'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
Give how's and whys. Not political verbiage.

OK, how about this? Global warming has always run in
cycles of 100K+/- years. Man obviously had no effect
on the previous cycles. The temperature 130,000 ago
averaged 4 degrees higher than any temperature during the
present cycle. The maximum temperature during the present
cycle occurred 8000 years ago when man obviously had no
effect. We are now 8000 years into the next ice age. Any
global warming effect provided by man's greenhouse gases
will tend to delay the plunging temperatures associated
with the presently approaching ice age and save tens of
millions of people from starving to death due to the
farmlands being overrun by glaciers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png

Mars undergoes global warming at the same time as the
earth does. Are the Martians emitting greenhouse gases?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320431,00.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...NTARY/10575140
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Platt wrote:
One good example, I think, is the theory of continental drift -

Another is that global warming is caused by the
sun, not by Al Gore's species.

Global warming - or cooling, due to solar flux and independent of
internal mechanisms (like us) has been the mainstream knowledge for a
long, long time.

Correct.

I believe that Cecil (like a very great many other people) is falling
victim to a classic logical error, commonly referred to as "the
fallacy of the excluded middle" or "false dilemma".

In this instance, Cecil's statement carries with it an implied
assumption: that global warming (assuming that it exists) is due
*either* entirely to the effects of the sun, *or* entirely to the
effects of mankind. Cecil's statement implicitly denies the
possibility that *both* of these factors (as well as others) may in
fact be contributing to whatever warming, cooling, or other climate
change is occurring.

Taking such an exclusionist position can certainly be convenient. If
you can define the terms of the debate in this way, then all you have
to do is prove *some* truth to your own side of the argument (e.g.
demonstrate that solar changes do have effects on Earth's
temperature), and by exclusion you have "proved" the falsity of all of
your opponent's arguments and evidence. I've seen this tactic used by
those arguing both sides of the global-warming debate.

I don't believe that the real world is as simple as this. Measurable
effects can have many contributing causes. My own conclusion is that
global climate change has both external (e.g. solar and earth-orbital)
and internal (greenhouse-gas) origins, and that at least some of the
latter are heavily influenced by human activities.

As to the relative contributions of these internal and external
forcing functions to the final climate on this planet... we have to
depend on theory, modelling, and experience to figure that out.

To me, the really scary possibility is that the combined effect of
internal and external stimuli will push the system out of one
mostly-stable state, and into another, through a difficult-to-reverse
toggle point. Warming and drying up the Amazon far enough to make it
flip over from rainforest to savanna might be one such toggle.
Warming up the deep ocean enough to start melting a large quantity of
methane hydrates would be another.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Platt wrote:
One good example, I think, is the theory of continental drift -

Another is that global warming is caused by the
sun, not by Al Gore's species.

Show me a guru who thinks he knows everything
and I will show you a very ignorant person.


Cecil;

Those that think they know everything annoy those of us who do.

Dave N

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:04:36 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:
Give how's and whys. Not political verbiage.

OK, how about this? Global warming has always run in cycles of 100K+/-
years. Man obviously had no effect on the previous cycles.

Obviously. The 4004 BC crowd has some issues with even that! 8^)


The
temperature 130,000 ago averaged 4 degrees higher than any temperature
during the present cycle. The maximum temperature during the present
cycle occurred 8000 years ago when man obviously had no effect.

Cyclic variation is not the issue. Many things can cause average global
temperature to vary. Insolation, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted
by other sources, volcanism, possible methane clathrate releases are all
modifiers.

During earlier days in our solar system, the sun was a good deal
dimmer, like 30 percent, 4 billion years ago. And yet, during much of
the time, average global temperatures were higher than today. While
creation science argues otherwise:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...ciences10.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/faintsun.asp

it is quite likely that CO2 from volcanism could take care of that issue.

We are
now 8000 years into the next ice age.

And a fascinating ice age it is! 8^) Looking at the timelines of
recent ice ages, it is beyond my ability to tell just where we are. If
we are in a glaciation period, the interglacial was the shortest one
known. By your statement, the interglacial was around 2000 years. But
your data and mine are radically different.

Any global warming effect provided
by man's greenhouse gases will tend to delay the plunging temperatures
associated with the presently approaching ice age and save tens of
millions of people from starving to death due to the farmlands being
overrun by glaciers.

What I see here is the old either/or problem. You can't have it both
ways. Because there are natural fluctuations in global average
temperature does not mean that adding our own contribution is negligent.
IOW, it isn't a choice between the two.

Wherever we are in the cycle of global average temperature, and for
whatever reasons we are there, what we are doing is either having an
effect because of physics, or it isn't because of mitigating physics that
we don't understand yet.

--
-73 de Mike N3LI -