A Fishing forum. FishingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FishingBanter forum » rec.outdoors.fishing newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 6th, 2005, 06:33 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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")



  #32  
Old December 6th, 2005, 06:45 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #33  
Old December 7th, 2005, 12:25 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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")




  #34  
Old December 7th, 2005, 03:41 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #35  
Old December 7th, 2005, 07:39 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #36  
Old December 7th, 2005, 07:52 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #37  
Old December 7th, 2005, 10:48 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #38  
Old December 7th, 2005, 03:49 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming

In article ,
says...


"Coby Beck" wrote ...
"Bill McKee" wrote ...


[cut]

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. 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.


Yes there are long term cycles, but they have been shown to correlate with
changes in the Earth's orbit and the Earth's tilt axis, etc. The results of
these changes in the overall forcing is thought to have produced the Ice Ages.

Changes in atmospheric CO2 levels in preindustrial times were not the cause
but the result of the orbital cycles, amplifying the effects of the orbital
changes. It's been sugested that man's changes to the Earth's surface by
clearing forests and planting rice crops may have influenced climate over
the Holocene, but these have no where near the impact of our present
activities.

That comment about CO2 emissions from volcanos has been shown to be wrong
numerous times. The SO2 which is blasted into the stratosphere does tend to
cool things for a few years, with the Tambora eruption in 1815 being blamed
for the "Year without Summer" in 1816. Were you thinking of that blast when you
claimed that Krakatoa produced summer freezing? BTW, the Little Ice Age may
have been partly the result of an increase in the frequency of large volcanic
events, such as in 1459 and 1601, etc. For what it's worth, I think the
Vikings in Greenland may have died out from the effects of the 1459 event.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

  #39  
Old December 7th, 2005, 08:17 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Marine Food Chain Affected by Global Warming

It is all so simple. That is why there is total agreement on the causes of
Global Warming.

"Eric Swanson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...


"Coby Beck" wrote ...
"Bill McKee" wrote ...


[cut]

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. 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.


Yes there are long term cycles, but they have been shown to correlate with
changes in the Earth's orbit and the Earth's tilt axis, etc. The results
of
these changes in the overall forcing is thought to have produced the Ice
Ages.

Changes in atmospheric CO2 levels in preindustrial times were not the
cause
but the result of the orbital cycles, amplifying the effects of the
orbital
changes. It's been sugested that man's changes to the Earth's surface by
clearing forests and planting rice crops may have influenced climate over
the Holocene, but these have no where near the impact of our present
activities.

That comment about CO2 emissions from volcanos has been shown to be wrong
numerous times. The SO2 which is blasted into the stratosphere does tend
to
cool things for a few years, with the Tambora eruption in 1815 being
blamed
for the "Year without Summer" in 1816. Were you thinking of that blast
when you
claimed that Krakatoa produced summer freezing? BTW, the Little Ice Age
may
have been partly the result of an increase in the frequency of large
volcanic
events, such as in 1459 and 1601, etc. For what it's worth, I think the
Vikings in Greenland may have died out from the effects of the 1459 event.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------



  #40  
Old December 7th, 2005, 09:54 PM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,talk.environment,rec.outdoors.fishing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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")


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Global warming off topic? Just wondering... sandy Fly Fishing 10 September 26th, 2005 04:29 AM
Rolling Stone - Bush is worst environmental president ever Sportsmen Against Bush Fly Fishing 0 December 4th, 2003 09:02 AM
Fish much smarter than we imagined John General Discussion 14 October 8th, 2003 10:39 PM
Fish much smarter than we imagined John UK Sea Fishing 10 October 8th, 2003 10:39 PM
Fish much smarter than we imagined John Fishing in Canada 10 October 8th, 2003 10:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 FishingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.