Overwhelming Scientific Consensus on Warming
 

For those that say no reputable scientist would agree:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._DayAfter.html


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

Michael 'I'm a disgusting slug of a man' Bryant wrote:

For those that say no reputable scientist would agree:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._DayAfter.html

I do agree that you are a retard, Fat Boy.

You prove my point most every day!

OFF TOPIC !!!

jw
K9RZZ

Dude get a friggin life! You need to post to rec.alt.crazy or
rec.alt.losers!


"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
For those that say no reputable scientist would agree:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._DayAfter.html


Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

In article ,
ocom (Michael Bryant) writes:

Subject: Overwhelming Scientific Consensus on Warming
From: ocom (Michael Bryant)
Date: 30 May 2004 14:47:09 GMT

For those that say no reputable scientist would agree:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._DayAfter.html



But is global warming real?

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is real, and that
it's upon us now. In the last century, the average temperature of the Earth has
warmed roughly 1° Fahrenheit [0.56° Celsius]. That means an enormous additional
amount of heat energy has been built into the system, and there are serious
consequences to that warming.

What role does human activity play in global warming?

The atmosphere of the Earth is like a blanket that traps heat. It keeps the
temperature at the surface of the Earth about 50° or 60° [Fahrenheit/28° or 33°
Celsius] warmer than it would be otherwise, which is great because it makes the
world a pleasant place to live. But humans have been adding to the gases that
help trap this heat.

We've been adding to the stock of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by taking
coal, oil, and natural gas out of the ground and burning them as fuels.
Combined with deforestation, this has added around a third of the amount of
carbon in the atmosphere.

How does climate change manifest itself?

Ocean levels are rising, because water expands as it heats up. Since there is
more energy in the system, storms may become more frequent and more violent.
Increased incidents of flooding create heavier runoffs and soil erosion.
Indirect effects of climate change can also cause entire species to go extinct.


In the movie, the influx of fresh water, caused by the melting of a massive ice
sheet, changes the salinity of the oceans, shutting down the Gulf Stream.

Could that happen?

In theory, that is realistic. Salty water is heavier than fresh water. When the
cold, salty current reaches the northern latitudes and gives out its heat, the
current actually sinks and flows back along the bottom of the ocean toward the
tropics.

When then there's a lot of fresh water added to that current, it may stop
flowing, because it's not dense enough to sink anymore.
In the past, retreating glaciers dumped enormous amounts of fresh water very
suddenly into the North Atlantic, and the currents stopped

(Michael "Mega-Wide" Bryant) wrote:


For those that say no reputable scientist would agree:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._DayAfter.html


Yep, many scientists agree that NYC would be inundated by a huge wall of water
if Comrade Bryant was dropped into Long Island Sound from the rear cargo doors
of a C5-A transport plane.

CRUSH THE LEFT wrote:

(Michael "Mega-Wide" Bryant) wrote:


For those that say no reputable scientist would agree:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._DayAfter.html


Yep, many scientists agree that NYC would be inundated by a huge wall of water
if Comrade Bryant was dropped into Long Island Sound from the rear cargo doors
of a C5-A transport plane.

LOfrickinL!

"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
For those that say no reputable scientist would agree:


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._DayAfter.html


Awww, from the header I actually thought there was going to be
evidence of an overwhelming consensus as opposed to -one guy saying-
there's a consensus.

And I believe the real dispute in this area is on whether the human
contribution to warming is a meaningful contributor to the issue.

Core sampling and analysis for CO2 content does show periodic and cyclic
variations in CO2 levels. However, the quantities of CO2 have increased
dramatically over the last 100-150 years.

Regards

John Barnard

-=jd=- wrote:

On Sun 30 May 2004 11:55:33a, (Diverd4777) wrote in
message :

{snipped}

In the past, retreating glaciers dumped enormous amounts of fresh water
very suddenly into the North Atlantic, and the currents stopped



sarcasm
Preposterous! How could this have *possibly* occurred "naturally" before
without any influence from "man"?
/sarcasm

-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

However, the quantities of CO2 have increased dramatically over the last
100-150 years.

Probably due to the increase in human population. After all, we exhale CO2.

Bill, K5BY

The sciences have not reached an all insurmountable plateau and I certainly do
not imply in any way shape or form that they have.

I certainly do not believe in Hollywood scenarios either and, again, I do not
imply that we should treat such "entertainment" as anything that resembles the
truth.

However, do you truly believe that humanity will have an alternate energy source
capable of powering automobiles and factories? I do not believe that we will have
micro-fusion reactors capable of powering cars and automobiles any time soon. Nor
do I believe that humans would so willingly turn to electrical- or solar-powered
vehicles en masse. Most people only care about getting from A to B in one piece
and as quickly as they can.

I applaud your faith in the scientific disciplines but in many cases the bottom
line is the dollar, Euro, crown, etc., etc. Science is just as much business as
anything else. I have seen some truly appalling things in which the dollar won
out over real science.

I also believe that if something teeters on the edge and I knock it over that the
odds are very good that I will not catch in time before it shatters or breaks. So
why place anything is such a precarious position in the first place?

There is more than enough evidence to show that the CO2 levels are increasing and
I have little doubt that CO2 and a few other molecules are capable of keeping
energy in. So why keep on pumping out CO2 at billions of tons each year if, based
on the physico-chemical properties of such molecules, we know that such molecules
will trap more and more energy?

Personally, I would prefer not to find just how much abuse this planet can take.

Regards

John Barnard

-=jd=- wrote:

On Sun 30 May 2004 08:43:30p, John Barnard wrote in message
:

Core sampling and analysis for CO2 content does show periodic and cyclic
variations in CO2 levels. However, the quantities of CO2 have increased
dramatically over the last 100-150 years.


Have the sciences reached an insurmountable plateau? When I say science, I
don't mean only the slice looking at "global warming" - I mean *all*
disciplines.

If it hasn't reached some insurmountable plateau, is there any reason to
think that we're doomed at this point? Don't we have a year or two before NYC
is buried (ala Hollywood's portrayal)? For all we know, in less than a
century we may have some economically feasible alternative to the global
dependance on fossil fuels!! I tend to have a bit more faith in all
scientific disciplines that may have an impact (small or large) on the
multitude of problems to be solved - not just "global warming".

-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

Anything with an oxidative metabolism will exhale CO2. The rise in human
population hasn't been that extreme between 1750-1900. But it went up very
quickly from 1950 onwards. See the following link:

http://www.prb.org/Content/Navigatio...ion_Growth.htm

Regards

John Barnard

WShoots1 wrote:

However, the quantities of CO2 have increased dramatically over the last
100-150 years.

Probably due to the increase in human population. After all, we exhale CO2.

Bill, K5BY

John B: Anything with an oxidative metabolism will exhale CO2. The rise in
human population hasn't been that extreme between 1750-1900. But it went up
very
quickly from 1950 onwards. See the following link:

http://www.prb.org/Content/Navigatio...n_Population/P
opulation_Growth/Population_Growth.htm

Very interesting. Many thanks.

Bill, K5BY

Michael Bryant wrote:

For those that say no reputable scientist would agree:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._DayAfter.html

Disclaimer: This URL was posted by an individual who lied about having a
PhD.

RHF wrote:

FO&A,

Was: "Overwhelming Scientific Consensus on Warming" [ N O T ! ]
Postwed by: Michael Bryant )
Subject: Overwhelming Scientific Consensus on Warming
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: 2004-05-30 07:47:28 PST

"Day After Tomorrow" Ice Age "Impossible," Researcher Says
- by Stefan Lovgren for National Geographic News- May 27, 2004
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._DayAfter.html

MWB - IMPOSSIBLE is the opperative word in the Title of this Article.

Here we go again, MWB more Liberal LIES and Leftist DISTORTION of the
Facts.

MWB - Why must you do this sort of thing and destroy your
Creditability ?


His creditability was destroyed when he lied about having a PhD, so he
now has nothing to loose.