| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
If you've been around this issue for a decade or more,
you will remember that Carbon industry lobbyists promised us that CO2 would 'fertilize' the sea. We were going to feed the world with the bountiful catch from un-baited hooks. The industry would even trot out 'scientists' who would assure us of this. The lobbyists and their shill scientists are gone now that their lie is exposed, just like rats into the sewer. -.-. --.- Roger =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Marine food chain link being affected by global warming By Michael Drake, 21 November 2005 Irish Sea plankton, a major link in the marine food chain, is being affected by global warming, according to a new WWF report. It is also claimed certain fish, including John Dorys, usually found in waters off the south west coast of the UK, are now being caught in Northern Irish waters. Fish are increasingly threatened by the effects of climate change as temperatures rise in rivers, lakes and oceans, the report adds. It says hotter water means less food, less offspring and even less oxygen for marine and freshwater fish populations. "As climate change increases the pressure on fish populations, already strained to the limit by overfishing, pollution and habitat loss, the outlook is pretty grim for our fish species," said Malachy Campbell, Policy Officer, WWF Northern Ireland. "We must act urgently on both climate emissions and fishing to protect fish populations as they are one of the world's most valuable biological, nutritional and economic assets." The rest: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...p?story=670262 |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
We all have a right to question the truth of global warming and climate change, as we should question everything which is pushed at us as these are. It's a perfectly good theory, but not really proven. Widespread acceptance is not proof. Furthermore there are other more likely causes for damage or change in the environment, such as contamination of the air and water. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
One does not prove a physical theory, one proves a mathematical
theorem. Theories are about demonstrable evidence. It's called empiricism. Anthropogenic global warming and climate change have so far passed all the tests. Yes, the air and water are polluted too. http://cosmic.lifeform.org. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"We all have a right to question the truth
of global warming and climate change," You have the right to strip naked and dance by the light of the full moon, too. Neither your questioning, nor your naked dancing, will change the physical fact that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are now warming our planet. "Furthermore there are other more likely causes for damage or change in the environment, such as contamination of the air and water." CO2 and CH4 when they are currently at 600,000-year record levels, and rising at record levels too, are contaminants. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
In article ,
"Dave" wrote: We all have a right to question the truth of global warming and climate change, as we should question everything which is pushed at us as these are. Yeah, like evolution, and that billions of years age for the earth. And atoms! It's a perfectly good theory, but not really proven. 1. You can never prove a theory. 2. A theory is an accepted explanation. 3. It is accepted by science that GW is occurring and that humans are causing it. Widespread acceptance is not proof. Furthermore there are other more likely causes for damage or change in the environment, such as contamination of the air and water. How does that explain warming? |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
Dave wrote:
We all have a right to question the truth of global warming and climate change, You have the right to question the law of gravity as well. However, there are more useful things to do with your time than complaining about facts. as we should question everything which is pushed at us as these are. You have problems with reality, do you? Reality pushes at you only because you reject it. Relax and enjoy. It's a perfectly good theory, but not really proven. Ignorance of the term 'theory' shows that you do not have a background to critise science. Theory is factual ( proven ). Hypothesis is speculative. Widespread acceptance is not proof. When the widespread acceptance includes the professional scientists who are directly studying the problem, yes it does. No other criteria for proof other than widespread acceptance by those with the background and education to understand the data has ever been proposed as 'proof' in science. Furthermore there are other more likely causes for damage or change in the environment, such as contamination of the air and water. Irrelevant to the issue. One truth does not drive out another. Please get a clue. The fact that you are trying 'diversion' speaks to your lack of facts or serious logic. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"We all have a right to question the truth
of global warming and climate change," You have the right to strip naked and dance by the light of the full moon, too. Neither your questioning, nor your naked dancing, will change the physical fact that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are now warming our planet. "Furthermore there are other more likely causes for damage or change in the environment, such as contamination of the air and water." CO2 and CH4, when they are currently at 600,000-year record levels, and rising at record levels too, are contaminants. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
Dave is correct, we do, and should, question the theory of global
warming. And their are many scientist who question global warming. Many of the climate models show warming due to so called greenhouse gasses, while other models show the climate cooling. We have proof of evolution, and of atomic particals, that's why they are accepted by most people. I suspect the problem with the Irish Sea has more to do with over fishing, something the EU knows about, but has chosen to ignore. Over fishing by EU members is widespread, but they would much rather blame their problems on the US. They like to make us "the bad guy" because their's no shortage of people gullable enought to beleave them. If they blame the problem on someone else, and people buy into it, they don't have to do anything, until the fish run out. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Capt John" wrote in message
oups.com... Dave is correct, we do, and should, question the theory of global warming. And their are many scientist who question global warming. Many of the climate models show warming due to so called greenhouse gasses, while other models show the climate cooling. I believe this is incorrect. Can you please provide a reference to a GCM (global climate model) that predicts cooling with elevated CO2? -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Many of the climate models show warming
due to so called greenhouse gasses, while other models show the climate cooling." -- Capt. John [Change to upper case mode to correct a BIG lie.] FACT: THERE IS NO PEER-REVIEWED PUBLISHED CLIMATE MODEL THAT SHOWS COOLING IN RESPONSE TO INCREASING GREENHOUSE GAS LEVELS, NONE WHATSOEVER. There is no model that indicates stasis. ALL, YES EVERY. PEER-REVIEWED PUBLISHED CLIMATE MODELS SHOW WARMING IN RESPONSE TO INCREASING GREENHOUSE GAS LEVELS. IF YOU, CAPT. JOHN, HAVE A COUNTER EXAMPLE YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO PUBLISH IT HERE. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
I'm sorry if I've touched a nerve here. This is a subject which
requires serious debate, and firm adherence to scientific method. Faith, emotion and excuse me, propaganda will not do. No, widespread acceptance is not proof, regardless of the credentials or peer status of those accepting. Nor is proof in the gathering or display of data. Proof is different. It is demonstrable, repeatable, and consistent. As for my grip on reality Gentlemen, it's one thing to prove the thermodynamics of CO2 in the lab, quite another to extrapolate the results to the entire globe and follow by scrapping the internal combustion engine (in case that's what we're really talking about). Best wishes .............Dave |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
Dave wrote: I'm sorry if I've touched a nerve here. This is a subject which requires serious debate, and firm adherence to scientific method. Faith, emotion and excuse me, propaganda will not do. Try empircism. No, widespread acceptance is not proof, regardless of the credentials or peer status of those accepting. So far so good. Nor is proof in the gathering or display of data. Proof is different. It is demonstrable, repeatable, and consistent. No, proof is absolute, as in mathematical. As for my grip on reality Gentlemen, it's one thing to prove the thermodynamics of CO2 in the lab, Please feel free to point out where thermodynamics has been proven. quite another to extrapolate the results to the entire globe and follow by scrapping the internal combustion engine (in case that's what we're really talking about). Sure, we are talking about electrolysis and catalysis, and the demonstrated circumvention of Carnot efficiency restrictions. Once upon a time classical mechanics was 'proven' to be absolute. Then came 1905. Now it's 2005. Heat engines are so passe'. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../electrol.html http://cosmic.lifeform.org |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
Cyli wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 05 11:08:41 GMT, (Lloyd Parker) wrote: (severely snipped) 3. It is accepted by science that GW is occurring and that humans are causing it. Could you please change that to "humans are aiding and abetting it"? No. That would be trying to sweep the human contribution under the rug, in a pretense that things are basically "normal". The amount of climate change has been massive and catastrophic already. The time period before WWII was very mild. The greenhouse gases released by the total war frenzy peaked in the 1950s and took two decades to descend back to somthing which could be considered mild. Then the mid 1990s changed climate in a way never seen or recorded before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_Cyclone_Energy 1950 was the year for the most recorded storm intensity -- it still has the record for most major hurricanes. Here's the record in descending order, mildest first, strongest last, group in five year periods... ACE sum & annualized average in Cyclone Intensity order 263 five year sum ACE (1970-1974) 263/5 = 52.6 annual average 271 five year sum ACE (1990-1994) 271/5 = 54.2 annual average 332 five year sum ACE (1975-1979) 332/5 = 66.4 annual average 357 five year sum ACE (1980-1984) 357/5 = 71.4 annual average 396 five year sum ACE (1985-1989) 396/5 = 79.2 annual average 536 five year sum ACE (1955-1959) 536/5 = 107.2 annual average 545 five year sum ACE (1965-1969) 545/5 = 109 annual average 617 five year sum ACE (1960-1964) 617/5 = 123.4 annual average 684 five year sum ACE (1950-1954) 684/5 = 136.8 annual average 688 five year sum ACE (2000-2004) 688/5 = 137.6 annual average 793 five year sum ACE (1995-1999) 793/5 = 158.6 annual average 2005 = 225 ACE score. The "season" goes through November 30th but all cyclones, even those rare ones in December are added to the ACE of the year they happen. There is one more month before 2005 record book is closed. If the preceding five years including 2005 are collected together: 2001 -- 106 15 9 4 Above average 2002 -- 66 12 4 2 Below average 2003 -- 175 16 7 3 Above average (hyperactive) 2004 -- 225 14 9 6 Above average (hyperactive) 2005 -- 225 23 13 7 Above average (hyperactive) 797 five year sum ACE (2001-2005) (Current through Delta). We have established that there was never a hotter year than 1998 for the corals in the seas. This is not information which should be diluted by discussions of glacially-slow (funny how that slogan became obsolete in our lifetime -- now glaciers gallop) natural background climate change. It's WRONG to shout "Fire" when there is none in a crowded theater, but it is far WORSE to cry "No Fire" when there is one. Before massive pollution and all the gassers, it was observed that the earth has been warming its way out of an ice age. True, it was not expected to happen at the speed that many scientists claim for the human pollution added scenario, but the earth has run the fire / ice cycle many times. Even humans, with our massive egos, cannot take credit for ice ages nor for tropical Antartic climate before evolution says primates were more than a vague possibility. Totally false arguments. Humans are capable of impacting the environment in massive ways. Before 1970 there were NO Dead Zones in the oceans. In 1970 there was one knwn; in 1990 there were 75, in 2002 there were 150 of them. Humans are causing species extinctions at a rate predicted to be 50,000 per year. These are permanent irrevokable changes. It is false and fraudulent to play act that humans are powerless and insignificant observers on a basically changeless world from generation to generation. The Colorado River used to flow to the sea, in my lifetime -- it may never do so again in humanities lifetime. Don't pretend that your effects are not real. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition.
Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com... From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence? -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
In article .com,
"Dave" wrote: From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. An explanation can never be a fact -- by definition, an explanation in science is a theory (when accepted). Gravity is a fact. The explanation for it is a theory. Evolution is a fact. The explanation for it is a theory. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
Coby Beck wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message oups.com... From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence? Obviously nothing, since no 'fact' is ever supported by anything more than collective opinion. The 'fact' of gravity is just a concession to empirical observation and common opinion. Nobody really knows what it is or what causes it ( see recent quantum theory speculations ). However, we call gravity a 'fact' even though we cannot directly observe that it is constant or universal. The same problem(s) comes up when you claim the 'fact' that that house is blue. The reality is that you just saw one side of the house and *inferred* that the other sides were also blue based on the assumption that houses are all one color. You cannot even be sure that what YOU see as 'blue' is the same color as what everyone else sees as 'blue'. Nor do you even specify the color precisely. What blue do you mean? Sky blue? Light blue? Kinda a purplish blue? To really specify the color you need to measure the wavelength of the light reflected from the paint and that is science. The whole theory of color and color perception is just a 'theory' so can you really call the house blue? If you consider collective agreement by the facts and perceptions to be what establishes 'facts' then scientific theories are 'facts'. You can be wrong! You may have seen the house under sodium street lighting and it is really not blue. But the standard of 'proof' for ordinary facts are even lower than that for scientific facts. Ergo, A 'theory' is science is a 'fact' as we understand reality. Those people who say otherwise ( like Dave ) just show that they do not understand or respect scientific inquiry. I suspect that it has something to do with jealousy of those who see clearer and farther than they do. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
On 28 Nov 2005 13:58:21 -0800, "Roger Coppock"
wrote: "Many of the climate models show warming due to so called greenhouse gasses, while other models show the climate cooling." -- Capt. John [Change to upper case mode to correct a BIG lie.] FACT: THERE IS NO PEER-REVIEWED PUBLISHED CLIMATE MODEL THAT SHOWS COOLING IN RESPONSE TO INCREASING GREENHOUSE GAS LEVELS, NONE WHATSOEVER. There is no model that indicates stasis. ALL, YES EVERY. PEER-REVIEWED PUBLISHED CLIMATE MODELS SHOW WARMING IN RESPONSE TO INCREASING GREENHOUSE GAS LEVELS. IF YOU, CAPT. JOHN, HAVE A COUNTER EXAMPLE YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO PUBLISH IT HERE. i'm not disputing what you are saying, but isn't there some concern that as the North Atlantic current becomes warmer, that thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic would stop and arctic conditions would spread south? at least until the oceans dealt with enough CO2 to cause the conveyor to crank up again? i'll gladly defer to anyone else on this... |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"NobodyYouKnow" wrote in message .. . Dave wrote: We all have a right to question the truth of global warming and climate change, You have the right to question the law of gravity as well. However, there are more useful things to do with your time than complaining about facts. as we should question everything which is pushed at us as these are. You have problems with reality, do you? Reality pushes at you only because you reject it. Relax and enjoy. It's a perfectly good theory, but not really proven. Ignorance of the term 'theory' shows that you do not have a background to critise science. Theory is factual ( proven ). Hypothesis is speculative. Widespread acceptance is not proof. When the widespread acceptance includes the professional scientists who are directly studying the problem, yes it does. No other criteria for proof other than widespread acceptance by those with the background and education to understand the data has ever been proposed as 'proof' in science. Furthermore there are other more likely causes for damage or change in the environment, such as contamination of the air and water. Irrelevant to the issue. One truth does not drive out another. Please get a clue. The fact that you are trying 'diversion' speaks to your lack of facts or serious logic. And why was the Kyoto pact developed by non-hard science people. PhD's in sociology and other non-hard science's do not speak for a studied solution. Man may be aiding the "Global Warming" but the big fusion engine in the sky is a bigger contributor. Mar's has also gone in to a warming trend, it's ice caps are melting quicker and sooner. And if you think we should believe you because you throw in a few big words, it would help if you spelled them correctly. In the late 1800's 20 miles of Glacier Bay, AK melted, and has not refrozen. What did man do to cause this little warming trend? Not many cars running around then. You have a theory and are trying to make your prejudices fit the model. Bad science. I criticize your conclusion and most likely your background. Do you have a degree in the physical sciences? |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84... "Dave" wrote in message oups.com... From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence? So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an answer to this question...again? -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Coby Beck" wrote in message news:v1lkf.232653$ir4.101812@edtnps90... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84... "Dave" wrote in message oups.com... From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence? So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an answer to this question...again? -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do you require for real proof? |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:v1lkf.232653$ir4.101812@edtnps90... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84... "Dave" wrote in message oups.com... From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence? So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an answer to this question...again? You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do you require for real proof? Proof is a mathmatical concept and is not relevant to climate science. What is important is data and a coherent theory that is consistent with this data. The reason I am very confident that AGW is real and a pressing concern follows. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Coby Beck" wrote in message news:kD2lf.136704$y_1.114672@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:v1lkf.232653$ir4.101812@edtnps90... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84... "Dave" wrote in message oups.com... From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence? So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an answer to this question...again? You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do you require for real proof? Proof is a mathmatical concept and is not relevant to climate science. What is important is data and a coherent theory that is consistent with this data. The reason I am very confident that AGW is real and a pressing concern follows. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? You need more proof than what you post as to say it is mankinds actions that are causing the warming. We have had warming and cooling for eons. Even when Mankind was not around. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:kD2lf.136704$y_1.114672@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do you require for real proof? Proof is a mathmatical concept and is not relevant to climate science. What is important is data and a coherent theory that is consistent with this data. The reason I am very confident that AGW is real and a pressing concern follows. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and explanation I presented? You need more proof than what you post Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if you prefer)? -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Coby Beck" wrote in message news:G76lf.136987$y_1.135187@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:kD2lf.136704$y_1.114672@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do you require for real proof? Proof is a mathmatical concept and is not relevant to climate science. What is important is data and a coherent theory that is consistent with this data. The reason I am very confident that AGW is real and a pressing concern follows. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and explanation I presented? You need more proof than what you post Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if you prefer)? -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") Something other than you have shown. And if I could come up with a great proof of what is causing global warming, I would be cashing large grant money checks. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
k.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:G76lf.136987$y_1.135187@edtnps89... http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and explanation I presented? You need more proof than what you post Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if you prefer)? Something other than you have shown. C'mon! You reject all the data from all the scientific institutions specializing in atmosphere ocean and climate, you reject the opinions of institutions like NASA GISS, NOAA, BAS, EPA, NAS etc etc and glibly demand proof. I'm just asking you, what is missing? What would you accept as "the smoking gun" of findings? Do you need proof that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic? That the temperature is rising? That is rising at an unatural rate? That it is higher now than in thousands of years? That CO2 absorbs IR radiation? That ancient ice is melting around the globe? That ocean temperatures are rising? That CO2 in the ocean is rising? That in the ancient past massive influxes of GHG shot the temperature up for a hundred thousand years? Would all of that convince you? -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") And if I could come up with a great proof of what is causing global warming, I would be cashing large grant money checks. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
And the Martian icecaps are also melting faster than normal. Our CO2
jumping over there? Maybe it is over fishing of the seas, and we are getting too much ocean plankton and algae that are affecting the ocean temps and the heating. CO2 a adjunct. If it was so simple, then all the scientists, or at least a supra majority could agree on the causes. Maybe it is the fact that we are overdue for a magnetic poll shift and more UV is reaching the earth. You only want to believe in your preset ideas. You are not open to real science. "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:YG8lf.137006$y_1.73889@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:G76lf.136987$y_1.135187@edtnps89... http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and explanation I presented? You need more proof than what you post Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if you prefer)? Something other than you have shown. C'mon! You reject all the data from all the scientific institutions specializing in atmosphere ocean and climate, you reject the opinions of institutions like NASA GISS, NOAA, BAS, EPA, NAS etc etc and glibly demand proof. I'm just asking you, what is missing? What would you accept as "the smoking gun" of findings? Do you need proof that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic? That the temperature is rising? That is rising at an unatural rate? That it is higher now than in thousands of years? That CO2 absorbs IR radiation? That ancient ice is melting around the globe? That ocean temperatures are rising? That CO2 in the ocean is rising? That in the ancient past massive influxes of GHG shot the temperature up for a hundred thousand years? Would all of that convince you? -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") And if I could come up with a great proof of what is causing global warming, I would be cashing large grant money checks. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
Bill McKee wrote: And the Martian icecaps are also melting faster than normal. Mars has an atmosphere composed primarily of carbon dioxide. Any minute fluctuation in carbon dioxide concentration will manifest itself almost immediately, with dramatic feedback effects mediated by vast reservoirs of carbon dioxide and water on the surface. http://cosmic.lifeform.org |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
In article . net,
"Bill McKee" wrote: "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:kD2lf.136704$y_1.114672@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:v1lkf.232653$ir4.101812@edtnps90... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:RG8jf.134470$S4.127402@edtnps84... "Dave" wrote in message oups.com... From Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th edition. Theory: a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. OK, this seems to fit well. And I'll concede that proof is not the right word in my previous post. Fact would be more like it. I don't doubt that there's enough data for some degree of verification, but that doesn't rise to the level of fact. Let's remember that professional scientists are as human as the rest of us, and as vulnerable to consensus and predjudice. And no diversion was intended. While one truth does not drive out another, one may certainly have more relevance and more demonstrable effect. Untill I see more factual (empirical if you like) evidence, I won't rush to bark up the wrong tree. Best Wishes............Dave Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence? So what do people think? Is it time for me to give up waiting for an answer to this question...again? You seem to think any pseudo science pronouncement is proof. So what do you require for real proof? Proof is a mathmatical concept and is not relevant to climate science. What is important is data and a coherent theory that is consistent with this data. The reason I am very confident that AGW is real and a pressing concern follows. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...port-18375.htm l http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. Also GISS, IPCC, NASA, NOAZA, NAS... They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. Yet your side sites CO2science and SEPP. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? Increased CO2 due to human activities. You need more proof than what you post as to say it is mankinds actions that are causing the warming. Then go out and read the damn science! We have had warming and cooling for eons. Even when Mankind was not around. So? It's totally illogical to say that since X didn't cause Y 1 million years ago, it can't cause Y today. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
[top posting corrected]
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:YG8lf.137006$y_1.73889@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:G76lf.136987$y_1.135187@edtnps89... http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and explanation I presented? You need more proof than what you post Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if you prefer)? Something other than you have shown. C'mon! You reject all the data from all the scientific institutions specializing in atmosphere ocean and climate, you reject the opinions of institutions like NASA GISS, NOAA, BAS, EPA, NAS etc etc and glibly demand proof. I'm just asking you, what is missing? What would you accept as "the smoking gun" of findings? Do you need proof that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic? That the temperature is rising? That is rising at an unatural rate? That it is higher now than in thousands of years? That CO2 absorbs IR radiation? That ancient ice is melting around the globe? That ocean temperatures are rising? That CO2 in the ocean is rising? That in the ancient past massive influxes of GHG shot the temperature up for a hundred thousand years? Would all of that convince you? I note that you did not answer the question. What evidence would convince you that AGW is real and dangerous? What problems did you find with the pages I presented, aside from the wiki ones which I don't mid withdrawing? And the Martian icecaps are also melting faster than normal. Our CO2 jumping over there? First, it is a single ice feature that has been observed, so it is a little premature to infer a global behaviour from this, don't you think? Second, we have observations over the last 10 years only, so it is unreasonable to devine what is "normal" from such a limited timeframe. Maybe it is over fishing of the seas, and we are getting too much ocean plankton and algae that are affecting the ocean temps and the heating. Maybe there is research and data from experts to prefer over the non-sensical WAG's of Bill McKee on usenet. CO2 a adjunct. If it was so simple, then all the scientists, or at least a supra majority could agree on the causes. It is not simple, but it is reasonably well understood. And lets see, NOAA, GISS, IPCC, BAS, EPA, NAS, RS of UK, and every other major scientific institution and 95+% of atmospheric, oceanic and climate scientists do believe that anthropogenic CO2 is driving the current global warming, so the agreement you seek is already here. Maybe it is the fact that we are overdue for a magnetic poll shift and more UV is reaching the earth. You only want to believe in your preset ideas. You are not open to real science. Present some. -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Coby Beck" wrote in message news:ZPklf.137519$y_1.112054@edtnps89... [top posting corrected] -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") Same top posting you did. And if it was so simple, even you would get it. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
. net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:ZPklf.137519$y_1.112054@edtnps89... [top posting corrected] Same top posting you did. And if it was so simple, even you would get it. You forgot, well the whole point! [top posting corrected] "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:YG8lf.137006$y_1.73889@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:G76lf.136987$y_1.135187@edtnps89... http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and explanation I presented? You need more proof than what you post Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if you prefer)? Something other than you have shown. C'mon! You reject all the data from all the scientific institutions specializing in atmosphere ocean and climate, you reject the opinions of institutions like NASA GISS, NOAA, BAS, EPA, NAS etc etc and glibly demand proof. I'm just asking you, what is missing? What would you accept as "the smoking gun" of findings? Do you need proof that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic? That the temperature is rising? That is rising at an unatural rate? That it is higher now than in thousands of years? That CO2 absorbs IR radiation? That ancient ice is melting around the globe? That ocean temperatures are rising? That CO2 in the ocean is rising? That in the ancient past massive influxes of GHG shot the temperature up for a hundred thousand years? Would all of that convince you? I note that you did not answer the question. What evidence would convince you that AGW is real and dangerous? What problems did you find with the pages I presented, aside from the wiki ones which I don't mid withdrawing? And the Martian icecaps are also melting faster than normal. Our CO2 jumping over there? First, it is a single ice feature that has been observed, so it is a little premature to infer a global behaviour from this, don't you think? Second, we have observations over the last 10 years only, so it is unreasonable to devine what is "normal" from such a limited timeframe. Maybe it is over fishing of the seas, and we are getting too much ocean plankton and algae that are affecting the ocean temps and the heating. Maybe there is research and data from experts to prefer over the non-sensical WAG's of Bill McKee on usenet. CO2 a adjunct. If it was so simple, then all the scientists, or at least a supra majority could agree on the causes. It is not simple, but it is reasonably well understood. And lets see, NOAA, GISS, IPCC, BAS, EPA, NAS, RS of UK, and every other major scientific institution and 95+% of atmospheric, oceanic and climate scientists do believe that anthropogenic CO2 is driving the current global warming, so the agreement you seek is already here. Maybe it is the fact that we are overdue for a magnetic poll shift and more UV is reaching the earth. You only want to believe in your preset ideas. You are not open to real science. Present some. -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Coby Beck" wrote in message news:WZplf.138403$y_1.48075@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message . net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:ZPklf.137519$y_1.112054@edtnps89... [top posting corrected] Same top posting you did. And if it was so simple, even you would get it. You forgot, well the whole point! [top posting corrected] "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:YG8lf.137006$y_1.73889@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:G76lf.136987$y_1.135187@edtnps89... http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and explanation I presented? You need more proof than what you post Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if you prefer)? Something other than you have shown. C'mon! You reject all the data from all the scientific institutions specializing in atmosphere ocean and climate, you reject the opinions of institutions like NASA GISS, NOAA, BAS, EPA, NAS etc etc and glibly demand proof. I'm just asking you, what is missing? What would you accept as "the smoking gun" of findings? Do you need proof that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic? That the temperature is rising? That is rising at an unatural rate? That it is higher now than in thousands of years? That CO2 absorbs IR radiation? That ancient ice is melting around the globe? That ocean temperatures are rising? That CO2 in the ocean is rising? That in the ancient past massive influxes of GHG shot the temperature up for a hundred thousand years? Would all of that convince you? I note that you did not answer the question. What evidence would convince you that AGW is real and dangerous? What problems did you find with the pages I presented, aside from the wiki ones which I don't mid withdrawing? And the Martian icecaps are also melting faster than normal. Our CO2 jumping over there? First, it is a single ice feature that has been observed, so it is a little premature to infer a global behaviour from this, don't you think? Second, we have observations over the last 10 years only, so it is unreasonable to devine what is "normal" from such a limited timeframe. Maybe it is over fishing of the seas, and we are getting too much ocean plankton and algae that are affecting the ocean temps and the heating. Maybe there is research and data from experts to prefer over the non-sensical WAG's of Bill McKee on usenet. CO2 a adjunct. If it was so simple, then all the scientists, or at least a supra majority could agree on the causes. It is not simple, but it is reasonably well understood. And lets see, NOAA, GISS, IPCC, BAS, EPA, NAS, RS of UK, and every other major scientific institution and 95+% of atmospheric, oceanic and climate scientists do believe that anthropogenic CO2 is driving the current global warming, so the agreement you seek is already here. Maybe it is the fact that we are overdue for a magnetic poll shift and more UV is reaching the earth. You only want to believe in your preset ideas. You are not open to real science. Present some. -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") You present proof that CO2 is the culprit. Not someone's opinion. And since we have had global warming and global cooling cycles longer than homo-sapiens has been here, prove that the CO2 is the cause, and not the sun cycles, etc. You give a lot more power to man than we have. One large volcanic eruption dumps more chemicals into the atmosphere than man has done in the last 100 years. Krakatoa caused freezing temps in July in the mid-west. There is nothing that I could say or post to change your mind. You have accepted junk science and your mind is locked. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
Bill McKee wrote: You present proof that CO2 is the culprit. No, he presents evidence, you dim bulb. You have accepted junk science Sure, right. More Americana. plonk http://cosmic.lifeform.org http://cosmic.lifeform.net |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
wrote in message oups.com... Bill McKee wrote: You present proof that CO2 is the culprit. No, he presents evidence, you dim bulb. You have accepted junk science Sure, right. More Americana. plonk http://cosmic.lifeform.org http://cosmic.lifeform.net Since you plonked me, you won't see this. You seem to be an idiot and anti-american also. So go fornicate yourself. And if you get in trouble again, don't call us. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
In article ,
"Bill McKee" wrote: "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:WZplf.138403$y_1.48075@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message . net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:ZPklf.137519$y_1.112054@edtnps89... [top posting corrected] Same top posting you did. And if it was so simple, even you would get it. You forgot, well the whole point! [top posting corrected] "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:YG8lf.137006$y_1.73889@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:G76lf.136987$y_1.135187@edtnps89... http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...port-18375.htm l http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and explanation I presented? You need more proof than what you post Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if you prefer)? Something other than you have shown. C'mon! You reject all the data from all the scientific institutions specializing in atmosphere ocean and climate, you reject the opinions of institutions like NASA GISS, NOAA, BAS, EPA, NAS etc etc and glibly demand proof. I'm just asking you, what is missing? What would you accept as "the smoking gun" of findings? Do you need proof that the CO2 increase is anthropogenic? That the temperature is rising? That is rising at an unatural rate? That it is higher now than in thousands of years? That CO2 absorbs IR radiation? That ancient ice is melting around the globe? That ocean temperatures are rising? That CO2 in the ocean is rising? That in the ancient past massive influxes of GHG shot the temperature up for a hundred thousand years? Would all of that convince you? I note that you did not answer the question. What evidence would convince you that AGW is real and dangerous? What problems did you find with the pages I presented, aside from the wiki ones which I don't mid withdrawing? And the Martian icecaps are also melting faster than normal. Our CO2 jumping over there? First, it is a single ice feature that has been observed, so it is a little premature to infer a global behaviour from this, don't you think? Second, we have observations over the last 10 years only, so it is unreasonable to devine what is "normal" from such a limited timeframe. Maybe it is over fishing of the seas, and we are getting too much ocean plankton and algae that are affecting the ocean temps and the heating. Maybe there is research and data from experts to prefer over the non-sensical WAG's of Bill McKee on usenet. CO2 a adjunct. If it was so simple, then all the scientists, or at least a supra majority could agree on the causes. It is not simple, but it is reasonably well understood. And lets see, NOAA, GISS, IPCC, BAS, EPA, NAS, RS of UK, and every other major scientific institution and 95+% of atmospheric, oceanic and climate scientists do believe that anthropogenic CO2 is driving the current global warming, so the agreement you seek is already here. Maybe it is the fact that we are overdue for a magnetic poll shift and more UV is reaching the earth. You only want to believe in your preset ideas. You are not open to real science. Present some. -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") You present proof that CO2 is the culprit. Not someone's opinion. Ever hear of scientific journals? Read some. Read the IPCC report. Read the National Academy of Sciences report. And since we have had global warming and global cooling cycles longer than homo-sapiens has been here, prove that the CO2 is the cause, and not the sun cycles, etc. See above. You give a lot more power to man than we have. One large volcanic eruption dumps more chemicals into the atmosphere than man has done in the last 100 years. Not CO2. Krakatoa caused freezing temps in July in the mid-west. Yes, with particulates. There is nothing that I could say or post to change your mind. Unfortunately, you choose to remain ignorant. You have accepted junk science and your mind is locked. Yeah, sure. You're the big knowledgeable scientist, and all of us, all those publishing, all those on the IPCC, all those in the NAS, know nothing. You really are stupid. |
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
|
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
|
Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:WZplf.138403$y_1.48075@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ink.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:YG8lf.137006$y_1.73889@edtnps89... "Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... "Coby Beck" wrote in message news:G76lf.136987$y_1.135187@edtnps89... http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...ent/index.html http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milanko...les#The_future http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ide_400kyr.png http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/02-03/05-12/warming.html http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-18375.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1110222129.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../holocene.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=154 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...paleolast.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...Comparison.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...Variations.png http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180 http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 Proof is also used outside of mathmatics. Been to court for a traffic ticket? And you use things like Wikipedia. They are in the news for the fact that the facts may not be true. And the question regards Global Warming is what is the cause? What specifically did you find wrong with the evidence and explanation I presented? You need more proof than what you post Just curious: what would you consider convincing evidence (proof, if you prefer)? .... CO2 a adjunct. If it was so simple, then all the scientists, or at least a supra majority could agree on the causes. It is not simple, but it is reasonably well understood. And lets see, NOAA, GISS, IPCC, BAS, EPA, NAS, RS of UK, and every other major scientific institution and 95+% of atmospheric, oceanic and climate scientists do believe that anthropogenic CO2 is driving the current global warming, so the agreement you seek is already here. Maybe it is the fact that we are overdue for a magnetic poll shift and more UV is reaching the earth. You only want to believe in your preset ideas. You are not open to real science. Present some. You present proof that CO2 is the culprit. Not someone's opinion. I prefer to call it solid evidence, but so far so good. And since we have had global warming and global cooling cycles longer than homo-sapiens has been here, prove that the CO2 is the cause, and not the sun cycles, etc. It is not required that CO2 be the root cause of every climate shift in history in order for it to be the cause of today's. Similar natural events can have different causes, besides today's event is not similar to many past events. You give a lot more power to man than we have. This is an assumption you prefer to believe in, however the evidence contradicts it. One large volcanic eruption dumps more chemicals into the atmosphere than man has done in the last 100 years. This is untrue. I respectfully suggest that you check where ever you heard that from and mentally flag every other "fact" you got from there as unreliable, this is undoubtably a simple lie at whatever its original source. Volcanic action results in emissions of around 1/150th of human emissions. http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html Krakatoa caused freezing temps in July in the mid-west. I have not heard this before. Do you have a reference? Regardless, the cooling effect of large volcanic eruptions is short lived (a few years) and is the result of dust cast high into the atmosphere reducing sunlight to the surface. It is true a nice constant series of major eruptions, perfectly timed could offset the warming of CO2 rises. Not very likely to work out so well. There is nothing that I could say or post to change your mind. I agree this is looking pretty unlikely at the moment. You have accepted junk science and your mind is locked. I have presented references to all the best scientific organizations that deal with climate. You don't read it, call it "junk science" and then tell *me* that *my* mind is locked?? Very rich... -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com") |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:10 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter