In article <jqtnrn$9e...@dont-email.me>, seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com says...
> Putting more CO2 into the system than would normally be there is like > adding weight to one side of that balanced object. Maybe the object will > shift slightly and find a new equilibrium that isn't terribly different > from the one it had before... Or maybe the whole thing will tip and come > crashing down.
> When you're STANDING on that balanced object, it behooves you to try > NOT to unbalance it.
Bad model. The climate is not at any such equilibrium.
In article <jr0cpi$fg...@dont-email.me>,
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> I'm actually betting on the Earth's ecosystem, but I don't argue > strenuously against those who aren't; after all, if they're right, being > right will be just about the only consolation they'll have.
Switch to the other side, at least you will have *some* consolation, meager though it be. Steps to preserve the ecosystem will reduce the unpleasantness of the reaching the new equilibrium, most possibly.
Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>Aren't the scientists fairly sure that one of the
>previous periods had over 1,000 ppm CO2 in the air ?
The sun was much dimmer earlier in its history. A lot depends on how
far back your semi-cite references.
-- I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
On Jun 10, 1:14 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> >Aren't the scientists fairly sure that one of the
> >previous periods had over 1,000 ppm CO2 in the air ?
> The sun was much dimmer earlier in its history. A lot depends on how
> far back your semi-cite references.
At this point in stellar evolution, the brightening is almost linear
with time, luckily for us, at about 1% per hundred million years. So
if he knows the times he's referring to, he knows the solar constant.
<{$new...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <jr050c$tr...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> >writes
>>On 6/9/2012 5:24 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:42:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>> <l...@winsim.com> wrote in <news:jqta1e$ch9$1@dont-email.me>
>>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>> [...]
>>>> Yes, I totally believe in Climate Change. I do not
>>>> believe in man made Global Warming however.
>>> Then you're selectively ignoring a good deal of evidence.
>>> [...]
>>> Brian
>>A good deal of manufactured evidence that has not
>>been reviewed by independent experts. I was a test
>>engineer for several years. I know how difficult
>>it is to get temperature readings past the decimal
>>point. When the errors bars on your test data
>>exceed your results then something is really,
>>really wrong with your data.
>Rather, something is really wrong with your understanding of statistics.
Not to mention his understanding of temperature measurement. If
you can't do noticeably better than 0.1 C, you must have bought
the sensor at Radio Shack.
-- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:29:31 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Sunday, June 10, 2012 1:22:30 AM UTC+1, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 9/06/12 10:46 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> > Until someone develops a contraceptive plant that you can ironically
>> > grow from seed at home,
>> > I assume it will go on.
>> Oh no. Hydroponic plants, grown under electric lighting - I don't think
>> this is legal unless they really are tomatoes. That growing hemp to
>> make rope line doesn't always work.
> Potatoes are more difficult. My hypothetical home-grown contraceptive
> is the sort of thing that a theocracy would ban. I'd have to go back
> and re-read to make sure, but I think it would have been illegal in
> actual history in some states. I'm not sure if eventually that was
> found to be unconstitutional.
> In article <jqtnrn$9e...@dont-email.me>, seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com
> says...
>> Putting more CO2 into the system than would normally be there is like
>> adding weight to one side of that balanced object. Maybe the object will
>> shift slightly and find a new equilibrium that isn't terribly different
>> from the one it had before... Or maybe the whole thing will tip and come
>> crashing down.
>> When you're STANDING on that balanced object, it behooves you to try
>> NOT to unbalance it.
> Bad model. The climate is not at any such equilibrium.
> - Gerry Quinn
Yup, I was waiting for this. The Earth and Solar
System are a dynamic (non-equilibrium) and chaotic
system. They are not at steady-state and never
will be.
I've been adding new dynamic features to our steady-
state thermodynamic software lately. It is bloody
hard to do and easy to screw up. Very easy. I seen
enough of the climate model software to make me
fairly uneasy.
> On 6/9/12 9:17 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
>> In article<jqulnv$41...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On the other hand -- I don't see any way to STOP it, directly. China
>>> is becoming the major culprit, burning coal like no tomorrow, and no
>>> one's in a position to tell them they can't.
>> And we in the West with our lavish lifestyles can't talk to them who
>> have a big portion of their population living in huts with dirt floors.
> The point is that even if we in the West decided today to stop doing
> it, that's not going to make the problem go away, just slow it down
> somewhat.
> At this point we have to hope that the Earth can find a new equilibrium
> point that isn't devastating, while we eventually sort out our
> alternative energy sources; we'll have to do the latter at some point
> since the large deposits of coal and oil are shrinking rapidly.
> I'm actually betting on the Earth's ecosystem, but I don't argue
> strenuously against those who aren't; after all, if they're right, being
> right will be just about the only consolation they'll have.
Given the existence of extremophiles, I think it is fairly certain the ecosystem will continue in some form, whatever we do to it, but humans may not like it. As George Carlin said, "the Earth will be fine, but we're fucked", or words to that effect.
-- "...Amusing, yet not without a certain understated omniscience"
> In message <jr050c$tr...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
> writes
>> On 6/9/2012 5:24 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:42:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>> <l...@winsim.com> wrote in <news:jqta1e$ch9$1@dont-email.me>
>>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>> [...]
>>>> Yes, I totally believe in Climate Change. I do not
>>>> believe in man made Global Warming however.
>>> Then you're selectively ignoring a good deal of evidence.
>>> [...]
>>> Brian
>> A good deal of manufactured evidence that has not
>> been reviewed by independent experts. I was a test
>> engineer for several years. I know how difficult
>> it is to get temperature readings past the decimal
>> point. When the errors bars on your test data
>> exceed your results then something is really,
>> really wrong with your data.
> Rather, something is really wrong with your understanding of statistics.
>> Lynn
We are probably going to disagree on this but here is
the source of the error bar analysis that I mentioned:
> In article<jqulnv$41...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> > On the other hand -- I don't see any way to STOP it, directly. China is
>> > becoming the major culprit, burning coal like no tomorrow, and no one's
>> > in a position to tell them they can't.
> And we in the West with our lavish lifestyles can't talk to them who
> have a big portion of their population living in huts with dirt floors.
> On 6/9/2012 5:24 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:42:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <l...@winsim.com> wrote in <news:jqta1e$ch9$1@dont-email.me>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>> [...]
>>> Yes, I totally believe in Climate Change. I do not
>>> believe in man made Global Warming however.
>> Then you're selectively ignoring a good deal of evidence.
> A good deal of manufactured evidence that has not
> been reviewed by independent experts.
That you believe this would tell me that you really don't
know what you're talking about, if you hadn't already made
it apparent.
> On 6/9/12 6:17 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
>> In article<jqulnv$41...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On the other hand -- I don't see any way to STOP it, directly. China is
>>>> becoming the major culprit, burning coal like no tomorrow, and no one's
>>>> in a position to tell them they can't.
>> And we in the West with our lavish lifestyles can't talk to them who
>> have a big portion of their population living in huts with dirt floors.
> Dirt floors?
> When were you last in China?
2006.
I'm basically on your side here, but I didn't argue because you'd need to define "big portion." China does still have almost half a billion peasants (out of 1.3 billion people), and I suspect a large number of them do indeed have dirt floors -- not a large _percentage_, but a large number, maybe a few tens of millions.
-- Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
>On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:33:53 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote
>> On 6/9/2012 5:24 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:42:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote >>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>> Yes, I totally believe in Climate Change. I do not
>>>> believe in man made Global Warming however.
>>> Then you're selectively ignoring a good deal of evidence.
>> A good deal of manufactured evidence that has not
>> been reviewed by independent experts.
>That you believe this would tell me that you really don't
>know what you're talking about, if you hadn't already made it apparent.
Nah, she just wants _independent_ experts. Ones not contaminated by, you
know, all that science stuff, and the metric system, and modus ponens. Ones
who can give an expert opinion that's -independent- of all that.
Dave
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
> On 6/10/2012 9:28 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > In article <jqtnrn$9e...@dont-email.me>, seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com
> > says...
> >> Putting more CO2 into the system than would normally be there is like
> >> adding weight to one side of that balanced object. Maybe the object will
> >> shift slightly and find a new equilibrium that isn't terribly different
> >> from the one it had before... Or maybe the whole thing will tip and come
> >> crashing down.
> >> When you're STANDING on that balanced object, it behooves you to try
> >> NOT to unbalance it.
> > Bad model. The climate is not at any such equilibrium.
> > - Gerry Quinn
> Yup, I was waiting for this. The Earth and Solar
> System are a dynamic (non-equilibrium) and chaotic
> system. They are not at steady-state and never
> will be.
> I've been adding new dynamic features to our steady-
> state thermodynamic software lately. It is bloody
> hard to do and easy to screw up. Very easy. I seen
> enough of the climate model software to make me
> fairly uneasy.
None of which negates the basis of the Arrhenius model, or the probability that the climate sensitivity is more than one degree Kelvin per CO2 doubling.
We should attack the hysterical Chicken Little-ism, not the science.
Of course none of this applies to Bova, who is writing SF. If he had posited a more plausible 2098 in which sea-level had risen by a metre or so and you had to be 21 to legally buy contraceptives, it would probably have made for a rather dull book.
In article <jqt9ke$re...@reader1.panix.com>, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>I'd just like to say at this point that while both >are not organizations I'd want to see in charge of
>anything that affected me, the Moral Majority is
>the Protestant organization I don't want to see >in charge of anything that affects me, whereas
>the Catholics are, well, Catholic.
Yeah. When we take over you're gonna have to eat fish fry every Friday!
(What did you actually mean?)
-- Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
In article <jqvo5o$h5...@reader1.panix.com>, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>In article <4fd2e30e$0$36817$742ec...@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>On 6/8/2012 9:23 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>> You know, I have a distinct memory the US has had people sabotage
>>> tracks as political statements.
>>Mostly by laying down on them in front of trains and occasionally >>getting run over by them.
>My mother's grade school was a piece down the tracks in Mulgrave from
>where she lived. Once, she and the other kids got to find some guy >who fell asleep on the tracks spread out along the route to school.
>Educational.
>The story I cannot recall involved sabotaging the tracks - I want >to say trestle - to cause a deliberate derailment. Western wingnuts
>of some sort, I think.
Somebody did that in _Stand on Zanzibar_, but I can't remember if he
was a hobbyist or a partisan.
Wasn't there a term, similar to "muckers", for the hobbyist saboteurs?
-- Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
>>I'd just like to say at this point that while both >>are not organizations I'd want to see in charge of
>>anything that affected me, the Moral Majority is
>>the Protestant organization I don't want to see >>in charge of anything that affects me, whereas
>>the Catholics are, well, Catholic.
>Yeah. When we take over you're gonna have to eat fish fry every Friday!
> Brian M. Scott <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:33:53 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote
>>> On 6/9/2012 5:24 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:42:16 -0500, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote
>>>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>>> Yes, I totally believe in Climate Change. I do not
>>>>> believe in man made Global Warming however.
>>>> Then you're selectively ignoring a good deal of evidence.
>>> A good deal of manufactured evidence that has not
>>> been reviewed by independent experts.
>> That you believe this would tell me that you really don't
>> know what you're talking about, if you hadn't already made it apparent.
> Nah, she just wants _independent_ experts.
He. Lynn is a guy.
> Ones not contaminated by, you
> know, all that science stuff, and the metric system, and modus ponens. Ones
> who can give an expert opinion that's -independent- of all that.
> In article <jqrbk3$p2...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> On 6/7/2012 5:45 PM, Eric T. Duckman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:18:21 -0500, Drak Bibliophile wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2012 3:01 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2012 12:21 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>>>> In article <jqqn3f$k3...@dont-email.me>, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> I am reading _The_Return_ by Ben Bova and he is
>>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Book-IV-Voyagers/dp/0765348152/ >>>>>>> starting to turn into a real downer. The book is set in 2098 and he
>>>>>>> has the USA turned into a religious theocracy and global warming has
>>>>>>> risen the oceans by over 100 feet. Is it just me or is Bova really
>>>>>>> getting down on life ?
>>>>>> I dunno, Heinlein put a religious dictatorship ("religious theocracy"
>>>>>> is redundant) into his Future History, and everybody and his cousin
>>>>>> Fred has postulated sea-level rise. There is, as they say, nothing new
>>>>>> under the sun; Bova has apparently decided to combine two elements
>>>>>> under one set of covers, which is the only way any of us can do
>>>>>> anything "original" really.
>>>>> Sorry, I was thinking something else and put religious theocracy. The
>>>>> book is actually somewhere between Religious Dictatorship as you
>>>>> mentioned and a Theocratic Republic. Neither of which is very good.
>>>>> I forget which 16th ?? century philosopher it was who said, "I read in
>>>>> the New Testament about the persecution of the Church but never do I
>>>>> read about the Church persecuting others". Very sobering thoughts about
>>>>> those who want to turn the USA into a Theocratic Republic.
>>>>> Yes, we are in Heinlein's crazy years.
>>>>> BTW, I'll believe in global warming and massive sea rises when I see
>>>>> them. After all, some of my grandparents were from Missouri.
>>>>> Lynn
>>>> Who are these people who want to turn the USA into a Theocratic
>>>> Republic?
>>>> I hear Liberals and Secularists "screaming" about them but I've never
>>>> met anybody who wants a Theocratic Republic.
>> This guy lost his cred with me when called the USA a
>> democracy. The USA is a Republic, not a democracy.
>> Democracy means one man, one vote on everything. Here
>> in the USA, we elect people (Representatives) to vote
>> for us.
> They don't have initiatives (or recalls) in Texas? Up here in the Soviet
> of Washington, any voter can initiate legislation at the city, county, or
> state level, if they can get enough people to sign up for it. Or try to
> get their "representative" tossed out of office.
> Mark Zenier mzen...@eskimo.com
> Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
I honesty do not know if we have recall elections at the
State level in Texas. I believe not since we have one
of the reconstruction state constitutions and the carpet-
baggers did not want to be recalled. We used to elect
all state officials every two years here in Texas but we
went to every four years about two decades ago.
> In article <jr4npn$4b...@dont-email.me>,
> Michael Stemper <michael.stem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <jqt9ke$re...@reader1.panix.com>, jdnic...@panix.com (James
>> Nicoll) writes:
>>> I'd just like to say at this point that while both
>>> are not organizations I'd want to see in charge of
>>> anything that affected me, the Moral Majority is
>>> the Protestant organization I don't want to see
>>> in charge of anything that affects me, whereas
>>> the Catholics are, well, Catholic.
>> Yeah. When we take over you're gonna have to eat fish fry every Friday!
>> (What did you actually mean?)
> Moral Majority are not Roman Catholics. While we are at it, the Moral
> Majority are also not Mormons.
Nor are they moral or the majority.
Sort of like the One Million Moms group, which is a PR arm of the male-dominated and male-run American Family, is not made up of mothers and numbers are less than one million.
On Jun 8, 8:07 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >On 9/06/12 4:05 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> Replacing most _overland_ airplane use by high-speed electric trains
> >> is something that could have happened anyways because of 9/11.
> >That is strange. In what way are trains safer from terrorists than
> >planes? Some of us remember Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigade and
> >trains being held to ransom for days.
> In that it hasn't happened, as such, in the IMPORTANT country as yet. Just in
> some nondescript former empires and some other old worn-out countries or
> upstart new ones. You know, where it's not significant.
Since the attack on a train in *Spain* was connected to al-Qaeda, that
one, at least, did not escape my notice.
However, while of course terrorists can attack a train, a Greyhound
bus, or a cruise ship, and kill the people *on* it, remember that in
9/11 a very large number of people were killed who were _not_ on the
airplane that was hijacked.
Airplanes are deadly weapons that can kill thousands of people in one
blow, and so they need special security.
On Jun 8, 2:16 pm, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> BTW, do you know what the number one greenhouse gas
> is ? Water Vapor. Mostly in clouds. Good luck with
> reducing those.
Do you know what controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere?
Temperature.
So it's a _feedback_ mechanism. You can't prevent the feedback process
from happening, but you can avoid putting in an input stimulus in the
form of CO2 emissions to get amplified by it.
This does mean that after we do all the things I've suggested - plus
switch to biofuel that doesn't conflict with the food supply (all new
cars would have to run on methyl alcohol) - we will have a long wait
for global warming to go away.
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> China is
> becoming the major culprit, burning coal like no tomorrow, and no one's
> in a position to tell them they can't.
Yes, it's too late to cry over not having done regime change on them
back when Yeltsin was in Russia, and all China had was one nuclear
submarine in dock for repairs for a second-strike capability.
However, because China does have nuclear weapons, it also has nuclear
reactors. They're burning coal like there's no tomorrow in order to
fuel their economy. Which runs on exports.
So if no country will buy their exports unless they get with the
program, and switch from coal to nukes, they may holler a little bit,
but since they're not losing that much out of the deal, and their
competitors are taking the same hit, I don't think any serious arm-
twisting is needed.
Because the country _is_ a dictatorship, after all, you just have to
get the top guys to understand the science. A monsoon failure in
India, say, really doesn't have any percentage in it for China.
On Jun 9, 2:33 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
wrote:
> Per capita, the USA is still far, far worse at creating CO2.
Yes, but that's more important from a moral point of view, not a
practical one.
However, the USA should indeed go first, because any temporary
adjustments would cause less hardship. Although my plan here is
essentially no hardship - people could still use the fossil fuels
until their replacements are on-line.
I anticipate methyl alcohol biofuel supplies, although potentially
much larger than ethyl alcohol biofuel supplies under the constraint
of not taking away from food, will not be adequate to let people drive
cars as they're used to, and electric cars will be expensive and of
limited range.
So I do think people will have to switch to things like electric
trolley buses *to commute*, but is that a great loss if they can still
use their cars as they are used to for everything else?
Almost no hardship, but some expense - building all those nuke plants
- putting the country back to work like a war would... it shouldn't be
so awful.
