Re: An inconvenient Truth -- update

Stephen Harding wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lichtman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:lo1ng.54738$mF2.28589@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Come on, Sorni, you're smarter than that. Mike Kruger covered that point.

Their statement is based on a 400-year period with very strong evidence. Prior to that, the evidence is not as strong, but indicates the same trend.

I think that's an aggressive characterization of the report, based on my reading of the executive summary, including a chart going back to 1000 A.D., that plots the results of a half dozen secondary theories for establishing probable temperatures before 1600.

The Report labeled only as "plausible" the argument that the medieval "warm period" (whose existence is likely but whose extent is difficult to establish) was cooler than today. No effort was made to argue a long term trend. It was fairly clear that there was a distinct cooling period for 150 or more years prior to 1850.

More recently, there was distinct warming from 1900 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1970, and warming from 1970 to 1998; those 1998 temperatures haven't since been equaled. As another poster has noted, by the 1970s, some "experts' had seen enough "global cooling" to predict a coming ice age, with 30 years data to support them. (30 years during which a lot of fossil fuels were burned, BTW). I'm not in a hurry to embrace the equally speculative assertions of today that go in the opposite direction. But it's a plausible enough theory to provide a reason for bike commuting, as I do, though I'd be lying if I said global warming was a big factor in my decision to do that.

I think your summary of the thinking on global temperature
changes over history is about the same as I've read over the
past few years.

The planet is definitely getting warmer (as it has in the
past) and the real question is whether humans are the cause
this time.

I'd say the general scientific consensus is yes humans are
the cause, but I don't know strongly or overwhelmingly this
belief is held in the scientific community.

The question of whether one should sign on to policies that
will cost the economy, at least in the short run, a competitive
edge or jobs is a fair concern, but I think we need to start
doing something to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

Commuting by bike seems a good thing that a single individual
can do, and it certainly demands no great sacrifice on my
part to do so!


SMH

I do use my bikes as much as possible and just put on some very Fred racks on the back so I can carry more on my store and garage sale trips. Greenhouse CO2 is probably a large part of the problem but the sun also has natural cycles (one is sunspots every 11 years) and temperature output from the sun may be another variable we have 0.00000000% control over. More data is needed but I agree with burning less CO2 producing fuel. It took tens (hundreds?) of millions of years for all those dinosaurs and trees to turn to oil (and coal) and we are burning all of it in less than 200 years, a blink of an eye in earth time.
Bill Baka
.