🚀 go-pugleaf

Jeff Strickland wrote:

> "Amos Keppler" <amoskeppler@rk.com> wrote in message
> news:3DD8D681.76C6C4CE@rk.com...
> > "James A. Donald" wrote:
> >
> > >     --
> > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 05:04:51 +0100, Amos Keppler
> > > <amoskeppler@rk.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >  The Weekly Report
> > > >
> > > >   WEEK 46 Nov 4th to 10th 2002
> > > >
> > > >  http://www.midnight-fire.net/theweeklyreport/theweeklyreport
> > > >  .html
> > > >
> > > >   THE SNOW ON KILIMANJARO
> > > >
> > > >   The characteristic snowcap has always been there, a mirage
> > > >   in the hot,
> > > > tropical climate on the plains below.
> > > >   Now, new, shocking revelations say that the snow on
> > > >   Kilimanjaro is
> > > > melting so fast it will soon be gone.
> > >
> > > Bullshit.
> > >
> > > http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/synopsis.html
> > >
> > > The same phenomenom, and about the same amount of snow cover,
> > > was reported in the 1880s.
> > >
> >
> >  Bullshit.
> >
> >  You're giving the word shortsightedness.a new, profound meaning...
> >
> >  It was a temporary phenomenon then. It isn't now.
> >  Then the ice all over the planet wasn't meling. It is, now.
> >  See WARMING WORLD ON THIN ICE elsewhere in this newsgroup
> >  (among literally thousands of reports, coming from all over the planet)
> >
> >  Amos the Witch
>
> How can you distinguish the temporary effects of global warming in the
> middle of a global warming trend? I do not dispute global warming, what I
> question is the permanance of it. In the middle of the 1880s when the snow
> on Kilimanjaro was melting, do you suppose the same concerns (of course,
> scientific limitations notwithstanding) of global warming could have been
> raised, only to be dispelled a decade later when the warming trends stopped.
>
> There are many factors to consider in global warming, several of which are
> natural phenomena. How do you _know_ that we are not merely experiencing yet
> another convergence of temporary phenomena, similar to what happened in the
> 1880s? How do we _know_ that mankind hasn't merely aggravated the natural
> phenomena with out spewing of tailpipe emissions, and if those eimssions
> were completely eliminated, we would still have the issue of natural
> phenomena to deal with?
>
> Just as there is science that points to manmade problems, there are equally
> storng and valid scientific data to point to natural causes for global
> warming. There is extensive scientific data to show that the planet has
> undergone much more dramatic episodes of global warming, long before there
> was an industrial society, indeed the episodes were taking place more than
> 10,000 years ago when there was very little society, let alone an industrial
> one.

 No there isn't. Natural variations was ruled out years ago. Both the length of
the warmiong and its strength rule that out.

 1: 100 years ago it ( the melting on Kilimanjaro) was a local phenomenon. As
stated and shown, today it happens all over the world, elevated to ever higher
degress, both in terms of temperature, violent weather and drought/flood
relations.

 2: The current climate is the warmest for millions of years. There is a number
of ways they have used to measure this, among them sediments of trees and animal
bones.

 3: The current warming happens faster and and is stronger than during the end
of ice ages.

 4: There is more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now than there have been
for millions of years.

  During an ice age the levels of CO2 is/was 180 ppm (parts per million).
during normal warming periods, they are on the higher 280 levels.
  The current (and rising) CO2 levels, are 360 ppm.
  Corresponding number for Methane are even more revealing.
  320/350 ppb (parts per billion) - 650/770 - and current (and rising) levels
  1700 ppb.

 Some small samples of many.

 Amos the Witch

========================================
 ShadowWalk http://midnight-fire.net/sw
  One of the most controversial novels
 ever written.
========================================