- --- In email@example.com, "Simon Baddeley"
> Is there anything to be said to the following. Data? Refutation?who now
> "...dramatic U-turns in pronouncements from his 'fellow experts'
> recognise that the sun's varying output - not mankind's - isdriving climate
> change. Previous episodes of inter-glacial global warming (450BC-350AD) and
> global cooling (1645-1715) had, like the modest warming of the lastcentury,
> nothing whatever to do with transport or industrial emissions:there weren't
> any.from NASA
> These U-turns have been partly prompted by the recent announcement
> through Reuters, in April 2000, that planet Earth entered a periodof
> significant global cooling in March 1999, losing 15% of the totalwarming
> claimed for the last 100 years in just 12 months, with no precedingor
> contemporaneous drop in global carbon dioxide emissions oratmospheric
> levels.work they
> ... if four cyclists car-shared for a typical commuting journey to
> would emit less carbon dioxide. "I find this last elipsed statement bogus, although apparantly it is
taken out of context. The fact is that lots of people just bike for
exercise to stay healthy, and that is not anything that should
change. We don't want our work force unhealthy. The other simple
fact is that for every gallon of gasoline we burn we create over 19
pounds of carbon dioxide. The reason that the weight is greater than
the gasoline itself is that the carbon factor is binding with
Burning fossil fuels is both adding carbon and removing available
molecular oxygen from our atmosphere. The removal of oxygen is not
very significant, since there is a great abundance of it. The
introduction of CO2 is significant because we know how it behaves in
the laboratory with respect to different wavelengths of the
electromagnetic spectrum - light passes by, heat is reflected.
What are we to think about the fact that the earth's atmosphere now
carries about 30% more carbon dioxide than at any time in the last
160 thousand years?
> Can we have some help answering these points from a letter byBernard
> Abrams, Science & Environment Spokesman, Association of BritishDrivers.
>I would suggest you visit the Woods Hole website on Global warming.
They present the theory and data, and not the odd bits of facts that
are warped to help industry make excuses not to change their ways.
The website is:
THEN compare the what I consider the facts, to what I consider
industry Factoids, and see how they extract or only use the fragments
of information that suit their purposes. A good industry propaganda
There you are likely to find statements like:
"Finally, a review of the scientific literature by Keith and Sherwood
Idso, which appeared in Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, found
that atmospheric CO2 enrichment increases the temperature at which
plants function optimally, negating the need for migration." It is
true that increased levels of CO2 increase the rate at which plants
can fix carbon, but the consequences are complex. It may be somewhat
good news for some farmers and loggers, but what consideration is
given to the fact that it may also allow new pathogens to migrate
northward. For example, a cool valley in Idaho by the Tetons is a
great place to grow seed potatoes, because there are few pests like
the colorado potato beetle. But if temperatures increase and winters
become more mild, then the valley might be a great place for the
potato beetle, and we will have to look to "colder" places to grow
Yes, the solar cycles are a significant factor in influencing our
climate. In fact this year and the last couple were some when solar
activity was to have reached a maximum. The number of sunspots is
somewhat related to the energy output of the sun. However, there
were several years that were globally very warm late in this last
decade that did not occur during solar maximum. Isn't it
interesting that the American West burned up pretty good in 1988
(Year of the Yellowstone fires) and then 11-12 years later in 2000
(approximately a solar cycle later) we have a good series of fires in
the west again? It seems likely to me that global warming increases
the intensity of the solar cycles. It is difficult to attribute
direct causes to climatic changes, but recent trends are evident.
The march of the permafrost northward, the migration of plant
populations up mountains, the universal retreat and disappearance of
glaciers in the last 100 years, the thinning of the Arctic ice all
seem to point towards global warming.
NOBODY can refute the FACT that levels of carbon dioxide in our
atmospher have increased and continue to increased from 290 ppm in
1890 to over 310 ppm today. And the alarming fact is that the RATE
of emmisions are increasing.
A pictoral article of how global warming is effecting our planet is
in NRDC's (Natural Resources Defense Council's) Summer 2000 Amicus
Perhaps countries like Bangladesh, that have over a third of their
land mass within a few feet of sea level, should sue the
industrialize countries for increased flooding. Island countries
that are watching their coral reefs die, should demand compenstation
for the loss of tourism.
Acid rain gave us Waldsterben (Forest death) and now global warming
gives us "Erdsterben" (Earth death).
Hope this information is not too late. It seems some people will try
to deny evidence unless it directly effects them.