tech lodge wrote:
trotsky wrote:
Thanatos wrote:
In article <U7ydnfwgLMSgV0fUnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

Thanatos wrote:
In article <J-qdndHjYpg7dETUnZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

Thanatos wrote:
In article <uoWdnT0kSP124UTUnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

tech lodge wrote:
Where will be in 7 years after cap and trade has spiked our
utility bills and some bright minds say, "whoops, we are NOT
warming the planet after all"?
What happens when you're shore house is underwater?
I'll move. Problem solved.
Apprently you didn't care about the money.
No, I'm smart enough not to live right next to the ocean in the
first place, bright eyes.
Considering there's hundreds of thousands of miles of shore line,
many people will be affected. Manhattan might be the next ground
zero.

Don't live there, either.


...said the anonymouse.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm


Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for
this recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and
over the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has
seen many times in the past.

This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced
greenhouse gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural
greenhouse gas of water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates
that as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated
warming - a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant
amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give
this positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate
change As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged
upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be
expected to decrease not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with
such a negative feedback loop.

Except that geological samples taken from the earth say otherwise.

FDR wrote:
Thanatos wrote:
In article <U7ydnfwgLMSgV0fUnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

Thanatos wrote:
In article <J-qdndHjYpg7dETUnZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

Thanatos wrote:
In article <uoWdnT0kSP124UTUnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

tech lodge wrote:
Where will be in 7 years after cap and trade has spiked our
utility bills and some bright minds say, "whoops, we are NOT
warming the planet after all"?
What happens when you're shore house is underwater?
I'll move. Problem solved.
Apprently you didn't care about the money.
No, I'm smart enough not to live right next to the ocean in the
first place, bright eyes.
Considering there's hundreds of thousands of miles of shore line,
many people will be affected. Manhattan might be the next ground
zero.

Don't live there, either.

Yes, you live on Pluto


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Thanatos wrote:
In article <7aGdnf5oVOZ3wEbUnZ2dnUVZ_hdi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

Thanatos wrote:
In article <U7ydnfwgLMSgV0fUnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

Thanatos wrote:
In article <J-qdndHjYpg7dETUnZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

Thanatos wrote:
In article <uoWdnT0kSP124UTUnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

tech lodge wrote:
Where will be in 7 years after cap and trade has spiked our
utility bills and some bright minds say, "whoops, we are NOT
warming the planet
after all"?
What happens when you're shore house is underwater?
I'll move. Problem solved.
Apprently you didn't care about the money.
No, I'm smart enough not to live right next to the ocean in the
first place, bright eyes.
Considering there's hundreds of thousands of miles of shore line,
many people will be affected. Manhattan might be the next ground
zero.
Don't live there, either.
Yes, you live on Pluto of course.

Hmmm... so in FDR's bizarre little world, if one doesn't live near
the ocean or in Manhattan, the only other possibility is Pluto.

How the hell do you even tie your own shoes in the morning?

He's a real nutbar that one is...

FDR wrote:
tech lodge wrote:
FDR wrote:
tech lodge wrote:
FDR wrote:
w wrote:
tech lodge wrote
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE


Inadequate.

Since Hansen, NASA no longer has credibility.

Limbaugh declared them to be liars last year.



Coming from a drug addict, that's funny.

Are you a drug addict?

Are you?

I asked first.

I hear


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

FDR wrote:

• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by
creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures
could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in
permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice,
and causing increased evaporation of water.

Which would lead to a swift NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP as cloudiness
rapidly chokes off solar input and COOLS the earth!

FDR wrote:
tech lodge wrote:
FDR wrote:

• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable
by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising
temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by
unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing
carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of
water.

Which would lead to a swift NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP as cloudiness
rapidly chokes off solar input and COOLS the earth!

Does basic atmospheric physics baffle you?

Apprently the rest of the article baffles you.

Apparently you can't grasp the fact that the planet has regular
cycles, of varying intensity, of warming and cooling.

FDR wrote:

• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by
creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures
could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in
permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice,
and causing increased evaporation of water.

Which would lead to a swift NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP as cloudiness
rapidly chokes off solar input and COOLS the earth!

Does basic atmospheric physics baffle you?

FDR wrote:
tech lodge wrote:
FDR wrote:

• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable
by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising
temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by
unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing
carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of
water.

Which would lead to a swift NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP as cloudiness
rapidly chokes off solar input and COOLS the earth!

Does basic atmospheric physics baffle you?

The term "postive feedback" escapes you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

tech lodge wrote:
clouddreamer wrote:
Mason Barge wrote:
"clouddreamer" <Reuse.Recycle at (no spam) nd.Reduce.now> wrote in message
news:uq6dncujw53N10bUnZ2dnUVZ_gFi4p2d at (no spam) supernews.com...
FDR wrote:
tech lodge wrote:
Mason Barge wrote:
"suzee" <suzee at (no spam) imbris.com> wrote in message
news:grddm1$cc7$1 at (no spam) nntp.motzarella.org...
Mason Barge wrote:
That's not necessarily a sign of global warming. I've noticed
in various parts of the country over the last 5 years, that
temps in the spring stay cooler longer. So it's the same
growing season, the 'seasons' themselves are shifting around
and coming later on the calendar. Winters too, rather than
cold weather and snow beginning in late Oct/Nov, that's not
happening until December in a lot of places.
It's an oddity -- and an indication of how complex the climate
system is, and how poorly it is understood -- that global
warming can result in cooler weather in many places, especially
in northern latitudes.

Most accounts I have read predict, with a fair degree of
likelihood, that overall warming of the earth would at some
point result in a new ice age in Northern Europe, as it would
slow or stop the Gulf Stream.
Bingo.
So tech here would rather have an ice age and get us all wiped
out. yay!

Europe won't experience an "ice age."
Perhaps that's a poor choice of words.

It will experience significant cooling before warming. We are
already seeing this in European weather.
As I understand it, we aren't seeing it at all.
We are. Europe has experienced
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

K00k article.


Incorrect.

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University
This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming - a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such a negative feedback loop.

tech lodge wrote:
clouddreamer wrote:
FDR wrote:
tech lodge wrote:
Mason Barge wrote:
"suzee" <suzee at (no spam) imbris.com> wrote in message
news:grddm1$cc7$1 at (no spam) nntp.motzarella.org...
Mason Barge wrote:
That's not necessarily a sign of global warming. I've noticed in
various parts of the country over the last 5 years, that temps in
the spring stay cooler longer. So it's the same growing season,
the 'seasons' themselves are shifting around and coming later on
the calendar. Winters too, rather than cold weather and snow
beginning in late Oct/Nov, that's not happening until December
in a lot of places.
It's an oddity -- and an indication of how complex the climate
system is, and how poorly it is understood -- that global warming
can result in cooler weather in many places, especially in
northern latitudes.

Most accounts I have read predict, with a fair degree of
likelihood, that overall warming of the earth would at some point
result in a new ice age in Northern Europe, as it would slow or
stop the Gulf Stream.
Bingo.
So tech here would rather have an ice age and get us all wiped out.
yay!

Europe won't experience an "ice age."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

K00k article.


Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this

tech lodge wrote:
trotsky wrote:
Thanatos wrote:
In article <uoWdnT0kSP124UTUnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

tech lodge wrote:
Where will be in 7 years after cap and trade has spiked our
utility bills and some bright minds say, "whoops, we are NOT
warming the planet after all"?
What happens when you're shore house is underwater?
I'll move. Problem solved.

Yeah, look how well that worked in NOLA.
City should have been abandoned long ago and moved to higher ground.

Didn't know you could do that with a strategic port.


Port operations could be maintained without residential density.

tech lodge wrote:
FDR wrote:
tech lodge wrote:
FDR wrote:
Thanatos wrote:
In article <J-qdndHjYpg7dETUnZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

Thanatos wrote:
In article <uoWdnT0kSP124UTUnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

tech lodge wrote:
Where will be in 7 years after cap and trade has spiked our
utility bills and some bright minds say, "whoops, we are NOT
warming the planet after all"?
What happens when you're shore house is underwater?
I'll move. Problem solved.
Apprently you didn't care about the money.
No, I'm smart enough not to live right next to the ocean in the
first place, bright eyes.
Considering there's hundreds of thousands of miles of shore line,
many people will be affected. Manhattan might be the next ground
zero.
Oh my, you one of those Art Bell "Day After Tomorrow" types?
I see

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

k00k article.


Our fact-checking confirms that Bush indeed cut funding for projects

tech lodge wrote:
FDR wrote:
tech lodge wrote:
FDR wrote:
Thanatos wrote:
In article <J-qdndHjYpg7dETUnZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

Thanatos wrote:
In article <uoWdnT0kSP124UTUnZ2dnUVZ_sDinZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>,
FDR <FDR at (no spam) fkfkdkfd> wrote:

tech lodge wrote:
Where will be in 7 years after cap and trade has spiked our
utility bills and some bright minds say, "whoops, we are NOT
warming the planet after all"?
What happens when you're shore house is underwater?
I'll move. Problem solved.
Apprently you didn't care about the money.
No, I'm smart enough not to live right next to the ocean in the
first place, bright eyes.
Considering there's hundreds of thousands of miles of shore line,
many people will be affected. Manhattan might be the next ground
zero.
Oh my, you one of those Art Bell "Day After Tomorrow" types?
I see

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

k00k article.


Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this

tech lodge wrote:
FDR wrote:

• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by
creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures
could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in
permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice,
and causing increased evaporation of water.
Which would lead to a swift NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP as cloudiness
rapidly chokes off solar input and COOLS the earth!

Does basic atmospheric physics baffle you?

Better hurry up and tell every bona fide scientific organization on earth.
They all back AGW theory.


Sorry, herd science isn't of much real worth.

tech lodge wrote:
FDR wrote:
tech lodge wrote:
FDR wrote:
tech lodge wrote:
FDR wrote:

• At some point in the future, warming could become
uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect.
Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by
unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing
carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of
water.
Which would lead to a swift NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP as cloudiness
rapidly chokes off solar input and COOLS the earth!

Does basic atmospheric physics baffle you?
Can't understand what a positive feedback is?
Can't grasp that NEGATIVE FEEDBACK is the mechanism at work?
The article talks about the runaway positive feedback.
The reality is negative feedback.

Got a real cite for that?