On Apr 10, 11:26*am, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
That is not a scientific response. *The question is honest and valid,
and more importantly, relevant to your original posting.

NOPE! You're question would be on topic only if
"the little ice age" happened in the past 129 years.
Otherwise, you were posting off topic.

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:26 am, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
That is not a scientific response. The question is honest and valid,
and more importantly, relevant to your original posting.

NOPE! You're question would be on topic only if
"the little ice age" happened in the past 129 years.
Otherwise, you were posting off topic.

Really?

Only data and observations from the last 129 are relevant to the study
of warming/climate change?

Hardly.

What was the cause of the 'Little Ice Age'? Have the causes been
sufficiently identified, and are the effects well known? Are the
opposite causes in effect now, in part or in whole? Are the opposite
effects well known?

Every time I bring up the Little Ice Age, I get either no response, or
no substantive response from you. Why is that? Before you answer this
question, answer the previous ones please.

On Apr 11, 3:17*pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:26 am, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
That is not a scientific response. *The question is honest and valid,
and more importantly, relevant to your original posting.

NOPE! *You're question would be on topic only if
"the little ice age" happened in the past 129 years.
Otherwise, you were posting off topic.

Really?

Only data and observations from the last 129 are relevant to the study
of warming/climate change?

No, ****tard!
Only data and observations from the last 129 are relevant
TO THIS THREAD!



Every time I bring up the Little Ice Age,

BECAUSE YOU DO IN INSIDE THREADS ON OTHER TOPICS, MORON.

I get either no response, or
no substantive response from you. *Why is that?

That is because I and many other people on
this newsgroup aren't interested in the
little ice age, if there was such a thing.
It was far enough in the past so that most
hard data for it are proxy. You fossil
fool CEE-OH-TOO pseudo-scientists like
to add the anecdotal to that so that you
can cook up all kinds of wild conjecture.


Before you answer this
question, answer the previous ones please.

START YOUR OWN THREAD THEN!

On Apr 11, 4:43*pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:08:11 -0700, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:26*am, Peter Franks wrote: [ . . . ]
That is not a scientific response. *The question is honest and valid,
and more importantly, relevant to your original posting.

NOPE! *You're question would be on topic only if "the little ice age"
happened in the past 129 years. Otherwise, you were posting off topic.

That's a lame dodge, even for Roger. *Note he snipped the original
question, so readers can't tell it was actually spot on topic.

The topic for this thread has a title.
That title is:

"MARCH TIED FOR WARMEST ON NASAs 129-YEAR NORTHERN HEMISPHERE RECORD."

That says nothing about a little ice age.
If you want to talk about that, you are
quite free to START ANOTHER THREAD.

Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 11, 3:17*pm, Peter Franks
wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:26 am, Peter Franks
wrote:
[ . . . ]
That is not a scientific response. *The
question is honest and valid, and more
importantly, relevant to your original
posting.

NOPE! *You're question would be on topic only
if "the little ice age" happened in the past
129 years. Otherwise, you were posting off
topic.

Really?

Only data and observations from the last 129
are relevant to the study of warming/climate
change?

No, ****tard!
Only data and observations from the last 129 are
relevant TO THIS THREAD!



Every time I bring up the Little Ice Age,

BECAUSE YOU DO IN INSIDE THREADS ON OTHER
TOPICS, MORON.

I get either no response, or
no substantive response from you. *Why is that?

That is because I and many other people on
this newsgroup aren't interested in the
little ice age, if there was such a thing.
It was far enough in the past so that most
hard data for it are proxy. You fossil
fool CEE-OH-TOO pseudo-scientists like
to add the anecdotal to that so that you
can cook up all kinds of wild conjecture.


Before you answer this
question, answer the previous ones please.

START YOUR OWN THREAD THEN!

Did you skip your meds this morning, Roger?
Anger does not help with health issues, you know.

On Apr 12, 4:48*am, "Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:
[ . . . ]
Did you skip your meds this morning, Roger?

Not really.
I did 6 out of 6 into 6 inches at 400 yards yesterday.


Anger does not help with health issues, you know.

Really? It may go against Buddhist teaching, but
I'll bet that research will soon find that anger is
a necessary part of a normal mental makeup. If that's
true, this newsgroup, full of morons who have less
attention span that a week old kitten, keeps me sane. ;-)

Roger Coppock wrote:

On Apr 12, 4:48*am, "Paul E. Lehmann"
wrote:
[ . . . ]
Did you skip your meds this morning, Roger?

Not really.
I did 6 out of 6 into 6 inches at 400 yards
yesterday.


Anger does not help with health issues, you
know.

Really? It may go against Buddhist teaching,
but I'll bet that research will soon find that
anger is
a necessary part of a normal mental makeup. If
that's true, this newsgroup, full of morons who
have less
attention span that a week old kitten, keeps me
sane. ;-)

I prefer laughter therapy (which has already been
shown to be effective) and laughing at AGWers
keeps me sane To each his own.

Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 11, 3:17 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:26 am, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
That is not a scientific response. The question is honest and valid,
and more importantly, relevant to your original posting.
NOPE! You're question would be on topic only if
"the little ice age" happened in the past 129 years.
Otherwise, you were posting off topic.
Really?

Only data and observations from the last 129 are relevant to the study
of warming/climate change?

...
Only data and observations from the last 129 are relevant
TO THIS THREAD!

"Basic greenhouse gas physics from MIT."

and

"This run of 172 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence."

What is the cause of the warming world? You seem to infer greenhouse gases.

I counter that inference by attempting to discuss the Little Ice Age and
its causes. I've brought this topic up several times in threads (often
your threads) that are more than appropriate. You don't respond or you
don't respond substantively. You demonstrated that again just now,
along with some completely unnecessary belligerence, name calling, and
profanity. I have no interest in that.

Have a nice day.

-pf

On Apr 12, 8:42*pm, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]

"Basic greenhouse gas physics from MIT."

and

"This run of 172 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. *It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence."

What is the cause of the warming world? You seem to infer greenhouse gases..

WHAT IS WARMING THE EARTH

There are many factors, the predominate one, and the one
which is growing fastest, is an increase in the concentrations
of greenhouse gases. These gases trap the Earth's heat.
The rate that heat is trapped is measured in Watts per
square meter of the Earth's surface. Please see:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

Note that the green line, representing accumulating man-made
greenhouse gas emissions easily dominates all other potential
causes of the observed warming today and that they are growing
the fastest. Also, please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C...ttribution.png

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...al-4_12_01.txt

To show that man is the largest source of the recent warming,
One needs to show two very important things:

1) THAT MAN IS THE SOURCE OF THE OBSERVED INCREASE
IN ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS

There are three kinds of greenhouse gases to deal with:

A) The easiest gas to demonstrate anthropogenic origins
for are the organo-halogens. Most of the atmospheric
organo-halogens have no significant natural sources.
Therefore, their increasing concentrations must be
anthropogenic.

B) There are two ways to show that the increase of CO2 in
the atmosphere is anthropogenic. Both of them are very
convincing demonstrations.
Radio isotope analysis of Carbon in atmospheric CO2 shows
that the increasing CO2 concentrations come from fossil
fuel origins. This is known as "The Seuss Effect," after
its discoverer, Dr. Hans Seuss.
Or, if one simply has to have all the trivia, one can
trace inputs and outputs of the Carbon cycle. See:

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

or:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm

C) Perhaps the hardest gas increase to attribute to humans
is Methane, CH4. There are many sources and sinks for
this gas, so its history can be quite a puzzle at first.
Sources, sinks, and trends for CH4 are summarized in
this table from the IPCC:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/134.htm#tab42

2) THAT GREENHOUSE GASES TRAP INFRARED RADIATION LEAVING EARTH.

There are at least two ways to show the greenhouse gases
heat the planet by trapping outgoing long wave, or
infrared, radiation. Both of them are very convincing.

It's called "Radiative Forcing Theory," and you find it
in any good college level text on atmospheric chemistry
or atmospheric physics. It is 19th century science,
the works of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius. Infrared
spectrums taken from the ground looking-up and from
space looking down are very convincing evidence for
this theory. They have the peeks of greenhouse gases.

See:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html#contents

http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_ln.html

There is another way of demonstrating the action of
greenhouse gases: the spacial and temporal distribution
of their effects is their unique fingerprint:

1) There is more warming in winter than summer.

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Northern%20Seasons.jpg

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Southern%20Seasons.jpg

2) There is more warming at night than in the day.

3) There is more warming at high latitudes than
the tropics.

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/GISS...n_Latitude.jpg

These can be attributed to "Infrared Band Saturation."
(Other minor effects enhance these three as well.)
Water and CO2 share peeks in their infrared spectrum.
Increased humidity, in summer, at night, and in the
tropics can block CO2's effect. No other cause of
global warming can work quite this way. See the
Widener URL above, and the textbook he

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming.../dp/1405140399

Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 11, 3:17 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:26 am, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
That is not a scientific response. The question is honest and valid,
and more importantly, relevant to your original posting.
NOPE! You're question would be on topic only if
"the little ice age" happened in the past 129 years.
Otherwise, you were posting off topic.
Really?

Only data and observations from the last 129 are relevant to the study
of warming/climate change?

...
Only data and observations from the last 129 are relevant
TO THIS THREAD!

"Basic greenhouse gas physics from MIT."

and

"This run of 172 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence."

What is the cause of the warming world? You seem to infer greenhouse gases.

I counter that inference by attempting to discuss the Little Ice Age and
its causes. I've brought this topic up several times in threads (often
your threads) that are more than appropriate. You don't respond or you
don't respond substantively. You demonstrated that again just now,
along with some completely unnecessary belligerence, name calling, and
profanity. I have no interest in that.

Have a nice day.

-pf

Leadership by IQ... the "most educated people" don't seem to be the
wealthiest ones?



--

http://Talk-n-Dog.org
********* Koom-Bay-Ya *********
http://CoalitionForFreeThought.org