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

= = = (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

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SOAMES 123,

Thank You for:
* Using (OT) in the Subject Line.
* Stating your Point of View.
* Providing a Link for Validation.

To QUOTE you Source:

"Of course, this is the Pentagon talking about worst-case scenarios."

But, David Suzuki does give Us All... Something to Think About !

jm2cw ~ RHF

..

"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.

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

Is that your mantra?

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been going pretty radically up
since we started burning coal. Patterns is the last 600 years are
unique. They do not have historical precedent that we can discern
from ice and geological records.

Regardless, if we are near the tipping point, it's way too late to
reverse the inevitable. Man, we live in interesting times!

On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:51:58 GMT, Telamon
wrote:


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.

David wrote:
Is that your mantra?

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been going pretty radically up
since we started burning coal. Patterns is the last 600 years are
unique. They do not have historical precedent that we can discern
from ice and geological records.

Regardless, if we are near the tipping point, it's way too late to
reverse the inevitable. Man, we live in interesting times!

On Sat, 15 May 2004 20:51:58 GMT, Telamon
wrote:



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.



There may be a problem with the oceans absorbing co2. When the water
gets warmer it can hold less gas in solution. If it ever starts giving
OFF this stored gas, we're doomed, as the cyle will be self perpetuating.

The above hypothesis is not at this site, but some good numbers,
regardless.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002...mancarbon.html


Add water vapor to the mix and the problem compounds exponentially

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...104254688.html



mike

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