"2006 warmest year on record"

Martin wrote;

On 31 Dec 2006 04:15:56 -0800, "DJ ****" wrote:


Magda wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:18:14 GMT, in rec.travel.europe,
"news.ntlworld.com"
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... "2006 warmest year on record"
...
... But probably not the warmest year ever!

The worst is yet to come. (

some of my bees are already out .......

of your bonnet?


Lol...

Jacqueline keeps her bees in her panties...

:-)

--
Best
Greg

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:37:13 GMT, "news.ntlworld.com" wrote:

I sometimes think that this whole idea of global warming being caused by
humans is perhaps a sign of our own arragance: can the human race cause the
temperatures of the Earth to rise to create catastrophic events. Unlikely in
my opinion. The evidence is that the Earth's temperature has fluctuated up
and down for millions of years and will continue to do so for millions of
years to come, and long after the human race have been replaced by
cockroaches!

One thing that seems certain is CO2 levels are rising due to man.

Dismissing this as a cause of global warming, or even dismissing global
warming still shouldn't leave you comfortable about this. Continuously
rising CO2 levels aren't a sustainable situation; sooner or later they'll
have some effect.

Those who are sanguine about this are rather like those NASA engineers who
weren't bothered by blocks of ice hitting the space shuttle on take-off
because it hadn't caused any problem up till then.

DaveM

In article , Earl Evleth
wrote:

On 31/12/06 17:43, in article , "Tom Peel"
wrote:


The destruction of the North African environment by overgrazing is
precisely an example of the environmental catastrophies that man has
been creating since the beginning of recorded history.



I view the desertification of the Sahara, however, as a natural event
which the following article seems to confirm. Global warming or
cooling as occurred in the ice age cycles brought huge changes
in local climates. What we are going through now is man caused

Like I have been saying-

UN Downgrades Man's Impact on the Climate
Inhofe says new UN Global Warming report proves fears of manmade
catastrophic climate change are 'unsustainable'
By US Senate Environment and Public Works
Monday, December 11, 2006
WASHINGTON, DC * Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the
Environment & Public Works Committee, commented on today's article in
the UK Telegraph titled "UN Downgrades Man's Impact on the Climate."
The Telegraph reported that a draft of the United Nation's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) upcoming fourth
assessment has lowered mankind's estimated impact on the Earth's
climate by 25 percent and scaled back sea level rise upper estimates by
nearly half since the last IPCC report in 2001.
"We are all skeptics now. It appears that the UN is now acknowledging
what an increasing number of scientists who study the climate have come
to realize: Predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming are
simply unsustainable," Senator Inhofe said.
The upcoming UN IPCC assessment is reported to 'halve its predictions
for sea-level rise by 2100,' according to the Telegraph article. The
UN's lowering of mankind's impact on the climate is reportedly because
of "a refinement due to better data on how climate works."
"It is remarkable that sea level rise upper estimates have been cut
nearly in half since the last IPCC assessment in 2001, because of
scientific 'refinement due to better data.' Climate science is always
going through these 'refinements.' The erroneous prediction of a coming
ice age in the 1970's also faded away due to 'a refinement due to
better data,'" Senator Inhofe said. "As I detailed in my Senate floor
speech on September 25, the media has alternated between four separate
global cooling and warming scares since 1895. Each climate scare
eventually faded away due to similar 'refinements due to better data.'
"Even the UN appears to now be sobering up and dousing much needed cold
water on the global warming alarmism promoted by much of the mainstream
media, Hollywood, NASA scientist James Hansen and former Vice President
Al Gore. News that global warming alarmism is more hype than fact
should not surprise those who viewed my committee's "Climate Change and
the Media" hearing last week or read the EPW's new publicly released
'Skeptics Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism,'" Senator Inhofe
added. (For more info on 'Skeptic's Guide' )
"As Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, I have given
over 10 climate change speeches and held four full committee hearings
since 2003, examining the global warming issue. After more than 20
years of climate hype, the UN's appears to finally be conceding that
previous estimates of climatic doom have been over hyped and the
science was simply not there to project these frightening 'extreme
scenarios,' Senator Inhofe added.
"Eventually, even the peddlars of climate alarmism will have to concede
that the hoopla over manmade catastrophic global warming and the
proposed solutions like the costly and ineffective Kyoto Protocol, will
prove to be one of the history's most misguided concerns-- joining the
1970s coming ice age fears, overpopulation and famines scares -- to
name just a few.
This news from the UN will not be greeted warmly by advocates of
climatic doom. One can almost imagine the grieving faces of the
Hollywood celebrities and environmentalists as they hear the new UN
climate assessment and realize that they are way outside the
'consensus' on manmade global warming. With the continued scientific
demise of manmade catastrophic global warming fears, the
environmentalists and publicity and grant seeking scientists and many
in the media, may now have to find another dubious environmental
doomsday cause to scare the public and policy makers," Senator Inhofe
concluded.
Growing skepticism in 2006 that human C02 emissions are creating a
"climate catastrophe" caps a year in which numerous scientific studies
have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics and are shattering the
media-promoted scientific "consensus" on climate alarmism. See:
In September, renowned French geophysicists and Socialist Party member
Claude Allegre, converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic
global warming to a climate skeptic. In addition, famed UK
environmental campaigner David Bellamy's recently converted to climate
skeptic, calling fears of manmade climate change 'poppycock.'
In April of this year, 60 prominent scientists wrote to the Canadian
Prime Minister declaring that "Observational evidence does not support
today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust
model predictions of the futureŠSignificant [scientific] advances have
been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are
taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If,
back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto
would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it
was not necessary." See:
Related Links:
For a comprehensive review of the media's embarrassing 100-year history
of alternating between promoting fears of a coming ice age and global
warming, see:
Environment & Public Works Chairman James Inhofe's September 25, 2006
Senate floor speech debunking the media and climate alarmism.
12/08/2006 - SENATOR INHOFE ANNOUNCES PUBLIC RELEASE OF "SKEPTIC'S
GUIDE TO DEBUNKING GLOBAL WARMING"
12/06/2006 - Inhofe Says Global Warming Media Hearing Exposed Alarmist
Media
10/17/2006 - Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming *
Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics
10/30/2006 - "I don't like the word 'Balance''- Says ABC News Global
Warming Reporter
10/24/2006 - Senator Inhofe Credited For Prompting Newsweek Admission
of Error on 70's Predictions of Coming Ice Age - In Case You Missed
It....


and some of what occurred at certain periods of the last 10,000
years were due to man. Sorting out what happened before the
industrial age is still being researched and debated. Only fools
negate what is going on now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

****

Climate history

The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variation between wet and
dry over the last few hundred thousand years. During the last ice age, the
Sahara was bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current
boundaries[2]. The end of the ice age brought wetter times to the Sahara,
from about 8000 BCE to 6000 BCE, perhaps due to low pressure areas over the
collapsing ice sheets to the north[3].

Once the ice sheets were gone, the northern part of the Sahara dried out.
However, not long after the end of the ice sheets, the monsoon which
currently brings rain to the Sahel came further north and counteracted the
drying trend in the southern Sahara. The monsoon in Africa (and elsewhere)
is due to heating during the summer. Air over land becomes warmer and rises,
pulling in cool wet air from the ocean. This causes rain. So, paradoxically,
the Sahara was wetter when it received more insolation in the summer. In
turn, changes in solar insolation are caused by changes in the Earth's
orbital parameters.

By around 2500 BCE, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is
today[4], leading to the desertification of the Sahara. The Sahara is
currently as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[5] These conditions are
responsible for what has been called the Sahara Pump Theory.

****

However, the desertification which occurred to the east Mediterranean are
due to over grazing and cutting down of the forests.

evleth is a pathological infection, was in 2006, is in 2007

"Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
On 31/12/06 13:37, in article ,
"news.ntlworld.com" wrote:


Yes, but in the history of the planet, it is by no means a rare event for
global average temperatures to be a lot warmer than they are today.
Scientists have proof that the Earth has never always had ice caps, and
in
fact, there is a suggestion that ice caps only currently exist because
we're
effectively still in an 'ice age'.


There is also evidence of several periods in which the earth was a ice
ball, one about 600 million years ago. Several factors are operating
but the made factor is the CO2 content in the air, with no CO2 the
earth's average temperature would not be around 20°C but well below
freezing. The mantle outgasses and gives us CO2, but it is removed
by weather, the water works on decomposing rocks and the Magnesium
and Calcium ions release remove the CO2 via carbonate formations which
precipitate out.

And it use to be a lot hotter too but NOT in recent history.

What important is not to be fooled about what occurred 600 or even 20
million years ago but recent history of the last several hundred years.
We know from that variation that the temperature peaks very quickly
at the end of an ice age and than, normally, the temperature descends
and the earth slides into another ice age. The warm periods have been
brief. It it may have been slightly warmer than now 10,000 years
ago but it should be lower and lowering since. The peaks are brief
but the one we are in now is much longer lasting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

(this plot also show dust formation as measured from dust
deposits, when it is cold it is dry and the a lot of dust
forms at the depths of the cold period)

you can see a graph of the superimposed CO2 and temperature variations.

We are currently in a ice age series of cycles which started maybe
10 million years ago but we have good data for the last 400,000 years
from ice core samples.

I sometimes think that this whole idea of global warming being caused by
humans is perhaps a sign of our own arragance: can the human race cause
the
temperatures of the Earth to rise to create catastrophic events. Unlikely
in
my opinion. The evidence is that the Earth's temperature has fluctuated
up
and down for millions of years and will continue to do so for millions of
years to come, and long after the human race have been replaced by
cockroaches!

Well you have the right idea. Le Monde just had an article about the
prediction that the insects will dominate the earth, once again.

The time for life to exist on earth is probably less than 1 billion years
more. The sun is gradually heating up and it will be too hot in about
one billion years. Life only has been complex for about 500 million years
so I guess we can count on a similar period ahead. But for complex
life the sea life may out exist the land life it it becomes too warm.
For a while.

Not so long ago, perhaps a couple or so thousand years back, Egypt was
the
wheat basket for Greek and then the Roman Empire, which suggests that the
climate in the near/middle East was wetter that it is today. Now the
lands
away from the Nile are mostly sand and desert. There is ancient records
which talk about how the Nile dried up when rains failed to materialise
in
Ethiopia, from where the Nile gets a lot of its water. This change in
rain
patterns indicates climate change in a very short space of time. It is
highly unlikely at that time climate change was caused by mans activity,
just as it probably is now.

The desert regions in North Africa were savannas not too long ago, large
game existed on them. Man's disturbing the climate probably arose when
fire and land use was developed, i.e. about 10,000 years ago. Prior
to that as a hunter and gatherer, man killed off a lot of the large
animals.

In a certain sense, man is a pathological infection of the rest of life on
this planet.

Could you fly south and never return ?
You old scrooge have done it again !
No party, OK keep your wealth to yourself.

"Earl Evleth" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
On 31/12/06 13:15, in article
, "DJ ****"
wrote:


Magda wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:18:14 GMT, in rec.travel.europe,
"news.ntlworld.com"

arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:

... "2006 warmest year on record"
...
... But probably not the warmest year ever!

The worst is yet to come. (

some of my bees are already out .......



The ducks in the Jardin Luxembourg did not fly south this winter.

On 31/12/06 23:55, in article ,
"DaveM" wrote:

Dismissing this as a cause of global warming, or even dismissing global
warming still shouldn't leave you comfortable about this. Continuously
rising CO2 levels aren't a sustainable situation; sooner or later they'll
have some effect.


One of the features of the glacial cycling is that there is a negative
feedback, the system is not self-correcting.

One of the popularly supposed self correcting mechanism is that
as CO2 atmospheric concentrations increase, photosynthesis will kick
in and the CO2 will be used up, producing more forests and more sea
plankton. In fact, most of the earth's processing of CO2 is inorganic
chemistry, weathering of rocks releases calcium and magnesium uibs into the
sea water which removes the CO2 by carbonate formation. The formation
removes CO2 permanently unless a meteor collision heats up formations
and CO2 is released. Otherwise CO2 is put into the atmosphere by
volcanic action. If that did not occur, earth would be a ball of ice.
If there was no water weathering of rocks the earth's atmosphere would
have enough CO2 such that water would boil and water vapor would be lost
to outer space.

We are lucky to maintain pretty much the right concentration of CO2
such that it is not too cold to freeze the planet nor too hot
to boil off the water. In fact our planetary circumstances are just
right, and it makes one wonder how many planets have the same
characteristics within, lets say, 100-200 light years.$

Whatever, it is a wonderful planet and we should respect it as
we respect our parents, or even more so.

On 1/01/07 0:14, in article , "Go Fig"
wrote:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),


This guy is an anti-science idiot and a creationist to boot

"Inhofe: Don¹t Worry About Global Warming Because ŒGod¹s Still Up There¹"


Go figure that Go Fig!

In article ,
Earl Evleth wrote:

On 1/01/07 0:14, in article , "Go Fig"
wrote:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),


This guy is an anti-science idiot and a creationist to boot

"Inhofe: Don¹t Worry About Global Warming Because ŒGod¹s Still Up There¹"


Go figure that Go Fig!



Inhofe is bought and paid for by the energy industry.

Quote someone with some semblance of credibility at least.

On 7/01/07 5:38, in article
, "poldy"
wrote:

In article ,
Earl Evleth wrote:

On 1/01/07 0:14, in article , "Go Fig"
wrote:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),


This guy is an anti-science idiot and a creationist to boot

"Inhofe: Don¹t Worry About Global Warming Because ŒGod¹s Still Up There¹"


Go figure that Go Fig!



Inhofe is bought and paid for by the energy industry.

Quote someone with some semblance of credibility at least.

I was quoting somebody who has incredibility.

poldy wrote:

In article ,
Earl Evleth wrote:


On 1/01/07 0:14, in article , "Go Fig"
wrote:


Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.),


This guy is an anti-science idiot and a creationist to boot

"Inhofe: Don¹t Worry About Global Warming Because �God¹s Still Up There¹"


Go figure that Go Fig!




Inhofe is bought and paid for by the energy industry.

Quote someone with some semblance of credibility at least.

Hasn't it occurred to some of the more idiotic among
Christian fundamentalists that, although "God's Still Up
There", He/She may simply have given up on humanity and gone
on to create a more intelligent creature, elsewhere in
His/Her infinite universe? ...I never have understood the
kind of mentality that believes the God who created us gave
us brains and the ability to reason, but never expected us
to USE them! (If "faith" seems in conflict with "reason",
perhaps the fault lies with the narrowness of their faith?)