NASA says last decade hottest on record
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: online shopping
Next: car frum
From: Mike Hunter on 27 Jan 2010 20:12 Need I say it again, "dr_jeff"? Do your own homework. I don't wanna be old, I'm HAPPY I'm STILL getting older, considering the only alternative. ;) "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:YMGdnZB_19GCWv3WnZ2dnUVZ_hZi4p2d(a)giganews.com... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> Perhaps you remember back in the seventies when those in the know said we >> MUST stop global COOLING because of pollution? > > Which scientists said that? > >> They wanted to cover some of the glaciers with carbon black the help >> them melt and the USSR was planning to place a big mirror in space to >> reflect sunlight into Siberia to melt glaciers there. > > Evidence, please. > >> Now they are telling us CO2, a gas the comprises less than on half of one >> percent of the atmosphere is the cause of what is now called global >> climate CHANGE, since global WARMING has been debunked. > > Really? When has global warming been debunked? By whom? Certainly not a > old automotive engineer wanna be. > > Jeff > >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote in message >> news:hjnmko$c7d$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message >>> news:f0cbdf7a-2824-4046-a809-e31e31a69eb6(a)22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> C. E. White wrote: >>>>> Increased CO2 concentration might actually stimulate plant growth. >>>> That works for only certain plants, but others will be unaffected. >>>> Higher CO2 didn't help in Biosphere II. >>>> >>>>> I guess I am a child of the 70's. I am still worried about the coming >>>>> ice >>>>> age. >>>>> Again, I don't trust the science and I especially don't trust the >>>>> politicians using the science (good or bad) to impose draconian >>>>> measures. >>>> I can understand not trusting politicians, but if you're not going to >>>> trust scientists on scientific matters, whether the matters are >>>> related to global warming or not, who are you going to trust about >>>> such issues? I mean, if you don't trust the best qualified experts, >>>> the only alternatives are less qualified people. >>> There are well qualified scientist on both sides of the issue. The pro >>> "Man Made" global warming conspiracy immeadiately labels anyone sho >>> disagrees with their pet theory a wacko, but this isn't true. It is not >>> the scientist I distrust so much as the scientist with a political >>> agendas. Man made global warming is a casue that has been latched on to >>> by all sorts of people. Most have no idea how to interpert the science >>> and only listen to the ones who say the sky is falling. Man made global >>> warming is the pet cause of the modern day Luddites. >>> >>> It is clear that if you disagree with the idea that global warming is a >>> man made problem, you are going to have a hard time getting funding from >>> most governmental and non-governmental agencies. Climate scientist >>> already have a hard time getting funding.....how do you think they are >>> going to react? >>> >>> And even if the whole theory is absolutely true, are the consequences so >>> dire that we must completely wreck the US's economy? It is pretty clear >>> that the Chinese and the Indians don't think so. So even if we (the US) >>> take all the draconian action proposed by some of the extremists, it is >>> unlikely that we will have any long term net effect on the CO2 >>> concentration in the atmosphere. >>> >>> BTW, I agree with many of the actions proposed to combat global warming, >>> but for entirely different reasons. We need to stop sending billions to >>> crazy people for oil. Improved mass transit could benefit millions of >>> people. More efficient electrical grids are a great idea. I am all for >>> wind and solar power. BUT, I don't want any of it rammed down my throat >>> becasue a group of "scientist" have managed to convince a bunch of >>> half-wtis that their particualr theories regarding the climate are the >>> right ones. It is too much like a religion to suit me. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>
From: dr_jeff on 27 Jan 2010 20:13 Mike Hunter wrote: > Then why "dr_jeff" did you say; 120 degrees? 120 degrees? Water boils at a lower temperature. > It doesn't get that hot. Maybe > around 50 degrees," and "more energy needed for air conditioning?" > Perhaps you did not comprehend what you read? Perhaps you are confusing the F and C temperature scales. You certainly are confused about something. > ? > > > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > news:YMGdnZF_19HsW_3WnZ2dnUVZ_hZi4p2d(a)giganews.com... >> Mike Hunter wrote: >>> Well, there is ONE persons opinion, no matter how convoluted it may be. >> Explain how the opinion is convoluted. >> >>> Are you telling us you believe it never get to 120 degrees at the equator >>> or that it costs one more to cool ones house than it costs to heat ones >>> house? >> No, I am not. Learn to comprehend what you read. >> >> Jeff >> >>> LOL >>> >>> World Records >>> >>> F C >>> World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya Sept. 13, 1922 136 58 >>> North America (U.S.) Death Valley, Calif. July 10, 1913 134 57 >>> Asia Tirat Tsvi, Israel June 21, 1942 129 54 >>> Australia Cloncurry, Queensland Jan. 16, 1889 128 53 >>> Europe Seville, Spain Aug. 4, 1881 122 50 >>> South America Rivadavia, Argentina Dec. 11, 1905 120 >>> >>> Current temperature in Irag 119 Degrees F >>> >>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >>> news:i7-dncZEsqn7FMLWnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> Mike Hunter wrote: >>>>> One interesting point that one never hears discussed. What if the >>>>> average temperature of the earth actually did get, say two degrees >>>>> warmer, regardless of whether the cause in a natural occurrence or man >>>>> is contributing. >>>>> >>>>> People live and survive on the equator now and they still will if it is >>>>> 120 or 122 degrees. The ice caps will stay frozen at 120 below or 122 >>>>> below. >>>> 120 degrees? It doesn't get that hot. Maybe around 50 degrees. I know >>>> you must mean Celcius, because the 2 degree change is in Celcius, not F. >>>> >>>> Several ways. First, the ocean will expand. Water, like most things, >>>> expands when it gets warmer. This will raise the sea level. >>>> >>>> Second, spring will come earlier, and fall later. While this seems like >>>> this would be all good, some insects will grow a lot more, because the >>>> cold winter won't be cold enough to kill enough off. >>>> >>>> Third, while ice caps will stay frozen at 120 below, they won't stay >>>> frozen at 2 C. They will melt more. LIkewise, more ice will melt in >>>> Alaska and Canada. >>>> >>>>> The areas where food could be grown would expand, >>>> Not necessarily. Weather patterns will change too. >>>> >>>>> There would be longer growing season in the temperate zones, food >>>>> production would be greater. Areas that now have two annual harvest >>>>> could have TWO, two could become three in others. >>>>> >>>>> Less of the carbon fuels would be needed for heating, there would be >>>>> fewer, less intensive snow storms and less fuel would be used to clear >>>>> roods, fewer production our should be lost and even some lives would be >>>>> saved. >>>> And more energy needed for air conditioning. >>>> >>>>> Less fuel would be wasted in trucks that would not be forced to idle >>>>> for long period or time or take longer to reach their destinations. >>>> And more fuel used in refers. >>>> >>>>> Sure there would be more air conditioning use, but the amount of fuel >>>>> used to cool the air, is far less than is need to heat the same amount >>>>> of space. >>>> Really? The peak electric consumption is in the summer with A/C. >>>> >>>>> Inquiring minds want to know ;) >>>> Visit ipcc.ch. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>>> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:bacd9849-4953-47e8-aa85-54644887eca3(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> C. E. White wrote: >>>>>>> - Is "man made" global warming real? I don't know. >>>>>> It's real, but whether there's enough of it to really hurt the climate >>>>>> in the future is another matter. >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Is there a conspiracy of sorts promoting "man made" global warming? >>>>>>> Beyond >>>>>>> a doubt. >>>>>> That doesn't explain why information that went against the >>>>>> "conspirators" was published in the UN report or why the concensus >>>>>> conclusions of climate scientists doesn't change if the "conspirators" >>>>>> are ignored. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which side has politicized climate change the most? Both sides have, >>>>>> but one side has spent a lot more money in their effort. >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Is there good data supporting the claim that the the earth is >>>>>>> warming? No. >>>>>> Yes, there is. >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Is global warming a bad thing? - Actually I don't think anyone >>>>>>> adequately >>>>>>> addresses this question. >>>>>> Are you kidding? Almost 100% of the climate scientists say global >>>>>> warming is wonderful because otherwise the average temperature would >>>>>> be something like 90 degs. F cooler than it is now, with the tropics >>>>>> at close to freezing most of the time. >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Do you trust politicians to try and manipulate things based on >>>>>>> their >>>>>>> opinions of who should win and who should lose? I don't. >>>>>> Neither do I, and most of the politicians doing that are one side of >>>>>> this issue. They're the same people who want to take real science out >>>>>> of public school text books. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you trust the groups promoting "man made" global warming? I don't. >>>>>> What do you mean "promoting"? Those groups are either 1) the people >>>>>> who want to reduce man-made sources of global warming; 2) the people >>>>>> who don't want government regulation of man-made sources of global >>>>>> warming. So are you with the US on this issue, or are you instead >>>>>> with China? ;) > >
From: Mike Hunter on 27 Jan 2010 20:47 Perhaps if I repost the records it will help, you certainly are confused about something. LOL World Records (Note; F is Fahrenheit) F C World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya Sept. 13, 1922 136 58 North America (U.S.) Death Valley, Calif. July 10, 1913 134 57 Asia Tirat Tsvi, Israel June 21, 1942 129 54 Australia Cloncurry, Queensland Jan. 16, 1889 128 53 Europe Seville, Spain Aug. 4, 1881 122 50 South America Rivadavia, Argentina Dec. 11, 1905 120 Current temperature in Irag 119 Degrees F "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:DrSdnTa2pMg6ef3WnZ2dnUVZ_g1i4p2d(a)giganews.com... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> Then why "dr_jeff" did you say; 120 degrees? > > 120 degrees? Water boils at a lower temperature. > >> It doesn't get that hot. Maybe around 50 degrees," and "more energy >> needed for air conditioning?" >> Perhaps you did not comprehend what you read? > > Perhaps you are confusing the F and C temperature scales. > > You certainly are confused about something. > >> ? >> >> >> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >> news:YMGdnZF_19HsW_3WnZ2dnUVZ_hZi4p2d(a)giganews.com... >>> Mike Hunter wrote: >>>> Well, there is ONE persons opinion, no matter how convoluted it may be. >>> Explain how the opinion is convoluted. >>> >>>> Are you telling us you believe it never get to 120 degrees at the >>>> equator or that it costs one more to cool ones house than it costs to >>>> heat ones house? >>> No, I am not. Learn to comprehend what you read. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>>> LOL >>>> >>>> World Records >>>> >>>> F C >>>> World (Africa) El Azizia, Libya Sept. 13, 1922 136 58 >>>> North America (U.S.) Death Valley, Calif. July 10, 1913 134 >>>> 57 >>>> Asia Tirat Tsvi, Israel June 21, 1942 129 54 >>>> Australia Cloncurry, Queensland Jan. 16, 1889 128 53 >>>> Europe Seville, Spain Aug. 4, 1881 122 50 >>>> South America Rivadavia, Argentina Dec. 11, 1905 120 >>>> >>>> Current temperature in Irag 119 Degrees F >>>> >>>> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >>>> news:i7-dncZEsqn7FMLWnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>> Mike Hunter wrote: >>>>>> One interesting point that one never hears discussed. What if the >>>>>> average temperature of the earth actually did get, say two degrees >>>>>> warmer, regardless of whether the cause in a natural occurrence or >>>>>> man is contributing. >>>>>> >>>>>> People live and survive on the equator now and they still will if it >>>>>> is 120 or 122 degrees. The ice caps will stay frozen at 120 below or >>>>>> 122 below. >>>>> 120 degrees? It doesn't get that hot. Maybe around 50 degrees. I know >>>>> you must mean Celcius, because the 2 degree change is in Celcius, not >>>>> F. >>>>> >>>>> Several ways. First, the ocean will expand. Water, like most things, >>>>> expands when it gets warmer. This will raise the sea level. >>>>> >>>>> Second, spring will come earlier, and fall later. While this seems >>>>> like this would be all good, some insects will grow a lot more, >>>>> because the cold winter won't be cold enough to kill enough off. >>>>> >>>>> Third, while ice caps will stay frozen at 120 below, they won't stay >>>>> frozen at 2 C. They will melt more. LIkewise, more ice will melt in >>>>> Alaska and Canada. >>>>> >>>>>> The areas where food could be grown would expand, >>>>> Not necessarily. Weather patterns will change too. >>>>> >>>>>> There would be longer growing season in the temperate zones, food >>>>>> production would be greater. Areas that now have two annual harvest >>>>>> could have TWO, two could become three in others. >>>>>> >>>>>> Less of the carbon fuels would be needed for heating, there would be >>>>>> fewer, less intensive snow storms and less fuel would be used to >>>>>> clear roods, fewer production our should be lost and even some lives >>>>>> would be saved. >>>>> And more energy needed for air conditioning. >>>>> >>>>>> Less fuel would be wasted in trucks that would not be forced to idle >>>>>> for long period or time or take longer to reach their destinations. >>>>> And more fuel used in refers. >>>>> >>>>>> Sure there would be more air conditioning use, but the amount of fuel >>>>>> used to cool the air, is far less than is need to heat the same >>>>>> amount of space. >>>>> Really? The peak electric consumption is in the summer with A/C. >>>>> >>>>>> Inquiring minds want to know ;) >>>>> Visit ipcc.ch. >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>>> >>>>>> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:bacd9849-4953-47e8-aa85-54644887eca3(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> C. E. White wrote: >>>>>>>> - Is "man made" global warming real? I don't know. >>>>>>> It's real, but whether there's enough of it to really hurt the >>>>>>> climate >>>>>>> in the future is another matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Is there a conspiracy of sorts promoting "man made" global >>>>>>>> warming? Beyond >>>>>>>> a doubt. >>>>>>> That doesn't explain why information that went against the >>>>>>> "conspirators" was published in the UN report or why the concensus >>>>>>> conclusions of climate scientists doesn't change if the >>>>>>> "conspirators" >>>>>>> are ignored. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which side has politicized climate change the most? Both sides >>>>>>> have, >>>>>>> but one side has spent a lot more money in their effort. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Is there good data supporting the claim that the the earth is >>>>>>>> warming? No. >>>>>>> Yes, there is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Is global warming a bad thing? - Actually I don't think anyone >>>>>>>> adequately >>>>>>>> addresses this question. >>>>>>> Are you kidding? Almost 100% of the climate scientists say global >>>>>>> warming is wonderful because otherwise the average temperature would >>>>>>> be something like 90 degs. F cooler than it is now, with the tropics >>>>>>> at close to freezing most of the time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Do you trust politicians to try and manipulate things based on >>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>> opinions of who should win and who should lose? I don't. >>>>>>> Neither do I, and most of the politicians doing that are one side of >>>>>>> this issue. They're the same people who want to take real science >>>>>>> out >>>>>>> of public school text books. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you trust the groups promoting "man made" global warming? I >>>>>>>> don't. >>>>>>> What do you mean "promoting"? Those groups are either 1) the >>>>>>> people >>>>>>> who want to reduce man-made sources of global warming; 2) the people >>>>>>> who don't want government regulation of man-made sources of global >>>>>>> warming. So are you with the US on this issue, or are you instead >>>>>>> with China? ;) >>
From: Mike Hunter on 27 Jan 2010 20:51 Go on and rant, but again you have not tried to dispute the fact that the geological record proves that the CO2 level was much higher during the 60 million years that the dinosaurs roamed the earth, long before man existed on the planet as those qualified scientists point out. LOL "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:DrSdnTe2pMipef3WnZ2dnUVZ_g1i4p2d(a)giganews.com... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> Only in you mind my friend, only in your mind. At least you didn't try >> to dispute the fact that the geological record proves that the CO2 level >> was much higher during the 60 million years that the dinosaurs roamed the >> earth, long before man existed on the planet. LOL > > So you can't tell me who these "BEST qualified scientists" are. Nor can > you explain why what you say has anything to do with climate change caused > by man. > > When you become informed, let us know. Until then, remember the old adage: > "It is better to remain silent and let people think you are a fool than to > type and prove it." Unfortunately, you do prove something every time you > type. > > At least your entertainment. > > Jeff > >> "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message >> news:YMGdnZZ_19FkWP3WnZ2dnUVZ_hZi4p2d(a)giganews.com... >>> Mike Hunter wrote: >>>> But, but but, some of the BEST qualified scientists are in disagreement >>>> with those that say MAN is the cause. >>> Who are these "BEST qualified scientists?" What are their >>> qualfications?] >>> >>>> They are saying climate change is cyclical and site the fact that the >>>> geological record proves that the CO2 level was much higher during the >>>> 60 million years that the dinosaurs roamed the earth, long before man >>>> existed on the planet. >>> Which "BEST qualified scientists" are saying this? And, none of these >>> disproves man's effect on the climate. >>> >>> jeff >>> >>>> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message >>>> news:f0cbdf7a-2824-4046-a809-e31e31a69eb6(a)22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... >>>>> C. E. White wrote: >>>>>> Increased CO2 concentration might actually stimulate plant growth. >>>>> That works for only certain plants, but others will be unaffected. >>>>> Higher CO2 didn't help in Biosphere II. >>>>> >>>>>> I guess I am a child of the 70's. I am still worried about the coming >>>>>> ice >>>>>> age. >>>>>> Again, I don't trust the science and I especially don't trust the >>>>>> politicians using the science (good or bad) to impose draconian >>>>>> measures. >>>>> I can understand not trusting politicians, but if you're not going to >>>>> trust scientists on scientific matters, whether the matters are >>>>> related to global warming or not, who are you going to trust about >>>>> such issues? I mean, if you don't trust the best qualified experts, >>>>> the only alternatives are less qualified people. >>
From: C. E. White on 29 Jan 2010 00:36
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175b568a-802a-23ad-4c69-9bdd978fb3cd http://www.iceagenow.com/ http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting http://www.c3headlines.com/arcticgreenlandantarcticglacierssea-ice/ http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/strickland1.html |