David wrote:

Science in the '70s was a quite different animal. That being said, an
ice age is still in the cards.

No, it's not. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 383 ppm and
rising at 2 to 3 ppm/year almost certainly forbids that, at least until
the following cycle after things equilibrate in 100,000 years or so.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

www.devilfinder.com Volcanoes and Carbon Dioxide

Whatever little bit of carbon dioxide Humans are putting into the
Atmosphere is insignificant compared to the Volcanoes.Volcanoes are a
happening thingy.There isn't anything Humans can do,or will ever do,that
can stop the Volcanoes from doing their Volcanoe thingys.
cuhulin

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:06:14 -0500, kT wrote:

David wrote:

Science in the '70s was a quite different animal. That being said, an
ice age is still in the cards.

No, it's not. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 383 ppm and
rising at 2 to 3 ppm/year almost certainly forbids that, at least until
the following cycle after things equilibrate in 100,000 years or so.


''Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a
deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades.

That's the paradoxical scenario gaining credibility among many climate
scientists. The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb
or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast
heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power
generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average
temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of
eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in
temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the
end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.''

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...mar_arctic.htm

David wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:06:14 -0500, kT wrote:

David wrote:

Science in the '70s was a quite different animal. That being said, an
ice age is still in the cards.
No, it's not. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 383 ppm and
rising at 2 to 3 ppm/year almost certainly forbids that, at least until
the following cycle after things equilibrate in 100,000 years or so.


''Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a
deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades.

And global average temperature would continue to rise.

That's the paradoxical scenario gaining credibility among many climate
scientists. The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb
or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast
heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power
generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average
temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of
eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in
temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the
end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.''

On a local scale. Local is not global. Short of a geological catastrophe
is impossible for global average temperature to fall with atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentration rising such that it is. So dream on.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...mar_arctic.htm


--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:42:08 -0500, kT wrote:

Such a dip in
temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the
end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.''

On a local scale. Local is not global. Short of a geological catastrophe
is impossible for global average temperature to fall with atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentration rising such that it is. So dream on.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...mar_arctic.htm

Whom do I believe, or NASA?

www.devilfinder.com Weather Forecast Jackson Mississippi

The weather here is cooler (keep in mind,this is the Old Deep South
here,Mississippi) this time of year than I ever remember before.High
forecasted temperature for next Monday is 80 degrees.
Global warming is a bunch of Horse S..t! If anything at all,this old
Globe is cooling down.Al least around this neck of the Old Deep South
Mississippi,it is.
cuhulin

Kindly go to your local libraries.See if they have back issues of
Popular Mechanics magazines and Popular Science magazines.Look for those
magazines whch date back about four or five years.Look on the front
covers of those magazines.One of the front covers of those magaines (and
the article is in the magazine) says,,,,
NASA! YOU ARE BROKEN!
cuhulin

In article ,
David wrote:

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:42:08 -0500, kT wrote:

Such a dip in
temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the
end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.''

On a local scale. Local is not global. Short of a geological catastrophe
is impossible for global average temperature to fall with atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentration rising such that it is. So dream on.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...mar_arctic.htm

Whom do I believe, or NASA?

Why the idiot of course.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"K Isham" wrote
I'm confused, how does buying a Carbon Credit eliminate air pollution?

You issue credits for the production of x tonnes of Carbon, and then allow
the marketplace to decide how to best emit that carbon and maximize economic
dollar output at the same time under the new constratint.


"K Isham" wrote
I read about how Al Gore explained how buying Carbon credits minimized his
"Carbon Footprint' when explaining why it takes $20,000 a month to
electrify his home.

To my knowledge Gore hasn't claimed to have purchased any carbon credits.
He has claimed to have purched carbon offsets. These are completely
different.

Carbon offsets, are basically a contract entered into with another company
to engange in activities that will reduce carbon emissions, or sequester the
carbon emissions equivalent to some component of your carbon emissions. In
Gore's case, the emissions resulting from his home energy use.

Oh, and Gore wasn't paying 20,000 a month to electify his home. Where did
you get that nonsense number?

And his Home isn't a home either, it includes 3 offices, his own, one for
his wife, the secret service, and of course rooms for guests, employees and
those secret service agents as well. And he has occupied it for less than a
year.

"Cato" wrote
Scientific consensus??

Yup...


"Cato" wrote
Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth".

No, it's synonymous of virtually certain truth.

Scientific revolution is exceptionally rare


"Cato" wrote
But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is
lacking,
they're going to rely on the Consensus.

Wrong again. ****Licker.

Scientific Consensus applies all the way down to the most base facts such
as 1+1=2.

The consensus view that 1+1=2 is still not proven in any absolute sense.


"Cato" wrote
Consensus is a collective opinion.

Correct. And collective opinions hold far, far more weight than the vapid
assertions of Carbon Industry Shills, paid warming denialists, and
uneducated fools.


"Cato" wrote
"Scientific consensus" can be wrong. It is NOT scientific evidence.

No, but the consensus view is based on scientific evidence. And yes it
can be wrong, but very rarely so.

Now which to believe? The collective wisdom, and best opinion by the vast
majority of the worlds scientists? Or the constantly shifting, grasp at any
straw, pronouncements of a small band of industry shills?

Hmmmm Gee... I wonder.... Science or snake oil.

Who knows. Maybe the snake oil really is a cure all.

Right?