Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Help?

Expand Messages
  • Brandon Lloyd
    ... who now ... driving climate ... 350AD) and ... century, ... there weren t ... from NASA ... of ... warming ... or ... atmospheric ... work they ... I find
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 24, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In carfree_cities@egroups.com, "Simon Baddeley"
      <s.j.baddeley@b...> wrote:
      > Is there anything to be said to the following. Data? Refutation?
      >
      > "...dramatic U-turns in pronouncements from his 'fellow experts'
      who now
      > recognise that the sun's varying output - not mankind's - is
      driving climate
      > change. Previous episodes of inter-glacial global warming (450BC-
      350AD) and
      > global cooling (1645-1715) had, like the modest warming of the last
      century,
      > nothing whatever to do with transport or industrial emissions:
      there weren't
      > any.
      > These U-turns have been partly prompted by the recent announcement
      from NASA
      > through Reuters, in April 2000, that planet Earth entered a period
      of
      > significant global cooling in March 1999, losing 15% of the total
      warming
      > claimed for the last 100 years in just 12 months, with no preceding
      or
      > contemporaneous drop in global carbon dioxide emissions or
      atmospheric
      > levels.
      >
      > ... if four cyclists car-shared for a typical commuting journey to
      work they
      > 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
      atmospheric oxygen.

      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 by
      Bernard
      > Abrams, Science & Environment Spokesman, Association of British
      Drivers.
      >
      > Simon

      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:
      http://www.whrc.org/globalwarming/warmingearth.htm

      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
      site is:
      http://www.globalwarming.org/

      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
      seed potatoes.

      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
      Journal.

      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.

      Brandon
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.