The Urge to Explore

"horseshoe7" wrote in message
ups.com...

And the Earth's atmosphere is undeniably warming.

There is no certain proof.



Actually, that there IS warming is one of the few things everyone actually
agrees on.



Even if it is warming, there is no certain
proof it is being caused by increases in "Greenhouse gases". There
have been many periods in Earth's history where the Earth was much
warmer than right now, and everything has turned out just fine...


Yes. One of the things that piques my interest is that I have seen ZERO
analysis as to whether global warming would be good or bad. What I do know
about ecology indicates to me that it would be a GOOD thing for the
ecosystem.

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
horseshoe7 wrote:

Are you an expert on atmospheric physics? If so, perhaps you could
explain why increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses will not
cause an increase in the greenhouse effect.

CO2 makes up about .01% of the atmosphere... NEGLIGIBLE!

You display your ignorance, sir.

It's about 350 ppm right now, actually.

WOW! I'm quaking in my boots.

But this does not mean
it is negligible.

350 ppm is NEGLIGIBLE.

Trace gases can and do have profound effects
on radiation transport, if they have absorption features
in parts of the spectrum the other, more abundant gases are
transparent. Even gases with much lower abundances than
CO2 can have significant effects.

Yes - the fact is, when it comes to the impact of "greenhouse gases"
CO2 doesn't mean diddly-squat compared to the much more abundant
METHANE... which is mostly put out by decaying leaves... so -
destroying the rain forests actually HELPS prevent global warming.

The primary components of the atmosphere - nitrogen, oxygen,
and argon -- are symmetrical diatomic molecules or single atoms.
As a result, they absorb only weakly in the far infrared.

There is also the matter that the opacity of a gas at
the peak of an absorption band can be very high. CO2 is already
well past the point where the peaks of the main absorption
features are saturated. Increases in overall absorption for
that gas are occuring out on the tails of these spectral features.

THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!

Well, we better start cutting down MORE trees, and quick - then convert
the pulp to paper and cardboard, and then start burying the carbon!
But noooooo... you want to preserve all trees... you want to recycle
all the paper products - but you worry about global warming due to
excess CO2.... make up your minds, please!

You enviroMENTALISTS are like a dog chasing its tail... it is HIGH
COMEDY!

- Stewart

horseshoe7 wrote:

But this does not mean
it is negligible.

350 ppm is NEGLIGIBLE.

Repeating idiocy doesn't make it any less idiotic,
'horseshoe7'.

You simply don't have a ****ing clue about how
thermal radiation transport in the atmosphere works.
I suggest you go and actually try to learn how
it works before you embarrass yourself with opinions
you have no ability to intelligently hold.

Say, did you ever notice how idiots like to hide
behind pseudonyms?


Yes - the fact is, when it comes to the impact of "greenhouse gases"
CO2 doesn't mean diddly-squat compared to the much more abundant
METHANE... which is mostly put out by decaying leaves... so -
destroying the rain forests actually HELPS prevent global warming.

BWHAHAHA!!!!

Atmospheric concentration is methane is 1.75 ppm, about
TWO HUNDRED TIMES smaller than CO2.

Jeez, you are HILARIOUS!

Are you next goint to tell me that global warming is bunk
because the Earth is actually flat?


THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!

Well, we better start cutting down MORE trees, and quick - then convert
the pulp to paper and cardboard, and then start burying the carbon!
But noooooo... you want to preserve all trees... you want to recycle
all the paper products - but you worry about global warming due to
excess CO2.... make up your minds, please!

You enviroMENTALISTS are like a dog chasing its tail... it is HIGH
COMEDY!

Assinine misattribution of opinions noted. But then, you didn't
really have any way to defend the indefensible, so I'm not surprised.

Look, do yourself a favor and stop trying to appear to be an intelligent
being. You're just not cut out for it.

Paul

Shawn Wilson wrote:

Yes. One of the things that piques my interest is that I have seen ZERO
analysis as to whether global warming would be good or bad. What I do know
about ecology indicates to me that it would be a GOOD thing for the
ecosystem.



Sure, the melting of the polar caps will have nothing but good effects-
but aren't Polar Bears going to look rather silly walking around in
coniferous forests?

Pat

Hi all

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Shawn Wilson wrote:

Yes. One of the things that piques my interest is that I have seen ZERO
analysis as to whether global warming would be good or bad. What I do
know about ecology indicates to me that it would be a GOOD thing for the
ecosystem.


There are certain types (of people) who hold the opinion that (according to
the incomplete data we have of our current climatic 'age' and of previous
climatic 'age' of life on Earth) that bio-diversity is greatest during
periods of global warming.

I don't buy into it.

I'll will agree that some very interesting critters walked the Earth in
previous ages, but that the last Ice Age produced some of the most (to me,
someone who favors the mammalian camp) interesting variations.

I, for one, do not weep at all for the great reptiles whose time ran out 70
odd million years ago. I am not in favor of sharing the planet with reptiles
that can use me as a toothpick.

Then of cause our current climatic age, produced such wonders as the
cheetah, a big cat stripped for speed and practically nothing else. Has
there ever been a faster mammal? While the modern leopard might lack the
impressive canines of the saber-cats of the ice-age, it certainly is a
beauitful and formidable predator.



Sure, the melting of the polar caps will have nothing but good effects-
but aren't Polar Bears going to look rather silly walking around in
coniferous forests?


Outside of their natural (i.e. freezing) environment polar bears get a
(apparently) harmless algae infection in their fur. It turns them green.

See they're already adapting for the move south, camouflaged and ready to
move into the temperate zone. I wonder what their Grizzly, Brown and Black
cousins will have to say on the matter. Bears don't make good neighbours at
the best of times ;-) .

Pat

Regards
Frank

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

Yes. One of the things that piques my interest is that I have seen ZERO
analysis as to whether global warming would be good or bad. What I do
know about ecology indicates to me that it would be a GOOD thing for the
ecosystem.


Sure, the melting of the polar caps will have nothing but good effects-


NO models of global warming predict the melting of the polar caps. In fact,
actual observation and measurement indicates the polar caps are growing.
(higher temps more evaporation more precip).





but aren't Polar Bears going to look rather silly walking around in
coniferous forests?


The sad thing about the debate is that so much of it seems to be made up of
false claims like you just made.

"Frank Scrooby" wrote in message
...

Yes. One of the things that piques my interest is that I have seen ZERO
analysis as to whether global warming would be good or bad. What I do
know about ecology indicates to me that it would be a GOOD thing for the
ecosystem.


There are certain types (of people) who hold the opinion that (according
to the incomplete data we have of our current climatic 'age' and of
previous climatic 'age' of life on Earth) that bio-diversity is greatest
during periods of global warming.

I don't buy into it.


Certainly the habitable area is greater without large parts of it covered in
ice. The increased precipitation from higher temps also means that deserts
will shrink, which is yet more area opened to life.

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
horseshoe7 wrote:

But this does not mean
it is negligible.

350 ppm is NEGLIGIBLE.

Repeating idiocy doesn't make it any less idiotic,
'horseshoe7'.

350 ppm is NEGLIGIBLE

You simply don't have a ****ing clue about how
thermal radiation transport in the atmosphere works.

Getting upset that the GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA is starting to lose its
luster?

What do YOU have to gain or lose (financially or prestige-wise) if
global warming turns out to be a worthless issue?

I have NOTHING to gain or lose... it sounds like you do.

- Stewart

I suggest you go and actually try to learn how
it works before you embarrass yourself with opinions
you have no ability to intelligently hold.

Say, did you ever notice how idiots like to hide
behind pseudonyms?


Yes - the fact is, when it comes to the impact of "greenhouse gases"
CO2 doesn't mean diddly-squat compared to the much more abundant
METHANE... which is mostly put out by decaying leaves... so -
destroying the rain forests actually HELPS prevent global warming.

BWHAHAHA!!!!

Atmospheric concentration is methane is 1.75 ppm, about
TWO HUNDRED TIMES smaller than CO2.

Jeez, you are HILARIOUS!

Are you next goint to tell me that global warming is bunk
because the Earth is actually flat?


THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!

Well, we better start cutting down MORE trees, and quick - then convert
the pulp to paper and cardboard, and then start burying the carbon!
But noooooo... you want to preserve all trees... you want to recycle
all the paper products - but you worry about global warming due to
excess CO2.... make up your minds, please!

You enviroMENTALISTS are like a dog chasing its tail... it is HIGH
COMEDY!

Assinine misattribution of opinions noted. But then, you didn't
really have any way to defend the indefensible, so I'm not surprised.

Look, do yourself a favor and stop trying to appear to be an intelligent
being. You're just not cut out for it.

Paul

Pat Flannery wrote:
Shawn Wilson wrote:

Yes. One of the things that piques my interest is that I have seen ZERO
analysis as to whether global warming would be good or bad. What I do know
about ecology indicates to me that it would be a GOOD thing for the
ecosystem.



Sure, the melting of the polar caps will have nothing but good effects-
but aren't Polar Bears going to look rather silly walking around in
coniferous forests?

Too much paranoias:

http://www.freedomofchoice.com/devo/.../qna/qna07.mp3

- Stewart

Shawn Wilson wrote:
"Frank Scrooby" wrote in message
are certain types (of people) who hold the opinion that (according
to the incomplete data we have of our current climatic 'age' and of
previous climatic 'age' of life on Earth) that bio-diversity is greatest
during periods of global warming.

I don't buy into it.

Certainly the habitable area is greater without large parts of it covered in
ice. The increased precipitation from higher temps also means that deserts
will shrink, which is yet more area opened to life.

Biodiversity *is* higher in the tropics than in temperate
zones. What that implies for a warmer world, I couldn't say.

Paul