LeftCoast

Oops, hit "reply" when I shoulda hit "edit"

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: LeftCoast ]</p>

Coragyps

(mod hat on, first time ever)
Long url is repaired.
(mod hat off)

Late_Cretaceous

Leftcoast

Thanks for the info on posting URLs. I thought the course URL was the problem and was trying to edit it. I can repost it if you like.

Alonzo Fyfe

You will not find any of the arguments that I raised objection to in the professional peer-reviewed literature. If there is such a strong case to be made against global warming based on the peer-reviewed findings, then why do global warming critics depend only on fallacious arguments that would get laughed off of any peer-review board?

The basic problem with the critic's objections is that, if they were true, they would imply that CO2 does not absorb light at the frequencies of energy that show up as black (absorbtion) lines on the CO2 absorbtion spectrum, or that when CO2 absorbs this energy it simply channels it out of the universe. Both conclusions are too absurd to be believed.

And it is precisely because these global warming critics have scientific degrees, yet insist on using arguments that are so baseless, that I conclude that they are being deliberately deceptive. They know that they are encouraging harmful activities, and they are doing it for money.


The popular idea of global warming is not what we are discussing here. It is the scientific idea of global warming that is under debate.


One of the things that they are going to say for certain, because they can get the evidence for it simply by looking at an absorbtion spectrum of CO2 and compare it to an emission spectrum of Earth, is that if CO2 increases, energy that the earth would otherwise radiate into space will instead be absorbed by the atmosphere. And that no scientist of integrity would put forth an argument implying that CO2 will either not absorb this energy or will channel it out of the universe.

Sojourner553

Good posts by the way! Actually, I think another parallel can be made to the Erich von Däniken CHARIOT OF THE GODS theory that spacemen built the Egyptian pyramids, etc. I knew of scientists who were "impressed" with von Däniken's "science" although they always were disappointed with his knowledge of science IN THEIR SPECIALITY (ie, the areas they had expertise in.)

Sojourner

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

By the way, here is a good explanation of Global Warming


<a href="http://www.time.com/time/asia/news/magazine/0,9754,104657,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/asia/news/magazine/0,9754,104657,00.html</a>


"United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes plain, the trend toward a warmer world has unquestionably begun. Worldwide temperatures have climbed more than .5°C over the past century, and the 1990s were the hottest decade on record. After analyzing data going back at least two decades on everything from air and ocean temperatures to the spread and retreat of wildlife, the IPCC asserts that this slow but steady warming has had an impact on no fewer than 420 physical processes and animal and plant species on all continents.

Glaciers, including the legendary snows of Kilimanjaro, are disappearing from mountaintops around the globe. Coral reefs are dying off as the seas get too warm for comfort. Drought is the norm in parts of Asia and Africa. El Niño events, which trigger devastating weather in the eastern Pacific, are more frequent. The Arctic permafrost is starting to melt. Lakes and rivers in colder climates are freezing later and thawing earlier each year. Plants and animals are shifting their ranges poleward and to higher altitudes, and migration patterns for animals as diverse as polar bears, butterflies and beluga whales are being disrupted.

Faced with these hard facts, scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible. Nor are the changes over. Already, humans have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, the most abundant heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, to 30% above pre-industrial levels—and each year the rate of increase gets faster. The obvious conclusion: temperatures will keep going up."

Bush first ordered his own study of course last summer, which sided with the UN report.

But don't think "our selected Prez" isn't working on the problem. He arranged for the head of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- Robert Watson -- TO BE FIRED recently!!!

That's called "Shoot the messenger"! I'm sure Bush and Cheney will spin the story as having to deal with terrorism!!!!!!!!!!!


Sojourner

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Blinn

Hi - I honestly haven't read very much of this thread at all, having made a single post on the first page several weeks ago. However, here is an article detailing the comments that I made in my post, regarding the apparently, earlier occuring reproductive seasons of organisms, acting as a possible indicator of global warming.

<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/759245.asp?0dm=C23AN" target="_blank">Early blooming flowers tied to warmer Earth</a>

echidna

Now to me this is a good example of sloppy science from the Climate Warming side of the debate. They extrapolate data from southern-central England to draw a conclusion about the global climate ??

This type of over-simplification clouds the debate woefully. England’s climate is quite atypical and actually quite unrepresentative of global conditions since it is more affected by the specific conditions of the Gulf Stream, so Fitter’s conclusions are quite out of the scope of his data.

However rightly or wrongly, there is a degree of mania associated with climate change. A greenhouse is linked with warm & wet conditions. When it’s warm, that’s the Greenhouse Effect, when it rains, that’s the Greenhouse Effect. It’s really quite a convenient package when you consider. Every other day we can prove global warming to ourselves (if we choose to check data selectively).

I don’t deny the good global evidence for climate change, but there’s also a very high proportion of low-level material just hanging on for a cheap ride.

Thor Q. Mada

Well I think that our data are covering a too short period of time to make a scientifically correct conclusion.
I do think from subjective data that there is a climate change.
But:
-The earth has gone through climate changes before, and
-Proving that human caused greenhouse gasses are one of the reasons for our at present perceived changes is difficult if not impossible at present.

This doesn't mean that we should not be alert, limit such emissions, and monitor carefully what is happening.

Late_Cretaceous

<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/publications.html" target="_blank">http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/publications.html</a>