Current atmospheric CO2 measures slightly more than 370ppm. Over the
last 450,000 years (ice core evidence not computer models) it has
cycled about 5 times from as low as 180ppm but has NEVER exceeded
300ppm until now. It passed 300ppm in about 1930 and continues to
increase each year. Our fossil fuels put more and more CO2 out each
year and we passed the earth's natural capacity to absorb it
somewhere around about 1960. Evidence of climate perturbations are
all around us as Bernie says, and once the arctic tundra melts
further and releases locked up methane our greenhouse layer will only
thicken.
Now, we can shrug and talk about flaws in computer models,
and "natural" cycles of millennia, (or wobbly planets), and simply
wait and see what happens. Or we can recognise the nose on our face
and admit that our current way of supplying energy is screwing up
the atmosphere, and do something about it.
It may be fun to knock against the unassailable scientific evidence
that connects human activity with global warming, but if that stops
real action then the swamp dries out and the frogs are fried, sorry
Walt. This is not only an Inconvenient Truth, it is now an
Incontrovertible Truth.
Chris
--- In Wild Sanctuary <>
wrote:
>
> Walt, and please note the the draft also included apriori hand-on
> experience reports of many living in different areas throughout the
> world. Greenland, for instance. The Antarctic, for instance. Sites
> all along the northernmost edge Beaufort Sea, for instance. Those
> aren't "computer models." Those are feet-on-the-ground experiences
> and measurements. The computer models are extrapolations of what
has
> been seen/measured/weighed. The issues of CO2 are addressed in the
> draft, and in much more detail than what you're addressing. I'll
> stick with the conculsions in the report, thank you. And I'm not a
> very religious person (at least not the institutional type).
>
> Bernie Krause
>
>
>
> >Posted by: "Wild Sanctuary"
> >
> >>
> >> Having been priviliged to read a complete draft of the recent
UNEP
> >> Global Warming report (not yet released in full form) late last
Fall,
> >> I am doubtful if most of the several hundred climatologists,
> >> physicists, biologists, and/or naturalists who participated are
> >> terribly "stupid" and/or misinformed. While it's probably best
just
> >> to leave things alone and back off from our compulsion to
consume,
> >> and while it's likely (as Lovelock suggests) that we'll be
superceded
> >> and outlived by the lowly cockroach sooner rather than later,
the
> >> human connection to global warming in this instance is
supported by
> >> evidence beyond compelling in the report, which I hope will be
> >> released soon to dispel any remaining skepticism on the issue.
After
> >> serious worldwide peer review, there was nearly universal
consensus
> >> on the language and a 90% level of certainty. And this comes
from a
> >> group that can literally erupt in fisticuffs over minor points
at
> >> conferences. I've rarely seen this kind of accord. My money's
on
> >> this one, for the moment.
> >>
> >
> >Please note that a great deal of this is based on computer models.
When
> >they put in the actual conditions for the last billion years,
interval
> >by interval and those models are verified against what actually
happened
> > then there might be a little confidence in them. I spent a
chunk of my
> >life developing computer models and that was basic.
> >
> >For instance put in carbon dioxide levels 3000% higher than today.
Just
> >normal for certain parts of earth's history. It was probably even
higher
> >before a tiny bit was tied up in coal and oil. The earth did not
turn
> >into a cinder back then.
> >
> >Global warming has more of the earmarks of religion than science.
It
> >needs a lot more science and a lot less promotion of personal
choices in
> >lifestyle. And a whole lot more realism about what can actually be
> >fixed. And a lot more logic about what to fix. You'd think
listening to
> >folks that we could easily freeze new ice to replace that lost in
the
> >antarctic or greenland.
> >
> >Yes, humans are having some effect on the climate. This is
particularly
> >true in the heat islands of cities (where most weather stations are
> >located). But it's a minor blip compared to the several billion
years of
> >earth's history. During nearly all of which life existed on earth.
And
> >did well without our fixing. The major changes in the earth are a
large
> >part of the driving force of evolution. Life adapted through
evolution,
> >it seems humans think they can say stop to changes in the earth
and it
> >will not happen. That's not adapting.
> >
> >No matter how much running around and fixing things we do, the
earth's
> >climate will vary considerably more than it has in historical
times. If
> >it pleases you to do something rather than adapting that's fine, it
> >won't change much. In the end if humans don't adapt to the major
changes
> >that are normal, then the cockroach has far more chance of
surviving
> >than the human species. Denial of the natural part of earth's
climate
> >has become the norm in global warming discussions. I suppose it's
human
> >ego to think that all things are a result of us, it's just not so.
> >
> >There are things that all this energy could do that would have a
real
> >benefit. How many of you even know the details of your local
county's
> >comprehensive land use plan? Or had anything to say when they
passed it?
> >
> >Believe what you want, my bet is on the natural earth. If humans
don't
> >adapt it will crush them and discard them. And they will deserve
their fate.
> >
> >Walt
> >
> >
> >"Microphones are not ears,
> >Loudspeakers are not birds,
> >A listening room is not nature."
> >Klas Strandberg
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Wild Sanctuary
> P. O. Box 536
> Glen Ellen, CA 95442
> t. 707-996-6677
> f. 707-996-0280
> http://www.wildsanctuary.com
>
|