"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:09:07 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Yup. It's called "The Big Picture."

Not for burning coal or for mankind it isn't.



Naturally, if you wish to promote the idea that mankind is responsible for
GW, you will want to dismiss anything which occurred before we arrived on
the scene. Particularly when it shows that even with projected 'worst case
scenarios,' our CO2 levels won't even register on the chart.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:20:59 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:09:07 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Yup. It's called "The Big Picture."

Not for burning coal or for mankind it isn't.



Naturally, if you wish to promote the idea that mankind is responsible for
GW,

I am interested in truth(tm)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html
Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)

you will want to dismiss anything which occurred before we arrived on
the scene. Particularly when it shows that even with projected 'worst
case
scenarios,' our CO2 levels won't even register on the chart.

I'm impressed. However, actual knowledge disqualifies you from any
newsgroup discussion.

* Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote, On 3/28/2007 7:34 PM:
I am interested in truth(tm)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html
Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)

you will want to dismiss anything which occurred before we arrived on
the scene. Particularly when it shows that even with projected 'worst
case
scenarios,' our CO2 levels won't even register on the chart.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:20:59 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:09:07 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

Yup. It's called "The Big Picture."

Not for burning coal or for mankind it isn't.



Naturally, if you wish to promote the idea that mankind is responsible for
GW,

I am interested in truth(tm)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../304248a0.html
Go find the rest of the papers with my name on them (Wareing)

you will want to dismiss anything which occurred before we arrived on
the scene. Particularly when it shows that even with projected 'worst
case
scenarios,' our CO2 levels won't even register on the chart.



I see. My sympathy for the Altzheimer's.

Two meter troll wrote:

respectfully the Some are a majority; that it is happening. the few
who are not convinced are by and large not doing sciance in the
field. we are a huge part of the cause looking at the data nothing
else has the co2 and methane outputs of human industry and
transportation. We have a debt we best start paying it now because we
are going to be paying intrest for a long while. so yes starting today
is better than letting the debt get bigger.

How much long-term Data do you need we have almost 500 years of
observed data that can be varified and another thousand in unvarified
observation. and then we have Ice core data back 60.000 years. how
much longer do you want to wait? I have kids and soon will have grand
kids I figure taking care of this now means my grand kids have a
chance.



No problem! There is data going back millions of years. That data
indicates that we are in a typical global warming cycle that is not much
different than the last seven cycles. In fact, its not as rapid as
three of the cycles.

In relation to the CO2 levels in the ice cores, there is a measurement
problem. The CO2 levels taken from the cores are raw levels and do not
allow for any outgasing of CO2 for the thousands of years the ice
existed. Outgasing will reduce the amounts in the ice and will
partially mask the actual amount of atmospheric CO2 at the time of the
ice was formed. (If you leave an open can of sparkling water, the CO2
will eventually escape leaving a can of flat water.)

So if we can't prove that CO2 levels are at a historic high now (which
they aren't anyway) and the temperature rise in consistent with previous
trends, where does that leave global warming?

Global warming is big business. Its not about developing alternative
energy sources. People are making a lot of money doing research and
others are being publicly funded to develop countermeasures to "stop
global warming". So the battle cry is to shout down anyone who
threatens that money source. if that money were spent on developing
alternative energy sources to coal/oil/natgas, we'd all be a lot better off.


The BBC has a special on a few weeks ago where a number of scientists
were interviewed. Though not necessarily addressing the above points,
they presented quite a bit of information that contradicts some of the
theories about global warming. I don't have a link for the video, but
if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion.


Anyone my age or older certainly can remember the scare of 40 years ago
or so when it was predicted that all the CO2 man was putting into the
atmosphere would thrust the earth into an ice age by 2010. Maybe the
electron spin on carbon atoms reversed itself. Bad electrons!!

Two meter troll wrote:
On Mar 27, 3:33 pm, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:33:07 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said:

"Two meter troll" wrote in message
oups.com...
you might take a look at the amount of R&D money going to alturnative
energy. the tiny amount is not going to amount to jack in time to keep
the bottom 50% of the scale alive. so folks are gonna start burning
anything to keep warm. plastic, tires, rubber, peat, lowgrade coal,
and anything else you could imagine. think what Boston could look like
on a bad winter.
And 50 years ago, how much was being spent on the development of hydrogen
fuel cells? We know immensely more now than we did then -- I have every
reason to expect that we will know exponentially more 50 years from now than
we did then.
Sounds like Troll's patron saint is Malthus.

Dunno who Malthus is.
What I do know is I sailed a ship in open water to the north pole. All
the proof I needed was right there; my arctic is melting.
I dont give a blind **** about most of the world but the 4 places in
the world i care about are being screwed up, the South Pacific,
Arctic, Antarctic and Pacific Northwest.

The rest of the world happens to fall in between. frankly i couldnt
care less if most of the cities sank along with the populations. but
because they happen to be attached to the places i value i will try to
save them as well.


The data available indicates that this would happen even if man were not
on earth. Its happened many times before man was on earth, it'll keep
happening long after we've gone.

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:07:09 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said:

on imperfect data, promoting impossible goals
with unforeseeable consequences, or would it be better to continue
developing alternative energy sources while continuing to study GW for
several more years and act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that
the latter is wiser than the former.

One has to follow the money here. Can more grant money be shaken loose for
academia by arguing there's an imminent crises, or by arguing there's the
possibility of a distant crisis?

Exactly. And the press gets more attention by reporting crisis than
they do from reporting nice weather.

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote in message
oups.com...
in my career, i have seen a change in the waters i would be sailing at
different times of the year.
breakup in Dead Horse is now the middle of june and not mid july.
Africa is spitting tropical storms into the carib a little more often
than ten years ago. it affects how i plan a trip and how i navigate.
Even ships have limits and in some storms.
The tuna are getting closer and closer to shore here in oregon every
year and, early. the tuna fleet is already on its way up from the
south seas and its only march.

Folks do point out darwinianin selection but seem to forget that the
only reason GW is of concern is humans. the flora and fauna will live
on.


You are aware that hurricanes tend to run in ten-year cycles, and that we
are currently in the last few of years of a "high" period? And that,
technically speaking, humans are also "fauna"?



Actually, I think the hurricane cycles are seventeen years. We're just
now coming out of a period of relative calm.

Cessna 310 wrote:


The BBC has a special on a few weeks ago where a number of scientists
were interviewed. Though not necessarily addressing the above points,
they presented quite a bit of information that contradicts some of the
theories about global warming. I don't have a link for the video, but
if someone can provide one, it would make for an interesting discussion.

This one?

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...arguments.html

Stephen

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:
Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to that
which is generated by the natural processes of this planet.
No.

Yes.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

It does not say that "all the CO2 (in the atmosphere) generated by
humans pales in comparison to that which is generated by the natural
processes of this planet." Far from it.

"Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2."

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


The 'man made' part can be distiguished from 'natural sources' by
carbon isotope ratios.

"Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p
256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils" etc.



Sorry, C14 is present in natural sources and man-made sources. Sorry,
its physics.

And anybody that uses Wiki as a source should have all of their
information questioned.