Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax! - VMS

This is a discussion on Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax! - VMS ; On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:50:00 -0700, AEF wrote: > I don't see people defending well-established facts with nonsense like > thermometers next to chimneys or like those Web sites that Boob posted > claiming evolution violates the Second Law. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 62

Thread: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

  1. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:50:00 -0700, AEF wrote:

    > I don't see people defending well-established facts with nonsense like
    > thermometers next to chimneys or like those Web sites that Boob posted
    > claiming evolution violates the Second Law.
    > So why can't any naysayers come up with something better?
    > I assume you're going with the "they're right for other reasons" I
    > alluded to above, but this would be the first time I've seen nonsense
    > used to defend a "reasonable position" (for lack of my ability to come
    > up with a better phrase).


    I still don't understand what you are driving at nor how you associated me
    with that.

    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  2. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    In article , "Tom Linden" writes:
    >On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:54:05 -0700, wrote:
    >
    >>> That is not accurate, the period of precession of the equinoxes is
    >>> 25,600
    >>> years, IIRC, advancing one degree about every 70 years (perhelion
    >>> currently is
    >>> January 4)
    >>>

    >> The predominant astronomical cycle affecting glaciation for the last
    >> 800,000 years has been a 100,000 year cycle of ice ages punctuated by
    >> briefer
    >> usually 9000 - 12000 year long interglacials. There are a number of
    >> different
    >> astronomical cycles which acting together may explain this. I believe the
    >> interglacial can generally be thought of as lasting for about one half
    >> of the
    >> equinox precessional period (the exact length depending upon how all the
    >> cycles mesh together and probably also modulated by other
    >> non-astronomical
    >> factors). The variation caused by the precession of the equinoxes
    >> obviously
    >> occurs repeatedly during the 100,000 year period but only leads to
    >> interglacial
    >> conditions at the beginning/end of the 100,000 year cycle.
    >> However as indicated in some of the links below more recent findings
    >> from ice
    >> cores point to some interglacials having lasted much longer than half the
    >> equinox precessional period.

    >
    >
    >
    >Because there are a number of different repeating factors ( google
    >Milankovitch)
    >there is a beat phenomenon that can occur resulting in extremes.
    >I copied the following article which I think is well put together
    >http://www.kednos.com/physics/CLIMATOLOGY/ICEAGE.HTML
    >
    >Note the graph on insolation, the 100K period to which you refer is
    >clearly significant,
    >the 400K period is caused by perturbation of the earths orbit by planetary
    >alignments
    >resulting in the eccentricity becoming as high as 0.04 (currently almost
    >circular, 0.01)
    >but also not that the last ice age in which the ice was several km thick
    >on northern Europe
    >was maybe 12000 years ago and that is outside the 100KA cycle.
    >


    I'm not sure then why you objected so strenuously to my statement that the last
    interglacial started about 11500 years ago (there are a number of different
    ways to measure when the interglacial started and hence figures from 10,000
    upto 12,000 years ago are often quoted but I'm sure you can't have been
    objecting on that basis - The links I provided used all of those figures).


    The only other thing you could have been objecting to was the statement that
    in the 1970s it was thought that interglacial's generally lasted about 11,000
    years again the links provide adequate support for that statement.

    I'm also not sure what you mean by "outside the 100KA cycle" in your last
    remark.

    See

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:I...emperature.png

    for a diagram showing Antarctic temperature changes during the last several
    glacial/interglacial cycles over the past 450,000 years (unfortunately the date
    scale isn't linear - stretching out the recent past and compressing the more
    distant past).


    David Webb
    security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University




    >--
    >PL/I for OpenVMS
    >www.kednos.com


  3. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warminga hoax!)

    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    > In article , John Santos writes:
    >
    >>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>On 08/21/07 22:07, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>>>[snip]
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>As an aside, let us all remember that 400 years ago most people
    >>>>>believed the Sun moved around the Earth. Some people may still believe
    >>>>>this today but the majority of educated people know it is the other
    >>>>>way around. It was mathematicians and astronomers who first learned
    >>>>>the new truth but it took a while to ripple into other scientific
    >>>>>disciplines. So when greater than 95% of the peer reviewed
    >>>>>climatologists say that global warming is real AND that mankind's
    >>>>
    >>>>The problem is that humans (and scientists *are* human) prefer
    >>>>orthodoxy, and peer review is the *perfect* guardian of scientific
    >>>>orthodoxy.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Except of course thirty years ago the scientific orthodoxy was worrying about
    >>>an imminent ice age.

    >>
    >>This statement is not true. In the late 70's a small minority of climate
    >>scientists were speculating about this, but it was never "orthodoxy".
    >>

    >
    > The prevailing opinion at that time was that the average interglacial lasted
    > about 11000 years and since the start of the current interglacial was 11500
    > years ago we were rapidly approaching the onset of a new ice age.
    >
    > Later evidence from ice cores showed that interglacials could last much longer
    > and it has been argued that the current interglacial may be more analagous to
    > a previous one which lasted around 30000 years.
    >
    > see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4081541.stm
    >
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/feature...iceage_01.shtm
    >
    > http://www.geography-site.co.uk/page...rs/iceage.html
    >
    > and
    >
    > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174246/
    >
    > So yes I think it is fair to say that the orthodoxy in the 1970s was that
    > the next ice age was due.


    I think you are talking about something else. It was probably true that
    the scientific orthodoxy may have been that "we're due" in the same sense
    that we may be due for a large asteroid strike. (They average every X
    years, and it has been order X years since the last one...) but when
    global warming deniers talk about this, they are citing specific work
    done in the 1970's that predicted an imminent Northern Hemisphere ice
    age. That work was highly controversial at the time, and most climatologists
    doubted it due to lack of data and lack of adequate understanding of the
    underlying mechanisms and lack of suitable models. See the NAS/NRC 1975
    report on the subject, summarized in

    >
    > David Webb
    > Security team leader
    > CCSS
    > Middlesex University
    >
    >
    >
    >>"Orthodoxy" is of course a loaded word, since it means something entirely
    >>different in science than it does in a religious context.
    >>
    >>
    >> Global warming has only become the scientific orthodoxy
    >>
    >>>relatively recently. As you imply with your "peer review is the *perfect*
    >>>guardian of scientific orthodoxy" science tends to be conservative and only
    >>>changes to a new orthodox position when the evidence supporting the new
    >>>position and undermining the old orthodoxy is fairly massive.
    >>>
    >>>David Webb
    >>>Security team leader
    >>>CCSS
    >>>Middlesex University
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>--
    >>>>Ron Johnson, Jr.
    >>>>Jefferson LA USA
    >>>>
    >>>>Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    >>>>Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

    >>
    >>
    >>--
    >>John Santos
    >>Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    >>781-861-0670 ext 539



    --
    John Santos
    Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    781-861-0670 ext 539

  4. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:07:00 -0700, wrote:

    > In article , "Tom Linden"
    > writes:
    >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:54:05 -0700, wrote:
    >>
    >>>> That is not accurate, the period of precession of the equinoxes is
    >>>> 25,600
    >>>> years, IIRC, advancing one degree about every 70 years (perhelion
    >>>> currently is
    >>>> January 4)
    >>>>
    >>> The predominant astronomical cycle affecting glaciation for the last
    >>> 800,000 years has been a 100,000 year cycle of ice ages punctuated by
    >>> briefer
    >>> usually 9000 - 12000 year long interglacials. There are a number of
    >>> different
    >>> astronomical cycles which acting together may explain this. I believe
    >>> the
    >>> interglacial can generally be thought of as lasting for about one half
    >>> of the
    >>> equinox precessional period (the exact length depending upon how all
    >>> the
    >>> cycles mesh together and probably also modulated by other
    >>> non-astronomical
    >>> factors). The variation caused by the precession of the equinoxes
    >>> obviously
    >>> occurs repeatedly during the 100,000 year period but only leads to
    >>> interglacial
    >>> conditions at the beginning/end of the 100,000 year cycle.
    >>> However as indicated in some of the links below more recent findings
    >>> from ice
    >>> cores point to some interglacials having lasted much longer than half
    >>> the
    >>> equinox precessional period.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Because there are a number of different repeating factors ( google
    >> Milankovitch)
    >> there is a beat phenomenon that can occur resulting in extremes.
    >> I copied the following article which I think is well put together
    >> http://www.kednos.com/physics/CLIMATOLOGY/ICEAGE.HTML
    >>
    >> Note the graph on insolation, the 100K period to which you refer is
    >> clearly significant,
    >> the 400K period is caused by perturbation of the earths orbit by
    >> planetary
    >> alignments
    >> resulting in the eccentricity becoming as high as 0.04 (currently almost
    >> circular, 0.01)
    >> but also not that the last ice age in which the ice was several km thick
    >> on northern Europe
    >> was maybe 12000 years ago and that is outside the 100KA cycle.
    >>

    >
    > I'm not sure then why you objected so strenuously to my statement that
    > the last
    > interglacial started about 11500 years ago (there are a number of
    > different
    > ways to measure when the interglacial started and hence figures from
    > 10,000
    > upto 12,000 years ago are often quoted but I'm sure you can't have been
    > objecting on that basis - The links I provided used all of those
    > figures).
    >

    I don't think it was strenuous;-) In any event my reading of your post
    left the
    impression that ice ages occurred on 100KA cycle and all I was saying is
    that it is
    about every 26000 years. But then that may have been my misreading.
    >
    > The only other thing you could have been objecting to was the statement
    > that
    > in the 1970s it was thought that interglacial's generally lasted about
    > 11,000
    > years again the links provide adequate support for that statement.
    >
    > I'm also not sure what you mean by "outside the 100KA cycle" in your last
    > remark.
    >
    > See
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:I...emperature.png
    >
    > for a diagram showing Antarctic temperature changes during the last
    > several
    > glacial/interglacial cycles over the past 450,000 years (unfortunately
    > the date
    > scale isn't linear - stretching out the recent past and compressing the
    > more
    > distant past).
    >
    >
    > David Webb
    > security team leader
    > CCSS
    > Middlesex University
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> --
    >> PL/I for OpenVMS
    >> www.kednos.com




    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  5. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Aug 23, 8:48 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    Koehler) wrote:
    >
    > The best evidence I've seen shows that much of our current warming
    > is natural and some of it is man made. I still think we ought to
    > take what action we can about the part we're contributing.
    >


    Good point but let me add the following...

    Question: if a large killer asteroid was heading for Earth, should we
    just throw up our hands and do nothing because collisions with Earth
    are natural and have happened before?

    Answer: No. We must do everything in our power to save our planet as
    well as our civilization.

    So if the planet is heating up, let's see if we can stop it.

    p.s. global warming is not a good idea. Here are just two quick facts:

    1) cold water holds much more oxygen than warm water

    2) 42 C for one hour will kill rice pollen (lots of people eat rice)

    Neil Rieck
    Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
    Ontario, Canada.
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/


  6. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    Neil Rieck wrote:
    >
    > On Aug 23, 8:48 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    > Koehler) wrote:
    > >
    > > The best evidence I've seen shows that much of our current warming
    > > is natural and some of it is man made. I still think we ought to
    > > take what action we can about the part we're contributing.
    > >

    >
    > Good point but let me add the following...
    >
    > Question: if a large killer asteroid was heading for Earth, should we
    > just throw up our hands and do nothing because collisions with Earth
    > are natural and have happened before?
    >
    > Answer: No. We must do everything in our power to save our planet as
    > well as our civilization.


    Q: What if we are powerless to stop it?
    Discussion: Humankind does not currently possess (as far as the public knows)
    the technology it would take to unleash the level of energy required to
    destroy/deflect a potentially devastating projectile.

    > So if the planet is heating up, let's see if we can stop it.


    Q's:
    1. What if we are powerless to stop it?

    2. What if our efforts to stop it serve to exacerbate the situation?
    Discussion: Climate change is a natural, "frequent" (in the astrological or
    geological timescales) occurrence. Humankind's record of "fooling with Mother
    Nature" does not suggest a likely positive outcome.

    I would opine that it may be possible to buffer the effects of a naturally
    occuring phenomenon - "may": no guarantees - within the limits of our
    technology. "Stopping" would be rather akin to adjusting the output of old Sol
    out there, adjusting the orbit of Terra around it or Terra's rotation about its
    axis, or otherwise attempting to modify the very nature of either the planet,
    the solar system or the universe.

    I'll repeat my conviction here as well: humankind did not cause climate change,
    humankind will not prevent it.

    ....and if you think now is bad, do a little research into "the dust bowl days".
    We can cause weather patterns to shift through mismanaging our soil and other
    resources, but we cannot effect factors that operate on a cosmic scale.

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

  7. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On 08/25/07 07:27, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Aug 23, 8:48 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    > Koehler) wrote:
    >> The best evidence I've seen shows that much of our current warming
    >> is natural and some of it is man made. I still think we ought to
    >> take what action we can about the part we're contributing.
    >>

    >
    > Good point but let me add the following...
    >
    > Question: if a large killer asteroid was heading for Earth, should we
    > just throw up our hands and do nothing because collisions with Earth
    > are natural and have happened before?


    http://www.gotfuturama.com/Informati...-Garbage_Ball/

    But seriously, if depending on when it's detected, there's probably
    *not* anything that can be done.

    > Answer: No. We must do everything in our power to save our planet as
    > well as our civilization.


    The unintended consequences of noble-but-not-well-thought-out
    intentions can be "problematic".

    > So if the planet is heating up, let's see if we can stop it.


    Convince your friends (if they are, in fact, your friends) in they
    environmental movement to push for the wide-scale use of modern-
    technology breeder reactors (no uranium waste!).

    > p.s. global warming is not a good idea. Here are just two quick facts:
    >
    > 1) cold water holds much more oxygen than warm water
    >
    > 2) 42 C for one hour


    Yeah, but 107.6 F is pretty darned hot.

    > will kill rice pollen (lots of people eat rice)


    Maybe Paul Ehrlich will (finally) be proven correct.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  8. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On 08/25/07 10:09, David J Dachtera wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > I would opine that it may be possible to buffer the effects of a naturally
    > occuring phenomenon - "may": no guarantees - within the limits of our
    > technology. "Stopping" would be rather akin to adjusting the output of old Sol
    > out there, adjusting the orbit of Terra around it or Terra's rotation about its
    > axis, or otherwise attempting to modify the very nature of either the planet,
    > the solar system or the universe.


    http://www.gotfuturama.com/Informati...lobal_Warming/

    We could always drop giant ice cubes in the ocean!

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  9. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Aug 25, 11:09 am, David J Dachtera
    wrote:
    >
    > I would opine that it may be possible to buffer the effects of a naturally
    > occuring phenomenon - "may": no guarantees - within the limits of our
    > technology. "Stopping" would be rather akin to adjusting the output of old Sol
    > out there, adjusting the orbit of Terra around it or Terra's rotation about its
    > axis, or otherwise attempting to modify the very nature of either the planet,
    > the solar system or the universe.
    >
    > I'll repeat my conviction here as well: humankind did not cause climate change,
    > humankind will not prevent it.
    >


    You are speaking "black and white" but the answer is really in the
    thousand shades of gray in between. But I do not accept your defeatist
    attitude. (sorry)

    Mars is much colder than it should be, and this is caused by the lack
    of an atmosphere. Venus is much hotter than it should be, and this is
    caused by a run-away greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. So it is
    obvious to me that tweaking the atmosphere is the primary key to
    solving this problem.

    There are other factors in global warming but I think we can get
    control of the atmosphere. But we just can't give up now after coming
    so far!

    > ...and if you think now is bad, do a little research into "the dust bowl days".
    > We can cause weather patterns to shift through mismanaging our soil and other
    > resources, but we cannot effect factors that operate on a cosmic scale.
    >


    I'm not sure if the dirty-thirties was a world-wide phenomenon or
    something local to North America. However, everyone in the field of
    agriculture (no pun) has been taught that the top soil just blew and
    that this was caused by poor agricultural practices (such as always
    plowing fields in a straight line; plowing too deeply; not rotating
    crops; not letting a field go fallow; not having a wind-break of
    trees; etc.). That is why the US Department of Agriculture uses county
    agents to eductate farmers.

    NSR


  10. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 05:34:17 -0700, Neil Rieck
    wrote:

    > On Aug 25, 11:09 am, David J Dachtera
    > wrote:
    >>
    >> I would opine that it may be possible to buffer the effects of a
    >> naturally
    >> occuring phenomenon - "may": no guarantees - within the limits of our
    >> technology. "Stopping" would be rather akin to adjusting the output of
    >> old Sol
    >> out there, adjusting the orbit of Terra around it or Terra's rotation
    >> about its
    >> axis, or otherwise attempting to modify the very nature of either the
    >> planet,
    >> the solar system or the universe.
    >>
    >> I'll repeat my conviction here as well: humankind did not cause climate
    >> change,
    >> humankind will not prevent it.
    >>

    >
    > You are speaking "black and white" but the answer is really in the
    > thousand shades of gray in between. But I do not accept your defeatist
    > attitude. (sorry)
    >
    > Mars is much colder than it should be, and this is caused by the lack
    > of an atmosphere. Venus is much hotter than it should be, and this is
    > caused by a run-away greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. So it is
    > obvious to me that tweaking the atmosphere is the primary key to
    > solving this problem.
    >
    > There are other factors in global warming but I think we can get
    > control of the atmosphere. But we just can't give up now after coming
    > so far!
    >
    >> ...and if you think now is bad, do a little research into "the dust
    >> bowl days".
    >> We can cause weather patterns to shift through mismanaging our soil and
    >> other
    >> resources, but we cannot effect factors that operate on a cosmic scale.
    >>

    >
    > I'm not sure if the dirty-thirties was a world-wide phenomenon or
    > something local to North America. However, everyone in the field of
    > agriculture (no pun) has been taught that the top soil just blew and
    > that this was caused by poor agricultural practices (such as always
    > plowing fields in a straight line; plowing too deeply; not rotating
    > crops; not letting a field go fallow; not having a wind-break of
    > trees; etc.). That is why the US Department of Agriculture uses county
    > agents to eductate farmers.
    >

    Read up on Sunspots. AGM is not a fait accompli. Increased CO2 could be a
    cause of increased global temperature, or it could be a coincidence, I
    don't
    think we have enough data to answer that question, afterall, we have had
    warmer
    periods in the past. I promise this is my last post on this Off Topic.
    > NSR
    >




    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  11. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On 08/26/07 07:34, Neil Rieck wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > There are other factors in global warming but I think we can get
    > control of the atmosphere. But we just can't give up now after coming


    Now *that's* hubris!!!

    I see 4 needs that would definitely limit human impact on the
    atmosphere (which is pretty much all we can hope for):

    1. The aggressive use of breeder reactors[1],
    2. industrial production of high-efficiency[2] solar-cells,
    3. flue-gas scrubbers and CO2 extractors[3],
    4. high-efficiency engines[4] adequately powerful enough to
    accelerate a minivan pulling a trailer merging onto the Interstate,
    and propel it 250-300 miles.

    [1] Which minimize nuclear waste by creating more fuel.

    [2] I keep reading about efficiency break-throughs that are "5 years
    from commercial viability". Sigh. I *want* to put solar panels on
    the south side of my roof!!!

    [3] There are industrial uses for CO2, so why not use the stuff we
    extract from flue-gas?

    [4] Whether it be gasoline or diesel ICE, plugin hybrid powered by
    ICE or turbine, pure electric, or even fuel cell.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  12. AGM (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    On 08/26/07 09:55, Tom Linden wrote:
    [snip]
    >>

    > Read up on Sunspots. AGM is not a fait accompli. Increased CO2 could be a


    What does AGM mean? Air-to-Ground Missile?

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  13. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Aug 26, 10:55 am, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 05:34:17 -0700, Neil Rieck
    > wrote:

    [...snip...]
    >
    > Read up on Sunspots. AGM is not a fait accompli. Increased CO2 could be
    > a cause of increased global temperature, or it could be a coincidence, I
    > don't think we have enough data to answer that question, afterall, we
    > have had warmer periods in the past. I promise this is my last post on
    > this Off Topic.
    >


    I don't need to "read up on sunspots" to agree with you. Stellar
    evolution, as described by Hertzsprung-Russell, predicts that stars
    will get hotter as they get older. Our Sun is now 30% hotter than it
    was 4 billion years ago and it will get really hot long before it
    reaches the Red-Giant phase billions of years from now. All this heat
    is releasing another green house gas, methane, currently trapped under
    melting ice.

    So as the sun gets hotter we can't say that an expected ice-age is
    just around the corner because at some point there just won't be
    anymore ice.

    But the bigger point is this: we've been provided with brains and
    technology so it would be a terrible waste if we didn't try to do
    something about this problem.

    NSR


  14. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:42:53 -0700, Neil Rieck
    wrote:

    > On Aug 26, 10:55 am, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    >> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 05:34:17 -0700, Neil Rieck
    >> wrote:

    > [...snip...]
    >>
    >> Read up on Sunspots. AGM is not a fait accompli. Increased CO2 could
    >> be
    >> a cause of increased global temperature, or it could be a coincidence, I
    >> don't think we have enough data to answer that question, afterall, we
    >> have had warmer periods in the past. I promise this is my last post on
    >> this Off Topic.
    >>

    >
    > I don't need to "read up on sunspots" to agree with you. Stellar
    > evolution, as described by Hertzsprung-Russell, predicts that stars
    > will get hotter as they get older. Our Sun is now 30% hotter than it
    > was 4 billion years ago and it will get really hot long before it
    > reaches the Red-Giant phase billions of years from now. All this heat
    > is releasing another green house gas, methane, currently trapped under
    > melting ice.
    >

    Neil, your are confusing the issue, stellar evoultion has nothing to do
    with this discussion, that is an entirely different time scale.

    > So as the sun gets hotter we can't say that an expected ice-age is
    > just around the corner because at some point there just won't be
    > anymore ice.


    We will have a thousand ice ages before the sun gets that big.

    >
    > But the bigger point is this: we've been provided with brains and
    > technology so it would be a terrible waste if we didn't try to do
    > something about this problem.

    It may not be a problem but rather a phenomenon, or manifestation
    >
    > NSR
    >




    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  15. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    In article <79Gzi.337$Bv1.179@trnddc06>, John Santos writes:
    >david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    >> In article , John Santos writes:
    >>
    >>>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>On 08/21/07 22:07, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>>>>[snip]
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>As an aside, let us all remember that 400 years ago most people
    >>>>>>believed the Sun moved around the Earth. Some people may still believe
    >>>>>>this today but the majority of educated people know it is the other
    >>>>>>way around. It was mathematicians and astronomers who first learned
    >>>>>>the new truth but it took a while to ripple into other scientific
    >>>>>>disciplines. So when greater than 95% of the peer reviewed
    >>>>>>climatologists say that global warming is real AND that mankind's
    >>>>>
    >>>>>The problem is that humans (and scientists *are* human) prefer
    >>>>>orthodoxy, and peer review is the *perfect* guardian of scientific
    >>>>>orthodoxy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Except of course thirty years ago the scientific orthodoxy was worrying about
    >>>>an imminent ice age.
    >>>
    >>>This statement is not true. In the late 70's a small minority of climate
    >>>scientists were speculating about this, but it was never "orthodoxy".
    >>>

    >>
    >> The prevailing opinion at that time was that the average interglacial lasted
    >> about 11000 years and since the start of the current interglacial was 11500
    >> years ago we were rapidly approaching the onset of a new ice age.
    >>
    >> Later evidence from ice cores showed that interglacials could last much longer
    >> and it has been argued that the current interglacial may be more analagous to
    >> a previous one which lasted around 30000 years.
    >>
    >> see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4081541.stm
    >>
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/feature...iceage_01.shtm
    >>
    >> http://www.geography-site.co.uk/page...rs/iceage.html
    >>
    >> and
    >>
    >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174246/
    >>
    >> So yes I think it is fair to say that the orthodoxy in the 1970s was that
    >> the next ice age was due.

    >
    >I think you are talking about something else. It was probably true that
    >the scientific orthodoxy may have been that "we're due" in the same sense
    >that we may be due for a large asteroid strike. (They average every X
    >years, and it has been order X years since the last one...) but when
    >global warming deniers talk about this, they are citing specific work
    >done in the 1970's that predicted an imminent Northern Hemisphere ice
    >age.


    But I am definitely NOT a global warming denier.
    My point was simply that global warming was not the orthodox position in the
    past and hence suggesting that global warming deniers are being unfairly
    treated because they are going against the current orthodox position is a
    preposterous argument. To make their case global warming deniers need to
    present enough credible evidence to change the mind of a large number of
    scientists. This is a tough job (an impossible job if they do not have credible
    evidence) but it is exactly the same job which was faced by those who
    championed global warming in the past.

    David Webb
    security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


    > That work was highly controversial at the time, and most climatologists
    >doubted it due to lack of data and lack of adequate understanding of the
    >underlying mechanisms and lack of suitable models. See the NAS/NRC 1975
    >report on the subject, summarized in
    >
    >>
    >> David Webb
    >> Security team leader
    >> CCSS
    >> Middlesex University
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Orthodoxy" is of course a loaded word, since it means something entirely
    >>>different in science than it does in a religious context.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Global warming has only become the scientific orthodoxy
    >>>
    >>>>relatively recently. As you imply with your "peer review is the *perfect*
    >>>>guardian of scientific orthodoxy" science tends to be conservative and only
    >>>>changes to a new orthodox position when the evidence supporting the new
    >>>>position and undermining the old orthodoxy is fairly massive.
    >>>>
    >>>>David Webb
    >>>>Security team leader
    >>>>CCSS
    >>>>Middlesex University
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>--
    >>>>>Ron Johnson, Jr.
    >>>>>Jefferson LA USA
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    >>>>>Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>--
    >>>John Santos
    >>>Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    >>>781-861-0670 ext 539

    >
    >
    >--
    >John Santos
    >Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    >781-861-0670 ext 539


  16. Re: Peer review (was Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!)

    In article , "Tom Linden" writes:
    >On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:07:00 -0700, wrote:
    >
    >> In article , "Tom Linden"
    >> writes:
    >>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:54:05 -0700, wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> That is not accurate, the period of precession of the equinoxes is
    >>>>> 25,600
    >>>>> years, IIRC, advancing one degree about every 70 years (perhelion
    >>>>> currently is
    >>>>> January 4)
    >>>>>
    >>>> The predominant astronomical cycle affecting glaciation for the last
    >>>> 800,000 years has been a 100,000 year cycle of ice ages punctuated by
    >>>> briefer
    >>>> usually 9000 - 12000 year long interglacials. There are a number of
    >>>> different
    >>>> astronomical cycles which acting together may explain this. I believe
    >>>> the
    >>>> interglacial can generally be thought of as lasting for about one half
    >>>> of the
    >>>> equinox precessional period (the exact length depending upon how all
    >>>> the
    >>>> cycles mesh together and probably also modulated by other
    >>>> non-astronomical
    >>>> factors). The variation caused by the precession of the equinoxes
    >>>> obviously
    >>>> occurs repeatedly during the 100,000 year period but only leads to
    >>>> interglacial
    >>>> conditions at the beginning/end of the 100,000 year cycle.
    >>>> However as indicated in some of the links below more recent findings
    >>>> from ice
    >>>> cores point to some interglacials having lasted much longer than half
    >>>> the
    >>>> equinox precessional period.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Because there are a number of different repeating factors ( google
    >>> Milankovitch)
    >>> there is a beat phenomenon that can occur resulting in extremes.
    >>> I copied the following article which I think is well put together
    >>> http://www.kednos.com/physics/CLIMATOLOGY/ICEAGE.HTML
    >>>
    >>> Note the graph on insolation, the 100K period to which you refer is
    >>> clearly significant,
    >>> the 400K period is caused by perturbation of the earths orbit by
    >>> planetary
    >>> alignments
    >>> resulting in the eccentricity becoming as high as 0.04 (currently almost
    >>> circular, 0.01)
    >>> but also not that the last ice age in which the ice was several km thick
    >>> on northern Europe
    >>> was maybe 12000 years ago and that is outside the 100KA cycle.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I'm not sure then why you objected so strenuously to my statement that
    >> the last
    >> interglacial started about 11500 years ago (there are a number of
    >> different
    >> ways to measure when the interglacial started and hence figures from
    >> 10,000
    >> upto 12,000 years ago are often quoted but I'm sure you can't have been
    >> objecting on that basis - The links I provided used all of those
    >> figures).
    >>

    >I don't think it was strenuous;-) In any event my reading of your post
    >left the
    >impression that ice ages occurred on 100KA cycle and all I was saying is
    >that it is
    >about every 26000 years. But then that may have been my misreading.
    >>

    Except complete glacial/interglacial cycles do NOT occur every 26000 years or
    last for just 26000 years ( or 21000 years see note).
    Results from cores show they have been occuring for the last 800,000 years on
    a cycle of about 100,000 years. Before that they were occuring on a cycle of
    about 41,000 years. (both of these periods are associated with Milankovitch
    cycles). The vast majority of the cycle being under glacial conditions with
    a comparatively short interglacial period.

    The cycle of the precession of the equinoxes appears to be a modifier of those
    dominant cycles rather than itself being the dominant cycle (and would be
    expected to be providing some contribution to warming the earth for half of
    the precession cycle and contributing to cooling for the other half. However
    apart from at the beginning/end of the dominant cycle this warming is not
    strong enough to cause an interglacial).

    (
    note. In Milankovitch cycles the precession of the equinoxes cycle is the
    period of the precession of the equinoxes with respect to perihelion which
    is 21000 years rather than 26000 years
    see
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
    and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precess...tic_precession

    )


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University










    >> The only other thing you could have been objecting to was the statement
    >> that
    >> in the 1970s it was thought that interglacial's generally lasted about
    >> 11,000
    >> years again the links provide adequate support for that statement.
    >>
    >> I'm also not sure what you mean by "outside the 100KA cycle" in your last
    >> remark.
    >>
    >> See
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/image:I...emperature.png
    >>
    >> for a diagram showing Antarctic temperature changes during the last
    >> several
    >> glacial/interglacial cycles over the past 450,000 years (unfortunately
    >> the date
    >> scale isn't linear - stretching out the recent past and compressing the
    >> more
    >> distant past).
    >>
    >>
    >> David Webb
    >> security team leader
    >> CCSS
    >> Middlesex University
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> --
    >>> PL/I for OpenVMS
    >>> www.kednos.com

    >
    >
    >
    >--
    >PL/I for OpenVMS
    >www.kednos.com


  17. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    Neil Rieck wrote:
    >
    > On Aug 25, 11:09 am, David J Dachtera
    > wrote:
    > >
    > > I would opine that it may be possible to buffer the effects of a naturally
    > > occuring phenomenon - "may": no guarantees - within the limits of our
    > > technology. "Stopping" would be rather akin to adjusting the output of old Sol
    > > out there, adjusting the orbit of Terra around it or Terra's rotation about its
    > > axis, or otherwise attempting to modify the very nature of either the planet,
    > > the solar system or the universe.
    > >
    > > I'll repeat my conviction here as well: humankind did not cause climate change,
    > > humankind will not prevent it.
    > >

    >
    > You are speaking "black and white" but the answer is really in the
    > thousand shades of gray in between. But I do not accept your defeatist
    > attitude. (sorry)


    To paraphrase e-plan Peter's .sig, "I'm not a defeatist - I'm a realist". If
    futility is your thing, go for it. With luck, you'll be too busy to notice when
    "the big one" hits.

    On the other hand, if you dedicate your efforts to launching some artifacts of
    human society into space such that they will eventually land back on what ever
    is left of Mother Earth, that may actually prove useful in the long run if found
    and eventually studied by whatever intelligent life form succeeds us.

    > Mars is much colder than it should be, and this is


    ....possibly...

    > caused by the lack
    > of an atmosphere.


    .... indirectly, or directly by whatever caused Mars's atmosphere - assuming it
    ever had one - to be stripped away (which might even be the ultimate fate of
    Terra - who knows?).

    > Venus is much hotter than it should be, and this is


    ....believed to be...

    > caused by a run-away greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.


    ....or is the run-away "greenhouse effect" the result of being much hotter since
    it is closer to the Sun? The jury is still out on that question, though a large
    portion of the scientific community seems convinced as you are based onthe
    incomplete evidence in our possession.

    > So it is
    > obvious to me that tweaking the atmosphere is the primary key to
    > solving this problem.


    Well, I had to qualify your statements above. In the purest sense, they do not
    support your conclusion - the current understanding of the issues is incomplete,
    and the conclusion is, therefore, brash and not well founded. It also ignores
    factors outside of the planet and its atmosphere which produces an incomplete
    data set. Conclusions based on incomplete data are, at best, faulty.

    > There are other factors in global warming but I think we can get
    > control of the atmosphere. But we just can't give up now after coming
    > so far!


    How far have we come?

    Have we managed to change the precession of the earth's axis? ...the orbit of
    the Earth around the Sun?

    What did I miss?

    Earth's climate has changed cyclically since before the dawn of recorded
    history. It will continue to change long after humankind goes the way of the
    dinosaur and the dodo.

    > > ...and if you think now is bad, do a little research into "the dust bowl days".
    > > We can cause weather patterns to shift through mismanaging our soil and other
    > > resources, but we cannot effect factors that operate on a cosmic scale.
    > >

    >
    > I'm not sure if the dirty-thirties was a world-wide phenomenon or
    > something local to North America.


    Well, given that I said:
    > > We can cause weather patterns to shift through mismanaging our soil and other
    > > resources, but we cannot effect factors that operate on a cosmic scale.


    ...., I believe its is safe to say that the "Dust Bowl" phenomenon was local to
    the Central Plains of the U.S. Other places on other continents may have
    experienced similar issues - I did not address them, nor did I intend to.

    > However, everyone in the field of
    > agriculture (no pun) has been taught that the top soil just blew and
    > that this was caused by poor agricultural practices (such as always
    > plowing fields in a straight line; plowing too deeply; not rotating
    > crops; not letting a field go fallow; not having a wind-break of
    > trees; etc.). That is why the US Department of Agriculture uses county
    > agents to eductate farmers.


    ....which seems to support my statement.

    If you disagree with me and still think I'm a "defeatist", read this again, and
    see if you can understand what I'm trying to say here:
    > > ..., but we cannot effect factors that operate on a cosmic scale.


    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

  18. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    On 08/28/07 19:45, David J Dachtera wrote:
    > Neil Rieck wrote:
    >> On Aug 25, 11:09 am, David J Dachtera
    >> wrote:

    [snip]
    >
    > On the other hand, if you dedicate your efforts to launching some artifacts of
    > human society into space such that they will eventually land back on what ever
    > is left of Mother Earth, that may actually prove useful in the long run if found
    > and eventually studied by whatever intelligent life form succeeds us.


    Unless (70.8% chance) it lands in water.

    Or the 90% of the terra firma that is uninhabited.

    >> Mars is much colder than it should be, and this is

    >
    > ...possibly...
    >
    >> caused by the lack
    >> of an atmosphere.

    >
    > ... indirectly, or directly by whatever caused Mars's atmosphere - assuming it
    > ever had one - to be stripped away (which might even be the ultimate fate of
    > Terra - who knows?).


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
    Mars lost its magnetosphere 4 billion years ago, so the
    solar wind interacts directly with the Martian ionosphere,
    keeping the atmosphere thinner than it would otherwise be
    by stripping away atoms from the outer layer. Both Mars
    Global Surveyor and Mars Express have detected these ionised
    atmospheric particles trailing off into space behind
    Mars.[31][32] The atmosphere of Mars is now relatively thin.

    >> Venus is much hotter than it should be, and this is

    >
    > ...believed to be...
    >
    >> caused by a run-away greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.

    >
    > ...or is the run-away "greenhouse effect" the result of being much hotter since
    > it is closer to the Sun? The jury is still out on that question, though a large
    > portion of the scientific community seems convinced as you are based onthe
    > incomplete evidence in our possession.


    Shhhhh. Don't say that too loud!

    >> So it is
    >> obvious to me that tweaking the atmosphere is the primary key to
    >> solving this problem.

    >
    > Well, I had to qualify your statements above. In the purest sense, they do not
    > support your conclusion - the current understanding of the issues is incomplete,
    > and the conclusion is, therefore, brash and not well founded. It also ignores
    > factors outside of the planet and its atmosphere which produces an incomplete
    > data set. Conclusions based on incomplete data are, at best, faulty.


    But they serve so many purposes.

    [snip]

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  19. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    In article , "Tom Linden" writes:
    >On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:42:53 -0700, Neil Rieck
    >wrote:
    >
    >> On Aug 26, 10:55 am, "Tom Linden" wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 05:34:17 -0700, Neil Rieck
    >>> wrote:

    >> [...snip...]
    >>>
    >>> Read up on Sunspots. AGM is not a fait accompli. Increased CO2 could
    >>> be
    >>> a cause of increased global temperature, or it could be a coincidence, I
    >>> don't think we have enough data to answer that question, afterall, we
    >>> have had warmer periods in the past. I promise this is my last post on
    >>> this Off Topic.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I don't need to "read up on sunspots" to agree with you. Stellar
    >> evolution, as described by Hertzsprung-Russell, predicts that stars
    >> will get hotter as they get older. Our Sun is now 30% hotter than it
    >> was 4 billion years ago and it will get really hot long before it
    >> reaches the Red-Giant phase billions of years from now. All this heat
    >> is releasing another green house gas, methane, currently trapped under
    >> melting ice.
    >>

    >Neil, your are confusing the issue, stellar evoultion has nothing to do
    >with this discussion, that is an entirely different time scale.
    >
    >> So as the sun gets hotter we can't say that an expected ice-age is
    >> just around the corner because at some point there just won't be
    >> anymore ice.

    >
    >We will have a thousand ice ages before the sun gets that big.
    >

    Yes it's estimated that it will have become hot enough to evaporate the oceans
    in about 1 Billion to 1.5 Billions years. Though probably the only things still
    living on earth at around that time will be extremophile bacteria - complex
    life having long since died out.

    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


    >>
    >> But the bigger point is this: we've been provided with brains and
    >> technology so it would be a terrible waste if we didn't try to do
    >> something about this problem.

    >It may not be a problem but rather a phenomenon, or manifestation



    >>
    >> NSR
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >--
    >PL/I for OpenVMS
    >www.kednos.com


  20. Re: Wisconsin professor says global warming a hoax!

    In article <46D4C1BB.483EBD4@spam.comcast.net>, David J Dachtera writes:
    >Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>
    >> On Aug 25, 11:09 am, David J Dachtera
    >> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > I would opine that it may be possible to buffer the effects of a naturally
    >> > occuring phenomenon - "may": no guarantees - within the limits of our
    >> > technology. "Stopping" would be rather akin to adjusting the output of old Sol
    >> > out there, adjusting the orbit of Terra around it or Terra's rotation about its
    >> > axis, or otherwise attempting to modify the very nature of either the planet,
    >> > the solar system or the universe.
    >> >
    >> > I'll repeat my conviction here as well: humankind did not cause climate change,
    >> > humankind will not prevent it.
    >> >

    >>
    >> You are speaking "black and white" but the answer is really in the
    >> thousand shades of gray in between. But I do not accept your defeatist
    >> attitude. (sorry)

    >
    >To paraphrase e-plan Peter's .sig, "I'm not a defeatist - I'm a realist". If
    >futility is your thing, go for it. With luck, you'll be too busy to notice when
    >"the big one" hits.
    >
    >On the other hand, if you dedicate your efforts to launching some artifacts of
    >human society into space such that they will eventually land back on what ever
    >is left of Mother Earth, that may actually prove useful in the long run if found
    >and eventually studied by whatever intelligent life form succeeds us.
    >
    >> Mars is much colder than it should be, and this is

    >
    >....possibly...
    >
    >> caused by the lack
    >> of an atmosphere.

    >

    Mars has a thin atmosphere which is mostly carbon dioxide this does result in a
    weak greenhouse effect which raises the surface temperature by about 5 degrees
    centigrade over what it would be if Mars had no atmosphere
    see for instance

    http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...Marsatmos.html

    and

    http://ww.nineplanets.org/mars.html


    Scientists have discussed plans for manufacturing powerful greenhouse gases
    (PFCs) on Mars in order to raise the temperature as part of a terraforming
    project which could be accomplished in as little as 200 years.

    >.... indirectly, or directly by whatever caused Mars's atmosphere - assuming it
    >ever had one - to be stripped away (which might even be the ultimate fate of
    >Terra - who knows?).
    >

    Cooling of the planet because of it's much smaller size leading to less
    vulcanism and a lack of plate tectonics meant that gas absorbed by rocks
    from the atmosphere was not recycled back into the atmosphere. Also the lack of
    a magnetic field meant that the atmosphere was (and to some extent still is)
    being stripped away by the solar wind.

    The heating of the Sun leading to evaporation of the oceans and the Earth
    becoming more like Venus with a gigantic greenhouse effect in about a billion
    years time is probably more likely than the Earth cooling enough to stop plate
    tectonics, vulcanism and permanently turn off the Earth's Magnetic field in the
    same time period.


    >> Venus is much hotter than it should be, and this is

    >
    >....believed to be...
    >
    >> caused by a run-away greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.

    >

    The greenhouse effect exists - the Earth is much hotter than it would be if it
    had no atmosphere. Similarly Venus is much much hotter than it would be if it
    had no atmosphere.

    >....or is the run-away "greenhouse effect" the result of being much hotter since
    >it is closer to the Sun? The jury is still out on that question, though a large
    >portion of the scientific community seems convinced as you are based onthe
    >incomplete evidence in our possession.
    >

    The two viewpoints are not contradictory. It is theorised that the increased
    temperature caused by Venus being closer to the Sun led to the evaporation of
    it's water which led to the runaway greenhouse effect. The closeness of Venus
    to the Sun would not produce a surface temperature of 460 degrees centigrade
    if it had no atmosphere. Venus is hotter than Mercury although it is nearly
    twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and receives only 25% of Mercury's
    solar irradiance.



    >> So it is
    >> obvious to me that tweaking the atmosphere is the primary key to
    >> solving this problem.

    >
    >Well, I had to qualify your statements above. In the purest sense, they do not
    >support your conclusion - the current understanding of the issues is incomplete,
    >and the conclusion is, therefore, brash and not well founded. It also ignores
    >factors outside of the planet and its atmosphere which produces an incomplete
    >data set. Conclusions based on incomplete data are, at best, faulty.
    >

    The existence of the greenhouse effect is well established - the only question
    is how much the Co2 released by humanity has enhanced that effect on earth.

    >> There are other factors in global warming but I think we can get
    >> control of the atmosphere. But we just can't give up now after coming
    >> so far!

    >
    >How far have we come?
    >
    >Have we managed to change the precession of the earth's axis? ...the orbit of
    >the Earth around the Sun?
    >
    >What did I miss?


    Changing the earth's orbit might be one solution in a Billion years when the
    Sun threatens to boil off the oceans but isn't necessary at the moment.

    >
    >Earth's climate has changed cyclically since before the dawn of recorded
    >history. It will continue to change long after humankind goes the way of the
    >dinosaur and the dodo.
    >

    Of course the Earth has been much warmer than it is now. However mankind and
    civilisation have prospered in the current interglacial under current
    conditions.
    Global warming will change those conditions producing both economic and human
    costs as sea levels rise etc
    Hence we need to explore how we can best maintain the current conditions or at
    least minimise and slow the changes.
    It is certainly much too early to just say we can do nothing especially since
    most scientists think we can do something by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.



    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


    >> > ...and if you think now is bad, do a little research into "the dust bowl days".
    >> > We can cause weather patterns to shift through mismanaging our soil and other
    >> > resources, but we cannot effect factors that operate on a cosmic scale.
    >> >

    >>
    >> I'm not sure if the dirty-thirties was a world-wide phenomenon or
    >> something local to North America.

    >
    >Well, given that I said:
    >> > We can cause weather patterns to shift through mismanaging our soil and other
    >> > resources, but we cannot effect factors that operate on a cosmic scale.

    >
    >...., I believe its is safe to say that the "Dust Bowl" phenomenon was local to
    >the Central Plains of the U.S. Other places on other continents may have
    >experienced similar issues - I did not address them, nor did I intend to.
    >
    >> However, everyone in the field of
    >> agriculture (no pun) has been taught that the top soil just blew and
    >> that this was caused by poor agricultural practices (such as always
    >> plowing fields in a straight line; plowing too deeply; not rotating
    >> crops; not letting a field go fallow; not having a wind-break of
    >> trees; etc.). That is why the US Department of Agriculture uses county
    >> agents to eductate farmers.

    >
    >....which seems to support my statement.
    >
    >If you disagree with me and still think I'm a "defeatist", read this again, and
    >see if you can understand what I'm trying to say here:
    >> > ..., but we cannot effect factors that operate on a cosmic scale.

    >
    >--
    >David J Dachtera
    >dba DJE Systems
    >http://www.djesys.com/
    >
    >Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
    >http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/
    >
    >Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    >http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
    >
    >Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    >http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/
    >
    >Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    >http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/


+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast