Actually, I sort of subscribe to the notion that it's attributable to
BOTH the solar variation AND the dramatic increase in volcanic activity
the last couple of centuries, with mankind contributing in much the same
way a small child will contribute to the volume of a swimming pool...
Either way - these are all still theories, no one has proof one way or
the other. One thing is certain, we're going to have to learn to roll
with the changes - and perhaps capture them with our OM equipment. :-)
I'll see if I can't round up that volcanic reference for you.
Bruce
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chuck Norcutt
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:36 AM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Re: Glacier photos - was Re: Re: [OT] Getting
> gassed - a rant.
>
>
> Very interesting and thanks for the reference but you appear to have
> gotten your "sun as variable star" mixed up with the "magnitude of
> volcanic CO2 emissions". Found the other one yet?
>
> Thanks,
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> Bruce Nolting wrote:
>
> > Malarkey. Who established your "fact?" All mankind put together
> > can't compete with one good sized volcano for CO2 emissions, etc.
> > Here's what scientists at Harvard University think about it:
> >
> > http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html
> >
> > Are you more qualified than they?
> >
> > The reality is that no one really knows for sure what is
> causing it,
> > but the idea that mankind by himself could do this even if
> he wanted
> > to is pure hubris. Not yet, we can't.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|