A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I Will Never Understand Wind



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 6th 05, 02:57 AM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The chemistry is pretty straightforward (I'm told) and it is a near
certaintly that humans are contributing to global warming through greenhouse
gasses as well as deforesting. The real issue, as you point out, is that we
don't know what would be happening if humans were not contributing. We
could be a small part of the problem or a large one, there is no way to
know. Climate data is so chaotic that it is difficult to filter the signal
from the noise.

Of course, there are other good reasons to be more efficient with fossil
fuels besides global warming.

Mike
MU-2


"Denny" wrote in message
oups.com...
We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
"warming" continues apace and on schedule... Being that there was no
industrial activity, CFC spray cans, or SUV's, around some 20,000 -
30,000 years ago when the latest ice age reversed itself, global
warming replaced global cooling, the glaciers began retreating, and the
sea began rising, I doubt that a science based connection between
modern activity and global warming can be established with any degree
of verifiability or certainty... Of course, those who are emotionally
invested in the Kyoto Treaty, etc. and/or have an agenda will totally
ignore the scientific fact that we have been in a state of massive
global warming for more than 20,000 years, not just the last 150 years
since the industrial revolution...

Another pertinent point is that the ice age (our ice age with a glacial
moraine just a half dozen miles from where I sit) just past is simply
the most recent one in a sequence of some 30 to 50 ice ages covering a
span in excess of one quarter of a billion years.... Which company or
government do we blame for the previous 30-50 global warmings?

cheers ... denny



  #2  
Old May 6th 05, 05:37 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 06 May 2005 01:57:31 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:



Of course, there are other good reasons to be more efficient with fossil
fuels besides global warming.

Mike
MU-2


Yes. Running the lawn mowers around a nuclear plant to charge
electrical cars. Someone will complain about that.

Mike Weller
"Denny" wrote in message
roups.com...
We have been in "global warming" some 20,000 - 30,000 years now and the
"warming" continues apace and on schedule... Being that there was no
industrial activity, CFC spray cans, or SUV's, around some 20,000 -
30,000 years ago when the latest ice age reversed itself, global
warming replaced global cooling, the glaciers began retreating, and the
sea began rising, I doubt that a science based connection between
modern activity and global warming can be established with any degree
of verifiability or certainty... Of course, those who are emotionally
invested in the Kyoto Treaty, etc. and/or have an agenda will totally
ignore the scientific fact that we have been in a state of massive
global warming for more than 20,000 years, not just the last 150 years
since the industrial revolution...

Another pertinent point is that the ice age (our ice age with a glacial
moraine just a half dozen miles from where I sit) just past is simply
the most recent one in a sequence of some 30 to 50 ice ages covering a
span in excess of one quarter of a billion years.... Which company or
government do we blame for the previous 30-50 global warmings?

cheers ... denny



  #3  
Old May 6th 05, 01:11 PM
Denny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Of course, there are other good reasons to be more efficient with
fossil
fuels besides global warming.


Mike
MU-2

************************************************** ******************************

YES, absolutely - the more efficient we are with conserving fossil
fuels the MORE fuel we have left to put through an airplane engine...
Now I see the light oh rapture

Now, having been facetious, I'll get serious... Your points are valid,
we simply don't know what the contribution of CO2 by our activities is
doing to the rate of warming... As you point out, it is a tiny signal
buried in a very noisy bandwidth... And I have little, to no, patience
with the hyper emotional who substitute endorphin stimulation for
critical thought... They have to be aware that one good volcano fart
equals total human production of CO2, CO, sulphur, etc., for a
considerable time period...

BTW, the image of a volcano fart came from John Galban's post... kudos,
John, you had me chuckling with that one....

I will correct one item I rattled off on the spur of the moment and
that is CFC's... The data is there to support the theory that CFC
emanations do injure the ozone layers, and therefore reduction of CFC's
being loosed into the atmosphere is necessary...

denny

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.