Re: [biofuel] Global Warming Alarmists Are the Ones Filled with Hot Air
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:36:49 +0900, you wrote: Hi MM Much agree with what you say about the CFC-Ozone issue, and I think it has come up here before. Thanks for going over the other info. I will have to review it at a later time. On the CFC-Ozone issue, I have a followup comment. I think we activists may not be emphasizing this issue enough. Sometimes the system works sort of the way it's supposed-to. It is often said (pointed out) that negative news and such are often fodder for coverage and conversation, but it is sometimes not deemed as newsworthy or conversation-worthy when something works out the way it's supposed to (non-negative news). Maybe this is a case of that sort of situation? If so, we activists might want to make a point of discussing or covering the ongoing apparent-partial-success-story of CFC-prohibition. It would have been newsworthy, no doubt, if thousands or millions or billions of people started coming down with Skin Cancer at unprecedented rates. But that isn't happening... at least probably not as much as it would have happened had we not banned CFCs. We acted to try to prevent a disaster by modifying our collective global behaviour, and we, as a team effort covering many decades and country borders and much individual sacrifice of time and effort, seem to have accomplished something. I think it's worth pointing out, discussing, taking lessons from this, valuing it, taking pride in it. Now, I think we can use that to change the tone and approach of some of these global warming discussions. MM Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Send the freshest Valentine's flowers with a FREE vase from only $29.99! Shipped direct from the grower with a 7 day freshness guarantee and prices so low you save 30-55% off retail! http://us.click.yahoo.com/_iAw9B/xdlHAA/3jkFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Global Warming Alarmists Are the Ones Filled with Hot Air
x-charset ISO-8859-1 If you stopped reading thereas most of the knee-jerk, junk scientists doyoud be terribly misled. NASA has been monitoring the temperature of the lower layers of the atmosphere since 1979. Since this encompasses the same last 20 years of the National Academy of Sciences report of a particularly strong warming trend, certainly balloon measurements in the atmosphere should support this postulate. What the data shows is not warming but cooling: I found this essay no more useful than most others. Probably a little less useful, because the author starts off with this skepticism as to the cold spell in the Northeast and whether this can be held consistent with the emergence of any sort of global warming. For years, if not decades, I've heard that Global Warming theory predicts a temporary localized cooling in some areas including North America, and an increase in extreme weather events. I don't know if the modelers have been correct in these definitions of a global warming model, nor if those events are coming true, but the it's cold so global warming can't be happening argument doesn't seem to be sufficiently aware of basic theory. What I want to say is this: Many of us in this and other discussion groups have a strong interest in Earth Science if for no other reason than we find it darn fascinating. But I've come to this partial working-idea on Global Warming, that even if I consider myself to be a decent (if often-wrong) armchair science-follower, I think global warming questions are tough ones, and the haughty what this shows overly-confident conclusions of this fellow amateur are not wortwhile. They fail to show proper respect for the difficulty of the questions, and the apparent preponderance of opinion of serious disinterested (politically) scientists who just want to try and help themselves and us understand what's really happening to the Earth, its climate, etc. To try and understand such matters in a serious way is to have respect for the complexity of the matter, in my view. I've been thinking about the fact that we seldom if ever see much mention of the great CFC-Ozone debate that took place, and the fact that there *was* a cooperative global action that has taken place to try to correct this disputed (by some, at the time and perhaps now) problem. Could we have afforded to wait any longer? Not in my view, and evidently not in the view of enough other people so that we took action. Has the action taken proven to have been useful? So far as I know. I think the hope is that, over the years, we'll continue to see evidence come in that we did the right thing. But I just don't hear that many folks claiming that they would have preferred that we do nothing, or that they would have preferred that we all ignore the serious scientists who did indicate they thought a problem might arise and listen only to the serious scientists who thought that a problem mightn't arise. Now, the CFC-Ozone problem seemed a bit easier to predict and identify and nail down and try to do something about it. The assertions of CO2-linked and other-chemical-linked Global warming seem harder to implement a precautionary principle process if only because of the relatively greater (seeming) complexity and attendant uncertainty that we may associate with complexity. But I've just been meaning to point out that the Ozone-CFC actions, however imperfect, seem to have worked out a little. Why aren't they regarded as more of a precedent-setting baby-step... helping us have confidence that if we take specific actions to remediate-in-advance with respect to Global Warming, we might well turn out to thank ourselves that we did the right thing? The lower [troposphere] data are often cited as evidence against global warming, because they have as yet failed to show any warming trend when averaged over the entire Earth. The lower stratospheric data show a significant cooling trend In addition to the recent cooling, large temporary warming perturbations may be seen in the data due to two major volcanic eruptions: El Chichon in March 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Send the freshest Valentine's flowers with a FREE vase from only $29.99! Shipped direct from the grower with a 7 day freshness guarantee and prices so low you save 30-55% off retail! http://us.click.yahoo.com/_iAw9B/xdlHAA/3jkFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your
[biofuel] Global Warming Alarmists Are the Ones Filled with Hot Air
Another journalistic point of view? http://www.opinioneditorials.com/contributors/rummo_20040128.html January 28, 2004 Global Warming Alarmists Are the Ones Filled with Hot Air Gregory Rummo The frigid temperatures that continue throughout the Northeast and the ice storms that pushed into the Deep South earlier this week causing mayhem and death on the interstates failed to faze the global warming alarmists, some of which came out of hibernation to write letters to the editor at several newspapers where my column on the topic ran a few weeks ago. One letter writer actually wrote that the colder than usual weather was further evidence of global warming. While my previous column was not meant to be a serious thesis on the topic of global warming, this one is. What we know is that the earths average temperature has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century. The National Academy of Sciences reports on their website: This warming has been particularly strong during the last 20 years, and has been accompanied by retreating glaciers, thinning arctic ice, rising sea levels, lengthening of growing seasons for some, and earlier arrival of migratory birds. In addition, several other data support that conclusion. If you stopped reading thereas most of the knee-jerk, junk scientists doyoud be terribly misled. NASA has been monitoring the temperature of the lower layers of the atmosphere since 1979. Since this encompasses the same last 20 years of the National Academy of Sciences report of a particularly strong warming trend, certainly balloon measurements in the atmosphere should support this postulate. What the data shows is not warming but cooling: The lower [troposphere] data are often cited as evidence against global warming, because they have as yet failed to show any warming trend when averaged over the entire Earth. The lower stratospheric data show a significant cooling trend In addition to the recent cooling, large temporary warming perturbations may be seen in the data due to two major volcanic eruptions: El Chichon in March 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991. This finding is in keeping with those of Dr. S. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, who points out, a study of carbon dioxide and temperatures over the last 11,000 years that was analyzed in both Science and Nature in 1999 found that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere tends to follow not precede a rise in temperature. The bulk of the temperature rise in the 20th century took place before 1940 while most of the carbon dioxide emissions took place after 1940 and coincided with a slight cooling between 1940 and 1975. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of meteorology at MIT, in his testimony before a Senate committee in 2002 agreed, stating, past climate changes were either uncorrelated with changes in carbon dioxide or were characterized by temperature changes which preceded changes in carbon dioxide [levels] by hundreds or thousands of years. So what has caused the warming over the last century and other warming-related phenomenon such as the shrinking polar ice caps? To many scientists, its rather obvious. In December 2001, a story appeared on ABC News.com. Entitled Red Planet Warming, it reported that high resolution images taken by NASAs Mars Global Surveyor showed that the levels of frozen water and carbon dioxide in Marss polar ice caps dwindled dramaticallyby more than 10 feet over a single Martian year (equivalent to about two earth years). Since there arent any people on Mars, its difficult to pin the blame for Marss warming on human activity relating to the combustion of fossil fuels. The culprit is solar warminga periodic increase in the suns output of energy. That would explain why the surface of our planet has grown warmer. And theres nothing we can do about it. Two years ago, Science published a study based on tree ring analysis that demonstrated similarities between increases in global temperature the last century and the Medieval Warm Perioda period lasting from 1330 AD to 1600 AD in which similar increases in temperature occurred. For those of you who are world-history challenged, that was before the invention of the internal combustion engine and the SUV. Commenting on the study, Edward Cook of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory said, We don't use this as a refutation of greenhouse warming, but it does show that there are processes within the Earth's natural climate system that produce large changes that might be viewed as comparable to what we have seen in the 20th century. In other words, the global warming alarmistsnot this journalistare the ones filled with hot air. ### Gregory J. Rummo is a syndicated columnist and the author of The View from the Grass Roots, published by American Book in July 2002. Visit his website where you can read his recent columns at www.GregRummo.com.
