[at-l] More Global Warming ahead

[spiriteagle99 at hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

wisperlight wrote:

>i thought global warming ment higher overall tempurature with greater 
>swings
>from cold to hot. so colder colds and much hotter hots.

No.  There are some pseudo-scientific folks who claim that any deviation 
from "normal" weather is proof of  global warming.  And that "older colds 
and hotter hots" are direct evidence of global warming.  Fortunately or 
otherwise, the "colder colds and hotter hots" that we've been experiencing 
rank as nothing more than "weather" and rarely even set new record highs or 
lows.

In fact, real "classical" global warming theory says that the weather would 
moderate, with the largest increase in temps occurring at night and in the 
colder (arctic) regions.  That means more moderate weather, less hurricanes 
(and less severe hurricanes) - and a more even temperature distribution 
worldwide.

OTOH - "classical" global warming theory is not only incomplete, but is 
being proved more so on an almost weekly basis. I get a constant stream of 
reports of new and wonderful contributing factors to atmospheric conditions 
- few (very few) of which support "global warming" as you've been led to 
understand it.  For example, the melting glaciers that are Roks' favorite 
evidence of massive global warming have recently been shown to be receding 
at increased rates because of factors other than increased atmospheric 
temperatures.  In point of fact, my trip to Canada last year provided direct 
and obvious evidence supporting the report that I recently received about 
exactly that subject.

What I just said is - whatever you've been taught about global warming - is 
at least 50% wrong.  Notice - I said "at least" 50%.  Keep in mind that 
global warming "theory" is just that - a "theory."  And, Al Gore to the 
contrary, it fails to meet the most elementary test for a complete and valid 
theory.  To quote someone who should know about "theory" ---

>A scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the 
>observations we make.  A good theory will describe a large range of 
>phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite 
>predictions that can be tested.  If the predictions agree with the 
>observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved 
>to be correct.  On the other hand, if the observations disagree with the 
>predictions, one has to discard or modify the theory.  (At least that is 
>what is supposed to happen.  In practice, people often question the 
>accuracy of the observations and the reliability and moral character of 
>those making the observations.)
          From ?The Universe in a Nutshell? by Stephen Hawking

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. 
http://wine.msn.com/