Re: Is the Concensus being threatened?
Re: Is the Concensus being threatened?
Source: http://sci.tech−archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2008−10/msg01214.html
• From: "hhc314@xxxxxxxxx"
• Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:46:49 −0700 (PDT)
On Oct 13, 6:12 pm, tadchem wrote:
This effort is monitoring emerging threats to the consensus that GW is
real, anthropogenic, and must be addressed in haste with mucho dinero
before we have a chance to think about the possible consequences of
our panic...
Tom, this is really beneath your usual level of posting.
First of all, there is non−consensus, science remains out on this
issue, and current evidence tend to suggest that the global warming
theory is not only wrong, but badly wrong.
Next time you want a consensus, try a group of scientists not active
in some special interest group. Try asking a group of scientist from
the APS or ACS what they believe, and not simply the membership list
in some enviononment/conservationist/tree hugger group (several of
which I confess to holding a membership),
Now to get down to brass tacks, the problem here is that science thus
far has not means to distinguish short term local effects (in earth
terms is 300−500 years) from natural, long term climatic cycles (which
at last glance the cycle period was somehwere between 4,000 and 15,000
years). Other cycles exist due to our orbital planetary
eccentricitity, and these are roughly estimated at 500,000 years.)
Don't know about you, but these figures boggle my simple physicist
mind even though I am aware of isotopes having half−lives of over
100,000 years, or so the books tell me.
Now being a physicist, I appreciate the mass of the earth, including
its thermal mass including the atmosphere. Likely so do you because
I've read many of your well informed postings.
The earth, and its atmosphere have a very long time constant, and are
quite unlikely to be dramatically affected by an man−made cause
lasting less than 1,000 years.
We both know that we are living on a planet that still has a molten
Re: Is the Concensus being threatened? 1
Re: Is the Concensus being threatened?
core, on the surface exposed to the both the vacuum and temps of
space, and survive only because of the atmosphere that surrounds the
planet. It quite accurate to say that all life on earth lives on the
very edge of extermination. I believe we can both agree on that
point.
Where we may disagree upon is the subject of man's impact on this
delicate balance. As a physicist, numbers tell me that the effect of
man's global contributions are, except for air pollution, are still
totally insignificant. Even the smog from automobile exhaust is only
locally of any consequence. Realize that one singular volcanic event,
even minor, could result in a greater consequence than anything man
can produce over a period measured in hundred of years.
This is the consensus. Ongoing ocean and land based temperature
records show no indications of temperature variations exceeding those
nominally predicted. If anything, they tend to indicate a declining
planetry temperature consistent with the ice core and geoloical
records.
That said, I am a conservationist, and an active one. Our group
purchases land, plants trees, and places it into a trust with the sole
requirment that it remain eternally wild. The philosophy here is
familar to all former Boy Scouts and to most Native Americans. Our
duty is to leave the campsite in a better condition than in which we
found it. Trust me, the developers hate us because we outbid them on
almost every piece of buildable land plus that which nobody wants to
buld on...and we don't need any sewers, power lines, or other
improvements.
Just though I should add that last part, so you would not simply lable
me as a insensitive, un−caring, lab physicist nerd. And...Tom, ifyou
havent already rigured out that I am a loose cannon, don't get me
taling about that 700−Billion wall street bailout, and where that same
amount of money could/should be spent.
Harry C.
.
Re: Is the Concensus being threatened? 2