It's not the man-made energy output that is directly causing the problem.
It is the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are the problem. CO2
emissions are causing the atmosphere to behave somewhat as a two-way mirror
in that energy can still get in easily enough but re-radiation from earth
back into space decreases. It doesn't take much of an increase in CO2
levels to decrease the rate of re-radiation.

Regards

John Barnard

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"T. Early" wrote:

"Soames123" wrote in message
...


A report that argues global warming is a greater threat to world
security than terrorism and predicts a warming future where
"disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life," may
sound like it came from a radical environmental group - but it
didn't. Unless you consider the Pentagon a radical environmental
group.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/...03/368968.html

This has been out for awhile but it's legitimate with two
qualifications. The report was not really produced by the Pentagon
per se but by a consultant under a commission. This isn't that big a
deal, but to say it "came from" the Pentagon is a slight stretch.
Second, AFAIK, the report did not say that this degree of global
warming is preventable in the sense that "man-made" (as opposed to
"natural") events are driving the issue. Expect a lot of attention
to this problem after "The Day After Tomorrow" hits the theaters. I
wonder if Art Bell is getting any points on the net revenue.

You have to be a total nut-case to argue global warming is man made.
There is billions of watts of energy going in and out of the atmosphere
on a daily basis that eventually determines the air temperature. Man's
energy output and use is negligible by comparison. Changes in the
atmospheric chemistry are natural and changes in climate are natural
whatever direction it is going.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article , John Barnard
wrote:

It's not the man-made energy output that is directly causing the
problem. It is the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are the
problem. CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to behave somewhat
as a two-way mirror in that energy can still get in easily enough but
re-radiation from earth back into space decreases. It doesn't take
much of an increase in CO2 levels to decrease the rate of
re-radiation.

snip

The problem is most man-made energy generates CO2 and some people who
think to simplistically think the atmospheric increase is due to man.
This is unproven.

Also unproven is that the increase in CO2 will cause global
temperatures.

Earth climate is a very complex system where a change in one variable
will not necessarily force the system in one direction. Just because the
CO2 is going up does not mean global temperatures will rise.

If you are willing to jump to conclusions like the King of Trolls has
on this newsgroup then be my guest.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

There is no " Proof" in this kind of Science,
only a " Working Hypootheses"
Here's a web site you might like;

a voice for Business in the Global Warming Debate"

http://www.globalclimate.org/

Dan / NYC

In article ,
Telamon writes:

Subject: [ OT ] Is our climate nearing the tipping point?
From: Telamon
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 05:11:14 GMT

In article , John Barnard
wrote:

It's not the man-made energy output that is directly causing the
problem. It is the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are the
problem. CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to behave somewhat
as a two-way mirror in that energy can still get in easily enough but
re-radiation from earth back into space decreases. It doesn't take
much of an increase in CO2 levels to decrease the rate of
re-radiation.

snip

The problem is most man-made energy generates CO2 and some people who
think to simplistically think the atmospheric increase is due to man.
This is unproven.

Also unproven is that the increase in CO2 will cause global
temperatures.

Earth climate is a very complex system where a change in one variable
will not necessarily force the system in one direction. Just because the
CO2 is going up does not mean global temperatures will rise.

If you are willing to jump to conclusions like the King of Trolls has
on this newsgroup then be my guest.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Tel:
Found a Site you'll enjoy..

http://mitgcm.org/sealion/online_documents/node18.html

Dan ( Buying Shorefront Property Mid California)


In article , John Barnard
wrote:

It's not the man-made energy output that is directly causing the
problem. It is the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are the
problem. CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to behave somewhat
as a two-way mirror in that energy can still get in easily enough but
re-radiation from earth back into space decreases. It doesn't take
much of an increase in CO2 levels to decrease the rate of
re-radiation.

snip

The problem is most man-made energy generates CO2 and some people who
think to simplistically think the atmospheric increase is due to man.
This is unproven.

Also unproven is that the increase in CO2 will cause global
temperatures.

Earth climate is a very complex system where a change in one variable
will not necessarily force the system in one direction. Just because the
CO2 is going up does not mean global temperatures will rise.

If you are willing to jump to conclusions like the King of Trolls has
on this newsgroup then be my guest.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I think it'll be fairly safe to say that we "agree to disagree". While
Nature is quite capable of belching out hundreds of millions of tonnes of
noxious fumes in a short period of time (i.e. volcanoes) such outpourings
tend be an ocassional phenomena whereas man-made emissions are a constantly
increasing source of carbon dioxide. Smaller natural sources of CO2 would
include natural and man-made fires. However, nature rarely deforests the
vast tracts of land that humans do on a consistent basis. We have a
situation where mankind is actively destroying a CO2 sink and is
ever-increasing CO2 emissions via consumption of fossil fuels. What do you
expect to pick up the CO2 slack? The oceans? They can to a certain extent
but not to the extent that emissions are increasing. The remaining forests
can to a certain extent pick up some of the slack but appparently not all
plants/trees are created equally. Some will respond with increased growth
whereas other plants will not grow in repsonse to the increased CO2 levels.

If the increase isn't man-made then what is causing the increase in CO2 as
compared to the last century or two? When the scientists do the
number-crunching and modelling they do take into account natural sources.

What is known is that increasing CO2 levels can reduce the extent to which
energy can be re-radiated and that is due to inherent physico-chemical
properties of the molecule. No amount of atmosphere or biospshere dynamics
can alter those fundamental physico-chemical properties. If the CO2 levels
are increasing and increased CO2 levels can reduce the re-radiation of
energy back into space then why wouldn't temperature levels increase? The
increase would be expected to be small simply due to the raw inertia of the
biosphere systems but as the CO2 levels continuously increase so should the
average global temperature. Please feel free to tell me what could counter
the increased levels of trapped thermal radiation? The only solution would
be to reduce the entry of radiation from the space.

So much for jumping to conclusions.

Regards

John Barnard



Telamon wrote:

In article , John Barnard
wrote:

It's not the man-made energy output that is directly causing the
problem. It is the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are the
problem. CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to behave somewhat
as a two-way mirror in that energy can still get in easily enough but
re-radiation from earth back into space decreases. It doesn't take
much of an increase in CO2 levels to decrease the rate of
re-radiation.

snip

The problem is most man-made energy generates CO2 and some people who
think to simplistically think the atmospheric increase is due to man.
This is unproven.

Also unproven is that the increase in CO2 will cause global
temperatures.

Earth climate is a very complex system where a change in one variable
will not necessarily force the system in one direction. Just because the
CO2 is going up does not mean global temperatures will rise.

If you are willing to jump to conclusions like the King of Trolls has
on this newsgroup then be my guest.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article , John Barnard
wrote:

I think it'll be fairly safe to say that we "agree to disagree". While
Nature is quite capable of belching out hundreds of millions of tonnes of
noxious fumes in a short period of time (i.e. volcanoes) such outpourings
tend be an ocassional phenomena whereas man-made emissions are a constantly
increasing source of carbon dioxide. Smaller natural sources of CO2 would
include natural and man-made fires. However, nature rarely deforests the
vast tracts of land that humans do on a consistent basis. We have a
situation where mankind is actively destroying a CO2 sink and is
ever-increasing CO2 emissions via consumption of fossil fuels. What do you
expect to pick up the CO2 slack? The oceans? They can to a certain extent
but not to the extent that emissions are increasing. The remaining forests
can to a certain extent pick up some of the slack but appparently not all
plants/trees are created equally. Some will respond with increased growth
whereas other plants will not grow in repsonse to the increased CO2 levels.

If the increase isn't man-made then what is causing the increase in CO2 as
compared to the last century or two? When the scientists do the
number-crunching and modelling they do take into account natural sources.

What is known is that increasing CO2 levels can reduce the extent to which
energy can be re-radiated and that is due to inherent physico-chemical
properties of the molecule. No amount of atmosphere or biospshere dynamics
can alter those fundamental physico-chemical properties. If the CO2 levels
are increasing and increased CO2 levels can reduce the re-radiation of
energy back into space then why wouldn't temperature levels increase? The
increase would be expected to be small simply due to the raw inertia of the
biosphere systems but as the CO2 levels continuously increase so should the
average global temperature. Please feel free to tell me what could counter
the increased levels of trapped thermal radiation? The only solution would
be to reduce the entry of radiation from the space.

So much for jumping to conclusions.

Regards

John Barnard

Telamon wrote:

In article , John Barnard
wrote:

It's not the man-made energy output that is directly causing the
problem. It is the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are the
problem. CO2 emissions are causing the atmosphere to behave somewhat
as a two-way mirror in that energy can still get in easily enough but
re-radiation from earth back into space decreases. It doesn't take
much of an increase in CO2 levels to decrease the rate of
re-radiation.

snip

The problem is most man-made energy generates CO2 and some people who
think to simplistically think the atmospheric increase is due to man.
This is unproven.

Also unproven is that the increase in CO2 will cause global
temperatures.

Earth climate is a very complex system where a change in one variable
will not necessarily force the system in one direction. Just because the
CO2 is going up does not mean global temperatures will rise.

If you are willing to jump to conclusions like the King of Trolls has
on this newsgroup then be my guest.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

You are jumping to conclusions. We all understand the consequence of
increased CO2 levels.

Two examples I can think of right away is that vegetation in general
will grow more vigorously with higher CO2 levels, which will cause its
decrease in the atmosphere.

Air warmed over any body of water by the increased CO2 levels causes
more clouds to from in the atmosphere, which then reflect more sunlight
from the upper atmosphere so then it is not absorbed in the lower part.

It is a complex self-correcting system with energy going in and out
various ways.

Here is a simple way of looking at it. The weather service cant even
beat the law of averages being right about if it will ran in the county
two days in the future or tell me what the temperature will be next week
without the historical data so how the hell anyone can be sure what
direction the climate is going is just being unreasonable.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California