Who was it said the planet was cooling?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: The Crest Re-Opens!
Next: Solstice Party
From: don (Calgary) on 9 Dec 2009 23:45 On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:30:22 +1300, BrianNZ <brian(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote: > >There is all this talk of sea levels rising due to the melted water, >flooding some sand-bar islands and wrecking coastal areas..... You need to do the math with respect to the melting ice and rising sea levels. Take the amount of glacier ice projected to melt over the next hundred years and spread it over the world oceans and see what the increase will be. I haven't done that since Al Gore broadcast the numbers in his movie, but when I did, using Gore's numbers I came to something like 25 or 35mm. Now that is way too simple of a rebuttal to the potential damage that could be caused by a massive melt of glacier ice, but it served to illustrate how misleading Gore's statements were. Changes in ocean temperature, PH, salinity and currents are potentially of far more concern than just the rising level of the ocean. ><moving >into 'what-if' land>.....what if the melted water ended up as clouds due >to the warmer temperatures and evaporation instead of in the oceans? >Would there be rain in what are today deserts? Would more rain and >warmer temps be better for food production to end starvation? Or would >the clouds block the sun and start a 'cooling cycle'? In fact water vapour is, by far the most prominent greenhouse gas. Your point should be taken though. Warmer temperatures may mean a change, but not necessarily a negative change.
From: Stephen Cowell on 10 Dec 2009 00:12 <.p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote .... > 400 PPM = 0.04 %. A 'natural' level might be supposed to half of > that, or 200 PPM, or 0.02 % of the atmosphere, thus leaving man > possibly responsible for a 0.02 % change in the gaseous mixture. Er, that would be a 100% change, Elwood. __ Steve ..
From: .p.jm. on 10 Dec 2009 00:31 On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:45:25 -0500, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: >.p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:13:48 GMT, "don (Calgary)" <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:13:53 -0800 (PST), "TOG(a)Toil" >>> <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9 Dec, 13:37, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:15:30 +0000, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk >>>>> (The >>>>> >>>>> Older Gentleman) wrote: >>>>>> don (Calgary) <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Not much new in that article. >>>>> >>>>>>> What we have seen in the past decade is a plateau in the rising >>>>>>> temperature and in fact very slight cooling. >>>>> >>>>>> Not what it says in the article, mind. >>>>> >>>>>> "The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since >>>>>> instrumental records began" >>>>> >>>>> But what it doesn't say is since 1998 the rise in temperatures >>>>> stopped and in fact dropped slightly. This is not inconsistent >>>>> with also saying the last decade is the warmest since instrumental >>>>> records began. >>>>> >>>>> It is warm, but against all of the models, temperatures plateaued >>>>> and dropped slightly from 98 to 2008. >>>> >>>> So? The trend has been for steady warming for a long time. You're >>>> going to get a downward blip every so often. Like we said, a time >>>> period of a lustrum or a decade isn't enough to draw any long-term >>>> conclusions. A century is more like it, but in geological times, >>>> it's an eye-blink. >>> >>> The problem I have is the models of the 1990's predicted the planet >>> would continue to warm. >> >> And further, CO2 is supposedly at ~ 400 PPM right now ( >> rounded up ) >> >> I say 'supposedly', because even that is in question >> >> http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html >> >> It seems the modern CO2 data is hugely suspect, too ! >> >> But, skip that - >> >> 400 PPM = 0.04 %. A 'natural' level might be supposed to half of >> that, or 200 PPM, or 0.02 % of the atmosphere, thus leaving man >> possibly responsible for a 0.02 % change in the gaseous mixture. >> >> >>> Then adding insult to the entire process, the focus of Copenhagen is >>> to charge developed countries a climate deficit levy. A levy said to >>> equal hundreds of billions of dollars. Dollars to be transferred to >>> developing countries. >> >> PER YEAR ! To be continued for no less than 20 years, easily >> 40. > >So is China a "developed" country or a "developing" country under >Copenhagen? 'Developing', poor babies :-) > >>> It doesn't take a suspicious mind to ask for a time out, before >>> allowing the GW advocates to pick our pockets. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/ Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
From: .p.jm. on 10 Dec 2009 00:38 On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 23:12:55 -0600, "Stephen Cowell" <stephenleeNOSPAMcowell(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ><.p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote >... >> 400 PPM = 0.04 %. A 'natural' level might be supposed to half of >> that, or 200 PPM, or 0.02 % of the atmosphere, thus leaving man >> possibly responsible for a 0.02 % change in the gaseous mixture. > >Er, that would be a 100% change, Elwood. >__ >Steve >. > Err, wrong, Elwood. I'm talking, as you well know, about the change in the TOTAL mixture, not in 'just the CO2 portion'. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/ Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
From: Stephen Cowell on 10 Dec 2009 01:01
<.p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote > <stephenleeNOSPAMcowell(a)gmail.com> wrote: >><.p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote >>... >>> 400 PPM = 0.04 %. A 'natural' level might be supposed to half of >>> that, or 200 PPM, or 0.02 % of the atmosphere, thus leaving man >>> possibly responsible for a 0.02 % change in the gaseous mixture. >> >>Er, that would be a 100% change, Elwood. >> > > Err, wrong, Elwood. I'm talking, as you well know, about the > change in the TOTAL mixture, not in 'just the CO2 portion'. Just another way to hide the data... as if the 'TOTAL mixture' meant anything scientific. But perhaps you slept in a Holiday Inn Select last night? __ Steve .. |