Arlo said:
Even the most cursory read of "global warming" theories has long maintained
that an overall increase in the earth's atmospheric temperature will result in
amplified weather patterns (harsher winters and hotter summers), rather than a
slow equal warming across the globe.
dmb says:
Right. The local temperature has very little to do with it. Heat trapping gases
have been poured into the atmosphere for well over a century and now it's
happening at a rate that measured in the billions of tons. That's a whole lotta
heat trapping gas and the results are a simple matter of physics. The total
amount of energy in the system goes up and intensifies all the climate systems,
which are almost entirely a process of moving that energy around. Equilibrium
is also a simple matter of physics. This solar energy dissipates by way of
things like currents, winds, evaporation, rain, hurricanes, tornados and the
stuff we generally call the weather. Obviously, the destructive force of a
hurricane is in direct proportion to the amount of energy in it. So what do you
think is going to happen as the global temperature rises? It's not about
today's high temperature. It's about putting the forces of nature on steroids.
If the melting of the glaciers and ice caps raise the sea levels then every
port city in the world is sunk. If they weren't already at sea level, they
wouldn't be port cities. This will happen at the same time that glacier fed
rivers, at least, start drying up. People are going fight when things get that
rough. I mean, it's easy to see how these consequences could follow from global
warming and they're pretty darn epic consequences too.
I'd bet you a million dollars that there are public relations firms working
overtime for big business. There job is to make sure the issue remains
debatable. If people believe it's an open question, obviously, they're less
likely to demand immediate action. There isn't too much divergence on the issue
within the scientific community and the level of real controversy and
uncertainty is probably a little better than par for the course. It's a good,
working hypothesis. It explains what we are seeing and predicts what we could
see based on all the usual standards, or when they don't there is hell to pay
and rightly so. But the "controversy" over global warming is mostly just a war
between science and Public Relations propaganda rather than a debate within
science. It's paid political speech crassly aimed at protecting the client's
financial interests rather than science or democracy or anything else.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
