On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 11:00:23AM -0700, James Rogers wrote:
>
> Two points:
>
> 1) Your example is anecdotal. There have been an unusually large number of
> major earthquakes in the last ten years as well, but I'm not going to claim
> that it means anything significant at this stage.
Yes, it's anecdotal.
> 2) Global warming should make things *colder* at your latitude, not warmer
> (more extreme latitude gradient with respect to temperature).
Uh-huh. You're maybe thinking about the postulated shutdown of the north
Atlantic conveyor current, perhaps?
> Also, the best models and most current studies I've seen to date seem to
> strongly suggest that a little global warming leads to a massive cold snap
> (i.e. "ice age"), not a melting of the ice caps, so "global warming" would
> therefore seem to give most people the wrong idea of the actual
> consequences. It won't be Cabo San Lucas in Minnesota, quite the opposite
> in fact.
I vaguely recall reports that most of the debunking research papers published
on global warming are funded by the oil industry. However, it's not my field
so I'll shut up for now (until I have time to read up on it in detail). Point
of note: global warming appears to be a much more accepted theory/hypothesis
outside the USA. You might want to consider the political implications ...
-- Charlie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:24 MDT