jawod wrote:
Dave wrote:
Be careful regarding 1750 bce.

That predates the industrial revolution by at least 100 years. This
indicates that natural factors are at work.

Petroleum products date from the 1880s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Automobiles date from the early 1910s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Deforestation dates from the mid 1950s. This indicates that natural
factors are at work.

Several large regional deforestations have taken place over Man's
history. Recall that Lebanon's flag is a cyprus tree...now nearly
desert, Lebanon serves as dramatic evidence of deforestation during the
Bronze and Iron ages. Deforestations occurred in Mayan lands around the
time of Christ.

In the late 1800's, most of Central PA was deforested. Either for
lumber, or for the iron industry. I was told that you could go to the
top of Tussey mountain south of my QTH, and not see a single tree in any
direction. Since the people who were making the charcoal that was used
to make the iron thought that planting new trees wasn't a cost effective
option - if they indeed thought about it at all - they eventually ran
out of fuel.

We still are enjoying the effects. What has grown in the original
lumbers place is nowhere near the quality that existed before. We mostly
grow pulpwood now.

Humans really *do* have an effect on the environment.


The chief difference today is that deforestation occurs all around the
globe more-or-less at once.

The period of 1700 to 1750 is acknowledged as the end of the 'Little
Ice Age',

Yes, and there was a warming period near the end of the Roman
period...your point?

There are so many unknown contributors to the earth warming and
cooling cycles that blaming CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' for the
major cause is just irresponsible.
Hogwash. The grand majority of scientists working on these issues do
not refute manmade impacts on GW (excepting, of course, those receiving
paychecks from industries primarily responsible for them.) Unknown
factors will always exist, but scientific consensus has been already
been achieved on GW.

IMO, GW = K1*d(solar activity)/dt + K2*d(volcanic activity)/dt +
K3*d(El Nino)/dt + K4*d(La Nina)/dt + K5*d(deforestation)/dt +
K6*d(radio carbon decay)/dt + K7*d(many other factors)/dt + Kn*d(n)/dt
...

What is known is that the earth warms and cools. Why? That is still
open to discovery.

The argument for GW is no longer in dispute within the scientific
community. Cyclicity of global temperature does not negate the argument
that the current run of GW is something new and unprecedented. Right
now, governments are already planning for projected effects.

It's here, it's now, it's WOW.


PS: Most Christian Clergy of major denominations agree that the cosmos
was formed between 15 and 20 billion years ago. The 4004 bce
calculation is incorrect and is the result of poor biblical scholarship.

Ask any Baptist and you'll get the 4004 answer...the "one-second-used-to
be-a-million-years" argument notwithstanding.

Sometimes ya gotta be pretty creative to be always right! My
Grandparents were Baptists, and they were firm believers in that date.
They also believed in biblical support for slavery for that matter. 8^0


Who's gonna tell them they are wrong?


Again,
My understanding of the notion of GW is that human activity is now
PERTURBING the cyclicity that already exists. Pre-existing cyclicity of
global temperature cannot in itself refute the argument for the
existence of GW as a "new" phenomenon. They're intertwined.

That is pretty much correct.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA