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