Global Sea Level Rise
Thomas Lee Elifritz
For all the cranks and kooks out there, that don't believe that global sea level
rise is occurring, or for anyone else who might be interested, there is an
excellent article in this month's Physics Today on the subject. The online
version of the article is at :
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-3/p35.html
See also : http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-6/p19.html
Thomas Lee Elifritz
life...@atlantic.net
http://www.atlantic.net/~elifritz
none the wiser
So. What.
Brad Tittle
Sea Levels are rising, but it is difficult to determine by how much because
the data is blurry.
Sea Levels are rising, but not nearly as fast as they have in the past.
Sounds like we are doing just fine.
I don't think that I am going to worry about the 100 Million people living
within 1 M of sea level.
Don Lancaster
>
> The sea level has been rising for the last 12,000 years.
> So. What.
At the least, the near certain opening of the Northwest Passage to
routine shipping in the next few years should raise some eyebrows.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Brad Tittle
The ice in the Antarctic is thicker than ever recorded this year.
I am going to pass on any investments in the Northwest Passage.
> From: Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
> Organization: WebUseNet Corp. - "ReInventing The UseNet"
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Brad Tittle wrote:
> Sea Levels are rising, but it is difficult to determine by how much because
> the data is blurry.
Read the article and search the internet, crank, 2 to 3 mm/year.
> Sea Levels are rising, but not nearly as fast as they have in the past.
Sure, they rose 120 m in a few 100s of years, at most, 12,000 years ago.
> Sounds like we are doing just fine.
Sounds like you are doing just fine, because you are a crank in denial.
> I don't think that I am going to worry about the 100 Million people living
> within 1 M of sea level.
That's because you just don't care, like 6 billion or so other people on Earth.
You're a real standout in the crowd, Brad.
H. E. Taylor
<the...@charter.net> Brad Tittle wrote:
>> From: Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
>> none the wiser wrote:
>>>
>>> The sea level has been rising for the last 12,000 years.
>>> So. What.
>>
>> At the least, the near certain opening of the Northwest Passage to
>> routine shipping in the next few years should raise some eyebrows.
>>
>
> The ice in the Antarctic is thicker than ever recorded this year.
>
> I am going to pass on any investments in the Northwest Passage.
>
Nature doesn't care what you believe.
In 2000, the St. Roch II made a trip through the Arctic in 9 weeks,
considerably faster than her namesake in 1944.
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/americas/newsid_918000/918448.stm
Recently [April 2001] the Canadian, American and British navies held
a conference about the challenges of "Naval Operations in an Ice-Free
Arctic".
See:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/soest/Documents/Announcements.html#Arctic
http://www.earthchangestv.com/breaking/May_2001/PrinterFriendly/0505symposium.htm
Some parts of this conference have now been declassified.
See:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-02/ns-am022702.php
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991978
<fwiw>
-het
PS.
And if you're really bored:
http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/globalwarming.html#Arctic
--
"Inspect every piece of pseudoscience and you will find a security blanket,
a thumb to suck, a skirt to hold. What have we to offer in exchange?
Uncertainty! Insecurity!" -Isaac Asimov
How's yer crap detector? http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/detector.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
Brad Tittle
> From: Thomas Lee Elifritz <sp...@spam.whatever.org>
> Organization: Formation Inc. - The Information Corporation
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:30:19 -0500
> Subject: Re: Global Sea Level Rise
>
> March 14, 2002
>
> Brad Tittle wrote:
>
>> Sea Levels are rising, but it is difficult to determine by how much because
>> the data is blurry.
>
> Read the article and search the internet, crank, 2 to 3 mm/year.
I have read on the subject. Not enough to make me an expert, but enough to
assure myself that the world will probably survive.
The article you mentioned was leaning toward 2 mm/year.
>
>> Sea Levels are rising, but not nearly as fast as they have in the past.
>
> Sure, they rose 120 m in a few 100s of years, at most, 12,000 years ago.
>
>> Sounds like we are doing just fine.
>
> Sounds like you are doing just fine, because you are a crank in denial.
>
I don't deny much, other than the necessity for god.
>> I don't think that I am going to worry about the 100 Million people living
>> within 1 M of sea level.
>
> That's because you just don't care, like 6 billion or so other people on
> Earth.
>
> You're a real standout in the crowd, Brad.
>
If a person can't get out of the way of a see moving 3 mm/year, I think
natural selection is occurring.
I know math is a little difficult for you, but at 3 mm /year those 100
Million people have 300 years to get out of the way. I sort of doubt they
are going to worry until the last second, and even then they are going to
have a little bit of time. However according to the article, it is probably
closer to 500 years.
If it turns out that Human caused Global warming is real (meaning that we
really make a difference, something that is definitely in contention), we
probably still couldn't do much about it.
I refuse to commit genocide, unlike most Environmentalists.
From your comments, I expect you would kill 3 Billion to save 100 Million,
and feel justified.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Oops, that was a typo, that should have been a few 1000s of years.
A 17,000 Year Glacio-Eustatic Sea Level Record : Influence of Glacial Melting
Rates on the Younger Dryas Event and Deep-Ocean Circulation, R. G. Fairbanks,
Nature 342, 637 (1989).
Brad Tittle wrote:
> If it turns out that Human caused Global warming is real (meaning that we
> really make a difference, something that is definitely in contention), we
> probably still couldn't do much about it.
It's only in contention by scientific cranks like you. Sea level rise is just one
symptom of a very bad disease.
> I refuse to commit genocide, unlike most Environmentalists.
6 billion other human being will help you. I prefer a kinder and gentler cure of
the problem.
> From your comments, I expect you would kill 3 Billion to save 100 Million,
> and feel justified.
Nowadays, it would only take one to kill 100 million. Imagine what 100 million
could do. Imagine what 10 billion will be like. Imagine what it will be like when
those 10 billion want to start living like the most wealthiest 1 billion do now,
and start invoking their right to try. You'll live to see it.
Brad Tittle
> From: Thomas Lee Elifritz <sp...@spam.whatever.org>
> Organization: Formation Inc. - The Information Corporation
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:04:34 -0500
> Subject: Re: Global Sea Level Rise
>
> March 14, 2002
>
> Oops, that was a typo, that should have been a few 1000s of years.
>
> A 17,000 Year Glacio-Eustatic Sea Level Record : Influence of Glacial Melting
> Rates on the Younger Dryas Event and Deep-Ocean Circulation, R. G. Fairbanks,
> Nature 342, 637 (1989).
>
> Brad Tittle wrote:
>
>> If it turns out that Human caused Global warming is real (meaning that we
>> really make a difference, something that is definitely in contention), we
>> probably still couldn't do much about it.
>
> It's only in contention by scientific cranks like you. Sea level rise is just
> one
> symptom of a very bad disease.
>
I think we have a little time to study the subject and gather more data. If
in 75 years the GOES information continues to show an increasing trend in
Global Temperatures, then I might reconsider my position, but making
kneejerk decisions based on insufficient data is really silly. There are a
lot of cranks like me out there. People who don't turn 1 - 2 mm/year into
the end of the world.
Climate changes. We as an adaptive species are well suited to dealing with
it.
>> I refuse to commit genocide, unlike most Environmentalists.
>
> 6 billion other human being will help you. I prefer a kinder and gentler cure
> of
> the problem.
>
Euthanasia? How are you planning on getting them to line up?
>> From your comments, I expect you would kill 3 Billion to save 100 Million,
>> and feel justified.
>
> Nowadays, it would only take one to kill 100 million. Imagine what 100 million
> could do. Imagine what 10 billion will be like. Imagine what it will be like
> when
> those 10 billion want to start living like the most wealthiest 1 billion do
> now,
> and start invoking their right to try. You'll live to see it.
Yes I will. I will root them on. The best way to solve the problem is to get
more people in on trying to solve it. The best way to do that is to educate
more people. Education costs. With more wealth creation more people will get
educated.
Not everyone can live disconnected from the world. We are interdependent on
each other.
You might wake up to this, or sleep yourself away in your tropical paradise.
brad
Fred Kasner
> The sea level has been rising for the last 12,000 years.
> So. What.
>
>
Where I sit right now there was once a two mile thick layer of ice. But
it started melting away about 25000 years ago. They still find pieces of
it in the subsoil in places such as Wisconsin and Minnesota.
FK
Nap
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <sp...@spam.whatever.org> wrote in message
news:3C90CC43...@spam.whatever.org...
> March 14, 2002
>
> For all the cranks and kooks out there, that don't believe that
global sea level
> rise is occurring, or for anyone else who might be interested,
there is an
> excellent article in this month's Physics Today on the subject.
The online
> version of the article is at :
>
> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-3/p35.html
>
> See also : http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-6/p19.html
Yeah....
Why would anyone care about the normal slight variations in
sea level? Are you worried that the water might rise 10 cm
per century?
As for the "models". There seems to be a entire cottage
industry arising out there that makes computer models
to fit whatever politically motivated conclusion you want.
All models, you know, have to prove their validity by
making accurate predictions.
Nap
"Fred Kasner" <fka...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:3C91735...@enteract.com...
Yes, and it's all caused by cave man farts, no doubt.
Nap
"Brad Tittle" <the...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:B8B6A9B3.1E099%the...@charter.net...
> If it turns out that Human caused Global warming is real
(meaning that we
> really make a difference, something that is definitely in
contention), we
> probably still couldn't do much about it.
Well, that is the issue. Do humans cause the warming out there
that is real. It is far more likely that this rise is due to
increases
in solar spectral irradiance than CO2. Carbon dioxide is in the
noise level as a green house gas compared to water vapor.
> I refuse to commit genocide, unlike most Environmentalists.
>
> From your comments, I expect you would kill 3 Billion to save
100 Million,
> and feel justified.
Most enviromentalist assume that they will be in the chosen
100 million people.
Fred Kasner
Not at all. Mostly from the time warped backwards hot air of computer
simulators as opposed to scientists.
FK
Roger Coppock
Nap wrote:
>
>
> As for the "models". There seems to be a entire cottage
> industry arising out there that makes computer models
> to fit whatever politically motivated conclusion you want.
>
Do tell us, Nap . . .
Can you name one peer-reviewed computer climate model that
predicts cooling in response to increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations? There about 100 computer climate models
published in the scientific literature. When presented
with greenhouse gas increases not a one of them even
predicts stasis, let alone global cooling. Perhaps someone
in your entire cottage industry will arise and make one to
fit your politically motivated conclusions, because to get
into the scientific literature a model has to fit facts,
not politically motivated conclusions.
The score is Global Warming 100 Fossil Fools 0
--
A man didn't understand how televisions work, and was convinced that
there must be lots of little men inside the box, manipulating images at
high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency
modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and
receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines
moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the
engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the
argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now
understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few
little men in there, aren't there?"
- Douglas Adams, as retold by Richard Dawkins in "Lament for Douglas"
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Phil Hays
> The sea level has been rising for the last 12,000 years.
> So. What.
You know this ... how?
The article you replied to stated otherwise.
"Compared with those of previous millennia, the changes in GSL occurring
today are tiny. Ancient corals found on Barbados reveal that GSL
increased by about 120 m as a result of the deglaciation that followed
the last glacial maximum of 21 000 years ago. By about 5000-6000 years
BP (before present), the melting of the great high-latitude ice masses
was essentially completed. Thereafter, GSL rise was small, and appears
to have ceased by 3000-4000 y BP.
Although the long-term average GSL rise for the past few millennia has
been stable at a level near zero, there is reliable evidence from
coastal land records, lake and river ice cover, and water level
measurements that GSL abruptly began to rise near the mid-19th century."
Steve Schulin
> For all the cranks and kooks out there, that don't believe
> that global sea level rise is occurring, or for anyone else
> who might be interested, there is an excellent article in
> this month's Physics Today on the subject. The online
> version of the article is at :
>
> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-3/p35.html
I have a question about this article -- regarding the authors'
statement that "Although the long-term average GSL rise for the past
few millennia has been stable at a level near zero, there is reliable
evidence from coastal land records [Ref. 1], lake and river ice
cover[Ref. 2] and water level measurements [Ref. 3] that GSL abruptly
began to rise near the mid-19th century."
Curious fellow that I am, I checked into the 3 references specified in
the Physics Today excerpt. I was able to read Ref. 2 online this
evening, and for the life of me, I do not understand why the Physics
Today authors believe their Ref. 2 represents "reliable evidence ...
that GSL abruptly began to rise near the mid-19th century." The
reference does not even mention sea level.
The most recent IPCC assessment uses terms like "implies" and "infer"
and "suggests" when it talks about the kind of data that the Physics
Today authors refer to as "reliable evidence". One of the Physics
Today authors -- Richard Peltier -- was a contributing author to the
IPCC sea level chapter. I'd say this apparent exaggeration about
"reliable evidence" tends to reinforce the INQUA commission
president's* opinion that "It seems that the authors involved in this
chapter were chosen not because of their knowledge on this subject,
but rather because they would say the climate model that had been
predicted." [* Nils-Emil Mörner, professor of geology at Sweden's
Stockholm University, is president of INQUA's commission on sea level
changes and coastal evolution (INQUA is the International Association
of Quarternary Research).] Dr. Mörner has a strong opinion about how
the TAR presents Dr. Peltier's model output: "The situation is absurd.
Modellers output data now appear in the text as input data. This is
nothing but falsification of scientific observational facts." For more
info, including a fine rant about how IPCC virtually ignored the
review comments of the premier sea level research organization, see
http://www.pog.su.se/sea/14_news.htm
Alastair McDonald
you said;
> ... The best way to solve the problem is to get
> more people in on trying to solve it. The best way to do that is to educate
> more people.
Don't you think you should start with yourself! You know the problem, and the
solution. Give up your SUV! And educate everyone else to do so too.
> Not everyone can live disconnected from the world. We are interdependent on
> each other.
True, your car exhaust's CO2 is warming my world. Our Arctic wildlife
heritage is being destroyed by your selfishness.
When are you and your like going to get the message? When it is too late!
Cheers, Alastair.
DPH
wrote:
>
>
>Nap wrote:
>>
>>
>> As for the "models". There seems to be a entire cottage
>> industry arising out there that makes computer models
>> to fit whatever politically motivated conclusion you want.
>>
>
>Do tell us, Nap . . .
>
>Can you name one peer-reviewed computer climate model that
>predicts cooling in response to increasing greenhouse gas
>concentrations? There about 100 computer climate models
>published in the scientific literature. When presented
>with greenhouse gas increases not a one of them even
>predicts stasis, let alone global cooling. Perhaps someone
>in your entire cottage industry will arise and make one to
>fit your politically motivated conclusions, because to get
>into the scientific literature a model has to fit facts,
>not politically motivated conclusions.
>
>
>The score is Global Warming 100 Fossil Fools 0
So what? Anything we could _reasonably_ do would not do much more
than ruin our economy. The supposed salvation of the Kyoto treaty was
claimed by proponents to only make a few small percentage points
difference in the temperature 100 years from now anyway.
So we can bust our asses now and suffer economic collapse costing
thousands of lives to starvation (the lowest living people always get
hosed when the economy goes to shit) and still have the rising seas,
climate change, etc. in 100 years, or keep making money and have
mostly the same thing in 100 years.
The Kyoto treaty is just tokenism - won't do anything significant for
future generations but will stunt scientific advancement (research
always gets hosed when the economy goes to shit) that might otherwise
have found a _real_ solution.
The only real solution possible to this is a nice plague or nuclear
war that wipes out about 95% of humanity...
Or some real scientific advancement that allows us to replace
combustion for transportation and heating. This would be nuclear
electrical generation with mass transit that works for everyone - not
just people in big cities.
But of course the people that are all exercised about global warming
are the same anti-capitalism bunch that turn white when you mention
nuclear power, so that's not going to fly either. So our descendants
are going to vacation with sunblock on the beachs of southern Alaska,
no matter what we think we can accomplish with treaties and so much
suffering.
Dave Head
Thomas Lee Elifritz
Steve Schulin wrote:
> Thomas Lee Elifritz <sp...@spam.whatever.org> wrote...
>
> > For all the cranks and kooks out there, that don't believe
> > that global sea level rise is occurring, or for anyone else
> > who might be interested,
Obviously you are interested enough to read the article, try searching the
literature.
> I have a question about this article -- regarding the authors'
> statement that "Although the long-term average GSL rise for the past
> few millennia has been stable at a level near zero, there is reliable
> evidence from coastal land records [Ref. 1], lake and river ice
> cover[Ref. 2] and water level measurements [Ref. 3] that GSL abruptly
> began to rise near the mid-19th century."
>
> Curious fellow that I am, I checked into the 3 references specified in
> the Physics Today excerpt. I was able to read Ref. 2 online this
> evening, and for the life of me, I do not understand why the Physics
> Today authors believe their Ref. 2 represents "reliable evidence ...
> that GSL abruptly began to rise near the mid-19th century." The
> reference does not even mention sea level.
The literature is broad, search it, and then read it.
> The most recent IPCC assessment uses terms like "implies" and "infer"
> and "suggests" when it talks about the kind of data that the Physics
> Today authors refer to as "reliable evidence".
The fact that we can even measure sea level rise over tidal and wave action is a
tribute to the scientific method. If you would take the time to look at the
literature, the best evidence seems to indicate, that the rise has been
relatively steady but low for the last millennia or so, and has abruptly
increased in the last 100 years or so.
'Weather' you like it or believe it or not, humanity has been drastically
altering the environment of the surface of the Earth for thousands of years. We
need to start 'regulating' , 'modifying' and 'improving' our behavior, now,
otherwise the consequences will be dire indeed. The earth, the biosphere and the
life within it, can only take so much, before it starts fighting back.
BBJ
I purchased my current home based on sea level rise estimates from several
years ago. So my 216' elevation should have been a beachfront home for the
kids.
BBJ
p.s. Do you suppose there is legal merit in suing the scientists responsible
for the original estimate?
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote
Don Lancaster
>
> none the wiser wrote:
>
> > The sea level has been rising for the last 12,000 years.
>
>
>
Glacial varves, strat columns, bunches of other Geology 101 beginner
stuff.
Not nearly as complex or controversial as, say, Ohm's law for a
resistor.
Brad Tittle
> From: "Nap" <an...@nowhere.com>
> Organization: AT&T Broadband
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 04:38:47 GMT
> Subject: Re: Global Sea Level Rise
>
>
Which begs the question, "how smart are they that they can't get out of the
way of a monster moving 10 cm / century?"
Brad Tittle
> From: Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com>
> Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 80,000+ UNCENSORED
> Newsgroups.
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:34:35 -0800
> Subject: Computer models
>
>
>
> Nap wrote:
>>
>>
>> As for the "models". There seems to be a entire cottage
>> industry arising out there that makes computer models
>> to fit whatever politically motivated conclusion you want.
>>
>
> Do tell us, Nap . . .
>
> Can you name one peer-reviewed computer climate model that
> predicts cooling in response to increasing greenhouse gas
> concentrations? There about 100 computer climate models
> published in the scientific literature. When presented
> with greenhouse gas increases not a one of them even
> predicts stasis, let alone global cooling. Perhaps someone
> in your entire cottage industry will arise and make one to
> fit your politically motivated conclusions, because to get
> into the scientific literature a model has to fit facts,
> not politically motivated conclusions.
>
>
> The score is Global Warming 100 Fossil Fools 0
>
Show me a single Climatologist that can predict the weather for the next 5
years. I would be happy if they could just predict annual snowfall vs
rainfall to within 10%.
How can a computer model predict climate when weathermen can't predict where
the snow is going to fall. They have difficulty doing it 2 hours in advance
of storm, much less 20 years.
The computer models are useful as an exercise in learning how the climate
works, but they are not accurate by any means.
I am putting a pan of water on the stove. How long will it take to boil?
Some tell me that this is easy to model. If the above is all you have, you
have little chance of making an accurate predictions. Yet this is about
where climatologists are in predicting our climate. Predicting the climate
is much more complicated than predicting water boiling. (btw I left out: how
much water, what kind of container, what kind of burner, btu rating of
burner, ambient air conditions, altitude, etc).
Climatologists are scientists and they are doing a wonderful job of learning
how the climate works, but they still have a lot to learn and the models
include huge assumptions.
The sunspot cycle alone is enough to toss any predictions off enough to make
them worthless. Then can predict sun spot activity pretty well, but only
just before it occurs, and there is significant variation even then.
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13apr98_1.htm
When the weatherman can predict annual snowfall (and how, when and where it
will fall), and they predict it several years in advance, I will start to
pay attention to computer models.
Dan Bloomquist
Brad Tittle wrote:
>
> If a person can't get out of the way of a see moving 3 mm/year, I think
> natural selection is occurring.
>
> I know math is a little difficult for you, but at 3 mm /year those 100
> Million people have 300 years to get out of the way. I sort of doubt they
> are going to worry until the last second, and even then they are going to
> have a little bit of time. However according to the article, it is probably
> closer to 500 years.
Just a few:
http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/10/10122001/s_45241.asp
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/02/0206_climate1.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2001/200110105252.html
Now, throw in exponential growth of world population and projected
demand for energy to double in the next 15 to 20 years. We can assume
the planet can take the load, but it is just that, an assumption. We
don't know the limit beyond which there is no recovery. This makes it
akin to gambling.
"We didn't inherit the Earth from our parents. We're borrowing it from
our children."
-- Chief Seattle - Suquamish/Duwamish Indian Chief
Best, Dan.
Steve Schulin
> March 15, 2002
>
> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> > Thomas Lee Elifritz <sp...@spam.whatever.org> wrote...
> >
> > > For all the cranks and kooks out there, that don't believe
> > > that global sea level rise is occurring, or for anyone else
> > > who might be interested,
>
> Obviously you are interested enough to read the article, try searching the
> literature.
>
> > I have a question about this article -- regarding the authors'
> > statement that "Although the long-term average GSL rise for the past
> > few millennia has been stable at a level near zero, there is reliable
> > evidence from coastal land records [Ref. 1], lake and river ice
> > cover[Ref. 2] and water level measurements [Ref. 3] that GSL abruptly
> > began to rise near the mid-19th century."
> >
> > Curious fellow that I am, I checked into the 3 references specified in
> > the Physics Today excerpt. I was able to read Ref. 2 online this
> > evening, and for the life of me, I do not understand why the Physics
> > Today authors believe their Ref. 2 represents "reliable evidence ...
> > that GSL abruptly began to rise near the mid-19th century." The
> > reference does not even mention sea level.
>
> The literature is broad, search it, and then read it.
You singled out this particular Physics Today article as excellent. I
don't see what's so excellent about referencing, as the authors
apparently did, a paper that doesn't even mention the point that they
are discussing.
>
> > The most recent IPCC assessment uses terms like "implies" and "infer"
> > and "suggests" when it talks about the kind of data that the Physics
> > Today authors refer to as "reliable evidence".
>
> The fact that we can even measure sea level rise over tidal and
> wave action is a tribute to the scientific method. If you would take
> the time to look at the literature, the best evidence seems to indicate,
> that the rise has been relatively steady but low for the last
> millennia or so, and has abruptly increased in the last 100 years or so.
LOL - even the IPCC chapter leads had the discretion to avoid any
mention of abrupt increase in the subsection titled "Mean Sea Level
Changes over the Past 100 to 200 Years" --
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/wg1/424.htm
You urge folks to read, yet you give no indication of having followed
the INQUA link yourself.
>
> 'Weather' you like it or believe it or not, humanity has been
> drastically altering the environment of the surface of the Earth
> for thousands of years. We need to start 'regulating' , 'modifying' and
> 'improving' our behavior, now, otherwise the consequences will be
> dire indeed. The earth, the biosphere and the life within it,
> can only take so much, before it starts fighting back.
Would you say that your opinion on this matter is every bit as
thoughtful as your characterization of the Physics Today article as
excellent? I have no trouble believing that!
>
> Thomas Lee Elifritz
> life...@atlantic.net
Frank Altschuler
"Dan Bloomquist" <d...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:3C9219E5...@spam.net...
> Now, throw in exponential growth of world population .....
Sort of says it all doesn't it?
Brad Tittle
> From: "Alastair McDonald" <abb...@nospam.abbemac.fsnet.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:19:21 -0000
> Subject: Re: Global Sea Level Rise
>
> Brad,
>
> you said;
>> ... The best way to solve the problem is to get
>> more people in on trying to solve it. The best way to do that is to educate
>> more people.
>
> Don't you think you should start with yourself! You know the problem, and the
> solution. Give up your SUV! And educate everyone else to do so too.
>
It is my wife, the environmental educator who owns the Pickup Truck, not I.
I will educate as many people as possible about energy, climate, and other
science subjects, but I will also do my best to help them make their own
decisions.
>> Not everyone can live disconnected from the world. We are interdependent on
>> each other.
>
> True, your car exhaust's CO2 is warming my world. Our Arctic wildlife
> heritage is being destroyed by your selfishness.
>
Either that or the sun cycle is heating the planet, and we can't control the
sun. I guess we could herd everyone to the center of the planet so they
won't burn things to keep warm.
It doesn't work that way.
> When are you and your like going to get the message? When it is too late!
>
> Cheers, Alastair.
>
I am all for protecting the planet, but there is no simple answer.
Environmentalists seem to forget that the advances we have made in heating,
lighting and transportation were made for a reason other than so the rich
could get richer. The entrepreneurs became rich because they provided a
means by which the average person could improve their life.
Hopefully the enviro-freaks won't get the message across first and cause
real environmental damage to occur.
brad
>
Brad Tittle
> From: Thomas Lee Elifritz <sp...@spam.whatever.org>
> Organization: Formation Inc. - The Information Corporation
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:59:12 -0500
> Subject: Re: Global Sea Level Rise
>
We have been regulating, modifying and improving our behavior. History is
rife with examples.
Brad Tittle
> From: Dan Bloomquist <d...@spam.net>
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:57:25 -0700
> Subject: Re: Global Sea Level Rise
>
>
>
> Brad Tittle wrote:
>
>>
>> If a person can't get out of the way of a see moving 3 mm/year, I think
>> natural selection is occurring.
>>
>> I know math is a little difficult for you, but at 3 mm /year those 100
>> Million people have 300 years to get out of the way. I sort of doubt they
>> are going to worry until the last second, and even then they are going to
>> have a little bit of time. However according to the article, it is probably
>> closer to 500 years.
>
> Just a few:
> http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/10/10122001/s_45241.asp
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/02/0206_climate1.html
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2001/200110105252.html
>
> Now, throw in exponential growth of world population and projected
> demand for energy to double in the next 15 to 20 years. We can assume
> the planet can take the load, but it is just that, an assumption. We
> don't know the limit beyond which there is no recovery. This makes it
> akin to gambling.
>
Best way to control growth is to increase wealth.
Btw. Assuming that we will be in bad shape is also just an assumption.
It is a gamble in either direction. You can lose either way. Limiting
consumption can result in the same environmental catastrophes that expanded
consumption is assumed by environmentalists to cause.
> "We didn't inherit the Earth from our parents. We're borrowing it from
> our children."
>
> -- Chief Seattle - Suquamish/Duwamish Indian Chief
>
Except that Chief Seattle never said it.
> Best, Dan.
>
hatunen
If it were true. But current projections indicate the world
population will level of in about a half-century.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Frank Altschuler
"hatunen" <hat...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:a6t92t$qvl$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
> In article <sZok8.66093$Pp.257...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
> Frank Altschuler <falts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Dan Bloomquist" <d...@spam.net> wrote in message
> >news:3C9219E5...@spam.net...
> >
> >> Now, throw in exponential growth of world population .....
> >
> >Sort of says it all doesn't it?
>
> If it were true. But current projections indicate the world
> population will level of in about a half-century.
That's actually what I was getting at.
Dan Bloomquist was heaping on the hysterical mumbo jumbo and I got to that
one and it was just too much to bear without commentary. I guess I should
have commented a bit more clearly but I thought just about everybody was
more informed about the dynamics of populaton growth here on Earth.
Chris Matthaei
>True, your car exhaust's CO2 is warming my world. Our Arctic wildlife
>heritage is being destroyed by your selfishness.
>When are you and your like going to get the message? When it is too late!
You sound like a religious nut trying to get me to convert. You don't have
much more evidence than they do, either. When the evidence becomes
undeniable, then I will believe. Until then, I will remain open minded.
Chris
Thomas Palm
And if the evidence does become undeniable, even to you, what will you
do then? Say: "Oops, sorry not my fault".
Thomas Lee Elifritz
This is what the distinguished Professor Morner seems to be arguing :
"Only we, the representatives of the international sea level community (with our INQUA commission in clear
leading position), are true producers of field observational facts."
That pretty much speaks for itself. I know a few people on his list, and working in the field, personally, and
I don't quite think that they would agree with that claim.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
life...@atlantic.net
http://www.atlantic.net/~elifritz
Steve Schulin
> Nap wrote:
> >
> > As for the "models". There seems to be a entire cottage
> > industry arising out there that makes computer models
> > to fit whatever politically motivated conclusion you want.
>
> Do tell us, Nap . . .
>
> Can you name one peer-reviewed computer climate model that
> predicts cooling in response to increasing greenhouse gas
> concentrations? There about 100 computer climate models
> published in the scientific literature. When presented
> with greenhouse gas increases not a one of them even
Most of the models are inherently unable to yield anything but warming
when CO2 forcing value is increased. That's not a testament to their
accuracy, as evidenced by the cooling during 1950s-1970s which they
are unable to reproduce. The few that allow for particulate forcing
seem to use it as a fudge factor. This continues the embarssing trend
long recognized by the scientific community: "The climate modelers
have been 'cheating' for so long, it's almost become respectable."
Richard Kerr, discussing flux adjustments in climate models in
Science, 1997 -- one of the many quips and other climate model quotes
available at http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex6.htm
> ... Perhaps someone
> in your entire cottage industry will arise and make one to
> fit your politically motivated conclusions, because to get
> into the scientific literature a model has to fit facts,
> not politically motivated conclusions.
>
>
> The score is Global Warming 100 Fossil Fools 0
There's lot of negatives associated with coal and oil, but they don't
warrant some global regulatory scheme like Kyoto. Please stop scaring
the islanders.
Chris Matthaei
>And if the evidence does become undeniable, even to you, what will you
>do then? Say: "Oops, sorry not my fault".
I will accept the evidence with no guilt whatsoever. None of it is my
fault to begin with anyway. The doomsday type predictions aren't going to
happen, even if the warming is significant. I know this because
environmentalists doomsday predictions *never* come true. They're really
more like a recruiting drive for some cult. I'm not a big fan of cults.
Chris
Lloyd R. Parker
:
: "Brad Tittle" <the...@charter.net> wrote in message
: news:B8B6A9B3.1E099%the...@charter.net...
:
: > If it turns out that Human caused Global warming is real
: (meaning that we
: > really make a difference, something that is definitely in
: contention), we
: > probably still couldn't do much about it.
:
: Well, that is the issue. Do humans cause the warming out there
: that is real. It is far more likely that this rise is due to
: increases
: in solar spectral irradiance than CO2. Carbon dioxide is in the
: noise level as a green house gas compared to water vapor.
Nope. All analyses show solar effects cannot account for all the warming.
And CO2 is much, much higher as an effect than you seem to think. I
suggest you read some scientific journals.
: > I refuse to commit genocide, unlike most Environmentalists.
:
:
Lloyd R. Parker
:
: "Thomas Lee Elifritz" <sp...@spam.whatever.org> wrote in message
: news:3C90CC43...@spam.whatever.org...
: > March 14, 2002
: >
: > For all the cranks and kooks out there, that don't believe that
: global sea level
: > rise is occurring, or for anyone else who might be interested,
: > excellent article in this month's Physics Today on the subject.
: The online
: > version of the article is at :
: > http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-3/p35.html
: >
: > See also : http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-6/p19.html
:
: Yeah....
:
: Why would anyone care about the normal slight variations in
: sea level? Are you worried that the water might rise 10 cm
: per century?
:
: As for the "models". There seems to be a entire cottage
: industry arising out there that makes computer models
: to fit whatever politically motivated conclusion you want.
Then you're reading those right-wing shills instead of scientific
journals.
:
: All models, you know, have to prove their validity by
: making accurate predictions.
:
:
And climate models are now doing that.
Lloyd R. Parker
: Let's see:
:
: Sea Levels are rising, but it is difficult to determine by how much because
: the data is blurry.
:
: Sea Levels are rising, but not nearly as fast as they have in the past.
Who has claimed this?
:
:
: Sounds like we are doing just fine.
:
: I don't think that I am going to worry about the 100 Million people living
: within 1 M of sea level.
:
:
:
: > From: Thomas Lee Elifritz <sp...@spam.whatever.org>
: > Organization: Formation Inc. - The Information Corporation
: > Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
: > Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:13:55 -0500
: > Subject: Global Sea Level Rise
: >
: > March 14, 2002
: >
: > For all the cranks and kooks out there, that don't believe that global sea
: > level
: > rise is occurring, or for anyone else who might be interested, there is an
: > excellent article in this month's Physics Today on the subject. The online
: > version of the article is at :
: >
: > http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-3/p35.html
: >
: > See also : http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-6/p19.html
: >
: > Thomas Lee Elifritz
: > life...@atlantic.net
: > http://www.atlantic.net/~elifritz
: >
:
Lloyd R. Parker
:
:
: > From: Thomas Lee Elifritz <sp...@spam.whatever.org>
: > Organization: Formation Inc. - The Information Corporation
: > Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
: > Subject: Re: Global Sea Level Rise
: >
: > March 14, 2002
: >
: > Oops, that was a typo, that should have been a few 1000s of years.
: >
: > A 17,000 Year Glacio-Eustatic Sea Level Record : Influence of Glacial Melting
: > Rates on the Younger Dryas Event and Deep-Ocean Circulation, R. G. Fairbanks,
: > Nature 342, 637 (1989).
: >
: >
: >> If it turns out that Human caused Global warming is real (meaning that we
: >> really make a difference, something that is definitely in contention), we
: >> probably still couldn't do much about it.
: >
: > one
: > symptom of a very bad disease.
: >
:
: I think we have a little time to study the subject and gather more data. If
: in 75 years the GOES information continues to show an increasing trend in
: Global Temperatures, then I might reconsider my position, but making
: kneejerk decisions based on insufficient data is really silly. There are a
: lot of cranks like me out there. People who don't turn 1 - 2 mm/year into
: the end of the world.
That's like saying, "there's a fire burning in my back yard. But I'm not
100% convinced it will continue toward my house. Let's wait until it
actually starts burning the house before calling the fire dept."
:
: Climate changes. We as an adaptive species are well suited to dealing with
: it.
:
:
: >> I refuse to commit genocide, unlike most Environmentalists.
: >
: > 6 billion other human being will help you. I prefer a kinder and gentler cure
: > of
: > the problem.
: >
:
: Euthanasia? How are you planning on getting them to line up?
:
:
: >> From your comments, I expect you would kill 3 Billion to save 100 Million,
: >> and feel justified.
: >
: > Nowadays, it would only take one to kill 100 million. Imagine what 100 million
: > could do. Imagine what 10 billion will be like. Imagine what it will be like
: > when
: > those 10 billion want to start living like the most wealthiest 1 billion do
: > now,
: > and start invoking their right to try. You'll live to see it.
:
: Yes I will. I will root them on. The best way to solve the problem is to get
: more people in on trying to solve it. The best way to do that is to educate
: more people. Education costs. With more wealth creation more people will get
: educated.
:
: Not everyone can live disconnected from the world. We are interdependent on
: each other.
:
: You might wake up to this, or sleep yourself away in your tropical paradise.
:
: brad
Lloyd R. Parker
: On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:34:35 -0800, Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >
: >Nap wrote:
: >>
: >>
: >> As for the "models". There seems to be a entire cottage
: >> industry arising out there that makes computer models
: >> to fit whatever politically motivated conclusion you want.
: >>
: >
: >Do tell us, Nap . . .
: >
: >Can you name one peer-reviewed computer climate model that
: >predicts cooling in response to increasing greenhouse gas
: >concentrations? There about 100 computer climate models
: >published in the scientific literature. When presented
: >with greenhouse gas increases not a one of them even
: >predicts stasis, let alone global cooling. Perhaps someone
: >in your entire cottage industry will arise and make one to
: >fit your politically motivated conclusions, because to get
: >into the scientific literature a model has to fit facts,
: >not politically motivated conclusions.
: >
: >
: >The score is Global Warming 100 Fossil Fools 0
:
: So what? Anything we could _reasonably_ do would not do much more
: than ruin our economy. The supposed salvation of the Kyoto treaty was
: claimed by proponents to only make a few small percentage points
: difference in the temperature 100 years from now anyway.
Most economists (except those with groups like Cato) say complying would
at most cut 1.5% from our GDP (and that doesn't even include the benefit
from new technologies that would result).
:
: So we can bust our asses now and suffer economic collapse costing
: thousands of lives to starvation (the lowest living people always get
: hosed when the economy goes to shit) and still have the rising seas,
: climate change, etc. in 100 years, or keep making money and have
: mostly the same thing in 100 years.
Fiddling while the planet burns.
:
: The Kyoto treaty is just tokenism - won't do anything significant for
: future generations but will stunt scientific advancement (research
: always gets hosed when the economy goes to shit) that might otherwise
: have found a _real_ solution.
That's simply not true.
:
: The only real solution possible to this is a nice plague or nuclear
: war that wipes out about 95% of humanity...
Hopefully it will attack the idiots like you first.
:
: Or some real scientific advancement that allows us to replace
: combustion for transportation and heating. This would be nuclear
: electrical generation with mass transit that works for everyone - not
: just people in big cities.
:
: But of course the people that are all exercised about global warming
: are the same anti-capitalism bunch that turn
You're lying.
: white when you mention
Lloyd R. Parker
:
:
: > From: Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com>
: > Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 80,000+ UNCENSORED
: > Newsgroups.
: > Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
: > Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:34:35 -0800
: > Subject: Computer models
: >
: >
: >
: > Nap wrote:
: >>
: >>
: >> As for the "models". There seems to be a entire cottage
: >> industry arising out there that makes computer models
: >> to fit whatever politically motivated conclusion you want.
: >>
: >
: > Do tell us, Nap . . .
: >
: > Can you name one peer-reviewed computer climate model that
: > predicts cooling in response to increasing greenhouse gas
: > concentrations? There about 100 computer climate models
: > published in the scientific literature. When presented
: > with greenhouse gas increases not a one of them even
: > predicts stasis, let alone global cooling. Perhaps someone
: > in your entire cottage industry will arise and make one to
: > fit your politically motivated conclusions, because to get
: > into the scientific literature a model has to fit facts,
: > not politically motivated conclusions.
: >
: >
: > The score is Global Warming 100 Fossil Fools 0
: >
:
: Show me a single Climatologist that can predict the weather for the next 5
: years. I would be happy if they could just predict annual snowfall vs
: rainfall to within 10%.
Show me a fool who doesn't know the difference between climate and
weather. Oh, you just did.
:
: How can a computer model predict climate when weathermen can't predict where
:
Brad Tittle
> From: lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker)
> Organization: Emory University
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Followup-To: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: 15 Mar 2002 13:15:49 -0500
> Subject: Re: Global Sea Level Rise
>
> Brad Tittle (the...@charter.net) wrote:
> : Let's see:
> :
> : Sea Levels are rising, but it is difficult to determine by how much because
> : the data is blurry.
> :
> : Sea Levels are rising, but not nearly as fast as they have in the past.
>
> Who has claimed this?
>
The article that TLE posted.
Brad Tittle
> From: lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker)
> Organization: Emory University
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Followup-To: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: 15 Mar 2002 13:20:47 -0500
More like: "People tell me there is a fire in my backyard, but when I go out
to put it out, there is nothing. They keep telling me there is a fire, but
every time, nothing. "
There is a fire in my backyard, but in my case it is excess water. I can't
really do anything about the water, so I don't worry too much. I make sure
that my sump pump continues working and that the drainage path is clear.
I can't make the water table go down all by myself. I do my share by taking
long showers, but otherwise I can't do much.
Rand Simberg
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
<vast snippage>
Does anybody in this thread ever trim posts? They're going to grow
geometrically at this rate. We'll be overcome with repetitive
usenettage long before we have to worry about the sea levels rising.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Brad Tittle
> From: lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker)
> Organization: Emory University
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Followup-To: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: 15 Mar 2002 13:21:57 -0500
> Subject: Re: Global Sea Level Rise
>
Wow! you mean when they claimed that this would be a really nasty winter in
Wisconsin, they were just joking with us?
How in the world can anyone say that the climate models are working when we
have just created the models. We can't test the predictions until the future
comes. THEY HAVE NOT MADE ACCURATE PREDICTIONS YET! At best they have
managed to make the models fit past data.
You should talk to some of the Hedge fund managers who used such models to
predict the stock market. Their models worked for a while and then went to
hell.
When we can predict Sun Spots beyond the next peak, when we can predict all
volcanic eruptions ahead of time (you know more than a couple of months or
years), when we can predict precipitation, when we can predict storm paths
perfectly (or a reasonable facsimile perfect), I will start to lend credence
to "climate models". Until then, the predictions are worth just a little
more than the average dot com. The only reason they are worth more is
because they have managed to secure funded positions whereas the dot commers
are out on the ass.
brad
Lloyd R. Parker
: Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote...
: > Nap wrote:
: > >
: > > As for the "models". There seems to be a entire cottage
: > > industry arising out there that makes computer models
: > > to fit whatever politically motivated conclusion you want.
: >
: > Do tell us, Nap . . .
: >
: > Can you name one peer-reviewed computer climate model that
: > predicts cooling in response to increasing greenhouse gas
: > concentrations? There about 100 computer climate models
: > published in the scientific literature. When presented
: > with greenhouse gas increases not a one of them even
: > predicts stasis, let alone global cooling. ...
:
: Most of the models are inherently unable to yield anything but warming
: when CO2 forcing value is increased. That's not a testament to their
Models now accurately predict the current temp. when fed past conditions.
: accuracy, as evidenced by the cooling during 1950s-1970s which they
: are unable to reproduce. The few that allow for particulate forcing
: seem to use it as a fudge factor. This continues the embarssing trend
: long recognized by the scientific community: "The climate modelers
: have been 'cheating' for so long, it's almost become respectable."
: Richard Kerr, discussing flux adjustments in climate models in
: Science, 1997 -- one of the many quips and other climate model quotes
: available at http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex6.htm
Again you fail to cite anything but "Bill Bob's right-wing propaganda"
site.
:
: > ... Perhaps someone
: > in your entire cottage industry will arise and make one to
: > fit your politically motivated conclusions, because to get
: > into the scientific literature a model has to fit facts,
: > not politically motivated conclusions.
: >
: >
: > The score is Global Warming 100 Fossil Fools 0
:
: There's lot of negatives associated with coal and oil, but they don't
: warrant some global regulatory scheme like Kyoto. Please stop scaring
: the islanders.
Please learn some science.
Brad Tittle
> From: lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker)
> Organization: Emory University
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Followup-To: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: 15 Mar 2002 13:30:34 -0500
> Subject: Re: Computer models
How are new technologies going to result from increased Bureaucracy?
> :
> : So we can bust our asses now and suffer economic collapse costing
> : thousands of lives to starvation (the lowest living people always get
> : hosed when the economy goes to shit) and still have the rising seas,
> : climate change, etc. in 100 years, or keep making money and have
> : mostly the same thing in 100 years.
>
>
> Fiddling while the planet burns.
>
Yet it is still cooler than it was in the Middle ages!
> :
> : The Kyoto treaty is just tokenism - won't do anything significant for
> : future generations but will stunt scientific advancement (research
> : always gets hosed when the economy goes to shit) that might otherwise
> : have found a _real_ solution.
>
> That's simply not true.
>
Let's see, at best we are going to cut CO2 emissions by 10 -20 %. This will
result in a total green house gas reduction of wait for it..... 0%.
huh? how's that.
Humans are responsible for about 4% of all Green house gas emission
(excluding water). If you include water vapor this becomes 0.4% (or less).
if we reduce our CO2 emission by 20% we reduce total GHG's by <0.1%.
Oh wow.
Brad Tittle
> From: lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker)
> Organization: Emory University
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Followup-To: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: 15 Mar 2002 13:33:38 -0500
> Subject: Re: Computer models
>
Climate is the compilation of weather. If you can't predict the weather, you
can't predict the climate.
Climatologist do predict the weather on a macro scale. It is going to be
warmer they say!
They are connected, only morons would conclude that they aren't.
A climatologist had better be able to say how much rain is goingto fall or
his models aren't going to work. He has to know not only how much, but where
and in what form. If he doesn't, his models don't work.
I apologize. I shouldn't start throwing names around. It just amazes me that
people put so much stock in computer models. Computer models can do a lot of
things, but even the best of them has to be put to the test after the fact.
I will happily use finite element analysis to design a support structure,
but in the end I will test the structure before I put it into use.
Of course this will vary based on the significance of the design. A key
chain, probably doesn't need as much rigor as a 777. The ability of
computers to model structures has been shown to be quite effective, but it
still gives an engineer a warm fuzzy to watch a design fail right where you
expect it to.
Brad Tittle
> From: simberg.i...@trash.org (Rand Simberg)
> Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:00:37 GMT
> Subject: Re: Computer models
>
> On 15 Mar 2002 13:33:38 -0500, in a place far, far away,
> lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> <vast snippage>
>
> Does anybody in this thread ever trim posts? They're going to grow
> geometrically at this rate. We'll be overcome with repetitive
> usenettage long before we have to worry about the sea levels rising.
>
Actually all the extra friction from the posts will heat the atmosphere
causing sea levels to rise more.
James
want to hear and voila. No science necessary.
"Lloyd R. Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:a6tfr7$iuu$1...@paladin.cc.emory.edu...
Alastair McDonald
news:a6tb2o$dql$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> "Alastair McDonald" <abb...@nospam.abbemac.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>
> >True, your car exhaust's CO2 is warming my world. Our Arctic wildlife
> >heritage is being destroyed by your selfishness.
>
> >When are you and your like going to get the message? When it is too late!
>
> You sound like a religious nut trying to get me to convert.
If you think that, you must be a red neck, with your head buried in the sand.
> You don't have much more evidence than they do, either.
Have a look here;
http://abbemac.fsnet.co.uk/nasaice.htm.
The Arctic ice is definitely going.
> When the evidence becomes undeniable, then I will believe.
That'll be too late.
> Until then, I will remain open minded.
What you mean is that you will remain a stubborn denialist.
Cheers, Alastair.
Chris Matthaei
>Fiddling while the planet burns.
That's strange. I didn't notice it burning...
Chris
Alastair McDonald
Rand Simberg
<ch...@notherealadd.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>>Fiddling while the planet burns.
>
>That's strange. I didn't notice it burning...
Boy, this thread sure brought a lot of new "the planet is dying!!!"
hystericists out of the woodwork.
Chris Matthaei
>"Chris Matthaei" <ch...@notherealadd.com> wrote in message
>news:a6tb2o$dql$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> "Alastair McDonald" <abb...@nospam.abbemac.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> >True, your car exhaust's CO2 is warming my world. Our Arctic wildlife
>> >heritage is being destroyed by your selfishness.
>>
>> >When are you and your like going to get the message? When it is too late!
>>
>> You sound like a religious nut trying to get me to convert.
>If you think that, you must be a red neck, with your head buried in the sand.
??? Yeah, that's some hard evidence you have there! Wow, I'm convinced!
>> You don't have much more evidence than they do, either.
>Have a look here;
>http://abbemac.fsnet.co.uk/nasaice.htm.
>The Arctic ice is definitely going.
That link isn't coming up for me. And I hate arctic ice.
>> When the evidence becomes undeniable, then I will believe.
>That'll be too late.
So says the cult leader. You guys have never been right before. Why should
I believe you now?
>> Until then, I will remain open minded.
>What you mean is that you will remain a stubborn denialist.
I though "open minded" is a good thing, especially in the face of such
flimsy evidence? I guess it's only OK if you agree with it. If you really
had the hard proof you think you have, then the majority of people would
already believe it! Instead you have flimsy evidence, and people who
question it are "red necks".
Chris
Frank Altschuler
> : Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote...
> : > Nap wrote:
> : > >
> : > > As for the "models". There seems to be a entire cottage
> : > > industry arising out there that makes computer models
> : > > to fit whatever politically motivated conclusion you want.
> : >
> : > Do tell us, Nap . . .
> : >
> : > Can you name one peer-reviewed computer climate model that
> : > predicts cooling in response to increasing greenhouse gas
> : > concentrations? There about 100 computer climate models
> : > published in the scientific literature. When presented
> : > with greenhouse gas increases not a one of them even
> : > predicts stasis, let alone global cooling. ...
> :
> : Most of the models are inherently unable to yield anything but warming
> : when CO2 forcing value is increased. That's not a testament to their
>
> Models now accurately predict the current temp. when fed past conditions.
Please share an instance of this occurring as this has been one of the more
serious bones of contention.
Dan Bloomquist
Frank Altschuler wrote:
> "hatunen" <hat...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> Dan Bloomquist was heaping on the hysterical mumbo jumbo and I got to that
> one and it was just too much to bear without commentary. I guess I should
> have commented a bit more clearly but I thought just about everybody was
> more informed about the dynamics of populaton growth here on Earth.
>
I had not seen the work by Lutz before so obviously I'm no expert on
population growth. I'm not so interested in sensationalism. I am
interested in just how much we can assume. I've done more reading about
energy and there is a pretty clear consensus that we will double that
demand over the next 15 to 20 years. So even if population growth does
pull back, (which it hasn't yet), the system is still being put under
much more stress into the future.
Human nature does not include forward looking discretion. The condition
of world fisheries is a perfect example.
World demand for fresh water is becoming a serious issue, today.
The availability of cheap oil is in question. The Hubbert peak in oil is
contested strongly by the pundits but the decline in size and find of
fields can not be denied.
Maybe I've got nothing to worry about and my kid will inherit a great
planet. I just wonder how some folks can be so sure we aren't heading
toward a cliff. If you can't see the edge clearly from here, would it
not be prudent to slow down?
Best, Dan.
Rand Simberg
Bloomquist <d...@spam.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>World demand for fresh water is becoming a serious issue, today.
If demand for fresh water becomes great enough, it will be
manufactured. It only requires energy.
>The availability of cheap oil is in question. The Hubbert peak in oil is
>contested strongly by the pundits but the decline in size and find of
>fields can not be denied.
When oil is no longer cheap, it will be replaced by another source of
energy, just as oil replaced wood and whales.
>Maybe I've got nothing to worry about and my kid will inherit a great
>planet. I just wonder how some folks can be so sure we aren't heading
>toward a cliff. If you can't see the edge clearly from here, would it
>not be prudent to slow down?
No, not if the reason that the edge can't be seen clearly is because
it doesn't exist..
Dan Bloomquist
Brad Tittle wrote:
>
> Humans are responsible for about 4% of all Green house gas emission
> (excluding water). If you include water vapor this becomes 0.4% (or less).
> if we reduce our CO2 emission by 20% we reduce total GHG's by <0.1%.
>
> Oh wow.
>
Where do you get that wonderful number? If not humans, where do the much
higher methane and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere come from?
Best, Dan.
Dan Bloomquist
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:58:25 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dan
> Bloomquist <d...@spam.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
> a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>>World demand for fresh water is becoming a serious issue, today.
>>
>
> If demand for fresh water becomes great enough, it will be
> manufactured. It only requires energy.
>
You are kidding, right?
>
>>The availability of cheap oil is in question. The Hubbert peak in oil is
>>contested strongly by the pundits but the decline in size and find of
>>fields can not be denied.
>>
>
> When oil is no longer cheap, it will be replaced by another source of
> energy, just as oil replaced wood and whales.
>
What other source of energy? There is no other source. Are you talking
about renewable energy? When you start crunching numbers, you will find
that it is ridiculous to compare renewables to oil.
>
>>Maybe I've got nothing to worry about and my kid will inherit a great
>>planet. I just wonder how some folks can be so sure we aren't heading
>>toward a cliff. If you can't see the edge clearly from here, would it
>>not be prudent to slow down?
>>
>
> No, not if the reason that the edge can't be seen clearly is because
> it doesn't exist..
>
I prefer the evidence to faith. Population, fisheries, oil, fresh water,
GHGs, human nature...
Best, Dan.
ist...@spamcop.net
> Thomas Palm <thoma...@chello.se> writes:
>
> >And if the evidence does become undeniable, even to you, what will you
> >do then? Say: "Oops, sorry not my fault".
>
> I will accept the evidence with no guilt whatsoever.
Much as children and the insane are not held accountable.
>
None of it is my
> fault to begin with anyway.
Ahh. You are more worried about being blamed than in avoiding the
consequences?
> The doomsday type predictions
aren't going to
> happen, even if the warming is significant. I know this because
> environmentalists doomsday predictions *never* come true. They're really
> more like a recruiting drive for some cult. I'm not a big fan of cults.
My what a scientific response ( NOT ).
The science behind global warming is on a par with that of the ozone
destruction that drove the Montreal Protocol. We avoided the unforseen
consequences of CFCs by taking action in time. We will do the same for GW,
despite the ignorant and the uninformed.
Frank Altschuler
"Dan Bloomquist" <d...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:3C926E81...@spam.net...
> Human nature does not include forward looking discretion. The condition
> of world fisheries is a perfect example.
Now there's something we can probably agree on though probably for different
reasons. From what I've seen a big part of the reason that the oceans and
their fisheries are in such a state isn't so much a lack of "forward looking
discretion" as lack of ownership. If everybody can just help themselves,
and they are, then it's likely that bad things will happen to the resource
in question.
>
> World demand for fresh water is becoming a serious issue, today.
There's an area where we agree. We should get folks paying actual rather
than subsidized costs for water as a first step to avoiding waste.
> The availability of cheap oil is in question. The Hubbert peak in oil is
> contested strongly by the pundits but the decline in size and find of
> fields can not be denied.
I've been paying less than a dollar a gallon for regular unleaded. The
availability of cheap oil doesn't seem to be in question this week.
> Maybe I've got nothing to worry about and my kid will inherit a great
> planet. I just wonder how some folks can be so sure we aren't heading
> toward a cliff. If you can't see the edge clearly from here, would it
> not be prudent to slow down?
What would be prudent IMHO is to work to raise the standard of living of
everybody on the planet.
I've heard it said that the best contraceptive is money. I've also seen it
pointed out rather convincingly that rich societies are capable of having
cleaner air and water while availing themselves of modern medicines and
other life enhancing technologies than poor societies. I want my children
to be part of a rich society rather than a poor one.
Brad Tittle
> From: Dan Bloomquist <d...@spam.net>
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:58:25 -0700
> Subject: Re: Global Sea Level Rise
>
>
>
The danger is that slowing down could turn a crevice that could be lightly
ignored due to momentum, into an impassible crevasse.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask questions. It doesn't mean that we
should take "experts" words as gospel. It does mean that we should be
careful weighing evidence. The stories of "I walked 20 miles through the
snow in bare feet uphill both direction" should be recognized for what they
are, tales to cajole children into not complaining.
We can make the world better, but giving bureaucrats more power is unlikely
to do much. It will just cause more money to go into the pockets of those
that don't really need it.
brad
Rand Simberg
>> If demand for fresh water becomes great enough, it will be
>> manufactured. It only requires energy.
>>
>
>
>You are kidding, right?
Of course not. Are you?
>> When oil is no longer cheap, it will be replaced by another source of
>> energy, just as oil replaced wood and whales.
>What other source of energy? There is no other source. Are you talking
>about renewable energy? When you start crunching numbers, you will find
>that it is ridiculous to compare renewables to oil.
Nuclear, fusion, space-based solar, ground-based solar from
high-efficiency panels...
>> No, not if the reason that the edge can't be seen clearly is because
>> it doesn't exist..
>I prefer the evidence to faith.
Me, too.
Kris Crockett
> Brad Tittle (the...@charter.net) wrote:
> : Let's see:
> :
> : Sea Levels are rising, but it is difficult to determine by how much
because
> : the data is blurry.
> :
> : Sea Levels are rising, but not nearly as fast as they have in the past.
>
> Who has claimed this?
The bible, and almost every culture on Earth. They all have flood "myths".
>
> :
> :
> : Sounds like we are doing just fine.
> :
> : I don't think that I am going to worry about the 100 Million people
living
> : within 1 M of sea level.
> :
> :
> :
> : > From: Thomas Lee Elifritz <sp...@spam.whatever.org>
> : > Organization: Formation Inc. - The Information Corporation
> : > Newsgroups:
sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> : > Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:13:55 -0500
> : > Subject: Global Sea Level Rise
> : >
> : > March 14, 2002
> : >
> : > For all the cranks and kooks out there, that don't believe that global
sea
> : > level
> : > rise is occurring, or for anyone else who might be interested, there
is an
> : > excellent article in this month's Physics Today on the subject. The
online
> : > version of the article is at :
> : >
> : > http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-3/p35.html
> : >
> : > See also : http://www.physicstoday.org/pt/vol-54/iss-6/p19.html
> : >
Brad Tittle
> From: Dan Bloomquist <d...@spam.net>
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:15:11 -0700
> Subject: Re: Computer models
After TLE gently point out the error of my numbers I found the ones he
quoted. Atmospheric concentration of CO2 (according to the Mauna Loa
Observatory data) rose 16% to 370ppm from 1959 to 2001.
Increased CO2 concentrations may be due to humans, but that doesn't mean
that humans contribute a lot to the equation. It doesn't mean that humans
aren't the cause of the increase either. A small increase in CO2 output
could lead to a buildup.
Even the most rambunctious CO2 reduction advocates seem to accept the 3-5%
human contribution. This number is readily available.
Water vapor is 10 X more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2. It is not
included in the Green House Gas Accounting though. If it was,
environmentalists would be running around spouting really small numbers and
getting nowhere. As it is they Parade "the US is responsible for 25% of all
greenhouse gas emissions". This number seems impressive. It is not as
impressive, when you realized (using rudimentary math skills) that this
represents 1% of the total GHG emissions in the world (from all sources).
This 1% still doesn't include water vapor. If we put water vapor into the
equation, things get really unnoticeable.
It cannot be refuted that the atmosphere is receiving CO2 from human
sources. Our contribution is still small.
The county where I live is about 25 miles X 25 miles. You could put the
entire population of the planet into this county. (Logistically, it is not
possible of course, but space wise it is).
We can impact out planet greatly. I have seen entire mountain be taken down
piece by piece, lakes filled, lakes made, oceans held at bay, towns moved
and then moved back, forests cleared, housing tracts, etc. We are good at
impacting our planet. We definitely need to pay attention to how we affect
it. Protect the wetlands. Protect the wilderness. Protect your watersheds.
Protect your air. But recognize that the technologies in place today: Coal
Plants, Gas plants, Natural Gas heaters, Nuclear Plants, Internal Combustion
Engines, all represent progress in the direction of impacting our planet
less. These technologies have also made it possible to use resources more
effectively and efficiently.
We are definitely in a race, but we can't go backward (at least not without
killing a lot of people). The computers we flame each other with are the
result of a lot of infrastructure. That infrastructure provides us with so
many parts of our livelihood that it is hard to grasp.
The methane is probably from the cows! ;-)
brad
Dan Bloomquist
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:32:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dan
> Bloomquist <d...@spam.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
> a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>>>If demand for fresh water becomes great enough, it will be
>>>manufactured. It only requires energy.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You are kidding, right?
>>
>
> Of course not. Are you?
>
If you mean by current methods, we can provide for some conservative
domestic use. It will not provide for irrigation, which is our major
need of fresh water. Something may be done with direct solar
distillation, but that's still quite a challenge for irrigation. If you
have information that shows an equitable large scale method, please post it.
>
>>>When oil is no longer cheap, it will be replaced by another source of
>>>energy, just as oil replaced wood and whales.
>>>
>
>>What other source of energy? There is no other source. Are you talking
>>about renewable energy? When you start crunching numbers, you will find
>>that it is ridiculous to compare renewables to oil.
>>
>
> Nuclear, fusion, space-based solar, ground-based solar from
> high-efficiency panels...
>
Consider the scale for nuclear. It would be nice if they could get
fusion practical. The energy cost of producing solarvoltaic is still a
very heavy burden compared to yield. On another thread, it was beaten to
death without many conclusions.
I've yet to find a practical proposal for that one. If it is not in
geo-stationary orbit, you won't get consistency. You would be better off
with land based cells. It would be hard to convince a world of doubters
that it would not be used as a weapon.
Now, if it is in geo-stationary orbit, we would not be able to maintain
it. I haven't run the numbers to see what the size of the dish would
have to be to keep a microwave beam reasonably focused at 24,000 miles,
but it doesn't sound reasonable.
In either case, there is still the energy cost of putting it in space
and producing the panels.
>
>>>No, not if the reason that the edge can't be seen clearly is because
>>>it doesn't exist..
>>>
>
>>I prefer the evidence to faith.
>>Population, fisheries, oil, fresh water, GHGs, human nature...
>
> Me, too.
>
Best, Dan.
Rand Simberg
>
>
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:32:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dan
>> Bloomquist <d...@spam.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
>> a way as to indicate that:
>>
>>
>>>>If demand for fresh water becomes great enough, it will be
>>>>manufactured. It only requires energy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are kidding, right?
>>>
>>
>> Of course not. Are you?
>>
>
>
>If you mean by current methods, we can provide for some conservative
>domestic use. It will not provide for irrigation, which is our major
>need of fresh water.
That can be done much more efficiently, if the market works. Right
now much irrigation water is wasted, because it's underpriced. Also,
genetic engineering will allow plants that are more tolerant of more
saline water.
In general, the water problem is one of screwed-up allocation due to
the fact that the market is not allowed to work, rather than any
actual near-term shortages.
>> Nuclear, fusion, space-based solar, ground-based solar from
>> high-efficiency panels...
>Consider the scale for nuclear.
Not an issue, if we design intelligent plants (we haven't, to date).
>It would be nice if they could get
>fusion practical. The energy cost of producing solarvoltaic is still a
>very heavy burden compared to yield. On another thread, it was beaten to
>death without many conclusions.
The technology continues to advance. Molecular manufacturing will
work wonders in that area.
>I've yet to find a practical proposal for that one. If it is not in
>geo-stationary orbit, you won't get consistency. You would be better off
>with land based cells. It would be hard to convince a world of doubters
>that it would not be used as a weapon.
Then let them freeze in the dark. We'll do it anyway, if it makes
economic sense.
>Now, if it is in geo-stationary orbit, we would not be able to maintain
>it. I haven't run the numbers to see what the size of the dish would
>have to be to keep a microwave beam reasonably focused at 24,000 miles,
>but it doesn't sound reasonable.
It's large--probably kilometers in diameter. But that's not
necessarily a challenge in a weightless environment.
>In either case, there is still the energy cost of putting it in space
>and producing the panels.
Not if it's produced using materials and energy already available in
space.
Steve Schulin
> : > Can you name one peer-reviewed computer climate model that
> : > predicts cooling in response to increasing greenhouse gas
> : > concentrations? There about 100 computer climate models
> : > published in the scientific literature. When presented
> : > with greenhouse gas increases not a one of them even
> : > predicts stasis, let alone global cooling. ...
> :
> : Most of the models are inherently unable to yield anything but warming
> : when CO2 forcing value is increased. That's not a testament to their
>
> Models now accurately predict the current temp. when fed past conditions.
Out of the about 100 models that Roger mentioned, how many do you
think meet your description? And do any of those that do meet your
description also reproduce the 1950s-70s cooling?
>
> : accuracy, as evidenced by the cooling during 1950s-1970s which they
> : are unable to reproduce. The few that allow for particulate forcing
> : seem to use it as a fudge factor. This continues the embarssing trend
> : long recognized by the scientific community: "The climate modelers
> : have been 'cheating' for so long, it's almost become respectable."
> : Richard Kerr, discussing flux adjustments in climate models in
> : Science, 1997 -- one of the many quips and other climate model quotes
> : available at http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/annex6.htm
>
> Again you fail to cite anything but "Bill Bob's right-wing propaganda"
> site.
I tip my hat to Bill Bob for his vast collection, including the
attributed quip from the journal Science that you slough off.
>
> :
> : > ... Perhaps someone
> : > in your entire cottage industry will arise and make one to
> : > fit your politically motivated conclusions, because to get
> : > into the scientific literature a model has to fit facts,
> : > not politically motivated conclusions.
> : >
> : >
> : > The score is Global Warming 100 Fossil Fools 0
> :
> : There's lot of negatives associated with coal and oil, but they don't
> : warrant some global regulatory scheme like Kyoto. Please stop scaring
> : the islanders.
>
> Please learn some science.
I've heard you're a teacher. Are you as superficial in the classroom
as here?
Christopher M. Jones
> Rand Simberg wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:32:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dan
> > Bloomquist <d...@spam.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
> > a way as to indicate that:
> >>>If demand for fresh water becomes great enough, it will be
> >>>manufactured. It only requires energy.
> >>
> >>You are kidding, right?
> >
> > Of course not. Are you?
>
> If you mean by current methods, we can provide for some conservative
> domestic use. It will not provide for irrigation, which is our major
> need of fresh water. Something may be done with direct solar
> distillation, but that's still quite a challenge for irrigation. If you
> have information that shows an equitable large scale method, please post it.
Sure it can, we have plenty of water around. Are you aware
of the fact that >70% of the surface of the Earth is Ocean?
Are you also aware that a large fraction of the population of
the world lives only a few hundred km from the Ocean?
Desalinization plants combined with extensive long range
water pipelines and flow channels to get the fresh water (or
heck, even the salt water) where it needs to go.
Water for domestic usage is cheap, food is cheap, consumer
goods and manufactured goods are cheap. This is an indication
that domestic, industrial, and agriculultural water usage is
incredibly inexpensive. Sure, getting all our water from
desalinization plants (which is a worst case scenario mind
you) would be expensive as heck, but it is not so expensive
that the costs could not be easily absorbed by all sectors of
the economy down to the consumer level without resulting in
severely deleterious effects to the overall quality of life.
Some data:
http://resources.ca.gov/ocean/97Agenda/Chap5Desal.html
Which covers a study on desalinization by California, the
results are that potable water can be created from seawater
at a cost of about 2-10 times that of conventional methods.
In the case of a serious emergency situation (water
shortage) there would be considerable pressure (from the
public, the government, profit margins, and competition) to
reduce the cost of desalinated water.
--
Please put your seatbacks and tray tables in their upright position.
Alastair McDonald
Snip ...
> I though "open minded" is a good thing, especially in the face of such
> flimsy evidence? I guess it's only OK if you agree with it. If you really
> had the hard proof you think you have, then the majority of people would
> already believe it! Instead you have flimsy evidence, and people who
> question it are "red necks".
But you are not "open minded". You have made up your mind that there
is only flimsy evidence. The evidence is overwhelming:
1) In less than a century atmospheric CO2 has been increased by man
burning fossil fuels that took hundreds of million of years to form.
See;
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/sio-mlgr.gif
and
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
2) It is scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing the
level of CO2 in the atmosphere has and will cause global temperatures to
rise.
3) Global temperatures have already risen during the 20th century, and
were rising even faster in the nineteen nineties and are still rising this
century.
4) Evidence from ice cores has shown that climate changes suddenly.
The small changes that have happened until now are most likely only
the calm before the storm.
5) The ocean temperatures have not been able to rise more quickly
because the Arctic ice has kept the North Atlantic and Pacific oceans
cool. When the sea ice in the Arctic melts, global sea surface
temperatures will soar. This will prevent CO2 being absorbed in
oceans and atmospheric levels of CO2 will then leap, causing
temperatures to soar, resulting in major environmental disruption.
You can see evidence of the melting Arctic ice at;
http://www.abbemac.fsnet.co.uk/nasaice.htm
The evidence is there, but no one wants to believe it. Everyone
would have to give up their cars and they are not willing to do that.
Rather than listen to the evidence they prefer to remain ignorant and
justify their disbelief and ignorance by claiming "If you really had
the hard proof you think you have, then the majority of people would
already believe it!" It is a case of mob rule. You think there is safety
in a crowd.
If you were really willing to listen to the evidence, then you would
be able to state what evidence would convince you. Instead you
resort to handwaving claiming there is no hard proof. I am not
trying to proselytise you. I am trying to destroy your faith that you
are immune from the catastrophe which is now almost inevitable.
Cheers, Alastair.
Rand Simberg
"Alastair McDonald" <abb...@nospam.abbemac.fsnet.co.uk> made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>If you were really willing to listen to the evidence, then you would
>be able to state what evidence would convince you. Instead you
>resort to handwaving claiming there is no hard proof. I am not
>trying to proselytise you. I am trying to destroy your faith that you
>are immune from the catastrophe which is now almost inevitable.
We would accept models that can predict the past as evidence.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote:
> Sure it can, we have plenty of water around. Are you aware
> of the fact that >70% of the surface of the Earth is Ocean?
> Are you also aware that a large fraction of the population of
> the world lives only a few hundred km from the Ocean?
> Desalinization plants combined with extensive long range
> water pipelines and flow channels to get the fresh water (or
> heck, even the salt water) where it needs to go.
Are you aware that those desalinization plants require a lot of energy to operate,
and that unless some alternative form of solar energy conversion process is
developed, that energy will most likely come from hydrocarbon combustion and/or
nuclear power, and those energy conversion processes will also then contribute
further to global warming and nuclear proliferation and the global instabilities
that result, contributing to a ever more tightly spiraling circle of energy
consumption and global climate disruption, environmental pollution and political
instabilities?
Or you even aware of the effects of salt water contamination of fresh water
environments?
I doubt it. I doubt you are even capable of comprehending it, in fact.
Dan Bloomquist
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:16:53 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dan
> Bloomquist <d...@spam.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
> a way as to indicate that:
>
>>I've yet to find a practical proposal for that one. If it is not in
>>geo-stationary orbit, you won't get consistency. You would be better off
>>with land based cells. It would be hard to convince a world of doubters
>>that it would not be used as a weapon.
>>
>
> Then let them freeze in the dark. We'll do it anyway, if it makes
> economic sense.
>
>
>>Now, if it is in geo-stationary orbit, we would not be able to maintain
>>it. I haven't run the numbers to see what the size of the dish would
>>have to be to keep a microwave beam reasonably focused at 24,000 miles,
>>but it doesn't sound reasonable.
>>
>
> It's large--probably kilometers in diameter. But that's not
> necessarily a challenge in a weightless environment.
>
>
>>In either case, there is still the energy cost of putting it in space
>>and producing the panels.
>>
>
> Not if it's produced using materials and energy already available in
> space.
>
>
I did some searching for the technical aspect of space power. All I
could find was a lot of conjecture. The most optimistic say it would be
equitable in around 25 years and they make a lot of assumptions about
the cost of payloads.
I was most curious how they would get 5Gw through a wave guide. I could
not find anything. I can't imagine how you could use more than one feed
as the focal point is so critical at that distance. Breakdown in a wave
guide at 2.5 gigs will occur at a much lower power. I may be missing
something, but it completely escapes me.
Best, Dan.
Paul F. Dietz
> I had not seen the work by Lutz before so obviously I'm no expert on
> population growth. I'm not so interested in sensationalism. [...]
> So even if population growth does pull back, (which it hasn't yet),
> [...]
You got one thing right -- you aren't an expert on population growth.
For your information, the global population growth rate
peaked around 1990 (in percentage terms, it peaked several
decades earlier).
Applying the term 'exponential' to human population growth is
little more than an exercise is sloganeering. By no means
can the population growth curve be described as exponential.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> Show me a single Climatologist that can predict the weather for the next 5
> years. I would be happy if they could just predict annual snowfall vs
> rainfall to within 10%.
>
> How can a computer model predict climate when weathermen can't predict where
> the snow is going to fall. They have difficulty doing it 2 hours in advance
> of storm, much less 20 years.
Climate is the probability distribution of weather.
Predicting climate is akin to predicting that an unbiased die has an
expected outcome of 3.5 pips. Predicting weather is akin to predicting
that the next roll of the die will be a 5.
Paul
Dan Bloomquist
Brad Tittle wrote:
Hi Brad,
Thanks for a thoughtful post. I guess there is so much uncertainty about
how much we affect global warming because we don't understand the
dynamics well. If we are going to double energy consumption in the next
twenty years, we best get it right.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/2001/4/VAPOR.UWA.html
(Shot all the cows??)
http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2001archive/04-01archive/k042401a.html
Best, Dan.
Dan Bloomquist
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
>>I had not seen the work by Lutz before so obviously I'm no expert on
>>population growth. I'm not so interested in sensationalism. [...]
>>So even if population growth does pull back, (which it hasn't yet),
>>[...]
>>
>
> You got one thing right -- you aren't an expert on population growth.
>
> For your information...
Wasn't it obvious I sought out the work of Lutz?
Yet another fine contribution to a newsgroup.
Dan.
Paul F. Dietz
> >>So even if population growth does pull back, (which it hasn't yet),
> Wasn't it obvious I sought out the work of Lutz?
> Yet another fine contribution to a newsgroup.
It wasn't obvious. After all, it didn't keep from lying
that population growth hasn't pulled back yet.
Paul
Dan Bloomquist
Christopher M. Jones wrote:
> Water for domestic usage is cheap, food is cheap, consumer
> goods and manufactured goods are cheap. This is an indication
> that domestic, industrial, and agriculultural water usage is
> incredibly inexpensive. Sure, getting all our water from
> desalinization plants (which is a worst case scenario mind
> you) would be expensive as heck, but it is not so expensive
> that the costs could not be easily absorbed by all sectors of
> the economy down to the consumer level without resulting in
> severely deleterious effects to the overall quality of life.
>
> Some data:
> http://resources.ca.gov/ocean/97Agenda/Chap5Desal.html
> Which covers a study on desalinization by California, the
> results are that potable water can be created from seawater
> at a cost of about 2-10 times that of conventional methods.
> In the case of a serious emergency situation (water
> shortage) there would be considerable pressure (from the
> public, the government, profit margins, and competition) to
> reduce the cost of desalinated water.
>
This was a rather vague reference. Actual costs were well over $1000 an
acre foot. They projected future cost at $500 an acre foot. But nothing
conclusive.
Let's say the price of electricity stays at 3 cents/kwh. That means that
just the cost in energy is currently $200 an acre foot.
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/desalrpt/dchap1.html
The point I would make here is we have to resort to desalination because
water is not so abundant. And we face an unknown future cost of energy.
In ten or twenty years, we should have a nice rear-view-mirror on the
issue. For now we just assume..
Best, Dan.
Dan Bloomquist
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Every graph and statistic I saw showed continued steady growth. Then
they showed a sudden break at lower rates as they projected into the
future. I find out that half the world population, today, is under the
age of 25.
There is a difference between being miss-informed and lying. If I call
you a miserable human being, is that lying? I hope you are no kid's teacher.
Dan.
Brad Tittle
[snip]
>
>
> Hi Brad,
> Thanks for a thoughtful post. I guess there is so much uncertainty about
> how much we affect global warming because we don't understand the
> dynamics well. If we are going to double energy consumption in the next
> twenty years, we best get it right.
>
> http://www.newswise.com/articles/2001/4/VAPOR.UWA.html
> (Shot all the cows??)
> http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2001archive/04-01archive/k042401a.html
>
> Best, Dan.
>
>
Or more realistically, try to do the best we can.
Brad Tittle
> From: "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@interaccess.com>
> Organization: Jump.Net
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:39:38 -0600
> Subject: Re: Computer models
Yes, but if you can't predict that next roll, you can't predict the overall
total. When you roll the dice, the chances are the same each time you roll.
With the weather, each successive roll is dependant on the previous roll.
The climate follows.
Ronnie H
Brad Tittle <the...@charter.net> wrote >
>
> I am all for protecting the planet, but there is no simple answer.
There is no simple answer, but there may be a better answer than Kyoto, and
it's *relatively* simple: a world body issues non-interest bearing Bonds
redeemable for a fixed sum only when the climate reaches a specified level
of stability. These Climate Stability Bonds would be issued by auction. They
would be tradable after that. The issuing body would redeem the Bonds with
sums paid by governments [perhaps according to their GDP level]. So
government specifies the desired outcome, and is the ultimate source of
finance. But it is bondholders who decide on the best ways of achieving
climate stability, and they have an incentive to do so cost-effectively.
'Climate stability' could be defined so that negative effects of climate on
people would be targeted. So if the sun is warming the planet, bondholders
would still invest in ways of minimising these impacts.
For more info see an edited excerpt from my book at http://www.
geocities.com/socialpbonds/kyoto.
Regards, Ronnie H
--
Market solutions for social problems
Market solutions for environmental problems
http://www.geocities.com/socialpbonds
Brad Tittle
dearth of CO2? ;-) (Having too little CO2 is probably a bigger problem than
too much)..
Stabilization of climate seems a little lofty a goal for a planet that has
never had a stable climate.
> From: "Ronnie H" <In...@SocialGoals.com>
> Organization: Xtra
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 15:35:25 +1300
> Subject: Re: Global Sea Level Rise
>
>
Paul F. Dietz
> Every graph and statistic I saw showed continued steady growth. Then
> they showed a sudden break at lower rates as they projected into the
> future. I find out that half the world population, today, is under the
> age of 25.
You did not look closely enough. The growth rate is down from its
peak. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/img/worldpch.gif
The future projections are due to well-understood demographic effects.
Population tends to continue to increase after future slowing is
already committed, due to 'demographic momentum' as the population
ages. The fact the world population is fairly young today means birth rates
(as a fraction of the population) will become smaller as the age structure
shifts. There's also been an unexpectedly rapid decline in the fertility
rate in non-industrialized countries (probably due to female education).
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> Yes, but if you can't predict that next roll, you can't predict the overall
> total.
On the contrary. If we roll the die many times, we can say with high
confidence that the total will be within a rather narrow range, a range
that will become narrower (compared to the expectation of the total) as
the number of rolls increases.
Similarly, while the weather at any particular location on any particular
day is impossible to predict more than a short distance into the future,
the average temperature over a large number of locations, and over
many years, is much easier to predict. The random fluctuations cancel
out.
Paul
Nap
> Nap (an...@nowhere.com) wrote:
> :
> : "Brad Tittle" <the...@charter.net> wrote in message
> : news:B8B6A9B3.1E099%the...@charter.net...
> :
> : > If it turns out that Human caused Global warming is real
> : (meaning that we
> : > really make a difference, something that is definitely in
> : contention), we
> : > probably still couldn't do much about it.
> :
> : Well, that is the issue. Do humans cause the warming out
there
> : that is real. It is far more likely that this rise is due to
> : increases
> : in solar spectral irradiance than CO2. Carbon dioxide is in
the
> : noise level as a green house gas compared to water vapor.
> :
>
> Nope. All analyses show solar effects cannot account for all
the warming.
> And CO2 is much, much higher as an effect than you seem to
think. I
> suggest you read some scientific journals.
Perhaps you would cite some, so we can point out where
the errors in their assumptions and analysis are.
Nap
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:3C9187DB...@adnc.com...
>
>
> Nap wrote:
> >
> >
> > As for the "models". There seems to be a entire cottage
> > industry arising out there that makes computer models
> > to fit whatever politically motivated conclusion you want.
> >
>
> Do tell us, Nap . . .
>
> Can you name one peer-reviewed computer climate model that
> predicts cooling in response to increasing greenhouse gas
> concentrations? There about 100 computer climate models
> published in the scientific literature. When presented
> with greenhouse gas increases not a one of them even
> in your entire cottage industry will arise and make one to
> fit your politically motivated conclusions, because to get
> into the scientific literature a model has to fit facts,
> not politically motivated conclusions.
No, I can't. Neither can you. But the fact is, there was
a period of increasing carbon dioxide where the global
temperature was decreasing.
The "models" only work if they throw out the data before
1990, because before then they run into problems.
Ergo, the models fail to predict past history. That means
they are poor predictors. Real scientist would note that
this means the global warming due to CO2 hypothisis is
proven to fail.
Nap
> Most economists (except those with groups like Cato) say
complying would
> at most cut 1.5% from our GDP (and that doesn't even include
the benefit
> from new technologies that would result).
Amusing, but not helpful.
[snip]
> Fiddling while the planet burns.
[snip]
> That's simply not true.
[snip]
> Hopefully it will attack the idiots like you first.
[snip]
> You're lying.
You're not contributing to the discussion. You're
just trolling.
Nap
> Let's see, at best we are going to cut CO2 emissions by 10 -20
%. This will
> result in a total green house gas reduction of wait for it.....
0%.
>
> huh? how's that.
>
> Humans are responsible for about 4% of all Green house gas
emission
> (excluding water). If you include water vapor this becomes 0.4%
(or less).
> if we reduce our CO2 emission by 20% we reduce total GHG's by
<0.1%.
Exactly! It's in the noise level. Note that there is global
warming on
Mars. Did we cause that too? Of course not.
Brad Tittle
> From: "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@interaccess.com>
> Organization: Jump.Net
> Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.space.policy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.energy
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:38:51 -0600
> Subject: Re: Computer models
>
These are coupled non-linear problems which are completely different from
dice rolling. The fluctuations do not cancel out.
> Paul
Duke McMullan N5GAX
wrote in message news:u94lpad...@corp.supernews.com...
> The models are a scam within a scam. Fiddle with them to tell you what you
> want to hear and voila. No science necessary.
Unfortunately, this is an arguable position. I ought to have specific examples
to make this assertion, and I don't, so let's just say that it's my (possibly
flawed) understanding that:
Most, and possibly all, of these models are sufficiently sensitive to the
_assumed_ values for some of their parameters that the models will give
drastically different outcomes if certain of the parameters are twiddled a bit
WITH THE LIMITS OF UNCERTAINTY OF THE MEASURES OF THOSE SAME PARAMETERS.
That is to say, if epsilon-sub-alpha varies between 12.3 and 12.7, the output
of the model changes drastically over a twelve-day prediction. The trouble is,
the best estimates of epsilon-sub-alpha, which can't be measured directly, vary
from 11.5 to 14.
Notice that this sort of behavior isn't due to flakiness of the models -- it's
due to their nonlinearities. And you can't ditch those; the processes being
modeled are inherently nonlinear, and intrinsically display this "sensitivity
to initial conditions".
If you want to get a better understanding of this without getting tricky
mathematics all over your hands, consult your library for any of the popular
books on "chaos theory", "complexity" or "nonlinear dynamical systems".
d
--
Recipe for Gypsy Chicken: First, steal a chicken . . . .
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429rl(fe) (505)255-4642 Duk...@yahoo.com
Ronnie H
killed or made homeless by adverse climatic events, or by the means and
variances of temperature and other weather data. We could aim for a wide
definition of stability, such as to include the climate, and changes in
climate, that have been around for the past 1000 years or whatever.
Regards, Ronnie H
--
Market solutions for social problems
Market solutions for environmental problems
http://www.geocities.com/socialpbonds
Brad Tittle <the...@charter.net> wrote
Nap
>
> Wow! you mean when they claimed that this would be a really
nasty winter in
> Wisconsin, they were just joking with us?
>
> How in the world can anyone say that the climate models are
working when we
> have just created the models. We can't test the predictions
until the future
> comes. THEY HAVE NOT MADE ACCURATE PREDICTIONS YET! At best
they have
> managed to make the models fit past data.
They've tweeked the models until they got the right answer,
which is that global doom that can only be averted by
dismantaling
all the evil capitalist's industry and shipping it to China.
I'm still not clear why third world CO2 doesn't cause global
warming, and ours does.
It's a silly theory since CO2 isn't significant compared to water
vapor; there's warming on Mars and melting of their ice caps
too, and our CO2 doesn't reach there; and their models don't
even predict past history before 1990 where there was a global
cooling trend when CO2 levels were increasing. But what the
hey, the ends justifies the means for the socialist cause.
> You should talk to some of the Hedge fund managers who used
such models to
> predict the stock market. Their models worked for a while and
then went to
> hell.
>
> When we can predict Sun Spots beyond the next peak, when we can
predict all
> volcanic eruptions ahead of time (you know more than a couple
of months or
> years), when we can predict precipitation, when we can predict
storm paths
> perfectly (or a reasonable facsimile perfect), I will start to
lend credence
> to "climate models". Until then, the predictions are worth just
a little
> more than the average dot com. The only reason they are worth
more is
> because they have managed to secure funded positions whereas
the dot commers
> are out on the ass.
Well, that's just it. The solar spectral irradiance cycle has
just about peaked,
and if we don't get CO2 emissions down soon, the earth will start
to cool
and prove the whole scam a fraud.
Paul F. Dietz
> These are coupled non-linear problems which are completely different from
> dice rolling. The fluctuations do not cancel out.
The systems certainly are more complicated than die rolling.
But they exhibit a great deal of uncorrelated noise that will
indeed cancel out. This is illustrated by the rather obvious
fact that climate exists at all, that it is colder in the
winter than in the summer, and that this can be predicted
even if we don't know on which particular days it will be
snowing or raining.
In addition: your claim amounts to saying that there's long
term memory in the weather system (so that observations far
apart are correlated rather than independent). In other words,
you are now arguing that long term prediction of weather should
be possible!
The best argument you could make here would be that long term
correlations exist in the *oceans*, and this can affect climate.
Ocean response to climate change is indeed one of the big
unknowns, but there's the potential for horrific gotchas there.
If the gulf stream shuts down, for example, Europe will be
in deep shit.
Paul
Nap
"Alastair McDonald" <abb...@nospam.abbemac.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:a6tl43$n6u$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Have a look here;
> http://abbemac.fsnet.co.uk/nasaice.htm.
> The Arctic ice is definitely going.
Even if so, it has not been proven that humans are the
root cause of this melting.