[meteorite-list] Global Warming on MARS
From: Treiman, Allan <treiman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:59:31 -0500 Message-ID: <7C188E1BAB399F4897C1F743DCD71836E98839_at_exch_be.cass.loc> Hi, meteorite lovers - I've been following the Mars global warming story, and am giving a talk on it Wednesday. Here's my take. Mars does appear to be warming, based on some erosion of the south polar (dry) ice cap, at least from 1999 thru 2003. The two papers on it are Malin et al. (2001) and Thomas et al. (2005). But, Mars' warming has nothing to do with climate on Earth (changing or not) - it is controlled by dust. The paper on this is Fenton et al. (2006). Basically, the hugest global dust storms on Mars spread dust all around, so Mars reflects more sunlight than before. More reflected sunlight means less absorbed sunlight, which makes the surface colder. Then, as Mars' normal winds blow, dust gets cleaned off much of Mars, and dumped in craters, behind rocks, and in other places that are already dusty. So Mars gets darker overall, absorbs more sunlight, and heats up. But heating increases the wind speeds, which eventually, over years, get strong enough to cause more huge global dust storms. And the process repeats. Makes sense to me. Allan Malin M, Caplinger M.A., Davis S.D. (2001) Observational Evidence for an Active Surface Reservoir of Solid Carbon Dioxide on Mars. Science 246, 2146-2148 P.C. Thomas, , M.C. Malin, P.B. James, B.A. Cantor, R.M.E. Williams, and P. Gierasch (2005) South polar residual cap of Mars: Features, stratigraphy, and changes. Icarus 174, 535?559 Fenton LK, Geissler PE., and Haberle RM (2007) Global warming and climate forcing by recent albedo changes on Mars. Nature 446, 646-649. -----Original Message----- From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com on behalf of rob szep Sent: Mon 6/11/2007 12:44 PM To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Cc: Subject: [meteorite-list] Global Warming on MARS Guilt ridden LISTOIDS... So the Earth is getting a little warmer... That much is TRUE. The Earth has gotten warmer and colder, warmer and colder, long before humans were around to blame for the situation. Now that humans are around to blame, how much of that blame are we REALLY accountable for? Ten per-cent, fifty per-cent, one hundred per-cent??? Before answering, consider this FACT. The planet MARS, just like ours, is also experiencing "GLOBAL WARMING." Who do the FINGER POINTERS plan on blaming for that. EARTHLINGS or MARTIANS??? I laughed my ass-off when I read the comment on the list about "some humans moving to Mars." Be my guests... the more who "split this ungroovey scene" the better for me and others who remain. Hence, the REAL PROBLEM... Too many effin people on this planet. While the whack-jobs argue over who gets to be first in-line for the priviledge of manning the life-boats for a mission to Mars, I'm going to sit back, relax, have a cold beer or three... not the American horse-piss kind, the Canadian good-stuff kind... and watch the glaciers melt as I go down with the ship. For those looking forward to living on Mars... have a nice effin trip. "Zep," over & out... ----- Original Message ---- From: "meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com" <meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com> To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Sent: Monday, 11 June, 2007 8:39:20 AM Subject: Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 43, Issue 26 Send Meteorite-list mailing list submissions to meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to meteorite-list-request at meteoritecentral.com You can reach the person managing the list at meteorite-list-owner at meteoritecentral.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Meteorite-list digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Global Warming - Unscientific Proof (JKGwilliam) 2. Re: Global Warming - Scientifically proven or a farce (Michael Farmer) 3. Amazing coincedence, Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. (Michael Farmer) 4. Re: Amazing coincedence, Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. (Eric Twelker) 5. Re: ot - Global Warming - Scientifically proven or afarce (mark ford) 6. Re: Amazing coincedence, Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. (mark ford) 7. Rocks From Space Picture of the Day - June 11, 2007 (SPACEROCKSINC at aol.com) 8. Re: Global Warming - Scientifically proven (Rob McCafferty) 9. Re: Amazing coincedence, Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. (Martin Altmann) 10. OT: Looking for Mark Earnst, urgent (Martin Altmann) 11. Re: Amazing coincedence, Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. (mark ford) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:05:24 -0700 From: JKGwilliam <h3chondrite at cox.net> Subject: [meteorite-list] Global Warming - Unscientific Proof To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Message-ID: <20070611040525.UYBE25947.fed1rmmtao106.cox.net at fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Hello All, With all this talk of Global Warming I thought I'd share a bit of unscientific proof someone sent me in an email a few weeks ago. I'm no scientist, and I don't have before and after pictures of snow on a mountain in Washington, but I'm hoping this picture can change the mood of this emotionally charged issue. <http://www.johngwilliam.com/globalwarming> Have a good week and remember to not take life so serious all the time. Best, John Gwilliam ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:54:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Farmer <meteoriteguy at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Global Warming - Scientifically proven or a farce To: Steve Schoner <schoner at mybluelight.com>, meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Message-ID: <668210.49846.qm at web33109.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Steve, not likely in our lifetimes, the money that could have been spent going back to the moon, building a permant base, then going to Mars, all of it could have been done with the money we have pissed away in Iraq. But hey, look at it this way, Haliburton moved to Dubai to be closer to the money, they are taking good care of it for us, the taxpayers. Enough of things that do not pertain to meteorites though, we have all had our say and I will leave this topic since I have a meteorite show to attend and then meteorites to dig up in the Arctic. Michael Farmer --- Steve Schoner <schoner at mybluelight.com> wrote: > So true Mike Farmer. That is the problem with our > age. We want > everything never taking into consideration what we > leave those that > follow us after we are dead and gone. > > They will curse us or thank us for what we do now. > > But to do nothing about global warming now, which is > a scientifically > proven fact, pretty much leaves them with a ruined > world and a curse > for us. > > (Maybe by then they will have left this planet to > terraform Mars, and > mine asteroids (parent bodies of the meteorites we > love) for their > resources, all the while looking out into space or > up into a Martian > sky at a bright star that was the world we ruined.) > > Steve Schoner. > #4470 > > [meteorite-list] Global Warming - Scientifically > proven or a farce > Michael Farmer meteoriteguy at yahoo.com > Sun Jun 10 13:25:59 EDT 2007 > > * Previous message: [meteorite-list] Global > Warming - > Scientifically proven or a farce > * Next message: [meteorite-list] Global Warming > - Scientifically > proven or a farce > * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ > subject ] [ author ] > > Paul, ok, lest say you are the proud winner of that > bet! Bush got his way, America refused to do it's > part > and the oceans only raise 4 feet in the next 10 > years. > > I guess you had better go to Florida/New York > City/Boston, most of the Gulf Coast, and well, most > of > the Island nations in the Pacific. They will be > gone, > good job! Oh, and the Billionairs on Long Island and > Cape Cod had better sell their homes now, since a 4 > foot rise in sealevel will wash them all away. What > will Dubya do without the family compound in > Kennebunkport? > I lived in Key West Florida. The highest point of > the > island is 6 feet. Most of the island is less than 3 > feet above sea level, as is a very large part of > Florida. Kiss it goodbye, and trillions of $$$ of > land, homes, and a huge part of our nation. > Does that make it ok to ignore the melting glaciers, > ok to do what we are doing now and not even bother > making changes? That is SICK! > Unfortunately that is the mentality of a huge part > of > our nation today, all about me, my money, and today, > screw tomorrow, and I gues screw our children, and > grandchildren, they can learn to live in the crappy > world we created today to get "ours" right? > My kids (If I ever have any) will likely never see a > glacier in Switzerland, a Polar bear in northern > Canada, or a white Greenland. It is all going away. > sort of makes me not want to have kids, so they will > not have to suffer for our mistakes. > Michael Farmer > > ______________________________________________ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:59:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Farmer <meteoriteguy at yahoo.com> Subject: [meteorite-list] Amazing coincedence, Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Message-ID: <718277.10339.qm at web33114.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070610/sc_nm/deforestation_dc WOW, this article is on YAHOO front page right now. It shows the level of destruction for profit, legal and illegal. If you ever want to see the jungle, now is the time. Michael Farmer ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:07:20 -0800 From: Eric Twelker <twelker at alaska.net> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Amazing coincedence, Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. To: Michael Farmer <meteoriteguy at yahoo.com>, Meteorite Mailing List <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Message-ID: <C2922698.30F1F%twelker at alaska.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1659036,00.html Here is an article on how biodiesel--one of the green movement's great ideas works. The green movement isn't so green after all--except when the green is money. Eric Twelker > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070610/sc_nm/deforestation_dc > > > WOW, this article is on YAHOO front page right now. > It shows the level of destruction for profit, legal > and illegal. If you ever want to see the jungle, now > is the time. > Michael Farmer > ______________________________________________ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:02:12 +0100 From: "mark ford" <markf at ssl.gb.com> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] ot - Global Warming - Scientifically proven or afarce To: <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Message-ID: <6CE3EEEFE92F4B4085B0E086B2941B3139137B at s-southern01.s-southern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Basically imho, its still way to early to be sure, personally I'm still very much on the fence, we've got idiot beauracrats jumping on band wagons left right and centre, people on both sides sticking their heads in the sand, and a media who jump on every hot summers day as an excuse to prove global 'climate doom'! what a mess we are in. The old saying 'a swallow a summer doesn't make' is very true here, a decade or two of slightly hotter temperatures on a regional basis on average doesn't mean a thing, its must go deeper than that. We need to carefully go right back in time and thereby hangs the tale. unfortunately that requires very precise analysis, and global temperature information (which is at best contradictory and patchy), a fact not helped by decades of nuclear testing which dumped large amounts of C-14 into the atmosphere and messed up all the c-12/c-14 ratios (a good indicator of manmade vs natural fossil co2 emmisions) incidentally Volcanoes actually produce a tiny NET fraction of the c02 (~ hundredth of human c02) - As Most is actually offset annually by volcanic/subduction etc, basically there has been little if any increase in volcanic activity yet CO2 concentrations yet apparently bee maeasured (arguably) to have gone up. But as Sterling points out Co2 may well follow temperature rise - In any case CO2 is a lousy green house gas, when compared with simple water vapor and Methane so it's a [lot] more complex than just saying lower the co2 and you reduce warming - its not true. My advice, take a walk down by your local sedimentary cliff face, chances are there's ice age era material at the top, and sub tropical / tropical somewhere in the middle!, - welcome to the world, it changes, very much in fact - question is should/can we do anything about it? Mark F. -----Original Message----- From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Sterling K. Webb Sent: 10 June 2007 10:26 To: Michael Farmer; Meteorite List; Rob McCafferty; Michael L Blood Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Global Warming - Scientifically proven or afarce Hi, Rob, Michael, List Here we go again! "Global Warming - Scientifically Proven or A Farce?" Bong, bong, bong! I'm sorry, the Correct Answer is... Farce! > the vast majority of scientists as expressed in the United Nations .... Wrong! Cap'n Blood is referring here to the IPCC -- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a document produced by beaurocrats, not scientists, of the UN. It lists 2500 of the world's "leading" scientists as authors. In actual fact, NONE of these scientists wrote ANY of the report, and the report does not contain their scientific conclusions, evidence, etc. The scientist named as "lead author" on the title page, John Christie, has repeatedly repudiated the report and called it "worthless." He's asked to have his name removed from it, but the UN has just as repeatedly refused to do it. The IPCC Report contains a section on the "dire" biological consequences of GW that contains such idiocies as the suggestion that GW will "allow" malaria to spread from the tropics north and south to areas now "safe" because mosquitoes "are not found where temperatures fall below 18 deg. C." They should be staked out on the banks of the Yukon River in summer so non-existent carnivorous mosquitoes can devour them. The worst malaria epidemic in history took place in Russia in 1922. The city of Archangel on the ARTIC OCEAN had 30,000 cases and 11,000 deaths... Why didn't the UN consult an expert? Well, they did. They consulted the WHO's and the world's leading expert on malaria, Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute. I could give you paragraphs of his credentials, but this post is going to be too long as it is. Google him. OK? They put his name on this idiocy. He told them to take his name off. They said, no, you contributed. He said, no, because you didn't listen to anything I said. The UN refused to remove his name from their garbage. He sued the UN in Belgium. They took his name off. You'll have to ask the beaurocrats at the UN why they wrote what they did in the IPCC Report. If you ever get a straight answer, let me know. But, whatever the reason, it wasn't the "science." I'm equally sure they had a reason. Wonder what it was? Next, we have the incorrectly titled "An Inconvenient Truth." This title was chosen because it sounds so much better than the accurate one: "A Convenient Lie." Highlights of the presentation are the display of the "Hockey Stick" graph of temperature rise, an artifact of faulty computer programming on the part of the modeler. The mathematical error that gave rise to it is acknowledged by every expert who's seen the code except, of course, by the man who screwed up. You can take his bad code and give it RANDOM temperature records and it will still produce a sudden sharp curve of warming... Garbage processor. The highlight of Mister Gore's presentation is the giant graph of world temperature and carbon dioxide levels which march up and down in lockstep, together, in a perfect fit, taken from the ice core data of 400,000 years. Man, that nails it! That's proof positive! Well, he does mention that there are "some difficulties with the ice cores," but he never says what they are nor any word about them. The "difficulty" is this. The ice cores for 400,000 years show that the rise in CO2 FOLLOWS the rise in temperature by 800 to 1000 years. FIRST, the temperature goes up, THEN CO2 goes up... 800 years later. Does CO2 cause warming? NO. Warming causes CO2. The mechanism is easy to understand. CO2 solubility in water is very temperature dependent. Leave your soda sitting out on a warm day; it goes flat. When the planet warms, the ocean surface warms. Warm water cannot hold much CO2; it releases the CO2 that was dissolved in it when it was cold. The oceans "turn over' in 800 to 1000 years; new CO2 laden water is continually brought to the surface and warmed, until all the dissolved CO2 is in the atmosphere -- on the same time scale as revealed in the ice cores. QED. This one piece of evidence ought to be enough all by itself to drive a fatal stake through the heart of the fundamental flaw of "Warmism." Carbon dioxide, man-made or natural, does NOT drive climate change. But like Dracula in the horror movies of my childhood, "Warmism" comes back from the dead, time after time. It's not one set of cores, by the way, it's all the cores, from everywhere, Antarctica, Greenland, mountain glaciers in South America, decades of cores -- they all show the SAME thing. At any rate, a stage show run by a politician IS NOT EVIDENCE of anything, except that politicians will do or say ANYTHING that furthers their purpose, an observation that is not new and should not come as a shock to anyone. No doubt, you say, Mr. Gore is "sincere." So what? Ever been "sincerely" wrong? I note that his "sincerity" increases in direct proportion to his political rehabilitation. Could be a coincidence... Mike Farmer just chimed in with the scientific observation that it gets mighty hot downtown on the asphalt surrounded by a million people and their cars; how can you doubt we're warming the planet? Localized warming is trivial on the scale of the planet, meaningless. The raw heat produced directly by human thermal activity is a trillion times smaller than the heat involved in warming a planet by any observable amount. The problem is that it is exactly IN such places that we humans record temperatures "for the record." No wonder the "records" say we're warmer. It's called the Heat Island effect. Of course, compilers of world temperatures remove the most urban places from the long-term record, so as to "correct" for the Heat Island effect, but is it a big enough correction? Do they remove enough places or are they leaving in recording spots that are artificially warmed by human activities (not gases)? They say they are compensating adequately, but... The answer is NO. If you remove ALL urban weather records and use only RURAL weather stations, the planet has not warmed at all in 120 years. Using only rural stations, the US has the same climate regime it did in 1895. Ireland is colder now than a century ago. A series of NASA satellites have measured the temperature of the lower atmosphere (troposphere) for 30 years. They show the planet has COOLED slightly for thirty years. This being a very disturbing result to some people, the satellite data has been "re-calibrated" three times. Now, it shows warming! In thirty years, the Earth has warmed by 0.078 degrees C. Wow! It's a scorcher! This is particularly significant, as ALL climate models predict that the lower atmosphere (troposphere) will warm MORE than the Earth's surface. But the surface (according to weather stations surrounded by heat-wasting humans) has warmed while the atmosphere has not warmed -- a clear scientific impossibility, IF TRUE. As for the measurement of carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth's atmosphere, for ultimate scientific accuracy, it is (and has been) measured at one and only one spot on Earth. It has never been monitored anywhere else, because multiple measurements and more data could be "confusing." So, WHERE is it monitored? Why, on top of an active VOLCANO. No chance of any carbon dioxide "confusion" there, is there? Volcanoes don't have anything to do with CO2, do they? Sounds like good science to me... How about you? And we'll never know if it's not, because we don't monitor any other spot on Earth, and never have since monitoring started in 1958. Even if you accept the flawed temperature records accumulated during urbanization and industrialization of the planet as real, they show that 75% of the warming in the twentieth century happened between 1908 and 1940, a time with little increase in anthropogenic CO2 (man-made CO2). There was slower population growth than today, a much smaller industrial plant and only a limited number of cars, yet the warming was more dramatic than today's warming even though there is no evidence of any big CO2 increase. In 1940, world temperatures began to fall and they continued to fall until 1975. The period 1940 to 1975 was a vast expansion of all the things that humans do to produce CO2, but while CO2 DID increase dramatically, temperatures just fell and fell. In the 30 years since 1975, temperatures have recovered and warmed about above what they were in 1940, sixty years ago. All of this depends on those weather stations in urban heat islands. of course. By the record of purely rural stations around the world, NOTHING has happened. (Life in the country is slow...) Charting CO2 versus temperature for the twentieth century shows no clear relationship. I think it shows NO relationship, but I'll be flexible... What about in past times? Throughout the last half billion years, there is nothing that suggests any relationship at all between CO2 and the planetary temperature. Nothing at all in the geological record supports the notion that carbon dioxide drives or determines climate in any way. We've had nasty ice ages when there was ten or twenty TIMES more carbon dioxide in the air than there is now and the planet was fairly well freezing its butt off. I could go through each and every fallacy of "Warmism." I could fill your arms with reams of reprints, stacks of data, to demonstrate it. But the actual debate is not the issue. Michael does not say it in such stark terms but he implies that the time for doubts is ended, that no reasonable and scientific person could possibly NOT believe in Warmism. Well, actually, he does say that, doesn't he? Hey, I'm not bitching about Michael that specifically; a great number of people act that way. The time for debate is over, they say. It's irresponsible to argue about the science when confronted by disaster. Just go along... Accept it. Whenever people say that there can be NO reasoned argument -- don't go there -- you are being sold a bill of goods, and truth is not among those goods. It is no accident that global warming funders are politicians, bureaucrats, activists, and a long list of people who like trying to control things (and people). It is NOT, as some people have asserted on this List, a left-wing or a right-wing thing. It cuts completely across old political divisions. Fox News pushes Global Warming and Rupert Murdock drives a hybrid car. (It's a Lexus, but it's a hybrid Lexus...) The Left did NOT invent global warming; the Right did, but it doesn't matter now. The next few years will show lots of ideological shifts, as Warmism becomes more universally believed (unfortunately) and more ways are found to make money from it. Global warming's rise to become a dominant doctrine is a case of cascade failure. There now exists a "global warming industry" that employs 60,000 to 100,000 people in science, government, and the media. Budgets have snowballed from tiny "worry" grants to billions in every major nation, and those people whose livelihoods depend on the threat of global warming are the same ones who are relied upon to prove it is so and to arouse the populace to its "dangers." They have succeeded and their jobs are safe. Will the media get more viewers by claiming disaster looms than they will by saying "weather changes all the time"? The latter, though true, is not very exciting. It will not sell soap nor soup. There are lots of scientists who understand that Warmism, if not utter tripe, is at best highly questionable, but it's not worth saying -- out loud. Not if you like getting the grants, not if you plan on becoming Department Chairperson someday, not if you want to "advance." What you really want is to study scavenging efficiency in squirrels. Ask for money for that, and you're going nowhere. Ask for money to study "The Effects of Global Warming on the Scavenging Efficiency of Squirrels in Appalachia," and you are having a great summer vacation watching your favorite rodent, which is all you wanted to do in the first place. It's easy. Just keep your mouth shut. The major change is recent. The media have now "turned" the population at large to Majority Warmist, paradoxically by persuading those who consider themselves the most "informed" first. Like the Captain. Of course, everybody is "informed" (everybody who watches television) nowadays. People have now reached a state of unreasoned belief that they hold to with a religious passion. To behave contrary to their expectation is not to disagree; it is to be a "bad person." To not believe in Warmism is to ask for Big Trouble. Rob said he thought warming might be cyclical (it is), and Michael's "feelings" were "outraged" because Rob's opinion was threatening "the survival of not only everyone I love, but of the majority of life forms on the planet." Whoa, Dude! Take another 'lude. Chill. Can't we all just get along? The Truth: 1, There is no unequivocal evidence that the Earth is warming, but it may be. If it has warmed, the climate has warmed and cooled by similar amounts in cycles of a few hundred years over the last millennium or more. It is not as warm now as it was 1000 years ago. IF warming continues at this pace until 2050, it will be as warm as it was 1000 years ago. I will point out that our ancestors and "the majority of life forms on the planet" got through that time 1000 years ago with no trouble . 2. There is NO evidence that carbon dioxide is a primary cause, or driver, of climate change. Period. Not now. Not ever. There are a few episodes of sudden warming (and many more of sudden cooling) in geological history, but by and large there is no chance they have been caused by carbon dioxide. (There are some impact-related "spikes" that are suspicious in a few cases.) 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. (It's hard to have less evidence than NO evidence, so I guess that's just for emphasis.) 4. Nevertheless, Climate does change. In fact, Climate IS change. On long time scale, it's a serious problem. But not Warming. For 41 million years, it's been cooling. We're in an Ice Age. Global Warming would be nice, in my opinion, but it ain't happening. Change is not without cause. I'd like to know what the cause(s) is (are). To find out, we need some objective science. Wonder if we'll ever get any? Sterling K. Webb ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael L Blood" <mlblood at cox.net> To: "Rob McCafferty" <rob_mccafferty at yahoo.com>; "Meteorite List" <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:12 PM Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Global Warming - Scientifically proven ora farce Hi Rob, I am usually able to waylay any strong feelings posts might arouse in me. However, when talking about the survival of not only everyone I love, but of the majority of life forms on the planet it becomes a little more difficult for me to keep my feelings in check. However, I will try. I strongly suggest that if you have ANY belief in the scientific process at all that you examine the following: 1) The history and current movement WORLD WIDE by the vast majority of scientists as expressed in the United Nations .... After years of denial of scientific evidence, finally a treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997. Of the 173 recognized countries on the planet, only 3 were and continue to be "hold outs" - of course, under King George, the US is one of them. (Clinton was guilty in spite of the urging of his vice president, as he always, always, always pursued the action that was politically most "favorable") >From this you can see that 98.3% of the various countries have chosen to head the warnings of their scientists on this matter. 2) Do at least a LITTLE research on the scientific reports that were requested by and sent to the current administration - and then ALTERED by said administration & the number of former advisors who have resigned as a result of the bull headed refusal of the administration to accept the truth, even when research was conducted by their own scientific advisors. 3) See Burk's "Before the Warming" (Made in the early 1990s, it is scary how exactly, as scientifically predicted, the results of global warmiing have progressed thus far. 4) See "An Inconvenient Truth." I am confident that you are intelligent and sane enough that, once having reflected upon the above, any reluctance to see the evidence in this matter will be gone. If, after reviewing the above, anyone remains unconvinced, I suggest they buy an ostrich ranch as that way they will be among those who are equally like minded and scientifically aware. Sincerely, Michael Blood on 6/9/07 2:41 PM, Rob McCafferty at rob_mccafferty at yahoo.com wrote: > This post simply underlines a theory I had presented > to me 10 years ago, that global warming is just a > phase. > If as little as 13000 years ago, the sahara was > watered grassland, and the sahara grew before > industry, how likely that we are the influence of > climate change? > I do not work for Shell, BP, Xxon, etc. I Just think > that humans have an over-inflated opinion of their > significance. > > Even so, I will confess to actively reducing my carbon > footprint over the last 2 years. > > Sorry, I know it's not met related. > > Rob McC > ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:10:12 +0100 From: "mark ford" <markf at ssl.gb.com> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Amazing coincedence, Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. To: <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Message-ID: <6CE3EEEFE92F4B4085B0E086B2941B31293CE8 at s-southern01.s-southern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Yep, and solar panels, energy efficient light bulbs, and most wind turbines all take more 'co2'/energy to produce, dispose of, and transport around the world than they will ever 'save' or generate in their entire short working product life! (Paticularly solar panels, they are the worst way of generating power there is (besides coal and gas), also being stuffed full of very nasty chemicals like selenium!) And ... actually mature forests emit more co2 and methane than new/virgin forests do (down to the decaying wood and forest floor ecosystem), so cutting down forests and replanting them with younger trees is ironically actually better for the environment!! (though not if you are a monkey of course). It's really easy to get caught up in the hype, but my advice is stay objective ! Mark -----Original Message----- From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Eric Twelker Sent: 11 June 2007 07:07 To: Michael Farmer; Meteorite Mailing List Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Amazing coincedence, Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1659036,00.html Here is an article on how biodiesel--one of the green movement's great ideas works. The green movement isn't so green after all--except when the green is money. Eric Twelker > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070610/sc_nm/deforestation_dc > > > WOW, this article is on YAHOO front page right now. > It shows the level of destruction for profit, legal > and illegal. If you ever want to see the jungle, now > is the time. > Michael Farmer > ______________________________________________ > 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 ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:21:02 EDT From: SPACEROCKSINC at aol.com Subject: [meteorite-list] Rocks From Space Picture of the Day - June 11, 2007 To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Message-ID: <c36.12c0fafd.339e7c0e at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" http://www.spacerocksinc.com/June_11_2007.html ************************************************************************ ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:40:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Rob McCafferty <rob_mccafferty at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Global Warming - Scientifically proven To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Message-ID: <542403.5360.qm at web50907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 May I draw peoples attention to a couple of points. 1: Global warming is definitely taking place. There can be no doubt over this 2: There is absolutely no smoking gun suggesting it is our fault I'm happy to accept that we would be irresponsible to ignore the phenomena and we should take steps to minimise our environmental impact. It's just that the real cause of global warming is likely many, at least several independent factors. Our carbon footprint may not be the main one. To emphasise this, indulge me and imagine the situation around the 17th century as we entered the Maunder Minimum period. What would the scientists and politicians be suggesting as world temperatures plummeted by several degrees in a couple of decades? BURN EVERYTHING, INCREASE CO2 OUTPUT. This was a natural process that centuries later we cannot understand or fully explain. There are higher processes at work. (And don't get me onto reduced particulate pollution, raised oceanic volume, population levels, and atmospheric consequences of cheaper air travel. Prior to 1970s there was no discernable trend at all, despite over a hundred years of industry and a couple of major wars. All this current scaremongering does is give politicians an excuse to further raise my taxes "for my own good".) The current attitude is not science and the people whose jobs it is to do it should know better. Rob McC --- Darren Garrison <cynapse at charter.net> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:03:19 -0400, you wrote: > > > > > >Does anyone else get that "deja vous" feeling? > > > >It wasn't long ago when the planet was in panic > from the "experts" > >prediction about the approaching doom of Y2K - > toasters refusing to toast, > >and planes falling from the sky... > > > >A lot of money was made by some back then! > > The Y2K meltdown didn't happen BECAUSE of the money > poured into it-- thousands > of programmers spending millions of man-hours > rewriting code and replacing > hardware to the tune of billions of dollars. The > Y2K non-event was a success > story of things done right. > ______________________________________________ > Meteorite-list mailing list > Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:44:47 +0200 From: "Martin Altmann" <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Amazing coincedence, Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Message-ID: <003801c7ac1d$ea2dd610$e46dfea9 at name86d88d87e2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Yah, to stay objective is fine, look how helpful and rewarding it can be to be objective - you'll get a fine slice of a lunaite for free, only because of this email!: I don't know, what for energy efficient light bulbs are produced in your country, but most of the standard products nowadays available, have a product life between 8,000 and 12,000 hours. Some of them more than 20,000 hours. A conventional light bulb has on average a life time of 1,000 hours. The production of a energy efficient light bulb consumes 10 times more energy than the production of a conventional one. So the higher amount of energy is already counterbalanced by the longer lifespan. (If your energy saving bulb gets broken before, you will get it replaced in the shop you bought it). Now to the real saving potential and there you can see, that you don't have to be an ecological Taliban. Let's take a conventional bulb of 100 W. Costs around 1Euro. Use it 8000 hours --> consumption 800kWh and you have to buy 8 bulbs because of the short life span. Don't know your energy prices - here let's say a kWh costs 0.17Euro. Result 144Euro Energy efficient bulb. Costs 15 Euro, for 8000hours you'll need only one. Such a bulb with the same brightness of a conventional 100W bulb consumes 80% less, hence after 8000 hours ---> 160kWh Result 42,20Euro Saved 101,80Euro. Srew in 10 of such bulbs at home ---> 1018Euro ---> 1360$ saved Buy some nice meteorites from me for 1200$ and 2 barrels of Brent to burn for your remorse to have made Al Gore and his fundamentalists happy... :-) No seriously, the majority of 1st-World-consumer doesn't care much about saving energy and ecological stuff, (as long as they aren't seriously afflicted in person by the effects of the warming. Yesterday I sent an email to Sterling and the list, which didn't came through with some simple examples where people already have to pay a lot of cash to adapt to the effects of their regional warming, to underline, that several professions and people have crossed quite a while ago the point of the discussion, whether there is a warming or not, simply because they had to adapt already to the changed conditions ). You have to see it more practically: they will change their consumption habits, when they'll see, that more efficient products don't constrain their comfort and living standard, AND (and but) when energy prices will haven risen to a level, where their usual energy consume would mean indeed a decline of the quality of their daily life. So that they'll see, that's simply cheaper for them to use better products. And I see no hope, that energy prices won't get more and more expensive. It's very simple, isn't it and certainly no question of an ideology. Skol Martin -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von mark ford Gesendet: Montag, 11. Juni 2007 12:10 An: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Amazing coincedence,Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. Yep, and solar panels, energy efficient light bulbs, and most wind turbines all take more 'co2'/energy to produce, dispose of, and transport around the world than they will ever 'save' or generate in their entire short working product life! (Paticularly solar panels, they are the worst way of generating power there is (besides coal and gas), also being stuffed full of very nasty chemicals like selenium!) And ... actually mature forests emit more co2 and methane than new/virgin forests do (down to the decaying wood and forest floor ecosystem), so cutting down forests and replanting them with younger trees is ironically actually better for the environment!! (though not if you are a monkey of course). It's really easy to get caught up in the hype, but my advice is stay objective ! Mark -----Original Message----- From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Eric Twelker Sent: 11 June 2007 07:07 To: Michael Farmer; Meteorite Mailing List Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Amazing coincedence, Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1659036,00.html Here is an article on how biodiesel--one of the green movement's great ideas works. The green movement isn't so green after all--except when the green is money. Eric Twelker > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070610/sc_nm/deforestation_dc > > > WOW, this article is on YAHOO front page right now. > It shows the level of destruction for profit, legal > and illegal. If you ever want to see the jungle, now > is the time. > Michael Farmer > ______________________________________________ > 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 ______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:05:57 +0200 From: "Martin Altmann" <altmann at meteorite-martin.de> Subject: [meteorite-list] OT: Looking for Mark Earnst, urgent To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Message-ID: <004501c7ac20$df287510$e46dfea9 at name86d88d87e2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mark, where art thou? Don't you want to earn money? A client with a big order is urgently and desperately looking for you. Please contact me immediately (or take a look in your email-inbox). altmann at meteorite-martin.de Thanks, Martin ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:24:28 +0100 From: "mark ford" <markf at ssl.gb.com> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Amazing coincedence, Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. To: <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com> Message-ID: <6CE3EEEFE92F4B4085B0E086B2941B31293CEA at s-southern01.s-southern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Martin, I agree, and yes saving energy is a good thing! (that is if they actually save energy from 'creation to disposal') and as you say it also saves the consumer money.. But with regard to 'environmental and energy 'costs' - also factor in the manufacturing and transportation 'so called - production energy' energy efficient light bulbs contain much more worked glass, more plastic, they contain toxic fluorescent materials, mercury vapor, Passive electronic components (sourced from all over the world), fiberglass PCB's, silicon chips (sourced from all over the world), electroplated gold silver, Gallium/antimony/arsenic in components, copper in wound components, Ferrites. Add to this the environmental disposal impacts (only some can be recycled) burning, land fill etc. - add up all this up and the energy it takes to make them, and it is significantly more than a simple glass bulb with wire. Even if they last 5-10 times longer in our homes. (modern conventional light bulbs actually have a very long life these days anyway). All I am saying is there are a lot of misconceptions over all the 'green energy' products. All things like solar panels do, is allow you to generate some power locally (and naturally they are very useful for this, if inefficient) but all they do is shift the energy required to make it to somewhere else like china - (they don't actually save the planet - when you take the whole product life cycle into account). The whole concept of 'carbon foot print' is fundamentally flawed - imho! Mark F. -----Original Message----- From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Martin Altmann Sent: 11 June 2007 12:45 To: meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Amazing coincedence,Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. Yah, to stay objective is fine, look how helpful and rewarding it can be to be objective - you'll get a fine slice of a lunaite for free, only because of this email!: I don't know, what for energy efficient light bulbs are produced in your country, but most of the standard products nowadays available, have a product life between 8,000 and 12,000 hours. Some of them more than 20,000 hours. A conventional light bulb has on average a life time of 1,000 hours. The production of a energy efficient light bulb consumes 10 times more energy than the production of a conventional one. So the higher amount of energy is already counterbalanced by the longer lifespan. (If your energy saving bulb gets broken before, you will get it replaced in the shop you bought it). Now to the real saving potential and there you can see, that you don't have to be an ecological Taliban. Let's take a conventional bulb of 100 W. Costs around 1Euro. Use it 8000 hours --> consumption 800kWh and you have to buy 8 bulbs because of the short life span. Don't know your energy prices - here let's say a kWh costs 0.17Euro. Result 144Euro Energy efficient bulb. Costs 15 Euro, for 8000hours you'll need only one. Such a bulb with the same brightness of a conventional 100W bulb consumes 80% less, hence after 8000 hours ---> 160kWh Result 42,20Euro Saved 101,80Euro. Srew in 10 of such bulbs at home ---> 1018Euro ---> 1360$ saved Buy some nice meteorites from me for 1200$ and 2 barrels of Brent to burn for your remorse to have made Al Gore and his fundamentalists happy... :-) No seriously, the majority of 1st-World-consumer doesn't care much about saving energy and ecological stuff, (as long as they aren't seriously afflicted in person by the effects of the warming. Yesterday I sent an email to Sterling and the list, which didn't came through with some simple examples where people already have to pay a lot of cash to adapt to the effects of their regional warming, to underline, that several professions and people have crossed quite a while ago the point of the discussion, whether there is a warming or not, simply because they had to adapt already to the changed conditions ). You have to see it more practically: they will change their consumption habits, when they'll see, that more efficient products don't constrain their comfort and living standard, AND (and but) when energy prices will haven risen to a level, where their usual energy consume would mean indeed a decline of the quality of their daily life. So that they'll see, that's simply cheaper for them to use better products. And I see no hope, that energy prices won't get more and more expensive. It's very simple, isn't it and certainly no question of an ideology. Skol Martin -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] Im Auftrag von mark ford Gesendet: Montag, 11. Juni 2007 12:10 An: Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com Betreff: Re: [meteorite-list] Amazing coincedence,Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. Yep, and solar panels, energy efficient light bulbs, and most wind turbines all take more 'co2'/energy to produce, dispose of, and transport around the world than they will ever 'save' or generate in their entire short working product life! (Paticularly solar panels, they are the worst way of generating power there is (besides coal and gas), also being stuffed full of very nasty chemicals like selenium!) And ... actually mature forests emit more co2 and methane than new/virgin forests do (down to the decaying wood and forest floor ecosystem), so cutting down forests and replanting them with younger trees is ironically actually better for the environment!! (though not if you are a monkey of course). It's really easy to get caught up in the hype, but my advice is stay objective ! Mark -----Original Message----- From: meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces at meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Eric Twelker Sent: 11 June 2007 07:07 To: Michael Farmer; Meteorite Mailing List Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Amazing coincedence, Off topic DEFORESTATION for Furniture. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1659036,00.html Here is an article on how biodiesel--one of the green movement's great ideas works. The green movement isn't so green after all--except when the green is money. Eric Twelker > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070610/sc_nm/deforestation_dc > > > WOW, this article is on YAHOO front page right now. > It shows the level of destruction for profit, legal > and illegal. If you ever want to see the jungle, now > is the time. > Michael Farmer > ______________________________________________ > 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 ______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list End of Meteorite-list Digest, Vol 43, Issue 26 ********************************************** ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html Received on Mon 11 Jun 2007 10:59:31 PM PDT |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|