Re: Global warming test
- From: Dan <dnadan56@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:10:52 -0700
Mark Test wrote:
"Dan" <dnadan56@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Mark Test wrote:the"Dan" <dnadan56@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageWell, other than that being a pretty ignorant statement in itself,
Mark Test wrote:wrong."Dan" <dnadan56@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageNow go back to the original statements and tell me why what I said is
Mark Test wrote:Thus, it's alot warmer there..."Dan" <dnadan56@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageAnd?Now, go take a look at Venus and get back to us.Hmnmm, let's see Venus is over 30 million miles closer to
the source of all global warming.....
Hmmm, "go take a look at Venus" nothing wrong with that. Comparing
Venus to Earth....there is something wrong with that. They are
both planets, that's all they have in common.
perhaps you could look at the message my statement was responding TO...
I don't think I clipped it out.
Yes. The "averages" for the last mini-ice-age (~1600) were off fromDoes a warming trend scare you or not?We need the greenhouse effect....and Vikings used toWe need Selenium, too.
grow crops on Greenland.....why does a warming
trend scare you?
Nope...other than you are admitting that there is natural climateHmmmm. Warming, ice age, air temperature. Nope, no obvious connectionnorm by a fraction of a degree...Sorry, I don't follow (I'm a bit dense). I asked
about warming trends, and you replied with ice age.....
change that has been going on for eons.
And that precludes human-derived change, um, how again?
I missed that chapter in my Good Communist manual that you seem to be following.
No wonder you are so adamantine.No argument there.
While humans are remarkably adaptable, most of that adaptability isRight, and the Earth was only suppose to be able to sustain a human
related to energy use to maintain a VERY narrow temperature range in the
area where we reside. Energy provided by food, clothing (efficiency),
shelter, and various materials to heat space. When population is very
small, there are plenty of renewable sources, and populations remain
population of 6 billion...(prediction made in the '60's).
What have I said, or have you said, that contradicts that number?
That was a rosy forecast based on infinitely available energy sources...
Read the prediction CAREFULLY.
As a species, we survived a real ice age, and did fine in the mini-iceAs a species we love the warm and hate the cold. Man's population
age beginning around 1600 CE, but some of our settlements (Greenland)
booms tend to occur during warming trends...
Within a very narrow range. We've never seen the levels we are seeing now, it seems.
Under today's conditions, with rising temperatures, we are in a bindThat's one scientific view.....here's another....
because we are pushing the envelope of our carrying capacity, that
carrying capacity which is currently ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT on the use of
non-renewable fossil fuels. In addition, those fossil fuels we are
dependent on are also contributing to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere,
which is, according to the best science available, causing an increase
in global temperatures, which will, at minimum, cause disturbances in
the relatively stable climate to which we have become accustomed. Some
places will see an increase in moisture and plant growth; other places
will become deserts, and the exact locations of either is as yet
Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the
first 30 feet by water vapor.
Yes, and? When temperatures rise, air is able to absorb MORE moisture, made available by HIGHER temperatures in the liquid water, causing MORE heat to be retained.
Do the concepts "cycle" or "positive feedback loop" mean anything to you?
They do to people educated in science...
And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent.
One one-thousandth as important as water vapor.
Um, no. You are confusing two entirely different concepts. The human brain is only 1/50 the mass of the human body; is it less important to your survival than a leg, which masses several times as much?
You can go outside and spit
and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
--- Reid A. Bryson, PhD in Meteorology
You do understand that meteorology is the science dealing with WEATHER, right. We are discussing CLIMATE here. Late in this screed, you demonstrate that you have no conception of the difference, so I thought you might like to know.
While we have a small surplus of foodstuffs at present, the populationSo humans are un-natural beasts that must be erradicated?
is increasing, human activities have caused significant areas of land to
become deserts (without warming), and our use of a fixed and wasting
asset (fossil fuels) is accelerating as more people become hooked.
Well, if YOU think so...
Or at a minimum
'controlled'. I do concur that proper land management is needed...like we
in the US do... there are more trees in the US than there were 70 years
ago... Because the lumber companies want to stay in business.
THERE's an unimpeachable source...
What is the biomass of the forests then and now?
Now, the mini-event that caused the evacuation of Greenland (and a hostOK, this is where we disagree. You are buying into this 'global temp' stat.
of other changes like the destruction of the wine industry in England)
around 1600 was evidenced by a drop in average global temperature of
less than one degree (perhaps as little as 1/2 degree C).
It's a useless stat. Look, in location A) it's 20 deg F in location B) it's
80 deg F for an avg 'global temp' of 50 deg F.
The concept is slightly more sophisticated than that. It is only one simple method of talking about the actual phenomenon of global temperature, but has some validity.
I'm not "buying into" anything at all. I happen to be fairly well-read in the subject, and, obviously, you are not quite so. I was trying to keep it simple for the example.
Now, in location C) it's 50 deg F and in D) it's 50 deg F....for an average
of 50 deg F....it tells us nothing...you may as well average all the wolrd's
phone numbers to create a 'global number'.
You may as well give up trying to understand.
So, very minor AVERAGE temperature deviations have SIGNIFICANT effectsBased on flawed data, flawed computer models, and scientists that can't even
beyond what "common sense" would indicate.
get a 5 day forecast correct.
You have evidence about flawed data and flawed models? Point out the specific flaws, and why they are misrepresentations of the phenomenon to be studied. You have looked at the models, right? What, specifically, are the flaws in the data? Are they systematic flaws, sampling errors, or is the data collection process itself flawed? Are the flaws knowable and correctable? Is there fraud in the data collection or processing system? Enquiring minds want to know...
You DO know that weather and climate are different things,right. No, of course you don't...
Ever hear of chaos theory (besides from Dr. Malcolm in Jurassic Park)?
With changes predicted for AGW of a few degrees C, yes, I am worried.Well, you shouldn't be.
I think I have a better grasp of the phenomenon than you do, and I'll worry when I think it is appropriate, thank you very much.
"Britain's University of East Anglia climate research unit found global
temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2005, and a NASA satellite
recently found the southern hemisphere had not warmed in the past 25 years."
Interesting, the article I found said something quite different than that.
what scholarly source gave you that quote?
"We may have been alarmed by the sighting of an iceberg as large as an
aircraft carrier off Dunedin, but we should be consoled by the news that the
Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing there."
What science journal is that from? It is at odds with every other research paper I have read or heard about. That, indeed, is interesting.
How about this:
" Sea level rise
Over the last 100 years sea level has risen 18cm (7in). Four million radar measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet between 1992 and 96 show that its thickness has changed by less than 1cm. This means that the sea level rise has been mainly due to expansion. With sea temperatures in Antarctica rising at 5 times the global average (2.5C since the 1940s) this suggests that thermal expansion could drive up sea levels to the higher IPCC prediction of 80cm (31in). Many millions of people live below one metre above sea level. For example, Singapore and its reclaimed territories will be at risk if the sea level rises above 20 cm. The Thames barrage is already deemed to be inadequate. Hamburg is 120 kilometres from the sea but could be inundated. The mean high tidal water level has increase between 40 and 50 cm since the 1970s.
The other major threat lies with the potential break-up of land based ice. The recent breakaway of the 12000 sq. km of the Larson B ice shelf has serious implications. In itself it will not contribute to rising sea levels. The danger lies in the fact that the ice shelves act as a bulwark supporting the land based ice. It is this which poses the threat of sea levels rising up to 6m.
At the same time there has been massive melting of glacier ice. The Alps have lost 50% of their ice in the past century. Of the 27 glaciers that existed in Spain before 1980, only 13 remain. The worldwide melting of glaciers and ice caps will contribute 33% of the predicted sea level rise (IPCC).
In Alaska there is general thinning and retreating of sea ice, drying tundra, increased storm intensity, reduced summer rainfall, warmer winters and changes in the distribution, migration patterns and numbers of some wildlife species. Together these pose serious threats to the survival of the subsistence indigenous Eskimos. New Scientist 14 Nov 98.
The average global surface temperature in 1998 set a new record surpassing the previous record in 1995 by 0.2C - the largest jump ever recorded. Worldwatch Institute in Scientific American, March 1999.
From Nature, 5 March 99: NASA scientists report satellite evidence of Greenland land based ice sheet thinning by 1 m /yr. Has lost 5m in SW and E coasts. This threatens the Deep Ocean pump and coastal regions since it directly leads to sea level rise.
The geological record over 300 million years shows considerable climate swings every 1-2000 years until 8000 years ago, since when the swings have been much more moderate. The indications are that relatively small changes led to massive outcomes - the butterfly effect. The danger is that increasing atmospheric carbon to double the pre-industrial level will trigger catastrophic change. There seems no chance of avoiding such a build-up of carbon. The record shows that warming was rapid: 12C in a lifetime, but that cooling occurred at a slow rate."
The Global Context
Supporting text for Workshop Presentation
The Built Environment
Education for the Third Millennium
SAVE Project Team
University of Sheffield 1999
Past, Present and Future
Supplement to Options for a flexible planet
Peter F Smith
- Re: Global warming test
- From: Mark Test
- Re: Global warming test
- Prev by Date: Re: Human Rights
- Next by Date: Re: Nuclear Power for All Major Surface Ships -- Again?
- Previous by thread: Re: Global warming test
- Next by thread: Re: Global warming test