Photos
Blog
NewslettersIs there really global warming?
Submitted by egret57 on Wed, 2006-06-14 19:42.
If you are following the global warming debate, you might read this article:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
- egret57's blog
- Login to post comments
- 502 reads
the earth's climate has been warming since about the beginning of the Renaissance - about 500 years. The climate was warmer at the time of Christ than it is now - before that the Hanging Gardens of Baghdad were one of the 7 wonders of the world - the climate has been drying out in the middle east for 2500 years now - all without SUV's and big bad Americans.
The climate was VERY cold during the Maunder Minimum, a global cooling episode during the middle ages and during the early part of the dark ages.
There is no doubt the climate is warming - but the issue is what is causing it. The sun is about .3% brighter now than it was 100 years ago - that is ALOT of additional energy. I'm not sure humans and CO2 production are all that important. The absorbtion spectrum of CO2 is in the middle of the water vapor absorbtion spectrum, so it is hard to tell how much addition of CO2 at earthly levels is going to effect the loss of heat from the planet.
There is lots and lots of science here that is poorly understood and not at all agreed upon. The gloom and doomers and those with an agenda get all the press, but that is just one side. There is no doubt that warming is occuring - the issue is what is mankind doing to cause it, if we ARE causing it.
A good page to start is :
http://www.akdart.com/warming.html
there are lots of alarmist pages - just search google for global warming - you need ask yourself what was happening 175 million years ago when dinos ruled the earth, there was no hydro carbons being burned since the dinos WERE the hyrdocarbons of the future, and man was not around, yet the entire planet was 10C warmer than it is now.
I am not sure what is going on, but it is a little bit of hubris to think that even 6billion humans can change an entire planet. . .
"...I am not sure what is going on, but it is a little bit of hubris to think that even 6billion humans can change an entire planet. . ."
Humans have had the weapons capability for the last several decades to completely destroy life on this planet.
There exist man-made chemicals, poisons and toxins so potent that a few gallons can destroy an entire lake. (Just look up "tritium"... made right up the river...our drinking supply river)
Humans can and are changing the planet. The attitude that the planet, the atmosphere and the oceans can take whatever we throw at them will be what ultimately leads to their destruction.
It appears that the polar bears have been pursuaded by the militant environmentalists to eat each other just to make a point.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/12/polar.bears.ap/index.html
really, the weapons ability? you mean nukes of course. Well, have you looked around Chernobyl lately? The immediate area around the plant [3 miles or so] was irradiated with enough radiation to kill every mammal 10 times over, yet, here we are 20 years later with all kinds of life in that 'dead zone,' birds, small mammals, insects, lots of lush foilage, so there is not a barren zone. Merely a zone barren of HUMANS. Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not exactly dead cities. Nature is much more resilient that humans could ever be.
Under your scenario we would simply extinct ourselves, not the planet. The planet and the life on it and the life in the seas [forgot about the oceans, did you?] would continue along, and in a century after the big bang, all that would be left is our rubble and teeming wildlife. We simply cannot, YET, destroy the planet. Once we have the "star wars" capability to actually dismantle the planet itself, explosively, THEN I'll agree with you.
I certainly agree that object signs point to the Earth warming. But claiming WE as a species are responsible, when the earth was warmer in the millenial historical past, and much colder also in the historical past, despite the fact that there was stil human activity burning wood and coal and even petroleum and other oils over the last 5000 years, means NOTHING. You simply cannot argue that a 100 years overthe course of 5,000,000,000 [or .00000002% of the historical record] is anything other than cyclical fluctuation.
Explain to me how we went from the 'Next Ice Age," [Time Magazine, Jan 31, 1977] to global warming in 20 years? Simply not possible.
Polar Bears need to eat, just like alligators that eat dogs. They will find a way to eat. Sure there is less ice, I am NOT advocating that the earth is not warming.
However, if you actually learn about the science, the Milankovitch Cycle, the Pacific and Atlantic Decadanel Oscillation and the Southern Oscillation Index you will rapidly discover that there are 30 year cycles for drought in the midwest and southeast, east coast hurricanes and literally 100 year cycles of polar cooling and warming.
How was it that the winter of 2004-2005 was one of the harshest in the Northeast US if global warming is causing winter to 'go away?' The FACTS show that the time of first and last measurable snowfall have gotten further into spring and earlier in Fall in Boston over the 50 years; again, under the global warministas that is NOT possible, yet, it is happening.
Look, all I want you to do it keep an open mind. Bush did not create warming. His father did not create it and even Jimmy Carter didn't do it in the 70's since back then they were telling him there was a possible new Ice Age on the horizon.
You know, at some level, life for most americans and western europeans and asians in developed nations is very safe and very predictable. I think the same human instinct that makes you slow down at a vehicle accident to look for blood and mangled metal and bodies, or to watch a fire, or to love the adrenalin of battle, compels us as a species to find a catastrophe to observe. A boring life in a city or suburbia is not exciting for us, so we create all this excitement to worry over.
You are right that humans ourselves are a relatively miniscule period of Earths time but maybe not impact. Time is not so much the measure as is the invisible blanket that was not here before man started raising animals for growing populi. When you think about 6 billion people living today and almost half of all the people who have EVER lived on this planet still being alive, you may start to see that as the temperature (and methane and carbon dioxide) increments up just a part of one degree many other mechanisms in our environment are triggered which then begin to compound the effects of trapping the solar energy that easily permeates our greenhouse gas blanket, but that cannot escape in longer less energetic wavelengths of infra-red during night sky reradiation or nocturnal cooling.
All we need to do in rapid fashion is to stop conversion of earth (and its fossil and mineral fuels including uranium) into hrat to generate all forms of power and start switching to the only energy source that is already converted to heat- Solar Nuclear Fusion, 93 million miles safely away from us.
And, do not think for a moment that BP British Petroleum and other big energy bruisers are doing us any favors with their solar electric cell collectors either. PV- photovoltaics are a waste of roof space if you already have electricity nearby. Only if you have to pay a fortune to obtain electric service should you use PV. PV does NOT absorb any heat from our environment and will only return an investment in remote applications for low-amperage communications and with expensive environmentally unfriendly batteries for storage for night use.
words have meaning - I also said that it was not possible that 6B humans could change the planet - it is ALWAYS easier to destroy things that change them. . .
A gallon of tritium can destroy a lake -there is not enough tritium in the world to do much more than poision 2 of 5 great lakes, and then that leaves the oceans. I advocate stewardship of ALL of our resources, but honestly,we cannot change what the planet does. . .
For how long has this garb been pushed? It is simply a mode of destroying the manufacturing base to acomplish the destruction of the economy, thus creating a need to depend on the government for everything as in the COMMUNIST PLANK FOR AMERICA. Look online and read what they want and how they are trying to go about it. They have relentlessly been after one industry then another. As of yet their system has been a complete failure but the try to destroy what works anyway. Why?
In the world right now there are several volcanos going off that have absolutely nothing to do with some 8 year old grannies toyota that smokes everytime its started up. The one off of chile "el nino" has warmed the lower pacific ocean up 5 degrees and considerably altered the weather patterns by itself! There is a volcano in antartica that has created the largest river in the world from melt/runnoff, larger than the Mississippi. Once again no autos involved there either. And what else ais being pumped into the atmosphere by these volcanos? Why is not this volcano recieving front page status by the left wing media? Its polar ice melt big time and not human caused. They simply do not want their left wing lies questioned. If what the left is peddling has viability to it be open and honest, don't lie like a banshie, its insulting to anyone with an I Q over 70. Al gore is either a patological liar or a complete idiot.
No V8, he sees opportunity to save several birds with one bandaid in crearing new clean manufacturing jobs while cleaning the air and reducing outflow of our economy on foreign fossil fuels. I an not a Gore promoter but he is correcy about external combustion heat engines as a means to cleaner air and fuels by solar.
The general public thinks that the claims of global warming are in the same category as "the sky is falling". It will take more credible evidence of a graphic and immediate danger to convince the public.
Remedies to the present emissions will progress over time as the affordable technology evolves. Demanding that our industrial economy make immediate adjustments will only make them select more friendly countries and cause harm to our economy.
The typical Joe and Jane in the US will also respond to new technology when it affects their pocketbook. New technology has to be competitive or show a economic benefit for them to respond.
For now, Gore and Associates will have to remain patient.
Egret, solar is already more than just feasible. I invite you to come see it for yourself. Next to Fuji and UpperCrust. If you knew what is on the way, global warming would take a second seat to financial windfall for Joe & Jane. But I cannot tell you all of this unless in person.
Thanks, Tom deTreville