"Gerald G. McGeorge" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> Mr. Parker:
>
> > Are you saying the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA, etc.,
> have jumped onto something that's not proven? <
>
> Yes, and despite the bleatings of certain mavens of socialist dogma (for
> whom this entire theory has become a convenint mantra) those agencies look
> upon the greenhouse gas theory as just that, a THEORY among others. No one
> has conclusiely proven that "global warming" even exists. Indeed, the temp
> fluctuations gas (bag) theorists espouse aren't even significant within
the
> margin of error of their measuiring techniques.
>
> Might I remind you, my over zealous, green friend, 25 years ago these same
> social and scientific radicals were predicting the dawn of a NEW ICE AGE,
> becuase, they theorized, global temps were falling due to man made gases
> blocking the sun. Funny how it turned out that at that same time we were
in
> a period of low solar activity....
Just for Lloyd:
http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
For those who don't use links, here it is, but it is a little long:
FROM
Newsweek
April 28, 1975 Studies
Facts & Figures
Selected Links
Weather
Health
The Cooling World
There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns
have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a
drastic decline in food production- with serious political implications for
just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite
soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its
impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the
North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas -
parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the
growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to
accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with
it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two
weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average
temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a
fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in
the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters
killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of
damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent
the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather.
Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as
over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost
unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity
for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some
of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A
major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a
worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences,
"because the global patterns of food production and population that have
evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a
degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between
1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite
photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover
in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA
scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the
continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature
and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of
Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great
Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras -
and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way
toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the
"little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe
and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the Thames used to
freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats
sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages
remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at
least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences
report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but
in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term
results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting
the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of
pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of
westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way
causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods,
extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local
temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D.
McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much
more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago."
Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national
boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their
devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will
take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to
allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions
proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot
or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those
they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders
anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food
or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic
projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more
difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results
become grim reality.
Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
All Material Subject to Copyright.
>
> > The only solution is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. <
>
> How about this: there is NO solution, because 1) there may not even be a
> problem, 2) if it is actually occuring, then natural forces, such as
> geothermal and solar activity, may be the primary, indeed the only source.
>
> > That means driving less, driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, using
coal
> less, using more renewable energy sources, planting more trees, not
> clear-cutting forests... <
>
> On, and how convenient all of those solutions will be in making the
> Draconian, confiscatory dreams of social radicals come true!
>
> > >GGM: Funny how the greens ignore studies that show recent warming has a
> perfect correlation to the simultaneous spike in solar activity. <
>
> > Parker: Funny how that's nonexistent. <
>
> Might I refer you, my science-spouting, but ill-informed friend, to all
of
> the studies being done that show we are just leaving a period of high
solar
> activity, which began in the early '80's. Funny how this activty PRECISLY
> parallels data showing a rise in global temps. (Look it up, if you can
stand
> the truth.)
>
> > GGM: Two Danish scientists (Friz-Christiansen & Lassen) have proven a
> direct cause & effect between periods of high solar activity and earth
> temps, going back hundreds of years. <
>
> > Parker: Which has been studied and cannot account for all the current
> warming. <
>
> It has NOT been studied by the gas (bag) theorists, they even tried to
quash
> the two scientists findings because it was too shocking to their pet
> theories. However, objective greehouse gas theorists has been forced to
> admit the accuracy of their findings and they cannot explain away their
> findings of a direct correlation between periods of high solar activity /
> low cloud formation and vice versa. Tree ring data, etc. have all been
> studied and the correlation has been proven...the gas (bag) theorists just
> don't want to accept it because it puts the lie to all of their carping.
>
> > GGM: How arrogant (but typical) of anti-society, socialist green zealots
> to assume the puny effect of man vs. the absolute effect of the sun on
> global climatic norms.
>
> > Parker: Like we almost destroyed the ozone layer? Or don't you believe
> that either? <
>
> You again hope the world will ignore recent findings that the entire scare
> was over blown and more likely caused by naturally occuring events.
>
> > GGM: So, tell me oh green ones, 10,000 years ago, how many primitives
> driving gas-guzzling SUVs did it take to turn the Sahara from a lush oasis
> into a desert? (Oh, I see, you're hoping no one knows about that event,
> aren't you?) <<
>
> > Parker: No answer ....what a surprise. <
>
> I will point out that Mr Parker has conveniently ignored my point re: the
> Sahara's transformation from a lush, green oasis into a desert some 7 -
10k
> years ago. The Sahara was created by totally naturally occuring changes in
> weather patterns that had NOTHING to do with the insignificant effects of
> man. It just must be really hard for people like this to grasp that in the
> total scheme of things, man and his puny, insignificant activities really
> don't matter at all.
>
>
>
