Global Warming

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Anthony Stephen Szopa

unread,
Nov 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/5/99
to
Global Warming

I met a woman last night. She said she was a microbiologist and the
head of the US International Committee on ( I forget exactly) but
they discuss the big issues like global warming, etc.

I told her that there is one factor that the scientists researching
global warming may be overlooking as far as I know.

This factor is the heat dissipation of the earth's core / mantle. I
suggested that the heat dissipation from the inner earth may not be
constant. I suggested that there might be slight variations in heat
from the inner earth reaching the surface. These variations may be
the dominant factor that determines the surface and atmospheric
temperatures, in other words, this variation in the earth's heat
dissipation originating from the core and mantle may be the true
reason why there are ice ages and global warming. The human factor
may be negligible although the global data may correlate well with
current geologic and atmospheric trends.

She said that was a very good idea and that she would write a paper
on it.

As far as any of you know, has such a hypothesis been presented
before?

yvind Seland

unread,
Nov 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/6/99
to
In article <38233EE2...@ciphile.com>, Anthony Stephen Szopa <ant...@ciphile.com> writes:
> Global Warming
>
> I met a woman last night. She said she was a microbiologist and the
> head of the US International Committee on ( I forget exactly) but
> they discuss the big issues like global warming, etc.
>
> I told her that there is one factor that the scientists researching
> global warming may be overlooking as far as I know.
>
> This factor is the heat dissipation of the earth's core / mantle. I
> suggested that the heat dissipation from the inner earth may not be
> constant. I suggested that there might be slight variations in heat
> from the inner earth reaching the surface.

These variations has to be more than slight though since
the heat transport from the inner earth to the surface
is quite small.

In the litterature, in this case Wallace and Hobbs, Atmospheric
Science, an Introductory Survey, the total heat transport
is given as 0.06 W / m2, and is comparable a direct heating rate
from burning of fossil fuel and nuclear fussion of 0.02 W/m2

The increase in CO2 from 1765 to 1990 is estimated to give a
1.5 W/m2 increase in the radiative forcing.


Ųyvind Seland


Mark Folsom

unread,
Nov 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/6/99
to
Since most of the heat produced inside the earth is very far from the
surface and heat conduction severely smears out transient peaks, I think the
transients would have to be really huge to have a significant effect at the
surface. Do you know of any evidence for really huge transient changes in
internal heat production in the earth?

Mark Folsom

Anthony Stephen Szopa <ant...@ciphile.com> wrote in message
news:38233EE2...@ciphile.com...


> Global Warming
>
> I met a woman last night. She said she was a microbiologist and the
> head of the US International Committee on ( I forget exactly) but
> they discuss the big issues like global warming, etc.
>
> I told her that there is one factor that the scientists researching
> global warming may be overlooking as far as I know.
>
> This factor is the heat dissipation of the earth's core / mantle. I
> suggested that the heat dissipation from the inner earth may not be
> constant. I suggested that there might be slight variations in heat

Harold Lindaberry

unread,
Nov 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/7/99
to

Mark Folsom wrote:

> Since most of the heat produced inside the earth is very far from the
> surface and heat conduction severely smears out transient peaks, I think the
> transients would have to be really huge to have a significant effect at the
> surface. Do you know of any evidence for really huge transient changes in
> internal heat production in the earth?

It depends on where you are located - in some areas of Texas you drill a
water well and come up with hot water that has to be cooled before it's cool
enough to drink but it's great on the heating bills if you're got the right set
up.


Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope " Lindaberry
1998

Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

Irv Chidsey

unread,
Nov 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/7/99
to
Harold Lindaberry <har...@epix.net> commented:
>Date: Sun, 07 November 1999 10:27 AM EST
>Message-id: <382599E7...@epix.net>
>

Quite a while ago I read some articles about the effects of the yearly
temperature cycle on permafrost. Temperature cycle effects are very rapidly
attenuated with depth. In fact all temperature changes are rapidly attenuated
with depth. My guess would be that if the heat flow thru the core-mantle
boundary were to stop, the effect would not be noticed at the surface untill at
least a glacial cycle later. Doubling the flow would take as long to be
noticed.

Irv

Irv @ Webster
The only stupid question is the one you don't ask.
My e-mail address will work better if you un-despam it.
That is, remove "don'tspam".

Anthony Stephen Szopa

unread,
Nov 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/7/99
to
Mark Folsom wrote:

> Since most of the heat produced inside the earth is very far from the
> surface and heat conduction severely smears out transient peaks, I think the
> transients would have to be really huge to have a significant effect at the
> surface. Do you know of any evidence for really huge transient changes in
> internal heat production in the earth?
>

> Mark Folsom
>
> Anthony Stephen Szopa <ant...@ciphile.com> wrote in message
> news:38233EE2...@ciphile.com...
> > Global Warming
> >
> > I met a woman last night. She said she was a microbiologist and the
> > head of the US International Committee on ( I forget exactly) but
> > they discuss the big issues like global warming, etc.
> >
> > I told her that there is one factor that the scientists researching
> > global warming may be overlooking as far as I know.
> >
> > This factor is the heat dissipation of the earth's core / mantle. I
> > suggested that the heat dissipation from the inner earth may not be
> > constant. I suggested that there might be slight variations in heat
> > from the inner earth reaching the surface. These variations may be
> > the dominant factor that determines the surface and atmospheric
> > temperatures, in other words, this variation in the earth's heat
> > dissipation originating from the core and mantle may be the true
> > reason why there are ice ages and global warming. The human factor
> > may be negligible although the global data may correlate well with
> > current geologic and atmospheric trends.
> >
> > She said that was a very good idea and that she would write a paper
> > on it.
> >
> > As far as any of you know, has such a hypothesis been presented
> > before?

I am not talking about heat "production." I am talking about heat
dissipation. I believe we do not need "really huge" fluctuations
in heat dissipation to cause global effects. We are talking about
a very large global weather system that can be significantly
effected over time by a small external change of input heat to the
system.

Harold Lindaberry

unread,
Nov 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/8/99
to

Anthony Stephen Szopa wrote:

I think that in the past geothermal had a greater direct effect but as the
earth has been in a general cooling phase and the crust gets thicker the ice ages
have come about in the last million or so years which in relationship to the
billions of years the earth has been around is a rather recent occurance. in the
over all time scale. Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink causing
the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth quakes and volcanic
eruptions. I'm certainly not a geologist or an expert in this field but that is
just an idea that I throw out - to see how many brickbats come flying back.

Shlomo Bronstein

unread,
Nov 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/9/99
to

Harold Lindaberry כתב בהודעה <3826B801...@epix.net>...

>
> I think that in the past geothermal had a greater direct effect but as
the
>earth has been in a general cooling phase and the crust gets thicker the
ice ages
>have come about in the last million or so years which in relationship to
the
>billions of years the earth has been around is a rather recent occurance.
in the
>over all time scale. Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink
causing
>the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth quakes and
volcanic
>eruptions. I'm certainly not a geologist or an expert in this field but
that is
>just an idea that I throw out - to see how many brickbats come flying back.
>


Geothermal has an effect on the ice ages (that the last one was in the
middle ages). Both geothermal and sunlight warms the atlantic ocean and
causes a flow of warm water that warms parts of Europe. It is known by
analysis of the polar ice and some ponds of mud that the surface temperature
of some parts of the earth is quite sudden and the average temperature can
drop very dramatically in months. It was known to happen.
We are currently in a warm period. This warm period have been stable for the
last a few hundred years. Global warming may have some very different
results from what we might first think. The warming can infact cause another
iceage.

Irv Chidsey

unread,
Nov 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/10/99
to
"Shlomo Bronstein" <sbr...@hotmail.com> commented:
>Date: Mon, 08 November 1999 06:07 PM EST
>Message-id: <807ks4$mo$1...@news.netvision.net.il>
>
on what

>
>Harold Lindaberry כתב בהודעה wrote:
<3826B801...@epix.net>...
>>
>> I think that in the past geothermal had a greater direct effect but as
>the
>>earth has been in a general cooling phase and the crust gets thicker the
>ice ages
>>have come about in the last million or so years which in relationship to
>the
>>billions of years the earth has been around is a rather recent occurance.
>in the
>>over all time scale. Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink
>causing
>>the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth quakes and
>volcanic
>>eruptions. I'm certainly not a geologist or an expert in this field but
>that is
>>just an idea that I throw out - to see how many brickbats come flying back.
>>
>
as follows:

>
>Geothermal has an effect on the ice ages (that the last one was in the
>middle ages). Both geothermal and sunlight warms the atlantic ocean and
>causes a flow of warm water that warms parts of Europe. It is known by
>analysis of the polar ice and some ponds of mud that the surface temperature
>of some parts of the earth is quite sudden and the average temperature can
>drop very dramatically in months. It was known to happen.
>We are currently in a warm period. This warm period have been stable for the
>last a few hundred years. Global warming may have some very different
>results from what we might first think. The warming can infact cause another
>iceage.
>

1) I believe the "little ice age", so called, is not considered to be a leal
ice age, it was much too minor.

2) The sudden temperature changes of the last ice age cycle have all been
coincident with sudden changes in the oceanic circulation regime and are
generally believed to have been caused by those circulation changes. The
circulation changes in turn seem to have been coincident with changes in the
temperature and salinity of the surface water. If the surface water gets to be
too warm or too fresh it ceases to sink and so the deep circulation stops and
the warm water no longer flows north to take the place of the arctic water.

Some of this was covered in Nature last spring.

Marty Bonit

unread,
Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99
to
>Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink causing
>the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth quakes and volcanic
>eruptions.

Cool?
Wow!

> I'm certainly not a geologist or an expert in this field

Thanks god.

John McCarthy

unread,
Nov 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/28/99
to
Harold Lindaberry includes

Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink causing
the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth
quakes and volcanic eruptions.

When I was in school in 30s and early 40s the idea that mountains
were caused by the earth shrinking was prevalent. The plate
tectonics theory, first proposed around 1960, has become
accepted. Mountain chains are caused by subduction of sea bottom
crust under continents. Associated with the subduction are deep
earthquakes, and almost all earthquakes are associated with
relative motion of the plates. All this is caused by convective
currents in the mantle, which are cause hy heating from
radioactivity.

I haven't read anything in recent years about the diameter of the
earth changing.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

chris michael

unread,
Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to Marty Bonit
What else causes the earth to heat up?


Marty Bonit wrote:

> >Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink causing
> >the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth quakes and volcanic
> >eruptions.
>

chris michael

unread,
Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to Marty Bonit

chris michael

unread,
Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to Marty Bonit

Uncle Al

unread,
Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to

chris michael wrote:
>
> What else causes the earth to heat up?

Radioactive decay. From where do you think all the helium and
argon-40 originate?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Doug Huffman

unread,
Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to
Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air

--
Grasping another opportunity to be wrong! Doug Huffman<dhuf...@awod.com>


chris michael <gem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3842CA32...@hotmail.com...

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Nov 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/29/99
to
John McCarthy (j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: Harold Lindaberry includes
:
: Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink causing

: the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth
: quakes and volcanic eruptions.
:
: When I was in school in 30s and early 40s the idea that mountains

: were caused by the earth shrinking was prevalent. The plate
: tectonics theory, first proposed around 1960, has become
: accepted. Mountain chains are caused by subduction of sea bottom
: crust under continents. Associated with the subduction are deep
: earthquakes, and almost all earthquakes are associated with
: relative motion of the plates. All this is caused by convective
: currents in the mantle, which are cause hy heating from
: radioactivity.
:
: I haven't read anything in recent years about the diameter of the
: earth changing.

Probably because there has not been anything, but I think NASA will
soon (or has already) launched some metrology experiments which
should be able to measure same with mind boggling accuracy. It
should be interesting. I wonder if the thing expands and shrinks
on an annual basis as we near and receed from the Sun

josh halpern


Uncle Al

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to

Doug Huffman wrote:
>
> Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air

Absence of global warming is trivially disproven with a simple
thermometer. Underground caverns average surface temp. You simply
look at undisturbed cavern temps anywhere on Earth recorded over the
last hundred years or so. No change.

Michael Kagalenko

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
Uncle Al (Uncl...@hate.spam.net) wrote
]
]

]Doug Huffman wrote:
]>
]> Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air
]
]Absence of global warming is trivially disproven with a simple
]thermometer.

No, it isn't. Duh !

] Underground caverns average surface temp.

No, they don't. Double Duh !


] You simply

Ian St. John

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to

Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3843312B...@hate.spam.net...

>
>
> Doug Huffman wrote:
> >
> > Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air
>
> Absence of global warming is trivially disproven with a simple

Double negatives.. and probably not what you meant to say. "presence
is disproven" or "absense is proven"?

> thermometer. Underground caverns average surface temp. You simply


> look at undisturbed cavern temps anywhere on Earth recorded over the
> last hundred years or so. No change.

Driven by the third power of the delta temp ( .5 degrees C) ( i.e.
very very weak and slow ). It takes *tens of thousand* of years for
the major changes in temperature produced by ice ages to propagate to
the bottom of icecaps and glaciers ( measured temperatures from ice
cores ). Global warming has only been ( barely) measurable above the
instrument noise for a few decades. Hardly enough to have *started*
though tens or hundreds of meters of rock. Plus the temperature of
cave systems would be *much, much*, more affected by air currents and
evaporative cooling than by heat transfer from the surface. This would
tend to dampen any change that did occur.

Al. I find most of your answers on chemical and materials informative
and complete. However, you have just proven that you should stick to
what you know. On politics and the environment, you are in a close tie
with the village idiot. ;-)

Raymond W Jensen

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to

A couple of years back, I watched an episode of "Frontline" (PBS) in which
the matter of discussion was whether or not electromagnetic fields cause
cancer. The centerpiece was some Swedish(?) study, where the researchers
monitored cancer rates of individuals who lived near high-voltage lines as
opposed to the rest of the population. They found that there was a higher
cancer rate in the former group, i.e. those that lived near high-voltage
lines. A later study (done, I think by some researchers at Illinois Inst.
of Technology) could not reproduce these results. It was later found that
in the former study, the researchers took only the data which showed a
higher cancer rate near power lines relative to the rest of the population,
and published those. They ignored the data which showed, that in some areas,
people who lived near power lines had cancer rates less than the overall
population. Had they published the latter data, the overall effect of power
lines on cancer rates would have been null, and in concurrence with the
later study.

Now, you should ask yourself, "Can the same kind of thing be done with global
temperature data, as was done with the power-line/cancer data? Is there a
sufficient motive for these researchers skewing the results in this manner?"

Ray Jensen

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics: 30-Nov-99 Re: Global Warming by "Ian
St. John"@spamcop.n

(optional)

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:10:05 GMT, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net>
wrote:

>chris michael wrote:
>>
>> What else causes the earth to heat up?
>

1.


>Radioactive decay. From where do you think all the helium and
>argon-40 originate?

Uranium decays slowly.

2.
Heat of crystalisation is also important.
(Probably most important)
The outer core is liquid, and the inner core
is solid. A lot of heat is given up in making
that phase change (liq to solid).

3.
Tidal forces

These don't only affect bodies of water,
They also flex the planet (contributing
to the flattening at the poles and bulgeing
at the equator).

4.

It may be that the Eaths' magnetic field
is maintained by a "self exciting dynamo"
effect. This would require circulating
electric currents, and electric currents
cause heating.
(I squared R losses)


--
Sleepalot aa #1385 For email, cut the string.

Will Howard

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to
Er, usually I hate to do respond to these posts, as bringing rigorous
science into these debates often makes the crazies even crazier, but
there have been a number of studies of borehole temperatures, both into
rock, and glacial ice, and they appear to confirm Late 20th Century
global warming. Argue all you want about the *CAUSE(S)* of the warming,
but it's happening. See:

1) Science 1998 Oct 9;282(5387):279-81

Climate change record in subsurface temperatures: A global perspective.

Pollack HN, Huang S, Shen PY

H. N. Pollack and S. Huang, Department of Geological Sciences,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1063, USA. P.-Y. Shen,
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario N6A 5B7, Canada.

Analyses of underground temperature measurements from 358 boreholes in
eastern North America, central Europe, southern Africa, and Australia
indicate that, in the 20th century, the average surface temperature of
Earth has increased by about 0.5 degreesC and that the 20th century has
been the warmest of the past five centuries. The subsurface temperatures
also indicate that Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by
about 1.0 degreesC over the past five centuries. The geothermal data
offer an independent confirmation of the unusual character of
20th-century climate that has emerged from recent multiproxy studies.

2) Science 1998 Oct 9;282(5387):268-71

Past temperatures directly from the greenland ice sheet.

Dahl-Jensen D, Mosegaard K, Gundestrup N, Clow GD, Johnsen SJ, Hansen
AW, Balling N

D. Dahl-Jensen, K. Mosegaard, N. Gundestrup, S. J. Johnsen, A. W.
Hansen, Niels Bohr Institute for Astronomy, Physics and Geophysics,
Department of Geophysics, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen OE,
Denmark. G. D. Clow, USGS-Climate Program,

A Monte Carlo inverse method has been used on the temperature profiles
measured down through the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) borehole, at
the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Dye 3 borehole 865
kilometers farther south. The result is a 50, 000-year-long temperature
history at GRIP and a 7000-year history at Dye 3. The Last Glacial
Maximum, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warmth, the Little Ice Age,
and a warm period at 1930 A.D. are resolved from the GRIP reconstruction
with the amplitudes -23 kelvin, +2.5 kelvin, +1 kelvin, -1 kelvin, and
+0.5 kelvin, respectively. The Dye 3 temperature is similar to the GRIP
history but has an amplitude 1.5 times larger, indicating higher
climatic variability there. The calculated terrestrial heat flow density
from the GRIP inversion is 51.3 milliwatts per square meter.

Ian St. John

unread,
Nov 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM11/30/99
to

Raymond W Jensen <jen...@CMU.EDU> wrote in message
news:ksF0Zj600...@andrew.cmu.edu...
<snip>

> Now, you should ask yourself, "Can the same kind of thing be done
with global
> temperature data, as was done with the power-line/cancer data? Is
there a
> sufficient motive for these researchers skewing the results in this
manner?"

Data from a single researcher or study might be skewed, although I
can't think of a motive. The interlocking results of many different
but related studies are much harder to dismiss.


Graeme Greenup

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to

Uncle Al wrote:

> Doug Huffman wrote:
> >
> > Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air
>
> Absence of global warming is trivially disproven with a simple

> thermometer. Underground caverns average surface temp. You simply
> look at undisturbed cavern temps anywhere on Earth recorded over the
> last hundred years or so. No change.

Very interesting, could you cite your references please?

Graeme


me...@cars3.uchicago.edu

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
In article <ni114.4707$t12.2...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> writes:
>
>Raymond W Jensen <jen...@CMU.EDU> wrote in message
>news:ksF0Zj600...@andrew.cmu.edu...
><snip>
>> Now, you should ask yourself, "Can the same kind of thing be done
>with global
>> temperature data, as was done with the power-line/cancer data? Is
>there a
>> sufficient motive for these researchers skewing the results in this
>manner?"
>
>Data from a single researcher or study might be skewed, although I
>can't think of a motive.

Funding is a motive and a pretty powerful one. Much easier to
generate funding asserting a presence of a risk than asserting its
absence. No, I'm not trying to say that all reports of risks are
necessarily faulty. Only, that a powerful bias with a well specified
direction exists.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Phil Hays

unread,
Dec 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/1/99
to
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

> Funding is a motive and a pretty powerful one. Much easier to
> generate funding asserting a presence of a risk than asserting its
> absence.

Perhaps for some things. However, global climate change is a rather different
subject. Notice that a lot of money changes hands in the carbon energy
business. And a lot of money would go in different directions if the USA
started to switch to non-carbon energy, such as nuclear and/or solar. Follow
the money.


> Only, that a powerful bias with a well specified direction exists.

I agree. Follow the money and see the bias. Do also notice that in the USA,
the money is winning. The USA is not going to make any noticeable action on
global climate change.

Of course, there is a reasonable change that statements like this:

"Positive environmental externalities from more CO2 in the air swamp any
conceivable negatives,."

(Source http://www.westernfuels.org/news/102199.htm )

Will be remembered when proven wrong by events. Regardless of funding. Or
perhaps more so because of funding.


--
Phil Hays
"Irritatingly, science claims to set limits on what
we can do, even in principle." Carl Sagan

Jed Checketts

unread,
Dec 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/3/99
to
In article <3843312B...@hate.spam.net>,

Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>
> Doug Huffman wrote:
> >
> > Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air

"Absence of global warming is..disproven..."
........same sentence as....
Global Warming is Proven...

(and it requires less large words)

Besides, you could trust some old timer to accurately report the
temperature of an "undisturbed" cave back in the 1800's, and then use
this information to prove your theory (if it's not something you just
made up anyway), or you could look at ice core samples which are much
more accurate and date back for thousands of years. In any event, the
ice core samples show that global warming has occured and is occuring at
the present time. They also show that global warming coincides with
increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Jed Checketts

>
> Absence of global warming is trivially disproven with a simple
> thermometer. Underground caverns average surface temp. You simply
> look at undisturbed cavern temps anywhere on Earth recorded over the
> last hundred years or so. No change.
>

> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
> http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
> (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Amos Keppler

unread,
Dec 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/3/99
to
Jed Checketts wrote:
>
> In article <3843312B...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Doug Huffman wrote:
> > >
> > > Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air
>
> "Absence of global warming is..disproven..."
> ........same sentence as....
> Global Warming is Proven...
>
> (and it requires less large words)
>
> Besides, you could trust some old timer to accurately report the
> temperature of an "undisturbed" cave back in the 1800's, and then use
> this information to prove your theory (if it's not something you just
> made up anyway), or you could look at ice core samples which are much
> more accurate and date back for thousands of years. In any event, the
> ice core samples show that global warming has occured and is occuring at
> the present time. They also show that global warming coincides with
> increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
Global Warning is already a reality. You can see the same almost
anywhere. Where I live in wesstern norway the winter is two months late
compared to the seventies. Each year is warmer than the former. This is
what's happening all over the world.

http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/searise.html

Amos

--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
< My virtual, wilderness community address is: >
< http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/6010/ >
< My address at midnight: >
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/ ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Feel the heat of Firewind
http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/firewind.html

«We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well
that Death will tremble to take us»!
Charles Bukowski

John Prussing

unread,
Dec 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/4/99
to
Jed Checketts <jch...@powerball.net> writes:

>In article <3843312B...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Doug Huffman wrote:
>> >
>> > Enviro-maniacal hyperbolic hot air

>"Absence of global warming is..disproven..."
>........same sentence as....
>Global Warming is Proven...

>(and it requires less large words)

>Besides, you could trust some old timer to accurately report the
>temperature of an "undisturbed" cave back in the 1800's, and then use
>this information to prove your theory (if it's not something you just
>made up anyway), or you could look at ice core samples which are much
>more accurate and date back for thousands of years. In any event, the
>ice core samples show that global warming has occured and is occuring at
>the present time. They also show that global warming coincides with
>increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

>Jed Checketts

>>
>> Absence of global warming is trivially disproven with a simple
>> thermometer. Underground caverns average surface temp. You simply
>> look at undisturbed cavern temps anywhere on Earth recorded over the
>> last hundred years or so. No change.
>>
>> --
>> Uncle Al
>> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>> http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
>> http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
>> (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
>> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
>>

Denial of Global Warming seems to be based on a person's political
philosophy as much as on science. Conservatives argue that it isn't
happening based on having their heads in a cave, the sand or some
other place. The editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal doesn't
believe in Global Warming caused by industrialization. Heaven forbid.
But the evidence that it is happening is real. The argument should be
on the cause.

What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and CO2 are
being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty or a hundred
years ago? Is all the additional heat being radiated out into space?
How would one test that? Measurements of ocean temperatures and ice
cores seems very reasonable. Measurements of temperatures in caves (even
if true, which we have no hard evidence of in this newsgroup) seem more
indicative of constant geothermal activity than what's happening on the
surface of the earth, without the benefit of a thermal insulator.

>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
John E. Prussing
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Aladar

unread,
Dec 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/4/99
to
In article <829tbc$457$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
prus...@aae.uiuc.edu (John Prussing) wrote:
> Jed Checketts <jch...@powerball.net> writes:
>
<...>
A model of ice ages

The model consists of two elements: atmospheric absorption with
greenhouse retention and surface reflection of heat.

The fossil record indicates that an intense, large amount of vegetation
was present prior the glaciation periods. Therefore the rate of
depletion of carbon dioxide by the vegetation from the atmosphere also
was high. The atmospheric composition change reduced the greenhouse
retention and the atmospheric absorption of heat. As a result the
precipitation in form of snow started to cover larger areas, increasing
the surface reflection. The overall heat retained by the Earth now
decreased not only by the increased radiation through the atmosphere
due to the changes of the composition of it, but by the increased
reflection of the heat, reaching us from the Sun by the snow covered
parts of the surface. It resulted in further increase of the snow
covered areas, until it reached and covered parts of vegetation and
the reduction in the vegetation resulted in a stop of heat reduction
due to build-up of carbon dioxide concentration.

The overall process therefore shows a primary equilibrium at large
biosphere and a consecutive equilibrium with a greatly limited area of
vegetation. The trigger mechanism is the reduction of carbon dioxide
concentration in the atmosphere. The accelerator is the reflection of
heat by snow covered areas.
The extended periods of glaciation could gradually turn back on the
volcanically released carbon dioxide.

This model fits to the observed evidence and identifies two key
processes.

[If we understand the opposite process we will understand the so called
global warming. I believe that to talk about the warming is already
diverting the attantion from the real issue! The real issue is the
atmospheric composition OUT OF OBSERVED DURING THE HUMAN CIVILIZATION
RANGE!]
--
Ali
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar

Amos Keppler

unread,
Dec 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/4/99
to
Huge wrote:

>
> In article <829tbc$457$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, prus...@aae.uiuc.edu (John Prussing) writes:
>
> >But the evidence that it is happening is real.
>
> Except that it isn't.

One proof and many:

http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/searise.html

Keep yourself in a state of denial and you're in for a nasty surprise.

Joe Fischer

unread,
Dec 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/4/99
to
Amos Keppler (asterdi...@hl.telia.no) wrote:
: Global Warning is already a reality. You can see the same almost

: anywhere. Where I live in wesstern norway the winter is two months late
: compared to the seventies. Each year is warmer than the former. This is
: what's happening all over the world.
:
: http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/searise.html

What happens in one small area, or even in
many small areas, does not reflect that total or
average temperature information.
For instance, where I live, it was very warm the
entire month of November, but this November was only the
5th warmest November in recorded history, which only goes
back 150 years or so.

This is not to say that global warming isn't going
on, only that local measurements are not enough. For the
temperature data to be reliable, readings would have to be
taken every few minutes, every 10 kilometers all over the
Earth, and in both air and water.

As far as sea rise goes, it is very interesting,
and seems to have been going on at least a couple of
thousand of years before man ever started burning coal,
oil or gas. Cleopatra's Palace was just found in the
last 20 years, it is under 30 feet of water, but hopefully
at least part of that is due to local land falling rather
than the sea rising.
Apparently it is known that Venice _is_ sinking
faster than the sea is rising, and some areas may have
land rising, or volcanic magma building, such as in
Alaska 30 or 40 years ago, several cubic miles of valley
was filled in.

More study is needed, and many different processes
are going on, but it is important to not let local
variations cause panic, unless there is real danger, as
there has been in Central America, the Carribean, and
a few other places.
The English Channel could be crossed walking
2000 years ago, so either the land is sinking, or the
sea is rising, and man did not start burning coal in
any great amount until about 1500 AD, and didn't
discover oil or natural gas in quantity until the
mid 1800s.
So nature is apparently doing better, or worse,
than man.

Joe Fischer

Leonard Evens

unread,
Dec 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/4/99
to
Huge wrote:

>
> In article <384919...@hl.telia.no>, Amos Keppler <aste...@hl.telia.no> writes:
>
> > Keep yourself in a state of denial and you're in for a nasty surprise.
>
> Not as nasty as letting authoritarian scum like you get their way.
>
> --
> "The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
> The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
> [Delete "nospam." to email me]

Reasonable people can certainly disagree about the meaning of
the evidence for global warming. But a belief that human
activity since the beginning of the industrial revolution has
affected climate does not indicate an authoritarian frame of
mind. Presumably natural forces don't conform to our
ideological biases. So it is at least conceivable that
our species might have to change some of the things it is
doing because of their effect on all of us. If one believes
in minimal insterference with individual freedom, the problem
would be to figure out how to accomplish such ends in the least
intrusive way.
--

Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

Irv Chidsey

unread,
Dec 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/4/99
to
Leonard Evens <l...@math.nwu.edu> made a reasonable comment:
>Date: Sat, 04 December 1999 11:45 AM EST
>Message-id: <38494539...@math.nwu.edu>

But reasonable people discuss evidence, causes, consequences, possible
solutions; they don't argue by name calling.

Irv

Irv @ Webster
The only stupid question is the one you don't ask.
My e-mail address will work better if you un-despam it.
That is, remove "don'tspam".

Irv Chidsey

unread,
Dec 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/4/99
to
joe...@iglou.com (Joe Fischer) claimed:
>Date: Sat, 04 December 1999 10:10 AM EST
>Message-id: <3849...@news.iglou.com>
>
Big bunch snipped.

> The English Channel could be crossed walking
>2000 years ago, so either the land is sinking, or the
>sea is rising,

This is not so, you are missing a power of 10. 2,000 years ago Caisar's armies
couldn't walk to Brittain from Gaul.

Irv

More snipped.

>
>Joe Fischer

Joe Fischer

unread,
Dec 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/4/99
to
Irv Chidsey (irv...@aol.comdontspam) wrote:
: (Joe Fischer) claimed:
: > The English Channel could be crossed walking
: >2000 years ago, so either the land is sinking, or the
: >sea is rising,
:
: This is not so, you are missing a power of 10. 2,000 years ago
: Caisar's armies couldn't walk to Brittain from Gaul.

It was wadable, but not a good idea for an army.
It certainly wasn't a power of 10, unless you want it
to mean dry land all the way.
It hasn't been all that long since Ohio was covered
with ice.

Joe Fischer

Andrew Russell

unread,
Dec 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/5/99
to
John Prussing wrote:
>
>What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and CO2 are
>being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty or a hundred
>years ago?

The counter argument is that the natural variability of the global
temperature and external effects such as solar irradiance changes
completely mask any effect that humans are having on the global air
temperatures.

Those who claim that there is a 'discernable signal' from human energy use
have a significant record of deceit and dishonesty. The best available real
measurments from satellites show no global warming at all over the last 20
years. This data also demonstrates that the computer models the global
warmers rely upon are demonstrably wrong, since they predict significant
and measureable warming in the part of the atmosphere the satellites are
measuring.

See John Daly's excellent and informative web site at
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/index.htm.

Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The earth needs to be saved not so much from global warming,
ozone depletion and rain-forest destruction as from the hordes
of sanctimonious, self-appointed saviors who merchandise
environmental panic..."

- Rolling Stone June 28th, 1990 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew Russell

unread,
Dec 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/5/99
to
Amos Keppler wrote:
> One proof and many:
>
> http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/searise.html
>
> Keep yourself in a state of denial and you're in for a nasty surprise.
>
> Amos

If one visits Mr. Keppler's website they will find nothing but a political
polemic. No scientific documentation, no numbers, no real facts. Just an
assertion that unnamed islands have disappeared from sea level rises due to
global warming.

In order to claim there have been (or will be) significant sea level rises
from global warming (whether natural or man-made), you are going to have to
explain away the hard evidence that there has been *no* sea level rise for
the last 150 years, as shown by the mean sea level marker carved in rock at
Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1841. This direct evidence that Mr. Keppler is
quite wrong can be found at John Daly's excellent web site at:

http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/ross1841.htm

But then Mr. Keppler also indicates on his website he believes that
computers and the ability to communicate are going to disappear, which he
thinks is 'good news'.

from his website:

"Well, anyway, we're going to continue to document it
all on this page, as long as there are computers and
means for them to communicate, which I gather, will
not be too long now...

Good news to be sure!"

Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com

--------------------------------------------------------------
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized
civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring
that about?"

Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
---------------------------------------------------------------

Harold Lindaberry

unread,
Dec 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/5/99
to

Joshua Halpern wrote:

> John McCarthy (j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
> : Harold Lindaberry includes
> :
> : Likewise as the earth continues to cool and shrink causing
> : the crust to wrinkle it becomes more susceptible to earth
> : quakes and volcanic eruptions.
> :
> : When I was in school in 30s and early 40s the idea that mountains
> : were caused by the earth shrinking was prevalent. The plate
> : tectonics theory, first proposed around 1960, has become
> : accepted. Mountain chains are caused by subduction of sea bottom
> : crust under continents. Associated with the subduction are deep
> : earthquakes, and almost all earthquakes are associated with
> : relative motion of the plates. All this is caused by convective
> : currents in the mantle, which are cause hy heating from
> : radioactivity.
> :
> : I haven't read anything in recent years about the diameter of the
> : earth changing.
>
> Probably because there has not been anything, but I think NASA will
> soon (or has already) launched some metrology experiments which
> should be able to measure same with mind boggling accuracy.

If so - that should give one data point then over the next several
thousand to 100,000 years or so we might get an indication perhaps even
a few million years for statistical significance suspect in that time
frame the original question will not be remembered

Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope " Lindaberry
1998

Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

Joe Rongen

unread,
Dec 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/5/99
to
> John Prussing wrote:
> >
> > What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and
> > CO2 are being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty
> > or a hundred years ago?

Just a far fetched guess...that huge quantities have been
releases/forced into space, thanks to the above ground
nuclear testing idiots*.
They may have blown huge holes right through all layers
protecting our atmosphere more than once....

The same idiots* now claim that they are to stupid to create
a proper model, to estimate the human killings / murders
they (have) are causing due to their persistent nuclear fallout.

-------

me...@cars3.uchicago.edu

unread,
Dec 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/5/99
to
In article <GHj24.242$Dw....@198.235.216.4>, "Joe Rongen" <joer...@whisp.com> writes:
>> John Prussing wrote:
>> >
>> > What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and
>> > CO2 are being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty
>> > or a hundred years ago?
>
>Just a far fetched guess...that huge quantities have been
>releases/forced into space, thanks to the above ground
>nuclear testing idiots*.

Huge quantities of what? CO2?

>They may have blown huge holes right through all layers
>protecting our atmosphere more than once....

There is nothing protecting the atmosphere other than the atmosphere.


>
>The same idiots* now claim that they are to stupid to create
>a proper model, to estimate the human killings / murders
>they (have) are causing due to their persistent nuclear fallout.

Ahh, I see, you're back to your usual trolling. Has been a while.

Aladar

unread,
Dec 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/5/99
to
In article <82cb0j$h...@lotho.delphi.com>,

Andrew Russell <arus...@BIX.com> wrote:
> John Prussing wrote:
> >
> >What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and
CO2 are
> >being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty or a
hundred
> >years ago?
>

The intentional diversion is working. Everybody forget about the real,
measurable and correctable situation with the atmospheric composition,
just talk about an arguable consequence - which is irrelevant in a
global sense.

Let's go through it again: the biosphere during it's existence
collected, removed from the atmosphere large amounts of carbon.
Deposited into the coal, oil and natural gas deposits. In the last
hundred years we, the people release the collected during millions of
years from the atmosphere carbon back into the atmosphere several
hundred time higher rate and ever increasing rate than it was removed
by the vegetation prior the first man's birth.

The seeweed must be more intelligent then we are, because it already
reacted to correct the problem, what we are causing.

The correctable fact is that the atmospheric composition is different
from any prior composition during the man's life on the Earth. Is it
alarming? Yes! What will happen if we don't do anything to return into
the range of our ancestor's life? Nobody knows!

There is a simple possibility to get back into the range of normal life
with the atmospheric composition, and it could achieve two noble goals:
start an intense nuclear power plant building program, rework all the
nuclear warheads into powerplant fuel. The other major environmental
danger, the nuclear explosions could be avoided at the mean time.

Joe Rongen

unread,
Dec 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/5/99
to
Huge <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote in
message news:82dko4$5...@axalotl.demon.co.uk...

> In article <GHj24.242$Dw....@198.235.216.4>,
"Joe Rongen" <joer...@whisp.com> writes:

[snip]

> >The same idiots* now claim that they are to stupid to create
> >a proper model, to estimate the human killings / murders
> >they (have) are causing due to their persistent nuclear fallout.
>

> And people ask why I don't believe the GW loons....

Maybe because you fit in the above?

-------

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Dec 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/5/99
to
Harold Lindaberry (har...@epix.net) wrote:

: Joshua Halpern wrote:
: > John McCarthy (j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: > : Harold Lindaberry includes
: > : I haven't read anything in recent years about the diameter of the

: > : earth changing.
: > Probably because there has not been anything, but I think NASA will
: > soon (or has already) launched some metrology experiments which
: > should be able to measure same with mind boggling accuracy.
:
: If so - that should give one data point then over the next several
: thousand to 100,000 years or so we might get an indication perhaps even
: a few million years for statistical significance suspect in that time
: frame the original question will not be remembered

These things are scarily accurate. You should be able to see
interseasonal changes easily. You won't have to wait nearly
that long to have enough data to figure back.

Josh Halpern

Joe Rongen

unread,
Dec 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/5/99
to
Huge <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote in
message news:82e9rc$6...@axalotl.demon.co.uk...

> Tell me, is that tinfoil hat uncomfortable?

I wouldn't know...I do not live in England.
Here in Canada we all wear hockey helmets. :-)

-------

Harold Lindaberry

unread,
Dec 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/5/99
to

Joshua Halpern wrote:

Time will tell - as long as there isn't too much number massaging to make
a preconceived point.


Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope " Lindaberry
1998

Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

>
>
> Josh Halpern


Harold Lindaberry

unread,
Dec 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/5/99
to

Joe Rongen wrote:

Yea and you have a corner on all the zamboni technology too ;-)

Nature limits what we can do, Science limits what we understand,
Theory what we can think, and Religion what we can hope " Lindaberry
1998

Harold Lindaberry reply E - mail har...@epix.net
visit OXGORE website at http://www.epix.net/~harlind
RESEARCH GOES WHERE RESEARCH LEADS

>
>
> -------


Phil Hays

unread,
Dec 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/5/99
to
Andrew Russell wrote:

> The counter argument is that the natural variability of the global
> temperature and external effects such as solar irradiance changes
> completely mask any effect that humans are having on the global air
> temperatures.

This is true over a short enough time period.

On a year to year basis, it is very true that human climate change is smaller
than natural variability. The expected climate change is on the order of 0.01 C
per year, and the natural variability is on the order of 0.4 C per year. There
is little hope of seeing such a tiny signal in all that noise.

On a decade to decade basis, it's getting closer. Somewhere around a twenty
interval the size of the natural variability and the human change become about
the same in size.

Over more than a century that station based records have been kept, the human
changes are larger than the natural variability.


> Those who claim that there is a 'discernable signal' from human energy use
> have a significant record of deceit and dishonesty. The best available real
> measurments from satellites show no global warming at all over the last 20
> years.

Important if true. But perhaps the reader might check the facts:

ftp://wind.atmos.uah.edu/msu/t2lt/t2ltglhmam.d

Scroll down to the bottom. Note that the measured slope is 0.47 C per decade.
While this is half of the expected trend, it clearly isn't "no global warming at
all".


> This data also demonstrates that the computer models the global
> warmers rely upon are demonstrably wrong, since they predict significant
> and measureable warming in the part of the atmosphere the satellites are
> measuring.

Newton's laws are demonstrably wrong, but were good enough to get astronauts to
the Moon and back. The important question isn't "are the global climate models
exactly correct", it is "are the global climate models good enough to understand
some of the probable impacts of human changes to the atmosphere on the climate?"

Amok Keppler

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
Joe Fischer wrote:
>
> Amos Keppler (asterdi...@hl.telia.no) wrote:
> : Global Warning is already a reality. You can see the same almost
> : anywhere. Where I live in wesstern norway the winter is two months late
> : compared to the seventies. Each year is warmer than the former. This is
> : what's happening all over the world.
> :
> : http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/searise.html
>
> What happens in one small area, or even in
> many small areas, does not reflect that total or
> average temperature information.
> For instance, where I live, it was very warm the
> entire month of November, but this November was only the
> 5th warmest November in recorded history, which only goes
> back 150 years or so.
>
> This is not to say that global warming isn't going
> on, only that local measurements are not enough. For the
> temperature data to be reliable, readings would have to be
> taken every few minutes, every 10 kilometers all over the
> Earth, and in both air and water.
>

When reality is confirming findings *all over the world* it doesn't
really leave much doubt, ig the *Human Created* global warming.


"South Pacific Regional Environment Program"
http://www.sprep.org.ws/PressRelease/1999/pr9914_.htm
sp...@sprep.org.ws

http://cnn.com/NATURE/9906/10/ice.core.warming.ap/
http://cnn.com/NATURE/9906/09/marine.life.reut/
http://cnn.com/NATURE/9906/03/warming.enn/
http://www.itn.co.uk/Britain/brit19990126/012603.htm
http://epn.org/prospect/31/31gelbfs.html
http://www.seanet.com/~camw/Ishmael/Classics/impactof.htm
http://www.igc.org/globalpolicy/socecon/envronmt/kahn.htm

During an ice age the levels of CO2 is/was 180 ppm (parts per million).
during normal warming periods, they are on the higher 280 levels.
The current (and rising) CO2 levels, are 360 ppm.
Corresponding number for Methane are even more revealing.
320/350 ppb (parts per billion) - 650/770 - and current levels
1700 ppb.

Amos

--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Add Ons and Reinvention 1999-12-05

Amok Keppler

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
Andrew Russell wrote:
>
> Amos Keppler wrote:
> > One proof and many:
> >
> > http://w1.2561.telia.com/~u256100087/searise.html
> >
> > Keep yourself in a state of denial and you're in for a nasty surprise.
> >
> > Amos
>
> If one visits Mr. Keppler's website they will find nothing but a political
> polemic. No scientific documentation, no numbers, no real facts. Just an
> assertion that unnamed islands have disappeared from sea level rises due to
> global warming.
>
[a lot of denial and polemique sniped]

Joe Rongen

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
Harold Lindaberry <har...@epix.net> wrote in
message news:384AE66B...@epix.net...

>
>
> Joe Rongen wrote:
>
> > Huge <hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk> wrote in
> > message news:82e9rc$6...@axalotl.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > > Tell me, is that tinfoil hat uncomfortable?
> >
> > I wouldn't know...I do not live in England.
> > Here in Canada we all wear hockey helmets. :-)
>
> Yea and you have a corner on all the zamboni technology too ;-)

Hmm..I seem to recall that 'it' got gobbled up rather quickly
in Britain...after it was renamed by your top lab people as VAT. ;-)

-------

Richard Herring

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
In article <3849...@news.iglou.com>, Joe Fischer (joe...@iglou.com) wrote:
> Irv Chidsey (irv...@aol.comdontspam) wrote:
> : (Joe Fischer) claimed:
> : > The English Channel could be crossed walking
> : >2000 years ago, so either the land is sinking, or the
> : >sea is rising,
> :
> : This is not so, you are missing a power of 10. 2,000 years ago
> : Caisar's armies couldn't walk to Brittain from Gaul.

> It was wadable, but not a good idea for an army.

Wadable? How far do you think the level has risen in the last
2000 years, then?

--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>

Robert Grumbine

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
In article <3849...@news.iglou.com>, Joe Fischer <joe...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> This is not to say that global warming isn't going
>on, only that local measurements are not enough. For the
>temperature data to be reliable, readings would have to be
>taken every few minutes, every 10 kilometers all over the
>Earth, and in both air and water.

Nicer to have more data points rather than fewer, but your
statement sounds fairly extreme. In measurement/sampling/observing
systems the frequency (time and space) has some correspondance
to the time and space variability of the quantity being measured.
Are you contending, then, that the time and space variability of
temperature is so high that the thermometers must be space every
few km, and be recording every few minutes?

On the face of it, this sounds quite peculiar, in that my casual
observation of temperature indicates that deviations from the
mean tend to persist for time scales of days, and space scales of
hundreds of km. That is, as a rule if we're much warmer than usual
today, it is very likely that we will be again tomorrow and the next
day. Similarly, if we're much warmer today, it's also likely that the
next couple hundred km will also be warmer.

If you'll provide a citation to a peer-reviewed scientific journal
that demonstrates the space and time scales of variability are minutes
and km, I'd appreciate it.

Followup to sci.environment
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Jim Carr

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to

... reduced followups ...


In article <GHj24.242$Dw....@198.235.216.4>,
"Joe Rongen" <joer...@whisp.com> writes:
}

} > John Prussing wrote:
} > > What's the counter argument when everyone knows that more heat and

} > > CO2 are being pumped into the atmosphere and the oceans than fifty
} > > or a hundred years ago?
}
} Just a far fetched guess...that huge quantities have been
} releases/forced into space, thanks to the above ground
} nuclear testing idiots*.

In article <ORj24.46$M4.1167@uchinews>

me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Huge quantities of what? CO2?

Some part of this thread attributes "global warming" to the release
of _heat_ energy from combustion, rather than greenhouse gases or
some other mechanism. The answer to the "far fetched guess" above
is to calculate the amount of heat released by nuclear explosions
and how much it would raise the global temperature.

--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.

J.R. Pelmont

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
Joe Fischer <joe...@iglou.com> wrote (écrivait) :

> (snip)


> The English Channel could be crossed walking

> 2000 years ago, ....(snip)

No exageration ? Do you mean rather 20,000 ?

--
jean.p...@wanadoo.fr

Irv Chidsey

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
Jean.P...@wanadoo.fr (J.R. Pelmont) wondered:
>Date: Mon, 06 December 1999 04:35 PM EST
>Message-id: <1999120622...@grenoble-10-126.abo.wanadoo.fr>

I tend to agree with you, my Glacial & quarternary geology text indicates that
the land bridge slipped under about 8,000 years ago.

Irv

Joe Fischer

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
Richard Herring (r...@gmrc.gecm.com) wrote:

: Joe Fischer wrote:
: > Irv Chidsey (irv...@aol.comdontspam) wrote:
: > : (Joe Fischer) claimed:
: > : > The English Channel could be crossed walking
: > : >2000 years ago, so either the land is sinking, or the

: > : >sea is rising,
: > :
: > : This is not so, you are missing a power of 10. 2,000 years ago
: > : Caisar's armies couldn't walk to Brittain from Gaul.
: >
: > It was wadable, but not a good idea for an army.
:
: Wadable? How far do you think the level has risen in the last
: 2000 years, then?

Ok, I'll look for references. As I said, Venice
and other places appear to suffer from the land sinking,
so the depth of the English Channel does not have to be
a result of a general rise of that much in the ocean.
Some of the rise in sea level must result from
factors other than ice melting, the Mississippi Delta
had to raise sea level, underwater volcanos do, and
magma flowing into the sea must.
How much this amounts to, or any other factors,
such as the spreading of cracks and crevices in the
sea floor, has to be considered in any study.
The fact that Cleopatra's Palace was "lost",
and found under 20 or 30 feet of water shows that
either seal level rose that much in 2000 years, or
some land masses sink quite a bit.

Joe Fischer

Jim Carr

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
... one newsgroup trimmed ...

Irv Chidsey (irv...@aol.comdontspam) wrote:
:
: (Joe Fischer) claimed:
: > The English Channel could be crossed walking
: >2000 years ago, so either the land is sinking, or the
: >sea is rising,
:
: This is not so, you are missing a power of 10. 2,000 years ago
: Caisar's armies couldn't walk to Brittain from Gaul.

In article <3849...@news.iglou.com>

joe...@iglou.com (Joe Fischer) writes:
>
> It was wadable, but not a good idea for an army.

>It certainly wasn't a power of 10, unless you want it
>to mean dry land all the way.
> It hasn't been all that long since Ohio was covered
>with ice.

Do you mean last winter or last ice age.

IIRC, during the last ice age the bottom of Wakulla Springs (over
a hundred feet down) was dry.

Phil Hays

unread,
Dec 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/6/99
to
Amok Keppler wrote:
> Phil Hays wrote:

PH> Important if true. But perhaps the reader might check the facts:

Ph> ftp://wind.atmos.uah.edu/msu/t2lt/t2ltglhmam.d

PH> Scroll down to the bottom. Note that the measured slope is 0.47 C per
decade.

Typo alert! That should be 0.047 C per decade.

PH> While this is half of the expected trend, it clearly isn't "no global
warming at
PH> all".

....


> You're quite wrong. The rise the last twenty years is significant. And
> more, the ten warmest years ever measured is also recorded the last 20
> years. Your claim do sounds so strange that I must doubt your sincerity.

Perhaps you misunderstood my points.

A day or year or a decade can prove nothing: the "signal" of human caused
climate change is almost surely smaller than the "noise" of natural variations.

Twenty years might be long enough. The measured change was smaller than
expected, but some of the reasons for this are known: the largest volcanic
eruption in 100 years for one. Yet I don't think that the twenty year MSU data
is convincing, for several reasons.

The hundred plus years of station records, on the other hand, is convincing.
And the geologic records even more so.

Amok Keppler

unread,
Dec 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM12/7/99