wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural
cycles
of earth, or something else?

Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using
sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere
near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what
is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps,
etc.

How much is man to blame?

An awful lot.

10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it?

Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet.

It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming.

What caused this
warming?

Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute
to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass.

Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of
ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE.

The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions.

Horse****.

Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease?
Stick to the subject.


Just as much evidence that man's hand is causing the global warming as there
is that we are causing the magnetic field decrease. Very little. Krakatoa
in Indonesia almost killed the prairie settlers of the time. Caused a 3
year dip in temps where they had snow in July in the midwest and the crops
failed. All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming. The Kyoto Agreement was done by 99% non-hard science
people. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from
rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming. Burning too
much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the
temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun goes
through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global
warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove it!!

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970.

Not really.

Apparently you were not able to recall a missive, the rallying point of
the enviros, called "The Population Bomb", was quite a best seller in the
60's. Most of us were going to be dead by now. You remember, food
riots and starvation not obesity was to be the crisis. Here are a couple
of quotes I got off Amazon....

1. on Page 39: "... in the average temperature of the Earth could be
very serious. With a few degrees of cooling , a new ice age might be upon
us, with rapid and drastic effects on the agricultural productivity of
the temperate regions. With a few ..." 2. on Page 60: "... effect was
obviously beyond the worst DOD projections-too much crap injected into
the stratosphere." "I think we've probably started an ice age spiral, but
it won't make much difference to us." ..."

I bet they have a copy at the library. Perhaps you should take a walk
down memory lane and read it.

del

... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970.

Not really.


Del Cecchi wrote:
Apparently you were not able to recall a missive, the rallying point of
the enviros

Actually, I do remember it. Perhaps I should have explained a little
better... it's not the same people, and not the same argument.

In fact, the ice age predicters might not have been wrong... we might be
entering an ice age, except for pollution & greenhouse gasses. If you
don't believe in global warming, or believe that it's due to completely
unknown sources, then you can't dismiss that possibility.


I bet they have a copy at the library. Perhaps you should take a walk
down memory lane and read it.

perhaps you should stop and ask yourself, 'does the increased caribou
population really mean that we can go ahead and destroy the arctic,
too?' Maybe you should ask yourself if Vice President Cheney doesn't
have a teensy little motive *other* than the good of the nation.

Got kids? Grandkids?

DSK

Chuck,
Damn it Gould, please stop ruining this NG with topics concerning boating
and the ocean. This NG is for political posts and flame fest. I am willing
to let this post slide, but next time I am reporting you to your ISP.


wrote in message
oups.com...
An email this morning reads:

Chuck

I thought you may be interested in this detailed ocean/global warming
piece we just sent to our members since this topic is really heating
up.

You might think an angelfish in the waters off Massachusetts is one
confused and chilly little tropical critter, unless you know that
scientists have watched ocean temperatures rising since 1975. Check out
the new seven-part web feature on oceans and human-caused climate
change, featuring our own scientists and Doug's son Chris Rader, a
marine biologist in the Florida Keys. The feature gives you a run-down
of solutions and science, including the basics of glaciers, ecosystems
and the ocean's "conveyor belt." What were you doing the year that
corals were bleaching in nearly every ocean during the warmest 12-month
span on record? Piece -
http://www.oceansalive.org/explore.c...contentID=4704.

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural
cycles
of earth, or something else?

Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using
sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere
near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what
is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps,
etc.

How much is man to blame?

An awful lot.

10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it?

Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet.

It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming.

What caused this
warming?

Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute
to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass.

Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of
ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE.

The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions.

Horse****.

Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease?
Stick to the subject.


All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming.

heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!!





. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from

rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming.

Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may
cause a particular body of water to warm.
Burning too
much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the
temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun goes
through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global
warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove it!!

It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!:

New proof that man has caused global warming
From Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent, in Washington





The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by
human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in
the world's oceans.



The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an
average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be
explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new
research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about
the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study
said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over,
at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it
right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great
to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

In the study, Dr Barnett's team examined more than seven million
observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the
world's oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted
by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.

It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in
solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as
alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the
data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of
greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.


Then read this:

The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster
by Steve Connor

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made
greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The
researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they
describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean
temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.

The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within
the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural
phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to
the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said:
"We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a
global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about
it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world
has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are
the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over
the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary
system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly
into the oceans."

He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in
Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the
oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a
fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer
simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the
climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no.

"We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects
could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely
nailed it was greenhouse warming."

America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under
President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have
signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers
have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties
and change might be a natural phenomenon.

Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear
from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made
greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the
oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to
re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage
to join," he said.

The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met
Office's Hadley Center.

They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from
around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity,
and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to
predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming.

"Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed
warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of
similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a
politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations
start to question whether we can believe in these models', that
argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have
increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on
depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has
gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over
the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000
years... It's come from greenhouse warming."

Those two articles should at least get your brain to work enough to
realize that the hand of man is, indeed bad for the earth. If not, let
me know, there's thousands and thousands of articles to back up the
fact.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the natural
cycles
of earth, or something else?

Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using
sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere
near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what
is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea temps,
etc.

How much is man to blame?

An awful lot.

10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it?

Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet.

It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global warming.

What caused this
warming?

Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute
to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass.

Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of
ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE.

The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that
causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions.

Horse****.

Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease?
Stick to the subject.


All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming.

heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!!





. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from

rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming.

Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may
cause a particular body of water to warm.
Burning too
much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later the
temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun
goes
through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global
warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove
it!!

It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!:

IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN! IF IT WAS PROVEN, THEN THE DEBATE IN THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTANT! Now where is the proof there is a Guzzi
Desmo model?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill McKee wrote:

The question is not global warming, but the cause. Is it the
natural
cycles
of earth, or something else?

Something else...the hand of man. It is real, and quantifiable. Using
sound scientific techniques, we know that there hasn't been anywhere
near the magnitude of global warming, for a given time period as what
is happening now. Polar ice melt, rising sea levels, rising sea
temps,
etc.

How much is man to blame?

An awful lot.

10k years ago was a
mini ice age, what did man do to cause it?

Not much. But, alas, you are comparing apples and oranges.

1860 or there abouts 20 miles of
glacier in Glacier Bay meltet.

It broke off, and to wit, hasn't come back, because of global
warming.

What caused this
warming?

Warming didn't cause the break off, but global warming did contribute
to the inability of glaciers to maintain mass.

Mt. St. Helens spewed more ozone killing chemicals in one eruption
than man put up in 10-20 years.

that is pure horse****. What amount of CFC's, the leading cause of
ozone depletion was spewed by Mt. St. Helen? NONE.

The same "Enviromentalists" were saying
global cooling in 1970. When that grant money dried up, they are
now
touting man caused global warming. Maybe it is grant money that
causes
the
problems. Does not seem to bring solutions.

Horse****.

Which part of human life is
causing the decrease in the earth's magnetic field?

Who said ANY part of human life was or was not causing the decrease?
Stick to the subject.


All those pointy heads have not figured out the reason for the
global warming.

heheheh!!!!! You CAN'T be serious....can you???!!!!!!!!!





. The Glacier Bay warming that prevented the 20 miles of glacier from

rebuilding. What was man doing then that caused the warming.

Nothing. Who said man was to blame? There are other factors that may
cause a particular body of water to warm.
Burning too
much whale oil? The Vikings were settling Nova Scotia, etc and later
the
temps dropped, killing off the settlements. Why the cooling? The sun
goes
through cycles. Maybe we are in the warming cycle. There is global
warming, has been in the past. Do not blame man, until you can prove
it!!

It's BEEN proven, idiot!!!!! See below, 7 MILLION observations!!!!!:

IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN! IF IT WAS PROVEN, THEN THE DEBATE IN THE
SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY WOULD BE NON-EXISTANT! Now where is the proof there is a Guzzi
Desmo model?

Kevin=Chicken little.

He will provide the proof after he finishes drinking his "schnapps whiskey"
LOL

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970.

Not really.


Del Cecchi wrote:
Apparently you were not able to recall a missive, the rallying point
of the enviros

Actually, I do remember it. Perhaps I should have explained a little
better... it's not the same people, and not the same argument.

Of course it isn't the same people and the same argument. Then it was
Paul Erlich, mass starvation and an ice age. He sold his books, had his
15 minutes of fame. Now it is rampant obesity and global warming and a
new crop of doomsayers. Why should I think these folks know what they
are talking about any more than Erlich did?

In fact, the ice age predicters might not have been wrong... we might
be entering an ice age, except for pollution & greenhouse gasses. If
you don't believe in global warming, or believe that it's due to
completely unknown sources, then you can't dismiss that possibility.

I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.

I bet they have a copy at the library. Perhaps you should take a
walk down memory lane and read it.

perhaps you should stop and ask yourself, 'does the increased caribou
population really mean that we can go ahead and destroy the arctic,
too?' Maybe you should ask yourself if Vice President Cheney doesn't
have a teensy little motive *other* than the good of the nation.

Got kids? Grandkids?

Ah, the last refuge of an environmentalist with no facts. It's for the
children and Cheney's Oil Buddies.
I presume this is some sort of reference to proposed drilling in ANWAR.
The harm to my grandchildren from drilling in ANWAR is way down on my
list of things to worry about. Some criminal or terrorist harming them,
or them getting run over by a bus or a car is much higher.

Tell me, if greenhouse gases are really such a threat to the environment,
why are Chinese, Indian, Mexican greenhouse gases not just as much a
problem as American and European greenhouse gases? Were there climate
fluctuations over the last say 1000 years before mankind was adding many
gases to the atmosphere? Why? Why are today's fluctuations man's fault
when the previous ones weren't?

Have you ever done any computer modeling? What is your degree in?

DSK

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... The same "Enviromentalists" were saying global cooling in 1970.

Not really.


Del Cecchi wrote:
Apparently you were not able to recall a missive, the rallying point of
the enviros

Actually, I do remember it. Perhaps I should have explained a little
better... it's not the same people, and not the same argument.

Of course it isn't the same people and the same argument. Then it was
Paul Erlich, mass starvation and an ice age. He sold his books, had his
15 minutes of fame. Now it is rampant obesity and global warming and a
new crop of doomsayers. Why should I think these folks know what they are
talking about any more than Erlich did?

In fact, the ice age predicters might not have been wrong... we might be
entering an ice age, except for pollution & greenhouse gasses. If you
don't believe in global warming, or believe that it's due to completely
unknown sources, then you can't dismiss that possibility.

I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.

I bet they have a copy at the library. Perhaps you should take a walk
down memory lane and read it.

perhaps you should stop and ask yourself, 'does the increased caribou
population really mean that we can go ahead and destroy the arctic, too?'
Maybe you should ask yourself if Vice President Cheney doesn't have a
teensy little motive *other* than the good of the nation.

Got kids? Grandkids?

Ah, the last refuge of an environmentalist with no facts. It's for the
children and Cheney's Oil Buddies.
I presume this is some sort of reference to proposed drilling in ANWAR.
The harm to my grandchildren from drilling in ANWAR is way down on my list
of things to worry about. Some criminal or terrorist harming them, or
them getting run over by a bus or a car is much higher.

Tell me, if greenhouse gases are really such a threat to the environment,
why are Chinese, Indian, Mexican greenhouse gases not just as much a
problem as American and European greenhouse gases? Were there climate
fluctuations over the last say 1000 years before mankind was adding many
gases to the atmosphere? Why? Why are today's fluctuations man's fault
when the previous ones weren't?

Your last paragraph is key. The Kyoto accords were just a method of letting
rich countries buy pollution credits from poor countries. Nothing more than
a redistribution of wealth.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:17:22 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:


I see. It's an ice age and global warming. got it now. So we need to
pollute a carefully calibrated amount.

It could quite well be "an ice age and global warming". The Earth's
weather is dependent on a quite complex system that isn't understood with
any certainty. There are scientists who believe that a warming trend
would slow the Gulf Stream thereby causing an "Ice Age".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...083419,00.html

Now if you could just enlighten us on that "carefully calibrated" amount
of pollution, I'll be glad to do my part.