Charlie Phillips wrote:I'm as against pollution and environmental degradation as much as any other ex-hippie, planet-loving humanist can be. I can't claim to be against global warming per se, as I have a morbid fear of global cooling. A new ice-age would be the end of most of us and ice ages have occurred several times and in relatively recent history.
However, the global warming fizzle is not a purely Taiwanese phenomena:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066183761315576.html?fb_ref=wsj_share_FB_bot&fb_source=profile_oneline
Fox wrote:We are still in the Ice Age Charlie. Glacial periods occur like geological clock work every 11 to 12000 years, we are over due by most reckoning. That's why the earth is getting hotter. It heats before glacial periods. The heating effect creates the cloud cover necessary to cool the earth or so I've read. Since earth's temperature is essentially a quasi static equilibrium it is possible for the equilibrium to switch to either a dramatically higher or lower sustainable equilibrium. Earth has a pattern of switching dramatically between glacial and intergalcial periods within just a few short years.
The Earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for more than 11,000 years. It was conventional wisdom that "the typical interglacial period lasts about 12,000 years," but this has been called into question recently. For example, an article in Nature argues that the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now, even in absence of human-made global warming (see Milankovitch cycles). Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases might outweigh orbital forcing for as long as intensive use of fossil fuels continues.
Fox wrote:If we burn fossil fuels with gay abandon cooling will occur.
Fox wrote:I think the anti-global warming camp can get a lot of positional mileage out of that sort of thing in terms of debate; however, that they see things in terms of positions in a political debate is what is most telling.This is science not positions. You cannot have a position on evolution or carbon 14 decay or relativity. That is simply absurd. They are absurdists..
Forumosans browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest