Han wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
:
In article , Han
wrote:
The scientific principles behind CO2 causing our planet to heat up are
very convincing.
Not really: consider that ice core data shows that previous
temperature increases *precede* increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Kinda hard to show a cause-and-effect relationship when the supposed
"cause" follows the "effect".
That makes GW still more scary, IMO. The CO2 increase like now
(industrial revolution) has never before occurred (unless there was
indeed volcanic CO2 output).
My word, haven't you seen figures for the amount of greenhouse gases
spewed by Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Pinatubo, and now the volcano in Chile.
Dwarf the amount of gases emitted since the beginning of the industrial
revolution.
Is CO2 the worst of the gases? No, methane is much worse, but because
it is present in so much lesser quantities, it may not reach the
importance of CO2.
Is the heating by the increased CO2 that much?
First off, there's *no* evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2
levels *cause* the very slight warming that has been observed...
The papers I have seen in reputable journals like Science indicate to me
otherwise.
On a scale of 0 to a
million degrees Kelvin, again, no, but try heating your body up 5
degrees K, from 310 to 315 degrees. That is not even a 2% increase!
But less than a few hours and you're cooked.
.. and second, this is an entirely specious comparison. The slight
temperature increase that has been observed so far is NOWHERE NEAR 5
degrees Kelvin.
I was trying to make a point, but apparently didn't succeed. The point
was that human life (and society in general) is predicated on
agriculture, which is really bound to a rather narrow temperature range.
You can shift things somewhat to or from the equator, but that's it.
I hope I am just seeing the dark side of things and that it won't be as
bad as the doomsayers suggest, but wouldn't you want to be on the safe
side?
If it means destroying our way of life and standard of living? No, for
something as shaky and goofy as the idea that humans have the ability to
change the temperature of the entire planet by only altering the CO2
concentration in the atmosphere by a few 1/10's to 1 ppm and that we should
thus make major alterations that have severe impacts upon our economic
security, I @#$% well want a whole lot more than some models that can't
even predict what *has* happened, but want me to believe that they can
predict what will happen. The fact is, a critical view of the data would
indicate we don't even know what the global average temperature has been
prior to widespread dissemination of the thermometer. If you want to give
up your way of life because of speculation based upon the size of tree
rings and ice core samples, go ahead -- don't expect me to jump off that
bridge with you.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough