Who was it said the planet was cooling?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: The Crest Re-Opens!
Next: Solstice Party
From: Keith on 9 Dec 2009 15:25 "S'mee" <stevenkeith2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:d8812f37-d3fc-4bb0-91dd-631143d69ea3(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.co m: > i know...but I couldn't remember the name AND it isn't confirmed. > Like you said "MAY make the Marianas trench the second deepest > place on earth" I await the results...but I am most assuredly NOT > holding my breath. Just wait a while; a certain someone will Google it and hence become an expert, then tell how his ancestors found it and in fact participated in the digging of it. -Keith '03 Blackbird
From: J. Clarke on 9 Dec 2009 15:47 Keith wrote: > "S'mee" <stevenkeith2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in > news:d8812f37-d3fc-4bb0-91dd-631143d69ea3(a)y32g2000prd.googlegroups.co > m: > >> i know...but I couldn't remember the name AND it isn't confirmed. >> Like you said "MAY make the Marianas trench the second deepest >> place on earth" I await the results...but I am most assuredly NOT >> holding my breath. > > Just wait a while; a certain someone will Google it and hence become > an expert, then tell how his ancestors found it and in fact > participated in the digging of it. Flashing on headlines--"bathyscaphe dives to deepest point in ocean--finds skinhead strapped unused Harley--foul play applauded". Well, one can dream.
From: Beav on 9 Dec 2009 18:48 "Road Glidin' Don" <d.langkd(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0f7a3831-e347-4cef-bd2f-0b8d9592751b(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... On Dec 8, 12:23 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > Twibil <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 8, 8:37 am, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > Pah! American chilli - weak, insipid stuff, barely worthy of the name. > > > I have to serve mine in a Faraday cage..... > > > Your poor excuse for chili needs to be shielded from electromagnetic > > fields? > > > Good strong American Chili (note caps) puts out an EMP strong enough > > to scramble brains at three feet, and *melts* Faraday cages. > > Oh yeah? Well, the last time I made mine they scrambled fighter jets. > F18s. In the USA, three thousand miles away... > > ...and I was told it contravened several bacteriological warfare > treaties. >The Brits must make the strongest chili. Look what it's done to their >teeth! I'd best stay away from chili then, or it may turn my teeth into flourescent white. -- Beav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19
From: Rob Kleinschmidt on 9 Dec 2009 19:12 On Dec 8, 12:53 pm, "Stephen!" <N...(a)spam.com> wrote: > FYI... There is a recent discovery that may make the Marianas Trench the > second deepest place on earth. Cite ?
From: don (Calgary) on 9 Dec 2009 19:13
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. It didn't, and even the global warming advocates cannot explain why. If there is a definitive link between greenhouse gasses and global warming, why did the rise in temperatures stop and in fact drop slightly. If it is a cause and effect, I'd like to see the effect. I have read and heard the explanations for the recent moderation in the warming trend. Explanations like El Nina and El Nino or sun spot activity. I can buy that, but the GW advocates can't have it both ways. It can't be man made when the temperature rises, and activity on the surface of the sun when the temperature falls. They can't make a big issue about the rise in temperature during the 90's and then pretend the moderation in the 2000's is too short a period of time to be of any importance. We could talk about what the appropriate time frame would be to gauge a "trend" and I doubt the experts would agree. Is it a year, a decade, a century? Maybe even longer. Add to the above noted contradictions, recent events that seem to indicate the climate data was fudged in order to make the models indicate a preferred result. Further the peer review process was certainly subverted, some might even say corrupted. Factor in the deliberate withholding of scientific data and the destruction of a significant part of it, and it serves to raise my BS radar. 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. It doesn't take a suspicious mind to ask for a time out, before allowing the GW advocates to pick our pockets. Many of the developed nations, the US included, are demanding tangible and measurable reductions in GG be a condition of the climate subsidy. But some developing nations have resisted these demands, arguing that financial subsidies from the rich world should be seen as �reparations� for the damage that industrialized countries have wrought through their output of greenhouse gases. Given that line of thought the massive transfer of money would do nothing to actually reduce green house gasses. It would just be a gift to a bunch of tin pot dictators to feather their own nests. Am I the only one asking WHY? China will be one of the recipients of the funds. They went to Copenhagen with a program to reduce green house gas intensities and were praised for their innovation. Alberta has had a program to control intensities, with financial penalties attached for the companies that do not meet their targets, for years. Of course we get crucified for the program. >> >> I will repeat the quote, as reported, from Kevin E. Trenberth, head of >> the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric >> Research, �The fact is we can�t account for the lack of warming at the >> moment and it is a travesty that we can�t.� >> >> A travesty! That is a strong word. >> >> So despite the "polluters" of the world pumping increasing amounts of >> greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, temperatures dropped slightly >> over the last ten years. Why? > >See above. See above. > > The fact even global warming advocates >> like Mr. Trenberth do not know is a little disconcerting. Especially >> when these same advocates are attempting to siphon hundreds of >> billions of dollars from our economies, to be given to developing >> countries, all in the name of Global Warming. >> >> It appears it is less about the science than it is about a cash grab. >> And that is a travesty. > >I don't think anyone's denying that the planet has been getting >warmer, overall, on average, over the last century and a half. Unless >you are? Whether it's man-made or not: ah, that's the question. The other question is, what will the impact of a warmer planet be? I don't buy all of the sky is falling scenarios. Why are all of the potential impact predictions negative? If the planet was cooling, would all of the impacts be positive? If the same people were making the predictions, I doubt it. Then you have to recognize the climate is always changing. We should be worried if it wasn't. There is much to learn on this topic and the science is not in. |