To My Friends In South Texas This Evening

Page 9 of 10  
Bob Martin wrote:

Heh! If that's so, then why do climatologists use weather as a proxy for climate change? They record temperature, precipitation, etc., and from that deduce "climate." True, they use other proxies that can't be called "weather" (i.e., sunspot activity), but to say that "weather does not influence (the perception of) climate" seems wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/07/2009 09:42 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Climate is basically the average weather over a long period of time, typically 30 years or so.
You need to record the weather to determine the climate.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Friesen wrote:

What was the "weather" in what was to become Berlin or London 2,000 years ago?
The "trick" the CRU played was to use "proxy" data for about 2,000 years (tree rings, ice cores, etc.), then switch over to "real" data in 1981. Presto, a significant uptick. They had to do this because the proxy data they were using 1981 onward did NOT show any warming. In fact, it showed continued cooling.
The conundrum could be easily solved by assuming the 2,000 years of proxy data was wrongly determined. That is, a tree ring of 0.25" really represented 60 instead of 55.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Snip

And climate change is not the issue. We are talking global warming. Whe have climate change seasonally.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That was my point. Global warming is not happening, and the leaked documents (not just the email) from the CRU demonstrate that the "scientists" screaming that the earth is warming KNOW that it's not happening.
Some of these same "scientists" were screaming that we were going to enter an ice age, back in the 1970s.
This is a classic "follow the money" scenario.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:061220091414446238%

Sorry Dave, I misunderstood you comments. I apologize. Totally agree with your last comment about the money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No worries, Leon. Sometimes *I* misunderstand my comments. <g>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:22:19 -0600, the infamous Dave Balderstone

You old fartes with Somesheimers are sooooo cute! (And I meant that in a completely hetero way, lest you take it wrong.)
-- Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost. -- Thomas J. Watson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Balderstone wrote:

Not to mention that neither politics, nor religion, have any place whatsoever in true scientific endeavor ... and this 'man made global warming movement', and the oligarchical proposed remedy, has more than a tinge of religiosity to it.
I've not made my own mind up either way, but I simply hate being manipulated!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree 100%
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

No, the issue USED to be Global Warming. But since there hasn't been any of that in the last twelve years, the factotums changed the name to "Climate Change." It's hard to get funding for a "Save the Dinosaur" movement. But if we change the name to "Help the Lizard"....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
.

Exactly. And What may I ask has all this fuzzy feel good conservation done to fix the perceived problem? Noting.
Really and truly none of the global warming/climate change malarkey came about until we started trying to clean up the environment and stop air pollution. For hundreds of years a lot of wood was always being burned for cooking and heating, no global warming problem then.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/07/2009 11:15 AM, Leon wrote:

As long as the rate of burning doesn't exceed the rate of growth, burning wood for energy is carbon neutral.
200 years ago the population of the planet was under a billion people. Now it's 6x that.
From 1850 to 2000, the total energy consumption of the USA increased by a factor of 50. Of course a large amount of that is due to population increase, but the per-capita energy consumption has increased roughly 4x over that period.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris Friesen wrote:

Difficult to make accurate comparisons without factoring in a whole bunch of data ... there were +/- 40 million buffalo here in the early 1800's. Grass eating ruminants, just these buffalo probably released more harmful greenhouse gases than the 300 million humans (divide by two because we all know ladies don't fart) here today. :)
Then again, with all the hot air, both "scientific" and otherwise, inflating this debate ... !
Direct to you from <gasp> the United Nations, of all places:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID 772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming
You steak eaters better grab one while you can, before the EPA, which apparently no longer needs congressional approval to mandate "green" laws, joined with other green nazi's, like PITA, to make your steak a thing of the past.
Those dirty hippies, like the one who wrote "The Sheep Look Up", are looking more prescient all the time ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That sounds lile a fuzzy feels good formula.

But every one was burning then not so now, actually few by contrast.

So.. much cleaner energy consumption compared to way back when.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Not to mention microwaves, fridges, stoves, televisions, computers etc., that didn't exist back then.
Just think of all the hot air that usenet causes. ;-)
--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/07/2009 12:18 PM, Leon wrote:

Huh? You grow a tree then burn it...no net carbon release. How is that fuzzy or "feels good"?

Before we were burning trees, now we burn oil, coal, and gas.

Cleaner in what sense? As the US switched from agrarian to modern it uses 4x as much energy per person. How is that cleaner overall?
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip

With less polution. I have no polution control device on my fireplace and I doubt way back when there were any such devices either. Ther is all kind of polution control devices on oil, coal, gas, and gasoline burning machines.

what,,,,, 4 times more people using cleaner burning fuels than wood.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

None of which affect CO2 emissions in the slightest.

Cleaner in what sense?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:47:44 -0500, the infamous "J. Clarke"

Au contraire, mon ami. I used to do smogs in the Republik of Kalifornia. Emissions tuning was for more CO2 and less NOX. Production of sulfur dioxide was a lovely side-effect of catalytic converters.

Particulates, CO2, and other toxic gases. Fireplaces are filthy, like coal, which is the only emitter of radioactivity in the USA.
-- Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker. Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy. Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot' than the stigma of conformity. And on issues that seem important to you, stand up and be counted at any cost. -- Thomas J. Watson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.