(SwimJim) wrote in
om:

Mike1 wrote in
message
news:Mitchell-Holman-special-ed-project-5E0CD8.22244919082004@phswest.
com...
(SwimJim) wrote:

He should have said "only the current Presidential Administration in
the United States is out of touch with reality" to be a little more
accurate.


Yeah, like *China* is breakin' is hind-end to sign Kyoto.

Where did I mention Kyoto? I don't support it. Being out of touch
with reality means recognizing that global warming is going to be a
problem requiring real action with solutions that work. Because I
don't think that the Kyoto Protocol is a solution that would work, I
don't support it. (However, I do support the UN Framework Treaty on
Climate Change.)

The Kyoto treaty is still nice to have in place until something better has
been worked out, flawed as it is. If you look at all the complaints against
the treaty you will find that they are quite contradictory and these
contradictions are going to plague any further treaties too.

I don't know China's status regarding the Kyoto Protocol, since they
were specifically exempted, along with India. I would have expected
that they'd ratify it for that reason.

Good guess. China ratified the Kyoto treaty 30/08/02
http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:05:28 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:


From a weatherman's POV the moist air rose from sea level to pass
over the Bodmin Moor, and the cooling caused the water vapour to
condense and fall as rain. The heavy rain on the moor was funneled
down by the river through a narrow gorge, which it had cut into the
cliffs. Te gorge was the site of a pretty fishing village. The flash flood
was impeded by a bridge over the river above the village. A small lake
formed upstread of the bridge which eventually gave way. When this
happend the surge of water burst the banks of the river and damaged
some of the building in the village.

` So what you're saying is that it was a combination of high
precipitation efficiency, precipitation duration and the shape/size of
the watershed the precipitation fell in. How is this different than
any heavy rain event?


From a climatologist's point of view, global warming has caused higher
sea surface temperatures which resulted in a greater frequency of hurricanes
during this season.

LOL. A demonstratable mistake, I'm afraid. There is no
research that has found any statistically significant change in
hurricane frequency. If you have one, please post a citation. I'm
interested in why you would expect to see such a trend when the
majority of the warming has been taking place at high northern
latitudes during the arctic winter and involves changes in overnight
lows. Is there some teleconnection between the overnight lows in
Inuvik and hurricane formation that the climate community is unaware
of? Keep in mind, that researchers haven't found a
trend...yet...because the ingredients necessary for hurricane
formation have not been sufficiently altered to produce such a trend.

Moeover, the warmer SST allowed a dying hurricane
to cross the Atlantic without losing its moisture. When Bonnie reached
Cornwall it deposited its remaining load, which was heavy enough to
bring down a road briidge. Basically, to put it in climatic terms, more
warming means more evaporation which means heavier rainfall.

And dying hurricanes have never found their way across the
north Atlantic before? If they have, what allowed them to do so?
Presumably, if it occurred 50 years ago, you cannot blame the result
on GW.


Ten years ago British scientists were predicting more severe weather
for Britain due to global warming. We saw it two years ago and we are
seeing it again this year, not just in southern England but also in northern
Scotland where thre have been two incidents of motorist having to be
rescued from vehicles in flash flooding.

And undoubtedly as GW extends further out of the high
latitudes we'll see changes in severe weather trends. None have been
found so far. Attempting to link every severe weather event with GW is
simply wrong.



Of course you do not accept what I have written. But I thought I should
explain it for those who can understand these things. So for you Dave,
all I have got to say is "Now **** off!"

Of course not, because you're wrong. I'm sorry you don't like
it, but facts are facts and there is nothing your strident offerings
can do to change that.

(Thomas Lee Elifritz) wrote in message . com...

It's very simple, hydrocarbon combustion and human overpopulation are
destroying the world.

Thomas, Thomas, you ignorant slut.

There have always been hurricanes in the Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico.
It's the price you pay for living in sunshine and 70 degree
temperatures for 11 months out of the year.

The reasons these storms seem so much worse today a

1) People have always died. Now, however, we have CNN on the scene
almost from the minute trucks can enter the area. They show us live
and in color the damage that would have 20 years ago occupied 3 lines
on page 6 of the paper.

2) So many more people choose to live today in the potential path of
the storm. It's a risk you take - if you don't like filling sandbags,
don't live on the banks of the Mississippi. Chances are, global
warming or no, EVENTUALLY you're going to hit a year of heavy rain and
flood. It's just a matter of time.

3) Nature hates poor people. They build mobile homes out of twigs and
aluminum, and expect them to stand up when the Big Bad Wolf comes
a-calling. It's never the high-rise concrete $200 K a piece condos
that fall when a hurricane pounds through - it's always the mobile
home parks and wooden beach homes. Build like you mean it, or kick the
blocks out from under your home and move to Alabama.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:09:04 GMT, Psalm 110
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:13:07 -0500, David Ball
wrote:

individual weather events never have a single cause.

I'd be particularly interested in how you
feel GW and CO2 produced the excessive rain.

If you don't know the linkages between excess retained heat energy and
evaporation-precipitation by now you never will.

There is more HEAT ENERGY in the global systen as CO2 rises. No
arguing this point is tolerated at this late date.

I'm asking for definitive proof of the role it played in THIS
event. No hand-waving. No scary stories. Just some facts. Prove what
you are saying.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:04:34 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

It is too early to say if these individual events are a real marker of
climate change or just pure bad luck. Increased frequency of extreme
events will eventually become compelling evidence for GW, but a small
number of unusual events is indicative but not sufficient proof of
climate change.

No. It is not too early. The CO2 content has risen. CO2 retains ENERGY
that would otherwise escape the planet's weather systems. The weather
systems, having more energetic are now doing more energetic things
NOW. As the CO2 continues to rise there will be even more energy to
supercharge the weather systems and there will be even more energetic
weather chaos.

CO2 accumulation is about ENERGY OVERLOAD, not "warming" (which is a
partial side-effect of supercharging the weather systems.)

On 20 Aug 2004 11:21:01 -0700, (Roy. Just
Roy.) wrote:

ignorant slut.

"David Ball" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:09:04 GMT, Psalm 110
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:13:07 -0500, David Ball
wrote:

individual weather events never have a single cause.

I'd be particularly interested in how you
feel GW and CO2 produced the excessive rain.

If you don't know the linkages between excess retained heat energy and
evaporation-precipitation by now you never will.

There is more HEAT ENERGY in the global systen as CO2 rises. No
arguing this point is tolerated at this late date.

I'm asking for definitive proof of the role it played in THIS
event. No hand-waving. No scary stories. Just some facts. Prove what
you are saying.

I'm asking for definitive proof that global warming played NO role in THIS
event. No hand-waving. No reassuring stories. Just some facts. Prove what
you are saying, or **** off!

Cheers, Alastair.

On 20 Aug 2004 09:04:05 -0700, (SwimJim)
wrote:

I don't know China's status regarding the Kyoto Protocol, since they
were specifically exempted, along with India. I would have expected
that they'd ratify it for that reason.

They made deakls for most favored nation status and WTO entry giving
them credibility. Under the table deals. Since they get exactly the
ame rewards or punishments by signing or not signing the treaty, the
rewards or punishments behind under the table deals are the only one
carrying any weight.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:18:10 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:


"David Ball" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:09:04 GMT, Psalm 110
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:13:07 -0500, David Ball
wrote:

individual weather events never have a single cause.

I'd be particularly interested in how you
feel GW and CO2 produced the excessive rain.

If you don't know the linkages between excess retained heat energy and
evaporation-precipitation by now you never will.

There is more HEAT ENERGY in the global systen as CO2 rises. No
arguing this point is tolerated at this late date.

I'm asking for definitive proof of the role it played in THIS
event. No hand-waving. No scary stories. Just some facts. Prove what
you are saying.

I'm asking for definitive proof that global warming played NO role in THIS
event. No hand-waving. No reassuring stories. Just some facts. Prove what
you are saying, or **** off!

You can't prove a negative, Alastair. Please note that I
haven't said it hasn't played a role. I have said that there is
absolutely no way for you to define in any quantitative way the extent
of its role. Given that, making strident claims that it is the
proximate cause is just silly.

"David Ball" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:18:10 +0100, "Alastair McDonald"
k wrote:


"David Ball" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 03:09:04 GMT, Psalm 110
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:13:07 -0500, David Ball
wrote:

individual weather events never have a single cause.

I'd be particularly interested in how you
feel GW and CO2 produced the excessive rain.

If you don't know the linkages between excess retained heat energy and
evaporation-precipitation by now you never will.

There is more HEAT ENERGY in the global systen as CO2 rises. No
arguing this point is tolerated at this late date.

I'm asking for definitive proof of the role it played in THIS
event. No hand-waving. No scary stories. Just some facts. Prove what
you are saying.

I'm asking for definitive proof that global warming played NO role in THIS
event. No hand-waving. No reassuring stories. Just some facts. Prove what
you are saying, or **** off!

You can't prove a negative, Alastair. Please note that I
haven't said it hasn't played a role.

So you admit that AGW was a contributing factor! What a Troll!
All I can say is **** Off!

Cheers, Alastair.