Hello Larry and Janet,
Thanx for the data link. The Climategate Scandal was/is not about skewed global warming information. If you follow/followed it it's about a protest by the more conservative, cautious minded scientific community discovering that their email addresses were public property and whether or not they were on the broadcast alert info lists in which nonprofessionals were also included. Anyone who keeps their email headers visible setting on ON can then see whom else is included in a broadcast information share cycle.. No one knows which global warming pro/con faction cast the first stone that became the Climategate Scandal, which is truly a tempest in a teacup which somehow got twisted into information elitism among the so-called inner circle of the science and pseudo science community.. Twaddle. I'm replying to YOU and I don't expect the Dallas Morning News Category or Texas Legislators Category in my address book will give a rats behind that they were not included in my reply to y'all. It's a judgment call and at any rate responsibility for ones communication TO others is ones inherent right, period.
I wikied several references in the data you linked. ALL point to several references and all also specifically point to the link I've inserted below, among their several, as well. Many many of the contributors/editors are climatologists and glaciologists with impeccable credentials. Unfortunately, there truly is a newbie faction of scientist that's all about money and funding, which just makes credibility a tougher game. You gotta vet your sources as a result.. If you can slog through their jargon riddled papers, and are comfortable looking up and defining terms and actually review their source references instead of agreeing on faith, many of them likewise factor in global dimming in their global climate models. A personal, fairly wide span of attention doesn't hurt while grinding through these papers. Most comment on it and some sidebar on this or that topic and explain their findings about man made chemical reactions to light waves and reflectivity in particular. In a nutshell: Most chemical dimming has a unique reflective aspect to the light spectrum in which infrared light (heat) abides. For the most part, they are transparent from the space side and reflective from the Earth side to infrared spectrum light waves. Ahyupp they don't significantly reduce the rate of the greenhouse effect which is causing global warming. Most of the falderhall about "Dimming" is a red herring put forward by those opposed to the postulate that the Earth is heating up due to man made influences. What's scary is how small the climate change has to be near sea level to cause major changes in the amount of stored carbon dioxide in permafrost on land, or in hydrates down below 400 feet in the sea and the ice into water in glaciers which chronically hover not far from their solid/liquid/gas change of state temperatures...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
From: LARRY JANET HARSHFIELD <ljharshfield@msn.com>
Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 9:37:40 PM
Subject: Climate Change - A Real Scientific Perspective
This article quote Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at U C, Santa Barbara. Professor Lewis has a very long and distinguished career, just a few days ago resigned from the American Physical Society, of which he had been a member for 67 years. His resignation letter is duplicated verbatim here. Regardless of your views on Climate Change, this warrants reading and thoughtful consideration of his points.
No comments:
Post a Comment