Oh well, it is properly labeled... The Earth Day environmentalists first warned of a coming ice-age than one of their scientists made a mistake calculating temperatures read from satellites and the global warming belief was adopted. His disclaimers upon discovering his error were lost in the deafening noise of environmental concern. Environmentalism in the news today does tend to be quite emotional. Maybe both are right though. Climatologists tells us global cooling will not give us an ice-age, it will give desertification. Colder air holds less water period. Ice fields will "sublime" (evaporate for the rest of us) away in the dry air like what is happening to the ice-cap on Kilimanjaro. They say that an ice age has to do with a glacier's budget. In grossly simplified layman's terms, an ice-age occurs when more snow falls than can be melted off in a given seasonal "budget". This they say happens with global warming when much more water is in the air and heavy precipitation can occur. Couple that with Neanderthal man who doctors familiar with Rickets identified as normal humans with Rickets and you have a picture of Europe with not enough sunshine for people living primitively to get enough vitamin D to avoid Rickets. As in, almost perpetually overcast weather like Boston in winter where Rickets is making a comeback because people are neglecting Vitamin D milk or supplements. People on the coast ate more fish and Neanderthal type skeletons were not as prevalent there although a Neanderthal skeleton was found in Syria, if I recall correctly, which could indicate a traveler or other interesting things. Off-course a recent scientist has claimed to unravel the genetic code of these individuals as different from human, but he talked about how he had to sort through all kinds of contaminating DNA to find the real which does beg the question. Anyhow, precision climate records on a global scale are quite recent which leaves us short of the necessary historical info to identify long term type trends. Regionally we do have longer records and some trends are recognizable as recurring whereas others are, well, troubling. Overall we have a mixed bag historically to work from. We are more sensitive to this today because of two things: the modern population explosion & the news. The news brings us all the graphic details live. In the past (100 years ago and more) we would get it days to months later in print (much less emotion impact to print). The other is that fact that our economy supports a greater population density than was common in the past. More people are exposed to any given storm now then was common in the past. So, stake your claim to all those shallow water areas off of Florida which will one day be beachfront. (Remember all those pre-historic structures--highways, walls, building outlines--under water out there? It could happen again. Andrew Uh oh, now I've done it again. ;-) At 03:05 PM 9/10/2004 -0400, you wrote: > > Have any of the world's leaders heard that it is generally accepted, at > > least within the scientific community, that there is a relationship > > between excessive and increasing world carbon emissions, global warming, > > and the INCREASED FREQUENCY AND INTENSITY OF TROPICAL STORM SYSTEMS. Any > > clue at all? > >While they are probably wrong, I do agree that many scientists do put a >connection as listed above. Howver, as a hurricane Frances victim who only >just now got power and phone back up and as a long time, sixth-generation >Floridan, I can also tell you that it is a fact that multiple storms have >hit Florida in the past. It is in recent memory that storms have not come >this way but take a look at the historical tracks of storms and you will >see many years that storms either hit Florida or came very close. So, >while it is very tempting to try and blame government and industry for the >storms, it is more likely that we are just returning to the norm for >Atlantic based storms at this time of year. There is still far too much >scientific investigation needed in order to definitively prove or even >stronly suggest that there is a connection between pollution and global >warming. The evidence just simply is not there, in spite of terrible >movies that try to suggest otherwise. > >_______________________________________________ >pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC