X-Message-Number: 23237 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:04:39 -0800 From: James Swayze <> Subject: Tsk, Tsk References: <> >Message #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 <> >> >> Ah hell, what'd I do now to upset the oh so negative, no one but he is allowed an opinion, omniscient Charles Platt, yet again? Did I step on the sacred teachings of the omniscient and omnipotent CATO again? Oh and I'll have you know it's not armchair science, it's wheelchair science, thank you very much. ;) Since when have amateurs not contributed good science or not been allowed to try? > > >>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 > > So I was right, there were fewer hours in a day. Why quibble over how many? With weather a little influence can do quite a lot. I shudder to think what might have come of questioning whether the Earth's tilt has remained constant. What effect might that have had? Could the moon that helps stabalize our tilt and wobble had a differing effect when it was closer? Why is asking these questions any less valid because I'm not a credentialed bonafide scientist? > > >>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. > A how do you expect that shorter nights makes a difference in overall production of O2 and reduction of CO2? I truly fail to see how two diminished values add up to a greater. I guess for you -1 + -1 = 2. > > > >>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. > > Actually it as been stated that a few degrees in ambient net temperature difference does have a significant impact. In the past it has meant extinction and in a civilized world it means huge property amounts of damage. >>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? > Yes. Have you? > First, it relies >on computer modeling which is quite debatable. > I suppose when the CATO institute employs science that uses computer modeling you object to them as well? Please explain how the scientists involved could have put together a cogent theory let alone evaluate the voluminous amount of data, sedimentation rates and samplings from many disparate areas and their temperature, wind rates, current rates and directions and on and on and on, without creating a model? I think you jump too quick to criticize anything James Swayze has to say that touches however slightly on your favorite dogma. > Second, the >phrase "global warming" does not occur even once in the >entire paper. > Why should it? I suppose you think I'm too stupid to do a little rational thought on my own or to have learned from other sources how global warming is affecting fresh water melting. It's just beyond credibility that I could google something that related. Right? > 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. > > Gladly. Umm but then I'm reminded of you're telling me to go read massive volumes of reams of stuff at the CATO Institute. You could have just saved me the hour I wasted trying to find anything that specifically addressed the question I asked by posting a link or a quote that did or you could have just answered my question, which btw no one adequately did. So maybe I should just say go read it or read it again if you missed it. If you try and truly cannot see it and ask after trying then I will post it. I will even offer some advice. It requires reason and logic to see it. > > >>For the lay person, http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/545.html >> >> > >This site, maintained by the Environmental Literacy Council, >has a partisan agenda. > Whereas, of course say, the CATO Institute does not. Never in a million years, right? >But even they are cautious to state >that the ocean-current theory is just that: A theory. > And "theory" is automatically a bad word and immediately refutes any validity whatsoever. And everything from the mouth of Charles Platt and his favorite purveyors of dogma is of course fact. > They >use many terms such as "might" or "could" to hedge their bets >on its implications. > Hedge their bets? Hardly, I would expect that such wording is commonplace when dealing with eh hem a "theory", yes? Otherwise it would be a fact I expect. > Personally I believe there are far too >many variables to enable any solid predictions. > > That's fine, that's your opinion and your right. Mine differs and that is my right. >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. > So there's never any possibility of any true science to come of studying it, umm even from CATO, I would expect. This must mean anything they have said is invalid. That is good to know. Thanks. BTW, the wishful thinking in the posted record was in the interpretation paced upon it without heed to any at all difference's between then and now weather effecting phenomena. I would have thought that was obvious. The bottom line is I pointed out several valid observations, armchair or not, that call into question any effort to equate temperature conditions so far removed in time and world condition from our own. I left out a few such as would you expect the more spread out placement of the continents now to have an effect on temperature and climate today as opposed to say Gwandanaland? If you are trying to say that there's no significant difference between way back then and now as regards climate effecting geology, flora, fauna and etc., then I just can't see how your position is defensible. Lastly, thanks for keeping me so close to your heart. I can see I'm on your mind quite a lot. It's very touching. ;) James -- Member: Cryonics Institute of Michigan http://www.cryonics.org The Immortalist Society http://www.cryonics.org/info.html The Society for Venturism http://www.venturist.org Immortality Institute http://www.imminst.org MY WEBSITE: http://www.davidpascal.com/swayze/ Signature Memetic Virus--The worst enemy of those who now or will need medical care is the uninformed politician or moral fanatic who proscribe what doctors are allowed to prescribe and research, with the consent of their patients. Those who understand this are strongly encouraged to modify this to fit their personality, and add this to their signature file, and organize to recover our freedom from Big Brother. For those who wait until they are sick, it will be too late. Those who suffer from diseases which might have been cured by advanced medical research or schedule 1 drugs banned by Big Brother, have the right to hold accountable those who sat on their hands or worse, deferred their responsibility for personal and humanity's survival to unseen mystical agents, while they remained ill and dying. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23237