contrails

Mark Jardini wrote:
While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.

Mark Jardini


http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

On Jan 8, 4:26*am, Scott wrote:
Mark Jardini wrote:
While at one time it was valid to judge what was going on in the whole
world by what was happening in England, those days are passed. Your
local climate has little to say about what is globally in play with
climate. In fact, England should get a good deal colder with the
progression of global warming, the seas will dilute and the saline
gradient that drags warm water to your shores will cease to flow. It
would be catastrophic to many fisheries as well.

Mark Jardini

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

Thank you Scott. A voice of reason.

Mike Carris

I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.

Mark Jardini

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

Mark Jardini wrote:
John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.


Be fair: he does have an undergraduate degree in Journalism, after all.

Brian W

On Jan 9, 2:19*am, brian whatcott wrote:
Mark Jardini wrote:

John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a

forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

Be fair: he does have an undergraduate degree in Journalism, after all.

Now I've got to clear the coffee off my keyboard.

On Jan 8, 5:57*pm, Mark Jardini wrote:
I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.

Mark Jardini

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet - http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
space.

Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.

On Jan 8, 7:11*pm, bildan wrote:
On Jan 8, 5:57*pm, Mark Jardini wrote:



I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.

Mark Jardini

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/*If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
space.

Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.

Yikes!! I think I am going to build an arc....

mj

On Jan 8, 7:11*pm, bildan wrote:
On Jan 8, 5:57*pm, Mark Jardini wrote:





I have been told that if lake Tahoe was emptied onto the entire state
of California it would cover the whole state 4 inches deep in water.
It hardly seems possible when seen from the air. The lake is so small
compared to the whole state.
Volumes, as oppposed to areas, can be very deceptive to the human eye
and mind.

The volume of ice on greenland would not seem to possibly be enough to
raise the oceans 2-3 feet. And yet it is. Things are quite commonly
not what they seem.

Mark Jardini

Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/*If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

That much ice melt would expose darker oceans and ground surface so
more of the sun's heat would be absorbed instead of reflected back to
space.

Like most of the climate variables, there's always pesky multiplier
effects which makes exact predictions extremely difficult.

my house sits at 650 ft msl.............I got it made...............

Brad

On Jan 9, 4:11*pm, bildan wrote:
The USGS says a complete melt of the Greenland ice sheet would raise
sea level 6.5 meters or 21 feet -http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/*If
that melted, there would be enough ice melt elsewhere to double
that.

Of course, the temperature rise that would do that would cause the
ocean waters to expand enough to raise it another 200 feet or so
putting 80% of the homes in the world underwater.

Fortunately for us, it didn't melt even in periods in history when it
was not only much warmer than now, but also much warmer than anything
currently predicted with any level of seriousness.

On 9 Jan, 00:57, Mark Jardini wrote:



Add: John Coleman owns the weather channel. While this gives him a
forum from which to sound off, it is *hardly "bona fides" for an
informed opinion on climate change.

As long as he is not being sponsored by the Oil or Coal Industries, I
would tend to believe him. The data he presents is accurate as far as
I can tell.

The UK Government is now running an advertising campaign to persuade
us to drive 5 miles less per week to 'save the planet'. Fat lot of
difference that will make in our tiny country, compared with all the
CO2 and other pollutants being pumped out by US and Far Eastern power
stations, manufacturing plants and vehicles. Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway, and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model? Global warming
or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
crusade, than hard science. That's not to say that we shouldn't
continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

Derek Copeland