Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer showtimemulti showtimemulti showtimemulti  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Water Sports

Humans do not burn fossil fuels every 1500 years

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-13 of 13 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 14, 2007 11:41:13 AM PDT
J. Michel says:
First off, I have not read this book. I just now came across it on Amazon.

I just wonder how the author reconciles certain aspects of his analysis. I'm sure a very convincing case can be made that every 1500 years there is a warm period on Earth. But this was in the absence of an indistrialized human society. In the past, volcanoes could spew CO2 and dust into the air, affecting climate, but the CO2 would eventually dissipate and it would be a very temprorary situation. On the other hand, the way humans emit CO2 is steady and ever increasing. In the past, CO2 did not drive climate. In fact it was the other way around. Climate would drive atmospheric CO2 levels. But now, we have a different situation: a steady and accelerating emission of CO2 into the atmosphere.

What effect this has on climate, I don't know. But to base predictions of the future on a past that did not have an industrialized human society is not the way to go.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2007 4:34:50 PM PDT
A good example of junk science by laymen who don't really understand the science. Volcanoes do not "spew" CO2. They emit mostly sulfate aerosols. That is why it is a good idea to read books like this so that you can debate using facts instead of feelings.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2007 4:55:24 PM PST
Santa says:
As usual, a lame review by someone that didn't even bother to read the book. Unfortunate!
I harken back to the familiar refrain from a Hollywood movie........"Follow the Money"!
Those who debunk this book and many others like it are stuck in the Liberal, Mainstream Media view of what's happening to this planet.

Better to be armed with facts than "feelings" and misinformation.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2007 2:49:53 PM PST
I think the point here is that the warming cycles would continue regardless of the burning of fossil fuels.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 27, 2008 7:53:44 AM PDT
Wow! Volcanoes cause warming -- that's a new one on me.

I am strolling through Amazon trying to find a good, non-biased source for information on global warming. Surprisingly, I am having a difficult time finding sources that support the global warming hypothesis. I haven't read this book, yet -- but I feel that I am a little more informed than the first poster, so I couldn't resist responding.

The simple fact is that volcanic emissions cool the atmosphere; they do not warm it. The effect from major eruptions usually lasts a few years. The most recent was Mount Pinatubo int 1991.

Most interesting was the volcanic eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815. This led to the famous "Year without summer" which led to worldwide issues with food supply. One could hypothesize that without global warming, the Mount Pinatubo eruption could have led to similar shortages.


In reply to an earlier post on Jul 29, 2008 10:38:02 PM PDT
freyw says:
Actually, it's a skeptical argument that you still see once in a while, that volcanoes pump out more CO2 than human activities. The film The Great Global Warming Swindle made that claim, before they were called on it and had to do some editing.

Complete and utter BS, BTW. In a typical year, burning of fossil fuels emits one hundred times more CO2 than all the volcanoes on Earth.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2008 1:45:17 PM PDT
If you want a definitive point of view you only need to go to the Chicago Field Museum, they have an entire section of the Museum dedicated to the effect of Ice Ages and global wobble and evidence that we have been coming out of the last ice age for some time now, and as such temperates will continue to rise.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 23, 2008 2:32:20 PM PDT
freyw says:
"been coming out of the last ice age for some time now"

I've never been to the Chicago Field Museum, but that sounds like a circular argument to me. "We're warming because we're recovering from the Little Ice Age, and we know we're still recovering from the Little Ice Age because we're warming."

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 23, 2008 2:06:24 PM PDT
Hah; Mister Smarty Pants! Surface temperatures on Venus are high enough to melt lead! Yet it doesn't have humans driving SUV's and burning coal. It just has a carbon dioxide atmosphere and.. um... oops! Oh well; never mind!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2009 6:05:51 PM PDT
Ben Diesel says:
Are you serious with this post? You do know that Venus is 25,000,000 miles closer to the sun than the Earth is right? But I'm sure that has nothing to do with the surface temperatures. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2009 4:10:02 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 21, 2009 5:08:52 PM PDT
Santa says:
I harken back to the familiar refrain from a Hollywood movie........"Follow the Money"!
You know, you are so right, and if you had bothered to follow your own advice you would know that the author is a paid corporate shill who has taken thousands from the oil companies, and before them from big tobacco. Before he became a global warming denier, his main claim to fame was presenting scientific "proof" that second hand smoke was perfectly harmless! He has been debunked, discredited and pretty much thoroughly condemned by the larger scientific community as someone whose credentials are for sale to the highest bidder.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2011 10:56:43 AM PDT
KM in A2 says:
Ben Diesel is correct that Venus's being closer to the Sun than Earth has an effect on its surface temperature, and this is an area in which science can provide some simple answers. Given its albedo and distance from the Sun, Venus should have a temperature of about 220 degrees Celsius, but it is in fact about 730 degrees Celsius, 510 degrees hotter than it should be without the greenhouse effect. There really isn't anything else that will explain it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2011 8:16:15 PM PDT
RJ Miller says:
"There really isn't anything else that will explain it."

While I am not sure what side I am on this issue, I should note that this statement is entirely false.

Venus has no magnetic field to block solar rays, or at least not one that comes anywhere near as protective as the one surrounding Earth.

The result is that the limited field that is there is only present because of interaction with solar winds, which means there really is not much of anything that blocks solar energy prior to when it interacts with the atmosphere of Venus.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  12
Total posts:  13
Initial post:  Sep 14, 2007
Latest post:  Nov 2, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Dennis T. Avery (Hardcover - September 13, 2006)
4.2 out of 5 stars (252)