I have an opinion on global warming!

On 6 Apr, 23:24, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
But since that subject (and my opinion on it) has nothing to do with
piloting I'm not going to share it. I hope by making this posting that I
can hint to others that they direct their opinions on that subject to more
appropriate forums.

I agree. As we sit here, shivering in record cold temperatures (wind
chills near zero tonight), the thought that global warming might be a
complete crock of sh*t never once entered my mind -- nor would I
*ever* consider sharing any such silly thoughts with any of you.

Thing is, the proposal is that the average temperature
is increasing. One effect of that is expected to be
increases in the energy of weather systems.
No one is suggesting that it is going to be hotter
everywhere all of the time.

One outcome (and this is a big stretch I think) is
that the Gulf Stream could switch off in which case
the weather in the UK could become similar to the
present weather in Labrador.
If that turns out to be correct then global warming will
have caused a reduction in the winter temperature
in North Western Europe.

These predictions are coming from the application
of the same tools and techniques that have made
reliable weather forecasts an everyday proposition.

Ignoring the atmospheric changes that the burning
of fossil fuels has caused (and this appears to me
to be indisputable - carbon was in ground, is now in
atmosphere) and assuming that it will not adversely
affect the climate is only an option for those that have
no interest in the continuation of the human civilisation.

If I was an active private (or other) pilot I would be
concerned that my costs were going to rise
due to legislative and market changes triggered
by concern about global warming and of
course any 'leisure' activity involving the
use of fossil fuels is likely to be the subject of
unwelcome attention. However, there is a LONG
way to go in the improvement of the performance
of gerneral aviation engines and this is likely
to keep the baying mob happy for some
time.

Clearly there are capital cost implications
for this.

Wishing you all well and happy flying.

On Apr 6, 6:18 pm, wrote:

Thing is, the proposal is that the average temperature
is increasing. One effect of that is expected to be
increases in the energy of weather systems.
No one is suggesting that it is going to be hotter
everywhere all of the time.

That's what it is - a proposal. I figured that global warming was
natural, but after a discussion on another group I did some research
and now doubt it's even occurring at all. Satellite and balloon
readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very
susceptible to errors. For instance cities growing and encroaching on
once rural measuring stations. A tenth of a degree increase and alarm
bells go off.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 6, 6:18 pm, wrote:

Thing is, the proposal is that the average temperature
is increasing. One effect of that is expected to be
increases in the energy of weather systems.
No one is suggesting that it is going to be hotter
everywhere all of the time.

That's what it is - a proposal. I figured that global warming was
natural, but after a discussion on another group I did some research
and now doubt it's even occurring at all. Satellite and balloon
readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very
susceptible to errors. For instance cities growing and encroaching on
once rural measuring stations. A tenth of a degree increase and alarm
bells go off.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

In addition I recently heard that some surface reporting stations in Siberia
ceased operation--so that data was simply omitted from the calculations.

Since any resulting error would be in the "correct" direction, according to
the current Gore sycophants, there is no reason to correct for the missing
data, nor to work to put the reporting stations back on line.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
.. .

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
ups.com...

In addition I recently heard that some surface reporting stations in
Siberia
ceased operation--so that data was simply omitted from the calculations.

Since any resulting error would be in the "correct" direction, according
to
the current Gore sycophants, there is no reason to correct for the missing
data, nor to work to put the reporting stations back on line.

Even suface observations have been, historically, located in developed
areas. Those areas are, today, greatly increased in size and infrasturcture,
that creates what;s known as "heat island effect".

An honest scientists (redundant?) would correct for that; an agenda-driven
hack, OTOH, plays games with the data.

Gene Seibel writes:

That's what it is - a proposal. I figured that global warming was
natural, but after a discussion on another group I did some research
and now doubt it's even occurring at all. Satellite and balloon
readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very
susceptible to errors. For instance cities growing and encroaching on
once rural measuring stations. A tenth of a degree increase and alarm
bells go off.

Of all the data we have, that which appears to show a warming trend is the
most reliable and plentiful. It is true that we cannot prove that a definite
trend is in progress, nor can we know whether it will continue. But the
observation of a warming trend is far more reliable than the rampant
speculation on the possible causes of that warming. The notion that burning
fossil fuels is somehow causing global warming is pure speculation.

I think the real factors at work here are a human tendency to egotistically
believe that people can have any real influence on the planet, and a human
tendency to extreme and hysterical behavior. Both of these combine to induce
many human beings to see patterns where none may exist, and then to attribute
those patterns to human activity. In reality, we have no idea.

I think it's a good idea to reduce the use of fossil fuels simply because we
don't really know how much fuel remains. Reducing greenhouse gases is
secondary, because we don't really know what effect, if any, these gases might
have on the weather over the long term.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article ,
says...
Gene Seibel writes:

That's what it is - a proposal. I figured that global warming was
natural, but after a discussion on another group I did some research
and now doubt it's even occurring at all. Satellite and balloon
readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very
susceptible to errors. For instance cities growing and encroaching on
once rural measuring stations. A tenth of a degree increase and alarm
bells go off.

Of all the data we have, that which appears to show a warming trend is the
most reliable and plentiful. It is true that we cannot prove that a definite
trend is in progress, nor can we know whether it will continue. But the
observation of a warming trend is far more reliable than the rampant
speculation on the possible causes of that warming. The notion that burning
fossil fuels is somehow causing global warming is pure speculation.

I think the real factors at work here are a human tendency to egotistically
believe that people can have any real influence on the planet, and a human
tendency to extreme and hysterical behavior.

The IPCC doesn't help matters.

This is a very interesting video - haven't seen it debunked yet (other
than debunking of the solar flare correlation - but the guts of it has
not)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

--
Duncan

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 6, 6:18 pm, wrote:

Thing is, the proposal is that the average temperature
is increasing. One effect of that is expected to be
increases in the energy of weather systems.
No one is suggesting that it is going to be hotter
everywhere all of the time.

That's what it is - a proposal. I figured that global warming was
natural, but after a discussion on another group I did some research
and now doubt it's even occurring at all. Satellite and balloon
readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very
susceptible to errors. For instance cities growing and encroaching on
once rural measuring stations. A tenth of a degree increase and alarm
bells go off.

Probably believe the earth is flat too.

Gene Seibel wrote:
Satellite and balloon
readings show no warming. Only surface measurements, and they are very
susceptible to errors.

This is a reflection of increased solar activity.

On 6 Apr 2007 16:18:25 -0700, wrote:

One outcome (and this is a big stretch I think) is
that the Gulf Stream could switch off in which case
the weather in the UK could become similar to the
present weather in Labrador.
If that turns out to be correct then global warming will
have caused a reduction in the winter temperature
in North Western Europe.

Why would you expect that? It has already been warmer during the
Medieval Warm Period and the climate in Britain was balmy enough to
grow grapes. Norsemen colonized coastal Greenland and grew grains and
raised cattle there.




Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

These predictions are coming from the application
of the same tools and techniques that have made
reliable weather forecasts an everyday proposition.

I don't see a "smiley" here -- so I can only conclude that your're
serious?

"Reliable weather forecasts"?? Where have you EVER seen one of
those? I have been a student of meterology since taking several
courses in college, some 25 years ago, and am here to tell you that
there are NO accurate forecast models that function beyond 12 hours
out.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"