🚀 go-pugleaf

"Amos Keppler" <amoskeppler@rk.com> wrote in message
news:3DDA6DD5.CE5F9DE@rk.com...
> 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.
>

This is not true. The climate has been much warmer as recently as 10,000
years ago, and the rate of previous change in climate has been much greater
than historically than it has been in the past 10,000 years. Perhaps it is
true that the rate of change and the amount of change has been greater in
the past 100 years than the preceeding 9900 years, but I am not sure that
this is even true.

There has been shown on National Geographic studies conducted by the NOAA of
the ice cores taken from Antarctica. These samples show much more dramatic
increases in temperatures, both the rate of increase (and decrease) and the
level of the increase (decrease). All discussions of temperature rise must
also include temperature drops because rapid global cooling is just as
problematic as rapid global warming. In any case, there have been much
greater changes in temperature (both rate and level). Indeed, the core
sample studies that I have seen seem to indicate that the past 10,000 years
have been the most stable in the planet's history. That said, the past
century has seen a change that is marginally greater than the 10,000 year
period where temps have been relatively stable.


>  3: The current warming happens faster and and is stronger than during the
end
> of ice ages.
>
This isn't the case, according to the NOAA ice studies of the polar regions,
as reported on National Geographic.



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

This might be true, but the question is, "Is this the _cause_ of warming, or
is it merely a contributing factor? If a cause, then certainly it must be
reversed, but if only a factor, then reversing the emissions of greenhouse
gasses will have little beneficial effect on warming because the natural
causes of warming will always be of greater significance than the manmade
causes.


>   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.
>

Both CO2 and Methane are naturally occuring gasses that are relaesed by
volcanic eruptions. Volcanos spew more polution in a day that mankind can
produce in a century.

I am not suggesting that we abandon our efforts to reverse the production of
these polutants, I am only suggesting that our efforts ought to be
undertaken primarily for local reasons, not global. I also am suggesting
that local efforts will have global benefits, but should be easier to
implement. Cars in Los Angeles are spewing tons of toxins into the air that
is (or should be) a major concern for people living in Los Angeles, but New
Yorkers don't give a rat's ass about our problems here because they have
their own problems. We don't care too much about New Yorkers either. If we
can succeed in selling clean up efforts locally, then we will automatically
reduce the polutants that are causing us greif on a global scale, indeed it
hasn't been conclusively determined that the global problems are even
solvable because they could be natural occurances.

Cleaning the air in California is a problem for Californian's, and those in
Eureka are not really interested in helping out Los Angeles, further
defining the regional nature of the issues. Dirty air in L.A. and dirty air
in N.Y. are very likely caused by the same things, but you will never get NY
to pony up the funds to fix LA. Manmade polutants are local or regional
issues first, and when we can get policies to control these things in our
own backyards, the rest of the planet will take care of itself. The problem
this presents is that, if California is the only state to take steps to fix
things, what's the point, because NY is still going to forge ahead with its
poluting ways. (I don't really know if NY is a polluter or not, I only use
them to illustrate the point.) And, if the USA reduces tailpipe emissions,
but the rest of the world does nothing ...

So, I see two main obsticles. One, placing corrective measures upon one
sector of society, but not the others, and second, we haven't even
determined that the manmade sources for naturally occuring chemicals is the
main problem, or merely one of many factors. We don't even know if the
natural phenomena are causing the manmade polutants to get stuck in the
atmosphere, basically there is the question of which came first, the chicken
or the egg.