Re: Philips calls for a simple switch to reduce energy consumption

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
"who" <i@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:i-7AF97F.20065313072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In article <20485-469706EE-255@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
C-BODY@xxxxxxxxx wrote:


I suspect the basic "global warming" thing is a cyclical situation for
the planet.

Of course it is.
The Northern Hemisphere has been on a warming trend for over 10,000
yrs., with ups and downs. About 1,000 yrs ago NE Canada was warmer than
it is now. The Vikings knew that.
About 20,000 yrs ago Canada was almost totally covered with ice, which
extended down into the northern USA.
About 8,000 yrs ago Churchill. Ma emerged from the ice sheet. The land
at Churchill is rising in relation to the rising ocean about 1 meter per
100 years, based on boat cleats in the shore rock from the 1770s.
The Canadian permafrost line still is far south of Churchill.

Canada's Baffin Island in the far north had the climate of the Carolinas
not that long ago geologically; based on the remains of swamp cyprus
found there.


How much of what they're now charting is directly
attributable to mankind is still debateable--to me.

That's the big question, but our ever increasing population of energy
users will have a impact. IMO we should minimize our impact.


Of course, we
exhale "greenhouse gases" as a normal situation, not to forget about
"methane" expulsion, too.

Cows are much worse than us.
Swamps are very bad. At some swamps you can see the methane bubbling up
to the surface. There is low delta land near my house where you can
smell the methane on a still summer night.
Swamps we need, but cows and people should be reduced to reduce
pollution. <:)



Swamps make methane from rotting plant material. Plants grow very
well in swamps when lots of pollution comes into the swamp, carrying
high mineral and chemical content.

Keep in mind though you can almost completely dismiss all biological
sources of carbon emissions. Where do cows get the carbon they emit
in farts? From plants. Where do plants get it? From carbon dioxide in
the air. It's a nice little cycle that doesen't put any more carbon into
the atmosphere than what it takes out.

The only real sources of carbon that we need to care about are
those from oil and coal and natural gas. Because, what happened is
that the carbon in those materials was put into them millions of
years ago when the plants took it out of the atmosphere.

What people who cite the existence of things like "ancient swamp
cypress" as proof that the earth was warmer a long time ago don't
seem to understand is that they are merely solidifying the proof of
the global warming hypothesis, even then they think they are
detracting from it. The reason is that the carbon we are worrying
about putting into the atmosphere now from fossil fuels and such
had to come from somewhere. Since those fuels came from plants
the plants had to get it from somewhere. So they got it from the
ancient atmospheres. What this proves is that if the earth was warmer
in the past, as the detractors claim it was, then since all that extra
carbon was present then, it is likely that it did in fact make the ancient
earth warmer. As plant growth accellerated in the warmer periods it
pulled that carbon out of the atmosphere, allowing the earth to cool
to current temperatures. As carbon levels went down plant growth
had less carbon dioxide and the earth got cooler and plant growth
was then retarded.

Ted

This information MUST be suppressed!! (jk)

What do you think or know about the graphs that people like Al Gore show about temperatue rise always being accompanied by increased carbon dioxide? I have read that the actual un-faked data shows the temperature increase always preceeding the temp. rise, yet when these people present their data, they time shift the two parameters relative to each other to make it look like the opposite happens (i.e, that the temp. rise follows the CO2 rise).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Philips calls for a simple switch to reduce energy consumption
    ... Swamps are very bad. ... Where do cows get the carbon they emit ... From plants. ... What this proves is that if the earth was warmer ...
    (rec.autos.makers.chrysler)
  • Re: Philips calls for a simple switch to reduce energy consumption
    ... producing carbon dioxide, slowing down the natural production of carbon ... "methane" expulsion, too. ... Swamps are very bad. ... From plants. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.chrysler)
  • American ragweed spreading through Europe.
    ... the growth of plants whose pollen trigger allergies. ... 20 percent more carbon dioxide, the effect of more cars and pollution. ... or affect how far plant pollens are dispersed. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: leaf litter mulch
    ... Now, I wonder if this may be a good thing for some plants and perhaps because of the micro-organisms in that, not so good for others. ... My impression is that newspaper much is more for weeds than water retention, ... Because cedar is decay resistant, its carbon isn't readily available to decomposers, and ultimately the plants. ... It looks to me that all those pine needles are out, although it was all the white fungi that worried me and not the C/N. ...
    (rec.gardens)
  • Re: Carbon Dioxide Emissions May Harm Ocean Life
    ... Angelo Campanella wrote: ... And the observation is that we are putting X gigatons of carbon ... The modern plants are up to 44% thermal efficiency and there are ... > for the fact that only about 20% of the electricity we use in the US ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)