X-Message-Number: 23224
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:05:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: warming
References: <>

> Message #23220
> Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:57:43 -0800
> From: James Swayze <>

> First on this list would be the length day. If correctly recalled I
> believe it was far shorter than 24 hours in the past, more like 18 or
> fewer even.

Some fact checking would be useful. How long ago is "the
past"? Accoring to a very brief search, the length of earth
day may have increased by about 20 seconds in 1 million
years:

http://www.geo.tudelft.nl/fmr/research/EarthRotHistory.html

> This would mean whatever plants did exist, not all of them
> the same as today -- far from it -- and this alone means there may be
> issues about rates of conversion that may be species specific, would
> have less sunshine for converting CO2 to O2 in a given day, making the
> climate then far warmer than capable of today.

All of these conclusions are pure armchair speculation, and
your idea that plants would receive less sunshine because
days would be shorter if the earth was rotating faster
ignores the obvious fact that nights (and dawns, and dusks)
would be shorter too.

> the forces greater? Could it mean more volcanic activity, and due to
> this more CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, even the
> occasional cooling period for dust occlusion of the sun?

More speculation, contradicted by the temperature history
already submitted, which shows fluctuations between limits
that have not changed significantly.

> I've said here before, here is the study
> http://www.essc.psu.edu/~bjhaupt/papers/guest.97/guest-sh.html#introduction
> [see below a list], if one fancies themselves science savvy then do
> check this out and point out for yourself and for me where they are wrong.

Have you actually read this very long paper? First, it relies
on computer modeling which is quite debatable. Second, the
phrase "global warming" does not occur even once in the
entire paper. Third, it is primarily concerned with ocean
currents and a possible positive-feedback effect which again
is debatable. Perhaps you would like to quote the section
that you feel supports your argument.

> For the lay person, http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/545.html

This site, maintained by the Environmental Literacy Council,
has a partisan agenda. But even they are cautious to state
that the ocean-current theory is just that: A theory. They
use many terms such as "might" or "could" to hedge their bets
on its implications. Personally I believe there are far too
many variables to enable any solid predictions.

The topic of global warming has been hopelessly obscured by
ecodoom advocates looking for money (from book deals or from
government grants) and their opponents, seeking to prove that
we can keep on doing whatever we are doing without worrying
about the consequences. The advantage of reference cited in
the previous post, summarizing global temperature
fluctuations historically, is that an historical record is
relatively uncolored by wishful thinking.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23224