Karsten Johanse skreiv:
>Denne teoriens innvendinger mot at menneskelige utslipp påvirker
>drivhuseffekten og mot at drivhuseffekten
>påvirker klimaet er de første jeg har sett som
>virker noenlunde plausible
Det er den kanskje, men det er ein del alvorlege svakheter.
>Howw could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of
>information
>as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report
>on
>carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information
>about20
>water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed
>water or cloud,
"Water vapor" = vassdamp = vatn i gassfase, ikkje condensed water
>Essenhigh attributes the current reported rise in global temperatures to
>a
>natural cycle of warming and cooling.
Teoretisk mogleg, men CO2 konsentrasjonen er no 360 ppm, ikkje
300 ppm som han refererer til i ein tidlegare syklus.
>As the ice cap melts, the earth warms, until the Arctic Ocean opens
>again Once enough water is available by evaporation from the ocean into
>the atmosphere, snows can begin to replenish the ice cap. At that point,
>the Arctic ice begins to expand, the global temperature can then start to
>reverse, and the earth can start re-entry to a new ice age.
Denne teorien er kanskje ny. For å finne støtte må nokon
ta sedimentprøver i Nordishavet.
>But he maintains his evaluations
>represent an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they
>are logically
>rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than
>in other studies.
Det er leit at han ikkje har spurt nokon om (mis)forståinga
hans av ordet "vapor" før han funderte meir på emnet.
Øyvind Seland
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03-08-01 MET DST