The Glaciers among us
Jim McGinn
a.. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern
Hemisphere glaciation."
a.. Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists
are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age."
a.. The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing
Faster than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers
"have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are
getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an
ocean can cool."
a.. Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that
meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result
from the global cooling that The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may
mark the return to another ice age."
a.. The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is
widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the
Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
So where is the ice age? Could it be that scientists were mistaken. I
asked a scientist and he assured me that this couldn't be the case. So,
then, what's happening? Could it be that there is something more insidious
going on here? Could it be that the ice age has already started and us
human are too dull-witted to notice. Could it be that glaciers live among
us?
Scientists have long speculated that the ability of glaciers to conceal
themselves in urban environments is greatly underappreciated. "The problem
is," says Stanley Wessmuller, Phd. of Arizona State University, "that most
people don't know what to look for. The list of indicator of Glaciers in
your neighborhood is long and subtle." If you suspect you have one in your
neighborhood it's best to call the experts. "Don't approach them on your
own," advises Wessmuller. Despite their lumbering appearance glaciers have
been known for sudden movement.
Eric Swanson
>
>http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_438808.html
>
>a.. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern
>Hemisphere glaciation."
Yeah, at some distant future time.
>a.. Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists
>are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age."
>
>a.. The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing
>Faster than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers
>"have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are
>getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an
>ocean can cool."
>
>a.. Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that
>meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result
>from the global cooling that The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may
>mark the return to another ice age."
>
>a.. The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is
>widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the
>Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
>
>So where is the ice age? Could it be that scientists were mistaken. (?sic)
The solid matter between your ears might be mistaken for an ice age...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
>. I
>asked a scientist and he assured me that this couldn't be the case. So,
>then, what's happening? Could it be that there is something more insidious
>going on here? Could it be that the ice age has already started and us
>human are too dull-witted to notice. Could it be that glaciers live among
>us?
Yeah, those old glacier Repuglicans and their leader, Lush Rumbrain, sure
know how to ignore science. They would rather send it to China or India,
where they can get the work done cheaply and ignore the downside.
BTW, Have you bothered to read the THC references I posted?
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>>The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is
>>widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the
>>Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
>>
>>So where is the ice age? Could it be that scientists were mistaken.
>>(?sic)
>
> The solid matter between your ears might be mistaken for an ice age...
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
The author of this article is a dimwit. There's nothing in here that
addresses the real issue that scientist lack any kind of credible basis for
making predictions about future climate.
>
>>. I
>>asked a scientist and he assured me that this couldn't be the case. So,
>>then, what's happening? Could it be that there is something more
>>insidious
>>going on here? Could it be that the ice age has already started and us
>>human are too dull-witted to notice. Could it be that glaciers live among
>>us?
>
> Yeah, those old glacier Repuglicans and their leader, Lush Rumbrain, sure
> know how to ignore science. They would rather send it to China or India,
> where they can get the work done cheaply and ignore the downside.
> BTW, Have you bothered to read the THC references I posted?
Why do GW whackos always resort to paranoia based politics to explain their
belief in GW?
Eric Swanson
>
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>
>
>
>>>The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is
>>>widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the
>>>Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
>>>
>>>So where is the ice age? Could it be that scientists were mistaken.
>>>(?sic)
>>
>> The solid matter between your ears might be mistaken for an ice age...
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
>
>The author of this article is a dimwit. There's nothing in here that
>addresses the real issue that scientist lack any kind of credible basis for
>making predictions about future climate.
NO, troll, you raised the issue about whether the scientists claimed we were in
for an imminent return of Ice Ages back in the 1970's. The reference given just
points out that it was the media that presented that, but that the science of
the day did not make those sorts of claims.
>>>. I
>>>asked a scientist and he assured me that this couldn't be the case. So,
>>>then, what's happening? Could it be that there is something more
>>>insidious
>>>going on here? Could it be that the ice age has already started and us
>>>human are too dull-witted to notice. Could it be that glaciers live among
>>>us?
>>
>> Yeah, those old glacier Repuglicans and their leader, Lush Rumbrain, sure
>> know how to ignore science. They would rather send it to China or India,
>> where they can get the work done cheaply and ignore the downside.
>> BTW, Have you bothered to read the THC references I posted?
>
>Why do GW whackos always resort to paranoia based politics to explain their
>belief in GW?
Why do anti-GW whackos insist on ignoring the science, while claiming that
they know for sure that the scientists are absolutely wrong?
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>>The author of this article is a dimwit. There's nothing in here that
>>addresses the real issue that scientist lack any kind of credible basis
>>for
>>making predictions about future climate.
>
> NO, troll, you raised the issue about whether the scientists claimed we
> were in
> for an imminent return of Ice Ages back in the 1970's. The reference
> given just
> points out that it was the media that presented that, but that the science
> of
> the day did not make those sorts of claims.
So, jackass, you're saying that the following publications, Science Digest
(February 1973), The Christian Science Monitor (Aug. 27, 1974), Newsweek
( April 28, 1975) and The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) were being
intentionally deceptive when they made the following comments,
respecitively: ""the world's climatologists are agreed,"; "Earth's Climate
is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect,"; "meteorologists "are almost
unanimous,"; and "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered
inevitable." Why don't you contact these magazines and ask them to retract
these statements.
>
>>>>I asked a scientist and he assured me that this couldn't be the case.
>>>>So,
>>>>then, what's happening? Could it be that there is something more
>>>>insidious
>>>>going on here? Could it be that the ice age has already started and us
>>>>human are too dull-witted to notice. Could it be that glaciers live
>>>>among
>>>>us?
>>>
>>> Yeah, those old glacier Repuglicans and their leader, Lush Rumbrain,
>>> sure
>>> know how to ignore science. They would rather send it to China or
>>> India,
>>> where they can get the work done cheaply and ignore the downside.
>>> BTW, Have you bothered to read the THC references I posted?
>>
>>Why do GW whackos always resort to paranoia based politics to explain
>>their
>>belief in GW?
>
> Why do anti-GW whackos insist on ignoring the science, while claiming that
> they know for sure that the scientists are absolutely wrong?
Why does anybody let computer models lead them by the nose?
H2-PV NOW
Jim McGinn wrote:
> The author of this article is a dimwit. There's nothing in here that
> addresses the real issue that scientist lack any kind of credible basis for
> making predictions about future climate.
> Why do GW whackos always resort to paranoia based politics to explain their
> belief in GW?
You are given LEGAL NOTICE that you are aiding and abetting an
ORGANIZED CRIME FELONY FRAUD operation, that you have joined in an
"enterprise" as defined by law, have committed one or more acts of
fraud using WIRES or U.S. Mail in collaboration with the illegal
enterprise. From this date forward any further actions on your part to
aid this enterprise are legally considered prima facia premeditated,
willful intent to violate FEDERAL LAW.
SEPPtic Tank is an ORGANIZED CRIME front operation headed by lifelong
career-criminal S. Fred Singer.
In 1994 Singer wrote a science hoax piece for big tobacco. The piece
was submitted to RJ Reynolds lawyers pre-publication. The piece was
short some "peer-reviewers" so a request was made for some names of
tame "whitecoats" willing to lie for money to sign off on the document.
Ultimately a bunch of names appeared on this science hoax document, as
well as inside it's pages. The whole thing became evidence in the
FEDERAL trial of the Big Seven Tobacco Companies in the late 1990s. The
documents were produced by subpoena (a turm meaning "under pain", like
we will hurt you bad if you don't comply). The evidence passed due
process of law in a trial admitted as evidence. The judge ordered the
evidence posted online for 10 years at Big Tobacco's expense -- oh,
year, the Tobacco Companies also agreed to pay $246,000,000,000.00 too.
Fred Singer is corrupt and I have seen the evidence from the trial that
proved he is corrupt. He is an ORGANIZED CRIME figure who uses science
hoaxes for corporate clients to falsify the state of knowledge on
subjects his clients need confused and obfuscated.
SEPP was organized in the premises of a Sun Myung Moon-owned office
suite. Moon is also a career criminal who was convicted of tax evasion
and money laundering, sent to FREDERAL PRISON, and is a known felon
convict.
FRED SINGER's SEPPtic Tank moved to the offices of Charles G. Koch
Summer Fellows Program at the Koch-owned George Mason University.
Killer Charles G. Koch and brother Killer David Koch operate KOCH
INDUSTRIES, which itself has been convicted of the largest fine in
corporate history -- $35,000,000.00 for pollution of air, lands and
waters of six states.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37628-2004Jul8.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/981d17e5ab07246f8525686500621079?OpenDocument
Charges G. Koch co-founded CATO Inst., David Koch sits on it's board
watching the family interests, and SINGER, MILLOY, MICHAELS, LINDZEN &
BALLING are all organized crime figures on the payrolls of a known
ORGANIZED CRIME ring founded by known ORGANIZED CRIME Lords.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=361
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html
Dr. Singer. SEPP's address is 4084 University Drive, Suite 101,
Fairfax, VA 22030 (Tel. 703-934-6932).
http://snipurl.com/og9j
Results about 172 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 Koch.
http://snipurl.com/og9o
Results about 92 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA
22030 SEPP.
http://snipurl.com/og9s
Resultsabout 149 for 4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030
IHS | "Institute for Humane Studies"
http://snipurl.com/oga1
Results about 581 for Fred Singer Koch IHS | "Institute for Humane
Studies".
http://snipurl.com/ogai
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer
http://snipurl.com/ogay
Results about 333 for "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A
Critical Examination".
Eric Swanson
jimm...@sbcglobal.net says...
>
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>
>
>>>The author of this article is a dimwit. There's nothing in here that
>>>addresses the real issue that scientist lack any kind of credible basis
>>>for
>>>making predictions about future climate.
>>
>> NO, troll, you raised the issue about whether the scientists claimed we
>> were in
>> for an imminent return of Ice Ages back in the 1970's. The reference
>> given just
>> points out that it was the media that presented that, but that the science
>> of
>> the day did not make those sorts of claims.
>
>So, jackass, you're saying that the following publications, Science Digest
>(February 1973), The Christian Science Monitor (Aug. 27, 1974), Newsweek
>( April 28, 1975) and The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) were being
>intentionally deceptive when they made the following comments,
>respecitively: ""the world's climatologists are agreed,"; "Earth's Climate
>is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect,"; "meteorologists "are almost
>unanimous,"; and "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered
>inevitable." Why don't you contact these magazines and ask them to retract
>these statements.
In case you haven't noticed, these publications are not scientific
publications. Besides, we've learned a whole bunch about the problem over
the last 30 years. Unlike idiot trolls, like you...
>>>>>I asked a scientist and he assured me that this couldn't be the case.
>>>>>So,
>>>>>then, what's happening? Could it be that there is something more
>>>>>insidious
>>>>>going on here? Could it be that the ice age has already started and us
>>>>>human are too dull-witted to notice. Could it be that glaciers live
>>>>>among
>>>>>us?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, those old glacier Repuglicans and their leader, Lush Rumbrain,
>>>> sure
>>>> know how to ignore science. They would rather send it to China or
>>>> India,
>>>> where they can get the work done cheaply and ignore the downside.
>>>> BTW, Have you bothered to read the THC references I posted?
>>>
>>>Why do GW whackos always resort to paranoia based politics to explain
>>>their
>>>belief in GW?
>>
>> Why do anti-GW whackos insist on ignoring the science, while claiming that
>> they know for sure that the scientists are absolutely wrong?
>
>Why does anybody let computer models lead them by the nose?
Could it be because they work?
All newer aircraft were designed with computer models.
All spacecraft have been designed with computer models.
Automobile manufacturers use computer models in their design work.
Most all weather forecasts beyond 1 day are the result of computer models.
Many businesses use computer models to plot future economic activity, etc.
So, you, troll, are being "led by the nose", you just don't know it.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>
>
>>>The author of this article is a dimwit. There's nothing in here that
>>>addresses the real issue that scientist lack any kind of credible basis
>>>for
>>>making predictions about future climate.
>>
>> NO, troll, you raised the issue about whether the scientists claimed we
>> were in
>> for an imminent return of Ice Ages back in the 1970's. The reference
>> given just
>> points out that it was the media that presented that, but that the science
>> of
>> the day did not make those sorts of claims.
>
>So, jackass, you're saying that the following publications, Science Digest
>(February 1973), The Christian Science Monitor (Aug. 27, 1974), Newsweek
>( April 28, 1975) and The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) were being
>intentionally deceptive when they made the following comments,
>respecitively: ""the world's climatologists are agreed,"; "Earth's Climate
>is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect,"; "meteorologists "are almost
>unanimous,"; and "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered
>inevitable." Why don't you contact these mag
azines and ask them to retract
>these statements.
I'm saying you're quoting out of context. Why don't you post the entire
passage? Of course, you can't because you just pasted these from a right-wing
columnist.
Lloyd Parker
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_4
38808.html
>
>a.. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern
>Hemisphere glaciation."
>
Out of context.
>a.. Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists
>are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age."
Out of context.
>
>a.. The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing
>Faster than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers
>"have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are
>getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an
>ocean can cool."
Not a scientific journal.
>
>a.. Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that
>meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result
>from the global cooling that The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may
>mark the return to another ice age."
Ditto.
>
>a.. The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is
>widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the
>Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
>
Ditto.
>So where is the ice age? Could it be that scientists were mistaken.
Could it be you've taken things out of context? Most of what you've quoted
start out with things like "if there is cooling..."
>I
>asked a scientist and he assured me that this couldn't be the case. So,
>then, what's happening? Could it be that there is something more insidious
>going on here? Could it be that the ice age has already started and us
>human are too dull-witted to notice. Could it be that glaciers live among
>us?
Could it be that you're lying?
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>>Why does anybody let computer models lead them by the nose?
>
> Could it be because they work?
Why is the confidence level for these computer models that underly the AGW
hysteria never made explicit/public?
Jim
Eric Swanson
jimm...@sbcglobal.net says...
Not my problem. Besides, if Michael Tobis is correct, there has been a
recent statistical analysis as you desire. You might also consider that model
results are not data, so error bounds on their results don't mean a hell of a
lot. Then too, there's a large uncertainty on the future growth of atmospheric
CO2 and other GH Gases, which isn't really a issue involving climate models.
The range of projections of future warming is the result of running a range
of different emissions scenarios thru the various models.
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
> Not my problem.
At least you're honest.
> Besides, if Michael Tobis is correct, there has been a
> recent statistical analysis as you desire.
References?
> You might also consider that model
> results are not data, so error bounds on their results don't mean a hell
> of a
> lot. Then too, there's a large uncertainty on the future growth of
> atmospheric
> CO2 and other GH Gases, which isn't really a issue involving climate
> models.
> The range of projections of future warming is the result of running a
> range
> of different emissions scenarios thru the various models.
Would you agree then that when it comes to predictions of catastrophic AGW
that the computer models must be discarded?
Jim
Eric Swanson
>
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>
>> Not my problem.
>
>At least you're honest.
That's indeed my problem. You, however, don't seem to be concerned with truth.
>> Besides, if Michael Tobis is correct, there has been a
>> recent statistical analysis as you desire.
>
>References?
Why give them again when you've already ignored them?
>> You might also consider that model
>> results are not data, so error bounds on their results don't mean a hell
>> of a
>> lot. Then too, there's a large uncertainty on the future growth of
>> atmospheric
>> CO2 and other GH Gases, which isn't really a issue involving climate
>> models.
>> The range of projections of future warming is the result of running a
>> range
>> of different emissions scenarios thru the various models.
>
>Would you agree then that when it comes to predictions of catastrophic AGW
>that the computer models must be discarded?
No. That's about the dumbest comment you've made so far and there've been many.
Jim McGinn
"Eric Swanson" <swa...@NoScrewingAround.net> wrote
>>> Besides, if Michael Tobis is correct, there has been a
>>> recent statistical analysis as you desire.
>>
>>References?
>
> Why give them again when you've already ignored them?
Huh?
>
>>> You might also consider that model
>>> results are not data, so error bounds on their results don't mean a hell
>>> of a
>>> lot. Then too, there's a large uncertainty on the future growth of
>>> atmospheric
>>> CO2 and other GH Gases, which isn't really a issue involving climate
>>> models.
>>> The range of projections of future warming is the result of running a
>>> range
>>> of different emissions scenarios thru the various models.
>>
>>Would you agree then that when it comes to predictions of catastrophic AGW
>>that the computer models must be discarded?
>
> No. That's about the dumbest comment you've made so far and there've been
> many.
I think this says it all.
Jim
Scott Nudds
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> So, jackass, you're saying that the following publications, Science Digest
> (February 1973), The Christian Science Monitor (Aug. 27, 1974), Newsweek
> ( April 28, 1975) and The New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) were being
> intentionally deceptive when they made the following comments,
Well to be deceptive, one would have to presume that the reporters knew
the science behind what they were reporting. You have found 4 instances
where this is not the case. So what?
You were asked to provide three examples from peer reviewed science
journals where scientists had warned of an imminent onset of a global ice
age.
You have yet to provide a single reference.
Now why is it that after 15 years of asking, you people who claim that
climatologists were making such claims have not been able to provide a
single example from the scientific literature?
You have had 15 years to look. What's taking you so long?
I on the other hand can instantly find tens of thousands of articles from
peer review journals where global warming is proved or presumed common
scientific knowledge.
Scott Nudds
"Jim McGinn" <jimm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Why is the confidence level for these computer models that underly the AGW
> hysteria never made explicit/public?
It is entirely explicit. Read the IPCC report. It's publicly available.
Is the problem that you don't understand it?
Jim McGinn
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
>> Why is the confidence level for these computer models that underly the
>> AGW
>> hysteria never made explicit/public?
>
> It is entirely explicit. Read the IPCC report. It's publicly available.
I can' find it. Can you provide a link?
Jim
Jim McGinn
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote
> I on the other hand can instantly find tens of thousands of articles from
> peer review journals where global warming is proved
Name one.
Jim
Coby Beck
news:RohYf.55174$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
I think Jim is paid per response he gets. Her ya go Jim boy, keep the
change.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Would you agree then that when it comes to predictions of catastrophic AGW
> that the computer models must be discarded?
Discarding the models would not change any of the SIX MAIN TRAILS OF
EVIDENCE. Models are not even a significant part of the actual physical
evidence of Global Warming. They are a minor side trail that some
scientists need IN ADDITION TO OVERWHELMING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
There are six main trails of conclusive evidence which make
anthropogenic (Man-Made) definate beyond any reasonable doubt.
Each one of these trails confirms all of the others.
+++ Coral Bleaching in 1998. It never was worse than that during any
time since apes stood upright. There would be massive fossil beds of
corals to testify to higher sea temperatures. The best fossils are all
within 6,000 years old and they are clear and unambiguous. There never
was a worse coral bleaching event in the last 6,000 years than 1998.
1998 came within two degrees of killing 90% of all the nurseries of the
ocean. Any event which ever killed 90% of the nurseries of the ocean
are recorded in fossil beds -- it happened five times in global
history, and the last time was 65,000,000 years ago, when the Alverez
Asteroid struck near Yucatan.
So we have established without doubt that 1998 is as hot as it can get
with higher oceanic life surviving. Fortunately for the oceans, vicious
storms have been relieving the heat content of the seas sufficiently so
that oceanic life is continuing, although 2002 was also a bad year for
coral bleaching. We have to pray for hurricanes to save us from death
of higher life in the seas.
+++ Another trail leading to the inescapable conclusion of Man-Made
global warming is the flooding rate in Bangladesh. This one is far more
complex, and has plenty of superficial confounding-appearance data.
First, there was a massive earthquake in the 1950s which changed river
course and land elevations. Second there was a political change when
"east" Pakistan became independent. Govt records are likely confused
and may still reside physically divided between countries. Third, the
generalized poverty means that good science and good archives are hard
to maintain.
Despite these illusions of confounding, the history of the area is not
a blank. It has been highly densely populated for centuries. India has
kept better records of the area. It has always had some flooding of
intermittant amounts and intervals. The poorest population gets the
floodplains because nobody else wanted them -- they adapted to short
flooding of mild levels of localized nature and could move out of the
way.
The cultures celebrate the changes of the seasons in various traditions
and festivals. The melting of the Himalaya snows is fairly predictable
and steady, just like the monsoons arrive within days of a calendar
date each year. Deforestation below the treeline does not completely
explain earlier dates of annual melting above the treeline.
Severe flooding began after 1954. It first occurred an average of ten
year intervals. In the recent time span it has progressively increased
in frequency, secondly to about every 6 years, now to every other year.
Blame Game has put the cause on upstream deforestation, but there is
earlier snowmelt each year.
That snowmelt was separated from the monsoons by time, and the two peak
water flows were separated by time. Now the snowmelt coincides by date
with the monsoons and record-breaking historically severe flooding is
the result. Nothing this severe is known for hundreds of years, and the
frequency of repetition is a physical impact requiring a physical
explanation.
The flooding is confirmed by the greenhouse gases causing Global
Warming. One must provide an alternate explanation for the trapped heat
to escape the system. Unless one can do that, the provisional
explanation, Man-Made Global Warming, stands unchallenged.
+++ Massive retreats of glaciers and icepacks. One must explain the the
sudden rate of increased meltaway. Global Warming explains this effect
without sweeping any data under the rug. Greenhouse Gases are trapping
heat in the system.
+++ Increased temperatures recorded across the globe by every measuring
means available on the planet. Records are broken with regularity. The
coral bleaching limit shows these are not representative of cyclic
heating events, but are anomalous in the geological record. Nothing
like this has happened in 65,000,000 years of fossil evidence. All the
direct and proxy temperature measures agree within acceptable errors
ranges.
+++ El Nino is a direct effect of sea surface heat accumulation. While
El Nino leaves poor records in the fossil archives, the known observed
rate was averaging 7 years between El Nino events. With greater recent
measured thermal storage in the sea surface, the El Nino events have
been forced to 2-3 year intervals. Physical events require physical
exlanations. The explanation which fits the measurements is Global
Warming from Man-Made Greenhouse Gases.
+++ Storm intensity and frequency is directly related to heat fuel
stored in the tropical oceans. Currently there is peak for all
recorded history of 25% more total hurricanes, more severe hurricanes
and closer frequency of hurricane-level storms. Add that to 500
tornadoes on land in the USA in May 2003 and you see tangible proof of
heat-engines at work disposing of surplus heat according to the best
modern physics theories.
NOBODY has a comprehensive alternate explanation which explains ALL of
this data, and any explanation which fails to explain ALL of the data
may be downrated as attempted Leprechans at work.
Besides the main trails there are many minor trails of evidence, all
confirming, none positively disconfirming the Man-Made Greenhouse Gases
Explanation.
All of the attempted counter-explanations deal with one trail at a
time, such as land-use changes and deforestation upstream from
Bangladesh. All they prove of a certainty is there are piggish humans
who care nothing about the downstream misery of those less fortunate,
thereby strengthening the case against the organized crime rings
falsifying science and committing felony frauds to piggishly injure
downstream less-fortunates. That evidence confirms criminal psychology,
but does not injure the measured recorded and reliable evidence of
increased frequency beyond the power of deforestation only to cause.
Global Warming @ARMY.com
Jim McGinn wrote:
> Would you agree then that when it comes to predictions of catastrophic AGW
> that the computer models must be discarded?
Discarding the models would not change any of the SIX MAIN TRAILS OF