Is it me, or is it really getting hot in here?

Perhaps the world's scientists have it right, and are reporting facts, but
the news media cannot print scientific information accurately because they
are afraid of losing their readership? Maybe Ruth Curry did not make the
claim exactly as reported? If you dig a little deeper I believe you will
find she was in fact explaining the effects of more than just the Greenland
ice cap.

Compare the reporting to the astronomy related articles in the media.
Usually over-simplified and sensationalist.

I can't see how certain major governments can still be so reluctant to at
least admit something is wrong. Maybe the degree is questionable, but not
the basic premise.

"The problem boils down to this. Fresh water is lighter than salt water. So
when it builds up in the Northern Atlantic, either because the polar ice
caps are melting or rain has increased or some other reason, it blocks the
Gulf Stream from bringing warmer water up from the equator.

Over the past 30 years, an extra 10 feet of fresh water has amassed in the
high-latitude North Atlantic. “All the models tell us this should lead to a
cooling in Europe and North America, but we don’t know how rapidly that
cooling will occur,”

- and that is also from the Wood Hole institute. Not published by any
newspaper. More balanced, but equally disturbing.

HJ




"Tim Killian" wrote in message
...
Why should we take Kyoto seriously? It expires in about seven years and
the scientific community pushing this nonsense is rife with crazed
statements that any twelve year old can prove false. For example look at
this recent article of breathless doom:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ent_climate_dc

This article quotes Ruth Curry, a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute as saying:

“Greenland's ice cap, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels
globally by 23 feet, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly,
Curry said. Already freshwater is percolating down, lubricating the base
and making it more unstable.”

Then along comes Cecil Rose of Apex, NC who makes the following
observation from the article linked:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"My almanac says:

148,236,600 Area of the worlds oceans

840,000 Area of Greenland

From which I calculate

176 Ratio of the two

4,059 The thickness of ice cap necessary to raise the oceans by 23 feet.

But the almanac reports the average thickness of Greenland’s ice cap is
around 1,000 feet

Thus making the potential rise around 5 feet from a complete melt.

5 minutes - The time it takes to check such elementary facts."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Again, why should anyone take these scientists and their environmentalist
comrades seriously when they are so obviously distorting facts to suit
their agenda?



John Carruthers wrote:
Cousin Ricky
Should we keep doing research? Of course. Should we be curbing our
pollution and lavish burning of organic fuels? We'd be foolish not

to.

Should we be drawing conclusions? Well, that would imply that we

have

enough data...


The voice of reason, why then don't you all get your political reps to
pressure for signing the Kyoto agreement ?
jc



--
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/jc_atm/

Tim Killian wrote:

Why should we take Kyoto seriously? It expires in about seven years and
the scientific community pushing this nonsense is rife with crazed
statements that any twelve year old can prove false.
[snip]
This article quotes Ruth Curry, a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute as saying:

“Greenland's ice cap, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels
globally by 23 feet, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly,
Curry said. Already freshwater is percolating down, lubricating the base
and making it more unstable.”

Then along comes Cecil Rose of Apex, NC who makes the following
observation from the article linked:
[snip]
"My almanac says:
[snip]
But the almanac reports the average thickness of Greenland’s ice cap is
around 1,000 feet

What almanac and who is Cecil Rose? Nice bit of plausible deniability.

This reference I just found has it at 2.8km (that's 9186 feet). Here's
the URL, it's hardly authoritative, but it's a damn sight better than
"some guy says his almanac says".

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/...leStJean.shtml

5 minutes - The time it takes to check such elementary facts."

It didn't take me that long.

Again, why should anyone take these scientists and their
environmentalist comrades seriously when they are so obviously
distorting facts to suit their agenda?

Why should anyone take you seriously when you are so obviously
distorting the facts?


Tim
--
This is not my signature.

Good, why don't you pass _your_ ice thickness number to Ms. Curry? Since
it's twice as large, I'm sure she'll like it even more than the
thickness used in her bogus calculations of sea level changes.

The bottom line: there is little consistency in any of these climate
change models. Further study certainly is warranted, but formulating
"action" plans or asking for the expenditure of large sums of money
based on these models is worse than dumb. IMO scientists who claim
otherwise are just playing politics.

Tim Auton wrote:

Tim Killian wrote:


Why should we take Kyoto seriously? It expires in about seven years and
the scientific community pushing this nonsense is rife with crazed
statements that any twelve year old can prove false.

[snip]

This article quotes Ruth Curry, a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute as saying:

“Greenland's ice cap, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels
globally by 23 feet, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly,
Curry said. Already freshwater is percolating down, lubricating the base
and making it more unstable.”

Then along comes Cecil Rose of Apex, NC who makes the following
observation from the article linked:

[snip]

"My almanac says:

[snip]

But the almanac reports the average thickness of Greenland’s ice cap is
around 1,000 feet


What almanac and who is Cecil Rose? Nice bit of plausible deniability.

This reference I just found has it at 2.8km (that's 9186 feet). Here's
the URL, it's hardly authoritative, but it's a damn sight better than
"some guy says his almanac says".

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/...leStJean.shtml


5 minutes - The time it takes to check such elementary facts."


It didn't take me that long.


Again, why should anyone take these scientists and their
environmentalist comrades seriously when they are so obviously
distorting facts to suit their agenda?


Why should anyone take you seriously when you are so obviously
distorting the facts?


Tim

Ah yes, the great Gulf Stream on-off switch scenario. And what exactly
can we as humans do about it? The answer is easy: NOTHING! If/when it
switches "off", there will be climate changes. The exact nature and
breadth of these changes is unknown and largely unpredictable.
Scientists who claim otherwise are playing politics.

Humperdinck wrote:

Perhaps the world's scientists have it right, and are reporting facts, but
the news media cannot print scientific information accurately because they
are afraid of losing their readership? Maybe Ruth Curry did not make the
claim exactly as reported? If you dig a little deeper I believe you will
find she was in fact explaining the effects of more than just the Greenland
ice cap.

Compare the reporting to the astronomy related articles in the media.
Usually over-simplified and sensationalist.

I can't see how certain major governments can still be so reluctant to at
least admit something is wrong. Maybe the degree is questionable, but not
the basic premise.

"The problem boils down to this. Fresh water is lighter than salt water. So
when it builds up in the Northern Atlantic, either because the polar ice
caps are melting or rain has increased or some other reason, it blocks the
Gulf Stream from bringing warmer water up from the equator.

Over the past 30 years, an extra 10 feet of fresh water has amassed in the
high-latitude North Atlantic. “All the models tell us this should lead to a
cooling in Europe and North America, but we don’t know how rapidly that
cooling will occur,”

- and that is also from the Wood Hole institute. Not published by any
newspaper. More balanced, but equally disturbing.

HJ




"Tim Killian" wrote in message
...

Why should we take Kyoto seriously? It expires in about seven years and
the scientific community pushing this nonsense is rife with crazed
statements that any twelve year old can prove false. For example look at
this recent article of breathless doom:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ent_climate_dc

This article quotes Ruth Curry, a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute as saying:

“Greenland's ice cap, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels
globally by 23 feet, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly,
Curry said. Already freshwater is percolating down, lubricating the base
and making it more unstable.”

Then along comes Cecil Rose of Apex, NC who makes the following
observation from the article linked:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"My almanac says:

148,236,600 Area of the worlds oceans

840,000 Area of Greenland

From which I calculate

176 Ratio of the two

4,059 The thickness of ice cap necessary to raise the oceans by 23 feet.

But the almanac reports the average thickness of Greenland’s ice cap is
around 1,000 feet

Thus making the potential rise around 5 feet from a complete melt.

5 minutes - The time it takes to check such elementary facts."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Again, why should anyone take these scientists and their environmentalist
comrades seriously when they are so obviously distorting facts to suit
their agenda?



John Carruthers wrote:

Cousin Ricky
Should we keep doing research? Of course. Should we be curbing our
pollution and lavish burning of organic fuels? We'd be foolish not

to.


Should we be drawing conclusions? Well, that would imply that we

have


enough data...


The voice of reason, why then don't you all get your political reps to
pressure for signing the Kyoto agreement ?
jc



--
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/jc_atm/

Tim Killian wrote:

Good, why don't you pass _your_ ice thickness number to Ms. Curry? Since
it's twice as large, I'm sure she'll like it even more than the
thickness used in her bogus calculations of sea level changes.

It's not *my* ice thickness number. It's the first page title (the
tenth overall) that looks highly relevant (with the title "Thickness
of the Greenland Ice Cap") in a search on Google for "greenland ice
cap".

That average depth was for the 4/5ths of Greenland which is ice cap.
You also neglect the fact that as sea level rises, the surface area of
the oceans increases (places get flooded). While you research how
significant that effect is, you can also tell us all how much water
will remain in and on the high, rugged terrain even as the temperature
goes up. Clue: it's nonzero.


Tim
--
This is not my helicopter.

And, I might add to "but formulating 'action' plans or asking for the
expenditure of large sums of money based on these models is " worse than
"worse than dumb" it is foolish at best. All the Kyoto "treaty" is, is
another way for the third world countries -- like Germany, France and
Canada, along with a host of other smaller and poorer nations, to rob the
citizens of the USA out of our hard earned money. If it is in fact a man
made problem then no treaty that robs the USA will do a damned thing to
solve the problem.

Dusty


"Tim Killian" wrote in message
...
Good, why don't you pass _your_ ice thickness number to Ms. Curry? Since
it's twice as large, I'm sure she'll like it even more than the
thickness used in her bogus calculations of sea level changes.

The bottom line: there is little consistency in any of these climate
change models. Further study certainly is warranted, but formulating
"action" plans or asking for the expenditure of large sums of money
based on these models is worse than dumb. IMO scientists who claim
otherwise are just playing politics.

Tim Auton wrote:

Tim Killian wrote:


Why should we take Kyoto seriously? It expires in about seven years and
the scientific community pushing this nonsense is rife with crazed
statements that any twelve year old can prove false.

[snip]

This article quotes Ruth Curry, a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute as saying:

“Greenland's ice cap, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels
globally by 23 feet, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly,
Curry said. Already freshwater is percolating down, lubricating the base
and making it more unstable.”

Then along comes Cecil Rose of Apex, NC who makes the following
observation from the article linked:

[snip]

"My almanac says:

[snip]

But the almanac reports the average thickness of Greenland’s ice cap is
around 1,000 feet


What almanac and who is Cecil Rose? Nice bit of plausible deniability.

This reference I just found has it at 2.8km (that's 9186 feet). Here's
the URL, it's hardly authoritative, but it's a damn sight better than
"some guy says his almanac says".

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/...leStJean.shtml


5 minutes - The time it takes to check such elementary facts."


It didn't take me that long.


Again, why should anyone take these scientists and their
environmentalist comrades seriously when they are so obviously
distorting facts to suit their agenda?


Why should anyone take you seriously when you are so obviously
distorting the facts?


Tim

99.99% of the posters here do not have the slightest clue as to what the
"great Gulf Stream on-off switch scenario" is or could they understand it
anyway.

Dusty


"Tim Killian" wrote in message
...
Ah yes, the great Gulf Stream on-off switch scenario. And what exactly
can we as humans do about it? The answer is easy: NOTHING! If/when it
switches "off", there will be climate changes. The exact nature and
breadth of these changes is unknown and largely unpredictable.
Scientists who claim otherwise are playing politics.

Humperdinck wrote:

Perhaps the world's scientists have it right, and are reporting facts,
but
the news media cannot print scientific information accurately because
they
are afraid of losing their readership? Maybe Ruth Curry did not make the
claim exactly as reported? If you dig a little deeper I believe you will
find she was in fact explaining the effects of more than just the
Greenland
ice cap.

Compare the reporting to the astronomy related articles in the media.
Usually over-simplified and sensationalist.

I can't see how certain major governments can still be so reluctant to
at
least admit something is wrong. Maybe the degree is questionable, but
not
the basic premise.

"The problem boils down to this. Fresh water is lighter than salt water.
So
when it builds up in the Northern Atlantic, either because the polar ice
caps are melting or rain has increased or some other reason, it blocks
the
Gulf Stream from bringing warmer water up from the equator.

Over the past 30 years, an extra 10 feet of fresh water has amassed in
the
high-latitude North Atlantic. “All the models tell us this should lead
to a
cooling in Europe and North America, but we don’t know how rapidly that
cooling will occur,”

- and that is also from the Wood Hole institute. Not published by any
newspaper. More balanced, but equally disturbing.

HJ




"Tim Killian" wrote in message
...

Why should we take Kyoto seriously? It expires in about seven years and
the scientific community pushing this nonsense is rife with crazed
statements that any twelve year old can prove false. For example look at
this recent article of breathless doom:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...nm/20050217/sc
_nm/environment_climate_dc

This article quotes Ruth Curry, a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute as saying:

“Greenland's ice cap, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels
globally by 23 feet, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly,
Curry said. Already freshwater is percolating down, lubricating the base
and making it more unstable.”

Then along comes Cecil Rose of Apex, NC who makes the following
observation from the article linked:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"My almanac says:

148,236,600 Area of the worlds oceans

840,000 Area of Greenland

From which I calculate

176 Ratio of the two

4,059 The thickness of ice cap necessary to raise the oceans by 23 feet.

But the almanac reports the average thickness of Greenland’s ice cap is
around 1,000 feet

Thus making the potential rise around 5 feet from a complete melt.

5 minutes - The time it takes to check such elementary facts."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Again, why should anyone take these scientists and their
environmentalist
comrades seriously when they are so obviously distorting facts to suit
their agenda?



John Carruthers wrote:

Cousin Ricky
Should we keep doing research? Of course. Should we be curbing our
pollution and lavish burning of organic fuels? We'd be foolish not

to.


Should we be drawing conclusions? Well, that would imply that we

have


enough data...


The voice of reason, why then don't you all get your political reps to
pressure for signing the Kyoto agreement ?
jc



--
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/jc_atm/

Is it the "average depth was for the 4/5ths of Greenland which is ice cap"
or is it the mean depth was for the 4/5ths of Greenland which is ice cap?

DustyAskNot
"Tim Auton" wrote in message
...
Tim Killian wrote:

Good, why don't you pass _your_ ice thickness number to Ms. Curry? Since
it's twice as large, I'm sure she'll like it even more than the
thickness used in her bogus calculations of sea level changes.

It's not *my* ice thickness number. It's the first page title (the
tenth overall) that looks highly relevant (with the title "Thickness
of the Greenland Ice Cap") in a search on Google for "greenland ice
cap".

That average depth was for the 4/5ths of Greenland which is ice cap.
You also neglect the fact that as sea level rises, the surface area of
the oceans increases (places get flooded). While you research how
significant that effect is, you can also tell us all how much water
will remain in and on the high, rugged terrain even as the temperature
goes up. Clue: it's nonzero.


Tim
--
This is not my helicopter.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:12:13 -0500, "Dusty"
wrote:

Its heating up because of all those old blue-hair ladies driving those
gas-guzzling Towncars down here in paradise.
*************

What about the acres of rain forrest lost each hour?

I was always taught the trees breath in CO2 and exhale O2.

I think that is an equitable trade off. MAybe as we have mor eSU Vs,
we plant more trees.

Oh heck I forgot that sounds to easy and simple. We need a complex,
high powered scientific answer to baffle the masses into oblivion.

james

A polite rebuttal:

1. The USA is getting screwed by the pollution too - and the USA produces
25% of the world's industrial pollution. Yes, really. I know it's not
mentioned in most of the media, but all those inefficient cars,
air-conditioners, wood burning fires, they have taken their toll.

2. The European countries rely on the success of the US economy. As does
Japan. This weakens the argument that these countries want to, in some way,
punish the USA.

3. The East Coast of the USA is in deep sh*t if sea levels rise (mind you,
Florida could do with a clean up). Every sea port will be in dire trouble
because the weather patterns could disrupt all sea trade.

4. Sever climate change, however caused, will really screw the US economy:
imports will skyrocket in price, the USA has inadequate fuel reserves, the
Midwestern farmers who already can't farm will just have desert, and the
west coast will also suffer through lack of water.

Most of Europe will suffer too, but probably to a far lesser extent than the
USA. While it might get (much) colder, the average European uses 1/5th of
the energy of the average American. Smaller cars, more efficiently built
homes, less reliance on electricity etc. However, the fact that there are
overland routes all the way to the Middle East and Asia - and Europe is
bonding together as a single bloc - will leave the US as a "only child".

Quite how any of this relates to astronomy is beyond me, but ...

Clear skies ...






"Dusty" wrote in message
...
And, I might add to "but formulating 'action' plans or asking for the
expenditure of large sums of money based on these models is " worse than
"worse than dumb" it is foolish at best. All the Kyoto "treaty" is, is
another way for the third world countries -- like Germany, France and
Canada, along with a host of other smaller and poorer nations, to rob the
citizens of the USA out of our hard earned money. If it is in fact a man
made problem then no treaty that robs the USA will do a damned thing to
solve the problem.

Dusty


"Tim Killian" wrote in message
...
Good, why don't you pass _your_ ice thickness number to Ms. Curry? Since
it's twice as large, I'm sure she'll like it even more than the
thickness used in her bogus calculations of sea level changes.

The bottom line: there is little consistency in any of these climate
change models. Further study certainly is warranted, but formulating
"action" plans or asking for the expenditure of large sums of money
based on these models is worse than dumb. IMO scientists who claim
otherwise are just playing politics.

Tim Auton wrote:

Tim Killian wrote:


Why should we take Kyoto seriously? It expires in about seven years and
the scientific community pushing this nonsense is rife with crazed
statements that any twelve year old can prove false.

[snip]

This article quotes Ruth Curry, a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute as saying:

"Greenland's ice cap, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels
globally by 23 feet, is starting to melt and could collapse suddenly,
Curry said. Already freshwater is percolating down, lubricating the
base
and making it more unstable."

Then along comes Cecil Rose of Apex, NC who makes the following
observation from the article linked:

[snip]

"My almanac says:

[snip]

But the almanac reports the average thickness of Greenland's ice cap is
around 1,000 feet


What almanac and who is Cecil Rose? Nice bit of plausible deniability.

This reference I just found has it at 2.8km (that's 9186 feet). Here's
the URL, it's hardly authoritative, but it's a damn sight better than
"some guy says his almanac says".

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/...leStJean.shtml


5 minutes - The time it takes to check such elementary facts."


It didn't take me that long.


Again, why should anyone take these scientists and their
environmentalist comrades seriously when they are so obviously
distorting facts to suit their agenda?


Why should anyone take you seriously when you are so obviously
distorting the facts?


Tim