Global Warming?-NOT.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Sam Wormley
Puppet_Sock
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >http://iceagenow.com
>
> See:http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/VD-SS/Week6.html
Sam, how many times are you going to post this lie?
CO2 in the paleo record lags temperature changes by 800 years.
CO2 rises 800 years after temperatures rise. CO2 falls 800 years
after temperature rises.
Indeed, CO2 continues upward after the temperatures start
to fall, continuing to echo the temperature trend from 8
centuries previously.
CO2 does not start the transient. CO2 does not terminate it.
CO2 shows no particular evidence of making the transient
significantly more extreme, since you can't really see any
difference between the traces. The CO2 trend is pretty much
identical to the temperature trend, just shifted 800 years later.
This is because CO2 in the paleo record is primarily a response
to ocean warming. Warmer water can hold less disolved CO2.
And it takes about that long for the deeper parts of the ocean
to warm up.
You know this. You've been told this several times before.
There is no excuse for this blatant lie.
It's also quite telling that your lies show such things as the
work by Mann and Hansen and none of the peer reviewed
literature critiquing their efforts. Nor do you show such things
as the Wegman report that show the "hockey stick" (cited
in your lies) to be complete shash.
This issue is too important to play "dueling propaganda" and
try to fool anybody. It is important to get the science right.
Continually posting this lie is grossly unhelpful.
You should be ashamed.
Socks
Q
All lies used by the skeptics are summarized here,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
and this particular one comes here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Climate change deniers are liars!
Q
knews4...@yahoo.com
The important thing now is to move south, learn to farm, and shoot a
fly's eye out at a hundred yards.
Why do you think all the rich big boys are buying up South America?
I mean besides running away from all the DU contamination that is
covering the Northern hemisphere from bombing Iraq and Afghanistan.
All it will take is ONE SUMMER of a foot of snow in Canada and there
will be millions of starving people.
The "Population Experiment" on planet earth is going to go terminal in
more ways than one. It isn't going to be pretty as resources dwindle.
Did anyone ever think we would be living in such a crazy world when
they were kids 50 yeas ago? We've been living "high on the hog" but
now things have changed beyond most peoples wildest imagination.
And who knows what is really happening with all the "doublespeak"
propaganda coming from the Elite Liars running the Matrix.
Up is down, War is Peace, Order is Chaos......
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Sam Wormley wrote:
Really? Why is it so cold then? It's "change" alright. Not warmer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather
Sam Wormley
> On Dec 5, 1:10 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> http://iceagenow.com
>> See:http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/VD-SS/Week6.html
>
> Sam, how many times are you going to post this lie?
>
> CO2 in the paleo record lags temperature changes by 800 years.
> CO2 rises 800 years after temperatures rise. CO2 falls 800 years
> after temperature rises.
>
What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is
worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core
studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after
Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced
warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
Sam Wormley
Global warming data
http://geology.com/news/2006/01/global-warming-graph-and-map.html
Global warming predictions
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Predictions_png
Sam Wormley
Gets cold every winter, especially as one moves away from
the equator.
Hagar
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cfa5e929-7c8c-4d0b...@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> http://iceagenow.com
I can live without Santa Claus ..
I can live without the Easter Bunny ...
even without the Tooth Fairy ...
but No Global Warming, say it ain't so .....
and I so believed Al Gore ...
Uncle Al
See,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather
Three cooling years in a row - and accelerating! Beautifully inverse
to sunspot numbers.
"2008 will be coolest year of the decade. Global average for 2008
should come in close to 14.3C, but cooler temperature is not evidence
that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists."
Global warming is proof of the Greenhouse Effect.
Global stasis is proof of the Greenhouse Effect.
Global cooling is proof of the Greenhouse Effect.
The Emperor is resplendent in his new clothes. Anybody who disagrees
is thereby proven unfit to comment.
http://www.spaceweather.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
<http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html>
<http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=200112065794>
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken.xls
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.xls
No cooler sunspots, no warmer faculae around sunspots. Solar constant
is slightly decreased, the Earth and all the other planets cool. Wolf
(1280-1340), Oort (1010-1050), Spörer (1450-1540), Maunder
(1645-1715), and Dalton (1795-1820) minima. Do that in the 21st
century and the Green Revolution fails. A billion people will
starve. We can only hope... for two billion.
Must Gore return his prize money? He can keep the money and the Prize
if he consents to be lynched, his body then drawn and quartered,
burned, and finally fed to wild dogs. The stripped bones are to be
pulverized and the dust dumped into a liquid pig manure impoundment,
with mixing.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Eeyore
Hagar wrote:
> <knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > http://iceagenow.com
>
> I can live without Santa Claus ..
> I can live without the Easter Bunny ...
> even without the Tooth Fairy ...
> but No Global Warming, say it ain't so .....
> and I so believed Al Gore ...
Will the Nobel Committee remove his 'prize' when the full truth comes out ?
Graham
Eeyore
Uncle Al wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > http://iceagenow.com
> >
> > See: http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/VD-SS/Week6.html
>
> See,
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather
> Three cooling years in a row - and accelerating! Beautifully inverse
> to sunspot numbers.
Exactly as one would expect.
And then we can start on the bankers, politicians who let them destroy our
economies by pushing through de-regulation and the Stock Market fraudsters.
Graham
Sir Kevin Rudd
"Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message
news:JY2dndwB64HLMaTU...@giganews.com...
But not God and Guns right?
Just another Neo-con nut.
Sam Wormley
It's one of the greatest crises mankind has ever faced - can
we roll back global warming? What will it take?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/view/
Correspondent Martin Smith investigates how the world's
largest corporations and governments are responding to
Earth's looming environmental disaster.
Even though these are downer topics... the more we educate
ourselves and other, the more we can contribute to the
solutions.
-Sam
Dave Typinski
>
>It's one of the greatest crises mankind has ever faced - can
>we roll back global warming? What will it take?
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/view/
>
>Correspondent Martin Smith investigates how the world's
>largest corporations and governments are responding to
>Earth's looming environmental disaster.
>
>Even though these are downer topics... the more we educate
>ourselves and other, the more we can contribute to the
>solutions.
Frontline is usually pretty good. Disappoints me that they took a
really weird attitude toward large companies.
The interviewer asked several company reps something like the
following: "Your primary business is making cars / producing petroleum
products, yet you don't do very much at all to encourage people to buy
smaller cars or use alternative fuels. How do you explain this?"
Does *anyone* understand how our economy works? Hello? Is this thing
on? What a dumbass line of questioning.
Such questions evince the remarkable attitute of "how dare those
bastards sell people what they want." The number of people who can't
understand the overwhelming arrogance of that position is amazing.
Companies sell what their customers want to buy, not what the comapny
thinks they should buy. Otherwise, those companies would be out of
business tomorrow. EvilCorp going bankrupt might make someone happy
but it's not how this county's economy works. That is, the happy
person would not be a shreholder.
Oil companies produce petroleum products. That's what they're paid to
do. Car companies produce cars that people want to buy. GM screwed
the pooch: they should have taken the massive profits from selling
SUV's and poured more money into small car R&D. Lack of foresight,
and they got what they deserved for it.
The point, though, is that it's not up to businesses to encourage
people to do what businesses think is right. It's not their job.
--
Dave
knews4...@yahoo.com
> http://iceagenow.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
30,000 Scientists Sue Al Gore.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
z
> On Dec 5, 1:10 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> CO2 rises 800 years after temperatures rise. CO2 falls 800 years
> after temperature rises.
Well, glad you cleared that up for us. It all depends on singular
versus plural, I take it?
disgoftunwells
2008 will be the 10th hottest on record, despite a major La Nina
event!
With El Nino back, next decade is going to be HOT.
Eeyore
disgoftunwells wrote:
No, the climate is predicted to continue cooling until at least 2015.
Graham
Sam Wormley
> No, the climate is predicted to continue cooling until at least 2015.
>
> Graham
>
>
http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg
http://lfcrux.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/global_warming_predictions.jpg
Eeyore
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > No, the climate is predicted to continue cooling until at least 2015.
>
> http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg
> http://lfcrux.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/global_warming_predictions.jpg
Projections based on false data and false computer algorithms. Al Gore ?
Here's the truth.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/05/satellite-derived-sea-level-updated-trend-has-been-shrinking-since-2005/
Satellite derived sea level updated- short term trend has been shrinking since
2005
We’ve been waiting for the UC web page to be updated with the most recent sea
level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady
upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The
60 day line in blue tells the story.
From the University of Colorado web page:
Since August 1992 the satellite altimeters have been measuring sea level on a
global basis with unprecedented accuracy. The TOPEX/POSEIDON (T/P) satellite
mission provided observations of sea level change from 1992 until 2005.
Jason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record
by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an
uncertainty of 3-4 mm.
They also say:
Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the
studies of global climate change. The measurement of long-term changes in
global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by
climate models of global warming. Long term sea level variations are primarily
determined with two different methods.
Yes, I would agree, it is indeed a variable of considerable interest. The
question now is, how is it linked to global climate change (aka global warming)
if CO2 continues to increase, and sea level does not?
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. If the data doesn't match the model, the
model is WRONG !
Graham
Sam Wormley
>
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>> No, the climate is predicted to continue cooling until at least 2015.
>> http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg
>> http://lfcrux.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/global_warming_predictions.jpg
>
> Projections based on false data and false computer algorithms. Al Gore ?
>
> Here's the truth.
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/05/satellite-derived-sea-level-updated-trend-has-been-shrinking-since-2005/
Show a relatively steady increase in mean sea level (MSL) consistent
with global warming.
>
> Satellite derived sea level updated- short term trend has been shrinking since
> 2005
You must be looking at the graph upside down.
>
> We’ve been waiting for the UC web page to be updated with the most recent sea
> level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady
> upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The
> 60 day line in blue tells the story.
>
> From the University of Colorado web page:
>
> Since August 1992 the satellite altimeters have been measuring sea level on a
> global basis with unprecedented accuracy. The TOPEX/POSEIDON (T/P) satellite
> mission provided observations of sea level change from 1992 until 2005.
> Jason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record
> by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an
> uncertainty of 3-4 mm.
>
> They also say:
>
> Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the
> studies of global climate change. The measurement of long-term changes in
> global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by
> climate models of global warming. Long term sea level variations are primarily
> determined with two different methods.
>
> Yes, I would agree, it is indeed a variable of considerable interest. The
> question now is, how is it linked to global climate change (aka global warming)
> if CO2 continues to increase, and sea level does not?
>
> Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. If the data doesn't match the model, the
> model is WRONG !
>
> Graham
>
You oughta bet on this stuff... got lot's o'money?
Eeyore
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>
> >>> No, the climate is predicted to continue cooling until at least 2015.
> >> http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg
> >> http://lfcrux.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/global_warming_predictions.jpg
> >
> > Projections based on false data and false computer algorithms. Al Gore ?
> >
> > Here's the truth.
> > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/05/satellite-derived-sea-level-updated-trend-has-been-shrinking-since-2005/
>
> Show a relatively steady increase in mean sea level (MSL) consistent
> with global warming.
Until recently. The black line is a reference steady increase. Look at the blue line (actual smoothed data).
I suppose you're blind as well as dumb. Religion does that to people.
Graham
Sam Wormley
The line says that MSL in INCREASING at about 3.3 mm per year. Are
You going to argue that 3.2 mm per year or 3.1 mm per year is not
an increase?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Have you gone blind?
The BLUE line shows a DECREASING trend after peaking about 2005.
If the trend reverses again and goes back to +3.2 mm/yr we're talking
about roughly 1 foot every hundred years.
We are all doomed!!!
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Bernd Felsche
>Eeyore wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>> No, the climate is predicted to continue cooling until at least 2015.
>>>>> http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg
>>>>> http://lfcrux.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/global_warming_predictions.jpg
>>>> Projections based on false data and false computer algorithms. Al Gore ?
>>>> Here's the truth.
>>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/05/satellite-derived-sea-level-updated-trend-has-been-shrinking-since-2005/
>>> Show a relatively steady increase in mean sea level (MSL) consistent
>>> with global warming.
>> Until recently. The black line is a reference steady increase.
>> Look at the blue line (actual smoothed data).
>> I suppose you're blind as well as dumb. Religion does that to people.
> The line says that MSL in INCREASING at about 3.3 mm per year. Are
> You going to argue that 3.2 mm per year or 3.1 mm per year is not
> an increase?
It's not the sea level rising: The sky is falling.
The question you should be asking is if that average rise has been
significantly greater than that over the past 10,000 years.
Statistically significant means at least outside 3 standard
deviations of the mean. Anything less isn't even worth throwing
_spare_ cash in that direction.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Science is the belief in
X against HTML mail | the ignorance of the experts.
/ \ and postings | -- Richard Feynman
Sam Wormley
I can pick dozens of point at different time that we decreasing.... so what!
What's the long term trend?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
It depends on what you mean by "long term".
We have no data to the .1mm level other than the last 16 years of satellite
data.
So, in the absense of data, we must be doomed; let's spend lots of
money to fight the possiblility sea levels MAY rise a foot in the
next 100 years.
Eeyore
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> No, the climate is predicted to continue cooling until at least 2015.
> >>>> http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg
> >>>> http://lfcrux.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/global_warming_predictions.jpg
> >>> Projections based on false data and false computer algorithms. Al Gore ?
> >>>
> >>> Here's the truth.
> >>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/05/satellite-derived-sea-level-updated-trend-has-been-shrinking-since-2005/
> >> Show a relatively steady increase in mean sea level (MSL) consistent
> >> with global warming.
> >
> > Until recently. The black line is a reference steady increase. Look at the blue line (actual > smoothed data).
> >
> > I suppose you're blind as well as dumb. Religion does that to people.
>
> The line says that MSL in INCREASING at about 3.3 mm per year. Are
> You going to argue that 3.2 mm per year or 3.1 mm per year is not
> an increase?
Look at the BLUE line (and the satellite data points). It's going DOWN !
Your 'Global Warming' farce is being exposed as LIES by the earth itself.
Graham
Eeyore
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> No, the climate is predicted to continue cooling until at least 2015.
> >>>>> http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg
> >>>>> http://lfcrux.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/global_warming_predictions.jpg
> >>>> Projections based on false data and false computer algorithms. Al Gore ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's the truth.
> >>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/05/satellite-derived-sea-level-updated-trend-has-been-shrinking-since-2005/
> >>> Show a relatively steady increase in mean sea level (MSL) consistent
> >>> with global warming.
> >>
> >> Until recently. The black line is a reference steady increase. Look at the blue line (actual >> smoothed data).
> >>
> >> I suppose you're blind as well as dumb. Religion does that to people.
> >
> > The line says that MSL in INCREASING at about 3.3 mm per year. Are
> > You going to argue that 3.2 mm per year or 3.1 mm per year is not
> > an increase?
>
> Have you gone blind?
>
> The BLUE line shows a DECREASING trend after peaking about 2005.
>
> If the trend reverses again and goes back to +3.2 mm/yr we're talking
> about roughly 1 foot every hundred years.
>
> We are all doomed!!!
Crikey ! A whole FOOT ! I'd commit suicide now.
I'm going to LOVE IT when FoE and Greenpeace get cowpats thrown in their faces for upping taxes, for no earthly reason
other than their 'sackcloth and ashes' mentality, as in we must be guilty !
Graham
Eeyore
Sam Wormley wrote:
> I can pick dozens of point at different time that we decreasing....
Yes, the warminists are very selective about their data points and the conclusions they draw from them. Not to mention
alleged 'anomalies' too when the data doesn't fit their phsychotic, hysterical model.
Graham
Eeyore
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Or they MAY go DOWN ! It's happened in the past but the IPCC don't want to hear such scientific nonsense.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Rising_Sea_Level_Claim_a_Total_Fraud.htm
Graham
Sam Wormley
TRy to think about what is happening now with the extra CO2 in the
atmosphere, much of which has come from fossil fuel burning in the
last 150 years.
See: http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/VD-SS/Week6.html
Burning of Fossil fuel generates 28 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 per year
There is 13.6 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere,
currently 385 ppm and increasing at a rate of 1.66 ppm/yr.
There are a lot more blanking people on the planet these days, so I
suspect there will be more than 28 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 per year
generated in the near term.
Sam Wormley
>
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> I can pick dozens of point at different time that we decreasing.... so what!
>>> What's the long term trend?
>> It depends on what you mean by "long term".
>>
>> We have no data to the .1mm level other than the last 16 years of satellite
>> data.
>>
>> money to fight the possiblility sea levels MAY rise a foot in the
>> next 100 years.
>
> Or they MAY go DOWN ! It's happened in the past but the IPCC don't want to hear such scientific nonsense.
>
> http://www.iceagenow.com/Rising_Sea_Level_Claim_a_Total_Fraud.htm
>
> Graham
>
Some of the predictions:
http://lfcrux.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/global_warming_predictions.jpg
You got grandkids?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Oh, the horror!!!
Think of the Children!!!
Sam Wormley
Gone down lots of times on the graph... What is the longer term
trend? 5 yrs? 10 years?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
So why don't we spend LOTS of money right now just in case there MIGHT
be some sort of problem, maybe?
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?
- Helen Lovejoy
Bill Ward
Especially the really short ones.
T. Keating
wrote:
>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> I can pick dozens of point at different time that we decreasing....
>>
>> Yes, the warminists are very selective about their data points and the conclusions they draw from them. Not to mention
>> alleged 'anomalies' too when the data doesn't fit their phsychotic, hysterical model.
>>
>> Graham
>
> TRy to think about what is happening now with the extra CO2 in the
> atmosphere, much of which has come from fossil fuel burning in the
> last 150 years.
>
> See: http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/VD-SS/Week6.html
>
> Burning of Fossil fuel generates 28 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 per year
Current CO2 number is closer to 30 to 32 Billion Metric tons per
year..
>
> There is 13.6 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere,
> currently 385 ppm and increasing at a rate of 1.66 ppm/yr.
That number is wayyy off..
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI-3299.1&ct=1
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
5.14e+18 kg (dry mass of atmosphere)
* 3.86e-4 (% of CO2) (CO2 makeup 390ppm)
* 44/28.5 (conv ratio) (mass diff between CO2 and N2-O2 mix).
== ~3.06e+15 Kg of CO2
or 3.06 trillion tonns of CO2 in atmosphere.
>
> There are a lot more blanking people on the planet these days, so I
> suspect there will be more than 28 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 per year
> generated in the near term.
Add in serveral natural carbon sinks are are reaching saturation point
and/or becomming CO2 & CH4 Sources.
jmfbahciv
Don't worry. That idiotic Coast to Coast, nee Art Bell, show spent an
hour last night debunking Al Gore's campaign against Western
Civilization. So the politically correct attitude will be turning
in about 2, maybe 3, years. The interviewee did state that
Al Gore's science advisor is an astrophysicist who became
a climatologist. Do these two disciplines have a lot in common?
What was really interesting is the hour they spent interviewing some
guy who scans all the internet chatter for keywords to predict
earthquakes and other disasters. His premise is that the human
mind collective can "sense" an upcoming disaster and will talk
about it before it happens. His software picks this info up
and issues warnings. What a way to herd the stupid into doing
what you want. Since each of these shows produces a thread
in this newsgroup, it will increase the chatter data that is
collected. If this idiot convinces bureaucracies to use the
predictions, the ways of acquiring lucre are infinite.
/BAH
T. Keating
wrote:
>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> I can pick dozens of point at different time that we decreasing....
>>
>> Yes, the warminists are very selective about their data points and the conclusions they draw from them. Not to mention
>> alleged 'anomalies' too when the data doesn't fit their phsychotic, hysterical model.
>>
>> Graham
>
> TRy to think about what is happening now with the extra CO2 in the
> atmosphere, much of which has come from fossil fuel burning in the
> last 150 years.
>
> See: http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/VD-SS/Week6.html
>
> Burning of Fossil fuel generates 28 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 per year
Current CO2 number from mankind's activities is closer to 30 to 32
Billion Metric tons per year..
>
> There is 13.6 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere,
> currently 385 ppm and increasing at a rate of 1.66 ppm/yr.
That number is wayyy off..
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI-3299.1&ct=1
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
5.14e+18 kg (dry mass of atmosphere)
* 3.86e-4 (% of CO2) (CO2 makeup 386ppm)
* 44/28.5 (conv ratio) (mass diff between CO2 and N2-O2 mix).
== ~3.06e+15 Kg of CO2
or 3.06 trillion tonns of CO2 in atmosphere.
>
> There are a lot more blanking people on the planet these days, so I
> suspect there will be more than 28 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 per year
> generated in the near term.
Add in serveral natural carbon sinks are are reaching saturation point
Sam Wormley
Did you forget to convert to moles?
T. Keating
wrote:
Not needed..
The molar(44/28.5) ratio is sufficient to complete the calculation
with reasonable accuracy. .
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> No, the climate is predicted to continue cooling until at least 2015.
> >>>>>> http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg
> >>>>>> http://lfcrux.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/global_warming_predictions.jpg
> >>>>> Projections based on false data and false computer algorithms. Al Gore ?
>
> >>>>> Here's the truth.
Why don't you read his newsletter and see how accurate the predictive
value of language and symbology are?
http://halfpasthuman.com/
Eeyore
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> >> I can pick dozens of point at different time that we decreasing....
> >
> > Yes, the warmingists are very selective about their data points and the conclusions they draw > from them. Not to
> mention alleged 'anomalies' too when the data doesn't fit their phsychotic, > hysterical model.
>
> Try to think about what is happening now with the extra CO2 in the
> atmosphere, much of which has come from fossil fuel burning in the
> last 150 years.
NOTHING ! I see you've been brain washed.
At a time of record CO2 levels, the global temperature is FALLING and the sea level is DROPPING !
Graham
Eeyore
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> I can pick dozens of point at different time that we decreasing.... so what!
> >>> What's the long term trend?
> >> It depends on what you mean by "long term".
> >>
> >> We have no data to the .1mm level other than the last 16 years of satellite
> >> data.
> >>
> >> So, in the absense [sic] of data, we must be doomed; let's spend lots of
> >> money to fight the possiblility sea levels MAY rise a foot in the
> >> next 100 years.
> >
> > Or they MAY go DOWN ! It's happened in the past but the IPCC don't want to hear such scientific nonsense.
> >
> > http://www.iceagenow.com/Rising_Sea_Level_Claim_a_Total_Fraud.htm
>
> Some of the predictions:
> http://lfcrux.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/global_warming_predictions.jpg
>
> You got grandkids?
Ah ! Scaremongering !
Predictions mean ZILCH. Your predictions are based on false data and false models.
Graham
Eeyore
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> >>> I suppose you're blind as well as dumb. Religion does that to people.
> >> The line says that MSL in INCREASING at about 3.3 mm per year. Are
> >> You going to argue that 3.2 mm per year or 3.1 mm per year is not
> >> an increase?
> >
> > Look at the BLUE line (and the satellite data points). It's going DOWN !
> >
> > Your 'Global Warming' farce is being exposed as LIES by the earth itself.
>
> Gone down lots of times on the graph... What is the longer term
> trend? 5 yrs? 10 years?
Try 2000 years.
Sam Wormley
But where will each be five years from now? CO2, MSL an global
temperature.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> Global warming data
> http://geology.com/news/2006/01/global-warming-graph-and-map.html
Sam, you should be radically ashamed.
You have cited one of four major reports of global temperature.
The one that shows the most severe trend, without any of the
discussion of refereed journal articles critiquing this group's
reporting.
You have not cited any of the other reports, two groups of
satt data, nor the Hadley data that is a rework of the same
raw data as NASA GISS, and gets non-trivial differences.
And you have not shown the last six years of data. In particlar,
you have not shown the last *year* of data, which shows a drop
in global temps of 0.7C.
The usually quoted trend in temperature is +0.1C/decade.
How long do you have to wait to see an underlying trend of
1C/century if the *year-to-year* variation is 0.7C? And when
there are clearly multi-decadal oscillations that produce
effects of the same general size.
You should go away and drink a big old glass of fail.
Socks
Puppet_Sock
> Puppet_Sock wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 1:10 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>http://iceagenow.com
> >> See:http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/VD-SS/Week6.html
>
> > Sam, how many times are you going to post this lie?
>
> > CO2 in the paleo record lags temperature changes by 800 years.
> > CO2 rises 800 years after temperatures rise. CO2 falls 800 years
> > after temperature falls. [obvious typo fixed]
>
> What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores
>
> This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is
> worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core
> studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after
> Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced
> warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.
The standard alarmist crap on this issue. Oh, it's only the first 800
years of
the transient, that leaves the other 4200 years that *could* be due to
CO2.
You should be fricking ashamed to even think of offering this Sam.
It's not
only the first 800 years. It's tthe first 800, the last 800, and every
up and
down tick in the transient. It's the fact that the terminatiton of the
transient
occurs when CO2 is *still* rising. It's more than half the transient
where
CO2 and temperature are going in the opposite direction.
CO2 didn't start the transient.
CO2 didn't terminate the transient.
CO2 didn't drive the details of the transient.
At *most*, CO2 is a minor perturbation. And from the data at hand you
can't even tell the sign of that perturbation.
What it tells us is that the paleo CO2-temperature records don't tell
us what effect CO2 has on temperature. The effect is in the noise.
Socks
Puppet_Sock
> Eeyore wrote:
> > No, the climate is predicted to continue cooling until at least 2015.
>
>
> http://geology.com/news/images/global-warming-graph.jpg
> http://lfcrux.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/global_warming_predictions.jpg
Sam, you really should start feeling some shame here.
Again, you cherry pick what temperature data you will
allow into your religious beliefs.
The upper of the predictions on that wordpress page are
already ruled out. Indeed, the lower of them are getting
pretty close to being ruled out at the 2 sigmal level.
If you are going to spew crap about this topic, you really
ought to have your ability to feel shame re-installed.
Socks
knews4...@yahoo.com
> http://iceagenow.com
And 2012 sunspot activity
http://sacredmysteries.com
Sam Wormley
Perhaps you like this data better, Socks:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/moberg-2005-large.jpg
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/moberg.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/jones-mann-2004-large.jpg
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/jones-mann.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/temp.cfm
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/co2-and-temp-trends_013007_092528.gif
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/co2_and_temp.cfm
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/meehl-attribution.gif
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/motemp.cfm
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/ocean-heat-trends.gif
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/ocean.cfm
Let me know when you are on board.
-Sam
Sam Wormley
No predictions this time, just observations:
Sam Wormley
Boy, Socks, there are a lot of cherries to pick these days... the
increasing temperatures and extra CO2 are really pumping out the
cherries... Let me know when you come on board.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/moberg-2005-large.jpg
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/moberg.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/jones-mann-2004-large.jpg
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/jones-mann.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/temp.cfm
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/co2-and-temp-trends_013007_092528.gif
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/co2_and_temp.cfm
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/meehl-attribution.gif
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/motemp.cfm
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/ocean-heat-trends.gif
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/ocean.cfm
Physical Chemist, Fritz Franzen and I have been going over the
basic Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change... trying
to convince ourselves as to what these observations mean... We
are finding there is just no wiggle room and coming to similar
conclusions as the climatologists.
And I gotta tell you... it's a bummer!
Sam Wormley
Physical Chemist, Fritz Franzen and I have been going over the
basic Chemistry and Physics of Global Climate Change... trying
to convince ourselves as to what these observations mean... We
are finding there is just no wiggle room and coming to similar
conclusions as the climatologists.
I wish to draw you attention to:
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/4/4/pdf/i1520-0442-4-4-424.pdf
Infrared Radiation Parameterization in Numerical Climate Models
Ming-Dah Chou, et al
Note that in the 15µm radiation band
CO2 + hv <==> CO2* (excited vibrationally)
followed almost immediately by
CO2* + N2 <==> CO2 + N2* (excited kinetically)
In this fashion carbon dioxide is a catalyst for the conversion of
infrared radiation into thermal kinetic energy, and the atmosphere
is warmer than it would otherwise be.
The point is that the majority of the atmosphere is involved
through this process and vibrationally CO2 does re-radiate
in the 15µm radiation band... and part of the radiation does
heat the surface of the earth.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Yeah, having longer growing seasons in northern latitude places like
the Dakotas, Canada, and Siberia would certainly be a bummer.
And don't forget the sea level rise of 1 foot per century that will
drown us all.
Eeyore
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> >> I can pick dozens of point at different time that we decreasing....
> >
> > Yes, the warminists are very selective about their data points and the conclusions they draw > from them. Not to mention
>
> > alleged 'anomalies' too when the data doesn't fit their phsychotic, hysterical model.
>
>
> TRy to think about what is happening now with the extra CO2 in the
> atmosphere, much of which has come from fossil fuel burning in the
> last 150 years.
>
> See: http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/VD-SS/Week6.html
>
> Burning of Fossil fuel generates 28 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 per year
>
> There is 13.6 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere,
> currently 385 ppm and increasing at a rate of 1.66 ppm/yr.
>
> There are a lot more blanking people on the planet these days, so I
> suspect there will be more than 28 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 per year
> generated in the near term.
So what ? CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas.
Graham
Eeyore
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I can pick dozens of point at different time that we decreasing.... so what!
> >>>>> What's the long term trend?
> >>>> It depends on what you mean by "long term".
> >>>>
> >>>> We have no data to the .1mm level other than the last 16 years of satellite
> >>>> data.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, in the absense [sic] of data, we must be doomed; let's spend lots of
> >>>> money to fight the possiblility sea levels MAY rise a foot in the
> >>>> next 100 years.
> >>> Or they MAY go DOWN ! It's happened in the past but the IPCC don't want to hear such scientific nonsense.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.iceagenow.com/Rising_Sea_Level_Claim_a_Total_Fraud.htm
> >> Some of the predictions:
> >> http://lfcrux.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/global_warming_predictions.jpg
> >>
> >> You got grandkids?
> >
> > Ah ! Scaremongering !
> >
> > Predictions mean ZILCH. Your predictions are based on false data and false models.
>
>
> No predictions this time, just observations:
Sorry, the numbers are running the other way. The whole fundamental hypothesis of CO2 driven global warming is a
crock of unproven shit.
Graham
Eeyore
Sam Wormley wrote:
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/moberg-2005-large.jpg
Sam Wormley
Here's a nice resource that I doubt you will digest, but....
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Eeyore
Q wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> http://iceagenow.com
> >
> > See: http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/VD-SS/Week6.html
>
> All lies used by the skeptics are summarized here,
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
>
> and this particular one comes here:
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
>
> Climate change deniers are liars!
AGWists are liars.
Eeyore
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I can pick dozens of point at different time that we decreasing....
> >>> Yes, the warmingists are very selective about their data points and the conclusions they >>> draw from them. Not to
> mention alleged 'anomalies' too when the data doesn't fit their >>> phsychotic, hysterical model.
> >>
> >> Try to think about what is happening now with the extra CO2 in the
> >> atmosphere, much of which has come from fossil fuel burning in the
> >> last 150 years.
> >
> > NOTHING ! I see you've been brain washed.
> >
> > At a time of record CO2 levels, the global temperature is FALLING and the sea level is > DROPPING !
>
> But where will each be five years from now? CO2, MSL an global
> temperature.
Temperature DEFINITELY down, sea level probably too. Haven't you heard ? Or are you still relying on your religion or
crystal ball ?
Graham
Puppet_Sock
> Puppet_Sock wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 2:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> Global warming data
> >> http://geology.com/news/2006/01/global-warming-graph-and-map.html
>
> > Sam, you should be radically ashamed.
>
> > You have cited one of four major reports of global temperature.
> > The one that shows the most severe trend, without any of the
> > discussion of refereed journal articles critiquing this group's
> > reporting.
And you are *still* clinging to NASA GISS data.
> > You have not cited any of the other reports, two groups of
> > satt data, nor the Hadley data that is a rework of the same
> > raw data as NASA GISS, and gets non-trivial differences.
And you are *still* doing this.
> > And you have not shown the last six years of data. In particlar,
> > you have not shown the last *year* of data, which shows a drop
> > in global temps of 0.7C.
And you steadfastly refuse to look at any data that in any
way diverges from your religion.
> > The usually quoted trend in temperature is +0.1C/decade.
> > How long do you have to wait to see an underlying trend of
> > 1C/century if the *year-to-year* variation is 0.7C? And when
> > there are clearly multi-decadal oscillations that produce
> > effects of the same general size.
>
> > You should go away and drink a big old glass of fail.
> > Socks
>
> Perhaps you like this data better, Socks:
It's the same data there Sammy boy.
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/moberg-2005-
> large...http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/moberg.html
Ends before 2000. Shows two variations of one hockey-stick graph.
Fail.
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/jones-mann-2004
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/jones-mann.html
Two more hockeysticks, this time from the Mann himself.
Also ending before 2000. And debunked pretty thoroughly in
the refereed literature.
The data does not support the level of accuracy that is claimed
in these studies. Plus, if you remove the tree ring data from these
studies (as the US National Academy suggests should be done)
the shape of the curve changes to put the Medieval Warm Period
to be much warmer. Warmer even than 1998.
But the lesson is not that the MWP was so much warmer. The lesson
is that the data does not support adequate accuracy to make the
claim that we can reconstruct climate 1000 years ago with that level
of accuracy. The uncertainy is too large to make such claims.
You fail.
> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trend...
> http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/tem...
More fail, since it does not show the last few years. And it's a
regurge of previous stuff.
> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/co2-and-temp-trends_01300...
> http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/tem...
That's pretty sweet. The temperature is cherry picked to the
1998 peak. And the non-explanations of the bumps up and
down around the curve, previously explained by spurious claims
about "aerosols" and now ruled out by the 10 years of data since
the 1998 peak.
Fail.
> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/meehl-attribution.gif
> http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/tem...
Yet more fail, since the upper curves have now been ruled
out by the *DATA*YOU*REFUSE*TO*SHOW*.
Fail.
> http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/ocean-heat-trends.gif
> http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/tem...
Now show the actual measurements of ocean heat content.
And show them for the last five years. Now notice that it has
been falling.
More fail.
> Let me know when you are on board.
I'm doing science. What is it you think you are doing?
Socks
Eeyore
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
I know ! It could help relieve world hunger for one.
> And don't forget the sea level rise of 1 foot per century that will
> drown us all.
Ah. The depth of a paddling pool.
Graham
marika
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:xXn0l.476464$yE1.53281@attbi_s21...
>
>>
>
> No predictions this time, just observations:
>
>
Source: Science Daily, 10/12/08)
Researchers are homing in on the hurricane-prone Gulf of Mexico and
Caribbean Sea to assess the likely changes, between now and the middle
of the century, in the frequency, intensity, and tracks of these
powerful storms. Initial results are expected early next year.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.,
working with federal agencies as well as the insurance and energy
industries, has launched an intensive study to examine how global
warming will influence hurricanes in the next few decades.
The goal of the project is to provide information to coastal
communities, offshore drilling operations, and other interests that
could be affected by changes in hurricanes.
"This science builds on years of previous investment," said Cliff
Jacobs, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s
Division of Atmospheric Sciences, which is funding the project. "The
outcome of this research will shed light on the relationship between
global warming and hurricanes, and will better inform decisions by
government and industry."
The project relies on an innovative combination of global climate and
regional weather models, run on one of the world's most powerful
supercomputers.
"It's clear from the impacts of recent hurricane activity that we
urgently need to learn more about how hurricane intensity and behavior
may respond to a warming climate," says NCAR scientist Greg Holland,
who is leading the project. "The increasingly dense development along
our coastlines and our dependence on oil from the Gulf of Mexico
leaves our society dangerously vulnerable to hurricanes."
The new study follows two major reports, by the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), that found evidence for a link between global warming and
increased hurricane activity.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Funny, NOAA says hurricane activity has decreased the past few years.
Sam Wormley
Thanks Marika.
NCAR is also researching global climate change on water resources.
-Sam
Sam Wormley
We are not laughing...
These last few years were not good hurricane-wise.
marika
> We are not laughing...
> These last few years were not good hurricane-wise.
>
>
>
so how's denver
it seems almost everyone but 3 people made it this time
mk5000
"And I'm faded,
I'm half the man I thought I would be:
But you can have what's left of me
I've been dying inside"--nick lachey
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
density.
Hurrican frequency goes up and down on a regular basis. We've been
in a down cycle for a few years now.
knews4...@yahoo.com
The Die Off Cometh.
http://rense.com/general84/dieoff.htm
Eeyore
marika wrote:
> The new study follows two major reports, by the U.S. Climate Change
> Science Program (CCSP) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> (IPCC), that found evidence for a link between global warming and
> increased hurricane activity.
I thought this year was a light hurricane year.
Graham
Eeyore
Sam Wormley wrote:
> NCAR is also researching global climate change on water resources.
Good Lord. What will they find to waste money on next ?
Graham
Bernd Felsche
Two factors confound:
1) the ability to detect storms that were previously unrecorded.
2) re-classification of storm intensities.
As for intensity, it's pretty hard to beat that of the hurricane
that wiped out Galveston.
In 1900.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Second to agriculture, humbug is the
X against HTML mail | biggest industry of our age.
/ \ and postings | -- Alfred Nobel
jmfbahciv
Oh, bullshit.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
It was.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> marika wrote:
>
>>> The new study follows two major reports, by the U.S. Climate Change
>>> Science Program (CCSP) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
>>> (IPCC), that found evidence for a link between global warming and
>>> increased hurricane activity.
>
>> I thought this year was a light hurricane year.
>
> Two factors confound:
> 1) the ability to detect storms that were previously unrecorded.
> 2) re-classification of storm intensities.
>
> As for intensity, it's pretty hard to beat that of the hurricane
> that wiped out Galveston.
Galveston gets "wiped out" quite often. Take a look at where
it is located.
When was the last time you heard of a hurricane with the name
which started with the letter Z? It's been more than two decades
since a hurricane crawled up the east coast. We are way overdue.
/BAH
marika
"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
news:gi0bm...@news6.newsguy.com...
from Jim Munley
GLOBAL WEATHER HIGHLIGHTS
NOVEMBER 2008
UNITED STATES
Western and North-Central
Moderate to severe drought were observed across parts of the western and
north-central continental U.S. Meanwhile, severe to extreme drought
conditions were present in the Hawaiian Islands, southern Texas and the
southeastern U.S. Western South Carolina, southwestern North Carolina, and
northeastern Georgia had exceptional drought. As of November 18, 29% of the
western U.S., 16% of the South, 7% of the High Plains, 29% of the Southeast,
and 21% of the contiguous U.S. were in moderate to exceptional drought,
according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.
Severe storms affected eastern North and South Carolina on the 15^th ,
resulting in 11 preliminary reports of tornadoes. In North Carolina, two
fatalities were blamed on the severe weather as the storms raked through the
eastern part of the state. The storms affected six counties, destroying
homes and downing tress and power lines (Associated Press).
ASIA
In northern and central Vietnam, heavy rain which started during the last
week of October, continued the first week of November. The rains generated
devastating floods, claiming over 80 lives, turning streets into rivers,
destroying nearly 600,000 acres of rice and crops, and submerging over
100,000 homes with floodwaters. According to reports, these were the worst
floods to hit Vietnam in 25 years (BBC News).
Flooding triggered by torrential rains affected northern Philippines on
November 17-23, causing six fatalities and submerging over 200 villages. The
copious rain prompted rivers to burst their banks, damaging properties and
crops. It was reported that the provinces of Isabela and Carayan were
declared a state of calamity (BBC News).
AFRICA
In Ethiopia, storms brought heavy rain that caused a river in the country's
highlands to overflow. The floods were responsible for killing 11 people and
6,000 livestock, and destroying nearly 2,500 hectares of crops. More than
100 villages were inundated by the floods (Reuters).
SOUTH AMERICA
Intense rains from November 20-23 affected areas across northern
Venezuela. Devastating floods and deadly mudslides, triggered by the rains,
claimed nine lives and were responsible for leaving hundreds of people
homeless. The heavy rains also prompted several rivers to flow over their
banks, which contributed to the severe flooding, turning streets into rivers
and causing damages to homes and crops (BBC News).
Heavy rain on November 22-24 in southern parts of Brazil brought flooding
and deadly mudslides, which affected 1.5 million people, paralyzed
transportation, and resulted in 84 fatalities. It was reported that most of
the fatalities were caused by mudslides that swept away homes and business.
The heavy rain caused havoc across the region, leaving eight cities isolated
due to overflowing rivers, and prompting the rupture of a pipeline that
carries natural gas from Bolivia to Brazil, leading to gas shortages. Nearly
160,000 people were left without electricity and fresh water supplies
(Associated Press/AFP/Reuters). This event has been described as the
region's worst weather tragedy in history (AFP).
CENTRAL AMERICA
In Panama, flooding caused by heavy rain on November 22 claimed eight lives
and affected over 14,000 people across the country. It was reported that the
floods destroyed millions of dollars worth of crops (AFP).
AUSTRALIA
Severe storms caused havoc across the eastern coast during November 14-16.
The storm's produced hail, strong winds, and heavy rain. The worst hit area
was the city of Brisbane, which was lashed with 129 km/hr (80 mph or 70
knots) winds that downed power lines, leaving nearly 230,000 homes without
power. It was reported that these storms were the most damaging Queensland
has seen in over 25 years (BBC News).
TROPICAL
Hurricane Paloma formed in the Caribbean Sea, off the eastern coast of
Nicaragua, as a tropical depression on November 5. The storm tracked north
as it strengthened from tropical depression to tropical storm and then to a
hurricane. As the storm came close to the Cayman Islands, Paloma was a
Category 3 hurricane. The storm downed power lines, ripped off roofs, and
caused flooding along the eastern and southern coasts of the island (BBC
News/Caymanian Compass). The storm tracked to the east and further
strengthened, reaching its peak intensity of maximum sustained winds near
222 km/hr (138 mph or 120 knots), a Category 4 hurricane, on November 8.
Prior to landfall in Cuba, Paloma weakened to a Category 3 hurricane. On
November 8, the storm made landfall in Santa Cruz del Sur, Cuba with maximum
sustained winds near 193 km/hr (120 mph or 104 knots). Paloma made landfall
in Santa Cruz del Sur, a day before celebrating the 76th anniversary of the
1932 November hurricane, which killed 3,000 people (AFP). Paloma lashed the
western coast with nearly 10-foot-high waves and strong winds that washed
away 50 homes and destroyed 435 homes. Heavy rain produced by the hurricane
caused floods that inundated homes and washed out banana crops (Associated
Press). However, no fatalities were reported. By November 9, Paloma had
weakened into a tropical depression. Hurricane Paloma became the second
strongest November hurricane on record, behind Hurricane Lenny in 1999.
Jim Munley, Jr.;
http://www.geocities.com/jimmunleywx
marika
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4943A09F...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> NCAR is also researching global climate change on water resources.
>
> Good Lord. What will they find to waste money on next ?
>
>
dunno
mk5000
NOVEMBER 2008
1st-8th.Hail and high winds struck the Plains on Wednesday as strong cold
front swept through the region in the afternoon. A local TV station in
Oklahoma reported hail stones 2 and a half inches in diameter in Piedmont
OK, while winds up to 70 mph were reported in the state. In addition to the
damaging winds and hail reported in the region additional storms brought
brief heavy rain and gusty winds to the region from Texas to the western
Great Lakes. In the Northern Plains, a strong low pressure system brought
more steady rain to the region, with some snow reported in the region. Gusty
north winds blew behind the storm system and brought chilly temperatures to
Montana and Wyoming. Wet weather was also reported in the Northwest where a
Pacific storm system slammed into the coast of Oregon. Heavy rain was
reported near the California border, and snowflakes flew in the high
elevations of Northern CA.
Wintry conditions wreak havoc in northern Plains
A wintry blast of punishing wind and more than 3 feet of snow in places
pummeled the Northern Plains on Thursday, knocking out power to thousands
and forcing highways to close. As much as 40 inches of snow fell in higher
elevations of western South Dakota's Black Hills as the early season
blizzard caused havoc. Drifts as deep as 6 feet covered roads in Spearfish.
"It's a raging blizzard out there," said Jeff Schild, a meteorologist with
the National Weather Service office in Rapid City.
Weather problems halted or disrupted traffic on Interstates 80, 90 and 94 in
the Dakotas, Nebraska and Wyoming. In Rapid City, a wind gust of 78 mph was
measured late Wednesday, and gusts of 60 mph were still being reported
Thursday morning. More than 10,000 customers lost power at some point in
Nebraska and South Dakota. In North Dakota, parts of Dunn County received
about 9 inches of snow, the Weather Service said. "The wind is blowing so
hard it's hard to tell how much snow we got," said Terry Sarlsland, street
superintendent in Bowman, N.D. "We got 4-foot drifts in some places." Sharon
Gjermundson, a postmaster in Taylor, N.D., said that about a foot of snow
kept her from punching in at work Thursday, and that she and her husband
were worried about their livestock.
9th-15th.The main weather event took place over the Central and Southern
Plains today. A low pressure system over the Southwest advanced eastward
over the Plains this afternoon. As the system progressed, moisture from the
Gulf of Mexico fueled convective activity. The storm system produced heavy
amounts of rainfall and strong to severe thunderstorms over Texas, Oklahoma
and Kansas. Large hail and strong damaging winds were associated with storms
over Oklahoma and Kansas. Thus far, there have been two reports of hail. The
first was reported in Tillman County, Oklahoma near Grandfield, while the
second came from Stanton County, Kansas. Stanton county reported pea to
quarter size hail near Johnson City. The county also reported a large
tornado sighting about 4 to 5 miles northwest of Johnson City. Thus far no
associated damages have been reported. Central Texas has been placed under a
tornado watch due to severe storm development.
A series of cold fronts swept through the Mississippi Valley on Wednesday
and brought heavy rain and thunderstorms to the region. The first frontal
system drew abundant moisture from the Gulf of Mexico to drop heavy rains
along the Gulf Coast. Southern Mississippi and Louisiana saw up to an inch
of rain Wednesday. Further north, the second of the two fronts produced wet
weather from Missouri and Arkansas up the Ohio river into the Great Lakes
and Central Appalachians. The Northwest saw more vigorous precipitation as a
cold front moved off the Pacific into the region. heavy rain was reported up
to around 8000 feet with snow above that level.
As a tornado ripped through his North Carolina neighborhood, Curt Jernigan
huddled in his bathroom, praying for the raging winds to spare him on
Saturday. When Jernigan emerged from the home, he met a neighbor, his face
covered in blood, who pleaded with him to help search for his wife. She had
gone missing in the confusion of the storm. The 41-year-old Jernigan agreed
to help out, but said he knew the effort to find the woman alive would be
fruitless. "When I saw what he had in his yard, I knew it wasn't going to be
a rescue _ it was a recovery. It's just devastation," Jernigan said. His
grim thought proved correct. State police said his neighbor, Maryland Gomez,
who was in her 60s, was one of two people killed by tornadoes and severe
weather that swept across central North Carolina early Saturday. Gomez's
body was found amid the rubble that was once her home in Kenly, a community
about 35 miles southeast of Raleigh, said state police spokeswoman Patty
McQuillan. In neighboring Wilson County, authorities said a child also was
killed. Several people were injured in the cluster of strong storms that hit
some six counties. The only thing left standing of Gomez's home was her
front porch, one of at least a half-dozen houses destroyed by the storms
that also knocked down trees and power lines. Residents emerged at daybreak
to find their homes in ruins, cars flipped over and debris strewn about.
16th-22nd.A low pressure system tracked across the Great Lakes on Wednesday
and triggered light lake effect snow in the northern regions of Wisconsin,
Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania. A few inches of snow fell in Boyne
City, Michigan MI, while higher elevations of Michigan's Upper Peninsula saw
8 to 10 inches of snow.
Cold air flowing into the Great Lakes in combination with northwesterly
winds provided steady lake effect snow on the east side of the Great Lakes
on Friday. Upwards of a foot of snow fell in some areas from the Ohio Valley
through western New York. Cold air encompassed much of the northeastern
portion of the country.
marika
possibly if you talk about coastal us only but even then I seem to remember
Texas being under water an awful long time this summer
mk5000
marika
"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>
> When was the last time you heard of a hurricane with the name
> which started with the letter Z?
I think the last time was the year Katrina hit.
I could be wrong
That was the year they had to resort to letters only because there were so
many
>It's been more than two decades
> since a hurricane crawled up the east coast. We are way overdue.
> )
Are you serious?
This year, hurricane Kyle crawled all the way up to Maine, in his argyle
socks and loafers (stole that from Willie Geist on Morning Joe).
I've lived in DC during the summers now since 03, I remember several such
crawling wonders, including the one that hit my first year here that also
shut down all of Richmond for some time
mk5000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pB2NtrbVdc
marika
>
>
>
> Ah ! Scaremongering !
>
> Predictions mean ZILCH. Your predictions are based on false data and false
> models.
>
if predictions mean zilch then what difference does it make what sort of
data and models they are based on. Here, according to you, you could use a
meat thermometer and the prediction would be worth the same
mk5000
How unusual cells may hold key to HIV control
Dec. 4, 2008
Courtesy Cell Press
and World Science staff
Rare peo計le who man苔ge to con負rol HIV on their own are of苯er虹ng
sci苟n負ists new ideas on how to sti衫u衍ate the im衫une sys負em to kill
vi訃us-in苯ected cells. A new study iden負i苯ies spe苞if虹c qual虹負ies of
the im衫une cells that suc苞ess苯ully de貞troy in苯ected cells and may drive
strate茆ies for de赳el觔p虹ng new HIV vac苞ines and ther苔計ies.
The rare in苓i赳id赴苔ls dubbed "long-term non計ro茆res貞ors" are able to
con負ain HIV, the vi訃us be虐ind AIDS, for many years with觔ut treat衫ent.
Ev虹苓ence sug茆ests cer負ain vi訃us-spe苞if虹c im衫une cells, called CD8+ T
cells, con苯er this abil虹ty by de貞troying vi訃us-in苯ected cell貞-but how
re衫ains un虺nown, said sen虹or study au負hor Mark Con要ors of the Na負ional
In貞ti負ute of Al衍er茆y and In苯ec負ious Dis苟ase in Be負hes苓a, Md.
marika
"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
> Don't worry. That idiotic Coast to Coast, nee Art Bell, show spent an
> hour last night debunking Al Gore's campaign against Western
> Civilization. So the politically correct attitude will be turning
> in about 2, maybe 3, years. The interviewee did state that
> Al Gore's science advisor is an astrophysicist who became
> a climatologist. Do these two disciplines have a lot in common?
>
> What was really interesting is the hour they spent interviewing some
> guy who scans all the internet chatter for keywords to predict
> earthquakes and other disasters. His premise is that the human
> mind collective can "sense" an upcoming disaster and will talk
> about it before it happens. His software picks this info up
> and issues warnings. What a way to herd the stupid into doing
> what you want. Since each of these shows produces a thread
> in this newsgroup, it will increase the chatter data that is
> collected. If this idiot convinces bureaucracies to use the
> predictions, the ways of acquiring lucre are infinite.
>
if it is possible for the human mind to be rewired to imagine it is an
inanimate object, then surely the same can be done on a grander scale with
the hivemind
mk5000
Scientists produce illusion of body-swapping
Dec. 2, 2008
Courtesy Karolinska Institute
and World Science staff
In anoth苟r ex計e訃i衫ent, the cam苟ra was mount苟d on負o anoth苟r per貞on's
head. When this per貞on and the sub虻ect turned to趴ards each oth苟r to
shake hands, the sub虻ect per苞eived the cam苟r苔-wear苟r's body as his or
her own.
"The sub虻ects see them貞elves shak虹ng hands from the out貞ide, but
ex計erience it as anoth苟r per貞on," said Va衍e訃ia Petkova, who con苓ucted
the study with Ehrs貞on. "The sen貞o訃y im計res貞ion from the hand-shake is
per苞eived as though com虹ng from the new body, rath苟r than the sub虻ec負's
own."
The strength of the il衍u貞ion was con苯irmed by the sub虻ects' ex虐ibit虹ng
stress re苔c負ions when a knife was held to the cam苟ra wear苟r's arm but
not when it was held to their own, in赳es負i茆a負ors said. The il衍u貞ion
al貞o worked even when the two peo計le dif苯ered in ap計earance or were of
dif苯er苟nt sexes. How苟v苟r, it was要't pos貞i苑le to fool people in負o
iden負i苯y虹ng with a non-humanoid ob虻ect, such as a chair or a large
block, the re貞earch苟rs not苟d.
Eeyore
marika wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > Ah ! Scaremongering !
> >
> > Predictions mean ZILCH. Your predictions are based on false data and false
> > models.
>
> if predictions mean zilch then what difference does it make what sort of
> data and models they are based on. Here, according to you, you could use a
> meat thermometer and the prediction would be worth the same
Pretty much true actually. A crystal ball would look nicer though. The models
are borked to hell.
Graham
Sam Wormley
Year before last the named storms started into the Greek letters.
Bernd Felsche
>>> I can pick dozens of point at different time that we decreasing....
>> Yes, the warminists are very selective about their data points
>> and the conclusions they draw from them. Not to mention alleged
>> 'anomalies' too when the data doesn't fit their phsychotic,
>> hysterical model.
> TRy to think about what is happening now with the extra CO2 in the
> atmosphere, much of which has come from fossil fuel burning in the
> last 150 years.
> See: http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/VD-SS/Week6.html
Piece of recycled garbage.
> Burning of Fossil fuel generates 28 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 per year
> There is 13.6 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere,
> currently 385 ppm and increasing at a rate of 1.66 ppm/yr.
And there were 400+ppm in the atmosphere during the middle of the
19th Century. Measured directly using accurate, chemical methods.
No proxy required. Measurements by chemical means continued right
through to the 1940's. The figures (from 10s of thousands of
measurements) were published in peer-reviewed journals at the time.
Low CO2 levels in pre-industrial times are myth. Keeling and
Callendar seem to have deliberately ignored published papers; well
over 100 of them; when they came up with their half-baked theories.
Keeling eliminated much of the historical data (he referred to only
a small subset of the then-available literature on the subject) that
did not fit his theory; calling those data "outliers". Keeling
used some historical data obtained by chemical means to support his
theory. Those data were obtained by a flawed experimental technique;
giving rise to 30+% error instead of the less than 3% were the
measurements to be done properly. And those data were demonstrably
flawed as they did not pass testing for sensible results such as
showing diurnal fluctuations.
> There are a lot more blanking people on the planet these days,
> so I suspect there will be more than 28 Billion Metric Tons of
> CO2 per year generated in the near term.
Natural processes release over 200 Gt of CO2 per year. 10 to 20
times more than the burning of fossil fuels.
And what is there to worry about?
<http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/ipcc_oven.html>
Bernd Felsche
>On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:52:33 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
>wrote:
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> There are a lot more blanking people on the planet these days, so I
>> suspect there will be more than 28 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 per year
>> generated in the near term.
>Add in serveral natural carbon sinks are are reaching saturation point
>and/or becomming CO2 & CH4 Sources.
Saturation point? Oceans are not sterile flasks of saline solution.
CO2 has, since there was life in the oceans, been sequestered by
life in the oceans. Some of it bound as carbon in the food chain;
some of it eventually forming rocks (carbonates).
CO2 levels have been measured directly at levels exceeding those
claimed for today.
CO2 concentrations are naturally regional and temporal. They vary
about +/- 100ppm across the surface of the globe. It is nothing like
well-mixed. Diurnal fluctuations (i.e. daily) are far greater than
the average yearly increase since 1960.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Whoopeee!
Unlike an "average global temperature" which is subject to so many
uncertainties to make the whole concept ludicrous, hurricane frequency
is a simple count; if there is a hurricane, increment the count by one.
Granted that before satellites a hurricane could form in the middle
of the ocean and never be seen, but the ones making landfall for the
last couple of hundred years have all been seen.
The data from NOAA, who is charged with counting such things, shows
nothing in the slightest bit unusual about the number or magnitude
of hurricanes in recent history.
The name applied to a hurricane is a red herring as names are retired
and the list of names changes.
Bernd Felsche
>"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>news:gi0bm...@news6.newsguy.com...
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Funny, NOAA says hurricane activity has decreased the past few years.
>>> We are not laughing...
>>> These last few years were not good hurricane-wise.
>> Oh, bullshit.
>from Jim Munley
>GLOBAL WEATHER HIGHLIGHTS
>NOVEMBER 2008
>AUSTRALIA
>Severe storms caused havoc across the eastern coast during November 14-16.
>The storm's produced hail, strong winds, and heavy rain. The worst hit area
>was the city of Brisbane, which was lashed with 129 km/hr (80 mph or 70
>knots) winds that downed power lines, leaving nearly 230,000 homes without
>power. It was reported that these storms were the most damaging Queensland
>has seen in over 25 years (BBC News).
So, how is that unusual?
<http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/cyclone/about/cyclones-eastern.shtml#history>
Eeyore
Bernd Felsche wrote:
> "marika" <marik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
> >> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>> Funny, NOAA says hurricane activity has decreased the past few years.
>
> >>> We are not laughing...
> >>> These last few years were not good hurricane-wise.
>
> >> Oh, bullshit.
>
> >from Jim Munley
> >GLOBAL WEATHER HIGHLIGHTS
> >NOVEMBER 2008
>
> >AUSTRALIA
>
> >Severe storms caused havoc across the eastern coast during November 14-16.
> >The storm's produced hail, strong winds, and heavy rain. The worst hit area
> >was the city of Brisbane, which was lashed with 129 km/hr (80 mph or 70
> >knots) winds that downed power lines, leaving nearly 230,000 homes without
> >power. It was reported that these storms were the most damaging Queensland
> >has seen in over 25 years (BBC News).
>
> So, how is that unusual?
Shit happens ! I suppose the Green God would stop that ?
Graham
jmfbahciv
>
> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
> news:gi0bu...@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>
>> When was the last time you heard of a hurricane with the name
>> which started with the letter Z?
>
> I think the last time was the year Katrina hit.
> I could be wrong
> That was the year they had to resort to letters only because there were
> so many
>
>> It's been more than two decades
>> since a hurricane crawled up the east coast. We are way overdue.
>> )
>
> Are you serious?
Yes.
>
> This year, hurricane Kyle crawled all the way up to Maine, in his argyle
> socks and loafers (stole that from Willie Geist on Morning Joe).
It wasn't a hurricane by the time it got to (where?) North Carolina
or so.
>
> I've lived in DC during the summers now since 03, I remember several
> such crawling wonders, including the one that hit my first year here
> that also shut down all of Richmond for some time
They weren't hurricanes. Go check the definitions.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
>
> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
> news:ghr8b...@news6.newsguy.com...
>> Don't worry. That idiotic Coast to Coast, nee Art Bell, show spent an
>> hour last night debunking Al Gore's campaign against Western
>> Civilization. So the politically correct attitude will be turning
>> in about 2, maybe 3, years. The interviewee did state that
>> Al Gore's science advisor is an astrophysicist who became
>> a climatologist. Do these two disciplines have a lot in common?
>>
>> What was really interesting is the hour they spent interviewing some
>> guy who scans all the internet chatter for keywords to predict
>> earthquakes and other disasters. His premise is that the human
>> mind collective can "sense" an upcoming disaster and will talk
>> about it before it happens. His software picks this info up
>> and issues warnings. What a way to herd the stupid into doing
>> what you want. Since each of these shows produces a thread
>> in this newsgroup, it will increase the chatter data that is
>> collected. If this idiot convinces bureaucracies to use the
>> predictions, the ways of acquiring lucre are infinite.
>>
>
>
> if it is possible for the human mind to be rewired to imagine it is an
> inanimate object, then surely the same can be done on a grander scale
> with the hivemind
<snip>
since most of the Coast to Coast anal subjects end up being discussed
here for hundreds of posts, the "counting" of the subject will increase
dramatically enough for the software to flag it as a "prediction".
This is obviously an attempt to create an artificial verification
for their junk. this program tries to start a global panic every
three months or so because it increases ratings and they also
can sell their newsletters and whatever other materials were
getting sold with each subject's broadcast.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
I asked JMF to get me one of those for a Christmas present. One was
in the intro of one of Burke's programs. I decided that staring at
one would help me be able to visualize how light bends without having
to repeat my physics class again and again.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
count.
/BAH
T. Keating
<ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:52:33 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>> There are a lot more blanking people on the planet these days, so I
>>> suspect there will be more than 28 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 per year
>>> generated in the near term.
>
>>Add in serveral natural carbon sinks are are reaching saturation point
>>and/or becomming CO2 & CH4 Sources.
>
>Saturation point? Oceans are not sterile flasks of saline solution.
>CO2 has, since there was life in the oceans, been sequestered by
>life in the oceans. Some of it bound as carbon in the food chain;
>some of it eventually forming rocks (carbonates).
Earth's long natural equilibrium is roughly matched to the long term
average emissions by volcanos.
Approximately 200 million tongs of CO2 per year..
Mankind's activities are currently dumping over 30 Billion tongs of
CO2 into the atmosphere.
Currently the natural cycle is storing approximately 47% of that
excess CO2 emission. (That percentage is dropping year by year).
>CO2 levels have been measured directly at levels exceeding those
>claimed for today.
Exactly what has been Directly measured.. By whom???
Relevance??, I'll bet CO2 levels are lot higher in a can of soda pop
or beer.
In the distance past, (NOT A DIRECT MEASUREMENT), Earth had very high
CO2 levels and was nearly lifeless at the time.
>CO2 concentrations are naturally regional and temporal. They vary
>about +/- 100ppm across the surface of the globe. It is nothing like
>well-mixed. Diurnal fluctuations (i.e. daily) are far greater than
>the average yearly increase since 1960.
So what, Our increasing rate of our emissions is steadily dwarfing
Earth's ability of earth to store those emissions. (Now absorbing
less than half(47%) of our CO2 emissions.
Earth's storage of this CO2 excess is by no means permanent or without
consequences. Warmer water holds less CO2 than cold water, and CO2 in
water forms carbonic acid. Higher concentrations lowers the Ocean Ph
levels and inhibits invertebrate shell formation.
marika
"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
> marika wrote:
>>
>> This year, hurricane Kyle crawled all the way up to Maine, in his argyle
>> socks and loafers (stole that from Willie Geist on Morning Joe).
>
> It wasn't a hurricane by the time it got to (where?) North Carolina
> or so.
>
I don't remember it near North Carolina. That's why it was remarkable to
me. I remembered the joke more than the facts. But
Feel free to dispute this with Wiki rather than me. according to it
"It made landfall in Nova Scotia as a Category 1 hurricane late on September
28"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Kyle_(2008)
Nova Scotia is East Coast and Category 1 hurricane is still a hurricane
>>
>> I've lived in DC during the summers now since 03, I remember several such
>> crawling wonders, including the one that hit my first year here that also
>> shut down all of Richmond for some time
>
> They weren't hurricanes. Go check the definitions.
>
I remember being in the middle of it, and not being able to leave quarters
for three days, my office in Northern Virginia was closed for 5. They
called it a hurricane then and According to this, Hurricane Isabel was a
hurricane. When it made East Coast landfall it weakened, to approximately a
category 2.