Thread: O/T: Up Yours
View Single Post
  #66   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
Fred the Red Shirt Fred the Red Shirt is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default O/T: Up Yours

On May 18, 2:04 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
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.


Haven't you?

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from
subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at
the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total
global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. T
his is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic)
CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150
times."

and, courtesy of the minions of the Bush administration who
are routinely accused of 'suppressing' real science:

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=5271302

"Volcanic CO{sub 2} presently represents only 0.22%
of anthropogenic emissions but may have contributed
to significant greenhouse` effects at times in Earth history"

And look at the Mauna Loa data:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...on_Dioxide_png

You might be able to detect an effect from volcanic
eruptions in there, but it is subtle at best.




...

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


You would seem to be unclear on the concept of rate. The rate of
increase is between 1 and two ppmv/year.

--

FF