nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio
List archive
- From: "Tim Inman" <Tim@historicinteriors.com>
- To: <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: [NAFEX] weather
- Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:53:14 -0500
I'm a little reluctant to post this, but since I'm
curious:
Two or three years ago, I read a book by Singer and
Avery titled, Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 years. I thought
the information presented by these weather and climate scientists was quite
intriguing. They made quite a case for the normal cyclical nature of our
changing climate. They also felt that man may indeed be contributing to
our current changes, but also included a number of different natural phenomena
which may be in play. They refute, however, that the warming change is an
imminent peril, or that it is unprecedented. Although these gentlemen were
quite critical of the UN Panel's input into this issue, I felt I was reading a
valid presentation of facts and observations presented by scientists. Have
you read this book? Can you offer your input as to it? I'd love to
hear more on the topic, without the political voltage or panic
emotions attached. It seems to me we have plenty of time to review
this issue, and being hostile and disrespectful of other's views isn't very
instructive. Liberals didn't cause this, and conservatives won't fix
it. I'm interested in the science and the facts more than the current
politically powerful positions.
I'm very environmentally sensitive, but I'm also a
calloused old goat when it comes to observing the manipulations of
politicians. Help! I'm confused.
Tim Inman
Zone 4 (or 5)
Randolph, Ia
Message:
2
Date: Sat, 28
Mar 2009 12:30:54 -0700
From: "Stephen Sadler" <Docshiva@Docshiva.org> Subject: Re: [NAFEX] Weather To: "'North American Fruit Explorers'" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org> Message-ID: <00aa01c9afdb$b681fa80$2385ef80$@org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Early on in the last decade I was among the scientists who thought that solar cycles should be closely examined for their role in so many years of highest-recorded worldwide temperatures. I've kept up with the research, and find 100% agreement among climatologists (I'm not one, but feel trained and adept at understanding published studies) that this is a carbon-based fuel use phenomenon, not a solar one. The arguments are more than persuasive; they are neat, elegant, logical, clear, repeated, validated, and scientifically irrefutable. Read them rather than taking my word for that. One of the many explanations for the global climate change phenomenon is that during the Cambrian period atmospheric carbon was much higher. This led to very high global temperatures, incompatible with human life. The plant species of the time evolved to use the high levels of CO2, and that carbon was further utilized by the animals that ate those plants. Carbon was drained from the atmosphere; perhaps by consumption alone, or in tandem with other events. Those animals and plants died in a rapid and massive extinction event (very likely caused by climate change). Their carbon settled deep into the earth over time (which is why fossils are dug up, not found on the surface), thus sequestering the carbon - making it unavailable to the atmosphere. We call their remains and their carbon "crude oil." We are taking the carbon from that climatologically different - and much hotter - time and burning it, placing the carbon back into the atmosphere and recreating Cambrian levels. You simply can't burn the amount of carbon that we do at the pace that we do without creating global climate change. There are many models of how this will manifest. Warming may set off a chain of events that could lead to a rapid ice age, for instance. Storms may be warm hurricanes or freezing superstorms. Weather will certainly continue to be different than it has ever been in human history. Species extinctions are at a rate comparable with other mass extinction events; we are experiencing a mass extinction event right now. The only question is which species will survive, and what we can do to slow or reverse climate change. Many climate change naysayers site 2008s coolness relative to the previous dozen years as evidence that climate change is not occurring. 2008, though, was the ninth hottest year ever recorded; it just seemed cool because of the string of previous years of record global high temperatures. Back on topic - over the past decade I've been able to grow zone 10 plants comfortably in my nominally zone 8 region. This is not at all a reasonable sampling of others' experience; but locally here in California's central valley my bananas and Kaffir lime are doing quite well. Got too hot for my guava last summer, though. ~ Stephen |
-
Re: [NAFEX] Weather
, (continued)
-
Re: [NAFEX] Weather,
John Barbowski, 03/28/2009
-
Re: [NAFEX] Weather,
Stephen Sadler, 03/28/2009
-
Re: [NAFEX] Weather,
Kevin Moore, 03/28/2009
- Re: [NAFEX] Weather, Betty Mayfield, 03/28/2009
-
Re: [NAFEX] Weather,
Kevin Moore, 03/28/2009
-
Re: [NAFEX] Weather,
Dr.O'Barr, 03/28/2009
-
Re: [NAFEX] Weather,
Mark Angermayer, 03/29/2009
- Re: [NAFEX] Weather, Kevin Moore, 03/29/2009
-
Re: [NAFEX] Weather,
Mark Angermayer, 03/29/2009
- Re: [NAFEX] Weather, William C. Garthright, 03/29/2009
-
Re: [NAFEX] Weather,
Stephen Sadler, 03/28/2009
-
Re: [NAFEX] Weather,
Steve, 03/29/2009
- Re: [NAFEX] Weather, Stephen Sadler, 03/29/2009
-
[NAFEX] weather,
Tim Inman, 03/28/2009
-
Re: [NAFEX] weather,
Mark Dorogi, 03/28/2009
-
[NAFEX] weather to economics, OT,
Kieran &/or Donna, 03/28/2009
- Re: [NAFEX] weather to economics, OT, Naomi Counides, 03/28/2009
-
[NAFEX] weather to economics, OT,
Kieran &/or Donna, 03/28/2009
-
Re: [NAFEX] weather,
Mark Dorogi, 03/28/2009
-
Re: [NAFEX] Weather,
John Barbowski, 03/28/2009
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.