contrails

On Jan 9, 4:27*am, delboy wrote:
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

Excellent observation. If one truly believed that human created CO2
is causing the damage that some claim, then the only rational action
would be for us all to immediately park our cars/trucks/airplanes etc.
and throw away the keys, and disconnect our houses/buildings from
electricity/gas.etc. The inconvenience of doing so would be small
compared to the advertised consequences of global climate
change. ...that is IF one truly believed.

Regards,

-Doug

On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy wrote:
Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,

Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.


and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model?

No, of course not. This is another of your strawman points
in which you appear to put ridiculous words into the mouths
of reputable scientists.


Global warming
or Climate Change seems to be more of a religion, or political
crusade, than hard science.

Ditto denying global warming. Making strawman arguments
doesn't help the deniers' position.

That's not to say that we shouldn't
continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

There we agree.

delboy wrote:
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

Don't forget that humans emit CO2! You don't want the government
shutting THEM down, do you?

Scott

delboy wrote:
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,
OMG! Delboy, it's time to take your confusion about science back to
the forums that are made for it (and you know where they are). That
CO2 is a greenhouse gas isn't even controversial amongst the skeptics.
and should we give up all modern
technology because of an unproven mathematical model?

Should we listen to someone who has no idea of the physical
characteristics of CO2? Derek, please visit this well known skeptic
site and look up the blog entries by Mr. Watts and his guest bloggers
to see what they have to say on the subject (also check out the
entries of Venus, the premier display of CO2 in action):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Those that want to learn more about climate science, but don't know
where to start, try this site for a good grounding, and explanations
covering the usual questions and claims.

http://skepticalscience.com/

If you are yearning for science at a higher level (but still
accessible), try this site, which is run by real, practicing,
publishing, climate scientists at the highest level:

http://www.realclimate.org/

RAS is NOT a good place to rehash decades old climate questions, as
Derek is trying to do, because these sites are well organized, easy
to search, and have comments by people that have been paying attention
for years. And if you are interested in the political and economic
aspects of global climate change, you'll find plenty of those, too.

And while Derek's off catching up on the science, we can go back to
soaring.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

On Jan 8, 7:57*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.

According to the Lake Tahoe Vacation Guide http://www.tahoevacationguide.com/laketahoe.html
it is 14 inches. 14 inches is geometrically/mathematically correct if
the entire state were at the same elevation. Calif is about 404,000
sq. km in projected area and Lake Tahoe contains about 39 trillion
gallons of water if one accepts the figures given. That would be
1.48e18 cubic cm / 4.04e16 square cm = 36.6 cm = about 14 inches. But
I would think that the peaks in elevation of California exceed the
valleys so in "reality" the lowland flooding would exceed 14" and
higher ground would be left dry - but that's a bit of a quibble.
Thinking of it as 14" is just fine for illustration.

Regards,

-Doug (It must be winter or why would I bother doing the math?) ;-)

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.


If someone told you that they are full of something that should be
flushed down the drain line.

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.


Another bit of errata.

Mark Jardini

...lew...

mike wrote:
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

Ah yes, a weather talk by John Coleman.

After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather
anchor for WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather
anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and
WLS-TV in Chicago. He helped found the Weather Channel.

What weight can one possibly place on the 95% consensus of researchers
in the field against a media expert TV weather man?

Brian W

brian whatcott wrote:
mike wrote:
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

Ah yes, a weather talk by John Coleman.

After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather
anchor for WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather
anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and
WLS-TV in Chicago. He helped found the Weather Channel.

What weight can one possibly place on the 95% consensus of researchers
in the field against a media expert TV weather man?

Brian W


His video was humorous, and would be a good subject for a class in
logical fallacies.

Greg Arnold wrote:
brian whatcott wrote:
mike wrote:
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

Ah yes, a weather talk by John Coleman.

After receiving his journalism degree in 1957, he became the weather
anchor for WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Coleman was also a weather
anchor for KETV in Omaha, WISN-TV in Milwaukee and then WBBM-TV and
WLS-TV in Chicago. He helped found the Weather Channel.

What weight can one possibly place on the 95% consensus of
researchers in the field against a media expert TV weather man?

Brian W

His video was humorous, and would be a good subject for a class in
logical fallacies.
Exactly! A good rebuttal of his major arguments, scientific and (often)
otherwise is he

*http://tinyurl.com/chwffj*

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

mike wrote:
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

Well, I won't unequivocally say a voice of reason, but I know I'M not
buying all of the global warming stuff. It's zero here this morning

The part that bothers me a bit is they are focused on CO2 emissions. We
humans emit CO2. Probably lots of it (along with a little Methane on
occasion). So, with the auctioning of "carbon credits", if they go
after humans, how long will it be before I need to be "shut down"
because I can't afford enough carbon credits to keep me breathing?



Scott