NotNow wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"BAR" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:43:11 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


While skinny dipping in the public domain, I stumbled across this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Phys ical_Science_Basis
There is no consensus.

The debate must continue. The data must be made available for peer
review.

Anyone claiming that the science is settled is pursuing a political
agenda and not involved in science.

I guess that's why the US military considers it a national security
risk.

Define 'it'.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous
It has been nearly 200 years and the debate on evolution is still
going on. Cancer has been a topic of investigation for over 60 years,
and still there is no cure for cancer.

How can the debate on the climate and global warming, a significantly
more complex system, be understood after about 20 years. The climate
cycles are over 100000 years in length and they claim to understand
them with about 200 years of data, of which the last 50 years are
accurate. Sounds like poor science to me.

If those that promote global warming truly believe that global
warming was a problem that had to be addressed they would be 100%
behind nuclear power which has NO greenhouse gasses. Since the
supporters of global warming are against nuclear energy, the only
conclusion is it is strictly politics.

Uh, there you go with your assumptions and wrong analysis that all
supporters of global warming are against nuclear energy. Also, I don't
think any scientist has stated that they totally understand the cyclic
phenomena of global warming. But, with things like ice core sampling
they know alot more about the weather a lot farther back than 200 years
than you apparently think they do. They also know from studying the core
samples that events like volcanoes released a tremendous amount of CO2
and in fact did have an impact on the weather. So, the question would
be, if the release of CO2 from a volcano had an affect that subsided
when the gases subsided, then why would anyone think that man isn't
contributing when we are pumping MILLIONS of pounds a day into the
atmosphere and it's continuous unlike a volcanic event?

I believe ice core sampling, archeology, paleontology, and similar
studies of past events show that we are on the peak of a climate cycle
that is of quite long duration. (50k to 100k years.) While all of this
data on what has happened in the past is good, it does not describe the
day to day, year to year atmosphere dynamics which cause tomorrows
weather. ie. the philosophical statement of a butterfly flapping its
wings causes a hurricane a couple of months later.

The earth is part of a universe that is in motion, with known and
unknown object in interweaving orbits. We have no idea of how these
items in the universe effect the climate on earth. We do not know of
all of the interplanetary events that have occurred or will occur near
earth that will effect the climate. The global temperature of the earth
could go up if the earth past through a period of heavy meteorite
activity. It is affected by sunspot activity that is not fully
understood but known to be cyclic. We don't understand the effects of
dust in the atmosphere, which would probably have a greater cooling
effect than the warming effect of CO2. (In fact one of the proposed
solutions for global warming is the creation of a space dust field
between the earth and the sun.)

200 years of data show what has happened at a couple of specific points
that are significantly effected by the human activity around that point,
such as developing parking lots, new housing developments, etc.. All of
which increase the temperature at the point. These few points do not
reflect what is happening in the total atmosphere of the earth. Even if
we had data for every square mile in the US it is only about 1% of the
surface area of the earth. Current atmospheric model are so un
sophisticated that they do not consider the heat engine effects of large
cities, an effect that can be seen by watching the radar and see storms
split and move a round the cities rather than through them.

Based on long term climate data, it global cooling would be a safer bet
that global warming.