Global Warming

Everyone knows about global warming and how it's "Going to kill the Earth" right? Well while everyone is freakin' out over it they then drive their 20 mpg car down the block to talk to neighbors once they're done ranting about it.
If everyone is scared of global warming, there is a new invention called the BIKE! It allows you to exercise AND get where your going without harming the earth. Hams can help to, instead of using maybe 10 watts to hit the repeater at home or mobile, use 5 watts, it works just as well. For big HF guys, if you can put out 1 kilowatt, doesen't mean you should. I use 100 watts all the time and worked a Russian station while I was at camp. I am no expert on this but what if global warming effects radio waves? If it is bad for the earth and radio, we shouldn't let the extreme happen. If it helps radio and kills earth, we should still prevent our ice caps from melting.

73's DE KC0VVU

[W4HAY]

But is it for real? And what would be the actual effects? The mass media hinders our efforts to find out. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008676) What the masses hear are the mouthings of politicians and agenda-driven journalists.

Quote[/b] ]During the past week's heat wave--it hit 100 degrees in New York City Monday--I got thinking, again, of how sad and frustrating it is that the world's greatest scientists cannot gather, discuss the question of global warming, pore over all the data from every angle, study meteorological patterns and temperature histories, and come to a believable conclusion on these questions: Is global warming real or not? If it is real, is it necessarily dangerous? What exactly are the dangers? Is global warming as dangerous as, say, global cooling would be? Are we better off with an Earth that is getting hotter or, what with the modern realities of heating homes and offices, and the world energy crisis, and the need to conserve, does global heating have, in fact, some potential side benefits, and can those benefits be broadened and deepened? Also, if global warning is real, what must--must--the inhabitants of the Earth do to meet its challenges? And then what should they do to meet them?

You would think the world's greatest scientists could do this, in good faith and with complete honesty and a rigorous desire to discover the truth. And yet they can't. Because science too, like other great institutions, is poisoned by politics. Scientists have ideologies. They are politicized...

...every report from every group of scientists is treated as a political document. And no one knows what to believe. So no consensus on what to do can emerge...

...it is from the media that Mr. Bush's most effective opposition--attacks on his nature and leadership, attacks on his policies--comes. Among the Democrats an op-ed columnist has more impact than a minority leader.

It is common wisdom that newspapers are over. But when the most powerful voices against a powerful president at a crucial time are op-ed jockeys, newspapers are not over.

[KD8COO]

Don't get too excited about it. Remember, eventually we'll all be dead at some point anyways http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Even if a pill is invented that lets us live forever, eventually the universe will come to an end (the exact end is still unsure)...

[K3XR]

Here we go again with the junk global warming science.
http://www.kn4lf.com/globalwarminglie.htm

[ai4ep]

Apparently the earth goes through " cycles " of heat / cold / wet / dry / etc.

Remember the world maps that showed how millions of years ago part of the USA was under water ? well that changed...remember reading about the " ice age " well that changed.

In the last 100 or so years we have been keeping records, a lot of the highest temperatures recorded were in the first 30 years of the 20th century...and that was BEFORE the "emissions " were hardly around..

We also have had record years in the 20th sentury of record wet years, record droughts, record freezing temperatures, etc.

It is just a cycle we are going through.

Just like the other cycles.

Nothing worth getting all sweaty about.

Things will get better weatherwise, and if not, we can bury each other in the sand...speaking of sand. I remember when we used to go to the beach, and dig in the sand...after you would dig about 6 inches or so, it would be COOL compared to the sand on the top layer. May have had some residual moisture mixed with it from the high tides earlier that day.... ?

Any way some folks are never happy with the weather

too hot
too cold
too wet
too dry
too windy
not enuf wind

whine, gripe, complain.

If we could control the weather --- folks still would not be happy. So we are better off NOT being able to halfway control it.

We can not even control most of the things we THINK we can control....if you really think about it.

HUMANS have the largest ego of any species on the planet. We think we are " high & mighty " yet we are among the only species that can eliminate our own species in less than 7 days . oops

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (kc0vvu @ July 22 2006,04:33)]Everyone knows about global warming and how it's "Going to kill the Earth" right? Well while everyone is freakin' out over it they then drive their 20 mpg car down the block to talk to neighbors once they're done ranting about it.
If everyone is scared of global warming, there is a new invention called the BIKE! It allows you to exercise AND get where your going without harming the earth. Hams can help to, instead of using maybe 10 watts to hit the repeater at home or mobile, use 5 watts, it works just as well. For big HF guys, if you can put out 1 kilowatt, doesen't mean you should. I use 100 watts all the time and worked a Russian station while I was at camp. I am no expert on this but what if global warming effects radio waves? If it is bad for the earth and radio, we shouldn't let the extreme happen. If it helps radio and kills earth, we should still prevent our ice caps from melting. #

73's DE KC0VVU
No doubt that we all need to do our part to conseve energy. Riding a bike or walking is very healthy and will prolong our lives. The "reduced wattage" thing is a bit far fetched as for causing global warming but the FCC has required us to only use enough power for good communication. Good ideas although your thinking seems a little "twisted".

I have some points for you to ponder:

1. If global warming is occuring, what scientific evidence can you provide that it is man that is causing it? Before you answer remember this: Al Gore has already tried to prove that man is causing "global warming" and bases his findings on junk science.

2. If the Earth is "warming up" and the polar caps are melting, how do you explain that the polar cap's average temperature is cooler than it was in 1940?

3. "Greenhouse gases" can occur naturally. Example: Venus. Surface temperatures are in excess of 800º F and the planet is shrouded in greenhouse gases. No life forms exist on this planet. We have never visited nor settled this planet. Can you explain this? Al Gore and the "eviromental nut cases" can't explain it. Maybe you can do a better job for our understanding of this "problem".

I suspect that you've been listening to "Uncle Al" and his band of "Merry Eviromental Wackos" for far too long. I agree that we all need to be good stewards of our planet. What I don't agree with is the way the message is comming across. Raising false alams based on junk science and twisting truths takes away the creditability of such groups. I know that this may be an "Inconveniant Truth", but it would nice if these "greenies" would apply some REAL science to the matter.

Point: If the Earth is going to "warm up", it will go through this cycle with or without us being here as it has been doing for millions of years.

Relax and have a cold one on me and suck up some air conditioning. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[VE7NOT]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ July 22 2006,09:06)]I remember when we used to go to the beach, and dig in the sand...after you would dig about 6 inches or so, it would be COOL compared to the sand on the top layer. May have had some residual moisture mixed with it from the high tides earlier that day.... ?
On some beaches you dig down 6 inches to a layer of seawater. On others like your its just wet sand. Yes it is high tide moisture.

Even though we will all be dead in the end, we still want to preserve the earth for future generations. The wattage thing, not a huge factor but if everyone ran more power than required it would put power plants to work burning coal and oil which create CO2, thus harming us.
You can call me crazy, but I care what happens to God's wonderful creation. #

This is a part of a report about global warming I found on a lab's website #

"Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

Here's the good news: technologies exist today to make cars that run cleaner and burn less gas, modernize power plants and generate electricity from nonpolluting sources, and cut our electricity use through energy efficiency. The challenge is to be sure these solutions are put to use. "

Oh, and everyone ignores the "Only use enough power to make a contact". I have experienced that while working another station.

[w5klb]

Quote[/b] (kc0vvu @ July 22 2006,09:19)]Even though we will all be dead in the end, we still want to preserve the earth for future generations. The wattage thing, not a huge factor but if everyone ran more power than required it would put power plants to work burning coal and oil which create CO2, thus harming us.
You can call me crazy or even a tree-huggin hippy, but I care what happens to God's wonderful creation. #

This is a part of a report about global warming I found on a lab's website #

"Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.

Here's the good news: technologies exist today to make cars that run cleaner and burn less gas, modernize power plants and generate electricity from nonpolluting sources, and cut our electricity use through energy efficiency. The challenge is to be sure these solutions are put to use. "
First, since I don't know you, I will not pass judgement on you personally. You seem to be a very nice, responsible person who trying to express what you feel is right. I can't find fault with your effort of trying to draw attention to an issue that you feel is important. Our planet IS important. Its the only home we have. If we mess it up, we have no other place to go at present.

Second, I also believe that there is a God. I also would like to see His creation cared for. I believe that's one of the reasons He has sent us here. But the same God that gives us life also gives us intellect and common sense. The stuff I have seen comming from these "enviromentalist" appears to have no basis in fact, scientific reasoning or common sense. They want to instill fear amoung the populace instead of using sound scientific reasoning.

Third I note your posting number. You are relatively new here although you may have been lurking on this site for quite some time. It would be helpful to post a link or give reference as to where you obtained your information. My information is common knowledge.

In case no one has told you, welcome to QRZ. You don't have to be crazy to post here, but it certainly helps.

[ka5s]

Glbobal warming isn't frying the earth! First, that takes about least 350 degrees F. Second, we don't have enough oil in the pan.

Cortland
KA5S

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ July 22 2006,08:47)]Here we go again with the junk global warming science.
http://www.kn4lf.com/globalwarminglie.htm
What, not a believer in conservation of mass/energy?

If the planet was warmer, wetter and greener when the dinosaurs roamed and that biomass is the source of the hydrocarbons we're burning today, exactly what part do you not understand?

[VE7NOT]

While I won't dispute certian places in the northern hemisphere are heating up... the southern hemisphere actually is experiancing global cooling. There goes 'global warming'.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ July 22 2006,11:47)]Here we go again with the junk global warming science.
http://www.kn4lf.com/globalwarminglie.htm
Isn't that the same guy you linked to a few months ago trying to refute Global Warming then? The same page with Dr. Gray? The Dr. Gray who is leaving the Hurricane prediction business? To devote more time to studying Global Warming?

I kid you not. Follow the links. But I dont expect 3XR to. If he did, this wouldn't be here now.

Hows that go? Fool me once and something about you can't fool me again? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (VE7NOT @ July 22 2006,13:42)]While I won't dispute certian places in the northern hemisphere are heating up... the southern hemisphere actually is experiancing global cooling. There goes 'global warming'.
Tell that to the chicks in micro bikinis walking the Rio beaches. They don't look cold to me. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KI4NNL]

He is leaving because he is studying it to show the falsehoods used by a lot of people on the manmade global warming side of the issue. He is not suddently saying we are causing global warming. Look deeper into why he is doing what he is.

[wd0ct]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 22 2006,13:01)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ July 22 2006,11:47)]Here we go again with the junk global warming science.
http://www.kn4lf.com/globalwarminglie.htm
Isn't that the same guy you linked to a few months ago trying to refute Global Warming then? #The same page with Dr. Gray? #The Dr. Gray who is leaving the Hurricane prediction business? #To devote more time to studying Global Warming?

I kid you not. #Follow the links. #But I dont expect 3XR to. #If he did, this wouldn't be here now.

Hows that go? #Fool me once and something about you can't fool me again? # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Ask Bush about that quote. He has it down pat. lol

[KI4NNL]

These guys must all be big business lackies.

Letter to Canadian Prime Minister (http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html)

[K3XR]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 22 2006,13:01)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ July 22 2006,11:47)]Here we go again with the junk global warming science.
http://www.kn4lf.com/globalwarminglie.htm
Isn't that the same guy you linked to a few months ago trying to refute Global Warming then? #The same page with Dr. Gray? #The Dr. Gray who is leaving the Hurricane prediction business? #To devote more time to studying Global Warming?

I kid you not. #Follow the links. #But I dont expect 3XR to. #If he did, this wouldn't be here now.

Hows that go? #Fool me once and something about you can't fool me again? # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
How nice that folks read and remember my posts. Thank You. #It seems to me that this global warming topic was also posted many times. #Here is one from the MIT professor, again, enjoy.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

[K0RGR]

I'm sorry, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of true scientists support the contention that global warming is very real, that it is partly the result of human activity, and it likely poses a grave threat to the future.

To make a statement that "...there is no scientific basis..." is simply obtuse. Even scientists who doubted it 10 years ago agree with it today. Even the National Science Foundation - in spite of constant interference and harrassment from the Bush administration, recently published its own long-term study, and came to the same conclusion. The only people denying it are those with a financial stake in preventing action. Cigarrettes don't cause cancer, either, do they?

It is not part of any natural cycle. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now over 3 times what it has been in the last 650,000 years. This is based on air samples trapped in the polar ice. The last 15 years have seen a rapid increase. At this rate of increase, even conservative estimates are that the sea levels could rise by 20 feet in the next 50 years. The good news is that many of the red states will be under water. But so will a few of the blue ones.

Al Gore and others believe that our global CO2 emissions can be brought back to what they were in 1970 using technology we already have. Others are not that confident, because India and China are rapidly increasing their CO2 emissions - and may not have the resources to easily replace the burning of fossil fuels.

The more upbeat believers think that we could, and should, build a whole new industry for America focusing on this problem. We could avert the disasters and get rich doing it, too. New power generation (maybe nuclear), new cars, new power distribution systems, more efficient appliances - the list is endless.

Instead of trying to hold back the truth, conservatives should be promoting that new industry.

[KI4NNL]

Well every time the word nuclear is mentioned, and its our best viable option right now, it isn't the conservatives that start screaming about it is it? The very founder of Greenpeace quit and is now a pro-nuclear power advocate.

And if you look at the huge list of scientists on both sides of the issue, which side has the most climatoligists on it? They study climate and I would tend to trust 50 of them to 2000 biologists as its what they study. Yes politics is swaying both sides of the issue, no doubt, and yes there is climate change, but is it man made and could we hope to reverse it?

A huge number of supporters of the human caused global warming theory are using emotion instead of fact to argue, and that wont convince me in the least.

[ke7imb]

Just a small question? who was driving the suv's that caused global warming to get the world out of the Ice age? hmmm? the earth did not move closer to the sun or change it's orbital path so why did the earth come out out of the ice age? simple the sun is warming up Nasa has data that the Ice caps on Mars are shrinking at the same rate as our Ice caps are.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ July 22 2006,16:37)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ July 22 2006,13:01)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ July 22 2006,11:47)]Here we go again with the junk global warming science.
http://www.kn4lf.com/globalwarminglie.htm
Isn't that the same guy you linked to a few months ago trying to refute Global Warming then? The same page with Dr. Gray? The Dr. Gray who is leaving the Hurricane prediction business? To devote more time to studying Global Warming?

I kid you not. Follow the links. But I dont expect 3XR to. If he did, this wouldn't be here now.

Hows that go? Fool me once and something about you can't fool me again? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
How nice that folks read and remember my posts. Thank You. It seems to me that this global warming topic was also posted many times. Here is one from the MIT professor, again, enjoy.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Way off base 3XR. This thread isn't about "An Inconvenient Truth". It's about using bicycles as an alternative to going to the corner store in a vehicle. Or a few blocks to the Post Office. Or for most short neighborhood treks - which is a majority of the trips people make in cars. It will do your heart good. My boss who had a triple bypass started riding with my friend and I. His heart doctor said it had healed and was in the best shape he'd seen it.

Now, I noticed you quoted the OPINION of an MIT professor. Here is the MIT News Office and an official story in their paper - NOT AN OPINION. Mr. Lindzen, should read just a little more.
* MIT News LINKY * (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricanes.html)

* Hurricanes and Global Warming * (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2005/08/01/57888.htm)

Earlier Estimates TOO CONSERVATIVE *linky* (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5006970.stm)

And we all know how bad things get when we're too conservative. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[ke7imb]

Oh here is some more stuff that never maked the cut in Al gores filmGlobal warming? (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html)

[n0jaa]

Explain why this year's hurricane season has been less active than in the last two years. #Why? #Because sea-surface temperatures are LOWER this year than in previous years. #Earth's oceans are a MAJOR factor in controlling global temperatures, acting as a kind of thermostat.

Think about it. #When sea-surface temperatures are higher than normal, the number of tropical storms and hurricanes increases. #In years where sea-surface temperatures are normal, tropical storm and hurricane numbers are lower. #And in years when sea-surface temperatures are below normal, the number of tropical storms and hurricanes falls dramatically.

So explain how "global warming" can be occurring when Atlantic sea-surface temperatures are lower than last year.

Don't forget to include the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Thermohaline Conveyor in your calculations.

Remember the hurricane seasons? #This year there have been only two tropical storms so far in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. #

In 2004, the first named storm formed in late July. #There were 16 tropical cyclones total in 2004.

In 2005, there were seven tropical cyclones in June and July. #The total number of tropical cyclones for the season was 31.

So far this year, we have had two.


Explain this.


http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[KI4NNL]

What you talking about climate and weather for? Don't you know this is a global warming discussion?

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (KI4NNL @ July 22 2006,17:43)]What you talking about climate and weather for? #Don't you know this is a global warming discussion?
And "global warming" involves... what? Could it be possibly climate and weather? Or maybe the combined hot-air output of all of those who continue to push this flawed idea?



DUH!


http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[KI4NNL]

ok, we really really need a sarcasm smiley

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (KI4NNL @ July 22 2006,17:47)]ok, we really really need a sarcasm smiley

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
You mean like this one? #http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/rolleyes001.gif


Or maybe this one? #http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/rolleyes003.gif


Go here: #Space Spider's Free Smileys Pages (http://www.freesmileys.org/free-animated-smileys.php)

[KI4NNL]

ok, those are just wierd

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] ]
Explain why this year's hurricane season has been less active than in the last two years. Why? Because sea-surface temperatures are LOWER this year than in previous years. Earth's oceans are a MAJOR factor in controlling global temperatures, acting as a kind of thermostat.


We're just over a month into the storm season. Saying it's "less active" is like saying a turkey is "less tasty" an hour into the cooking process. It remains to be seen how less active it is.

While I agree that the oceans are a factor in controlling global temperatures, you're forgetting that a lot of it is a giant feedback loop. If you break the loop, what happens?

*THAT* is the concern of scientists.

Quote[/b] ]
Think about it. When sea-surface temperatures are higher than normal, the number of tropical storms and hurricanes increases. In years where sea-surface temperatures are normal, tropical storm and hurricane numbers are lower. And in years when sea-surface temperatures are below normal, the number of tropical storms and hurricanes falls dramatically.


While I will never profess to being a meteorologist, I work with 'em and I write software that they use.

We're talking, on average, tenths of degrees of difference. Yet if you remember the definition of a calorie (not kilocalorie, that's advertised on foods), the ramifications of just a smidgen of difference are incredible.

Quote[/b] ]
So explain how "global warming" can be occurring when Atlantic sea-surface temperatures are lower than last year.


Because you're viewing it as a sectional and not an entire system. The Atlantic sea surface temperatures may be down, but so are the polar ice caps.

Quote[/b] ]
In 2004, the first named storm formed in late July. There were 16 tropical cyclones total in 2004.

In 2005, there were seven tropical cyclones in June and July. The total number of tropical cyclones for the season was 31.

So far this year, we have had two.


Explain this.


The formation of hurricanes isn't based entirely upon temperature of the sea or atmosphere. The position of aloft winds and other variables contribute to the creation of low pressure that are the seeds of these storms. And you're bending or misinterpreting the meaning. I don't know too many meteorologists or scientists that say hurricane counts for a particular year are indicative or undemonstrative of global warming. Most that I know state the severity of storms is indicative of global warming.

[KA8NCR]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ July 22 2006,09:08)]
Quote[/b] ]
1. If global warming is occuring, what scientific evidence can you provide that it is man that is causing it? Before you answer remember this: Al Gore has already tried to prove that man is causing "global warming" and bases his findings on junk science.


I don't know about Al Gore, but there's a lot of emperical evidence that _something_ has changed. In SE Michigan, it was not uncommon to see no leaves on the trees until mid-May. Now, it's very uncommon NOT to see them by the end of April.

If you call basic laws like the conservation of mass or conservation of energy "junk science", then you really need to get to your local community college and enlighten yourself. See my previous post about that subject.

Quote[/b] ]
2. If the Earth is "warming up" and the polar caps are melting, how do you explain that the polar cap's average temperature is cooler than it was in 1940?


Because sunlight heats things like open water and exposed land a lot more efficiently than ice. You know, the difference between reflective and absorptive surfaces?

Quote[/b] ]
3. "Greenhouse gases" can occur naturally. Example: Venus. Surface temperatures are in excess of 800º F and the planet is shrouded in greenhouse gases. No life forms exist on this planet. We have never visited nor settled this planet. Can you explain this? Al Gore and the "eviromental nut cases" can't explain it. Maybe you can do a better job for our understanding of this "problem".


If you want to lend credibilty to your argument, please stop referencing Al Gore. While he's a proponent of the global warming cause, he's a politician. How about you reference the works of someone like a real life meteorologist. Talk to one sometime; if you like I can provide references.

For your own edification, the US and the Sovient Union have sent probes to Venus and it's not a pleasant place. We haven't settled or visited this planet because of the conditions on the planet and the distance form earth, which have little to do with supporting your argument since Venus is nearly 30 million miles CLOSER to the sun. Do the math.


Quote[/b] ]
I suspect that you've been listening to "Uncle Al" and his band of "Merry Eviromental Wackos" for far too long. I agree that we all need to be good stewards of our planet. What I don't agree with is the way the message is comming across. Raising false alams based on junk science and twisting truths takes away the creditability of such groups. I know that this may be an "Inconveniant Truth", but it would nice if these "greenies" would apply some REAL science to the matter.


Okay, so how would you like the real science to be conducted? Emperically, the evidence suggests that the planet is warming. How about YOU do some real science to suggest it isn't.

Quote[/b] ]
Point: If the Earth is going to "warm up", it will go through this cycle with or without us being here as it has been doing for millions of years.


I would be the first to agree with you that there are cycles of warming and cooling, not to mention external forces like the sun. However, we have a pretty good idea what the planet was like millions of years ago and it was warmer and a lot wetter. And since we're burning all that carbon mass that's been used to create the hydrocarbons we're burning today, what do you think the outcome of that reaction will hold? I suggest that we're going to push the environment back toward what it was millions of years ago.

Quote[/b] ]
Relax and have a cold one on me and suck up some air conditioning. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


One thing is certain; no one on this forum needs to really worry since the real problems won't hit home until we're all dead. So, party on Garth! Let the unborn generations worry about a mess we may (or may not) be creating. Which is pretty much par for the course considering the onerous national debt we're leaving them.

[KW4MW]

Call me superstitious but I wish you guys would just shut up about the fact that we have had only two named storms this year. #Now Shush. Go talk about your pay raise in front of your car or something.

<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>KW4MW - VULNERABLE, FL</span>

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ July 22 2006,14:33)]Oh here is some more stuff that never maked the cut in Al gores filmGlobal warming? (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html)
Do you have any idea who the &quot;National Center for Public Policy&quot; research is? Jack Abramoff was on their Board of directors until he resigned after being accused of using it to funnel vast sums of money to Republicans including Tom Delay. They received over $1 million from one of the Indian tribes Abramoff used to bribe Congressmen. ExxonMobil is a heavy contributor.

Your post is proof of what the environmentalists have been saying - the only people opposing the concensus of scientists worldwide are those who are paid to do so.

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ July 22 2006,14:42)]Explain why this year's hurricane season has been less active than in the last two years. Why? Because sea-surface temperatures are LOWER this year than in previous years. Earth's oceans are a MAJOR factor in controlling global temperatures, acting as a kind of thermostat.

Think about it. When sea-surface temperatures are higher than normal, the number of tropical storms and hurricanes increases. In years where sea-surface temperatures are normal, tropical storm and hurricane numbers are lower. And in years when sea-surface temperatures are below normal, the number of tropical storms and hurricanes falls dramatically.

So explain how &quot;global warming&quot; can be occurring when Atlantic sea-surface temperatures are lower than last year.

Don't forget to include the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Thermohaline Conveyor in your calculations.

Remember the hurricane seasons? This year there have been only two tropical storms so far in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season.

In 2004, the first named storm formed in late July. There were 16 tropical cyclones total in 2004.

In 2005, there were seven tropical cyclones in June and July. The total number of tropical cyclones for the season was 31.

So far this year, we have had two.


Explain this.


http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
It's easy to explain - someone is 'Easter-egging' the environmental data to try to discredit the overall theory.

Here's the real data on ocean warming from the people who actually measure it, instead of saying what Karl Rove and Exxon tells them to:

Goddard Sea Temperature Trends (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/)

Please look carefully at the temperatures since 1980. This is why scientsts who were once skeptical no longer are. There is a clear trend here. But it you look at the temperature maps, you will see that while temperatures are rising at a fairly drastic rate, the effect isn't universal. Temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have increased dramatically, but some parts of the mid and Southern latitude oceans have actually cooled off slightly. 1998 was the hottest year recorded in the last 126 years. But comparing one year to another is useless. It's like the old story about a frog being slowly boiled. If the change is gradual enough, the frog won't notice.

I suggest you read this webpage - it summarizes what REAL scientists think, and why, pretty effectively. Note that this study is not based on the rise in CO2 - it's actual temperatures. Some of these 'experts' quoted by the right deny that there's any correlation between the two - I suggest you compare the two curves.

Scientists believe the difference between Ice Age and &quot;Waterworld&quot; is about 4 degrees. We've risen about 1 degree, and the trend is 0.2 degrees a decade. The rate of increase may be accelerating.

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ July 22 2006,19:01)]The formation of hurricanes isn't based entirely upon temperature of the sea or atmosphere. #The position of aloft winds and other variables contribute to the creation of low pressure that are the seeds of these storms. # And you're bending or misinterpreting the meaning. #I don't know too many meteorologists or scientists that say hurricane counts for a particular year are indicative or undemonstrative of global warming. #Most that I know state the severity of storms is indicative of global warming.
I don't think I'm misinterpreting it. Granted, I'll concede your point on the sectional comment. But we are approaching the middle of the current Atlantic Multidecadal Cycle, and everyone knows these cycles can be very unpredictable from one year to the next.

Yes, we will have to wait and see what the rest of the season brings us, but if the first few months are any indicator... well, we'll just have to see.

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 23 2006,02:19)]Please look carefully at the temperatures since 1980. This is why scientsts who were once skeptical no longer are. There is a clear trend here. But it you look at the temperature maps, you will see that while temperatures are rising at a fairly drastic rate, the effect isn't universal. Temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have increased dramatically, but some parts of the mid and Southern latitude oceans have actually cooled off slightly. 1998 was the hottest year recorded in the last 126 years. But comparing one year to another is useless. It's like the old story about a frog being slowly boiled. If the change is gradual enough, the frog won't notice.

I suggest you read this webpage - it summarizes what REAL scientists think, and why, pretty effectively. Note that #this study is not based on the rise in CO2 - it's actual temperatures. Some of these 'experts' quoted by the right deny that there's any correlation between the two - I suggest you compare the two curves.

Scientists believe the difference between Ice Age and &quot;Waterworld&quot; is about 4 degrees. We've risen about 1 degree, and the trend is 0.2 degrees a decade. The rate of increase may be accelerating.
I am looking at the webpage you cited. #Granted, it will take a bit of studying to interpret the data. #It doesn't surprise me, though, that the southern hemisphere is a little cooler than the northern hemisphere. #The two hemispheres always seem to do the opposite of each other.

I did notice the big jump between 1976 and 2005, but there was also a big jump between about 1909 and 1942 or so. #But then, 1942 saw only ten tropical cyclones over the whole season. #I don't have any data on whether or not the Pacific season was more or less active in that year, during the escalating Pacific war.

In a preliminary look at past hurricane seasons, the first &quot;jump&quot; period, 1909-1942, resulted in fairly normal activity, except in 1933, when 21 tropical cyclones formed (3 major hurricanes). #This makes 1933 the second most active season on record. #The least active season was 1914, with only 1 tropical cyclone on record.

In the period 1976-2005, about half of the seasons were slightly-above to above normal. #The most active season was 2005 with 31 tropical cyclones (7 major hurricanes). #The least active season was 1983, with 4 tropical cyclones (1 major hurricane).

In both of these periods, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) experienced similar patterns. #From 1900 to approximately 1925, the oscillation was in a negative cycle; from that point up to the late 1960's, the oscillation was in a positive cycle. #1969 produced 18 tropical cyclones, including Hurricane Camille, which makes 1969 the fourth most active season on record. #This was due both to the positive AMO and an unusually-active El Nino.

From 1970 (approximately) to 1999, the AMO was again in a negative cycle; most seasons were normal or slightly above normal, scattered with below-normal seasons. #In 2000, the cycle again began a positive swing, which is where it is now.

During both of these positive swings, the AMO spurred the creation of the two most active Atlantic hurricane seasons on record: #1933 and 2005.

Please note that the most active hurricane seasons (except one -- 1995 with 19 tropical cyclones, 5 major hurricanes -- tied with 1887 as third most active) occurred during positive swings of the AMO. #The 1887 season is an exception, as it occurred during a neutral AMO.

So, yes it is important to analyze the data contained within the Goddard Sea Surface Temperature Chart; but the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations must also be included in the calculations. #This is why I generally discount the &quot;global warming&quot; crowd.

[al2n]

I have been riding my bike to work about 40% of the time this summer. Gets me some much needed physical activity and saves a few bucks on gas. Still need to rig an antenna for my HT on the bike.

I am not big on the global warming debate, there is evidence to support both sides of the argument. Bottom line is that our climate is changing.

We went through a sudden change in climate back in 1816, and the earth is still recovering from it. Average temps dropped drastically and it was known as the year without a summer.

Funny how we think of things as being new, but climate change happens quite often on this planet, just that these days we can be made aware of it much faster than we used to.

[K3XR]

Time to debunk a little more junk science.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

[w0aew]

I don't know about global warming and all, but riding my bicycle is a great way to save on gas costs, and it's an easy way to get around in a small town like Longmont. I've even attached saddlebags for grocery shopping.

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ July 23 2006,10:00)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 23 2006,02:19)]Please look carefully at the temperatures since 1980. This is why scientsts who were once skeptical no longer are. There is a clear trend here. But it you look at the temperature maps, you will see that while temperatures are rising at a fairly drastic rate, the effect isn't universal. Temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have increased dramatically, but some parts of the mid and Southern latitude oceans have actually cooled off slightly. 1998 was the hottest year recorded in the last 126 years. But comparing one year to another is useless. It's like the old story about a frog being slowly boiled. If the change is gradual enough, the frog won't notice.

I suggest you read this webpage - it summarizes what REAL scientists think, and why, pretty effectively. Note that this study is not based on the rise in CO2 - it's actual temperatures. Some of these 'experts' quoted by the right deny that there's any correlation between the two - I suggest you compare the two curves.

Scientists believe the difference between Ice Age and &quot;Waterworld&quot; is about 4 degrees. We've risen about 1 degree, and the trend is 0.2 degrees a decade. The rate of increase may be accelerating.
I am looking at the webpage you cited. Granted, it will take a bit of studying to interpret the data. It doesn't surprise me, though, that the southern hemisphere is a little cooler than the northern hemisphere. The two hemispheres always seem to do the opposite of each other.

I did notice the big jump between 1976 and 2005, but there was also a big jump between about 1909 and 1942 or so. But then, 1942 saw only ten tropical cyclones over the whole season. I don't have any data on whether or not the Pacific season was more or less active in that year, during the escalating Pacific war.

In a preliminary look at past hurricane seasons, the first &quot;jump&quot; period, 1909-1942, resulted in fairly normal activity, except in 1933, when 21 tropical cyclones formed (3 major hurricanes). This makes 1933 the second most active season on record. The least active season was 1914, with only 1 tropical cyclone on record.

In the period 1976-2005, about half of the seasons were slightly-above to above normal. The most active season was 2005 with 31 tropical cyclones (7 major hurricanes). The least active season was 1983, with 4 tropical cyclones (1 major hurricane).

In both of these periods, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) experienced similar patterns. From 1900 to approximately 1925, the oscillation was in a negative cycle; from that point up to the late 1960's, the oscillation was in a positive cycle. 1969 produced 18 tropical cyclones, including Hurricane Camille, which makes 1969 the fourth most active season on record. This was due both to the positive AMO and an unusually-active El Nino.

From 1970 (approximately) to 1999, the AMO was again in a negative cycle; most seasons were normal or slightly above normal, scattered with below-normal seasons. In 2000, the cycle again began a positive swing, which is where it is now.

During both of these positive swings, the AMO spurred the creation of the two most active Atlantic hurricane seasons on record: 1933 and 2005.

Please note that the most active hurricane seasons (except one -- 1995 with 19 tropical cyclones, 5 major hurricanes -- tied with 1887 as third most active) occurred during positive swings of the AMO. The 1887 season is an exception, as it occurred during a neutral AMO.

So, yes it is important to analyze the data contained within the Goddard Sea Surface Temperature Chart; but the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations must also be included in the calculations. This is why I generally discount the &quot;global warming&quot; crowd.
I think you need to look at the magnitude of the change.

The AMO is a swing of about 0.3 degrees Celsius. We are currently more than twice that much on the high side, and it is trending up. According to the AMO theory, we should not be near a peak for another 30 years, but the ocean temperatures are already beyond what AMO would predict at the peak.

I agree that the AMO may be exaggerating the rise in ocean temperatures since 1980, but, the NASA measurements were of global temperatures, not just the Atlantic. They correlate nicely with all of the other studied published so far.

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ July 24 2006,05:34)]Time to debunk a little more junk science.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Which oil company paid to publish that? Since they are pretty much anonymous, you should consider the source. It's just another factoid from the blogosphere. When you find Elvis, have him explain it to you, OK?

The paper states that the environmentalists make a number of incorrect assumptions. Over 900 separate studies have been conducted and published to establish those 'assumptions'.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 24 2006,09:32)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ July 24 2006,05:34)]Time to debunk a little more junk science.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Which oil company paid to publish that? Since they are pretty much anonymous, you should consider the source. It's just another factoid from the blogosphere. When you find Elvis, have him explain it to you, OK?

The paper states that the environmentalists make a number of incorrect assumptions. Over 900 separate studies have been conducted and published to establish those 'assumptions'.


Steven J. Milloy is: the publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund; and a columnist for FoxNews.com.

Mr. Milloy is a frequent advocate for free enterprise/free market principles and policies in conjunction with the Free Enterprise Education Institute. FEEI is supported by individuals, foundations and businesses, including ExxonMobil.



XR only references biased blogs that are a joke.

[KI4NNL]

OK, so if a person receives any money from any business they obviously are biased and cannot be telling the truth in anyway. Exxon is of course not going to donate to people that think they are evil, but that does not mean that anyone they have donated to is automatically skewing data the way they want.

[w0aew]

Quote[/b] (KI4NNL @ July 24 2006,07:41)]but that does not mean that anyone they have donated to is automatically skewing data the way they want.
It makes sense to consider the funding source when judging a study. That is one of the criteria for filtering out junk science.

[KI4NNL]

Yes it does, but it does not automatically negate the data presented.

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ July 24 2006,07:32)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 24 2006,09:32)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ July 24 2006,05:34)]Time to debunk a little more junk science.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Which oil company paid to publish that? Since they are pretty much anonymous, you should consider the source. It's just another factoid from the blogosphere. When you find Elvis, have him explain it to you, OK?

The paper states that the environmentalists make a number of incorrect assumptions. Over 900 separate studies have been conducted and published to establish those 'assumptions'.


Steven J. Milloy is: the publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund; and a columnist for FoxNews.com.

Mr. Milloy is a frequent advocate for free enterprise/free market principles and policies in conjunction with the Free Enterprise Education Institute. FEEI is supported by individuals, foundations and businesses, including ExxonMobil.



XR only references biased blogs that are a joke.
Thanks - I guessed right again. Far right, as usual...
I see that Mr. Milloy is also financed by the tobacco industry, as well.The idea that cigarettes cause cancer is 'junk science' too, you know. Even Faux News apologized to their viewers for not disclosing this fellow's connections to Phillip Morris.

[KI4NNL]

Here is somewhat of an eye opener, climat specialists are about evenly split on the issue, but those that express a dissenting view of global warming have a hard time getting press (read all the way to the bottom). Yes this site is pretty much agianst the junk science sites, but the sources it sites are not.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] (KI4NNL @ July 24 2006,11:23)]Here is somewhat of an eye opener, climat specialists are about evenly split on the issue, but those that express a dissenting view of global warming have a hard time getting press (read all the way to the bottom). Yes this site is pretty much agianst the junk science sites, but the sources it sites are not.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181
Heartland is another site with an agenda.
Heartland's mission is to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.



Not a scientific site, just another political organization that promotes &quot;market-based approaches to environmental protection&quot;. Yes i really trust their analysis with an obvious agenda.

The fact of the matter is all of the worlds Academies of sciences and the EPA agree on glopbal warming. The EPE describes it very well

Quote[/b] ]Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.


What's Likely but not Certain?
Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors – most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols – remains incomplete.

Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a &quot;discernible&quot; human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is &quot;unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.&quot; In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote &quot;There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.&quot;

In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time.
US Environmental Protection Agency (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html)

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (KD8COO @ July 22 2006,06:58)]Don't get too excited about it. #Remember, eventually we'll all be dead at some point anyways http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #Even if a pill is invented that lets us live forever, eventually the universe will come to an end (the exact end is still unsure)...
I think we'll be gone long before that.

If you invented such a pill, then everyone lives forever (ok, we lose a few to car wrecks, explosions, natural disasters and the like) but with this pill, the population keeps expanding until we don't have enough food/water to keep everyone going anymore.

Then what do we do? Set a life limit of 200 years and mandatory executions?

Plus if you think pollution is bad now, just imagine all the sewage we're producing now. More people, more sewage. More chemicals we'd have to clean up.

If the cooking of the earth is really happening, it wouldn't matter. We'd all be gone from the bacteria and stuff from all of our waste long before.

[KI4NNL]

Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ July 24 2006,08:55)]Quote[/b] (KI4NNL @ July 24 2006,11:23)]Here is somewhat of an eye opener, climat specialists are about evenly split on the issue, but those that express a dissenting view of global warming have a hard time getting press (read all the way to the bottom). Yes this site is pretty much agianst the junk science sites, but the sources it sites are not.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181
Heartland is another site with an agenda. #
Heartland's mission is to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.



Not a scientific site, just another political organization that promotes &quot;market-based approaches to environmental protection&quot;. #Yes i really trust their analysis with an obvious agenda.

The fact of the matter is all of the worlds Academies of sciences and the EPA agree on glopbal warming. #The EPE describes it very well

Quote[/b] ]Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.


What's Likely but not Certain?
Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors – most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols – remains incomplete.

Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a &quot;discernible&quot; human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is &quot;unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.&quot; In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote &quot;There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.&quot;

In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time.
US Environmental Protection Agency (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html)
OK, so private free market is bad, government is good. With the track record of the EPA and the government I would be very careful crediting them with being all knowing. I perhaps am a skeptic of the government due to the fact that the head of most every agency is a political appointee, so it ALWAYS is driven by politics pushing in both directions. #The article I posted was referencing outside sources, not thier own &quot;Lackies&quot; so I don't think it can so easily dismissed, but if its ok to discount only my sources, then I can just as easily discount yours on the same basis.

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 24 2006,09:24)]I think you need to look at the magnitude of the change.

The AMO is a swing of about 0.3 degrees Celsius. We are currently more than twice that much on the high side, and it is trending up. According to the AMO theory, we should not be #near a peak for another 30 years, but the ocean temperatures #are already beyond what AMO would predict at the peak.

I agree that the AMO may be exaggerating the rise in ocean temperatures since 1980, but, the NASA measurements were of global temperatures, not just the Atlantic. They correlate nicely with all of the other studied published so far.
This is true, and I will concede your point as far as the temperature change is concerned. #A change of 0.3 degree C can cause a significant change in the climate. #BUT, we must also remember that the length of the AMO cycles are unpredictable. #Some cycles have lasted many years, while other cycles have been only a few years in length.

We will eventually reach a point when the AMO will again be in a negative swing.

There is also the Thermohaline Conveyor which brings cooler water into the Atlantic while removing warmer water. #Of course, one trip around the conveyor can take up to a thousand years to complete.

Don't forget about other naturally-occurring things, such as active volcanoes and under-sea vents, #which spew forth naturally-made chemicals such as sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and LOTS of particulates, geysers that spew steam and who knows what else. #Volcanic islands are made up of billions of tons of pollution.

Remember the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980? #That eruption blew off more pollution in ONE DAY than mankind can produce artificially in 100 years.

There are numerous factors to consider when trying to formulate a theory on global warming. #Man-made pollution is only one of those small variables.

[W8EFA]

Quote[/b] ]The article I posted was referencing outside sources, not thier own &quot;Lackies&quot; so I don't think it can so easily dismissed, but if its ok to discount only my sources, then I can just as easily discount yours on the same basis.

The article you posted is easily discounted as they state they are are biased toward business on environmental concerns. #They also post numerous articles about how smoking is not really bad in support of tobacco companies.

Bottom line all of the Worlds acadamies of science and the vast majority of the world's scientists believe global warming is real and caused by us. #You will always find a few dissenters on any issue and this obviously biased organization is just promoting those dissenters to support their stated agenda of promoting business at any cost.

The National Academy of Sciences, The American Geophysical Union, The American Meteorological Society, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have all issued statements affirming that climate change is underway, the impacts are significant, and humans have influenced recent climate changes. When scientists with climate-relevant expertise evaluate the data and the majority comes to the same basic conclusion, this is an important result.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ July 22 2006,17:33)]Oh here is some more stuff that never maked the cut in Al gores filmGlobal warming? (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA388.html)
Thank you for clarifying yet another misconception. I've been hearing from the right how Clinton didn't sign the Kyoto Agreement. Now we find out that it was because the Republican controlled Senate told him not to bother sending it to them:

(AS PER YOUR LINKY)
Quote[/b] ]The Clinton Administration, however, never sent the treaty to Capitol Hill for ratification, in large part because the Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging the Administration not to seek approval of any global warming treaty that &quot;would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.&quot; President Clinton even signed appropriations bills in 1999, 2000 and 2001 prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from using any funds to &quot;issue rules, regulations, decrees of orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol&quot; unless and until the treaty is ratified by the Senate.

So he was actually working WITH Congress when Newtie was saying there was gridlock. They're perception was they didn't want to see it because it would hurt the US economy and he did what they wanted.

Then they, as usual, blamed him. Clintondidit. Wow, another heads I win, tails you lose.

Thanks for that interesting link. That was the only factual thing in it. The ice sheet in Antartica is thickening?? That explains the complete separation of an ice sheet - the size of Rhode Island - from the continent. You see, ice sheets always thicken when the ice mass (glacier) moves faster. They move faster when they start to melt (caused by heat), partially because the ice water acts as a lubricant, partially because there is less mass. The glaciers empty out on to the Ice Sheet where it meets the sea. This in turn causes a thickening of the ice sheet which then separates from the continent.

I thought everybody knew this. It's not rocket science. An evening on the Discovery Channel or the Science Channel would do wonders for those who really want to know what's going on. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ac3p]

Quote[/b] ]&quot;Going to kill the Earth&quot; right?

The only thing that is going to kill the Earth is the sun going nova or the collision with another astronomincal body.

The solar nova should happen in about 5 billion years. The collision can happen anytime before that.

[ac3p]

Quote[/b] ]An evening on the Discovery Channel or the Science Channel would do wonders for those who really want to know what's going on.

Yep. Like the evolution of dragons and the intimate life of dinosaurs. Amazing how they can figure that out from looking at a pile of bones.

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ July 22 2006,08:08)]3. &quot;Greenhouse gases&quot; can occur naturally. Example: Venus. Surface temperatures are in excess of 800º F and the planet is shrouded in greenhouse gases. No life forms exist on this planet.
Awwww those poor Venusians!

They killed themselves off!

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ July 22 2006,08:47)]Here we go again with the junk global warming science.
http://www.kn4lf.com/globalwarminglie.htm
Quote[/b] ]We are currently near the minimum of solar cycle 23 with the bottom expected in 2007. In any event evidence continues to mount that solar cycle 24 may be the smallest in the last 100 years. This does not bode well for our global climate as far as a cooling effect. During the next solar cycle we may return to a period with much longer and colder winters similar to the 1970's and 1980's.

I thought the NEXT cycle was predicted to be one of the highest, approaching cycle 19 in 1959. It is the one following (cycle 25) that is supposed to be one of the lowest on record.

I thought maybe some new data had come in, but I see the date on the link is 05 March 2005.

[ac3p]

Yeah. I thought the prediction was for a bang-up peak as solar cycles go. I'm getting my antennas ready for the next peak.

[K0RGR]

Yes, while we're in the middle of the AMO cycle, we're at the bottom of the sunspot cycle, which means we're at a lull in solar radiation. How much warmer will we be when we have both a solar and an AMO peak at the same time, since we're already above the peak temperature recorded for the AMO cycle in the past? Particulalry if the CO2 in the atmosphere continues to climb at its' present, or a higher, rate.

[n0jaa]

I just received the following from the weekly Physics News Update. #Tell me what you think...

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

ASIAN STORMS PUSH THE EARTH AROUND. #Earth’s axis of rotation
undergoes several gyrations, such as the precession of the
equinoxes, which takes about 26,000 years. Recently two of the most
important axis gyrations inadvertently cancelled each other,
allowing geophysicists to measure other, subtler gyrations that
would normally be difficult to detect. #The two larger wobbles are
the 433-day-cycle Chandler Wobble (whose origin is not very well
known) and the wobble caused by annual weather oscillations. #Their
combined effect is normally to cause the rotational axis to migrate
by as much as 10 meters. #But from December 2005 to February 2006
their mutual nullification reduced the axis excursion to less than 1
meter. #This allowed Belgian scientists to study fainter, lesser
forces whose exertions could briefly be measured. #The scientists
saw signs of what they believe to be an influence on Earth’s wobble
day by day triggered by storms over Asia and northern Europe.
(Geophysical Research Letters, July 2006) # #

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

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ July 25 2006,12:35)]I just received the following from the weekly Physics News Update. Tell me what you think...

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

ASIAN STORMS PUSH THE EARTH AROUND.
That's really impressive. People tend to forget that we're on a gyroscope and that it can be influenced. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[AC0H]

<span style='color:RED'>WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!</span>
<span style='color:RED'>WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!</span>
<span style='color:RED'>WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!</span>

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 25 2006,13:26)]<span style='color:RED'>WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!</span>
<span style='color:RED'>WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!</span>
<span style='color:RED'>WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!</span>
And your point is... ?

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 25 2006,09:30)]Yes, while we're in the middle of the AMO cycle, we're at the bottom of the sunspot cycle, which means we're at a lull in solar radiation. How much warmer will we be when we have both a solar and an AMO peak at the same time, since we're already above the peak temperature recorded for the AMO cycle in the past? Particulalry if the CO2 in the atmosphere continues to climb at its' present, or a higher, rate.
Well we might get to where the earth's average temperature was when all that carbon that is being burned was produced. One interesting thing about higher CO2 levels is the massive surge of plant growth it generates which then tends to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere reducing the concentration. Without that CO2 the earth cools a little by radiative effects.

I do not question the measurements that indicate a warming of the earth. I do question the significance of human activities in causing the rise. Before I will consider the current rise out of the ordinary I would like to know what the peak average temperature was during each of the previous inter-glacial periods, where in the time bewteen ice ages the peak took place and where are we currently with respect to both time and temperature compared with previous inter-glacial periods.

The comment about CO2 levels being the highest they have been in 650,000 years implies that they have been higher at some point further in the past. The majority of the carbon that we use as fuel today was alive in the 50-300 Million years ago time frame. Given the evidence of a much greener earth during that time one can speculate that the CO2 levels were much higher then than they are now. Perhaps we are just approaching a typical million or more year cycle peak for both CO2 and temperature.

Mike
WA3KYY

[ac3p]

Then let's plant more trees. I the remaining time until the next cycle peak those trees should grow enough to offset the CO2 with O2.

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 25 2006,12:12)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 25 2006,09:30)]Yes, while we're in the middle of the AMO cycle, we're at the bottom of the sunspot cycle, which means we're at a lull in solar radiation. How much warmer will we be when we have both a solar and an AMO peak at the same time, since we're already above the peak temperature recorded for the AMO cycle in the past? Particulalry if the CO2 in the atmosphere continues to climb at its' present, or a higher, rate.
Well we might get to where the earth's average temperature was when all that carbon that is being burned was produced. One interesting thing about higher CO2 levels is the massive surge of plant growth it generates which then tends to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere reducing the concentration. Without that CO2 the earth cools a little by radiative effects.

I do not question the measurements that indicate a warming of the earth. I do question the significance of human activities in causing the rise. Before I will consider the current rise out of the ordinary I would like to know what the peak average temperature was during each of the previous inter-glacial periods, where in the time bewteen ice ages the peak took place and where are we currently with respect to both time and temperature compared with previous inter-glacial periods.

The comment about CO2 levels being the highest they have been in 650,000 years implies that they have been higher at some point further in the past. The majority of the carbon that we use as fuel today was alive in the 50-300 Million years ago time frame. Given the evidence of a much greener earth during that time one can speculate that the CO2 levels were much higher then than they are now. Perhaps we are just approaching a typical million or more year cycle peak for both CO2 and temperature.

Mike
WA3KYY
They've taken samples of glacial ice from various areas of the world including the poles, that date back 650,000 years. They have a system similar to counting rings on a tree to count the number of years involved. The trapped air reveals the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen shows the average air temperature. These measurements have been duplicated by several different groups, using samples from different places, and they seem to track.

The prevalence of CO2 and the isotopes used to track temperature track each other very closely - almost linearly - over that 650,000 years.

Do we know that an increase in CO2 causes temperatures to rise? Other work seems to have confirmed that.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 25 2006,12:12)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 25 2006,09:30)]Yes, while we're in the middle of the AMO cycle, we're at the bottom of the sunspot cycle, which means we're at a lull in solar radiation. How much warmer will we be when we have both a solar and an AMO peak at the same time, since we're already above the peak temperature recorded for the AMO cycle in the past? Particulalry if the CO2 in the atmosphere continues to climb at its' present, or a higher, rate.
Well we might get to where the earth's average temperature was when all that carbon that is being burned was produced. #One interesting thing about higher CO2 levels is the massive surge of plant growth it generates which then tends to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere reducing the concentration. Without that CO2 the earth cools a little by radiative effects.

I do not question the measurements that indicate a warming of the earth. I do question the significance of human activities in causing the rise. #Before I will consider the current rise out of the ordinary I would like to know what the peak average temperature was during each of the previous inter-glacial periods, where in the time bewteen ice ages the peak took place and where are we currently with respect to both time and temperature compared with previous inter-glacial periods.

The comment about CO2 levels being the highest they have been in 650,000 years implies that they have been higher at some point further in the past. #The majority of the carbon that we use as fuel today was alive in the 50-300 Million years ago time frame. #Given the evidence of a much greener earth during that time one can speculate that the CO2 levels were much higher then than they are now. #Perhaps we are just approaching a typical million or more year cycle peak for both CO2 and temperature.

Mike
WA3KYY
Mike. Last point first, you are wrong, there is no implication of higher figures in the past, though that can't be ruled out. It merely indicates that reasonably reliable measurement at present only extends to 650,000 years BP.

Increased CO2 does indeed enhance plant growth. Unfortunately desertification and human intervention means that plants have less space to grow on and where they can grow the amount allowed to grow is limited. I fear that the only significant increase in biomass will be in algal blooms in the oceans.

As I have said before and will keep on saying, it really doesn't matter whether the rise in temperature is caused by human activity or by natural cycles. What matters is whether the increase in temperature itself is harmful or not. If we judge it to be seriously harmful (and even a few metres of sea level rise could have devastating effects) we have to decide what we can do about it, and take the necessary action no matter how expensive or painful it may be.

Arguing about natural cycles and human effects is totally missing the point. We should be concentrating on risk assessment and amelioration strategies.

73

Brian G8ADD

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ July 26 2006,04:33)]Arguing about natural cycles and human effects is totally missing the point. We should be concentrating on risk assessment and amelioration strategies.
Cogent points, Brian, and well stated.

What, pray tell, would you have us do?

Shall we ameliorate the current warming trend (whether inspired by God or God's creature) by wreaking havoc with industrial economies?

Perhaps we should simply forbid the ownership, use or manufacture of heavy internal combustion engines -- always excepting, of course, those of the various military services.

Then, truth to tell, we might find a bit of difficulty convincing the Chinese, or the Indians, or the other until-recently-colonial, post-mercantile economies throughout Asia to throttle economic and industrial growth to satisfy this quest to ameliorate a climatic inertia that might require decades to reverse, if reverse is at all possible.

The entire scenario is one that might have sprung from the mind of a Benny Hill or Monty Python.

I especially like the fact that many of the US's harshest critics, Kyoto signers all, have done such a marvelous job of managing to set a clear environmental example. Witness the state of the former dominions of the thankfully defunct USSR as pace setters all.

The entire debate is fodder for fools.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 26 2006,04:21)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ July 26 2006,04:33)]Arguing about natural cycles and human effects is totally missing the point. We should be concentrating on risk assessment and amelioration strategies.
Cogent points, Brian, and well stated.

What, pray tell, would you have us do?

Shall we ameliorate the current warming trend (whether inspired by God or God's creature) by wreaking havoc with industrial economies?
Well, since the oil will eventually run out, that problem is self correcting!

There is already a lot of research into alternative technologies and as oil becomes scarcer and more expensive the changeover to alternates will be market driven. We have to face the fact that the oil economy will not last forever. I tend not to worry about that kind of thing, I trust to human ingenuity! Similarly, I see no reason to worry unduly about industrial economies; there are various solutions being researched and I would rather regard the situation as presenting great opportunities for future economies.

The melting glaciers are the most worrying thing, sea level rises could be devastating. I started a thread some time ago about using topographic depressions below sea level to store sea water, building large siphons that would not need any power to keep running once they have started; indeed their flow could be used to generate power. These depressions could accommodate perhaps a couple of metres of sea level rise, enough to hold off the problem whilst the greenhouse gas levels peak and start falling. Once greenhouse gases start to return to early industrial levels sea levels will begin to fall and with the water already stored in depressions taken out of the equation, we might even be able to recover land presently below sea level for settlement and agriculture.

I wonder sometimes about actually encouraging algal blooms in suitable areas of the ocean, perhaps by adding nutrients, harvesting the algae on a huge scale and using it as a feedstock. Make plastic on a huge scale and we could perhaps use it to replace energy hungry brick and concrete, an important source of CO2, and it would also remove CO2 from the atmosphere as biomass.

As I see it, if we keep our heads screwed on and look for opportunities, we will find them. My ideas may not work, but somebodies will!

73

Brian G8ADD

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 25 2006,15:13)]They've taken samples of glacial ice from various areas of the world including the poles, that date back 650,000 years. They have a system similar to counting rings on a tree to count the number of years involved. The trapped air reveals the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen shows the average air temperature. These measurements have been duplicated by several different groups, using samples from different places, and they seem to track.

The prevalence of CO2 and the isotopes used to track temperature track each other very closely - almost linearly - over that 650,000 years.

Do we know that an increase in CO2 causes temperatures to rise? #Other work seems to have confirmed that.
So? 650,000 years is not very long ago in geological times. What were the CO2 levels 250 million years ago compared to now? Are current CO2 levels approaching the highest they have ever been at any point since complex life forms evolved? If there have been numerous times in the past when CO2 levels were higher than they are now, one could conclude that the current rise is just part of a very long natural cycle the planet has gone through in the past. If so, nothing we can do will alter that.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ July 26 2006,10:04)]I tend not to worry about that kind of thing, I trust to human ingenuity!
Given the ideological luminaries whose dogmas underlay the thrust of this entire thread, I find that comment very amusing. Thank you.

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ July 26 2006,03:33)]Mike. Last point first, you are wrong, there is no implication of higher figures in the past, though that can't be ruled out. It merely indicates that reasonably reliable measurement at present only extends to 650,000 years BP.

Increased CO2 does indeed enhance plant growth. Unfortunately desertification and human intervention means that plants have less space to grow on and where they can grow the amount allowed to grow is limited. I fear that the only significant increase in biomass will be in algal blooms in the oceans.

As I have said before and will keep on saying, it really doesn't matter whether the rise in temperature is caused by human activity or by natural cycles. What matters is whether the increase in temperature itself is harmful or not. If we judge it to be seriously harmful (and even a few metres of sea level rise could have devastating effects) we have to decide what we can do about it, and take the necessary action no matter how expensive or painful it may be.

Arguing about natural cycles and human effects is totally missing the point. We should be concentrating on risk assessment and amelioration strategies.

73

Brian G8ADD
Actually Brian there are indications of higher CO2 levels in the past based on other surrogates. The levels of carobonate minerals in the various rock layers from ancient sea beds are one such measure. Most climatologists believe that during the Age of Dinosaurs, CO2 levels were higher than present which led to the abundant plant life that was food for the majority of animal life during that epoch.

We know from the geological record that ocean levels were higher than present at numerous times in the past. We also know that the land currently in the artic regions once supported tropical plant life. If you look at the reconstruction of both Pangea and Gondwanaland, the two supercontinents when all the land mass was one connected area, you can see that the current artic land was still in polar regions so if tropical plants were growing there, the earth was quite a bit warmer than now and sea levels were higher.

Pangea and Breakup of Continents (http://geology.com/pangea.htm)

This means to me that human activities have had little impact on global warming and it also means that even drastic reductions in CO2 production will not affect the current warming.

You are correct in you other comments, we need to develope long term strategies to cope with the situation but I see little or no chance to halt the process.

Mike WA3KYY

I really get annoyed at how everyone says &quot; Who cares we're all going to die soon, not my problem&quot;, well it is your problem. The problem is here today! People need to wake up and realize there are other people in the world that care about life! Keeping the Earth clean is like tending to your job at work, you do it because you need to play your role, same thing here! People say &quot;Who cares? It's not my problem&quot;. Well it is.

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 26 2006,07:05)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 25 2006,15:13)]They've taken samples of glacial ice from various areas of the world including the poles, that date back 650,000 years. They have a system similar to counting rings on a tree to count the number of years involved. The trapped air reveals the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen shows the average air temperature. These measurements have been duplicated by several different groups, using samples from different places, and they seem to track.

The prevalence of CO2 and the isotopes used to track temperature track each other very closely - almost linearly - over that 650,000 years.

Do we know that an increase in CO2 causes temperatures to rise? Other work seems to have confirmed that.
So? 650,000 years is not very long ago in geological times. What were the CO2 levels 250 million years ago compared to now? Are current CO2 levels approaching the highest they have ever been at any point since complex life forms evolved? If there have been numerous times in the past when CO2 levels were higher than they are now, one could conclude that the current rise is just part of a very long natural cycle the planet has gone through in the past. If so, nothing we can do will alter that.
Why do I care about conditions that existed 249.5 million years before modern man appeared? How do we know that modern man would even have survived in that climate? We are the proud recipients of large, warm brain cases that require lots of cooling just to survive in modern day Earth. Our ancient ancestors took eons to develop an internal cooling system that could keep us from frying our brains. There is little evidence that the system is still working in some places.

It appears from the fossil record that mass extinctions have occured on the Earth every 25 million years. It would be a great deal more interesting, and possibly important, to understand what the climate was like at these times. Most likely, they represent periods of extremely fast change.

What we appear to be seeing are global climatic changes happening in a couple decades that should have taken much longer. The question is: which species will survive?
Which species that do not now exist will evolve?

The assumption that dealing with this problem will destroy our economy is probably false. Yes, we'll need higher gas mileage standards. Gore points out the difference between our standard and that of the Chinese. Their standard is currently close to 40 MPG. If we matched it, we could reduce the global carbon emissions by about 20%. Gore doesn't mention nuclear power, but it might go farther than any other change we could make toward reducing carbon emissions.

We must do something to eliminate the destruction of the world's rainforests. Burning the forests contributes greatly to CO2, but also deprives us of the plants needed to remove CO2 from the air.

We've already won the battle with the ozone layer. The ozone holes have been closed by simply replacing our refrigerants and solvents with something that does not affect the ozone layer. Changes of similar magnitude could bring us back to pre-1970 carbon emission levels.

Oil is not going to run out - cheap oil is. In fact, many experts believe that cheap oil has less than 20 years, some say less than 10. Many believe that world oil production has already peaked. The wells in Saudi Arabia are filling with seawater - meaning they are depleted. There is enough oil in the tar sands of Canada to run the world for centuries at our current rate, but the cost of getting that oil is prohibitive.

When we get to that edge where suddenly cheap oil disappears - that is what is going to destroy our economy. If we're not prepared for it, it will be doomsday. We can prepare for it using many of the same technolgies we need to bring CO2 back to what it was 30 years ago.

But, there are too many people who don't want you to think about what's going to happen when gas is $10 a gallon.

[KC2KFC]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ July 26 2006,21:45)]...We've already won the battle with the ozone layer. The ozone holes have been closed by simply replacing our refrigerants and solvents with something that does not affect the ozone layer. Changes of similar magnitude could bring us back to pre-1970 carbon emission levels...
According to this link the ozone hole will not repair itself until 2061 Ozone Hole (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/The_Ozone_Hole/)
Quote[/b] ]The discovery by the British Antarctic Survey of the Antarctic ozone hole provided an early warning of the dangerous thinning of the ozone layer worldwide, and spurred international efforts to curb the production of CFCs. If the provisions of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer of 1987 are revised, strengthened and followed, there is a reasonable prospect that the Antarctic ozone hole will permanently repair itself, but not before the next appearance of Halley's comet! (in the year 2061)

[n1ydx]

Informal testing of global warming. Done in New Hampshire with bare feet.
1. Walked on grass in yard with temps at 93 f - Cool feeling.
2. Walked on asphalt parking lot of shopping center with shoes on. Tremendous heat raising from black tar. - Hot feeling.
3. Touched white car trunk (not engine hood) with bare hands - Not bad
4. Touched black car trunk ( not engine hood) with bare hands - Ouch!

Conclusion: Too many multi-acre parking lots of dark asphalt contributing to hot air which raises. Along with black cars radiating heat.

OK - informal survey completed. No solutions noted.

PS: Pool temperature 84 degrees - Cool feeling with Corona and Lime backup.

N1YDX

[n0jaa]

Ah, the solution to global warming has been found... MORE BEER!!


http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (kc0vvu @ July 27 2006,00:02)]I really get annoyed at how everyone says &quot; Who cares we're all going to die soon, not my problem&quot;, well it is your problem. The problem is here today! People need to wake up and realize there are other people in the world that care about life! Keeping the Earth clean is like tending to your job at work, you do it because you need to play your role, same thing here! People say &quot;Who cares? It's not my problem&quot;. Well it is.
No, it's NOT my problem, either, unless I choose to make it so. #I refuse to try to fix something that mankind has broken in the last 25,000 years.

See what I have to say in my thread... #The Environment in 50 or 100 Years, Why Should I Care About It? (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=17;t=128139)

[KD5SHW]

I'll start believing the global warming crowd when they everyone of them stops using cars and use no electricity. #In the case of amateur radio you have something else you can do. #Stop transmitting. #Most of the power doesn't go to the other person's antenna unfortunately. #It goes into heating the atmosphere. #

Also don't post on qrz forums. #More posts means more data that has to be transferred over the internet using electrical signals which are handled by computers. #The power is generated with fossil fuels. #The electricity eventually is terminated into a resistance which further creates heat. #

So lets see who is really serious about stopping global warming. #Who is going to ride their bike to work tomorrow? #Who is going to recycle their air conditioner tomorrow? #After all you have no use for that great consumer of energy because you believe in global warming. #Throw away that transceiver, gentlemen. #RF is heating the atmosphere. #Remember those who truly want to save the environment will not reply to this thread. #It requires a network of thousands of energy sucking computers to relay the data. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[n0jaa]

You first. You made the condition, now I suggest you satisfy it so we can follow your example.