Re[10]: [at-l] another stove question

[cwfrank@xxxxxxxxx (Charles Frank)]

My theory is that the earth HAS got to be COOLING. At one time the earth was
a molten ball of lava and hot gases. It took billions of years for this mass
to radiate enough heat for land and everything we have to solidify and
become the earth we know. The core of our planet just a few miles below the
surface is still liquid very very hot rock. Outside our very thin atmosphere
in space the temperature is I believe about absolute zero. To suggest that
our thin atmosphere will somehow stop all of the heat of the core of the
planet from escaping forever is ridiculous to me. If there is a short term
"blip" of a few years or even a hundred where the earth gains a degree or 2,
the long term effect has still got to be that the earth will eventually cool
down to where it will be inhabitable. Or at least to cold to hike.
----- Original Message -----
From: <greyowl@rcn.com>
To: "Jim and/or Ginny Owen" <spiriteagle99@hotmail.com>
Cc: <ellen@clinic.net>; <shane@theplacewithnoname.com>;
<at-l@backcountry.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Re[10]: [at-l] another stove question


> I am going to weigh in on this one.  I have tried to hold my
> tongue, but I must finally say a word or two.  Ex-president
> Reagan, when asked about the theory of evolution stated "It
> is only a theory"  The error of his statement is that a
> theory is based on facts (observations) and explains these
> facts and can be used as a predictive tool.  So the theory of
> flight is only a theory, but fortunately it holds ups 99.99%
> of the time.
>
> There are a number of hypothesis about global warming and
> they are currently being tested.  The facts are that the
> average temperature of our wonderful planet is increasing.
> The amounts of greenhouse gases are increasing.  The average
> temperature is increasing faster than what has been predicted
> by several models.  So we are in the data collection mode at
> this time.  Some of this data is coming from NOAA, some from
> NASA as well as other government and acedemic sources.
>
> One of the more intreging hypothesis that I heard is that the
> earth is moving out of a realitive dusty spiral arm of our
> galaxy into an area between the arms where there is little
> dust.  This results in more radient energy from the sun
> falling on the earth.  There is some geological data that
> supports this hypothesis.  In the end the global warming
> model will contain a large number of factors and will take
> years to test and then years to see how well it predicts
> future events.
>
> So the real question is do we do nothing or do we take steps
> to decrease greenhouse gases, the only factor that we have
> control over?  There are valid points to each side of this
> argument and I believe that we should do the latter.  I can
> use the scientific literature to support my argument that one
> should take action now.  I can present to you a rational and
> logical argument.  On the other hand you could use the
> scientific literature and make the argument that we don't
> have to do anything at this time.  I hope that in the next
> couple of years we start to get more and better data, but it
> may take the next hundred years before we have a definitive
> theory.
>
> As an aside.  I took a science coure in my University's
> Philosophy department.  The average lifetime of a theory
> before it is discarded or radically modified is 10 - 15
> years.  Eventually we get it right.  But one of the great
> truths in science is that there are now right or wrong
> answers to problems of this magnitude.
>
> Dr. Grey Owl
> _______________________________________________
> From the AT-L mailing list         est. 1995
> Need help?  http://www.at-l.org
> Archives: http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/
> Change your options or unsubscribe:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>
> Stay on topic!