Re: [Phys-l] (no subject)

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

	My problem, Jim, is that you seem to avoid, totally, current 
research on the subject.  The Greenland ice cores were just reported in 
the past few months,
	Also, the arguments need to be quantitative and in context.  The 
current warming trend is accompanied by increases in greenhouse gases.
When you can reconstruct, coherently and quantitatively, the argument for 
human activity causing the current trend, then I will be happy to consider 
your arguments against.  Until then, we are just replaying, in another 
context, the "intelligent design" hoax that ran afoul of an intelligent 
federal judge in Pennsylvania.
	Google gives me almost 3,000,000 hits on "parapsychology". Anybody 
who uses that fact to argue that we should be using parapsychology to 
save the earth from the consequences of global warning is, in my mind, a 
nut.
					Regards,
						Jack



On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, JMGreen wrote:

> At 11:00 PM 6/11/2006, you wrote:
>
> >         A subscription to Science Magazine, or, better yet, Nature, will
> > let you review the evidence and reports of calculations, as they are done.
> > The recent Greenland ice core gives one of the persuasive contributions to
> > the accumulated evidence.  I've not seen anyone even bother with the
> > precessional argument except J. M. Green, who seems to have avoided any
> > contamination from recent investigations.  Argument by authority is
> > not needed, and I see no reason to respect such argument.
> >                                 Regards,
> >                                         Jack
>
> Well, Jack, I just did a Google search on "'Global Warming', precession"
>
> There you would see many others who are concerned with the Earth's 
> precession.  In fact some who believe that we should enhance the level of 
> green house gasses, because we are about to enter the next glaciation period. 
> I wish I had seen this before I posted.
>
> Of course there are those who will not value these findings because they do 
> not agree with them, but consider the following from this URL:
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350746/posts
>
>
> Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
>
>
> []
>
> Changes in global ice volume during the last 500,000 years, as determined 
> from CLIMAP isotopic measurements. Chart is from John and Katherine Imbrie's 
> book Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery, by permission of Enslow Publishers. Data 
> from J. D. Hays et al., 1976, by permission J. D. Hays.
>
> <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350746/index.htm>BACK TO HOME PAGE
>   * In 1976, scientists at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory spearheaded a 
> project called CLIMAP (Clint: Long-range Investigation Mapping and 
> Prediction) to map the history of the oceans and climate.
>   * They discovered that ice ages begin or end, almost like clockwork, every 
> 11,500 years. It's a dependable, predictable, natural cycle. Pacemaker of the 
> Ice Ages, they called it.
>   * They drew up a chart of the cycle (above).
>   * See the sharp peaks every 100,000 years or so? Each peak marks the abut 
> end of a period of warmth similar to today's and the catastrophic beginning 
> of a new ice age.
>   * See where we are today? (At the far right side of the chart?) We're at 
> the tip of the highest peak ever, teetering on the knife-edge of disaster. We 
> haven't been that high on the chart for half a million years.
>   * And do you see what happened--without exception--every time we got that 
> high on the chart?
>   * Instantaneous ice age.
>   * The next ice age could begin any day.

--
"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley