Re: The worst case scenario

in reply to The worst case scenario

Well, we know from the fossil record that a lot of areas that are now tropical were once freezing cold, and vice versa, so radical local climate shifts can obviously occur regardless of human input (or in spite of human input, if you like to think that way). You might find the following article interesting re: Global Warming:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Comment on Re: The worst case scenario

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: The worst case scenario by ww (Archbishop) on May 15, 2006 at 21:41 UTC
Re "local climate changes," -- the locales moved, for cryin' out loud. That's why we have fossil evidence of dinosaurs and some somewhat more modern biota in Antarctica. please read re "Continental Drift" and "plate tectonics" -- USGS primer Berkley animations Continental Drift Continental Drift: young children's version ...and I find it very hard to give any credence to OISM: Its so-called "faculty" have their interests engaged so widely -- from "Civil Defense" strategies to YetAnotherVariant of homeschooling -- that it's difficult for me to take them or their assertions seriously ... and, in any case, the paper you cite argues heavily on the basis of short-term ( eg: post-1940 ) trends while largely ignoring the fact (substantiated by ice cores worldwide and bio-data such as that from well-dated tree samples, etc) that the current, significant increase in atmospheric CO2 began with the Industrial Revolution. But... this is the last from me on this topic. TedPride is NOT a troll, nor, I hope, am I, but we have very widely divergent views of the available data, hypotheses, and conclusions, and this is really far OT, IMO.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: The worst case scenario
by ww (Archbishop) on May 15, 2006 at 21:41 UTC

locales

...and I find it very hard to give any credence to OISM: Its so-called "faculty" have their interests engaged so widely -- from "Civil Defense" strategies to YetAnotherVariant of homeschooling -- that it's difficult for me to take them or their assertions seriously ... and, in any case, the paper you cite argues heavily on the basis of short-term ( eg: post-1940 ) trends while largely ignoring the fact (substantiated by ice cores worldwide and bio-data such as that from well-dated tree samples, etc) that the current, significant increase in atmospheric CO2 began with the Industrial Revolution.

But... this is the last from me on this topic. TedPride is NOT a troll, nor, I hope, am I, but we have very widely divergent views of the available data, hypotheses, and conclusions, and this is really far OT, IMO.

[reply]

In Section Past Polls