Don't misunderstand. I am not a popular media drone nor shill for any particular political party platform. I am not dismissing the science nor challenging the credibility of the front liners... what I am challenging is the causality that is being applied. In statistics it's called "failing to reject the null hypothesis". It's a tricky way of saying something might be true because it can not be conclusively proven to be false (in short 'definitely maybe'). It's the classic argument of theology... the existence of a supreme being can neither be proven or disproved so many/most fail to reject the null-hypothesis and assume true.
There is no doubt excessive CO2 and evaporating methane cathrates will have a significant impact on the environment. There is no question that current activities of our parasitic infestation of this planet are the source of much of the CO2 spike. I think it's just irresponsible to hang our hat entirely on atmospheric pollution global warming to explain increases in tectonic and volcanic activity and deep water temperature changes, especially in context to KNOWN, CYCLICAL geological and astronomic events that are converging on this time frame... 1) magnetic flip of the poles 2) pending ice age 3) increased solar output. Our pollution is No.4 at best and most likely on the tail end of the 80/20 on a pareto chart. In the strata it will be nothing more than a finger print that we were even here. My money is on pole flip and the resulting inductive heating of the planet core as flux lines are forced out of alignment with the sun's polarity... but hey, that's just me. My point is this... shame on us for crapping in our own fish bowl, but even if we 100% stopped all polluting activities today these other CYCLICAL events would continue and dramatic environmental change would still happen. This is not conjecture, this relentless march is detailed in the strata over eons. It is only our own arrogance that precludes us to believe we have an over reaching role in this process... to cause it or stop it. We are contributory bystanders at best IMO. I know this isn't popular topic and I will agree to disagree with dissenters. I have no interest in perpetuating this thread any further... -john -----Original Message----- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: RE: [anti-Vo]: global warming John you will certainly agree that the political color of global warming concern proponents or dismissers has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the concern. What do you make of the present time steep CO2 rise seen in the chart linked below (from the web site you pointed us to recently)? Do you think it is natural, or that it won't generate any serious global warming? http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html Note that if you align the CO2 and temperature graphs and scale them identically you can see quite clearly that the CO2 peaks systematically lead the temperature peaks by several hundred years, which IMHO answers the question of which causes which , whether directly or via an amplifying process such as methane outgasing from the melting permafrost. Personally I feel concerned about the temperature peak which will follow the present steep CO2 peak, will it over- or under- compensate our natural tendency to plunge into the next ice age? I don't know. In any case accurate modeling and adequate measures are called for. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Steck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 6:13 AM Subject: [Vo]: RE: [anti-Vo]: global warming > Now that just doesn't fit with popular opinion, it must not be true! I mean > there is that Al Gore movie and that Discovery Channel program... [heavy > sarcasm] > > Does anyone else here find humor in that we question and challenge just > about every established theory in science an physics on this list yet global > warming is somehow untouchable? > > Even if from just a devil's advocate standpoint, I appreciate the post. > > -john > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Taylor J. Smith > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:22 AM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: [Vo]: global warming > > > Hi All, > > I thought you might be interested in the below article > from Science News. Global warming is real, but it may be > cyclical beyond our control, especially now that methane > is being released from the melting tundra -- probably a > deviation amplifying process. > > Maybe we should be grateful for anything that puts greenhouse > gas into the atmosphere because we may be entering the cooling > phase of the Milankovitch cycle. > > Jack Smith > > ------------ > > Science News, Vol. 170, No. 16, Oct. 14, 2006, p. 253. > by Sid Perkins > > http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061014/note11.asp > > ``Ancient hot spell is linked to copious carbon dioxide > > The presence of a particular mineral in ancient rock > suggests that during an extended warm period in Earth's > past, the atmosphere held at least triple the concentration > of carbon dioxide that it does today, a new analysis shows. > > Between 52 million and 50 million years ago, Earth's > climate was the warmest it had been since the dinosaurs > died out 65 million years ago. The temperature of the > deepest water in the oceans, an indication of global > climate, was at least 10°C higher than it is today. > > Some rocks derived from Colorado lake sediments of > that era contain large amounts of nahcolite, a natural > form of baking soda. Lab tests indicate that nahcolite > would precipitate out of salty, alkaline lakes only if > atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were above > 1,125 parts per million (ppm), Tim K. Lowenstein and > Robert V. Demicco of the State University of New York > at Binghamton report in the Sept. 29 Science. Today, > concentrations of that greenhouse gas measure about 380 > ppm, Lowenstein notes. > > The climate around the ancient lake where these minerals > formed was probably similar to that at the Dead Sea today, > says Lowenstein. There, air temperatures average 24°C and > surface-water temperatures range from 21°C to 36°C. '' > > References: > > Lowenstein, T.K., and R.V. Demicco. 2006. Elevated eocene > atmospheric CO2 and its subsequent decline. Science > 313(Sept. 29):1928. > > Abstract available at > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5795/1928. > > Sources: > > Tim K. Lowenstein > > Department of Geological Sciences and Environmental Studies > > State University of New York, Binghamton > > Binghamton, NY 13902 > >>From Science News, Vol. 170, No. 16, Oct. 14, 2006, p. 253. > > ----------------- > > Science 29 September 2006: > > Vol. 313. no. 5795, p. 1928 DOI: 10.1126/science.1129555 > > Abstract > > ``Elevated Eocene Atmospheric CO2 and Its Subsequent Decline > > by Tim K. Lowenstein* and Robert V. Demicco > > Quantification of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 > ([CO2]atm) during warm periods of Earth's history is > important because burning of fossil fuels may produce > future [CO2]atm approaching 1000 parts per million by > volume (ppm). > > The early Eocene (~56 to 49 million years ago) had the > highest prolonged global temperatures of the past 65 > million years. High Eocene [CO2]atm is established from > sodium carbonate minerals formed in saline lakes and > preserved in the Green River Formation, western United > States. > > Coprecipitation of nahcolite (NaHCO3) and halite (NaCl) > from surface waters in contact with the atmosphere > indicates [CO2]atm > 1125 ppm (four times preindustrial > concentrations), which confirms that high [CO2]atm > coincided with Eocene warmth. '' > > Department of Geological Sciences and Environmental > Studies, State University of New York at Binghamton, > Binghamton, NY 13902, USA. > > * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: > lowenst{at}binghamton.edu > >
