Date: Tue Mar 10 10:04:23 2009 Back to Contents ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author: John Hubisz

Subject: Re: Climate Change - Is it Controversial?

Post:

Thanks, Dick. There are many areas to work in (some are being looked at
without publicity) that would be much more helpful. By the way I didn't
mention Archimedes Principle as a topic that somehow doesn't get too
much press. If the ice, now weighing down the land mass under it, melts
and runs off, the land will rise. Granted there is a slight difference
between salt and fresh water, but it makes for an interesting question.

Over the past 400,000 years (Antarctica) the CO2 concentration has had
peaks at about 290 ppm 400,000, 320,000, 240,000, 130,000, years ago,
and present day. In 1820 it was about 450 ppm. In 1940 it was about
450 ppm. In 1950 it was about 320 ppm. Today it is abut 380 ppm. The
oscillations look like a sine wave. They drop down to 160 ppm. I
believe that greenhouses want better than that.

When we get into the millions of years ago, we get into the 1000-6000
ppm range.

I am putting together my column where I review one easy to read very
good historical look (Singer & Avery) at length and about 10
MicroReviews of other books similar books that ask questions about why
the push toward Socialism and beyond.

John

Richard Berg wrote:
> According to a document that I have seen with the reference:
> Unstoppable Global Warming every 1500 years, co-authored by Dr. S.
> Fred Singer, "man generates about 3 billion tons of CO2 annually while
> plants absorb 75 billion tons of CO2 annually." The 72 billion tons
> of CO2 absorbed by plants from natural sources constitute less than
> about 0.01% of the 39,000 billion tons of CO2 stored in the oceans. I
> believe that, according to the laws of chemical equilibrium, this CO2
> is continually being absorbed an emitted by the oceans. Why are we
> worrying about the 3 billion tons produced by man?
>
> It seems to me that we need to sort of get a grip on reality and worry
> about the things that really affect the environment that we can
> actually do something about without further significant destruction of
> our economy.
>
> Dick
>
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Bernard Cleyet wrote:
>
>> What is the ratio of anthro-CO2 and other sourced CO2? And IF there is
>> a delicate balance, what effect even a sl. increase?
>> bc thinks controlled in that we have the past to compare -- ice cores
>> etc.
>>
>>
>> On 2009, Mar 09, , at 19:20, Richard Heckathorn wrote:
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>>
>>
>> the human race is in the process of performing a vast uncontrolled
>> experiment on it
>>
>>
>>
>> What is the VAST uncontrolled experiment? Such a vast earth and we
>> so little a people?
>>
>>
>>
>> Dick
>>
>>
>>
>> Helping teachers who facilitate, motivating students who learn.
>> Dick Heckathorn 14665 Pawnee Trail Middleburg Hts, OH 44130
>> 440-826-0834
>> http://web.cvcaroyals.org/~rheckathorn/
>> Adjunct Physics Teacher - Baldwin Wallace College
>> Physics is learning how to communicate with ones environment so
>> that it will talk back.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu
>> [mailto:tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Nord
>> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 4:24 PM
>> To: tap-l@lists.ncsu.edu
>> Cc: Paul Nord
>> Subject: Re: [tap-l] Climate Change - Is it Controversial?
>>
>>
>>
>> John,
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we agree that the earth is a large poorly-understood system?
>> And do we agree that the human race is in the process of
>> performing a vast uncontrolled experiment on it?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm hoping to see good results too.
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2009, at 1:57 PM, John Hubisz wrote:
>>
>>
>> Someone said,
>>
>>
>>
>> (Yes, it is cut and dry for the majority of scientists - but it is
>> not so
>>
>> for the general public.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I responded,
>>
>>
>>
>> That is not true. There are at least 32,000 scientists (9000
>> physicists) who do not think that it is "cut and dry" and more are
>> joining them as as scientists retire and finish out grants.
>>
>>
>>
>> And if the general public includes weathermen/meteorologists and
>> economists that adds to the group.
>>
>>
>>
>> John Hubisz
>>
>>
>> Bill Norwood wrote:
>>
>> Hi Taplers,
>>
>> I thought there was no remaining question
>> that we are threatened by climate change
>> that will do major physical and economic damage
>> if we don?t change our ways.
>>
>> But these guys, involved in the March 8-10, New York,
>> International Conference on Climate Change,
>> including some physicists, don?t think so.
>>
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2175921/posts
>>
>> Anybody got insight?
>>
>> Thanks, Bill Norwood, U of MD at College Park
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ***********************************************************************
> Dr. Richard E. Berg, Professor of the Practice
> Physics Lecture-Demonstration Facility
> U.S. mail address:
> Department of Physics
> University of Maryland
> College Park, MD 20742-4111
> Phone: (301) 405-5994
> FAX: (301) 314-9525
> e-mail reberg@umd.edu
> www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem
> ***********************************************************************

From tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu Tue Mar 10 10:04:23 2009

Back