[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NFC: No NFC content...was Re: carlin?
Hi Larry
Just to throw a couple things into the stew:
That we are in a warming period there is no doubt.
Truth. Go to yahoo and do a search on glaciers, check
the loss in the past couple decades. Thats for
starters, you can find lost of other corroborating
info.
The questions are whether this is a 'natural cycle' or
mostly manmade, or a combination. Its also a given
that the amount of man made CO2 has greatly increased
in the atmostphere the past century.
There are a lot of fools making statements, and some
making statements to 'support' various agendas, on
both sides of the arguement.
This present warming has slightly accelerated in the
past few decades, more so then in previous planetary
warming cycles which is what has many folks worried.
Our present decade is the warmest since before the
last ice age. Truth. And its not over.
So, you can pretty much take a position anywhere on
the spectrum that you want, no-one at this point can
refute it, not enough data. Except that we are in a
warming cycle. Thats not refuted. I listen to some of
the fools almost daily it seems, from Rush Limbaugh,
who says that the artic icecaps are actually
increasing to others who should know better.
My own 'take' on this is that we are in a warming
cycle
which is exacerbated by heavy production of CO2 and
other atmospheric pollutants.
I dont think you will get many takers for that ocean
front property in Arizona, but your grandkids might
get some good buys in upstate NY and the midwest.
jake
--- Larry <lbn at iceprototyping_com> wrote:
> You seem well educated and informed on this subject.
> What are you sources?
> How do you know these things? Just please, PLEASE
> don't give me a
> "scientists say", "experts have shown" or "studies
> prove." I will be try to
> be open minded enough to engage your argument, but
> here are a couple counter
> arguments.
>
> The average surface temperature of the earth has
> risen only 1 degree
> Fahrenheit in the past 100 years. This is from an
> article in the Weekly
> Standard.
> (1) There was a strong surface warming between the
> 1890s and the 1940s,
> followed by a pronounced cooling (and warnings of a
> catastrophic ice age by
> some of the same calamitologists who now claim
> disastrous warming) from the
> 1940s to the 1970s, then rising temperatures again
> from the 1970s to today.
> What's important is that carbon dioxide emissions
> were insignificant in the
> early 20th century, yet substantial warming occurred
> anyway. That warming
> must owe something to natural causes of climate
> change.
>
> I take this with a grain of salt...but there is
> definitely some known truth
> here. What boggles my mind is the atmosphere CO2
> content is measured in
> parts per millions. No biggy...but do you really
> believe that measurements
> taken 80 years ago could have been even mildly
> accurate?
>
> I know how the grant system works, and when you
> don't provide results, you
> don't get money. Throwing this aside though, it is
> SO easy to skew results
> by discounting unexpected exceptions, publishing the
> extreme measurement
> values as opposed to the calculated average means
> with respect to time.
> Many studies never include the details, the EXACT
> details about how they
> figured their numbers. They'll tell you how they
> took samples, but usually
> not how they deduced their published results. I'd
> love to see ALL data
> available for every report that makes these types of
> claims. Math is the
> universal language right? I bet Republican funded
> and Democratic funded
> statisticians could come up with completely
> different results in many cases
> using the same data set. Results would be of course
> in their own
> favor...not objective in any way.
>
> Take dating techniques. I've got some ocean front
> property in Arizona for
> anyone that thinks carbon or uranium dating is a
> reliable dating technique.
> Come up with a theory, and force the numbers to
> support it. This isn't a
> partisan argument, it's just how things have been
> done.
>
> I can't first hand prove much of anything as it
> pertains to global warming,
> but how someone determines climate trends from the
> past X centuries from a
> stick of mud needs explanation for me to believe it.
>
> As far as the glaciers go BTW, have you ever
> entertained the idea that the
> earth was hit by a comet or anything along those
> lines? I'm not telling you
> that's what happened...but you seemed to be pretty
> informed in this area as
> well as other listers, so I love to hear you take on
> it.
>
> Here's to being open minded...right? :)
>
> Larry
>
> > Yes, Luke, you have very cleverly observed a
> trend. We
> > are in an interglacial period which has been
> slowly
> > moving in one direction. But this trend has been
> > happening even with relatively low CO2 levels over
> the
> > past several thousand years. With a (geologically)
> > sudden increase in these levels, trapping even
> > seemingly trivial amounts of additional heat in
> the
> > atmosphere (fractions of a watt per square meter)
> you
> > assume (know?) there is no change in the magnitude
> of
> > this trend? In your cleverness you ignore changes
> > evident in atmospheric temperature monitoring, sea
> > surface temperature monitoring and, more
> importantly,
> > in glacial ice core and sea sediment records.
> >
> > It is with relief that I realize you have no real
> > power, only the ability to voice ignorance in a
> small
> > public forum.
> >
> > Boo Radley, Saraland, Alabama
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
References: