George W. Harper and global warming
Tom Zych
Once again the global warming issue is heating up. (The speaker
waited for the hail of rotten fruit to stop.) Once again we are
told that all scientists agree: global warming is real, it is a
deadly peril, We Must Act Now Or We Are Doomed.
Of course, sixty years ago almost any scientist would have told
you that space travel was a ridiculous idea.
Now, I do recall one scientist who said something else. His name
was George W. Harper and in 1986 he published an article in
Analog titled "A Little More Pollution, Please!" Many of you
will recall a character in _Fallen_Angels_ named Gregory
Lutenist singing the same tune. (Some sources identify that
character as Greg Bear, but I think the similar names and views
are pretty conclusive.)
I don't have either source handy, but as I recall the gist of
the argument was that this is actually an ice age, and the only
reason we don't notice is because of global warming. Solar
neutrino data was invoked, as well as historical climate data.
Aside from minor references to that article and a few others,
I can find no information on the web about Harper or his theory.
Does anyone know what his credentials are, if he still thinks
this theory is plausible, if others consider it plausible?
Cheers,
--
Tom Zych
freet...@pobox.com
Gene Ward Smith
Tom Zych wrote:
> Of course, sixty years ago almost any scientist would have told
> you that space travel was a ridiculous idea.
What complete and total bullshit.
Tom Zych
Gene Ward Smith
Tom Zych wrote:
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> > Tom Zych wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, sixty years ago almost any scientist would have told
> > > you that space travel was a ridiculous idea.
> >
> > What complete and total bullshit.
>
> Would you care to specify the subject?
The subject is your assertion that scientists in 1946 would have called
space travel a ridiculous idea.
Wayne Throop
::: that space travel was a ridiculous idea.
:: What complete and total bullshit.
: "Tom Zych" <freet...@pobox.com>
: Would you care to specify the subject?
The subject is "what scientists thought of space flight 60 years ago".
That would be just after WWII, after the V2. And *way* after "most
scientists" thought it was not-ridiculous, naict. Many may have thought
it impractical, but nobody with any relevant sci-cred thought it was
ridiculous at that point. And "many" thinking so is Right Out.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Robert A. Woodward
<1152899215.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
"Tom Zych" <freet...@pobox.com> wrote:
> It's that time again.
>
> Once again the global warming issue is heating up. (The speaker
> waited for the hail of rotten fruit to stop.) Once again we are
> told that all scientists agree: global warming is real, it is a
> deadly peril, We Must Act Now Or We Are Doomed.
>
<snip>
> Now, I do recall one scientist who said something else. His name
> was George W. Harper and in 1986 he published an article in
> Analog titled "A Little More Pollution, Please!" Many of you
> will recall a character in _Fallen_Angels_ named Gregory
> Lutenist singing the same tune. (Some sources identify that
> character as Greg Bear, but I think the similar names and views
> are pretty conclusive.)
>
I have the vague recollection that he is an engineer; BTW, he is
probably a bit more infamous for being the author of "Build Your
Own A-Bomb and Wake Up the Neighborhood" (published in Analog in
1979).
> I don't have either source handy, but as I recall the gist of
> the argument was that this is actually an ice age, and the only
> reason we don't notice is because of global warming. Solar
> neutrino data was invoked, as well as historical climate data.
>
It's typical Analog science speculation.
> Aside from minor references to that article and a few others,
> I can find no information on the web about Harper or his theory.
> Does anyone know what his credentials are, if he still thinks
> this theory is plausible, if others consider it plausible?
I think I have seen some variant of this hypothesis before (but I
could be remembering this article).
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Robert A. Woodward
60 years ago is a bit too recent for an ordinary scientist to make
such a silly claim; but if you go back far enough, you can find one
of Clarke's "Elderly scientists" who would be quite willing to
prove that space travel was impossible. Of course, 80+ years ago,
the _New York Times_ did claim that rockets in space were
ridiculous.
Robert Sneddon
Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com> writes
>In article <1152910552....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if you go back far enough, you can find one
>of Clarke's "Elderly scientists" who would be quite willing to
>prove that space travel was impossible.
Impossible? Difficult, yes, but from the 1800s onwards any scientist or
layman who understood the laws of Newtonian motion and had a grasp of
engineering would have said it was not impossible. Even in the 17th
century Newton's own workbooks demonstrated the theory of orbits (but
ignored atmospheric drag). The energies required and the mechanisms
needed to reach the necessary speeds and altitudes were out of their
grasp but it was not a foregone conclusion that space travel was
impossible in the future.
> Of course, 80+ years ago,
>the _New York Times_ did claim that rockets in space were
>ridiculous.
And how many scientists did they fact-check their article with? None, I
suspect.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Peter D. Tillman
> Now, I do recall one scientist who said something else. His name
> was George W. Harper and in 1986 he published an article in
> Analog titled "A Little More Pollution, Please!" Many of you
> will recall a character in _Fallen_Angels_ named Gregory
> Lutenist singing the same tune. (Some sources identify that
> character as Greg Bear, but I think the similar names and views
> are pretty conclusive.)
>
> I don't have either source handy, but as I recall the gist of
> the argument was that this is actually an ice age, and the only
> reason we don't notice is because of global warming. Solar
> neutrino data was invoked, as well as historical climate data.
>
> Aside from minor references to that article and a few others,
> I can find no information on the web about Harper or his theory.
> Does anyone know what his credentials are, if he still thinks
> this theory is plausible, if others consider it plausible?
The book you want to read is William F. Ruddiman's _Plows,
plagues, and petroleum : how humans took control of climate_ (2005).
Ruddiman's thesis is that anthropogenic global warming appears to have
started just about the time agriculture was invented. The effects so far
have been almost wholly beneficial -- Ruddiman thinks that AGW is indeed
preventing the onset of another glaciation, and makes quite a nice (if
speculative) case for it. A very cool book, highly recommended.
Have a look at http://tinyurl.com/qheby -- a recent discussion of this
topic at rass/sci.geo.geology
Happy reading--
Pete Tillman
Robert A. Woodward
Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <robertaw-FBFA2D...@individual.net>, Robert A.
> Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com> writes
> >In article <1152910552....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Clip]
> > if you go back far enough, you can find one
> >of Clarke's "Elderly scientists" who would be quite willing to
> >prove that space travel was impossible.
>
> Impossible? Difficult, yes, but from the 1800s onwards any scientist or
> layman who understood the laws of Newtonian motion and had a grasp of
> engineering would have said it was not impossible.
Well, yes, but note some of the space related quotes here:
<http://www.av8n.com/physics/ex-cathedra.htm>
and <http://www.skygod.com/quotes/predictions.html>
>
> > Of course, 80+ years ago,
> >the _New York Times_ did claim that rockets in space were
> >ridiculous.
>
> And how many scientists did they fact-check their article with? None, I
> suspect.
It was an editorial (which shows up in the lists I referenced).