Subj : Re: Global Warming To : Finnigann From : richardw Date : Tue Oct 11 2005 10:24 am Re: Re: Global Warming By: Finnigann to richardw on Tue Oct 11 2005 01:16 am > > Maybe, Maybe not. But they don't disput that it > > happening. > > ri> I don't necessarily believe it's not happening. > > Oh, *now* you're agnostic... I just don't believe it to be man-made. > > Increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other > > heat-trapping gases still play a role, the scientists > > say. > > > > As claim most scientists around the world. > > > > The findings were published online this week by the > > journal Geophysical Research Letters. > > > > Scientists agree the planet is warming. Effects are > > evident in melting glaciers and reductions in the > > amount of frozen ground around the planet. > > > > And so, your support dwindles away to nothing. > > Dejavu? > > ri> Huh? Support for what? > > You've forgetten your position already? You apparently never understood my position... as is so common when it differs from your own. > > The new study is based in part on Columbia University > > research from 2003 in which scientists found errors in > > how data on solar brightness is interpreted. A gap in > > data, owing to satellites not being deployed after the > > Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, were filled by less > > accurate data from other satellites, Scafetta says. > > > > As time goes by even more data will be collected. > > Just how much is enough? > > ri> Great question. Let's think about this one. This planet has been > ri> floating around here for how many years? Millions for sure. > > 4.5 Billion years in one form or another. Sounds familiar. > ri> We've been collecting this data for, oh, let's be generous and say 100 > ri> years. How can we begin to presume to know anything about the cycles > ri> this planet goes through with such a small sample? > > Let's say 50 years if it will help you make a point. > > You honestly don't know how science figures things out? or are you > trying find out if *I* know how science figures things out. > > They examine preserved ice core sample that go back several thousands of > years and measure the gases trapped inthe ice. Much older than that and > the ice looses the gas from being crushed. The amounts of various gases > tells scientists what was going on (in gneral terms you understand) at > various times in Earths recetn past. > > Other evidense can be determined from fossil records indicating what > froms of plant life and in what amounts were present, at various points > in our history. > > Knowing what was helps figure out what's going to be. Again in general > terms. You wont be able to set your watch by it but it can shed alot of > light on what has happened in the past. > > Of course scientists are always looking for more info to gain a better > understanding of what was... it's a "...to be continued" story OK... here's something for you you ponder. During most of the last 1 billion years the globe had no permanent ice. (NOTE - no permanent ice.) However, sometimes large areas of the globe were covered with vast ice sheets. These times are known as ice ages. Ice Ages are intervals of time when large areas of the surface of the globe are covered with ice sheets (large continental glaciers). The term is used to describe time intervals on two very different scales. It describes long, generally cool intervals of Earth history (tens to hundreds of millions of years) during which glaciers waxed and waned. The term also describes shorter time periods (tens of thousands of years) during which glaciers were near their maximum extent. These shorter intervals are also known as "glaciations." In addition, the term "Ice Age" is sometimes used to refer to the last major glaciation that occurred in North America and Eurasia. Many glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last billion years of Earth history. These glaciations are not randomly distributed in time.Instead, they are concentrated into four time intervals. Large, important glaciations occurred during the late Proterozoic (between about800 and 600 million years ago), during the Pennsylvanian and Permian (between about 350 and 250 million years ago), and the late Neogene toQuaternary (the last 4 million years). Somewhat less extensive glaciations occurred during parts of the Ordovician and Silurian (between about 460 and 430 million years ago). During each of these periods, many glacial advances and retreatsoccurred. For example, over 20 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years. If "ice age" is used to refer to long, generally cool, intervals during which glaciers advance and retreat, we are still in one today. Our modern climate represents a very short, warm period between glacial advances. http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/ Hmm... That's all very interesting. It would seem we're still in a sort of Ice Age. It would also seem to be a sort of cycle. Gee, I hope you are right about this Global Warming trend. I hate ice. It's scary riding my motorcycle on ice... I refuse to do it. > > The Duke analyses examined solar changes over 22 years > > versus 11 years used in previous studies. The cooling > > effect of volcanoes and cyclical shifts in ocean > > currents can have a greater negative impact on the > > accuracy of shorter data periods. > > > > Good idea. More data will undoubtedly show even more > > support for global warming > > ri> It is likely... yes. > > > "The Sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 > > percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming," the > > researchers said in a statement today. > > > > Maybe (again) or maybe not (again) > > > > Many questions remain, however. For example, scientists > > do not have a good grasp of how much Earth absorbs or > > reflects sunlight. > > > > This is about when not if global warming starts. > > ri> Huh? This is about understanding the effects of the variables that > ri> control the climate... not jumping to conclusions with a tiny amount of > ri> evidence. > > > "We don't know what the Sun will do in the future," > > Scafetta says. "For now, if our analysis is correct, I > > think it is important to correct the climate models so > > that they include reliable sensitivity to solar > > activity. Once that is done, then it will be possible > > to better understand what has happened during the past > > hundred years." > > > > If they succeed in delaying it long enough, they > > will have actually proof of global warming after > > it's too late to do anything about it > > ri> What makes you think we could EVER do anything about it? > > What makes you think we can't do SOMETHING about it. Maybe not enough, > but something is better than nothing. (in this case) Why do you want to alter the normal climatic cycles of the planet? You're really starting to scare me. People like you are just way out of control. --- þ Synchronet þ Eleemosynary ELF - eelf.richardw.net .