Asteroid strike a much greater threat to humanity than AGW
RayLopez99
side, but an asteroid/meteor/comet/ outer space foreign body striking
earth is a much greater threat to humanity than AGW. More evidence
below.
RL
NASA says collision unlikely, as Russia considers asteroid mission
December 30, 2009 14:22 EST
MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia's space chief is considering a space mission to
knock away an approaching asteroid, though NASA officials don't
consider the giant rock a threat to Earth.
When the 885-foot asteroid was discovered in 2004, astronomers gave it
as much as a 1-in-37 chance of hitting Earth in 2029. But scientists
have been lowering their estimates ever since. Now, a NASA astronomer
says the space rock isn't "anything to worry about."
Yet, the Russian space chief tells Golos Rossii radio that he's heard
the asteroid is getting closer to a possible impact in about 22 years.
He adds that, "People's lives are at stake."
He says Russia's space agency will hold a meeting on the topic soon.
He says that, if an asteroid deflection mission is finalized, NASA
would be among those invited to join.
$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto
Yes, there is something like a 1/6000th chance of a small asteroid
hitting Earth leading to (well, probably less effect than the usual
doomsday kooks suggest) but it would still cause some problems.
Green Turtle
news:86cd18c2-585b-4f4c...@3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> I've said this before, with Roger the Dodger Coppock taking the other
> side, but an asteroid/meteor/comet/ outer space foreign body striking
> earth is a much greater threat to humanity than AGW. More evidence
> below.
>
The problem here is no one going to fall for a Asteroid tax, are they?
On the other hand, all those people fell for the hockey stick, so, perhaps
those greens and socialists are more stupid then I thought.
I bet if governments started offering grant money for asteroids, then
perhaps we would see support for asteroid tax from the science community,
after that that's their position with AGW.
So, ok, any comments from the lefts and socialists (science community) which
is the crowd that wants me to wear a burlap sack smock and live in a cave
without heating.
Question: Do you folks think a asteroid tax is a good idea?
Super Turtle
Rav1ng rabbit
If you are talking about Apophis then please save us this crap. Once
every 100 million years it is bingo on earth with an asteroid, but this
particular century including the next few ones we have to deal with AGW
deniers and global warming.
Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
Roger Coppock
Going on in the same article:
"NASA had put the chances that Apophis could hit Earth in 2036 as 1-
in-45,000. In October, after researchers recalculated the asteroid's
path, the agency changed its estimate to 1-in-250,000."
OH COME ON RAY!
ONE in a quarter million! That could be smaller,
but limitations of observational data inflate the
probability. The Russians are grandstanding.
The original article lives here:
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20091230/D9CTTVF81.html
The edits Loopy made to this article are an interesting insight
into his personality.
-- Chance of strike by Apophis 1 in 250,000.
More and better telescopes could probably make this
number even smaller.
-- Chance of AGW 1.0; it's happening now.
Just ask the Japanese, they are measuring global CO2
forcing every 3 days by satellite.
Androcles
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:f18b18e5-4de3-4fa3...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
-- Chance of AGW 1.0; it's happening now.
Just ask the Japanese, they are measuring global CO2
forcing every 3 days by satellite.
Chance of Easter Bunny laying chocolate eggs 1.0; it's happening now.
There will be cuniculargenic chocolate eggs.
Just ask the children, they are measuring days to Easter by telephone.
Roger Coppock
> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
We had a nut posting to alt.global-warming a couple
of years ago who said that the idea of the Easter Bunny
character was a plot by dark and sinister New World
Order forces to drive our Christian youth away from the
one True Religion™. Are you the same guy, Androcles?
I M @ good guy
I am sorry to have to state that the chance of a big
asteroid hit increases every year, a number of pretty
big rocks are in about the same orbit as Earth and
it is only a matter of time until they all fall to Earth,
each pass alters their orbit.
This is not the same type of prediction
that AGW alarmists are making, asteroids do
hit Earth, the sure bet in the past is that
ice ages happen, the unknown thing is
what causes a rapid warm-up after an
ice age.
Asteroids will hit Earth, no telling how
big, no telling how many, no telling when.
But temperatures seem to have some
kind of restricting mechanism, suggested
by a simple question, "when it warms up
after an ice age, why does the resulting
temperature always seem to be about
the same?".
Astronomers know the orbits of some
asteroids quite well, no other science is
as exact as long term orbital paths, while
there is no known criteria at all to make
predictions about future climate outside
the tropics.
AGW would be at least a little more
believable if the proponents posting here
were a little more civil, showed a lot more
intelligence, were able to discuss physics
of climate and geology, were honest, and
had at lease some morality to be proud of.
Rav1ng rabbit
In the beginning we had a solar system in formation, and during this
time there was accretion which led to the formation of planets and
moons. Since that time the solar system stabilized, and the smaller
sized stuff that may hit us remained.
There are a few Earth orbit plane crossers, asteroids that could impact
on Earth, but the larger ones have already disappeared. That is why the
Earth hasn't drastically changed the last 4,5 billion years, solar
system formation is simply over.
The ones that could impact even today, such as the KT boundary impactor,
may certainly ruin your day, yet, the asteroid that hit Earth 65 million
years ago did not kill photosynthesis, otherwise we would never have
been here. The smaller one goes in asteroid size, the more impacts one
sees, and there are distribution graphs from which you can distill an
annual occurrence:
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/sample_articles/sp/2000JE001343/figures.shtml#fig01
Something the size of an apophis (300 meter) strikes on average every
100 thousand years. It could wipe out a city like Paris. But the chance
that it does is like 1 in 1e5 per year. The chance that it does not
happen in 1 year is still (1-0.00001), the chance that it does not
happen in the second year is (1-0.00001)^2, and the chance that it does
not happen in the n^th year is (1-0.00001)^n. The continuous reciprocal
probability that you are hit in the n th year is called p(n) which is
p(n) = 1-(1-alpha)^n
or by approximation
p(n) = n*alpha - n*(n-1)/2 alpha^2 + n*(n-1)*(n-2)/3! alpha^3 + ...
The only this I want to point out is that p(n) does not increase
linearly in time, it has to hit the asymptote of 1 at some point. The
chance of being hit is the n th year for alpha = 1e-5 is shown in the
table below:
n 1-(1-alpha)^n timescale
1 0.00001000000000 annual
10 0.00009999550012 decade
100 0.00099950516166 century
1000 0.00995021575361 since medieval times
10000 0.09516303438524 start of agriculture
100000 0.63212239823175
200000 0.86466607011724
300000 0.95021367843686
400000 0.98168472742249
500000 0.99326222144845 five ice ages ago
Within our lifespan (about a century) a realistic impact chance of
something that would certainly make it into the newspapers is therefore
less than 0.1%.
>
> This is not the same type of prediction
> that AGW alarmists are making, asteroids do
> hit Earth, the sure bet in the past is that
> ice ages happen, the unknown thing is
> what causes a rapid warm-up after an
> ice age.
The phenomenon you describe is rather precisely known, the rapid warming
up after an ice age is caused by exactly the same reason as we see
global warming accelerating today. Greenhouse gases do it, because the
relatively slow and modest forcings related to the Milanchovitz cycles
are helped with the release of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. A
thawing permafrost releases methane, an ocean that warms releases more
CO2 etc. The increase in greenhouse gas concentrations helps to
accelerate the system earth to heat up.
>
>
> Asteroids will hit Earth, no telling how
> big, no telling how many, no telling when.
Look again at the above table and the publication I retrieved from the
AGU. Within our lifespan on earth (a century I count) it is a 0.1%
chance. But, the likelihood of global warming hitting us is according to
science 1 (or maybe between 0.95 and 0.99 if you interpret the IPCC
reports). We see AGW happening right now, we know what it is caused by,
and we also know how we could stop it.
>
> But temperatures seem to have some
> kind of restricting mechanism, suggested
> by a simple question, "when it warms up
> after an ice age, why does the resulting
> temperature always seem to be about
> the same?".
A change in forcing expressed as Watt per square meter can be translated
directly into a change in the earth's average temperature. This is the
climate sensitivity factor which is:
0.75 K/(W/m^2)
This number is measured (and not predicted) from various data.
>
> Astronomers know the orbits of some
> asteroids quite well, no other science is
> as exact as long term orbital paths, while
> there is no known criteria at all to make
> predictions about future climate outside
> the tropics.
This is not entirely true because the risk associated with apophis
hitting Earth is controlled by flyby conditions depends significantly on
the exactly forcings during a flyby. Small perturbations have large
consequences in the future. Every 7 years there are flyby's of this
asteroid, and in 2029 we will see a flyby below geostationary altitude
but almost certainly not an impact in 2036.
>
> AGW would be at least a little more
> believable if the proponents posting here
> were a little more civil, showed a lot more
> intelligence, were able to discuss physics
> of climate and geology, were honest, and
> had at lease some morality to be proud of.
Climate science to which the subject AGW belongs is just as believable
as astronomy is, or any other branch of science is. The criterion is
peer reviewed since in high ranking journals.
There is significant scientific agreement on why there is man made
global warming. A pretty good summary is still found in the IPCC
reports, but my guess is that you are simply in denial.
Rav1ng rabbit
Don't worry about androcles, he is a bit funny.
Rav1ng rabbit
> Roger Coppock wrote:
>
>> -- Chance of AGW 1.0; it's happening now.
>> Just ask the Japanese, they are measuring global CO2
>> forcing every 3 days by satellite.
>
>
> Does the IPCC have the EXACT date? I'll bet they're so smart, they can
> tell the year, month, day, hour, and minute the climate stopped changing.
>
> If you're discussing the probability that man is causing AGW, the IPCC claims
> a probability of greater than 9 out of 10, It is NOT 10/10
Big deal, 9 out of 10 is a lot better than the 1 out of 1000 chance in
a century I explained in a couple of postings ago.
>
> http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/reflections-the-un-climate-change-negotiations-bali
>
> "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), long regarded as the
> single most trustworthy source of information on climate science, states
> unequivocally that Earth's climate is warming rapidly and that we're now more
> than 90 percent certain that human activities have caused most of the observed
> warming in recent decades. The research behind these findings, published in
> the IPCC's landmark 2007 report, is rock-solid science".
>
There is no rock-solid science leading to the truth, there is a peer
review process where people verify one another's results. That is all.
Some evidence (such as observation to model matching) is very strong
evidence, and this is all part of climate science to which AGW belongs.
But as soon when somebody finds something wrong with a theory then
everybody would accept this finding as long as it is reproducible. IR
absorption by CO2 is reproducible, also the scaling from laboratory
experiments to the entire atmosphere is reproducible. What are we
talking about is according to me a lot of wasted energy in convincing
the deniers and the skeptics that there is global warming and that we
exactly know why there is global warming.
Androcles
"Rav1ng rabbit" <rab...@dot.com> wrote in message
news:4b3c63ba$0$22942$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Roger Coppock wrote:
>> On Dec 30, 4:26 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
>>> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:f18b18e5-4de3-4fa3...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>> -- Chance of AGW 1.0; it's happening now.
>>> Just ask the Japanese, they are measuring global CO2
>>> forcing every 3 days by satellite.
>>> ===================================
>>> Chance of Easter Bunny laying chocolate eggs 1.0; it's happening now.
>>> There will be cuniculargenic chocolate eggs.
>>> Just ask the children, they are measuring days to Easter by telephone.
>>
>> We had a nut posting to alt.global-warming a couple
>> of years ago who said that the idea of the Easter Bunny
>> character was a plot by dark and sinister New World
>> Order forces to drive our Christian youth away from the
>
> Don't worry about androcles, he is a bit funny.
>
>
JohnM
> Roger Coppock wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 4:26 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
> >> "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:f18b18e5-4de3-4fa3...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> >> -- Chance of AGW 1.0; it's happening now.
> >> Just ask the Japanese, they are measuring global CO2
> >> forcing every 3 days by satellite.
> >> ===================================
> >> Chance of Easter Bunny laying chocolate eggs 1.0; it's happening now.
> >> There will be cuniculargenic chocolate eggs.
> >> Just ask the children, they are measuring days to Easter by telephone.
>
> > We had a nut posting to alt.global-warming a couple
> > of years ago who said that the idea of the Easter Bunny
> > character was a plot by dark and sinister New World
> > Order forces to drive our Christian youth away from the
>
> Don't worry about androcles, he is a bit funny.
Just needs to learn how to laugh at himself, that's all :-0
Androcles
"JohnM" <john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:782e089f-77d2-4be0...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
=====================================
Chance of Morgan understanding humorous nuts: 0.0; it'll never happen.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
na, the russians take him seriously, they reserved him a seat on the
impactor mission.
RayLopez99
>
> If you are talking about Apophis then please save us this crap.
Why? Recall the Shomaker-Levy comet that impacted Jupiter, and the
next one more recently, were only first discovered 18 months before
impact and 0 days before impact, respectively. We need an early
warning system.
> Once
> every 100 million years it is bingo on earth with an asteroid, but this
> particular century including the next few ones we have to deal with AGW
> deniers and global warming.
No, you are confusing mega-extinctions (and some claim all five of the
Big Five mega extinctions were caused by outer space foreign body
collisions), with a minor extinction with a 300 meter wide asteroid,
which would wipe out some life but not all.
BTW rabbit, I thought you were a AGW skeptic?
RL
RayLopez99
> We had a nut posting to alt.global-warming a couple
> of years ago who said that the idea of the Easter Bunny
> character was a plot by dark and sinister New World
> Order forces to drive our Christian youth away from the
> one True Religion™. Are you the same guy, Androcles?
Ad Homenium attack Roger, noted. That was not Androcles point,
Crappock. He was being sarcastic.
As for your stats on probability of impact, they tend to change as
observations become more precise. They have changed several times for
this reason. Who knows how they'll change in 10 years? And remember,
the Shomaker-Levy comet that impacted Jupiter was only discovered 18
months before impact, and the more recent Jupiter impacting comet was
not discovered by astronomers until after impact.
We need an early warning detection system more so than even an early
warming detection system (which we have in place, and is showing a
nearly trivial 0.6C increase).
RL
RayLopez99
> If you're discussing the probability that man is causing AGW, the IPCC claims
> a probability of greater than 9 out of 10, It is NOT 10/10
>
Actually it's between 10% on the lower bound and the 90% upper bound
that the press release you quote cites.
RL
RayLopez99
> Within our lifespan (about a century) a realistic impact chance of
> something that would certainly make it into the newspapers is therefore
> less than 0.1%.
Wrong again. Shomaker-Levy was discovered 18 months before impact.
The more recent comet that struck Jupiter was discovered a day AFTER
impact. Now please revise your numbers and don't repeat the old wives
claptrap about Jupiter being a "foreign body attractor"--that's been
proven false.
> Look again at the above table and the publication I retrieved from the
> AGU. Within our lifespan on earth (a century I count) it is a 0.1%
> chance. But, the likelihood of global warming hitting us is according to
> science 1 (or maybe between 0.95 and 0.99 if you interpret the IPCC
> reports). We see AGW happening right now, we know what it is caused by,
> and we also know how we could stop it.
The IPCC at its upper bound says 90%. Other scientists say 10%. Your
"95%" figure is suspiciously close to Coppock's 99.999.... (sixty
nines) degree of certainty.
You've been busted. Credibility = 0.
RL
Rav1ng rabbit
RL is another nutty AGW denier, please take care in 2010 not to get hit
by denying street traffic or so, I find you contributions to this NG
hilarious enough to continue to read them.
erschro...@gmail.com
>
> > -- Chance of AGW 1.0; it's happening now.
> > Just ask the Japanese, they are measuring global CO2
> > forcing every 3 days by satellite.
>
>
> Does the IPCC have the EXACT date? I'll bet they're so smart, they can
> tell the year, month, day, hour, and minute the climate stopped changing.
>
> a probability of greater than 9 out of 10, It is NOT 10/10
>
If a doctor told you there was a 9 out of 10 probability you'd die
without surgery, would you have the surgery?
> http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/reflections-the-un-clim...
Rav1ng rabbit
> On Dec 30, 3:45 pm, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
>> If you are talking about Apophis then please save us this crap.
>
> Why? Recall the Shomaker-Levy comet that impacted Jupiter, and the
> next one more recently, were only first discovered 18 months before
> impact and 0 days before impact, respectively. We need an early
> warning system.
It is Shoemaker-Levy 9.
Please verify yourself that you need to put in sqrt(2) times the orbital
velocity within the asteroid belt to escape the asteroid belt outwards,
and that this is a bigger chance of occurrence then going INTO the
asteroid belt since the total energy to reach an Earth orbit is simply
larger.
The early warning systems are already there, they are called telescopes,
the thing you need is guaranteed observation time. Talk to astronomers.
There is also an asteroid deflection proposal, google on the idea of a
gravitational tractor in Nature written by two former US astronauts.
This is best implemented before a flyby of apophis afaik. Nobody will
fly such a mission unless it is really necessary.
>
>> Once
>> every 100 million years it is bingo on earth with an asteroid, but this
>> particular century including the next few ones we have to deal with AGW
>> deniers and global warming.
>
> No, you are confusing mega-extinctions (and some claim all five of the
> Big Five mega extinctions were caused by outer space foreign body
> collisions), with a minor extinction with a 300 meter wide asteroid,
> which would wipe out some life but not all.
Please look at the AGU publication impactor histogram, the bigger the
bang the more energy. Meteor crater AZ was a recent one, but not life
threatening or so.
>
> BTW rabbit, I thought you were a AGW skeptic?
>
> RL
The rabbit prefers facts rather than opinions, that's all. My skepticism
is whether at all an no-carbon energy transition into is doable. See also:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462568a.html
Rav1ng rabbit
> On Dec 30, 8:53 pm, "S. Caro" <sc...@mux-net-88.com> wrote:
>> Roger Coppock wrote:
>>
>>> -- Chance of AGW 1.0; it's happening now.
>>> Just ask the Japanese, they are measuring global CO2
>>> forcing every 3 days by satellite.
>> I agree the climate is changing. But, when did climate stop changing anyway?
>>
>> Does the IPCC have the EXACT date? I'll bet they're so smart, they can
>> tell the year, month, day, hour, and minute the climate stopped changing.
>>
>> If you're discussing the probability that man is causing AGW, the IPCC claims
>> a probability of greater than 9 out of 10, It is NOT 10/10
>>
>
> If a doctor told you there was a 9 out of 10 probability you'd die
> without surgery, would you have the surgery?
Wouldn't you need a Bayesian method to solve this riddle?
>
>
>> http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/reflections-the-un-clim...
>>
>> "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), long regarded as the
>> single most trustworthy source of information on climate science, states
>> unequivocally that Earth's climate is warming rapidly and that we're now more
>> than 90 percent certain that human activities have caused most of the observed
>> warming in recent decades. The research behind these findings, published in
>> the IPCC's landmark 2007 report, is rock-solid science".
>
Climate Realist
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have read several studies about the chances of earth being hit by an
asteroid. The general conclusion seems to be that it is not a question
of "IF", it is only a question of "WHEN". In other words, the
probability of earth being hit by an asteroid is 1.0. The only unknown
is when it will happen.
---------------------------------------------
After celebrating the new year, one has to wake up to the realities of
life the next morning. The first stupid Lloyd analogy of 2010 (or have
I missed some already).
> > If you're discussing the probability that man is causing AGW, the IPCC claims
> > a probability of greater than 9 out of 10, It is NOT 10/10
>
> If a doctor told you there was a 9 out of 10 probability you'd die
> without surgery, would you have the surgery?
If a doctor told me that there was a 9 out of 10 probability that I
would die without surgery, then I would get a totally independent
second opinion (possibly even a number of second opinions), and I
would research the subject very carefully myself. I wouldn't let the
first doctor tell me who to consult. I would then make my own informed
decision, taking everything into account.
Note that doctors are usually unbiased, intelligent, professionals.
The IPCC are a bunch of clowns. I wouldn't let a clown panic me in to
life saving surgery.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Keep ranting, waving wabbit, show how closed
minded you are about AGW being the end-all danger.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/07/close-call-asteroid-near-miss-for-earth-yesterday/
Does that say 1077 rocks?
>The ones that could impact even today, such as the KT boundary impactor,
>may certainly ruin your day, yet, the asteroid that hit Earth 65 million
>years ago did not kill photosynthesis, otherwise we would never have
>been here. The smaller one goes in asteroid size, the more impacts one
>sees, and there are distribution graphs from which you can distill an
>annual occurrence:
>
>> http://www.agu.org/pubs/sample_articles/sp/2000JE001343/figures.shtml#fig01
So instead of astronomical data, you present
hypothetical crystal ball statistics.
Now I see what the problem is with
your brain, how Q, numbers floating around,
no facts at all.
>> This is not the same type of prediction
>> that AGW alarmists are making, asteroids do
>> hit Earth, the sure bet in the past is that
>> ice ages happen, the unknown thing is
>> what causes a rapid warm-up after an
>> ice age.
>
>The phenomenon you describe is rather precisely known, the rapid warming
>up after an ice age is caused by exactly the same reason as we see
>global warming accelerating today. Greenhouse gases do it, because the
>relatively slow and modest forcings related to the Milanchovitz cycles
>are helped with the release of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. A
>thawing permafrost releases methane, an ocean that warms releases more
>CO2 etc. The increase in greenhouse gas concentrations helps to
>accelerate the system earth to heat up.
BS. The tone of your response is that
science has it covered and it is ok except for
the Al Gore over-heating of the planet.
I am more interested in the things not
predicted, but that do happen, like;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091217-west-mata-submarine-volcano-video.html
>> Asteroids will hit Earth, no telling how
>> big, no telling how many, no telling when.
>
>Look again at the above table and the publication I retrieved from the
>AGU. Within our lifespan on earth (a century I count) it is a 0.1%
>chance. But, the likelihood of global warming hitting us is according to
>science 1 (or maybe between 0.95 and 0.99 if you interpret the IPCC
>reports). We see AGW happening right now, we know what it is caused by,
>and we also know how we could stop it.
Read the facts, and forget the numerical
future telling;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object
Too bad there be as many more that haven't
been detected.
>> But temperatures seem to have some
>> kind of restricting mechanism, suggested
>> by a simple question, "when it warms up
>> after an ice age, why does the resulting
>> temperature always seem to be about
>> the same?".
>
>A change in forcing expressed as Watt per square meter can be translated
>directly into a change in the earth's average temperature. This is the
>climate sensitivity factor which is:
>
>0.75 K/(W/m^2)
>
>This number is measured (and not predicted) from various data.
When after each ice age?
>> Astronomers know the orbits of some
>> asteroids quite well, no other science is
>> as exact as long term orbital paths, while
>> there is no known criteria at all to make
>> predictions about future climate outside
>> the tropics.
>
>This is not entirely true because the risk associated with apophis
>hitting Earth is controlled by flyby conditions depends significantly on
>the exactly forcings during a flyby. Small perturbations have large
>consequences in the future. Every 7 years there are flyby's of this
>asteroid, and in 2029 we will see a flyby below geostationary altitude
>but almost certainly not an impact in 2036.
"There are 943 NEOs that are classified as Potentially Hazardous
Asteroids (PHAs). Currently, 138 PHAs and 743 NEAs have an absolute
magnitude of 17.75 or brighter, which roughly corresponds to at least 1
km in size.[44]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object
And nnn more not known or not seen.
>> AGW would be at least a little more
>> believable if the proponents posting here
>> were a little more civil, showed a lot more
>> intelligence, were able to discuss physics
>> of climate and geology, were honest, and
>> had at lease some morality to be proud of.
>
>Climate science to which the subject AGW belongs is just as believable
>as astronomy is, or any other branch of science is. The criterion is
>peer reviewed since in high ranking journals.
>
>There is significant scientific agreement on why there is man made
>global warming. A pretty good summary is still found in the IPCC
>reports, but my guess is that you are simply in denial.
>
>Q
When will the warming restart and the BS end?
Orval Fairbairn
<5eb603e5-5040-40d4...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 8:53�pm, "S. Caro" <sc...@mux-net-88.com> wrote:
> > Roger Coppock wrote:
> >
> > > -- Chance of AGW 1.0; it's happening now.
> > > Just ask the Japanese, they are measuring global CO2
> > > forcing every 3 days by satellite.
> >
> > I agree the climate is changing. �But, when did climate stop changing
> > anyway?
> >
> > Does the IPCC have the EXACT date? �I'll bet they're so smart, they can
> > tell the year, month, day, hour, and minute the climate stopped changing.
> >
> > If you're discussing the probability that man is causing AGW, the IPCC
> > claims
> > a probability of greater than 9 out of 10, �It is NOT 10/10
> >
>
> If a doctor told you there was a 9 out of 10 probability you'd die
> without surgery, would you have the surgery?
>
Actually, there is 100% change that you will die -- with or without
surgery -- it is the 9 out of 10 chance that you will die soon without
the surgery.
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
Rav1ng rabbit
I M @ good guy is also yet another nutty denier who doesn't want to
accept the science, upholding his own interpretations.
Well that is fine and amusing, so please post some more stuff to
entertain us.
Do you already have a solution for the energy transition we are going to
face?
I M @ good guy
wrote:
I thought maybe you would want to argue
that 1077 BIG rocks are just the few you say are left.
>Well that is fine and amusing, so please post some more stuff to
>entertain us.
You haven't tried to counter my claim that
GreenHouse Gases are the only thing that cools
the atmosphere.
>Do you already have a solution for the energy transition we are going to
>face?
>
>Q
I don't know where you live, but the USA has
plenty of sources of energy, natural gas seems to
be very plentiful, and there is enough coal for
800 years, 100,000 megawatts of nuclear power,
and a lot of hydro, so whatever they decide to
produce liquid fuels from, there won't be a big
problem for 500 years or so, by then scientists
will have given up on magnetic containment
fusion and put inertial containment reactors
in operation.
Hopefully it will be warmer by then,
politicians are very slow to get things done.
RayLopez99
> RayLopez99 wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 3:45 pm, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
> >> If you are talking about Apophis then please save us this crap.
>
> > Why? Recall the Shomaker-Levy comet that impacted Jupiter, and the
> > next one more recently, were only first discovered 18 months before
> > impact and 0 days before impact, respectively. We need an early
> > warning system.
>
> It is Shoemaker-Levy 9.
>
So? You agree with my point or not?
> Please verify yourself that you need to put in sqrt(2) times the orbital
> velocity within the asteroid belt to escape the asteroid belt outwards,
> and that this is a bigger chance of occurrence then going INTO the
> asteroid belt since the total energy to reach an Earth orbit is simply
> larger.
Again, we're not talking asteroids necessarily as found between earth
and Mars.
>
> The early warning systems are already there, they are called telescopes,
> the thing you need is guaranteed observation time. Talk to astronomers.
>
Like the amateur astronomers that discovered (by implication) the
recent second comet that smashed into Jupiter, a day AFTER impact? I
believe it was an Australian astronomer. Your point makes mine--you
need to have a system in place now, not a day late. Even if you
detect a body heading towards earth a month in advance, you still need
to position your system to intercept it, and it takes time.
>
> The rabbit prefers facts rather than opinions, that's all. My skepticism
> is whether at all an no-carbon energy transition into is doable. See also:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462568a.html
>
Referring to yourself in the third person is cute...if you are a girl,
young, and cute. You are likely none of these, and you just look
plain silly.
RL
RayLopez99
wrote:
> Note that doctors are usually unbiased, intelligent, professionals.
> The IPCC are a bunch of clowns. I wouldn't let a clown panic me in to
> life saving surgery.
Very true. And from an economics point of view, you need a lot more
evidence of harm than what's been predicted to date ("Bangladesh under
water", a country that has the GNP of a medium metropolis of about 4.5
M in the USA) to justify the multi-trillion dollar 'solution' (not
even) proposed by Kyoto, as argued implicitly by the (flawed) Stern
report.
In short, even if AGW is true, its harmful effects are unproven and
not worth worrying about for now.
RL
erschro...@gmail.com
And if they concur? 36 national science academies agree with the
IPCC. Every scientific organization does. That's dozens of "second
opinions."
>and I
> would research the subject very carefully myself.
How exactly? Go to medical school for 4 years? Start reading the
medical journals? Go to medical conferences? Or maybe see what other
professionals say? Well guess what -- they all say the same thing.
><I wouldn't let the
> first doctor tell me who to consult. I would then make my own informed
> decision, taking everything into account.
Would you just bop around and read John Doe's web site, or would you
seek out professional ones?
>
> Note that doctors are usually unbiased, intelligent, professionals.
> The IPCC are a bunch of clowns. I wouldn't let a clown panic me in to
> life saving surgery.
The IPCC consists of thousands of real scientists. Working,
professionals.
RayLopez99
<erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The IPCC consists of thousands of real scientists. Working,
> professionals.
Science is not American Idol--not a popularity contest. IPCC consists
of 1000s of activists (politicians) too.
RL