[Reader-list] 10 MYTHS OF GLOBAL WARMING

[Bipin Trivedi]

Dear Tara and Nagraj,

Yes Tara, you are right. Houses are measured in sq. ft., we prefer house/building to buy normally square/rectangle shape and not round. So, accordingly logically earth should be flat, but it is round. So, what we see physically or practically in life is not at all true for earth, solar family and universally.

SINCE, WE ARE NOTHING AGAINST EARTH/NATURE/UNIVERSE. PLEASE READ FOLLOWING FACT TO CONCLUDE MY POINT.

Nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tons of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Such volcano eruption is ongoing process and millions of tons of green gases comes out and against this, gases produced by human are negligible and obviously impact also negligible. Oceans emit 90 billion tons of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tons, compared to just SIX BILLION TONS a year from humans. So, nature produce almost 180 tones CO2 in a year while humans produce just 6 billion. MERELY 3.35%. What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

The most important among these "greenhouse gases" is water vapor, which is responsible for about 96 to 99 percent of the greenhouse effect. Among the other greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, CFCs, N2O, and O3) the most important is CO2, which contributes only 3 percent to the total greenhouse effect. 

SO, THE MAN MADE CO2 CONTRIBUTION TO THIS EFFECT MAY BE ABOUT 0.05 TO 0.25 %. Mainly sun/moon is important and plays major role in earth's atmosphere. Looking to the huge volume of sun/moon/earth and its atmospheric volumes, this CO2 effect maximum of about 0.25% merely, which can be counted as negligible and have practically nil effect in overall global warming if it is there described by few scientists. AGAIN LET ME TELL YOU, WE ARE NOTHING AGAINST NATURE AND WE CANNOT CHANGE ANYTHING BY ANY MEANS.
 
NATURE WHEN SO SMART TO PRODUCE ALL THESE RESOURCES LIKE SEA/MINES/JUNGLES HAS BUILT UP ITS OWM NATURAL REPAIRING SYSTEM KEEPING ALL THESE EVEN MINOR ILL EFFECTS IN MIND OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. PLEASE READ BELLOW.

Consequently, 2.4 billion years ago, living organisms were forced to develop defense mechanisms against the deadly effects of oxygen radicals. (15) These same mechanisms protect us against the effects of ionizing radiation. Without these mechanisms, life could not have developed in the past, and we could not live with the current flux of spontaneous DNA damages produced by the oxygen radicals which are formed in metabolism of this gas. In each mammalian cell, about 70 million spontaneous DNA damages occur during one year, but only 5 of those DNA damages are the result of the average natural radiation dose. ( 16,17) Both the oxygen atmosphere and the incredibly efficient mechanism of DNA protection and repair, developed in this ancient epoch, were probably induced by dramatic changes of climate. 

Please see following link for Ph of sea point of view and its impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

After referring to this link, last para is important as under.

Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments.[36] This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean.[37] Same as rain cycle works in the earth.  

Above 2 points proves my belief that nature has its own repairing system and this repairing system is working everywhere including all living things/human beings where they develop immunity according to current environment.

Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialization and economic growth. Industrialization and economic growth is today necessity and compulsion since population is growing. IF YOU ARE REALLY WORRYING THEN FIGHT FOR POPULATION INCREMENT AND FIGHT FOR DRASTIC STEPS TOWARDS POPULATION CONTROL MEASURES.

USA AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES REACHED AT WELL DEVELOPED LEVEL AND NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO RESTRICT THE PROGRESS OF THIRD WORLD OR UNDER DEVELOPED COUNTRY TO COME UP BY WAY OF INDUSTRIALIZATION. GREENHOUSE OR GLOBAL WARMING MOVEMENT ARE SYSTEMATICAL APPROACH TO RESTRICT THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.

PLEASE READ FOLLOWING TRUTH TO CONCLUDE MY ARGUMENT.

Two questions arise in this respect. How could the 1998 Mann et al. paper, with all those errors, have passed peer review for Nature magazine? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? This affair sadly reflects upon the quality of science being performed in this body. The Mann et al. papers had a political edge: They served as a counterweight against President George W. Bush's negative stand toward the Kyoto Protocol as "fatally flawed," and his attempt to lessen the economic global catastrophe that Kyoto would induce. An unexpected contribution in this fight recently came from President Vladimir Putin, his chief economic advisor Andrei Illarionov, and from many scientists attending the World Climate Change Conference that was held in Moscow between September 29 and October 3, 2003. Opening the conference, Putin stated that the Kyoto Protocol was "scientifically flawed," and that "Even 100 percent compliance with the Kyoto Protocol won't reverse climate change."

Thanks
Bipin




-----Original Message-----
From: TaraPrakash [mailto:taraprakash at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:16 PM
To: Bipin Trivedi; sarai-list
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] 10 MYTHS OF GLOBAL WARMING

Hello. I think we are a little more grown up than use an unsubstentiated 
statement with another unsubstentiated statement. The list of "facts" and 
"myths" sounds like:

Myth: The earth is round.

Fact: The earth is flat. All the houses are measured in sq ft.

Time to Grow up.