Replies

Between solar and geologic activity, human produced CO2 is but a factoid. The subduction of limestone conversion to marble produces mucho CO2, billions or trillions of tons. Weigh the foundation of Mt. Everest. India is still heading north.

Compare CO2's specific heat with methane, with or without the voume of termite farts. The biomass of ants or termites is estimated to be the equal of the human biomass. We're out weighed 2:1. Vegetarians' cellulose conversion haven't been counted in yet.

Compare the specific heat of CO2 with H2O. A trace. Human produced CO2 is but a factoid. Humidity is the culpret.

Ice, water and methane, is the secret since black smokers were discovered. We have no idea how much methane is parked on deep sea beds, but the occasional melted bubble to the surface could account for the Burmuda Triangle' ship and airship count. Neither can float through the bubble of methane, so down they go fast.

Black smokers and undewater volcanos produce heat in measures which produce the warm waters of the Pacific Ocean blamed on air's CO2. How can warm global air heat only parts of the Pacific? ...especially the part that the sun shines directly down on - equitorial between Aussyland and South America?

Modern scdience follows reseach money which follows "concerns", political and inquiring minds. Junk science in popular press motivates some scientists and many politicians and a few foundations wanting good press for environmental concerns.

Freon does not do what the UN/EPA says it does at the temperatures and pressures and concentrations in the upper atmosphere where the damage to O3 is said to occure from Freon. Freon's patent ran out so DuPont produced "the study" producing the concerns over Freon. La dee dah.

Geologic records indicate that today we are in the mid range of an 8 degree swing, up and down, over millions of years, without do gooders in and out of public office. It's likely that we're going to get much warmer and much colder. Either way, human civilization will be forced to adapt or perish. Since most people live on coasts, the body count will wash out to sea, as they did between the previous recent ice ages. Warm cycles allow widespread agriculture and human population growth. Enough to bitch.

Bacteria and algea produced the greatest atmospheric change to the troposhere endangering life as nobody knew it. O2 poisoned the planet.

And we're fussing about a change of a few dozen ppm of a CO2 molecule with a trace specific heat compared to H2O and is also is a trace molecule in number compared to H2O within in our atmosphere, where in H2O is at most 4% of our atmosphere only in the worst jungle swamp locations. Usually H2O is nearer 1% of atmospheric gasses in contenental regions.

I believe that our sun and earth will do what they do and we are little but the bacteria on the surface of one of nature's finest fruit.

I believe in the repeated facts.

And we're fussing about a change of a few dozen ppm of a CO2 molecule with a trace specific heat compared to H2O

I think a lot of people think I'm taking Al Gore's position. Let me repeat -- I'm not fussing about a "few dozen ppm" -- although I'd quibble about what a "few dozen" means in this context. In percentage terms it's significant: "380 ppm" as opposed to a previous historical high of "280 ppm" for the last half million years. (I think people that posted charts about what happened a billion years ago are silly -- we're talking about the modern environment, sustaining our life form, surely. Who cares if it was over 380mm 2 billion years ago?!)

I'm not saying we should fuss. We should as conservatives note that the "solution" to the problem -- I will call it that -- is to watch and monitor but not take any precipitous action, because no one but no one knows that it's going to lead to harm -- it may even lead to good. (Like the Christian Science Monitor article on increased vegetation . . . .) I'm just saying let's not deny these measurements and their significance. The question of whether there's manmade global warming is a science question. I think it's been answered. The question on its magnitude/impact/etc. science cannot now accurately speak to, and so it becomes a political question which conservatives should weigh in on. I bet we'd both be inclined to do the same do-nothing approach, saying free-market solutions can step in to solve the problem if it becomes a real, impactful "problem." I wish conservatives would take up this important conservative barricade, and stop thinking that they have to deny science in order to not sign Kyoto.