DIYbanter - View Single Post

J. Clarke[_2_]

In article ,
says...

In article m,
Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 06/04/2011 09:13 PM, Larry W wrote:
In ,
Larry wrote:
...snipped...

I was made aware of this guy this morning. He states it well.

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape
of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of
the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and
closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth's orbit, changes in solar
energy, supernoval eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and
asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation,
ocean currents, and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of
ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we
need stronger medication." --Ian Plimer
_Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science_

I'm not one to cry "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" but over
the history of mankind there have been many who made similar statements
about whales, passenger pigeons, now-depleted fisheries, forests, etc.
Certainly there is much still to be learned about how and to what degree
humans affect climate, but to think that the activities of 7 BILLION people
have NO effect is not a reasonable conclusion.
world climate

Any idea how much the biomass of insects outweighs the biomass of mammals?

I don't really know, though I do recall reading somewhere that the biomass
of ants alone, worldwide, is about the same as that of humans. BUT, those
ants and other insects and animals are not burning 6 or 7 BILLION TONS
of coal every year, 28 billion barrels of oil, etc.

And how much change does that actually make every year?

There is supposed to be a temperature spike right now. Anybody who can
read an oscilloscope who lookes at the ice core data sees this. So how
does one determine with any certainty that what we are seeing is not
that spike? Comparing that ice core data from Antarctica and from
Greenland also tells us that during that spike in the previous
glaciation the Greenland ice cap melted off, so again we see nothing
unexpected, so again how do we determine with any certainty that what we
are seeing is not that natural spike?

In previous cycles that spike was of very short duration and followed by
a very rapid temperature drop, and increased glaciation, ultimately
leading to sea levels dropping more than 300 feet and to glaciers large
enough to move the whole of Long Island covering North America well
south of the Great Lakes--if that happens again all of Canada is just
plain swept clean, and all of New England, and Chicago and Seattle and a
number of other northerm US cities. Europe will lose Scandinavia, the
Netherlands, and most of the UK.

So with that prospect, it may turn out that in a short time we're trying
to find ways to actually provide that "anthropogenic global warming"
that the gloom and doom crowd is currently telling is is going to make
the sky fall.