Olin wrote:
>>> Ice shelves are falling off... Russia's melting and in 45 years there may
>>> be no more ski slopes in the Swiss Alps because there won't be any snow.
>>> Exxon has withdrawn support, both monetary and philosophical, of the
>>> anti-global warming "scientists," and even the Southern Baptists, some of
>>> 'em anyway, are calling for an end to the anti-scientific rhetoric to
>>> discredit warming theorem.
>>>
>> Let me see, which should I believe? The more credible science of
>> geology, that says the earths cools down every 1500 years -
>>
>
> Yeah, much of global warming probably is cyclical, but do you want to bet
> your beachfront property on it, with ocean levels already starting to rise?
> Do you want to bet your ski lodge business on it with no snow to attract the
> crowds.
>
> The glaciers have been disappearing at increasing rates from Glacier
> National Park. A 90,000 year old ice shelf has simply broken off. Russia is
> experiencing a warmer winter than they have experienced in recorded history.
>
> Thing is, old sod, most of the weather cycles on record had nothing even
> resembling the amount of crap we now throw into the air. The only event that
> even comes close is Krakatoa, which made Mt. St. Helen's look like a lady
> finger firecracker and IT spread ash over most of the country.
>
It will be easier to repost my reply to another forum on this matter for
brevities sake:
---------------
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/damon.html - It's a fact:
Global temperatures have heated up by about a degree Fahrenheit in just
over a century.
You would expect that if we are to blame, then surely we would have
higher than a one degree increase in the Global Temperature in over 100
years! Especially with growth of Industry around the world during this
time. When you factor in Solar Warming, Cycles in the Earth's
temperature every 1500 years, then what we are doing really doesn't seem
that significant, unless you can reduce the total data to look at just
what Human Industry alone is doing. When you do that, you can say,
"Yep, we're causing Global Warming!" But when you factor in the other
data, and go back even further in time then Al Gore and his buds did,
and then consider the core samples from the oceans measuring the amount
of C0(2) in the atmosphere, you end up with a better picture. Here
geology is of greater use to us than speculative meteorology. From
geological records, we know about the
(
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198585,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/evolution)
"Snowball Earth" that existed two billion years ago, or 900-570 million
years ago as another
(
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/everyday_geology/99898) study
suggests. Then from geological records, we know about the asteroid that
wiped out the Dinosaurs
(
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/asteroid_jello_001122.html)
"65 million years" ago. Then from geological records, we know about the
(
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/orbit_climate_010212.html)
"Great Ice Age" 23 million years ago that helped settle the Earth's
global climate, along with a cyclical change in the Earth's Orbit around
the Sun, into a more stable pattern that we are familiar with today.
So when it comes to considering evidence, which do I trust when it comes
to global warming? Which is more grounded and has more data to confer
with historically? Geology or speculative Meteorology? For right now,
I trust the data coming from the Earth's own history regarding Geology.
Am I concerned about the effect we are having on the Environment? Sure
I am, but my concern lies with better controlling pollution for air
quality sake, and finding better ways to utilize and recycle existing
resources, and putting the land and sea back similar to how we found
them. Right now I worry more about over fishing the oceans and seas,
then I do the Oil we are getting out of them. We all want to be
responsible stewards, but I can't just give into the latest BUZZ CUT
propaganda from Scientists who the majority of them have been on the
block of old planet Earth with a good grasp of what is going on, with 50
years of influence or less. You'll excuse me if I don't buy into the
very subjective and reactive reasoning when it comes to global warming,
simply because they desire to generate more grant money so they can do
well paid research until they reach the grave, and have a more
comfortable lifestyle! Every scientist dreams of getting that
indispensable research grant that settles them for life, but it should
be done so responsibly and with credibility, and not with manipulation
of data to affect political propaganda to fatten their personal wallets!
-----------
>> during "The Little Ice Age"
>> (
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=74653); like why else
>> was Washington in danger of crossing the mostly frozen Delaware River?
>> Or do I believe speculative Meteorology which is a much younger science,
>> and which has the hardest time getting the weather right in the winter
>> time, since they are wrong as much as 75%% of the time on weather
>> forecast? Or did you forget all their doom and gloom reports of a
>> repeat Hurricane season of 05 happening in 06? Where was it? Why
>> didn't it happen? I mean if these global warming scientis. . . no wait
>> theorists are so correct, then why didn't it happen? (Big Hint on
>> THEORISTS) Not only that within the Scientific community that supported
>> this Global Warming Nonsense, you have in-fighting, and skeptics within
>> the fold -
>>
>
> You really need to buy a clue. ALL science is theoretical. That's what makes
> it science. And, of course you have skeptics inside the scientific
> community. This proves, precisely, what?
>
> What it does prove is that the questions are being asked, and that's rather
> healthy... as opposed to sticking your head in the eclesastical sand and
> saying it'll all go away.
>
> And, if meteorology gets it right even 25%% of the time, that's one in four
> odds, and a whole lot of money has been made at tracks all over the country
> on much longer odds than those.
>
> Has it ever occured to you that man is hardly in charge of old Mother Earth?
> That we can either save OR destroy her? What's far more likely to happen is
> "she" gets tired of our tired little machinations and illusions of control
> and spits us off the planet like so much phlegm.
>
> And, the cause of that could easily be a meteor, another Krakatoa, or the
> destruction of the environment through pollution.
>
Again, yet another reply on another forum is best put here:
---------------
(
http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,973266,00.html)
Mount Saint Helens alone had erupted 22 times since 1980 by 1991 alone,
and like I said, one blast from one volcano can put out 300 times the
Greenhouse Gases mankind manufactures on a global scale in just one
year. Add in volcanic eruptions from Volcanoes beneath the surface of
the ocean, and the existing Solar Warming
(
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/damon.html and
http://groups.google.com/group/nashville.general/browse_thread/thread/77bdd952220bfa1b/7b5db553d35176a3...#7b5db553d35176a3)
that has been occurring, causing global warming on Mars
(
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-2.html),
Jupiter
(
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/jupiter_spots_040421.html), and
Pluto (
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html),
and its like comparing the waste produced by one Ant Colony to
the waste produced by a 16th Century herd of Buffalo on the great plains
of America in one years time. Not anything to write home about!
---------------
>> Long ago before you were born Olin, the French Businessmen were
>> complaining about the English Whine that was being imported and ruining
>> their business (don't see the French complaining about the Vineyards in
>> England now, nor their whine business do you?), and the Vikings were
>> farming in Greenland, and today we see the ruins, and wonder how they
>> ever farmed there in the first place, until the Little Ice Age, and the
>> Earth's 1500 year warming and cooling cycle was explained. So stay away
>> from what Al Gore is serving in his tea these days, because it bound to
>> narrow your vision! ;)
>>
>
> Better to have narrow vision than no vision at all. I'm starting to be of
> the opinion that the wingnuts are going after Gore as hard as they are
> because, deep down, they very well might be afraid he's right.
>
> Earlier cyclical changes are documented, and again may well be at play here,
> but it's damned difficult to deny that pollution that's increased by several
> orders of magnitude since the beginning of the industrial age are also
> factors.
>
