Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming Revolution
- Add a comment
- Go to The Global Warming Shtick - The Perpetual April Fool's
Here's the link to Arley's blog:
http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/ArleyWhite7223/ Highly recommended!
posted by
WriterofLight
on April 2, 2006 at 8:00 PM
| link to this | reply
WriterOfLight
Because so-called scientists need to get published and to get published, they need to be alarmist! How about when the the Amchitka nuclear test was going to cause catastrophic earthquakes all over North America! Never happened!
posted by
Burly
on April 2, 2006 at 8:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Writer
Please see my blog "Global warming vs global cooling". Your blog inspired me to explain how this change of concerns occurred.
I bid you peace and understanding. Arley White
posted by
ArleyWhite
on April 1, 2006 at 8:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Arley, thanks as always, and welcome, Burly!
I always appreciate your lucid, well-reasoned comments. I'm not sure I follow your physics lesson all the way through, but the difference between particulate and gasseous emissions is noted and appreciated.
But that takes me back to the whole point I was trying to raise: How is it that we went from dire warnings of global cooling in 1974-75 to dire warnings of global warming in 2006, with precisely the same artificial cause of fossil fuels being blamed for both? As I noted, there was no concern at all about warming, be it from gasseous emissions or anything else, at the time. Had this knowledge about the effect of carbon dioxide not been discovered yet? Or was it simply not mentioned so as to not offset concern about particulate emissions? Were particulate emissions so severe that they offset concurrent gaseous emissions? And what, as Burly noted, of the effect of the periodic volcanic cataclysm?
Even with the differing effects of particulate versus gasseous emissions, how can there be such a rapid swing in 32 years? These dire warnings from one extreme to the other are like a yoyo, while the cycles of the climate are more like gentle waves. It is that very tone of extremism and panic-mongering that puts people off. If the concern is real, those who espouse it need to learn to communicate it in ways people will accept, not ridicule.
posted by
WriterofLight
on April 1, 2006 at 6:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Writeroflight
Wow! Do I ever agree with you! These enviros are alarmists, Chicken Little's who always see the sky falling! I suppose its our fault that the dinosaurs became extinct when the earth's climate changed for whatever reason. One volcano eruption puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all the coal burning power plants in the world! Global warming? Yes, its happening but its a cyclical phenomenon and will probably lead to another ice age but who really cares! We're not going to be here to see it anyway! Thanks for the excellent post.
posted by
Burly
on April 1, 2006 at 1:40 PM
| link to this | reply
ArleyWhite - Excellent comment. Thank you for making it graspable.
posted by
blogflogger
on April 1, 2006 at 1:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Writer, interesting post, however . . .
Writer, as always I enjoyed your last blog posting, but this time I must admit I am very much in disagreement with your position. The reasons for the concern for global cooling back in the early '70s had to do with the particulate material that was being emitted from both automobiles and industrial burning operations, (power generation, steam plants etc.), and there is to this day significant real data to support the position that high levels of particulates do create a reflective effect on the amount of energy that the planet surface receives. As a result of the concerns voiced back then the vast majority of industrial burning operations were required to install "scrubbers" to remove the particulate materials from their emissions, and lead (which also formed particulates in the atmosphere) were removed from almost all gasoline type products. The concern today is not based on particulates, but on the gas content of the fuels concerned. It is a fact, undeniable, that carbon dioxide reflects infrared radiation and as the light from the sun passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the earth's surface, a significant amount of the light energy is "downshifted" in frequency to the range of infrared and it is therefore not possible to reemit it back into space because of the increased levels of carbon dioxide, (and other reflective gases) in the atmosphere. Further more with the elimination of the particulate matter in the emissions of burning fossil fuels has resulted in the solar energy hitting the planets surface has increased as well.
As a side note it should be mentioned that the development of emission scrubbing technologies and the need to develop more fuel efficient automobiles, and sources of alternative energy have provided a vast new arena for capitalism and jobs creation. Remember, capitalism is the free market system that allows entrepreneurs to develop, manufacture and sell products to meet the needs of the consumer and of industry. quite contrary to the idea that environmental concerns are anticapitalist they are just the opposite, they are the early announcements of new and upcoming needs that much be fulfilled by someone with the courage to address the need and offer real solutions.
I bid you peace and understanding. Arley White
posted by
ArleyWhite
on April 1, 2006 at 12:52 PM
| link to this | reply