"owl" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:51:18 GMT, "Bill Habr"
wrote:
"owl" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:47:42 GMT, "Bill Habr"
wrote:
Are you aware the sun is a variable star? And the effect this has on
the
climate of the earth?
Are you aware of plate tectonics? And are you aware of approximately
how
long ago the continents arrived at roughly their current positions?
And
are
you aware of why the current continental positions affect the climate
differently than previous positions?
Are you aware of the past climate (before 1970)?
Are you aware of the past anything (before 1970)?
There are many more questions but that will do for a start.
Apparantly not.
Is the water warmer than it was in the 1940s?
Is the water warmer than it was in the 1720?
How do you prove it is due to global warming ( which by the by, you
seem
to
mean only how humans affect global warming) and not due to other
factors
such as climate cycles? But if there is no before 1970 then there are
no
cycles, right?
Before 1970 did we have the same number and strength of Atlantic
hurricanes?
After 1995 did we have the same number and strength of Atlantic
hurricanes?
Even if we humans do nothing to avert it?
Your attempt to frame a reply with nothing but childish questions (and
assumptions of answers that would support your position) reflects on
your lack of knowledge about AGW in general and hurricane issues
specifically.
However,
The Sun is about as stable as it gets, with only a very tiny variable
natu http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/reid00/node2.html
The 11-year sunspot activity and a weaker signal within can go as far
as contributing to a debatable global increase and decrease (the MWP
and the LIA).
Your question about awareness should be addressed to your bathroom
mirror.
Yes, the water is much warmer now - record highs (coral bleaching
increases in the last three decades). It is warmer than the 1940s and
the 1720s.
There's no requirement to 'prove' it was due to AGW. There's no need
to find the chicken or the the egg or 'prove' cause and effect.
Recognize the chemistry and physics of AGW and factor a contribution.
If you say it's not involved,
I haven't said it wasn't involved.
Fer cryin' out loud.
I wonder it these Chicken Littles realize the damage they do with
their constant "the sky is falling' refrain?
Do you realize everytime someone thoughtlessly invokes global warming the
damage the do to science?
Do you think the constant "it's global warming" doesn't get to be a "the sky
is falling" refrain?
You would also know that this matters because at present those
temperatures do not seem to be higher than they would be because of
human activity.
Oh wait, that would show a dip in activity from 1970 to 1995 and
wouldn't show the dramatic increase but would show a fluctuation from
high to low and back to high.
In the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s there was more North Atlantic hurricane
activity per decade than from 1970 to 1995.
Since there are at least 2 known cycles, a century cycle overlaid with
a multi-decade cycle, it will take several HUNDRED years before you
have meaningful data.
Since it was argued that we ONLY have accurate data from 1970 on then the
statement is correct.
All those are yours. All those, and the rest of your sludge, fishes
for anything and everything that diminishes the science and the
evidence.
I have merely implied that there are other factors, factors you seem to
deny.
I've denied no such thing. Quit with the fantasies and inventions.
Your response is only further evidence that you don't have the basics
under your belt so you try to dumb the conversation down.
Pehaps you should ask Lloyd why he thinks the ONLY possible alternatives
are
Kingons or magic beans.
Perhaps you should quit pretending that questions are statements.
Perhaps you should learn to read.