[meteorite-list] Global Warming - 'Facts'

From: Michael Farmer <meteoriteguy_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20070610171617.88483.qmail_at_web33103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Eric, I have been to rain forests in Africa, Panama,
Costa Rica, Brazil, Thailand, Burma, Laos, and
Colombia. I saw no Bio-diesel or Ethanol plants, I did
see tropical hardwood being cut down from National
parks, used in furniture and building. I also saw
plenty of worthless farmland being created for cattle
and one or two crop cycles before the ~1 inch of soil
washes away since rain forests really grow in the
poorest of soil possible. Once cut down, the soil
washes away and the land turns into near desert, with
only scrub brush and weeds. The west coast of Panama
is seriously damaged in that way. When it rains there,
you can watch the soil wash into the Pacific, turning
the ocean brown.
Now, anyone who has has grade-school science classes
know that trees act as "lungs" filtering out CO2 and
producing oxygen. The tropical rainforest's of the
equatorial regions produce the majority of the oxygen
on the planet and store incredible amounts of CO2, and
when destroyed, well, that co2 is released, and now
there are about 20% of the "lungs" left to filter the
co2 from the air. Humans are exploding in population,
and CO2 levels are rising dramatically.
It does not take a rocket-scientist to figure out that
 "Houston", we have a problem. Politicians will always
find a way to make a buck on any situation, but that
is no reason not to wake up and smell the pollution,
so to speak.
Michael Farmer


--- Eric Twelker <twelker at alaska.net> wrote:

> All of this warming stuff may seem unrelated to
> meteoritics?but there is
> some connection. I find it more than a bit
> distressing that certain members
> of the scientific community have insisted that other
> scientists and the
> public throw away their skepticism on this issue of
> critical scientific
> importance. Theirs is an assault on science itself.
>
> With due respect to Allan Trieman, the ?facts?
> that he cites don?t
> support tossing aside science and scientific
> skepticism. For example, he
> cites a global temperature graph from Phil Jones
> (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming). Jones
> has refused to reveal
> the stations from which his data is derived. This
> has been an ongoing
> controversy and his data is not reproducible. Jones
> should be cited as an
> example of bad science, not as proof of anything.
>
> Allan cites a graph of temperature proxies.
>
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperatures-over-previous-centuries-from-va
> rious-proxy-records There are huge problems with
> just about all of the
> graphs of this sort. Many or most involve hiding or
> truncation of data to
> prove a preconceived point. For example, tree ring
> proxies trend suddenly
> downward in the last part of the twentieth century
> and the first part of
> this century. What to these ?scientists? do about
> this? They simply delete
> this ?inconvenient divergence.? And glaciers
> started receding at least as
> early as the mind eighteenth century?long before
> man-made CO2 emissions had
> an impact. And finally, the universal tactic of
> tacking on the supposed
> instrumental record onto the proxies (disgustingly
> this is not even labeled
> in the above graph) while deleting the real data is
> most unscientific.
>
> Our politicians are busy using this supposed
> science to distribute huge
> amounts of money?and not surprisingly the
> rent-seekers abound. We are
> clearing huge swaths of rainforest to produce
> subsidized biodiesel and
> ethanol (not lawn furniture, Mike). Oil companies
> and utilities are lining
> up to sell carbon credits. And, sadly, the
> ?scientists? are cashing in too.
>
> So to all of those who say the debate is over, I
> say cool it. We will
> listen to your serious science, but don?t ask us to
> toss science away for
> your politics or profit.
>
> Eric Twelker
>
> > Hi, meteorite-lovers ?
> >
> > Too much heat and not enough fact on global
> warming!
> >
> > Your politics are your own, but I want to
> correct a
> > few fact issues in Harlan Trammel?s email. Not to
> dump on
> > Harlan ? at least he went beyond name-calling and
> based
> > his letter on data as he understands them.
> >
> > Harlan has four ?facts? at the bottom of his
> email,
> > and they are incorrect or incomplete.
> >
> >
> > #1 ?There is no unequivocal evidence that the
> Earth is warming ??
> > There is clear, unequivocal evidence from many
> sources that the
> > Earth?s climate has warmed, overall, about 1.5
> degrees C in the
> > last two centuries. And the rate of change is
> faster since about
> > 1930 or so. Here are links to three graphics,
> first with
> > multiple lines of evidence (my favorite being
> borehole temperatures),
> > second with average air temperatures, and the
> third (from my wife)
> > showing that gardening planting zones have moved
> north because of
> > higher temperatures.
> >
> > 1a.
> >
>
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperatures-over-previous-centuries-from-vari
> > ous-proxy-records
> >
> > 1b. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
> >
> > 1c. http://www.arborday.org/media/zones.cfm &
> > http://www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm
> >
> >
> > #2. ?There is NO evidence that carbon dioxide is a
> primary cause,
> > or driver, of climate change. Period. Not now. Not
> ever.?
> > In fact, human emissions of carbon dioxide track
> the atmosphere?s
> > increase in carbon dioxide pretty well, and both
> track the change
> > in global temperatures pretty well. See the graphs
> above and these
> > two.
> >
> > 2a.
> >
>
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/co2_emissions_in_the_world_and_in_latin_americ
> > a_and_the_caribbean
> >
> > 2b. http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/07.htm
> >
> > These graphs show a correlation between carbon
> dioxide and
> > temperature, and greenhouse warming is a known
> mechanism that
> > relates the two. Primary cause - who can say? Some
> reasonable people
> > would say the correlation showing cause.
> >
> >
> > #3. ?There is even less evidence that man-made
> carbon dioxide,
> > a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide total, is
> climatically
> > significant in any way.?
> > Graph 2b show that, before the industrial era,
> CO2 levels in
> > the atmosphere were near 280 ppm. Now, they are
> 370 ppm. This is
> > an increase of 25% - hardly a ?tiny fraction? ?
> and graph 2a shows
> > that this increase is comparable in time and
> proprtion with human
> > produced carbon dioxide.
> >
> > #4. ?Nevertheless, Climate does change.?
> > Absolutely true, and ice cores give a record of
> temperature an
> > carbon dioxide in the atmosphere going back at
> least 400,000 years.
> > In that time, the earth has been much colder and
> somewhat hotter
> > than it is now. Temperature and atmosphere CO2
> change together, but
> > does one cause the other? FWIW, the the CO2 level
> in the atmosphere
> > now is far above what it ever was in the last
> 400,000 years.
> >
> > 4a. http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Allan Treiman
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________
> > Meteorite-list mailing list
> > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> >
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
Received on Sun 10 Jun 2007 01:16:17 PM PDT