it
happen.
Paul Thomas
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Who said anything about traveling TO a third world country?
You did.
Paul Thomas
"Dan" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Are you this lazy in your job, too?
So you can create fertile soil with gas alone?
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:14:12 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote:
> db78.251.html
>
> -- Regards, Curly
"Nature." Is that where substantive research is published?
z
wrote:
> "z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote
granted, that was the OP. so you posted "the end of April (well, ok,
it was last night) had frost and freeze warnings through all north
Georgia." as a counter to that, or just a random orthogonal comment?
Paul Thomas, CPA
"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote
> just a random orthogonal comment?
Nope, it's a fact that you can verify.
z
wrote:
> "z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote
>
> > just a random orthogonal comment?
>
> Nope, it's a fact that you can verify.
well, i apologize for erroneously thinking you believed that "the
average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined
during the past decade". That is pretty silly.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote
> well, i apologize for erroneously thinking you believed
> that "the average temperature on Earth has remained
> steady or slowly declined during the past decade".
It may have. It may not have. But suffice it to say that a ten year period
is not long enough, globally, to provide any sort of trend toward hotter or
colder.
How old is the earth? And ten years would be what percentage of that time?
Try 4.5 Billion years old, and .00000000222
That's a statistical zero.
> That is pretty silly.
Yeah, Grab a couple of thousand years data and get back to me with a trend.
Now, I do believe that all of man's tinkering has impacted the earth's
ecology, and not always for the better. But I also believe that nature has
a way of healing the scars created by man, as well as adapting to whatever
man does next.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ErJSj.47606$%15.4...@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote
>> well, i apologize for erroneously thinking you believed
>> that "the average temperature on Earth has remained
>> steady or slowly declined during the past decade".
>
>
>
> It may have. It may not have. But suffice it to say that a ten year
> period is not long enough, globally, to provide any sort of trend toward
> hotter or colder.
>
> How old is the earth? And ten years would be what percentage of that
> time?
>
> Try 4.5 Billion years old, and .00000000222
>
> That's a statistical zero.
Just to put that into perspective, if I lived to be 100, that's like 7
seconds of my whole life.
John R. Carroll
The seven seconds after your brain aneurism bursts?
It might be worth considering this matter along those lines.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
Paul Thomas
"John R. Carroll" <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote
> The seven seconds after your brain aneurism bursts?
That's an event, not a trend.
Earthquake - event.
Hurricane - event.
Neither mean we're destined to eons of shaky ground or 100 mph winds. It
happens, it's over.
Earthquake, a few seconds to a few minutes.
Hurricane, a few hours to a few days.
Changes in temperatures happen very often, and hardly make a trend that
predictions can be made from.
Let's take the low temps this morning at 6 am of 45. By 6 pm it's supposed
to be 75. At that rate of change I predict that the temps will be near 3000
degrees by Friday lunch.
You can't take a short period of time and extrapolate that into a trend that
has meaning.
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote
>> The seven seconds after your brain aneurism bursts?
>
>
>
> That's an event, not a trend.
There is pretty good money these days in "event" prevention.
Drug companies can sell you something for just about anything.
>
> Earthquake - event.
> Hurricane - event.
>
>
> Neither mean we're destined to eons of shaky ground or 100 mph winds.
> It happens, it's over.
Not really, over that is. These things occur on an ongoing basis. It just
isn't possible today to predict them with the kind of precision you have in
mind.
>
> Earthquake, a few seconds to a few minutes.
> Hurricane, a few hours to a few days.
>
> Changes in temperatures happen very often, and hardly make a trend
> that predictions can be made from.
>
> Let's take the low temps this morning at 6 am of 45. By 6 pm it's
> supposed to be 75. At that rate of change I predict that the temps
> will be near 3000 degrees by Friday lunch.
>
> You can't take a short period of time and extrapolate that into a
> trend that has meaning.
I wasn't suggesting that you could, only that the possible not be ignored
and considered.
Paul Thomas
"John R. Carroll" <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote
> Earthquake - event.
> Hurricane - event.
>
>
>> Neither mean we're destined to eons of shaky ground or 100 mph winds.
>> It happens, it's over.
>
> Not really, over that is. These things occur on an ongoing basis. It just
> isn't possible today to predict them with the kind of precision you have
> in
> mind.
You're changing the subject. Don't do that. Correctly predicting an event
is easy, just proclaim it will happen every day and sooner or later you'll
be correct.
Predicting a trend is factual. It either is or isn't getting hotter - or
colder. Whatever may be happening is nothing more than a cycle that has
occured before. Every 500 years, every 1000 years, every 10,000 years. Who
knows.
Richard Macdonald
news:JqmTj.28453$DY1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Every time I hear "It's the warmest it's been in 500 years" I have to
rmember that
the Midieval warm period ended about 650 years ago with the start of the
mini-ice
age that reashed its coldest times around the reign's of the House of Tudor
(1500's).
Of course its the warmest since the mini ice age, but is it any warmer than
the
Midieval Warm period, when the Norse grazed large flocks on southern
Greenland
and England exported quality wine. Or the Roman Warm period, which was
followed
by the "Dark Ages", another colder period from just before the final fall of
Rome and
1200's, about 500 years. So we get 100-200BC warming, peaking around 1-200
AD
cooling from 3-400 AD and cold until about 1000 or so warming peaking about
12-1300
following by the mini-ice age about 1400 to 1800; and now warming for the
last two
hundred years. What you see when you look at climate change, depends on the
time
span you look at. Are the early 2000's really any warmer tha the 1100's or
100's were?
Serious students of history look at longer periods than most.
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
SSG(Ret), USA, ADA, 16P34
Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!!
John R. Carroll
Not me, but that isn't really relevant in a lot of respects. None of the
other cycles involved todays infrastructure or populations.
Global warming, or any significant climate change, isn't something I see as
a particular problem or something that's especially avoidable.
I see an opportunity to invest now in what might be the future.
z
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
> Global warming, or any significant climate change, isn't something I see as
> a particular problem or something that's especially avoidable.
> I see an opportunity to invest now in what might be the future.
>
> --
>
> John R. Carroll
>
> - Show quoted text -
yeah, tickets on passenger flights to mars will vie with martian real
estate for the public's dollars.
Curly Surmudgeon
Peaks and valleys are not the issue. You must factor in many other
parameters such as quantitative values and trends.
Never in our current knowledge of history have the temperatures changed so
radically over such a short period other than a world-wide calamity such
as massive geological explosions or asteroid hits.
Trends are the important issue, not unvalued peaks and valleys of history.
> Serious students of history look at longer periods than most. -- Richard
> A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
> SSG(Ret), USA, ADA, 16P34
> Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!!
Serious students of climatology look at more than irrelevant history.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Love Republicans, They Taste Just Like Chickenhawks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nick hull
Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Never in our current knowledge of history have the temperatures changed so
> radically over such a short period other than a world-wide calamity such
> as massive geological explosions or asteroid hits.
In earlier warm/cool periods there were no thermometers available and
poor records.
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
Curly Surmudgeon
> In article <4826e5e4$0$22615$a82e...@reader.athenanews.com>,
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Never in our current knowledge of history have the temperatures changed
>> so radically over such a short period other than a world-wide calamity
>> such as massive geological explosions or asteroid hits.
>
> In earlier warm/cool periods there were no thermometers available and poor
> records.
Lack of a thermometer does not affect the melting point of water. Lack of
a thermometer does not affect the growth of life.
Learn a little science.
Don Lancaster
>
> Lack of a thermometer does not affect the melting point of water. Lack of
> a thermometer does not affect the growth of life.
>
> Learn a little science.
Lack of a thermometer DOES affect the melting point of water.
You cannot measure something without disturbing it.
Learn a little science.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
cosa...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:35:30 -0500, nick hull wrote:
> > Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Never in our current knowledge of history have the temperatures changed
> >> so radically over such a short period other than a world-wide calamity
> >> such as massive geological explosions or asteroid hits.
>
> > In earlier warm/cool periods there were no thermometers available and poor
> > records.
>
> Lack of a thermometer does not affect the melting point of water. Lack of
> a thermometer does not affect the growth of life.
>
> Learn a little science.
Lack of thermometers does not affect the growing of crops.
During the Medieval Warm Period crops were grown in places that are
currently too cold to allow them to be grown. This is not a matter of
speculation, this is documented fact.
Your claims about "temperatures changed so radically" are not
supported by any evidence; prior to the invention of the thermometer
there was no way to record a numeric value for temperature, and until
quite recently there was no systematic recording of temperature to any
degree of precision. Quite simply, your claims lack any basis in
fact.
Learn a little history.
A little humility and intellectual honesty certainly wouldn't hurt
either.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>
>> Lack of a thermometer does not affect the melting point of water. Lack
>> of a thermometer does not affect the growth of life.
>>
>> Learn a little science.
>
> Lack of a thermometer DOES affect the melting point of water. You cannot
> measure something without disturbing it.
It is not necessary to touch an object to measure it's temperature. If
you're the Don Lancaster who used to publish monthly tech articles you
should know this.
> Learn a little science.
I have, that is why my statement stands as written.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On May 11, 3:48 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:35:30 -0500, nick hull wrote:
>> > In article <4826e5e4$0$22615$a82e2...@reader.athenanews.com>,
>> > Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Never in our current knowledge of history have the temperatures
>> >> changed so radically over such a short period other than a world-wide
>> >> calamity such as massive geological explosions or asteroid hits.
>>
>> > In earlier warm/cool periods there were no thermometers available and
>> > poor records.
>>
>> Lack of a thermometer does not affect the melting point of water. Lack
>> of a thermometer does not affect the growth of life.
>>
>> Learn a little science.
>
>
> Lack of thermometers does not affect the growing of crops.
>
> During the Medieval Warm Period crops were grown in places that are
> currently too cold to allow them to be grown. This is not a matter of
> speculation, this is documented fact.
So?
> Your claims about "temperatures changed so radically" are not supported by
> any evidence;
Ah, another denyer. Don't waste our time denying the obvious.
> prior to the invention of the thermometer there was no way
> to record a numeric value for temperature,
So what? Doesn't repudiate my statement.
> and until quite recently there
> was no systematic recording of temperature to any degree of precision.
Ditto, so what?
> Quite simply, your claims lack any basis in fact.
Quite simply, Scarlett, you don't know what you're talking about.
> Learn a little history.
Learn a little science.
> A little humility and intellectual honesty certainly wouldn't hurt
> either.
Fuck humility when utter bullshit is posted I'll ravage it.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
<CurlySurmudgeon_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 08:25:55 -0700, Don Lancaster wrote:
> > Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>
> >> Lack of a thermometer does not affect the melting point of water. Lack
> >> of a thermometer does not affect the growth of life.
>
> >> Learn a little science.
>
> > Lack of a thermometer DOES affect the melting point of water. You cannot
> > measure something without disturbing it.
>
> It is not necessary to touch an object to measure it's temperature.
Squirelly happens to be right on this one. Remote sensing has been
doing that for years.
Dan Bloomquist
> It is not necessary to touch an object to measure it's temperature.
Then, of course, you have no idea.....
Dan Bloomquist
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 01:10:33 -0700, cosantoir wrote:
>
>
>> Learn a little history.
>
> Learn a little science.
Learn a little usenet, idiots....
Dan
Huh?
Remote thermal sensing has been around for decades, or did you miss that
memo?
Dan
Dan Bloomquist
Not at all, what do you have in mind? (loaded question, do your homework.)
Jerry
LOL! I know these nice folks (libs). When their kid was really small,
he stuck his hand into a frying pan on the stovetop. By touching the
pan, he learned what hot is.
The nice folks (libs) used that to their advantage. Every time the kid
went near something they didn't want him to touch, they just yelled
"hot", and the kid stayed away.
Today he won't touch the TV remote control, won't turn off the garden
hose, can't make himself a snack, etc. When he is playing catch with
his friends you can yell "hot" and watch him miss the ball. Some say
the earth is a ball. HOT! :)