Bill, there is no doubt that the climate of the earth has changed very often
over its history. The concern of ecofundamentalists, as you like to call
them , in addition to many climatologists who have nothing to do with the
environmental movement, is the pace of change, which has clearly been very
rapid - and which is accelerating - at least by the date we have available
to us. One given is that large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
produce a greenhouse effect. That's not a theory, that's something based
upon physical laws of gases and how they interact with sunlight. A big
question mark, still unanswered, is whether or not there are mechanisms in
nature to counterbalance that effect. Maybe the melting of arctic ice will
cool the oceans, which might alter the growth rate of algae and balance
something out. Maybe the increase in land temperatures will rapidly increase
the number of hurricanes, which basically take heat and moisture from the
tropics and transport it northward to temperate climates. But in EVERY rapid
change of climate that can be documented by fossil remnants, carbon dating
and so forth, there have been mass extinctions of species - species which
weren't replace by others overnight, but over the course of millions of
years (a span much longer than homo sapiens has existed as a species). IF,
(and I realize it's a big IF), we are contributing to this rapid climatic
change, we could be jeopardizing our own future. Human beings evolved in an
ice-age environment (we are only in a slight-lull of that - during
non-ice-age times, there was no permanent ice-cap at the poles), and we are
very dependent upon certain plant species for our survival. For instance, if
the grain family of plants became susceptible to some disease or insect
predators because of climate change and we no longer had rice, wheat, corn,
barley, rye, oats, etc., the majority of human beings would quickly perish
too, because we have no other widely available source of storable calories.
Therefore, it's important that research continue into this area. To pretend
it's a matter of no importance whatsoever is just burying one's head in the
sand.
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
If there is anything that "nature" tells us, it's that things will
change. The world will warm up, in spite of what ecofundamentalists
want. The world will cool down, in spite of what ecofundamentalists
want. Species will come, in spite of what ecofundamentalists want.
Species will go, in spite of ecofundamentalists want.

"Bob Harrington" wrote in message
et...


"PLMerite" wrote in message

"DKat" wrote in message
t...
Every reputable Scientist at this point concurs that global
warming is a fact. This is no longer disputed. Global warming
does NOT mean that we all have San Diego weather. It means that
we have higher variance (more extremes) in our weather patterns.
More floods, more hurricanes, more hard blizzards, more droughts,
etc. Our oceans are the earths heat sinks and are what drive our
weather.


Funny, I thought "global" warming meant the "globe" was getting
"warmer."

Blaming warming for increased polar ice is like saying that boiling
water creates ice cubes.

Global warming also causes sunspots...

Just so long as it doesn't cause acne. I had enough of that once.

Regards, PLMerite

Paragraphs are the key to someone reading beyond the fifth line.

Regards, PLMerite


"gregpresley" wrote in message
...
Bill, there is no doubt that the climate of the earth has changed very
often
over its history. The concern of ecofundamentalists, as you like to call
them , in addition to many climatologists who have nothing to do with the
environmental movement, is the pace of change, which has clearly been very
rapid - and which is accelerating - at least by the date we have available
to us. One given is that large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
produce a greenhouse effect. That's not a theory, that's something based
upon physical laws of gases and how they interact with sunlight. A big
question mark, still unanswered, is whether or not there are mechanisms in
nature to counterbalance that effect. Maybe the melting of arctic ice will
cool the oceans, which might alter the growth rate of algae and balance
something out. Maybe the increase in land temperatures will rapidly
increase
the number of hurricanes, which basically take heat and moisture from the
tropics and transport it northward to temperate climates. But in EVERY
rapid
change of climate that can be documented by fossil remnants, carbon dating
and so forth, there have been mass extinctions of species - species which
weren't replace by others overnight, but over the course of millions of
years (a span much longer than homo sapiens has existed as a species).
IF,
(and I realize it's a big IF), we are contributing to this rapid climatic
change, we could be jeopardizing our own future. Human beings evolved in
an
ice-age environment (we are only in a slight-lull of that - during
non-ice-age times, there was no permanent ice-cap at the poles), and we
are
very dependent upon certain plant species for our survival. For instance,
if
the grain family of plants became susceptible to some disease or insect
predators because of climate change and we no longer had rice, wheat,
corn,
barley, rye, oats, etc., the majority of human beings would quickly perish
too, because we have no other widely available source of storable
calories.
Therefore, it's important that research continue into this area. To
pretend
it's a matter of no importance whatsoever is just burying one's head in
the
sand.
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
If there is anything that "nature" tells us, it's that things will
change. The world will warm up, in spite of what ecofundamentalists
want. The world will cool down, in spite of what ecofundamentalists
want. Species will come, in spite of what ecofundamentalists want.
Species will go, in spite of ecofundamentalists want.

In article ,
gregpresley wrote:
A big
question mark, still unanswered... Maybe... which might ... Maybe...
IF, (and I realize it's a big IF)... could...

To pretend
it's a matter of no importance whatsoever is just burying one's head in the
sand.


To pretend that it's a solved problem is even more stupid. The
ecofundamentalists and the Kyoto treaty people and the rest of
the wild-eyed buffoons thinking the world is a Bambi movie gave
up on the "maybe's" and the "ifs" and the "mights" a long, long,
time ago. They hold to the true religion, and they demand absolute
orthodoxy.

Preach to them, not me.


(And your apocalyptic predictions about grain are equally speculative)


billo

Climate changes. There's a reason that Greenland got called
Greenland and Iceland got called Iceland.


Yes, I´m sure there´s a reason but the name Iceland has got nothing to do with ice.

The message
from "PLMerite" contains these words:

Paragraphs are the key to someone reading beyond the fifth line.

I read it without difficulty and thought Greg made his case fairly and
courteously; but then I'm used to reading material more intellectually
demanding than a rude caption.

Janet

"Sigvaldi Eggertsson" wrote in message
om...

Climate changes. There's a reason that Greenland got called
Greenland and Iceland got called Iceland.


Yes, I´m sure there´s a reason but the name Iceland has got nothing to do
with ice.

You have it backwards.

Iceland is properly named. Were it not for geothermal sources, there could
be no permanent settlements.

Greenland was given than name to encourage folks to move there.

"John Gilmer" wrote in message ...
"Sigvaldi Eggertsson" wrote in message
om...

Climate changes. There's a reason that Greenland got called
Greenland and Iceland got called Iceland.


Yes, I´m sure there´s a reason but the name Iceland has got nothing to do
with ice.

You have it backwards.

No i do not.

Iceland is properly named. Were it not for geothermal sources, there could
be no permanent settlements.

Iceland is warmed up by the Gulf stream and enjoys a maritime temperate climate.
Half of the USA and all Canada has colder winters than Iceland does.
The geothermal sources have got nothing to do with the settlement,
(the settlers could only harness a very small part of it).

Greenland was given than name to encourage folks to move there.

According to the sagas.

"John Gilmer" wrote in message
Iceland is properly named. Were it not for geothermal sources, there could

be no permanent settlements.


Duh. Iceland had "permanent settlements" for over 1000 years before
the geothermal sources were utilized.

-frisk

Duh. Iceland had "permanent settlements" for over 1000 years before
the geothermal sources were utilized.

Depends upon what you mean by "utilize."

If a local area is a little bit warmer because there is a greater flux of
heat from the earth there than in other areas (because of radioactive decay
the net radiation of the earth into space is slightly higher than the
radiation received from) and folks find they can make a living there then
they "utilize" geothermal sources.



-frisk

"John Gilmer" wrote in message ...

Duh. Iceland had "permanent settlements" for over 1000 years before
the geothermal sources were utilized.

Depends upon what you mean by "utilize."

If a local area is a little bit warmer because there is a greater flux of
heat from the earth there than in other areas (because of radioactive decay
the net radiation of the earth into space is slightly higher than the
radiation received from) and folks find they can make a living there then
they "utilize" geothermal sources.

This does not apply in Iceland, the geothermal heat has no effect on
the air temperature.
The temperature in Iceland is moderated by the Gulf stream, giving it
a maritime temperate climate.

"Sigvaldi Eggertsson" wrote in message
This does not apply in Iceland, the geothermal heat has no effect on
the air temperature.
The temperature in Iceland is moderated by the Gulf stream, giving it
a maritime temperate climate.

Which states someone about the condition of geography education in the
States in today's society.... As a geezer, I was aware of Iceland's climate
because I had it taught to me in elementary school.

My apologizes to you for people from the U.S. displaying such lack of
knowledge.

John

"B & J" wrote in message

"Sigvaldi Eggertsson" wrote in message
This does not apply in Iceland, the geothermal heat has no effect
on
the air temperature.
The temperature in Iceland is moderated by the Gulf stream,
giving it
a maritime temperate climate.

Which states someone about the condition of geography education in
the States in today's society.... As a geezer, I was aware of
Iceland's climate because I had it taught to me in elementary
school.

My apologizes to you for people from the U.S. displaying such lack
of knowledge.

John

http://www.stadtklima.de/webklima/CI...ik/Reykjavik.h
tm

Boy - looks awfully arctic to me... not. Only one month a year do the
temps in Reykjavik average even slightly below freezing. I've seen
temps in maritime temperate Seattle lower than the absolute low
of -17.1°C reported at the link above (though only slightly.)

"Bob Harrington" wrote in news:SNfIa.31195$Fa6.19329
@sccrnsc02:


http://www.stadtklima.de/webklima/CI...ik/Reykjavik.h
tm

Boy - looks awfully arctic to me... not. Only one month a year do the
temps in Reykjavik average even slightly below freezing. I've seen
temps in maritime temperate Seattle lower than the absolute low
of -17.1°C reported at the link above (though only slightly.)


With a max temp of 11 C or 52 F(?), it's not exactly winter in the Bahamas,
either.

-- Salty

Salty Thumb wrote in message ...
"Bob Harrington" wrote in news:SNfIa.31195$Fa6.19329
@sccrnsc02:


http://www.stadtklima.de/webklima/CI...ik/Reykjavik.h
tm

Boy - looks awfully arctic to me... not. Only one month a year do the
temps in Reykjavik average even slightly below freezing. I've seen
temps in maritime temperate Seattle lower than the absolute low
of -17.1°C reported at the link above (though only slightly.)


With a max temp of 11 C or 52 F(?), it's not exactly winter in the Bahamas,
either.

-- Salty


Well, Salty, we are talking about north of 64°N, that is north of
Fairbanks, Alaska or Whitehorse in Yukon. (the coldest I´ve
experienced in my life was 26°C below zero in Montreal, Canada and
just under -20°C in southern Sweden, the coldest in Iceland was -13°C)

Sigvaldi Eggertsson