|
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore's worst predictions are
absolutely correct, and that *at projected rates of increase* in CO2 levels, a major catastrophy looms on the horizon about 50-100 years from now. Is there any reason to believe that CO2 will actually increase at his projected rates? Clearly his model depends entirely upon a world which continues to exploit fossil fuels as its primary source of energy. But the fact is that the world is already seeking alternatives to fossil fuels for a variety of reasons, both socio-political and environmental. Geothermal, wind, solar and hydrogen are all currently being developed to replace hydrocarbon-based fossil fuels, with it being entirely likely that within a 50 year period most developed nations will no longer depend upon coal and oil to meet their energy demands. It is possible that some of this development is in response to cries of catastrophic Global Climate Change in our future. But equally important is the view that the world will run out of oil, so humanity is seeking alternatives. A world which does not rely upon the exploitation of oil reserves in highly-volatile regions where the West is not welcome will be not only cleaner, having less negative impact upon the environment, but also safer as we will have no reason to exploit those middle-eastern oil reserves. But just as important and significant is that as we shift away from hydrocarbon-based fuels, the impact of man-made CO2 will become virtually meaningless. And this is the direction in which we are already heading -- making Al Gore's demands of restricting, regulating and taxing CO2 emissions in order to reduce them, utterly redundant an unnecessary. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:43:53 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: Geothermal, wind, solar and hydrogen are all currently being developed to replace hydrocarbon-based fossil fuels Umm...I think you left something out. Nuke-U-Ler? That was deliberate. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Mar 27, 9:43 am, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore's worst predictions are absolutely correct, and that *at projected rates of increase* in CO2 levels, a major catastrophy looms on the horizon about 50-100 years from now. Is there any reason to believe that CO2 will actually increase at his projected rates? Clearly his model depends entirely upon a world which continues to exploit fossil fuels as its primary source of energy. But the fact is that the world is already seeking alternatives to fossil fuels for a variety of reasons, both socio-political and environmental. Geothermal, wind, solar and hydrogen are all currently being developed to replace hydrocarbon-based fossil fuels, with it being entirely likely that within a 50 year period most developed nations will no longer depend upon coal and oil to meet their energy demands. It is possible that some of this development is in response to cries of catastrophic Global Climate Change in our future. But equally important is the view that the world will run out of oil, so humanity is seeking alternatives. A world which does not rely upon the exploitation of oil reserves in highly-volatile regions where the West is not welcome will be not only cleaner, having less negative impact upon the environment, but also safer as we will have no reason to exploit those middle-eastern oil reserves. But just as important and significant is that as we shift away from hydrocarbon-based fuels, the impact of man-made CO2 will become virtually meaningless. And this is the direction in which we are already heading -- making Al Gore's demands of restricting, regulating and taxing CO2 emissions in order to reduce them, utterly redundant an unnecessary. 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. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:33:50 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said: Umm...I think you left something out. Nuke-U-Ler? That was deliberate. I suspected as much. Is that because it's politically unpopular, or because you think it's a bad idea? I'm entirely in favor of fusion, entirely opposed to fission. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"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. Particularly when you take into account that the average desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago. Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves -- particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even imagine today will suddenly appear. Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish! |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote in ooglegroups.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. Particularly when you take into account that the average desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago. Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves -- particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even imagine today will suddenly appear. Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish! yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable. I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point. since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I like to stack the odds in my favor. I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do we do to fix it. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Two meter troll" wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: 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. Particularly when you take into account that the average desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago. Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves -- particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even imagine today will suddenly appear. Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish! yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable. I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point. since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I like to stack the odds in my favor. I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do we do to fix it. Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it necessary for us to act TODAY, 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. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote: Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it necessary for us to act TODAY, 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. Why not just act responsibly... increase the CAFE standards. Seems to me that 4 percent improvement in new car mileage per year for the next several years would do more than just about everything else to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, all the while being an example to other countries and perhaps bringing back the US auto industry. Unfortunately, the big car companies fight this tooth and nail and instead promote ethanol which will, at best, have minimal effect on our consuption of fossil fuel. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Why not just act responsibly... increase the CAFE standards. Seems to me that 4 percent improvement in new car mileage per year for the next several years would do more than just about everything else to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, all the while being an example to other countries and perhaps bringing back the US auto industry. Unfortunately, the big car companies fight this tooth and nail and instead promote ethanol which will, at best, have minimal effect on our consuption of fossil fuel. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com That's a good idea. I'll take care of it tomorrow. First thing. I promise. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
In article ,
KLC Lewis wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... Why not just act responsibly... increase the CAFE standards. Seems to me that 4 percent improvement in new car mileage per year for the next several years would do more than just about everything else to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gasses, all the while being an example to other countries and perhaps bringing back the US auto industry. Unfortunately, the big car companies fight this tooth and nail and instead promote ethanol which will, at best, have minimal effect on our consuption of fossil fuel. -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com That's a good idea. I'll take care of it tomorrow. First thing. I promise. Cool. Now all we have to do is work on Darfur. g -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Mar 27, 2:07 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Two meter troll" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: 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. Particularly when you take into account that the average desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago. Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves -- particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even imagine today will suddenly appear. Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish! yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable. I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point. since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I like to stack the odds in my favor. I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do we do to fix it. Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it necessary for us to act TODAY, 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. 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. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Mar 27, 2:45 pm, "Two meter troll" wrote:
On Mar 27, 2:07 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Two meter troll" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Mar 27, 12:33 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: 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. Particularly when you take into account that the average desktop (or even laptop) computer today is more powerful than that which was possessed by even the largest financial corporations fifty years ago. Technology is growing so fast today that it's virtually impossible to keep up with it. 50 years ago, you could buy a color television and it wouldn't be obsolete for at least another 20 years. And as our technology improves -- particularly in the area of computers -- other advances that we cannot even imagine today will suddenly appear. Darwin Saves! Evolve or Perish! yep and its burning oil in direct proportion; i am not so sure we are going to have 50 more years before conditions become unstopable. I dont argue that the models are wrong IMO they likely are; my argument is can we afford to make a bet at this point. since the effect is exponentual; our margen for error is very slim; I like to stack the odds in my favor. I think of it as an at sea problem; I cannot breathe water so my safe place is my boat. if my boat is burning either i put the fire out or i jump into the sea and die. this is what we have with GW; the question is no longer if its happening it is that it is happening and what do we do to fix it. Some are convinced that GW is happening and we are the primary cause; some are convinced that GW is happening and we are an ancillary cause; some are convinced that GW isn't happening at all. Even if we assume the worst, is it necessary for us to act TODAY, 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. 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. so in addendome here are a few searches; i figure if its gonna stay factual i will provide the whole data set and not single out any spacific sites. enjoy. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...lobal+CO2+emis... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...l+ocean+temper... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...istoric+global... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...istoric+global... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...oric+global+wa... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch... http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...Atmospheric+ch... I love research :) |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
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 roups.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. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Dave" wrote in message ... On 27 Mar 2007 14:45:38 -0700, "Two meter troll" said: respectfully the Some are a majority Ah, the old bandwagon technique. Haven't seen such a good example in years. Yup. If a billion people believe something that isn't so, their belief doesn't make it so. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Mar 27, 4:44 pm, Dave wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 16:11:25 -0700, "Two meter troll" said: Sounds like Troll's patron saint is Malthus. Dunno who Malthus is. Why am I not surprised? because I might not have studied Darwin and instead concentrated on Linnias and learning how to do things like construction, seamanship, how to build steam catapults, how to catch fish, and the habits of liverwarts and club mosses. spent some time in the military defending your right to a cheese burger. Oh ...and you are an ass. you asked. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Mar 27, 5:11 pm, "Two meter troll" wrote:
On Mar 27, 4:44 pm, Dave wrote: On 27 Mar 2007 16:11:25 -0700, "Two meter troll" said: Sounds like Troll's patron saint is Malthus. Dunno who Malthus is. Why am I not surprised? because I might not have studied Darwin and instead concentrated on Linnias and learning how to do things like construction, seamanship, how to build steam catapults, how to catch fish, and the habits of liverwarts and club mosses. spent some time in the military defending your right to a cheese burger. Oh ...and you are an ass. you asked. insert being before ass please and here are your folks who like GW : http://www.topix.net/content/ap/2001...UAQTS6OG8JBHTJ |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Subject
It would appear you both have your respective heads where the moon doesn't shine. Why not take it off list? You have become a bore. Lew |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"KLC Lewis" wrote in
: Is there any reason to believe that CO2 will actually increase at his projected rates? None. Download the movie from ITN in UK called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and see the overwhelming truth, from the scientists not the people living off global warming terror. The CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 0.52% to 0.54% since the industrial revolution. The most interesting graphics on the movie is when one of the professors, I forget which one, overlays the CO2 in the air with the temperature over the last X thousand years. When the temperature rises, CO2 in the air rises AFTERWARDS, not before. When the temperature falls, CO2 in the air falls AFTERWARDS, not before. This is caused by the oceans. As the top levels of the oceans warm with the air, the ocean animals rapidly multiply, filling the ocean with CO2, which the oceans' massive surfaces transfer into the air. When the oceans cool, as the planet cools, the opposite happens. This has been going on for millions of years.....not since man invented the 427 Chevy with dual exhausts and 6 carbs. Global warming, as you'll see from the Earth's many records in the movie...is caused by the SUN, that big thermonuclear bomb that's quite close, by astronomical standards, to the Earth. CO2 FOLLOWS its warming and cooling...not causes it! Of course, without "global warming" there is no "global warming government spending/grants" and all the trappings of $$$$ that goes with it. Once The Beast is convinced of something, The Beast throws billions at it, creating its own vacuum to consume everything The Beast throws at it. Oh, and HIV doesn't cause AIDS, either. HIV is an ancient virus humans have been passing on to each other for thousands of years. ALL AIDS patients don't have HIV, just some of them. ALL HIV carriers don't get AIDS, either, only a small percentage of them. So, HIV can't cause AIDS. But, just like Global Warming, we have this HIV/AIDS industry that DEPENDS on The Beast pouring money into it, so it doesn't matter whether HIV causes AIDS or not...as long as The Beast thinks it does...the money will flow, ad nauseum, for decades. Can we afford to find a cure for Cancer? Heart Diseases? Common Cold? or any of the other massive moneymakers that buy fancy cars, yachts, jets, beachfront mansions for doctors? What? Are you CRAZY?!! Anyone who finds a cure is DEAD MEAT! Larry -- Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV then it dumps you until you click to get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS! |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Two meter troll" wrote in
oups.com: think what Boston could look like on a bad winter. There won't BE a "bad winter"! Boston will be 84F, according to the global warmers! This is not a downside....unless you're, like our President and his friends, in the ENERGY business. Larry -- Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV then it dumps you until you click to get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS! |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et: act upon better, more long-term data? I suggest that the latter is wiser than the former. We have long term data back several million years. But, alas, that data shows we are in one of the coldest eras of the planet's history, so that data MUST be ignored or someone is gonna cut off our government grand checks. That would be the REAL catastrophy, not global warming, which is a lie. Global Warming is an INDUSTRY, not a fact. Download "The Great Global Warming Swindle" from alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries newsgroup. It was broadcast, I think, on ITN in the UK. Larry -- Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV then it dumps you until you click to get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS! |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Dave wrote in
: 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? Or....no crisis at all, just normal operation of EARTH and SUN. Larry -- Alltel Axcess TV - 10 minutes of TV then it dumps you until you click to get 10 minutes more. It SUCKS! |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
ON the other hand ...........
Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on; and ......... 1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the Holocene interglacial epoch). 2. The eminating particles from the sun are increasingly striking the earth and are creating more nuclei for cloud formation than during other solar cycles. 3. The earth is warming due to increase solar output, and the heat is being trapped by the increase of cloud cover. 4. Due to the increase insolation (sun and re-reflection) by clouds the oceans are now warmer. 5. Carbon dioxide has LESS solubility in seawater when the water is warmer: hence, higher atmospheric CO2. (All the current data shows that the oceanic water temperature rise PRECEDES CO2 increase .... simple chemistry of gas solubility in a liquid at work!! Atmospheric CO2 FOLLOWS oceanic temperature rise. Al Gore is (was) a politician and has absolutely NO scientific credentials, yet an 'agenda'. . Most of the 2500 scientists (UN / IPCC) reporting global warming due to human caused CO2 .... their jobs depend on Global Warming, etc. Objectivitiy???? This is simply all "great Satan Envy". No thanks, I think Ill wait it out and without advocating squandering a major portion of national treasure on something that is most plausibly 'entirely out of the control of arrogant mankind'. Whats being proposed will have NO effect on global warming, other 'cycles' in the past have been warmer than now (and with higher atmospheric CO2) .... This is the complimentary "nonsense" of the 1960s/70s when Global cooling and a new ICE AGE was immediately inevitable. This nonsense will only stop when the 'feel-gooders' stop or cease all advances of civilization, force the return to primitive subsistance living (except for China and India) .... and all the poor in the third world countries suffer even more because of our arrogant insanity. This is simply anti-capitalism at its finest .... its so 'political' , so politically correct, etc. that noone wants to be called the emperor with no clothes. Wait another 50 years, then you can tell me I was right. :-) In article , KLC Lewis wrote: Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore's worst predictions are snip in order to reduce them, utterly redundant an unnecessary. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Rich Hampel" wrote in message ... ON the other hand ........... Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on; and ......... 1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the big snip to make things easier to read This is simply anti-capitalism at its finest .... its so 'political' , so politically correct, etc. that noone wants to be called the emperor with no clothes. So, warming is occurring, but there's discussion about the cause. Post cause, there's an effect. There's (so far in this discussion) been an assumption by many that the effect is 'disaster', therefore action is needed to cool things down. There will be change. The degree of change will be incertain. It will almost certainly mean an increase in navigable waters (good news for sailors - lets get back OT) and less space for landlubbers (tough if you haven't got a boat; and tough for those who own sea level property, who will have to depreciate their assets as the threat becomes more obvious). Hilltops may become prime land for building. Farmers will not be 'wiped out', though that's what will happen to those who don't adapt to growing different crops - just part of normal economic change through bankruptcy. And so on. Fur coats may even go out of fashion, replaced by more rainwear. Nudity may spread (like obesity? Hmm. Hope not). Darwinism works wonders . . . those who adapt to change will survive . . . . people or businesses or governments. That'll prepare us for the day when the galaxy starts to cool . . . . or a volcanic island takes off into the stratosphere . . . . or that asteroid smashes into the earth. Don't resist change, go with the flow. JimB www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/ Comparing (the nicer) European Cruise areas |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Larry" wrote in message ... "KLC Lewis" wrote in : Is there any reason to believe that CO2 will actually increase at his projected rates? None. Download the movie from ITN in UK called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and see the overwhelming truth, from the scientists not the people living off global warming terror. The CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 0.52% to 0.54% since the industrial revolution. Ha ahahhahahahahhahahahahah! Just where did you come up with those bogus figures? The present percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is .035%. Your figures are off by a factor of about 18 times. Until such time as people can at least get the facts straight how do expect anybody nuts to have their way? Read and learn: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gl...olution%5Fatm/ Wilbur Hubbard |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:41:22 +0000, Larry wrote:
"KLC Lewis" wrote in : Is there any reason to believe that CO2 will actually increase at his projected rates? None. Download the movie from ITN in UK called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and see the overwhelming truth, from the scientists not the people living off global warming terror. Total crap. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...032575,00.html http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?opti...37&Item id=83 http://community.channel4.com/groupe...m/f/9250037634 The CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 0.52% to 0.54% since the industrial revolution. ********! http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html The most interesting graphics on the movie is when one of the professors, I forget which one, overlays the CO2 in the air with the temperature over the last X thousand years. When the temperature rises, CO2 in the air rises AFTERWARDS, not before. When the temperature falls, CO2 in the air falls AFTERWARDS, not before. This is caused by the oceans. As the top levels of the oceans warm with the air, the ocean animals rapidly multiply, filling the ocean with CO2, which the oceans' massive surfaces transfer into the air. When the oceans cool, as the planet cools, the opposite happens. This has been going on for millions of years.....not since man invented the 427 Chevy with dual exhausts and 6 carbs. Global warming, as you'll see from the Earth's many records in the movie...is caused by the SUN, In the past, yes. The release of CO2 privides positive feedback. that big thermonuclear bomb that's quite close, by astronomical standards, to the Earth. CO2 FOLLOWS its warming and cooling...not causes it! Of course, without "global warming" there is no "global warming government spending/grants" and all the trappings of $$$$ that goes with it. Once The Beast is convinced of something, The Beast throws billions at it, creating its own vacuum to consume everything The Beast throws at it. Oh, and HIV doesn't cause AIDS, either. HIV is an ancient virus humans have been passing on to each other for thousands of years. ALL AIDS patients don't have HIV, just some of them. ALL HIV carriers don't get AIDS, either, only a small percentage of them. So, HIV can't cause AIDS. But, just like Global Warming, we have this HIV/AIDS industry that DEPENDS on The Beast pouring money into it, so it doesn't matter whether HIV causes AIDS or not...as long as The Beast thinks it does...the money will flow, ad nauseum, for decades. Can we afford to find a cure for Cancer? Heart Diseases? Common Cold? or any of the other massive moneymakers that buy fancy cars, yachts, jets, beachfront mansions for doctors? What? Are you CRAZY?!! Anyone who finds a cure is DEAD MEAT! Larry |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
Oh ...and you are an ass. My, my. A little hot under the collar are we? nope thats why i re read my post and asked you to insert "being" before an. GW discussions dont make me hot under the coller; i reserve that for old southern californians moving to oregon and trying to change the laws. GW is just a thing that needs to be delt with. I have no illusions that most of the population is going to ignore the problem untill it affects them. I just figure sailors who live by the sea would be a bit more ready to read the current research because it has a real effect on our decisions (when and where we sail) and our insurances. (dont know about sport sailors but ships are getting hit a little harder these days) this subject intrests me because i think sailors will look at current research and give it a closer look than our Respective parties and politics. However this depends on actually reading the work and not getting the snooze from CNN. 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. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"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"? |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
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"? yep; on the hurricane cycle, also global wobbel, shrinking ice caps on mars and most of the other stuff folks like to defend one point or another with. The exclusion of humans from fauna was deliberate so I would not have folks arguing evolution at me. This is why provided search links to ALL of the data. Dave... yes I suppose i am a "greenie" at that. I just researched the research instead of listening to Chomski or Rush. Faith in politics much like faith in nav aids is a good way to die. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
In article ,
Dave wrote: On 28 Mar 2007 13:09:05 -0700, "Two meter troll" said: I suppose i am a "greenie" at that Says it all. Attacking a religious faith would be pointless and probably counterproductive. But Dave, you're so good at it! -- Capt. JG @@ www.sailnow.com |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
But Dave, you're so good at it! -- Capt. JG LOL |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:27:19 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote: ON the other hand ........... Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on; and ......... 1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the Holocene interglacial epoch). No 2. The eminating particles from the sun are increasingly striking the earth and are creating more nuclei for cloud formation than during other solar cycles. No 3. The earth is warming due to increase solar output, and the heat is being trapped by the increase of cloud cover. No 4. Due to the increase insolation (sun and re-reflection) by clouds the oceans are now warmer. No 5. Carbon dioxide has LESS solubility in seawater when the water is warmer: hence, higher atmospheric CO2. (All the current data shows that the oceanic water temperature rise PRECEDES CO2 increase .... simple chemistry of gas solubility in a liquid at work!! Atmospheric CO2 FOLLOWS oceanic temperature rise. Yes, unless you start burning carbon. Al Gore is (was) a politician and has absolutely NO scientific credentials, yet an 'agenda'. . Most of the 2500 scientists (UN / IPCC) reporting global warming due to human caused CO2 .... their jobs depend on Global Warming, etc. Objectivitiy???? This is simply all "great Satan Envy". No thanks, I think Ill wait it out and without advocating squandering a major portion of national treasure on something that is most plausibly 'entirely out of the control of arrogant mankind'. Whats being proposed will have NO effect on global warming, other 'cycles' in the past have been warmer than now (and with higher atmospheric CO2) .... This is the complimentary "nonsense" of the 1960s/70s when Global cooling and a new ICE AGE was immediately inevitable. This nonsense will only stop when the 'feel-gooders' stop or cease all advances of civilization, force the return to primitive subsistance living (except for China and India) .... and all the poor in the third world countries suffer even more because of our arrogant insanity. This is simply anti-capitalism at its finest .... its so 'political' , so politically correct, etc. that noone wants to be called the emperor with no clothes. Wait another 50 years, then you can tell me I was right. :-) In article , KLC Lewis wrote: Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore's worst predictions are snip in order to reduce them, utterly redundant an unnecessary. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:27:19 GMT, Rich Hampel wrote: ON the other hand ........... Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on; and ......... 1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the Holocene interglacial epoch). No 2. The eminating particles from the sun are increasingly striking the earth and are creating more nuclei for cloud formation than during other solar cycles. No 3. The earth is warming due to increase solar output, and the heat is being trapped by the increase of cloud cover. No 4. Due to the increase insolation (sun and re-reflection) by clouds the oceans are now warmer. No 5. Carbon dioxide has LESS solubility in seawater when the water is warmer: hence, higher atmospheric CO2. (All the current data shows that the oceanic water temperature rise PRECEDES CO2 increase .... simple chemistry of gas solubility in a liquid at work!! Atmospheric CO2 FOLLOWS oceanic temperature rise. Yes, unless you start burning carbon. Al Gore is (was) a politician and has absolutely NO scientific credentials, yet an 'agenda'. . Most of the 2500 scientists (UN / IPCC) reporting global warming due to human caused CO2 .... their jobs depend on Global Warming, etc. Objectivitiy???? This is simply all "great Satan Envy". No thanks, I think Ill wait it out and without advocating squandering a major portion of national treasure on something that is most plausibly 'entirely out of the control of arrogant mankind'. Whats being proposed will have NO effect on global warming, other 'cycles' in the past have been warmer than now (and with higher atmospheric CO2) .... This is the complimentary "nonsense" of the 1960s/70s when Global cooling and a new ICE AGE was immediately inevitable. This nonsense will only stop when the 'feel-gooders' stop or cease all advances of civilization, force the return to primitive subsistance living (except for China and India) .... and all the poor in the third world countries suffer even more because of our arrogant insanity. This is simply anti-capitalism at its finest .... its so 'political' , so politically correct, etc. that noone wants to be called the emperor with no clothes. Wait another 50 years, then you can tell me I was right. :-) Well, that certainly settles the issue. Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to that which is generated by the natural processes of this planet. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:47:01 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:27:19 GMT, Rich Hampel wrote: ON the other hand ........... Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on; and ......... 1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the Holocene interglacial epoch). No 2. The eminating particles from the sun are increasingly striking the earth and are creating more nuclei for cloud formation than during other solar cycles. No 3. The earth is warming due to increase solar output, and the heat is being trapped by the increase of cloud cover. No 4. Due to the increase insolation (sun and re-reflection) by clouds the oceans are now warmer. No 5. Carbon dioxide has LESS solubility in seawater when the water is warmer: hence, higher atmospheric CO2. (All the current data shows that the oceanic water temperature rise PRECEDES CO2 increase .... simple chemistry of gas solubility in a liquid at work!! Atmospheric CO2 FOLLOWS oceanic temperature rise. Yes, unless you start burning carbon. Al Gore is (was) a politician and has absolutely NO scientific credentials, yet an 'agenda'. . Most of the 2500 scientists (UN / IPCC) reporting global warming due to human caused CO2 .... their jobs depend on Global Warming, etc. Objectivitiy???? This is simply all "great Satan Envy". No thanks, I think Ill wait it out and without advocating squandering a major portion of national treasure on something that is most plausibly 'entirely out of the control of arrogant mankind'. Whats being proposed will have NO effect on global warming, other 'cycles' in the past have been warmer than now (and with higher atmospheric CO2) .... This is the complimentary "nonsense" of the 1960s/70s when Global cooling and a new ICE AGE was immediately inevitable. This nonsense will only stop when the 'feel-gooders' stop or cease all advances of civilization, force the return to primitive subsistance living (except for China and India) .... and all the poor in the third world countries suffer even more because of our arrogant insanity. This is simply anti-capitalism at its finest .... its so 'political' , so politically correct, etc. that noone wants to be called the emperor with no clothes. Wait another 50 years, then you can tell me I was right. :-) Well, that certainly settles the issue. Unfortunately, all the CO2 generated by humans pales in comparison to that which is generated by the natural processes of this planet. No. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"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 |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
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. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On 28 Mar 2007 17:11:02 -0500, Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:41:28 +0100, Goofball_star_dot_etal said: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 04:27:19 GMT, Rich Hampel wrote: ON the other hand ........... Lets assume for the sake of argument that real non-politicallly influenced and objective science can be the answer of whats going on; and ......... 1. The sun is producing more energy at this particular cycle (of the Holocene interglacial epoch). No [snip] No [snip] Wrong answer. He wasn't asserting it as a fact. He was asking that it be assumed for the sake of argument. "No" in that context says simply "My mind's made up and no amount of logic, argument or fact will change it. I'm not willing to discuss the matter." No, "no" means we need not guess or "assumed for the sake of argument" because the measurements have already been made. |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... 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. It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you might like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to that which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate it. Here's another little link for you to pick-apart: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167 |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:40:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message .. . 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. It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you might like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to that which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate it. The recent increase is largely anthropogenic this cannot be so if it "pales in comparison to that which is generated by natural processes." "In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years." - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html Your 'paper' is a mess. It is not immediately clear what are sources and sinks. "Caveat: This is not my field. Corrections and amendments, especially by professionals, are welcomed. Students should not use this article as a reference for school projects. They should instead use it as a pointer to some of the published literature." Here's another little link for you to pick-apart: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167 500 million years! |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:40:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message m... 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. It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you might like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to that which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate it. The recent increase is largely anthropogenic this cannot be so if it "pales in comparison to that which is generated by natural processes." Even given modern increases, our contribution remains a fraction of that produced naturally. "In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years." - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html Your 'paper' is a mess. It is not immediately clear what are sources and sinks. All sources are footnoted. And it's not "my" paper. "Caveat: This is not my field. Corrections and amendments, especially by professionals, are welcomed. Students should not use this article as a reference for school projects. They should instead use it as a pointer to some of the published literature." And? It's clearly not your field either, but you feel qualified to discount the source which I provided for you, even though the writer more or less supports your side of the GW issue. lol Here's another little link for you to pick-apart: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167 500 million years! Yup. It's called "The Big Picture." |
Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:09:07 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:40:17 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message ... On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:52 -0600, "KLC Lewis" wrote: "Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message om... 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. It's cute that you had to look up "Anthropogenic" on Wiki. Perhaps you might like to reference the tables in the previously-linked article which, while they do not implicitely STATE that man-made CO2 "pales in comparison to that which is generated by natural processes," nevertheless clearly demonstrate it. The recent increase is largely anthropogenic this cannot be so if it "pales in comparison to that which is generated by natural processes." Even given modern increases, our contribution remains a fraction of that produced naturally. "In fact, over the last 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years." - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html Your 'paper' is a mess. It is not immediately clear what are sources and sinks. All sources are footnoted. And it's not "my" paper. "Caveat: This is not my field. Corrections and amendments, especially by professionals, are welcomed. Students should not use this article as a reference for school projects. They should instead use it as a pointer to some of the published literature." And? It's clearly not your field either, No climate modelling is not my field. Atmospheric measurements are. but you feel qualified to discount the source which I provided for you, even though the writer more or less supports your side of the GW issue. lol Here's another little link for you to pick-apart: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4167 500 million years! Yup. It's called "The Big Picture." Not for burning coal or for mankind it isn't. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com