Michael 'I can't figure out exactly which issue to push, but as long as it's
against Bush, it's OK' Bryant wrote:

From: "Stinger"

Do a Nexus search. You'll see that in the 1970's that the fear was "Global
Cooling." It was actually a cover story for Time magazine.

And you'll see that that research was sponsored by the CIA to counter global
warming scientists who were starting to emerge in the early 70's. Some of the
reports even encouraged CO2 emissions to "balance out" cooling trends. Do a
search on a guy named Idso.

Interestingly, the latest models of greenhouse dynamics actually do predict
localized cooling trends as warmer ocean temperatures disrupt traditional
oceanic currents. Scientists studying greenhouse dynamics have long predicted
an ice age in Europe from the disruption of the North Atlantic current.

The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is overwhelming.

Gee, I wonder how many of them have lied about their PhD's?

Michael 'I don't know how many trash degrees I have, but it's a bunch. And what I
don't have, heck, I'll lie about' Bryant wrote:

From: "Stinger"

Do a Nexus search. You'll see that in the 1970's that the fear was "Global
Cooling." It was actually a cover story for Time magazine.

And you'll see that that research was sponsored by the CIA to counter global
warming scientists who were starting to emerge in the early 70's. Some of the
reports even encouraged CO2 emissions to "balance out" cooling trends. Do a
search on a guy named Idso.

Interestingly, the latest models of greenhouse dynamics actually do predict
localized cooling trends as warmer ocean temperatures disrupt traditional
oceanic currents. Scientists studying greenhouse dynamics have long predicted
an ice age in Europe from the disruption of the North Atlantic current.

The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is overwhelming.

Is there anything the Fat Boy doesn't know or can't expound upon?

Simply amazing for a guy who had to lie about a PhD.

Depends on the pH of the water. Disintegration would occur far more readily in
water that is acidic and would occur much more slowly in alkaline water. Unless
there is a tramatic alteration in the pH of the oceans and that is unlikely as CO2
dissolved in water can form a slightly alkaline buffer then I wouldn't think that
CO2 released from coral skeletons would be a big problem.

Regards

John Barnard

Diverd4777 wrote:

Yeah, evidence around the world from Coral die -off indicates the water temp is
Rising;
- - Which Means tha it's load of Dissolved Gases will be headed into the
Atmosphere.
Coral skeleton disintegration will release more CO2 into the surrounding
water..
Accelerating CO2 content of the Atmosphere..
- AND

( We're Doomed... )

- Either that or just Pump More Oil to Burn to either Warm Us Up ( Cooling /
Ice Age)
Or Cool Us Down
& Pump the water elsewhere ( Warming trend / Rising Sea Level)

- So , Thanks to our Good Freinds Who Supply The Oil,
you really don't have a thing to worry about..

In article EPNpc.10767$RM.5570@edtnps89, m II
writes:

Subject: [ OT ] Is our climate nearing the tipping point?
From: m II
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 17:48:20 GMT

David wrote:
Is that your mantra?

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been going pretty radically up
since we started burning coal. Patterns is the last 600 years are
unique. They do not have historical precedent that we can discern
from ice and geological records.

Regardless, if we are near the tipping point, it's way too late to
reverse the inevitable. Man, we live in interesting times!

On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:51:58 GMT, Telamon
wrote:



You have to be a total nut-case to argue global warming is man made.
There is billions of watts of energy going in and out of the atmosphere
on a daily basis that eventually determines the air temperature. Man's
energy output and use is negligible by comparison. Changes in the
atmospheric chemistry are natural and changes in climate are natural
whatever direction it is going.



There may be a problem with the oceans absorbing co2. When the water
gets warmer it can hold less gas in solution. If it ever starts giving
OFF this stored gas, we're doomed, as the cyle will be self perpetuating.

The above hypothesis is not at this site, but some good numbers,
regardless.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002...mancarbon.html


Add water vapor to the mix and the problem compounds exponentially

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...104254688.html



mike

Dan wrote:

On 16 May 2004 20:10:55 GMT, ocom (Michael Bryant)
wrote:

The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is overwhelming.

Only if you define "reputable scientists" as "those who believe in
greenhouse warming".

And in MWB's world, those are the only scientists there are.

Dan:

- Can you Please Provide us with a list of Scientists ( Sans Bible Beaters )

Who Do NOT believe in Global Warming

Please... Name Some Names..

Thanks
Dan



In article , Dan
writes:

Subject: [ OT ] Is our climate nearing the tipping point?
From: Dan
Date: 16 May 2004 16:55:05 -0500

On 16 May 2004 20:10:55 GMT, ocom (Michael Bryant)
wrote:

The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is
overwhelming.

Only if you define "reputable scientists" as "those who believe in
greenhouse warming".

Dan

Grundig S800, S650, S700, YB400, YB550PE
Degen DE1102, Kaito KA1102
Drake R8, Radio Shack DX-440
Hallicrafters S-120 (1962)
Zenith black dial 5 tube Tombstone (1937)
E. H. Scott 23 tube Imperial Allwave in Tasman cabinet (1936)

In article ,
ocom (Michael Bryant) King of Trolls scribbled:

From: "Stinger"

Do a Nexus search. You'll see that in the 1970's that the fear was "Global
Cooling." It was actually a cover story for Time magazine.

And you'll see that that research was sponsored by the CIA to counter global
warming scientists who were starting to emerge in the early 70's. Some of the
reports even encouraged CO2 emissions to "balance out" cooling trends. Do a
search on a guy named Idso.

Interestingly, the latest models of greenhouse dynamics actually do predict
localized cooling trends as warmer ocean temperatures disrupt traditional
oceanic currents. Scientists studying greenhouse dynamics have long predicted
an ice age in Europe from the disruption of the North Atlantic current.

The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is overwhelming.

Not true. More BS from the king of Trolls. The only thing overwhelming
is your fabricating.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article , John Barnard
wrote:

Depends on the pH of the water. Disintegration would occur far more
readily in water that is acidic and would occur much more slowly in
alkaline water. Unless there is a tramatic alteration in the pH of
the oceans and that is unlikely as CO2 dissolved in water can form a
slightly alkaline buffer then I wouldn't think that CO2 released from
coral skeletons would be a big problem.

That is just part of the explanation for the very complex system of
gases, temperatures, currents and chemical composition of the oceans.
The oceans are a large part but still a portion of climate stability.
The jury is still out on what is going to happen 10, 50 or 500 years
from now.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

It's not the man-made energy output that is directly causing the problem.
It is the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are the problem. CO2
emissions are causing the atmosphere to behave somewhat as a two-way mirror
in that energy can still get in easily enough but re-radiation from earth
back into space decreases. It doesn't take much of an increase in CO2
levels to decrease the rate of re-radiation.

Regards

John Barnard

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"T. Early" wrote:

"Soames123" wrote in message
...


A report that argues global warming is a greater threat to world
security than terrorism and predicts a warming future where
"disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life," may
sound like it came from a radical environmental group - but it
didn't. Unless you consider the Pentagon a radical environmental
group.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/...03/368968.html

This has been out for awhile but it's legitimate with two
qualifications. The report was not really produced by the Pentagon
per se but by a consultant under a commission. This isn't that big a
deal, but to say it "came from" the Pentagon is a slight stretch.
Second, AFAIK, the report did not say that this degree of global
warming is preventable in the sense that "man-made" (as opposed to
"natural") events are driving the issue. Expect a lot of attention
to this problem after "The Day After Tomorrow" hits the theaters. I
wonder if Art Bell is getting any points on the net revenue.

You have to be a total nut-case to argue global warming is man made.
There is billions of watts of energy going in and out of the atmosphere
on a daily basis that eventually determines the air temperature. Man's
energy output and use is negligible by comparison. Changes in the
atmospheric chemistry are natural and changes in climate are natural
whatever direction it is going.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I agree that it is impossible to predict what will happen 10, 50 or 100
years from now. This entire globe is one great big "mess" of complex
chemistry and reactions and the best models aren't that great at predicting
how the biosphere responds to a single input let alone to all the things
that happen simultaneously.

However, it is known that a single catastrophic event can have dire
climatic effects. For example, the quantity of material tossed out by
Krakatoa in 1883 had world-wide effects on climate. Such a large quantity
of material tossed into the atmosphere does cut down on the amount of
sunlight getting in and cooling tend to follow such tremendous volcanic
eruptions. From such observations came the idea that multiple nuclear
explosions would result in a nuclear winter.

I also have no doubt that mankind is very good at destroying or negatively
altering the earth's ecosystems. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) can destroy
ozone quite readily and they destroy ozone in a quasi-catalytic manner (ie.
CFCs can eventually be consumed during the process of ozone destruction).

I would also think that dumping tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere,
potentially beyond the capabilities of the biosphere to handle it, is also
quite self-destructive.

Regards

John Barnard



Telamon wrote:

In article , John Barnard
wrote:

Depends on the pH of the water. Disintegration would occur far more
readily in water that is acidic and would occur much more slowly in
alkaline water. Unless there is a tramatic alteration in the pH of
the oceans and that is unlikely as CO2 dissolved in water can form a
slightly alkaline buffer then I wouldn't think that CO2 released from
coral skeletons would be a big problem.

That is just part of the explanation for the very complex system of
gases, temperatures, currents and chemical composition of the oceans.
The oceans are a large part but still a portion of climate stability.
The jury is still out on what is going to happen 10, 50 or 500 years
from now.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Only a small lunatic fringe of real climatologists dispute that we are
in a period of rather dramatic warming.

The question about whether it's human or cyclical may never be
answered. If I lived in New Orleans or Huntington Beach, I'd move.

On 16 May 2004 16:55:05 -0500, Dan wrote:

On 16 May 2004 20:10:55 GMT, ocom (Michael Bryant)
wrote:

The consenus among reputable scientists on greenhouse warming is overwhelming.

Only if you define "reputable scientists" as "those who believe in
greenhouse warming".

Dan

Grundig S800, S650, S700, YB400, YB550PE
Degen DE1102, Kaito KA1102
Drake R8, Radio Shack DX-440
Hallicrafters S-120 (1962)
Zenith black dial 5 tube Tombstone (1937)
E. H. Scott 23 tube Imperial Allwave in Tasman cabinet (1936)