The next ice age?
John McCarthy
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Ian St. John
"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4hy9t2...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
> Do you think humanity can or should prevent the next ice age?
More to the point who thinks man *can and will* stop the next ice age.
John Miller
We cannot possibly predict the full impact of doing such a thing and I do
not think we have the right to control our planet to that kind of degree.
Frankly, if the climate changes so much that we can't live with it and
causes our demise, so be it.
It's bad enough that people want to promote rainfall through seeding or
discharge all the energy in an electrical storm. The knock-on effects could
be dreadful.
The first time I went to Florida, I was amazed and appalled at our willful
interference of the natural water flow patterns and the resultant
destruction of the ecosystem in the Everglades and South Florida. Imagine
the mess we could end up in on a global scale.
"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4hy9t2...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
John McCarthy
David Ball
wrote:
>Do you think humanity can or should prevent the next ice age?
>--
John, you behave like a man who desperately wants someone to
tell him he's right, and you'll damn well keep trying until you do.
Eric Swanson
Its likely that "man" can stop the next Ice Age, but industrial mankind's
unwillingness to do anything like limiting population growth just
indicates that it is unlikely that we will do anything in time when
the need for action arises. Besides, what we ARE doing may CAUSE
an Ice Age......
Witness those in California who can't understand that electricity
is going to cost more in future than it did 10 or 20 years ago.
Most of the solutions discussed involve adding more generating plants,
not instituting conservation measures.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Miller
Sorry if I stunned you with my total unselfishness with my attitude to
nature running its course. Or was it something else??!!
"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4hwv8l...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
Ian St. John
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:9bd2fh$7poo$4...@news3.infoave.net...
> In article <9bcvmi$bmk$1...@news.tht.net>, ist...@spamcop.net says...
> >
> >
> >"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> >news:x4hy9t2...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
> >
> >> Do you think humanity can or should prevent the next ice age?
> >
> >More to the point who thinks man *can and will* stop the next ice age.
>
> Its likely that "man" can stop the next Ice Age, but industrial mankind's
> unwillingness to do anything like limiting population growth just
> indicates that it is unlikely that we will do anything in time when
> the need for action arises. Besides, what we ARE doing may CAUSE
> an Ice Age......
Exactly. We might *prevent* an iceage by understanding climate and not
screwing with it in the short term, but *stopping* an ice age is a whole
different ballgame. We might do it by blasting a large sealevel gap in
Panama. That ought to work, but we'd need nuclear excavation to do it in a
resonable timeframe.
>
> Witness those in California who can't understand that electricity
> is going to cost more in future than it did 10 or 20 years ago.
> Most of the solutions discussed involve adding more generating plants,
> not instituting conservation measures.
And misses the point that they already have generator capacity to spare if
it were just *online*. This is not to disagree with your point. The cost is
going to go up as supplies become scarce. Eventually, OPEC will be unable to
keep prices *down* to their 'target'. Only Saudi Arabia has excess pumping
capacity left and reserves elsewhere are declining fast as they are
overproduced for quick profits.
Improvements generally come *despite* public opinion, not because of it. And
higher prices will force better conservation. If it were just up to 'public
opinion' we'd have 'bread and circuses' all over.. Good politicians and
leaders *move* public opinion, not react to it.
John McCarthy
This is not the first time my views on some topic have inspired
in someone the desire to psychoanalyze me. Previous experience
leads me to ask about your couch. Is it comfortable? Are its
springs in good shape?
David Ball
wrote:
>wra...@mb.sympatico.ca (David Ball) writes:
>
>> On 15 Apr 2001 12:37:09 -0700, John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Do you think humanity can or should prevent the next ice age?
>> >--
>> John, you behave like a man who desperately wants someone to
>> tell him he's right, and you'll damn well keep trying until you do.
>
>This is not the first time my views on some topic have inspired
>in someone the desire to psychoanalyze me. Previous experience
>leads me to ask about your couch. Is it comfortable? Are its
>springs in good shape?
>
No psychoanalysis intended. It's just that I watch my children
run from me to their mother whenever I won't give them their way. Your
postings remind me of them.
Jeremy John Goodwin
row of dormant volcanoes and one or two active ones.
JJ
SNIP
"Ian St. John" wrote:
>
> "Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
> news:9bd2fh$7poo$4...@news3.infoave.net...
> > In article <9bcvmi$bmk$1...@news.tht.net>, ist...@spamcop.net says...
> > >
> > >
> > >"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> > >news:x4hy9t2...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
> > >
> > >> Do you think humanity can or should prevent the next ice age?
> > >
> >
Phil Hays
> Do you think humanity can or should prevent the next ice age?
We already have.
--
Phil Hays
Ian St. John
"Jeremy John Goodwin" <jer...@cayehardwoods.com> wrote in message
news:3ADA352A...@cayehardwoods.com...
> That would be interesting seeing as Panama is essentially a
> row of dormant volcanoes and one or two active ones.
Hmmm. Might need 'renewing' every so often, but the amount of material
spewed by volcanoes in the 'ring of fire' is essentially limited by the rate
of subduction of the seabet, unlike 'hotspot' volcanoes like Hawaii (IIRC).
I'd think the politics of removing large chunks of Panama to save Canada
would be of more significance than mere volcanic activity.. ;-)
David Gossman
"John Miller" <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lRnC6.34751$i9.65...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> I gather from the header this was in reply to my reply(?)
>
> Sorry if I stunned you with my total unselfishness with my attitude to
> nature running its course. Or was it something else??!!
>
You consider it unselfish to wish the death of over half the human
population? Try again.
--
--------------------------------------------
|David Gossman | Gossman Consulting, Inc. |
|President | http://gcisolutions.com |
| The Business of Problem Solving |
--------------------------------------------
"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
it is opinion." - Lazarus Long aka Robert Heinlein
David Ball
<dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>
>
>"John Miller" <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:lRnC6.34751$i9.65...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
>> I gather from the header this was in reply to my reply(?)
>>
>> Sorry if I stunned you with my total unselfishness with my attitude to
>> nature running its course. Or was it something else??!!
>>
>You consider it unselfish to wish the death of over half the human
>population? Try again.
>--
David, from time to time, you've made some stupid comments in
this forum, but this really sets a new standard. Someone makes a
hypothetical comment about something we have absolutely no control of
and you get your knickers in a knot. He said, "We cannot possibly
predict the full impact of doing such a thing and I do not think we
have the right to control our planet to that kind of degree. Frankly,
if the climate changes so much that we can't live with it and
causes our demise, so be it." Where exactly did it say anything about
Lansdale
Ice Age? that sounds dangerous. We should exercise our individual freedomes
and drive big cars,and use a lot of coal to warm things up a bit.
He who refuses to do arithmetic, but instead pretends to be an environmental
expert , is doomed to talk nonsense.
"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4hy9t2...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
David Gossman
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3adad10...@news.escape.ca...
To John's question of whether or not we should try to prevent the next ice
age he said "absolutely not". That is a callous response that completely
disregards the likely impact of such an event on the human population and
ecosystems as well as disregards likely advancements in science and
technology between now and when it might be necessary. I consider such an
attitude to be quite selfish rather than what he asserted. That you think
that I am making a stupid comment simply suggests that you either did not
follow the thread or you are just into name calling without reason - either
that or you agree with the poster and are feeling defensive over your own
selfish head in the sand attitude.
William M Connolley
>John McCarthy wrote:
>> Do you think humanity can or should prevent the next ice age?
>We already have.
Probably correct.
Another answer is "there is no great hurry". Even on "optimistic"
predictions its 1kyr+ away. What I would like to know, whether the
"conventional milanokovitch" predictions are for 5-ish kyr, or 50-ish
kyr... I hear different answers about this, none of them definitive.
-W
Robert Grumbine
William M Connolley <w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote:
>Another answer is "there is no great hurry". Even on "optimistic"
>predictions its 1kyr+ away. What I would like to know, whether the
>"conventional milanokovitch" predictions are for 5-ish kyr, or 50-ish
>kyr... I hear different answers about this, none of them definitive.
Given your reading, you're probably including this in your comment
of hearing different answers, but
Ledley, T. S. "Summer solstice solar radiation, the 100 kyr ice age cycle,
and the next ice age", Geophys. Res. Letters, 22, 2745-2748, 1995.
pushes it out to 70 ky before it is likely, with 50 ky being an early
unfavorable date. The 10 ky minimum in insolation is (she says) unlikely
as it is a very shallow minimum. 50ky is a better bet, but still much
smaller (20 vs. 30) that typical for major increases in ice volume.
The problem is, of course, that there are many different ways of
looking at the onset of ice ages and there's no special guarantee that
she's looking at the right one. Still, we've talked and I'm inclined
to think (even beyond the paper, which was ok) that she's presented a
good consideration. That was 6 years ago, though, and there might well be
something new on the Milankovitch front.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
John McCarthy
> In article <3adb596e....@news.care4free.net>,
> William M Connolley <w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Another answer is "there is no great hurry". Even on "optimistic"
> >predictions its 1kyr+ away. What I would like to know, whether the
> >"conventional milanokovitch" predictions are for 5-ish kyr, or 50-ish
> >kyr... I hear different answers about this, none of them definitive.
>
> Given your reading, you're probably including this in your comment
> of hearing different answers, but
> Ledley, T. S. "Summer solstice solar radiation, the 100 kyr ice age cycle,
> and the next ice age", Geophys. Res. Letters, 22, 2745-2748, 1995.
>
> pushes it out to 70 ky before it is likely, with 50 ky being an early
> unfavorable date. The 10 ky minimum in insolation is (she says) unlikely
> as it is a very shallow minimum. 50ky is a better bet, but still much
> smaller (20 vs. 30) that typical for major increases in ice volume.
>
> The problem is, of course, that there are many different ways of
> looking at the onset of ice ages and there's no special guarantee that
> she's looking at the right one. Still, we've talked and I'm inclined
> to think (even beyond the paper, which was ok) that she's presented a
> good consideration. That was 6 years ago, though, and there might well be
> something new on the Milankovitch front.
Indeed the next ice age is quite a way off. I asked whether humanity
should and will undertake to prevent it, not speaking of ways in which
it might be done. I got one answer "Absolutely not" from someone who
later considered himself unselfish for saying so. "Unselfish" wasn't
how it struck David Gossman or how it struck me. It would be
interesting to know why xxx (sorry I forgot the name) thinks his
attitude should be considered unselfish.
Still it would be interesting if William Connolley and Robert Grumbine
would answer the original question - whether we should and will
prevent it. I'm curious, because I wonder whether they have reasons
in principle for ignoring the question - as inappropriate for scientists.
John Miller
xxx was me.
The reason I considered it unselfish was simply because I was putting the
health and well-being of every non-human thing on this earth and the earth
itself before humans. We create enough mayhem and think we know what we are
doing. I'm sorry, but the welfare of the earth is more important than our
own.
John.
"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4hk84k...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
David Gossman
"John Miller" <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:LOKC6.38962$KQ2.6...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> Hi John,
>
> xxx was me.
>
> The reason I considered it unselfish was simply because I was putting the
> health and well-being of every non-human thing on this earth and the earth
> itself before humans. We create enough mayhem and think we know what we
are
> doing. I'm sorry, but the welfare of the earth is more important than our
> own.
>
> John.
That sounds like you value life other than human life over that of human
life. That is a selfish attitude on your part wanting to protect what you
value rather than the lives of other people - quite frankly I find that
disgusting.
John Miller
The original question was "Do you think humanity can or should prevent the
next ice age?" to which part of my reply was "[f]rankly, if the climate
changes so much that we can't live with it and causes our demise, so be it."
By that I mean if the only way we could deal with an ice age is to stop it
rather than modify our life style to live with it, then I believe nature
should be allowed to run its cause. However, I suspect that we would be
able to devise the necessary technology to live with an ice age.
Personally, I think it is far more disgusting to assume that this planet is
ours to do with whatever we deem fit.
John.
"David Gossman" <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:ZsLC6.7785$tv1.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
John McCarthy
xxx was me.
The reason I considered it unselfish was simply because I
was putting the health and well-being of every non-human
thing on this earth and the earth itself before humans. We
create enough mayhem and think we know what we are doing.
I'm sorry, but the welfare of the earth is more important
than our own.
1. Why do you put non-humans ahead of humans?
2. Why do you think nonhuman life would be worse off if an ice age
were prevented?
3. In what sense does the earth itself have a welfare?
4. Who else shares John Miller's view that preventing an ice age
would be bad? Why?
Chive Mynde
<LOKC6.38962$KQ2.6...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "John wrote:
>
>Hi John,
>
>xxx was me.
>
>The reason I considered it unselfish was simply because I was putting the
>health and well-being of every non-human thing on this earth and the earth
>itself before humans. We create enough mayhem and think we know what we are
>doing. I'm sorry, but the welfare of the earth is more important than our
>own.
>
>John.
Total hogwash.
The reason you lie, distort scientific evidence, and put the health
and well-being of every thing on earth in danger is because you and
Mr. McCarthy are *paid* to post anti-environmental corporate-
financed propaganda to sci.environment.
Mr. Miller, you are a liar. YOU create mayhem and then provide
"solutions" from the mayhem you have created. This is called
"order out of chaos", one of many psychological operations that
are performed on a daily level against each and every human being
on the planet, in the name of corporate-financed profit, over and
above the health, welfare, and safety of life itself.
Continue lying on sci.environment, Mr. Miller. I will continue
to demonstrate your lies.
HTH.
- Chive
"Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised.
It's gotten me through the worst of the last three years.
I beat the Borg with it." -- Janeway
John McCarthy
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:58:51 GMT, in article
> <LOKC6.38962$KQ2.6...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "John wrote:
> >
> >Hi John,
> >
> >xxx was me.
> >
> >The reason I considered it unselfish was simply because I was putting the
> >health and well-being of every non-human thing on this earth and the earth
> >itself before humans. We create enough mayhem and think we know what we are
> >doing. I'm sorry, but the welfare of the earth is more important than our
> >own.
> >
> >John.
>
> Total hogwash.
>
> The reason you lie, distort scientific evidence, and put the health
> and well-being of every thing on earth in danger is because you and
> Mr. McCarthy are *paid* to post anti-environmental corporate-
> financed propaganda to sci.environment.
>
> Mr. Miller, you are a liar. YOU create mayhem and then provide
> "solutions" from the mayhem you have created. This is called
> "order out of chaos", one of many psychological operations that
> are performed on a daily level against each and every human being
> on the planet, in the name of corporate-financed profit, over and
> above the health, welfare, and safety of life itself.
>
> Continue lying on sci.environment, Mr. Miller. I will continue
> to demonstrate your lies.
Here John Miller and I were having a nice, gentlemanly, disagreement
of our own, and Chive Mynde butts in and blasts us both. I think he,
she or it misunderstood what Miller and I were arguing about and just
gave in to ill-temper.
I suppose charging me with being paid for my posts is libel of some
sort. I'm thinking of suing Chive Mynde for it. The suit would be in
small claims court, and I would ask damages of two cents, figuring
that this was the extent to which my reputation had suffered.
John Miller
A message from my girlfriend:
You're just a fucking idiot.
"Chive Mynde" <chyve...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9bg17...@drn.newsguy.com...
Johne S. Morton
"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
news:9bfmqk$6ac$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
> In article <3adb596e....@news.care4free.net>,
> William M Connolley <w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Another answer is "there is no great hurry". Even on "optimistic"
> >predictions its 1kyr+ away. What I would like to know, whether the
> >"conventional milanokovitch" predictions are for 5-ish kyr, or 50-ish
> >kyr... I hear different answers about this, none of them definitive.
>
> Given your reading, you're probably including this in your comment
> of hearing different answers, but
> Ledley, T. S. "Summer solstice solar radiation, the 100 kyr ice age cycle,
> and the next ice age", Geophys. Res. Letters, 22, 2745-2748, 1995.
>
> pushes it out to 70 ky before it is likely, with 50 ky being an early
> unfavorable date. The 10 ky minimum in insolation is (she says) unlikely
> as it is a very shallow minimum. 50ky is a better bet, but still much
> smaller (20 vs. 30) that typical for major increases in ice volume.
>
> The problem is, of course, that there are many different ways of
> looking at the onset of ice ages and there's no special guarantee that
> she's looking at the right one. Still, we've talked and I'm inclined
> to think (even beyond the paper, which was ok) that she's presented a
> good consideration. That was 6 years ago, though, and there might well be
> something new on the Milankovitch front.
>
We tend to think of glacial maxima as being typical of ice ages, such as
was the case around 20kya. Ice sheets down to Long Island are not the norm,
but then again even a slight reglaciation of Baffin Island or Labrador would
seem like an ice age. Depending on your definition, we are either 70,000
years away as you say, or it is imminent.
David Gossman
"John Miller" <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lNLC6.39419$KQ2.6...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> Hello David,
>
> The original question was "Do you think humanity can or should prevent the
> next ice age?" to which part of my reply was "[f]rankly, if the climate
> changes so much that we can't live with it and causes our demise, so be
it."
>
> By that I mean if the only way we could deal with an ice age is to stop it
> rather than modify our life style to live with it, then I believe nature
> should be allowed to run its cause. However, I suspect that we would be
> able to devise the necessary technology to live with an ice age.
>
> Personally, I think it is far more disgusting to assume that this planet
is
> ours to do with whatever we deem fit.
>
To late, that has largely already happened. The only question now is how
foolishly we might do that. John is suggesting research that would allow us
to more wisely manage the Earth, whether or not it results in actual ways to
hold back an ice age. I am surprised that you think that we can devise a way
of dealing with an ice age via technology without altering the climate
itself. What do you have in mind? Are you planning on putting billions into
orbiting space stations or cramming them into a much smaller land mass than
they live on now? How about the genetic engineering that would be needed to
grow the food that those billions would require on far less arable land?
Unless you have a clear idea for the direction of the technology that you
are assuming will be developed then I still think that you are condemning
billions to death - that is disgusting, no matter what you think about
managing the planet, and as I pointed out, it is to late, we already do
that.
John Miller
What is the timescale of the onset of an ice age that would get to a point
that, without intervention, would cause our population to decrease?
Remember: everyone alive today will be dead in 150 years, so depending on
the timescale of ice age onset, it might not be a case of condemning
billions of people to death but seeing a gradual reduction in the population
over a prolonged period.
Of course, I'm assuming this is all hypothetical since the original question
was. And just how much of the planet would no longer be habitable in our
traditional sense?
"David Gossman" <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote in message
news:WNNC6.8445$tv1.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Johne S. Morton
Actually, because of the amount of time involved, humanity could easily
prepare for such a change, if we thought it necessary. For instance, it
isn't inconceivable that we could put up cheap, thin reflective material in
space to reflect some sunlight back to Earth. By the same token, we could
reflect a little light away if the world ever got too hot, as may be the
case half a billion years from now (but who's worried about that).
Moreover, we could have other planets and moons colonized within centuries,
long before global cooling becomes too severe. If we can colonize, or even
terraform, planets, then Earth's little climate hiccups should be a cake
walk. However, to accomplish this takes resources. We shouldn't be afraid
to use them.
- Johne
David Ball
<dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
[..]
>To John's question of whether or not we should try to prevent the next ice
>age he said "absolutely not".
OK. Does he not have the right to post what he believes in
answer to a hypothetical question?
>That is a callous response that completely
>disregards the likely impact of such an event on the human population and
>ecosystems as well as disregards likely advancements in science and
>technology between now and when it might be necessary.
Callous? You assume that because he (and I, for that matter)
don't share your POV, that it is because we aren't aware of the scope
of the problem? We are in effect, stupid?
>I consider such an
>attitude to be quite selfish rather than what he asserted. That you think
>that I am making a stupid comment simply suggests that you either did not
>follow the thread or you are just into name calling without reason - either
>that or you agree with the poster and are feeling defensive over your own
>selfish head in the sand attitude.
A couple of points:
1. It is not selfish to expect human beings to live within
their environment, rather than outside of it. That is a fact.
2. Read what I said again. I did not say you were stupid. I
did say you made a stupid comment. There is a world of difference.
3. This was a hypothetical post, regarding a proposed massive
change to the Earth's climate, something that aside from being
ill-advised is likely not going to be possible. I say this based on my
understanding of weather and climate, which you will have to admit is
substantially greater than yours. It is hardly sticking my head in the
sand.
4. You are entitled to "your" opinion, but so is anyone else
in this forum. Your opinion carries as much weight as your level of
expertise merits, no more and no less.
David Ball
<dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
[..]
>
>That sounds like you value life other than human life over that of human
>life. That is a selfish attitude on your part wanting to protect what you
>value rather than the lives of other people - quite frankly I find that
>disgusting.
>--
Gee, David, it sounds like you place some unwarranted value on
human life above that of the rest of the planet. How selfish is that?
I hate to break this to you, but human beings are a species of
primate. We're animals, David. There's nothing inherently special
about us. Your attitude is grossly selfish and quite frankly I find
that disgusting.
David Ball
wrote:
>John Miller includes
>
> xxx was me.
>
> The reason I considered it unselfish was simply because I
> was putting the health and well-being of every non-human
> thing on this earth and the earth itself before humans. We
> create enough mayhem and think we know what we are doing.
> I'm sorry, but the welfare of the earth is more important
> than our own.
>
>1. Why do you put non-humans ahead of humans?
Because there is no difference, John. Human beings are animals
- or they were the last time I looked. There is nothing inherently
special about us. More to the point there is just as much value in an
elephant as there is in you. We've spent a thousand years getting from
the Earth being the centre of creation to it being a minor planet
orbiting a minor star in a minor galaxy...
>
>2. Why do you think nonhuman life would be worse off if an ice age
>were prevented?
John, if you knew nothing about electricity would you decide
to re-wire your house, or would you get an expert to do it? When you
haven't a clue what you're doing, mistakes happen. Since this is the
only planet we currently have, why are you so dead-set on tinkering
with it when we haven't got a clue what the impacts of what we do
might be?
>
>3. In what sense does the earth itself have a welfare?
In the same sense you do.
>
>4. Who else shares John Miller's view that preventing an ice age
>would be bad? Why?
I do, because I don't believe in doing things out of
ignorance. Because, John, we don't control climate as has been
patiently explained to you before. We can and do alter climate, but it
is not done with any knowledge behind it. To control climate, you
would have to control every aspect of every facet of life on this
planet: what farmers can and cannot grow, where forests grow, what
kind of trees they have in them, what the population of beavers can be
and where they live, ... 'Nuff said?
Eric Swanson
Johne's assumption that there will be plenty of time to do something assumes
that a new Ice Age won't start for a relatively long time and thatthe
transition will also take quite a while. The ice core data is full of
examples of sudden climate changes, in which only a few years pass between
warm and cold periods.
As for the often presented idea of orbiting reflective material, have you
(as one with some experience in the space field) everheard of "solar pressure"?
The small force of sunlight added up over the large reflectors would push these
light weight pieces of Milar around into new orbits and eventually, out of orbit.
As for terraforming another planet (Mars?), well, why not fix the one we already
have? It would probably be much easier. And, do you really think "we" could
do a better job next time?
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Gossman
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3adc1d0...@news.escape.ca...
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:47:27 GMT, "David Gossman"
> <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
> [..]
>
> >To John's question of whether or not we should try to prevent the next
ice
> >age he said "absolutely not".
>
> OK. Does he not have the right to post what he believes in
> answer to a hypothetical question?
OK. Do I not have the right to give my opinion regarding the ethics and
motives of such a response?
>
> >That is a callous response that completely
> >disregards the likely impact of such an event on the human population and
> >ecosystems as well as disregards likely advancements in science and
> >technology between now and when it might be necessary.
>
> Callous? You assume that because he (and I, for that matter)
> don't share your POV, that it is because we aren't aware of the scope
> of the problem? We are in effect, stupid?
No, I don't consider either one of you "stupid" - just not dealing with the
issue in an ethical manner. We hear all sorts of discussion on the need for
scientists to act ethically. PS You were the one who called my response
"stupid" not the other way around.
>
> >I consider such an
> >attitude to be quite selfish rather than what he asserted. That you think
> >that I am making a stupid comment simply suggests that you either did not
> >follow the thread or you are just into name calling without reason -
either
> >that or you agree with the poster and are feeling defensive over your own
> >selfish head in the sand attitude.
>
> A couple of points:
>
> 1. It is not selfish to expect human beings to live within
> their environment, rather than outside of it. That is a fact.
What do you define as "their environment"? Afterall, we have people living
in space. What is a fact? - that your expectation is not selfish? Certainly
if you think that is a reason to stop space travel, etc. I think it is quite
selfish.
> 2. Read what I said again. I did not say you were stupid. I
> did say you made a stupid comment. There is a world of difference.
Read what I said - I did not accuse you of calling me stupid. I did suggest
that you were name calling and that might have been a bit harsh but the lack
of any real substance in your post suggests that was your intent if not your
exact words. Were you not trying to stifle the ethical debate? Were you not
trying to shut me up?
> 3. This was a hypothetical post, regarding a proposed massive
> change to the Earth's climate, something that aside from being
> ill-advised is likely not going to be possible. I say this based on my
> understanding of weather and climate, which you will have to admit is
> substantially greater than yours. It is hardly sticking my head in the
> sand.
Part of the original question was wether or not we "can", the rest asked if
we "should". The response did not seem to differentiate between either of
those. Either way we are not talking about the radical changes currently
advocated by GW scare mongerers to our life style and freedoms. Rather we
are talking as you said about a hypothetical future where we might have the
capability to prevent the wiping out of a large fraction of the human
population and the prevention of the loss of numerous species. I saw nothing
in the original or subsequent reponses that even attempted to address those
issues. Indeed what I do see is a clear attempt by both of you to ignore
them - to the point where you are reduced to calling my raising these issue
stupid.
> 4. You are entitled to "your" opinion, but so is anyone else
> in this forum. Your opinion carries as much weight as your level of
> expertise merits, no more and no less.
>
Actually, since this is an ethical issue the logic behind the posts is a
more important factor. And yes I have my opinion and not even you calling my
opinion stupid because I challenge a poster's ethics and motives will change
that.
David Gossman
"John Miller" <jfmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:eVNC6.39940$KQ2.6...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> A quick reply as I'm off to bed.
>
> What is the timescale of the onset of an ice age that would get to a point
> that, without intervention, would cause our population to decrease?
Does it matter? If the earth is reduced from being able to support the
current population to one half this size why is the time scale important?
>
> Remember: everyone alive today will be dead in 150 years, so depending on
> the timescale of ice age onset, it might not be a case of condemning
> billions of people to death but seeing a gradual reduction in the
population
> over a prolonged period.
How?
>
> Of course, I'm assuming this is all hypothetical since the original
question
> was. And just how much of the planet would no longer be habitable in our
> traditional sense?
>
Just look at the impact of the last ice age. Look at how much of the
agriculturally active area of the planet and land masses are well to the
north in the northern hemisphere.
Robert Grumbine
John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>Still it would be interesting if William Connolley and Robert Grumbine
>would answer the original question - whether we should and will
>prevent it. I'm curious, because I wonder whether they have reasons
>in principle for ignoring the question - as inappropriate for scientists.
'should and will' are two questions.
Scientists ignore questions all the time. It's the only way we
can answer any question. Odd that you forgot about this, given
that it is one of the reasons you give for not learning about
climate science. But you're a bad example, perhaps, since you're
not a scientist. Perhaps it is different in the UK, but on my
degree, it said nothing about 'you must consider all questions
anyone, especially John McCarthy, raises'. Then again, perhaps
I have considered the question at some length.
It is still obscure why you care was either of us think on a
policy question. As your reply elsewhere to a comment from me
reminded us, it doesn't matter what we think. What matters is
what George W. Bush thinks.
Your asking of the question falls under the category of 'Don't
ask a question you won't accept the answer to' -- advice from my
mother. As you demonstrated in your snit post over the weekend,
there's only one acceptable response, agreement with you. Those
who fail to are merely pigheaded. No possibility that you can
learn anything of value (i.e., it being possible that your
opinion or knowledge would be changed by the answer) as you already
know _the_ one true answer. Whether I agree with you or not, I
avoid answering, as well as asking, questions that violate my
mother's advice.
I will, however, put forward (not as my own) an answer that
a different prominent poster gave in response to discussion about
doing something 'today' about an environmental problem expected
to be serious in the 50-200 year time frame:
We should not spend the money and effort today on this problem.
Our descendants will have far better scientific knowledge about
the problem than we do, have far better technologies than we do,
and (barring the success of the [perjorative descriptor of group
the poster dislikes]'s) they will be far wealthier than we to
pay for the correct action.
If those are valid arguments on the 50-200 year time frame, they
would seem to be even more valid on the 50,000 year time frame.
Why did you change your tune?
David Gossman
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3adc1fb1...@news.escape.ca...
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:43:53 GMT, "David Gossman"
> <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >
> >That sounds like you value life other than human life over that of human
> >life. That is a selfish attitude on your part wanting to protect what you
> >value rather than the lives of other people - quite frankly I find that
> >disgusting.
> >--
>
> Gee, David, it sounds like you place some unwarranted value on
> human life above that of the rest of the planet. How selfish is that?
Actually, I do not and I demonstrate that through personal action - do you?
The fact is that ice ages have wiped out far more species of animals and
probably plants than man ever has. By preventing a new ice age we preserve
species far more than anything else - or are you just referring to the
"planet"? Do you think that repeated ice ages are a critical component of
the long term ecology of the planet? If you do at least take a stab at that
sort of technical argument rather than launching yet another round of
personal ridicule without substance.
> I hate to break this to you, but human beings are a species of
> primate. We're animals, David. There's nothing inherently special
> about us. Your attitude is grossly selfish and quite frankly I find
> that disgusting.
>
Of course there is something special. We have the ability to use thought to
overcome our instincts - to become moral - you should go back and read a
little philosophy. We also are unique in the scope of our ability to modify
our environment to fit our needs. There are a host of other factors that
make us unique and I think you know that. (Or should I talk about that being
one of the most stupid comments that you have ever made and simply not
respond to the issue?)
David Gossman
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3adc29e6...@news.escape.ca...
> On 16 Apr 2001 17:27:16 -0700, John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>
> wrote:
>
> >John Miller includes
> >
> > xxx was me.
> >
> > The reason I considered it unselfish was simply because I
> > was putting the health and well-being of every non-human
> > thing on this earth and the earth itself before humans. We
> > create enough mayhem and think we know what we are doing.
> > I'm sorry, but the welfare of the earth is more important
> > than our own.
> >
> >1. Why do you put non-humans ahead of humans?
>
> Because there is no difference, John. Human beings are animals
> - or they were the last time I looked. There is nothing inherently
> special about us. More to the point there is just as much value in an
> elephant as there is in you. We've spent a thousand years getting from
> the Earth being the centre of creation to it being a minor planet
> orbiting a minor star in a minor galaxy...
Do you eat meat? If you do your logic suggests that you would have no
difficulty killing another human and eating them - at least from an ethical
stand point. I think your ethics and logic are flawed. Do you also advocate
killing millions of people in order to preserve other species and animals?
Your logic might suggest that.
> >
> >2. Why do you think nonhuman life would be worse off if an ice age
> >were prevented?
>
> John, if you knew nothing about electricity would you decide
> to re-wire your house, or would you get an expert to do it? When you
> haven't a clue what you're doing, mistakes happen. Since this is the
> only planet we currently have, why are you so dead-set on tinkering
> with it when we haven't got a clue what the impacts of what we do
> might be?
>
Did John suggest that? Did David read the thread?
> >
> >3. In what sense does the earth itself have a welfare?
>
> In the same sense you do.
>
The earth is alive and has human rights? You are going even further out on a
limb. I am beginning to see why we have had disagreements in the past.
> >
> >4. Who else shares John Miller's view that preventing an ice age
> >would be bad? Why?
>
> I do, because I don't believe in doing things out of
> ignorance. Because, John, we don't control climate as has been
> patiently explained to you before. We can and do alter climate, but it
> is not done with any knowledge behind it. To control climate, you
> would have to control every aspect of every facet of life on this
> planet: what farmers can and cannot grow, where forests grow, what
> kind of trees they have in them, what the population of beavers can be
> and where they live, ... 'Nuff said?
>
Yes, that statement is so logically flawed that nuff is said.
Johne S. Morton
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:9bhdh1$9s32$1...@news3.infoave.net...
[snipped]
> >
> > Actually, because of the amount of time involved, humanity could
easily
> >prepare for such a change, if we thought it necessary. For instance, it
> >isn't inconceivable that we could put up cheap, thin reflective material
in
> >space to reflect some sunlight back to Earth. By the same token, we
could
> >reflect a little light away if the world ever got too hot, as may be the
> >case half a billion years from now (but who's worried about that).
> >Moreover, we could have other planets and moons colonized within
centuries,
> >long before global cooling becomes too severe. If we can colonize, or
even
> >terraform, planets, then Earth's little climate hiccups should be a cake
> >walk. However, to accomplish this takes resources. We shouldn't be
afraid
> >to use them.
>
> Johne's assumption that there will be plenty of time to do something
assumes
> that a new Ice Age won't start for a relatively long time and thatthe
> transition will also take quite a while. The ice core data is full of
> examples of sudden climate changes, in which only a few years pass between
> warm and cold periods.
>
Orbital changes are quite slow by human standards. We may barely even
notice a shift to a new ice age, in much the same way that you hardly notice
your child growing until he or she needs a new pair of shoes. If something
happened that caused the climate to change rapidly and dramatically, then
there probably wouldn't be enough time to impliment the measures I
suggested. There could always be other unexplored options, though.
> As for the often presented idea of orbiting reflective material, have you
> (as one with some experience in the space field) everheard of "solar
pressure"?
> The small force of sunlight added up over the large reflectors would push
these
> light weight pieces of Milar around into new orbits and eventually, out of
orbit.
>
We would simply do an occasional delta-V and keep the sails in the
proper position. An even more ambitious undertaking could involve using the
moon as a mirror. Of course it's all just sci fi right now.
> As for terraforming another planet (Mars?), well, why not fix the one we
already
> have?
That's what I'm talking about.
It would probably be much easier. And, do you really think "we" could
> do a better job next time?
>
> --
> Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_sw...@skybest.com :-)
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
I'm just brainstorming some hypothetical solutions to a hypothetical
situation. Who knows what man will be capable of in the future.
- Johne
Eric Swanson
You are ignoring the data about abrupt climate change.
But then, you have a habit of ignoring anything resembling science.
>> As for the often presented idea of orbiting reflective material, have you
>> (as one with some experience in the space field) ever heard of "solar
>> pressure"? The small force of sunlight added up over the large reflectors
>> would push these light weight pieces of Milar around into new orbits and
>> eventually, out of orbit.
>
> We would simply do an occasional delta-V and keep the sails in the
>proper position. An even more ambitious undertaking could involve using the
>moon as a mirror. Of course it's all just sci fi right now.
You can't do a delta-V without a structure to transmit the force and control
the size, shape and orientation of the "sails". Given the sizes involved
(many km sq), you're talking some really really really BIG structures.......
The fuel for a delta-V needs to be hoisted from the ground, and so on...
Oh, I forgot, you are in the Star Wars "we can do anything" mode.....
John McCarthy
I will, however, put forward (not as my own) an answer that
a different prominent poster gave in response to discussion about
doing something 'today' about an environmental problem expected
to be serious in the 50-200 year time frame:
Grumbine quotes me:
We should not spend the money and effort today on this problem.
Our descendants will have far better scientific knowledge about
the problem than we do, have far better technologies than we do,
and (barring the success of the [perjorative descriptor of group
the poster dislikes]'s) they will be far wealthier than we to
pay for the correct action.
and Grumbine continues:
If those are valid arguments on the 50-200 year time
frame, they would seem to be even more valid on the 50,000
year time frame. Why did you change your tune?
Grumbine did not pay attention to the question I asked. I was not
proposing to do anything now about preventing the next ice age. I was
asking whether he thought our descendants would and should prevent the
next ice ages.
John McCarthy
>
> A couple of points:
>
> 1. It is not selfish to expect human beings to live within
> their environment, rather than outside of it. That is a fact.
Humans have always altered the environment to obviate dangers. We
build dams to avert floods. In the main these alterations work as
intended.
> 3. This was a hypothetical post, regarding a proposed massive
> change to the Earth's climate, something that aside from being
> ill-advised is likely not going to be possible.
Is Ball confusing preventing the next ice age with instigating the
next ice age?
> I say this based on my
> understanding of weather and climate, which you will have to admit is
> substantially greater than yours. It is hardly sticking my head in the
> sand.
Ball is conflating his narrow set of skills in predicting storms into
general expertise about the long term future about which he seems
unusually unimaginative.
> 4. You are entitled to "your" opinion, but so is anyone else
> in this forum. Your opinion carries as much weight as your level of
> expertise merits, no more and no less.
I'd bet that Gossman has more imagination than Ball.
William M Connolley
>> >Another answer is "there is no great hurry". Even on "optimistic"
>> >predictions its 1kyr+ away. What I would like to know, whether the
>> >"conventional milanokovitch" predictions are for 5-ish kyr, or 50-ish
>> >kyr... I hear different answers about this, none of them definitive.
>> Ledley, T. S. "Summer solstice solar radiation, the 100 kyr ice age cycle,
>> and the next ice age", Geophys. Res. Letters, 22, 2745-2748, 1995.
Many thanks.
>Indeed the next ice age is quite a way off. I asked whether humanity
>should and will undertake to prevent it
Having been directly challenged, I guess I should answer, thought all
I shall do is amplify what I've said. Which is to say, there is no
hurry: the timescales are clearly far longer than those for "gw":
forming an opinion now is unnecessary: I have not done so.
-W.
Leonard Evens
>
> Do you think humanity can or should prevent the next ice age?
Before we ask whether we should, we have to ask whether we can.
But even before that, we have to ask what it would mean to prevent
the next ice age. An ice age is not something that happens in
a few days and can be prevented by some dramatic action. It
is a long historical process. At the present state of our knowledge,
we should try to learn as much as possible about the determinants
of climate. It would also help if we understood ourselves and
our history better. After all, we don't have too many examples
of humanity taking action in a global way over an extended period
of time. It is quite possible that in 50 to 100 years both
our climate science and our understanding of human organization
will have improved to the extent that the question "should we
prevent the next ice age" can be translated into specific meaningful
actions which we have confidence can be implemented.
Contrast this question with the following questions. Should
humanity wipe out smallpox or polio? Here the answer seems to
be yes, but consider whether it could have been done in 1915.
Should humanity tray to avoid a collision with a near Earth
object which could produce massive damage. Again the answer
appears to be yes, but perhaps just barely so. Should humanity
allow the ozone layer to be depleted by CFCs? Here the answer
appears to be no, but consider the extensive opposition that
still exists to the cooperatire measures meant to eliminate
CFC emissions. Should humanity attempt to maintain the status
quo with respect to greenhouse gas concentrations. At present
the answer appears that humanity, mainly through the actions
of the US, doesn't want to do that.
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Johne S. Morton
I'm ignoring nothing. I stated that if the changes were too abrupt, we
would probably have to find some other solutions.
> >> As for the often presented idea of orbiting reflective material, have
you
> >> (as one with some experience in the space field) ever heard of "solar
> >> pressure"? The small force of sunlight added up over the large
reflectors
> >> would push these light weight pieces of Milar around into new orbits
and
> >> eventually, out of orbit.
> >
> > We would simply do an occasional delta-V and keep the sails in the
> >proper position. An even more ambitious undertaking could involve using
the
> >moon as a mirror. Of course it's all just sci fi right now.
>
> You can't do a delta-V without a structure to transmit the force and
control
> the size, shape and orientation of the "sails". Given the sizes involved
> (many km sq), you're talking some really really really BIG
structures.......
>
But it would be very small mass, since the sails would be quite thin.
So long as the force gets evenly distributed across the structures, it
wouldn't be a problem.
> The fuel for a delta-V needs to be hoisted from the ground, and so on...
> Oh, I forgot, you are in the Star Wars "we can do anything" mode.....
>
Why do you do this? As I already said, it is just brainstorming, and in
the future there may be new technologies and methods to utilize. Why the
rather callous tone?
Leonard Evens
>
> Robert Grumbine includes
>
> I will, however, put forward (not as my own) an answer that
> a different prominent poster gave in response to discussion about
> doing something 'today' about an environmental problem expected
> to be serious in the 50-200 year time frame:
>
> Grumbine quotes me:
> We should not spend the money and effort today on this problem.
> Our descendants will have far better scientific knowledge about
> the problem than we do, have far better technologies than we do,
> and (barring the success of the [perjorative descriptor of group
> the poster dislikes]'s) they will be far wealthier than we to
> pay for the correct action.
>
> and Grumbine continues:
>
> If those are valid arguments on the 50-200 year time
> frame, they would seem to be even more valid on the 50,000
> year time frame. Why did you change your tune?
>
> Grumbine did not pay attention to the question I asked. I was not
> proposing to do anything now about preventing the next ice age. I was
> asking whether he thought our descendants would and should prevent the
> next ice ages.
That is not really the question you posed, but perhaps you want to
be more precise. Let me put the question this way. Assuming
humanity has the knowledge and is able to sustain the politics
and organization over the required period of time, should humanity
at some time in the future undertake the measures necessary to
prevent another ice age? I will give an unequivocal answer.
Maybe. My argument is that it will be up to humanity at that
time, given its current social and political organization as
well as its ethical principles to decide whether it is better to
adapt to changes in climate or to prevent such changes from
occurring. I hope they have an easier time of it than we do
now.
>
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
--
Johne S. Morton
"William M Connolley" <w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3adc9098...@news.care4free.net...
Please inform Eric Swanson, who seems to think that a new ice age is
imminent (due to the THC shutting down, I presume). I agree that this
problem is so far off that it is pointless to devise a strategy now. Future
generations, should they even care, will be in a much better position to
handle it.
- Johne
Eric Swanson
Some time ago, I looked at some of the work on Milankovitch paremeters.
At the time, it appeared to me that we are currently at conditions similar
to the end of the Eemian, when the last Interglacial ended. Of course, that
may have nothing to do with the start of the next Ice Age. In any event,
the Interglacials have all been short term. See:
PETIT,J. R., et al, "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000
years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica", NATURE 399, 429.
A recent simulation study in NATURE pointed out that changes in orbital
paremeters alone could not cause the model to switch to an Ice Age, however,
when the ocean circulation was added, the Ice Age switch began.
As for the THC, we know that it's shutdown HAS already caused Ice Age
conditions and did so when the general climate was warmer than now.
RÜHLEMANN, C.,et al, "Warming of the tropical Atlantic Ocean and slowdown
of thermohaline circulation during the last deglaciation", NATURE 410, 570.
We have also seen indications from GCM models that increasing greenhouse
gases may lead to a shutdown of the THC.
KHODRI, M., et al, "Simulating the amplification of orbital forcing by
ocean feedbacks in the last glaciation", Nature 410, 570.
I have no reason, other than the simulations, to think an Ice Age may
be imminent, but it certainly should be a reason to slow down our emissions
until we are more certain where we are headed. In the mean time, there
are often repeated comments to the effect that GW will PREVENT an Ice Age,
which I seriously doubt, since the CO2 increase will be short term,
on a geololgical time scale.
David Gossman
"Leonard Evens" <l...@math.nwu.edu> wrote in message
news:3ADC90EA...@math.nwu.edu...
> John McCarthy wrote:
> >
> > Do you think humanity can or should prevent the next ice age?
>
> Before we ask whether we should, we have to ask whether we can.
Duhhh, that might be why he asked that as part of the above question.
> But even before that, we have to ask what it would mean to prevent
> the next ice age. An ice age is not something that happens in
> a few days and can be prevented by some dramatic action.
Who says?
> It
> is a long historical process. At the present state of our knowledge,
> we should try to learn as much as possible about the determinants
> of climate. It would also help if we understood ourselves and
> our history better. After all, we don't have too many examples
> of humanity taking action in a global way over an extended period
> of time. It is quite possible that in 50 to 100 years both
> our climate science and our understanding of human organization
> will have improved to the extent that the question "should we
> prevent the next ice age" can be translated into specific meaningful
> actions which we have confidence can be implemented.
I quite agree. The real issue is will we do the necessary research. I think
that is what John has been trying to get at with this and a prior thread.
>
> Contrast this question with the following questions. Should
> humanity wipe out smallpox or polio? Here the answer seems to
> be yes, but consider whether it could have been done in 1915.
We could have thought of doing it and pursuing the necessary research to get
it done - oh, that's what happened, imagine that.
> Should humanity tray to avoid a collision with a near Earth
> object which could produce massive damage. Again the answer
> appears to be yes, but perhaps just barely so.
Why barely so? Seems rather definitive to me.
> Should humanity
> allow the ozone layer to be depleted by CFCs? Here the answer
> appears to be no, but consider the extensive opposition that
> still exists to the cooperatire measures meant to eliminate
> CFC emissions.
Let's look for a minute at what causes ozone depletion - just CFCs? No or
it would not be a hole over the south pole. It requires a lack of sunshine,
low enough temps and the CFCs. Does that condition exist anywhere outside of
the poles? Get my drift? I don't think the answer is as definitive as some
claim.
> Should humanity attempt to maintain the status
> quo with respect to greenhouse gas concentrations. At present
> the answer appears that humanity, mainly through the actions
> of the US, doesn't want to do that.
>
Agreed. Nor have I seen a sound scientific reason or ethical means to
accomplish such a goal.
David Ball
wrote:
>wra...@mb.sympatico.ca (David Ball) writes:
>>
>> A couple of points:
>>
>> 1. It is not selfish to expect human beings to live within
>> their environment, rather than outside of it. That is a fact.
>
>Humans have always altered the environment to obviate dangers. We
>build dams to avert floods. In the main these alterations work as
>intended.
Beavers alter their environment too. They build dams too. So
what? Our alterations by and large work about as well as a 57 Edsel.
You have heard of acid rain? Climate change? Ozone depletion? Are you
suggesting these alterations were intended?
>
>> 3. This was a hypothetical post, regarding a proposed massive
>> change to the Earth's climate, something that aside from being
>> ill-advised is likely not going to be possible.
>
>Is Ball confusing preventing the next ice age with instigating the
>next ice age?
If the climate system heads, at some point in the distant
future, toward an ice age, mitigation efforts will alter that climate.
BTW, show a little respect. It's either David or Mr. Ball. Pick one.
>
>> I say this based on my
>> understanding of weather and climate, which you will have to admit is
>> substantially greater than yours. It is hardly sticking my head in the
>> sand.
>
>Ball is conflating his narrow set of skills in predicting storms into
>general expertise about the long term future about which he seems
>unusually unimaginative.
It's Mr. Ball, little man. Show some respect. If you are
looking for someone to play Sancho Panza to your Don Quixote, look
somewhere else. The latter had a particularly good imagination, but he
spent it tilting at windmills. The factors influencing the "control"
of climate you so dearly seek are beyond our grasp. It doesn't take a
genius to figure that out, and it has been repeatedly explained to
you. What's next, you going to start posing questions about human
flight a-la Icarus then tell people who say that there are better
things to do than that they are unimaginative?
>
>> 4. You are entitled to "your" opinion, but so is anyone else
>> in this forum. Your opinion carries as much weight as your level of
>> expertise merits, no more and no less.
>
>I'd bet that Gossman has more imagination than Ball.
>
John, you don't know me. You haven't the faintest fucking idea
what I might or might not imagine. You aren't smart enough to even
guess what I might think or not think. All you know for sure is that I
don't agree with your - let's screw around with the climate in
complete and utter ignorance - view of the world.
David Ball
<dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>>
>> Because there is no difference, John. Human beings are animals
>> - or they were the last time I looked. There is nothing inherently
>> special about us. More to the point there is just as much value in an
>> elephant as there is in you. We've spent a thousand years getting from
>> the Earth being the centre of creation to it being a minor planet
>> orbiting a minor star in a minor galaxy...
>
>Do you eat meat? If you do your logic suggests that you would have no
>difficulty killing another human and eating them - at least from an ethical
>stand point. I think your ethics and logic are flawed. Do you also advocate
>killing millions of people in order to preserve other species and animals?
>Your logic might suggest that.
ROTFL!! Still ROTFL...Because I don't see the value in an
elephant as much as in you, I'm advocating killing millions of people?
David, have you considered a career doing standup?
>> >2. Why do you think nonhuman life would be worse off if an ice age
>> >were prevented?
>>
>> John, if you knew nothing about electricity would you decide
>> to re-wire your house, or would you get an expert to do it? When you
>> haven't a clue what you're doing, mistakes happen. Since this is the
>> only planet we currently have, why are you so dead-set on tinkering
>> with it when we haven't got a clue what the impacts of what we do
>> might be?
>>
>Did John suggest that? Did David read the thread?
Sure did. Did you read the other thread John was on when he
was suggesting that we should tinker with the climate system in other
ways? Guess not. You should leave off your pissing contest with Chive
for a minute or two every month, David, and actually read some of the
other postings.
>> >
>> >3. In what sense does the earth itself have a welfare?
>>
>> In the same sense you do.
>>
>The earth is alive and has human rights? You are going even further out on a
>limb. I am beginning to see why we have had disagreements in the past.
Yes, the Earth is alive. Does it have "human" rights. No. Does
it have rights? Yes.
>> >
>> >4. Who else shares John Miller's view that preventing an ice age
>> >would be bad? Why?
>>
>> I do, because I don't believe in doing things out of
>> ignorance. Because, John, we don't control climate as has been
>> patiently explained to you before. We can and do alter climate, but it
>> is not done with any knowledge behind it. To control climate, you
>> would have to control every aspect of every facet of life on this
>> planet: what farmers can and cannot grow, where forests grow, what
>> kind of trees they have in them, what the population of beavers can be
>> and where they live, ... 'Nuff said?
>>
>Yes, that statement is so logically flawed that nuff is said.
Again, you're welcome to your opinion, David, but since you
know less far less about the subject at hand than I, I'll give it the
attention it deserves...none.
Lansdale
What is "humanity"?
What is "should" , is their some standard we are trying to reach?
What is the purpose of thinking about this?
Do you really mean think, or do want me personally to speculate
on possible solutions to this "problem" as if I were humanity,
or you and I together were humanity? Or just the members of this
chat group?
Are we to asume we are supreme beings who control humanity?
Ice age? Exactly what do you mean by this? Is it like a bull market,
so many days of falling temprature?
And you forgot to ask when "humanity" should start.
Think a little bit. could humanity and government be confused in someone's
mind?
The real question you should ask is should the government or anyone
should do anything that would hurt our donor's (or our donor's clients )
profits.
I know McCarthy teachs Lisp at Stamford and is associated with CEI*,
an organization that represents Cement, Coal, Oil and companies and
pretends
to have the nobel cause of "protecting our liberty", especially our
"property rights".
David Gossman runs a consulting firm
whose primary customers appear to be large energy users. One
may or may not doubt his credentials, but his motives appear to be
financial.
Take a short trip to http://www.cei.org/ or http://junkscience.com/ and
http://gcisolutions.com . You will find the basic ideas for this
discussion already decided.
* From CEI's annual statement:
CEI Advancing liberty from ecology to
"From its start in 1984, [CEI] has thumbed its nose
at the traditional think tank model, instead adopting
what it terms a 'full service' approach that begins
with research, but doesn't end there, stretching instead
to dogged issue advocacy."
"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4hy9t2...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
> Do you think humanity can or should prevent the next ice age?
Ian St. John
> Chive Mynde <chyve...@my-deja.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:58:51 GMT, in article
> > <LOKC6.38962$KQ2.6...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, "John wrote:
> > >
<snip>> >
> > Continue lying on sci.environment, Mr. Miller. I will continue
> > to demonstrate your lies.
>
> Here John Miller and I were having a nice, gentlemanly, disagreement
> of our own, and Chive Mynde butts in and blasts us both. I think he,
> she or it misunderstood what Miller and I were arguing about and just
> gave in to ill-temper.
>
> I suppose charging me with being paid for my posts is libel of some
> sort. I'm thinking of suing Chive Mynde for it. The suit would be in
> small claims court, and I would ask damages of two cents, figuring
> that this was the extent to which my reputation had suffered.
I think $US0.02 might be an overestimate ;-)
Ian St. John
<a masterful reply to an impossible question...>
David Gossman
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3adcea71...@news.escape.ca...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:11:03 GMT, "David Gossman"
> <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Because there is no difference, John. Human beings are animals
> >> - or they were the last time I looked. There is nothing inherently
> >> special about us. More to the point there is just as much value in an
> >> elephant as there is in you. We've spent a thousand years getting from
> >> the Earth being the centre of creation to it being a minor planet
> >> orbiting a minor star in a minor galaxy...
> >
> >Do you eat meat? If you do your logic suggests that you would have no
> >difficulty killing another human and eating them - at least from an
ethical
> >stand point. I think your ethics and logic are flawed. Do you also
advocate
> >killing millions of people in order to preserve other species and
animals?
> >Your logic might suggest that.
>
> ROTFL!! Still ROTFL...Because I don't see the value in an
> elephant as much as in you, I'm advocating killing millions of people?
Please David, you asserted that there was "no difference" - read the thread
that you posted above. Your inability to answer the questions posted to
you - or is it that you know better - suggests that you know the logical
outcome and the trap that you walked into.
> David, have you considered a career doing standup?
Nope. I don't ever think it is funny when a person thinks of human life a
low as you do.
>
> >> >2. Why do you think nonhuman life would be worse off if an ice age
> >> >were prevented?
> >>
> >> John, if you knew nothing about electricity would you decide
> >> to re-wire your house, or would you get an expert to do it? When you
> >> haven't a clue what you're doing, mistakes happen. Since this is the
> >> only planet we currently have, why are you so dead-set on tinkering
> >> with it when we haven't got a clue what the impacts of what we do
> >> might be?
> >>
> >Did John suggest that? Did David read the thread?
>
> Sure did. Did you read the other thread John was on when he
> was suggesting that we should tinker with the climate system in other
> ways? Guess not. You should leave off your pissing contest with Chive
> for a minute or two every month, David, and actually read some of the
> other postings.
>
I thought Jone was suggesting a route for future research to confirm models
by making small changes that would not have long term imapcts but would or
could confirm the models. I saw no suggestions of large scale tinkering
unless the research proved the outcome and the need. What thread were you
reading? Maybe you were reading it for what you wanted to see so that you
could attack John rather than what he actually said. He seems to choose his
words and his questions rather carefully - I'm not sure you noticed that
given the "spin" you are trying to put on them.
> >> >
> >> >3. In what sense does the earth itself have a welfare?
> >>
> >> In the same sense you do.
> >>
> >The earth is alive and has human rights? You are going even further out
on a
> >limb. I am beginning to see why we have had disagreements in the past.
>
> Yes, the Earth is alive. Does it have "human" rights. No. Does
> it have rights? Yes.
>
What rights? (Finally, you actually answer a qustion put to you.) Please
define "alive".
> >> >
> >> >4. Who else shares John Miller's view that preventing an ice age
> >> >would be bad? Why?
> >>
> >> I do, because I don't believe in doing things out of
> >> ignorance. Because, John, we don't control climate as has been
> >> patiently explained to you before. We can and do alter climate, but it
> >> is not done with any knowledge behind it. To control climate, you
> >> would have to control every aspect of every facet of life on this
> >> planet: what farmers can and cannot grow, where forests grow, what
> >> kind of trees they have in them, what the population of beavers can be
> >> and where they live, ... 'Nuff said?
> >>
> >Yes, that statement is so logically flawed that nuff is said.
>
> Again, you're welcome to your opinion, David, but since you
> know less far less about the subject at hand than I, I'll give it the
> attention it deserves...none.
>
You do? Could have fooled me. So far all have demonstrated is a head in the
sand the sky is falling attitude that is not one of a real scientist. People
have used the excuse of "it can't be done" and "my oh my what would the
consequences be" to try to slow down science and technology. You seem to be
falling into that class. Have to say I am disappointed.
David Gossman
"Lansdale" <lans...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cP6D6.99942$uk.10...@news02.optonline.net...
I am unaware of any cement company supporting CEI. Not saying it hasn't
happened but there is certainly no connection through me. As for my "energy
users" as clients what you fail to note is that we work to decrease their
dependence on traditional fossil fuels and work to clean up others' wastes
at the same time. My motives in this newsgorup are hardly financial, I would
be better off simply putting in more office work. But now that you have
brought it up what are you personally and professionally doing to help the
environment. As you are the one that has attacked my credentials you are now
fairly subject to the same questioning. We shall see if you can be honest or
if you are another hypocrite like Chivy.
Ian St. John
>
<sanip>
> environment. As you are the one that has attacked my credentials you are
now
> fairly subject to the same questioning. We shall see if you can be honest
or
> if you are another hypocrite like Chivy.
Or David Gossman, king of the hypocrites. A man who 'reforestrs riparian
habitay only so long as he gets government funding and who plans to raze
those same acres to the ground the moment the funds dry up. The person who
claims 'what are *you* doing for the environment', while selecting gas
guzzler trucks and SUVs for 'protection' against hitting a small car.
Amazing 'honesty', eh what?
Eric Swanson
joh...@prodigy.net says...
>
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
>news:9bhoha$a1rs$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>> In article <9bhme6$17a4$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>,
>joh...@prodigy.net says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
>> >news:9bhdh1$9s32$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>> >> As for the often presented idea of orbiting reflective
>> >> material, have you (as one with some experience in the
>> >> space field) ever heard of "solar pressure"? The small
>> >> force of sunlight added up over the large reflectors
>> >> new orbits and eventually, out of orbit.
>> >
>> > We would simply do an occasional delta-V and keep the
>> >sails in the proper position. An even more ambitious
>> >undertaking could involve using the moon as a mirror.
>> > Of course it's all just sci fi right now.
>>
>> You can't do a delta-V without a structure to transmit the
>> force and control the size, shape and orientation of the
>> some really really really BIG structures.......
>>
>
> But it would be very small mass, since the sails would be
>quite thin. So long as the force gets evenly distributed across
>the structures, it wouldn't be a problem.
Lately I've had occasion to use a lot of plastic film. Lets do a
little calculation, since this is John McCarthy's thread.
Suppose you are using 6 mill plastic sheet, a 10' x 100' roll
(92.9 m2) weighs about 13 kg. That's is 0.14 kg/m2.
Further, suppose you need 0.1 percent of the earth's area facing
the sun in orbiting reflector. That might add (or subtract) about
1 watt per meter to (from) the surface.
The earth's diameter is 12,756 km, so it's area is 2.0447e9 km2.
One would thus need 2.0447e6 km2 or 2.0447e12 m2.
So the weight of plastic would be about 2.8613e11 kg.
That's 286 Billion kilograms, or 13 Million metric tons.
And that doesn't include the supporting structure, or the fuel
for station keeping, etc. Nor does it include all the space
shuttles that would need to be built, then worn out, just to put
the plastic in orbit.
Of course, with all the UV outside the atmosphere, the plastic
won't last very long.....
Are we laughing yet?
>> The fuel for a delta-V needs to be hoisted from the ground,
>> and so on... Oh, I forgot, you are in the Star Wars "we can
>> do anything" mode.....
>
> Why do you do this? As I already said, it is just
>brainstorming, and in the future there may be new technologies
>and methods to utilize. Why the rather callous tone?
You can dish it out, but can't take it, eh Johne?
David Ball
<dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
[..]
>
>Please David, you asserted that there was "no difference" - read the thread
>that you posted above. Your inability to answer the questions posted to
>you - or is it that you know better - suggests that you know the logical
>outcome and the trap that you walked into.
David, you see life as an either/or proposition. It's us vs.
them. To consider life as having some intrinsic value that is not
bestowed on it by human beings is seemingly objectionable to you. In
your us vs. them world, to suggest that non-human entities have rights
means <==> a desire to see millions of humans dead. That is laughable.
Here's a little tidbit for you: human beings will never learn
to co-exist with anything until they learn to respect them. Without
that respect, humans have this nasty habit of inflicting a great deal
of damage on the disadvantaged, largely because they feel that they
have a moral or ethical right to do so (kind of like the ethics you
were speaking about earlier). This have been true in the America's
with the native peoples, in the US with the slave trade, and so on and
so on.
>
>> David, have you considered a career doing standup?
>
>Nope. I don't ever think it is funny when a person thinks of human life a
>low as you do.
You have it wrong, David. Again, in your us vs. them world, to
put any other thing on the same plain with humans is to put a low
value on human life. The difference is that I value other life every
bit as highly as I do that of humans. Whether you like that or not, is
completely immaterial to me. You are entitled to your opinion.
[..]
>>
>I thought Jone was suggesting a route for future research to confirm models
>by making small changes that would not have long term imapcts but would or
>could confirm the models. I saw no suggestions of large scale tinkering
>unless the research proved the outcome and the need. What thread were you
>reading? Maybe you were reading it for what you wanted to see so that you
>could attack John rather than what he actually said. He seems to choose his
>words and his questions rather carefully - I'm not sure you noticed that
>given the "spin" you are trying to put on them.
A few posts from Mr. McCarthy...
1. Humanity will learn to control climate in order to avert various
disasters, mainly natural disasters like those that have happened in
the past. It will not be enough just to advocate not doing things.
It will not be enough just to project present trends. I have no
quarrel with projecting present trends. Some people should think more
ambitiously.
Note the use of the word 'control'.
2. I advocate research in controlling climate.
Here are a few more...
3. Here's one proposal. In a chamber whose contents simulate the
upper atmosphere, try adding each of 100,000 chemical
substances and see what happens. This is the shotgun approach
used in seeking drugs.
4. When the Brazilians chop down trees in the Amazon, buy the
wood and don't burn it.
5. Chop down forests in Siberia and Canada, put the wood in a
reducing environment, and replant the forests.
6. Fertilize the Antarctic with iron.
7. Close off the Bering Straits if a (say) 30 year study
determines that it would have a good effect.
Gee, maybe there were some suggestions for large-scale
tinkering, after all?
>> Yes, the Earth is alive. Does it have "human" rights. No. Does
>> it have rights? Yes.
>>
>What rights? (Finally, you actually answer a qustion put to you.) Please
>define "alive".
The right to exist.
[..]
>> Again, you're welcome to your opinion, David, but since you
>> know less far less about the subject at hand than I, I'll give it the
>> attention it deserves...none.
>>
>You do? Could have fooled me. So far all have demonstrated is a head in the
>sand the sky is falling attitude that is not one of a real scientist. People
>have used the excuse of "it can't be done" and "my oh my what would the
>consequences be" to try to slow down science and technology. You seem to be
>falling into that class. Have to say I am disappointed.
>--
I have said that climate can't be controled, but it can be
altered through ignorance. Exactly where have I said that the sky is
falling? I have said many times that there are two sides to changing
climate - the sky is falling and let's fiddle while Rome burns -
neither of which is correct because there is a middle ground.
Now, whether you like to be told that there are things human
beings simply can't do or not is completely immaterial to me. Facts
are facts. Yes, there are things we would like to be able to do, but
simply can't. Controling climate is one of them. From a personal
perspective, I'd rather be able to tell people how to effectively
avoid dangerous weather than to try and control it. A powerful person
is secure in that power and doesn't resort to having to display it all
the time. A wise man knows his limitations. I thought you were a wise
man. I guess I was wrong.
David Gossman
"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
news:9biq2o$aiop$1...@news3.infoave.net...
I sure am. Space based films don't need to be nearly that thick...
>
> >> The fuel for a delta-V needs to be hoisted from the ground,
> >> and so on... Oh, I forgot, you are in the Star Wars "we can
> >> do anything" mode.....
> >
> > Why do you do this? As I already said, it is just
> >brainstorming, and in the future there may be new technologies
> >and methods to utilize. Why the rather callous tone?
>
> You can dish it out, but can't take it, eh Johne?
>
Actually John is far more polite about dealing with those who make silly
statements than I am. And you just posted a real winner demonstrating an
amazing amount of ignorance. I am surprised because up till now the
conversation was looking constructive. You could have even presented your
calculations above in a constructive manner, but then you did not so I hope
you are not surprised when you get bashed on it.
David Gossman
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:9bj3mn$1fd4$1...@news.tht.net...
>
> "David Gossman" <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote in message
> news:v28D6.2311$vI2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> <sanip>
> > environment. As you are the one that has attacked my credentials you are
> now
> > fairly subject to the same questioning. We shall see if you can be
honest
> or
> > if you are another hypocrite like Chivy.
>
> Or David Gossman, king of the hypocrites. A man who 'reforestrs riparian
> habitay only so long as he gets government funding and who plans to raze
> those same acres to the ground the moment the funds dry up.
A rather bold face lie on your part - or are you wearing Nudds foil cap and
trying the mind reading trick.
>The person who
> claims 'what are *you* doing for the environment', while selecting gas
> guzzler trucks and SUVs for 'protection' against hitting a small car.
Another example of false logic. I have a mid sized SUV with 4 wheel drive
because I need it for wor around the farm. I do think that larger vehicles
are safer than smaller ones whether or not the accident involves a small
car. That is a fact - or do you have some other source of "truth" like Nudds
as well?
>
> Amazing 'honesty', eh what?
>
Poor Ian is reduced to repeating his lies - he really has lowered himself to
the Nudds example. I note that he clipped my post in order to make his lies
sound relevant. Ian - this is simple - you are lying - you have now been
caught with bold faced lies. What does that make you - certainly not honest.
Give up - you have been thoroughly whipped here. I would hate to have to do
it again.
John McCarthy
reaching the earth by 0.1 percent 13 million tons of film would have
to be put in orbit. At launch costs of $10 per pound projected for
heavy lift rockets that's $260 billion. That's about one year defense
budget for the US. For preventing an ice age it would be a bargain.
I doubt our descendants will get by as cheaply as that.
Eric Swanson
dgos...@gcisolutions.com says...
>
>
>
>"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
>news:9biq2o$aiop$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>> In article <9bi5bk$8oqe$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>,
>> joh...@prodigy.net says...
>
>> >
There is surely a bunch more involved in real calculations than I presented.
For example, the plastic won't just hang there by itself, so some supporting
structure must be included. The "sails" would likely be rotated about an
axis to keep the reflected energy pointed toward (away from) the earth.
To keep this rotation going with some accuracy requires an attitude control
system. I worked on designs for a few such systems many years ago...
Such a system requires control elements, including rocket motors to dump
excess momentum. There would also be station keeping rockets needed to
maintain the sail in a proper orbit.
Lets assume my first calculation of 2.0447e6 km2 is in the ball park for
area. Further assume each sail is 50 km by 10 km, or 500 km2 in area.
thus, there would need to be 4090 "sails" in orbit. Each sail might need
a station keeping rocket every km along its rotational axis, so each would
need 50 rocket motors. They would all need to fire at precisely the same
time and for precisely the same duration, else the fragile sail would bend
out of shape and be destroyed. The same problems exist for the attitude
control system.
All of this implies additional mass and the continual need for fuel.
And, don't forget maintenance, since these things are intended to last
decades. Look at the maintenance problems with Russia's Mir station...
Suppose a reusable launch system is created what would last 100 launches
and that 10 launches were required to construct each sail. Then we see the
need for 410 vehicles. All these launches would require a vast quantity of
fuel just to put things in orbit. If it were to take 10 years to put everything
in orbit, that would mean 4090 launches a year.
Of course, my numbers are probably low by factor of 2 or more......
The effect of a doubling of CO2 has been compared to a 4 watt/m
change at the surface. That's a value for the entire globe. On just
the sunlit side, it works out to be bigger yet. My 1 watt per meter
systems analysis is just a drop in the bucket, so to speak.
I think this makes the concept even more laughable....
You are welcome to present a more through system design, if you will.
Robert Grumbine
John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>I doubt our descendants will get by as cheaply as that.
Whyever not? You continually point to how they'll be
richer and know more than we do. If we can do it for a
few percent of a national economy, today, surely for
them it would be both a smaller portion of the economy
(that being a larger pie due to their being richer), and
even smaller, in that they'll have better (i.e. cheaper)
ideas on how to do it.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Robert Grumbine
John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>Grumbine did not pay attention to the question I asked. I was not
>proposing to do anything now about preventing the next ice age. I was
>asking whether he thought our descendants would and should prevent the
>next ice ages.
It is the answer your descendant will be giving 49,800 years
from now. Your answer to doing practical things today is should
not and will not. Your descendant will be saying the same thing.
If he is sufficiently persuasive, 'will not' will occur.
My opinion on 'should' is moot, as is the existence (or non-) of
that opinion.
John McCarthy
> In article <x4h7l0i...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>,
> John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
> >I doubt our descendants will get by as cheaply as that.
>
> Whyever not? You continually point to how they'll be
> richer and know more than we do. If we can do it for a
> few percent of a national economy, today, surely for
> them it would be both a smaller portion of the economy
> (that being a larger pie due to their being richer), and
> even smaller, in that they'll have better (i.e. cheaper)
> ideas on how to do it.
You're probably right. Without my having a definite reason, it seemed
to me that the reflector scheme would have to be more elaborate than
was suggested. The money cost, even if it were 100 times as expensive
would be bearable. Therefore, if the scheme works at all, we can be
sure that our descendants will avoid suffering the consequences of an
ice age.
The ability to prevent an ice age and the ability to prevent a really
bad asteroid hit are two reasons for supposing that humanity can
prosper on earth for at least as long as the sun permits, i.e. a
billion years. Some people regard it as ridiculous to be interested
in such questions. I and many other scientists find them very
interesting. My writing is on
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/, which may become a book.
Eric Swanson
>
>In article <x4hvgo3...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>,
>John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>>Grumbine did not pay attention to the question I asked. I was not
>>proposing to do anything now about preventing the next ice age. I was
>>asking whether he thought our descendants would and should prevent the
>>next ice ages.
>
> It is the answer your descendant will be giving 49,800 years
>from now. Your answer to doing practical things today is should
>not and will not. Your descendant will be saying the same thing.
>If he is sufficiently persuasive, 'will not' will occur.
Am I missing something?
From the Antarctic ice core data, interglacials tend to be rather short,
with long periods of colder conditions in between. This one (the Holocene)
is already past due for a return to more ice. This assumes that other parts
of the climate system have not changed during the Holocene, even though
we know mankind has influenced things for many thousands of years.
PETIT,J. R., et al, "Climate and atmospheric history of the past
420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica", NATURE 399, 429.
So, why do you suggest it will be another 49,000 years till the next round?
WesTralia
Hi John, sorry to jump into this thread but I wonder if you
wouldn't mind jumping over to the newsgroup comp.software-eng
and add some clarity to a thread titled, "Russians create
artificial human brain"?
Thanks,
Wes
William M Connolley
> joh...@prodigy.net says...
>>"William M Connolley" <w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>> >bo...@Radix.Net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
>>> >> William M Connolley <w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >Another answer is "there is no great hurry". Even on "optimistic"
>>> >> >predictions its 1kyr+ away. What I would like to know, whether the
>>> >> >"conventional milanokovitch" predictions are for 5-ish kyr, or 50-ish
>>> >> >kyr... I hear different answers about this, none of them definitive.
>>>
>>> >> Ledley, T. S. "Summer solstice solar radiation, the 100 kyr ice age
>>cycle,
>>> >> and the next ice age", Geophys. Res. Letters, 22, 2745-2748, 1995.
>> Please inform Eric Swanson, who seems to think that a new ice age is
>>imminent (due to the THC shutting down, I presume).
My understanding was that THC shutdown was suggested as a possible
consequence of increased freshwater, not caused by orbital forcing.
And I don't think its supposed to an iceage, even if it happens, just
cooling around the N Atlantic.
> In any event, the Interglacials have all been short term. See:
>
> PETIT,J. R., et al, "Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000
> years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica", NATURE 399, 429.
The point I was trying to make (and that RMG's ref addreses) is that
simply extrapolating the past into the future is not good, especially
as there is reason to believe that the future orbital forcing will not
mimic the last 400 (800?) kyr (all this in the absence of
anthropogenic perturbation, of course).
>A recent simulation study in NATURE pointed out that changes in orbital
>paremeters alone could not cause the model to switch to an Ice Age, however,
>when the ocean circulation was added, the Ice Age switch began.
Yes. People have been having problems making models start to have ice
ages for a long time now.
-W (home again)
Robert Grumbine
Eric Swanson <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote:
>Am I missing something?
Some, yes. Check back for the Ledley reference I gave earlier
in the thread.
>From the Antarctic ice core data, interglacials tend to be rather short,
>with long periods of colder conditions in between. This one (the Holocene)
>is already past due for a return to more ice. This assumes that other parts
>of the climate system have not changed during the Holocene, even though
>we know mankind has influenced things for many thousands of years.
>
> PETIT,J. R., et al, "Climate and atmospheric history of the past
> 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica", NATURE 399, 429.
>
>So, why do you suggest it will be another 49,000 years till the next round?
Ledley does, for reasons I find decent. Petit et al. are looking
at what can be inferred from the last 400 ky or so. A good project
and good paper as I recall it (if I'm thinking of the right one).
The limitation in reading the ice cores is that something (as in
length of interglacials) can be consistent for a while, not because
there's a fundamental process that says 'interglacials can only last
10 ky', but because the things driving the interglacial length (such
as orbital forcings) have conspired the last few times (realizing
that 400 ky = 4 interglacials) to produce that length. We're due
for a time where the insolation deficit is smaller than usual for
a prolonged period (the 70 ky). It might be that a smaller insolation
deficit is sufficient to end the interglacial, but Ledley does present
some reasons why she doesn't think so.
See
Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 2745-2748, 1995.
Eric Swanson
I've not seen the report, which will be difficult to do, since it is no
longer available to us average folk on the net.
However, the ice cores indicate a considerable influence of the shorter
cycles of about 20,000 years duration. It's not just the 100,000 year
cycle that is important. Then, too, humanity has changed things so
much in the past 10,000 years that all that paleoclimate research
may be completely off base. For example, what was the effect of
the removal of several species of large mammals from North America??
http://museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/ice_age_animals.html
David Gossman
the basics first.
David Gossman
Eric Swanson
You will note that I included no mass for other structural components.
Calculating the total mass would probably make the satellites even heavier
than I have suggested. Besides, the low density polyethylene I started
with may have a lower density than Mylar.
There are so many variables that I didn't look at that the numbers could
work out to be much different. I knew that from the start.
For example, as I mentioned, the power needed might be much greater than
the roughly 1 watt per meter increase in the solar energy hitting the earth's
disc which I came up with. Also, the mirrors would need to reflect at some
angle to the incident sunlight, perhaps 45 degrees, thus the total area or
reflectors would need to be increased by 1.414. There is the larger question
of where on earth this energy should be placed, with different orbits required
for the equator or for the poles. Does the orbit pass thru the earth's
shadow and if so, how much would the area need be increased to compensate?
What if the largest practical size for a mirror worked out to be only 1 x 5 km?
Then, the number of satellites would jump 100 fold. The number of launches
(1 per satellite) might jump by 10, as would the number of launch vehicles.
Finally, how long would the system need to be maintained, 10,000 years?
Or, maybe 100,000 years? That was about the period of the last 3 Glacials.
Would there be anyone left alive who cared then?
You are picking nits instead of doing calculations.
Do you have any analytical efforts to add, or are you just going to gripe?
Johne S. Morton
> In article <9bkokv$alp$1...@saltmine.radix.net>, bo...@Radix.Net says...
>
> However, the ice cores indicate a considerable influence of the shorter
> cycles of about 20,000 years duration. It's not just the 100,000 year
> cycle that is important. Then, too, humanity has changed things so
> much in the past 10,000 years that all that paleoclimate research
> may be completely off base. For example, what was the effect of
> the removal of several species of large mammals from North America??
>
We switched to beef.
David Gossman
real basis. But since you seem to need to have someone do the research for
you try: http://www.lgarde.com/people/papers/instep.html,
http://www.lgarde.com/people/papers/overview.html,
http://www.ec-lille.fr/~u3p/vigiwind/IAFpaper.html#anchor970618 (note the
ref to a few micron thickness requirement for an aluminized solar sail),
http://www.lgarde.com/people/papers/radar.html
Since aluminum coated Mylar films of about 8 microns are already
manufactured for such applications as making capacitors one might conclude
that you have overestimated the weight by a factor of close to 1000. Top
that off with experiments to inflate and then UV cure for rigidity these
types of structures or alternatively spin them and the issue you have raised
of structural supports also goes away. There are already researchers working
on these issues. I have to say that I am disappointed that you would launch
such a baseless attack with such scanty information when real information is
so easy to find. It suggests something about your motives for doing so.
David Gossman
David Gossman
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:35:19 GMT, "David Gossman"
> <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>
> [..]
> >
> >Please David, you asserted that there was "no difference" - read the
thread
> >that you posted above. Your inability to answer the questions posted to
> >you - or is it that you know better - suggests that you know the logical
> >outcome and the trap that you walked into.
>
> David, you see life as an either/or proposition. It's us vs.
> them. To consider life as having some intrinsic value that is not
> bestowed on it by human beings is seemingly objectionable to you. In
> your us vs. them world, to suggest that non-human entities have rights
> means <==> a desire to see millions of humans dead. That is laughable.
If I did that I would not be working so hard personally to provide privately
owned native habitat for flora and fauna. Let me suggest that you don't know
how I see this issue, or perhaps you have a hard time accepting the idea
that someone with my "politics" could come to a different conclusion without
the approach you outline above. Either way you are obviously wrong as
demonstrated by my actions in the real world.
>
> Here's a little tidbit for you: human beings will never learn
> to co-exist with anything until they learn to respect them. Without
> that respect, humans have this nasty habit of inflicting a great deal
> of damage on the disadvantaged, largely because they feel that they
> have a moral or ethical right to do so (kind of like the ethics you
> were speaking about earlier). This have been true in the America's
> with the native peoples, in the US with the slave trade, and so on and
> so on.
>
I could not agree more. Respect does not mean your type of (or lack of)
priorities. That you think it does suggests a flaw in your own logic.
> >
> >> David, have you considered a career doing standup?
> >
> >Nope. I don't ever think it is funny when a person thinks of human life a
> >low as you do.
>
> You have it wrong, David. Again, in your us vs. them world, to
> put any other thing on the same plain with humans is to put a low
> value on human life. The difference is that I value other life every
> bit as highly as I do that of humans. Whether you like that or not, is
> completely immaterial to me. You are entitled to your opinion.
>
If that is true then I again ask if you eat meat? How about plant life? Just
what life is it that you respect as much as human life? Come on and answer
these questions! If you value life that highly does that mean that you would
risk your life for another human? Would you do it for a monkee? How about
your child? How about the child of some one else? How about a baby racoon?
Don't you see how rediculous what you are saying sounds?
> >>
> >I thought Jone was suggesting a route for future research to confirm
models
> >by making small changes that would not have long term imapcts but would
or
> >could confirm the models. I saw no suggestions of large scale tinkering
> >unless the research proved the outcome and the need. What thread were you
> >reading? Maybe you were reading it for what you wanted to see so that you
> >could attack John rather than what he actually said. He seems to choose
his
> >words and his questions rather carefully - I'm not sure you noticed that
> >given the "spin" you are trying to put on them.
>
> A few posts from Mr. McCarthy...
>
> 1. Humanity will learn to control climate in order to avert various
> disasters, mainly natural disasters like those that have happened in
> the past. It will not be enough just to advocate not doing things.
> It will not be enough just to project present trends. I have no
> quarrel with projecting present trends. Some people should think more
>
> ambitiously.
>
> Note the use of the word 'control'.
Note the word "learn"...
>
> 2. I advocate research in controlling climate.
>
> Here are a few more...
Note the word "research".
>
> 3. Here's one proposal. In a chamber whose contents simulate the
> upper atmosphere, try adding each of 100,000 chemical
> substances and see what happens. This is the shotgun approach
> used in seeking drugs.
>
> 4. When the Brazilians chop down trees in the Amazon, buy the
> wood and don't burn it.
>
> 5. Chop down forests in Siberia and Canada, put the wood in a
> reducing environment, and replant the forests.
>
> 6. Fertilize the Antarctic with iron.
>
> 7. Close off the Bering Straits if a (say) 30 year study
> determines that it would have a good effect.
>
> Gee, maybe there were some suggestions for large-scale
> tinkering, after all?
>
Gee, maybe you ought to go back to the question he was answering to put all
that in context.
>
> >> Yes, the Earth is alive. Does it have "human" rights. No. Does
> >> it have rights? Yes.
> >>
> >What rights? (Finally, you actually answer a qustion put to you.) Please
> >define "alive".
>
> The right to exist.
>
It does. We don't have any control over that at this point - please define
alive in the context you used it above - as I already asked - or is this
something that you need to duck.
> [..]
> >> Again, you're welcome to your opinion, David, but since you
> >> know less far less about the subject at hand than I, I'll give it the
> >> attention it deserves...none.
> >>
> >You do? Could have fooled me. So far all have demonstrated is a head in
the
> >sand the sky is falling attitude that is not one of a real scientist.
People
> >have used the excuse of "it can't be done" and "my oh my what would the
> >consequences be" to try to slow down science and technology. You seem to
be
> >falling into that class. Have to say I am disappointed.
> >--
>
> I have said that climate can't be controled, but it can be
> altered through ignorance. Exactly where have I said that the sky is
> falling? I have said many times that there are two sides to changing
> climate - the sky is falling and let's fiddle while Rome burns -
> neither of which is correct because there is a middle ground.
Really? What is that?
> Now, whether you like to be told that there are things human
> beings simply can't do or not is completely immaterial to me. Facts
> are facts. Yes, there are things we would like to be able to do, but
> simply can't. Controling climate is one of them. From a personal
> perspective, I'd rather be able to tell people how to effectively
> avoid dangerous weather than to try and control it. A powerful person
> is secure in that power and doesn't resort to having to display it all
> the time. A wise man knows his limitations. I thought you were a wise
> man. I guess I was wrong.
100 years ago humans could not fly - I guess you would have been one of the
wise ones who told everyone that it was not something that humans can do. At
the time you would have been right. You would also have demonstrated your
lack of imagination. I wish I could remember the exact Shaw? quotation but
to paraphrase - Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world, unreasonable
men attempt to adapt the world to themselves. Thus, all progress is do to
unreasonable men. - Please feel free to keep being reasonable - others will
provide the progress.
David Gossman
David Ball
<dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>>
>> David, you see life as an either/or proposition. It's us vs.
>> them. To consider life as having some intrinsic value that is not
>> bestowed on it by human beings is seemingly objectionable to you. In
>> your us vs. them world, to suggest that non-human entities have rights
>> means <==> a desire to see millions of humans dead. That is laughable.
>
>If I did that I would not be working so hard personally to provide privately
>owned native habitat for flora and fauna. Let me suggest that you don't know
>how I see this issue, or perhaps you have a hard time accepting the idea
>that someone with my "politics" could come to a different conclusion without
>the approach you outline above. Either way you are obviously wrong as
>demonstrated by my actions in the real world.
But apparently not demonstrated in this forum, David. I based
my comments solely on what you said. Maybe you should make an attempt
to talk about science in this forum and remove your judgemental POV
from the discussions? Your opinions on the science carry some weight.
Your personal view of morality and ethics carry none.
[..]
>>
>> You have it wrong, David. Again, in your us vs. them world, to
>> put any other thing on the same plain with humans is to put a low
>> value on human life. The difference is that I value other life every
>> bit as highly as I do that of humans. Whether you like that or not, is
>> completely immaterial to me. You are entitled to your opinion.
>>
>If that is true then I again ask if you eat meat? How about plant life? Just
>what life is it that you respect as much as human life? Come on and answer
>these questions! If you value life that highly does that mean that you would
>risk your life for another human? Would you do it for a monkee? How about
>your child? How about the child of some one else? How about a baby racoon?
>Don't you see how rediculous what you are saying sounds?
You honestly don't get it, do you? Are you really that devoid
of understanding? Do you believe that one can't eat meat and respect
the world around them? ROTFL, yet again. David, we're going to have to
agree to disagree. You and I are on two different plains - yours is
full of fear of everything around you, fear that somehow your precious
freedom wll be taken away. Mine is a little more adult in that it
acknowledges the fact that other living things have a right to exist,
a right not bestowed by anything you or I do. You need to grow up.
>
>> A few posts from Mr. McCarthy...
>>
>> 1. Humanity will learn to control climate in order to avert various
>> disasters, mainly natural disasters like those that have happened in
>> the past. It will not be enough just to advocate not doing things.
>> It will not be enough just to project present trends. I have no
>> quarrel with projecting present trends. Some people should think more
>>
>> ambitiously.
>>
>> Note the use of the word 'control'.
>
>Note the word "learn"...
Note the word control. Try reading what's posted, David,
instead of twisting it to your own "unique" vision.
>> 2. I advocate research in controlling climate.
>>
>> Here are a few more...
>
>Note the word "research".
Not the word control. See the above comments on reading what's
posted.
>>
>> 3. Here's one proposal. In a chamber whose contents simulate the
>> upper atmosphere, try adding each of 100,000 chemical
>> substances and see what happens. This is the shotgun approach
>> used in seeking drugs.
>>
>> 4. When the Brazilians chop down trees in the Amazon, buy the
>> wood and don't burn it.
>>
>> 5. Chop down forests in Siberia and Canada, put the wood in a
>> reducing environment, and replant the forests.
>>
>> 6. Fertilize the Antarctic with iron.
>>
>> 7. Close off the Bering Straits if a (say) 30 year study
>> determines that it would have a good effect.
>>
>> Gee, maybe there were some suggestions for large-scale
>> tinkering, after all?
>>
>Gee, maybe you ought to go back to the question he was answering to put all
>that in context.
Maybe you should stick to consulting and leave atmospheric
science to people - the thousands of people who study it every day -
who know what the hell they're doing. Hazardous waste management is a
terrific field of study and when discussions about it come up, we'll
all listen attentively to your expert opinion. When alterations to
climate - suggested out of blind ignorance - come up, why not let
people who know what they're talking about answer the questions. I'd
be embarrassed to answer questions about hazardous waste as I know
next to nothing about it - kind of like you and atmospheric science.
[..]
>>
>> I have said that climate can't be controled, but it can be
>> altered through ignorance. Exactly where have I said that the sky is
>> falling? I have said many times that there are two sides to changing
>> climate - the sky is falling and let's fiddle while Rome burns -
>> neither of which is correct because there is a middle ground.
>
>Really? What is that?
You need to have it explained again? How many times does it
have to be explained to you before you catch on? Tell you what, go
read some of the IPCC summaries for a start. I'm way too busy to hold
your hand again.
>
>> Now, whether you like to be told that there are things human
>> beings simply can't do or not is completely immaterial to me. Facts
>> are facts. Yes, there are things we would like to be able to do, but
>> simply can't. Controling climate is one of them. From a personal
>> perspective, I'd rather be able to tell people how to effectively
>> avoid dangerous weather than to try and control it. A powerful person
>> is secure in that power and doesn't resort to having to display it all
>> the time. A wise man knows his limitations. I thought you were a wise
>> man. I guess I was wrong.
>
>100 years ago humans could not fly - I guess you would have been one of the
>wise ones who told everyone that it was not something that humans can do. At
>the time you would have been right. You would also have demonstrated your
>lack of imagination. I wish I could remember the exact Shaw? quotation but
>to paraphrase - Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world, unreasonable
>men attempt to adapt the world to themselves. Thus, all progress is do to
>unreasonable men. - Please feel free to keep being reasonable - others will
>provide the progress.
>
Flying is easy. Brain surgery is easy. Meteorology is
extremely hard and climate is an order of magnitude harder than that.
Unless you plan on establishing a totalitarian regime where you can
dictate exactly what every single person does, you can't control
climate. That's a fact. This is a science forum, David. Facts are good
here. You might try using some some time, instead of getting in these
endless pissing contests with everyone who doesn't share your "vision"
of how things should be done. Believe it or not, there is room in this
world for a lot of different opinions and no single persons view is
correct. I know, you don't like that either...live with the
disappointment.
I'm reminded of another quote from the same period as Shaw,
though I can't remember who said it, "Thanks be to God that the Moon
and stars are out of reach of the grasping hand of Man."
John McCarthy
instinctive, prejudices against cruelty to animals. I don't think
humanity owes any duty to other species. Instead of regarding
humanity as an intruder on the earth, I regard the earth as humanity's
garden, to be arranged as humanity sees fit.
Before humanity, there was no morality of any kind on this planet,
because there were no minds.
There is no coherent way of assigning rights to non-thinking beings.
Eric Swanson
>
>
>Eric Swanson <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
>news:9blbbh$bnkr$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>> In article <9bl8en$1v9$1...@ins21.netins.net>, dgos...@gcisolutions.com
>says...
>> >
>> Finally, how long would the system need to be maintained, 10,000 years?
>> Or, maybe 100,000 years? That was about the period of the last 3
>Glacials.
>> Would there be anyone left alive who cared then?
>>
>> You are picking nits instead of doing calculations.
>> Do you have any analytical efforts to add, or are you just going to gripe?
>>
>You were the one who started the griping. I just pointed out the lack of a
>real basis. But since you seem to need to have someone do the research for
>you try: http://www.lgarde.com/people/papers/instep.html,
>http://www.lgarde.com/people/papers/overview.html,
>http://www.ec-lille.fr/~u3p/vigiwind/IAFpaper.html#anchor970618 (note the
>ref to a few micron thickness requirement for an aluminized solar sail),
>http://www.lgarde.com/people/papers/radar.html
>Since aluminum coated Mylar films of about 8 microns are already
>manufactured for such applications as making capacitors one might conclude
>that you have overestimated the weight by a factor of close to 1000. Top
>that off with experiments to inflate and then UV cure for rigidity these
>types of structures or alternatively spin them and the issue you have raised
>of structural supports also goes away. There are already researchers working
>on these issues. I have to say that I am disappointed that you would launch
>such a baseless attack with such scanty information when real information is
>so easy to find. It suggests something about your motives for doing so.
Inflatable structures might work to support the flat Mylar, but they would add
some weight. Rigitizing the inflated structure might also work, but the
links you pointed to don't say much about long life structures. We are talking
hundreds of thousands of satellites with lifetimes in excess of 30 years.
And, you continue to ignore the fact that these are active satellites, with
more weight needed for station keeping and attitude control systems.
They would also need solar arrays, batteries and tanks for fuel
You can't just reel out a stream of Mylar and leave it twisting in space.
Just because a material is available doesn't prove that it would
be useful. Again, using a solar sail for a mission of several months is
a little bit different than a 30 or 50 year mission in extra atmospheric
conditions.
Another point overlooked is that the entire system must be kept going
for thousands of years to counter the Milankovitch changes in solar
forcing. The satellites must be constantly replaced as old ones reach
their design life. Sort of like replacing lightbulbs every so often....
As for a motive, I just wanted to point out how silly the basic idea was.
There are probably lots of approaches that would work at ground level
with much less cost and greater ease of repair/replacement.
David Gossman
sound like a way to be very convincing to me. Instead you have been forced
to scramble and continue to come up with a whole host of problems that
appear to be more a matter of technicality than the fundamental flaw that
you originally tried to point to. I am not asserting that this is the answer
nor do I think that John was. Simply, it is one of a number of options that
needs to be explored and researched. I don't think that head in the sand
attitude that you seem to display is a very constructive one.
David Gossman
David Gossman
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:42:19 -0500, "David Gossman"
> <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> David, you see life as an either/or proposition. It's us vs.
> >> them. To consider life as having some intrinsic value that is not
> >> bestowed on it by human beings is seemingly objectionable to you. In
> >> your us vs. them world, to suggest that non-human entities have rights
> >> means <==> a desire to see millions of humans dead. That is laughable.
> >
> >If I did that I would not be working so hard personally to provide
privately
> >owned native habitat for flora and fauna. Let me suggest that you don't
know
> >how I see this issue, or perhaps you have a hard time accepting the idea
> >that someone with my "politics" could come to a different conclusion
without
> >the approach you outline above. Either way you are obviously wrong as
> >demonstrated by my actions in the real world.
>
> But apparently not demonstrated in this forum, David. I based
> my comments solely on what you said. Maybe you should make an attempt
> to talk about science in this forum and remove your judgemental POV
> from the discussions? Your opinions on the science carry some weight.
> Your personal view of morality and ethics carry none.
>
scramble all you want to try to worm out of your assertions. That does not
make them any less false.
> >>
> >> You have it wrong, David. Again, in your us vs. them world, to
> >> put any other thing on the same plain with humans is to put a low
> >> value on human life. The difference is that I value other life every
> >> bit as highly as I do that of humans. Whether you like that or not, is
> >> completely immaterial to me. You are entitled to your opinion.
> >>
> >If that is true then I again ask if you eat meat? How about plant life?
Just
> >what life is it that you respect as much as human life? Come on and
answer
> >these questions! If you value life that highly does that mean that you
would
> >risk your life for another human? Would you do it for a monkee? How about
> >your child? How about the child of some one else? How about a baby
racoon?
> >Don't you see how rediculous what you are saying sounds?
>
> You honestly don't get it, do you? Are you really that devoid
> of understanding? Do you believe that one can't eat meat and respect
> the world around them? ROTFL, yet again. David, we're going to have to
> agree to disagree. You and I are on two different plains - yours is
> full of fear of everything around you, fear that somehow your precious
> freedom wll be taken away. Mine is a little more adult in that it
> acknowledges the fact that other living things have a right to exist,
> a right not bestowed by anything you or I do. You need to grow up.
>
eat meat and you don't consider humans to have any higher moral ground than
the animals that you eat, then you logically can have no objection to eating
humans. That may sound silly but it is a logical outcome of the philosophy
that you have presented here. That you then respond by launching personal
attacks that you can't back up is no surprise.
> >
> >> A few posts from Mr. McCarthy...
> >>
> >> 1. Humanity will learn to control climate in order to avert various
> >> disasters, mainly natural disasters like those that have happened in
> >> the past. It will not be enough just to advocate not doing things.
> >> It will not be enough just to project present trends. I have no
> >> quarrel with projecting present trends. Some people should think more
> >>
> >> ambitiously.
> >>
> >> Note the use of the word 'control'.
> >
> >Note the word "learn"...
>
> Note the word control. Try reading what's posted, David,
> instead of twisting it to your own "unique" vision.
You are the one picking the single word out of context. I am simply pointing
to the context. Really, who is trying to provide their "unique" vision to
what was said?
>
> >> 2. I advocate research in controlling climate.
> >>
> >> Here are a few more...
> >
> >Note the word "research".
>
> Not the word control. See the above comments on reading what's
> posted.
>
See the above comments about taking things out of context - you have been
caught again - you are making this to easy.
I did not hear him suggest making any changes out of blind ignorance. He
suggested research. You are the one who thinks that you already know all
that can be known and don't think that any more can be learned. I think that
if you look at my education that you will find that I actually have a fair
bit of background relative to the issues. My degrees were designed around
going into planetary sciences and I pursued a multidisciplinary background
with that in mind. It has proven useful in other ways as well.
> >>
> >> I have said that climate can't be controled, but it can be
> >> altered through ignorance. Exactly where have I said that the sky is
> >> falling? I have said many times that there are two sides to changing
> >> climate - the sky is falling and let's fiddle while Rome burns -
> >> neither of which is correct because there is a middle ground.
> >
> >Really? What is that?
>
> You need to have it explained again? How many times does it
> have to be explained to you before you catch on? Tell you what, go
> read some of the IPCC summaries for a start. I'm way too busy to hold
> your hand again.
>
I was just asking what your "middle ground" was. I don't recall you ever
explaining that to me. Your response suggests that you can't rather than
simply not wanting to.
> >
> >> Now, whether you like to be told that there are things human
> >> beings simply can't do or not is completely immaterial to me. Facts
> >> are facts. Yes, there are things we would like to be able to do, but
> >> simply can't. Controling climate is one of them. From a personal
> >> perspective, I'd rather be able to tell people how to effectively
> >> avoid dangerous weather than to try and control it. A powerful person
> >> is secure in that power and doesn't resort to having to display it all
> >> the time. A wise man knows his limitations. I thought you were a wise
> >> man. I guess I was wrong.
> >
> >100 years ago humans could not fly - I guess you would have been one of
the
> >wise ones who told everyone that it was not something that humans can do.
At
> >the time you would have been right. You would also have demonstrated your
> >lack of imagination. I wish I could remember the exact Shaw? quotation
but
> >to paraphrase - Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world,
unreasonable
> >men attempt to adapt the world to themselves. Thus, all progress is do to
> >unreasonable men. - Please feel free to keep being reasonable - others
will
> >provide the progress.
> >
> Flying is easy. Brain surgery is easy. Meteorology is
> extremely hard and climate is an order of magnitude harder than that.
We agree so far, but hard does not mean impossible. It was "hard" to fly one
hundred years ago...
> Unless you plan on establishing a totalitarian regime where you can
> dictate exactly what every single person does, you can't control
> climate. That's a fact. This is a science forum, David. Facts are good
> here. You might try using some some time, instead of getting in these
> endless pissing contests with everyone who doesn't share your "vision"
> of how things should be done. Believe it or not, there is room in this
> world for a lot of different opinions and no single persons view is
> correct. I know, you don't like that either...live with the
> disappointment.
Wow, that first statement sounds an awful lot like someone opposing
Kyoto...That you are again reduced to a personal attack is noted. That you
are the one who is having difficulty accepting that there might be other
points of view is also noted. Finally, that you found it necessary to clip
portions of my prior response so as to avoid further embarassment is also
noted.
> I'm reminded of another quote from the same period as Shaw,
> though I can't remember who said it, "Thanks be to God that the Moon
> and stars are out of reach of the grasping hand of Man."
Yet we have gone to the moon - get it?
PS I note your careful clip of my question about the definition of "alive"
in the context of the Earth. Not surprised, just that the implication is
quite clear.
David Gossman
Ian St. John
>
<snip>
> Give up - you have been thoroughly whipped here. I would hate to have to
do
> it again.
In your dreams Davey, In your dreams. I don't even need to be clever. You
always post so much drivel, nobody can take you seriously.
Eric Swanson
>
>swanson@nospam_on.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
>> joh...@prodigy.net says...
>>>"William M Connolley" <w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>>> John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>>> >bo...@Radix.Net (Robert Grumbine) writes:
>>>> >> William M Connolley <w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >Another answer is "there is no great hurry". Even on "optimistic"
>>>> >> >predictions its 1kyr+ away. What I would like to know, whether the
>>>> >> >"conventional milanokovitch" predictions are for 5-ish kyr, or 50-ish
>>>> >> >kyr... I hear different answers about this, none of them definitive.
>>>>
>>>> >> Ledley, T. S. "Summer solstice solar radiation, the 100 kyr ice age
>>>cycle,
>>>> >> and the next ice age", Geophys. Res. Letters, 22, 2745-2748, 1995.
>
>>> Please inform Eric Swanson, who seems to think that a new ice age is
>>>imminent (due to the THC shutting down, I presume).
>
>My understanding was that THC shutdown was suggested as a possible
>consequence of increased freshwater, not caused by orbital forcing.
>And I don't think its supposed to an iceage, even if it happens, just
>cooling around the N Atlantic.
The THC moves a considerable quantity of heat towards the Arctic. If it shuts
down, then the ocean surface temperatures will be colder. Now, the bottom
waters formed by the THC are only a few degrees C above the freezing point.
If the surface water nolonger sinks, then it will stay on the surface long
enough to form sea-ice in areas, such as the Norwegen Sea, which currently
has little sea-ice.
The sea-ice/ocean albedo feedback would work to amplify the cooling due to
the increased area of sea-ice. Temperatures could become very much colder,
especially as a switch from open ocean to sea-ice also implies a more
vigorous surface freshening due to the freezing and melting of the sea-ice.
The last models I looked at could not produce a THC very well, nor could
they couple the THC with the sea-ice. Perhaps you have seen results from
improved models and could discuss them for us.
>> In any event, the Interglacials have all been short term. See:
>>
>> PETIT,J. R., et al, "Climate and atmospheric history of the past
>> 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica", NATURE 399, 429.
>
>The point I was trying to make (and that RMG's ref addreses) is that
>simply extrapolating the past into the future is not good, especially
>as there is reason to believe that the future orbital forcing will not
>mimic the last 400 (800?) kyr (all this in the absence of
>anthropogenic perturbation, of course).
>
>>A recent simulation study in NATURE pointed out that changes in orbital
>>paremeters alone could not cause the model to switch to an Ice Age, however,
>>when the ocean circulation was added, the Ice Age switch began.
>
>Yes. People have been having problems making models start to have ice
>ages for a long time now.
If these new modeling results hold up, then the THC may be a critical link
in the switch between Glacial and Interglacial conditions.
--
Chive Mynde
John wrote:
>Before humanity, there was no morality of any kind on this planet,
>because there were no minds.
For a supposedly intelligent computer scientist, you're in actuality,
an ignorant fool.
If morality is to be measured against the collected species of the
planet, humanity ranks as the most immoral species on Earth.
HTH.
- Chive
Help Wanted: Psychic. You know where to apply.
John Miller
"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4h4rvl...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
> To make one point clear, I'm pro-human, modulo some, probably
> instinctive, prejudices against cruelty to animals. I don't think
> humanity owes any duty to other species. Instead of regarding
> humanity as an intruder on the earth, I regard the earth as humanity's
> garden, to be arranged as humanity sees fit.
>
> Before humanity, there was no morality of any kind on this planet,
> because there were no minds.
Says who? I have a VERY hard time with the notion that our kind is the only
form of life to have existed on this planet that is capable of thought.
That is a very typical homocentric (or should that be anthropocentric?) view
of the world. Do you not think that dolphin demonstrate thought processes?
Or dogs? Or cats? Or chimps? Or squirrels (very clever, squirrels) Or the
earth as a whole if you take the Gaian view? What about all the species
that have gone before? Just because we see no remnants in the fossil record
or geological record, doesn't mean there weren't such things. I've often
been with dolphin in the wild and each time I can't help but think that they
are very intelligent and totally at one with their environment. It's as if
they have chosen not to change their environment but live with it as they
find it.
Naturally, this is my opininion and touches on some very sensitive subjects.
John.
> There is no coherent way of assigning rights to non-thinking beings.
>
Hmmm. There's no coherent way of assigning human rights to non-human
thinking beings that we cannot comprehend.
John Miller
"Chive Mynde" <chyve...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9blup...@drn.newsguy.com...
> On 18 Apr 2001 20:29:27 -0700, in article
<x4h4rvl...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>,
> John wrote:
>
> >Before humanity, there was no morality of any kind on this planet,
> >because there were no minds.
>
> For a supposedly intelligent computer scientist, you're in actuality,
> an ignorant fool.
>
> If morality is to be measured against the collected species of the
> planet, humanity ranks as the most immoral species on Earth.
Damn it! It had to happen. Chive and I agree on something. Now, that
really puts the cat amongst the pigeons. You know what this means? Either
we are in collusion to appear to agree or Chive is really the greatest
corporate pysop of them all!! ;-)
David Ball
<dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
[..]
>>
>Yet I was responding to you on this issue - you brought it up. You can
>scramble all you want to try to worm out of your assertions. That does not
>make them any less false.
David, time for you to call it a day. Go through a list of
your posts and you'll see no science, but a whole lot of your endless
pissing contests with people. This is a science forum.
[..]
>>
>> You honestly don't get it, do you? Are you really that devoid
>> of understanding? Do you believe that one can't eat meat and respect
>> the world around them? ROTFL, yet again. David, we're going to have to
>> agree to disagree. You and I are on two different plains - yours is
>> full of fear of everything around you, fear that somehow your precious
>> freedom wll be taken away. Mine is a little more adult in that it
>> acknowledges the fact that other living things have a right to exist,
>> a right not bestowed by anything you or I do. You need to grow up.
>>
>Again you are the one misjudging. Respect does not require equity. If you
>eat meat and you don't consider humans to have any higher moral ground than
>the animals that you eat, then you logically can have no objection to eating
>humans. That may sound silly but it is a logical outcome of the philosophy
>that you have presented here. That you then respond by launching personal
>attacks that you can't back up is no surprise.
Morals are a human invention used to justify actions.
Predators have been killing prey since the dawn of time, without
having morals. It's the way they are. That's a fact of the natural
world - a natural world that humans, believe it or not, are a part of.
As far as canibalism goes, that is not a logical extension of
predation, though there are certainly cases of it in the natural
world. Of course, when you don't have an understanding of how things
work, and want to make a point, what you do is go from the sublime to
the ridiculous, which is exactly what you're doing here.
You are right in one respect, however, respect doesn't require
equity. The reverse is a necessary condition, though: equity requires
respect.
[..]
>>
>> Note the word control. Try reading what's posted, David,
>> instead of twisting it to your own "unique" vision.
>
>You are the one picking the single word out of context. I am simply pointing
> to the context. Really, who is trying to provide their "unique" vision to
>what was said?
Yawn...if you say so, David. Do you have some science to offer
here, or are we going to be treated to yet more of your moralizing?
[..]
>>
>> Maybe you should stick to consulting and leave atmospheric
>> science to people - the thousands of people who study it every day -
>> who know what the hell they're doing. Hazardous waste management is a
>> terrific field of study and when discussions about it come up, we'll
>> all listen attentively to your expert opinion. When alterations to
>> climate - suggested out of blind ignorance - come up, why not let
>> people who know what they're talking about answer the questions. I'd
>> be embarrassed to answer questions about hazardous waste as I know
>> next to nothing about it - kind of like you and atmospheric science.
>>
>I did not hear him suggest making any changes out of blind ignorance. He
>suggested research. You are the one who thinks that you already know all
>that can be known and don't think that any more can be learned. I think that
>if you look at my education that you will find that I actually have a fair
>bit of background relative to the issues. My degrees were designed around
>going into planetary sciences and I pursued a multidisciplinary background
>with that in mind. It has proven useful in other ways as well.
Close off the Bering Strait? Fertilize the Antarctic with
iron? You believe these are appropriate courses of action, David?
Human beings have a very good track record of fucking the atmosphere
and oceans up: acid rain, ozone depletion, climate change. Even when
we think we are doing the right thing, we invariably screw it up. How
many times did firefighters rush into Yellowstone Park to quell forest
fires, because we "knew" what was best for the forest, only to
discover that what we were doing was making a mess of things, because
the forest needed those periodic fires to stay healthy.
The problem, David, is that we seem to feel that we know
what's best for the natural world, despite the fact that it's gotten
along just fine without our "management" since the second that life
first developed. Whenever we try to manage or control something on a
large scale we discover to our wonder that our "control" was an
illusion and at the first possible opportunity, "control" slips
through our fingers.
As far as your experience goes, why not use your expertise
instead of wasting everyones time with your endless moralizing? You
discuss no science, you post no science, you offer no science. You do
spend endless amounts of bandwidth argueing endlessly with Chive, Eric
Swanson, myself and a dozen others who simply don't agree with your
view of the world.
>> >>
>> >> I have said that climate can't be controled, but it can be
>> >> altered through ignorance. Exactly where have I said that the sky is
>> >> falling? I have said many times that there are two sides to changing
>> >> climate - the sky is falling and let's fiddle while Rome burns -
>> >> neither of which is correct because there is a middle ground.
>> >
>> >Really? What is that?
>>
>> You need to have it explained again? How many times does it
>> have to be explained to you before you catch on? Tell you what, go
>> read some of the IPCC summaries for a start. I'm way too busy to hold
>> your hand again.
>>
>I was just asking what your "middle ground" was. I don't recall you ever
>explaining that to me. Your response suggests that you can't rather than
>simply not wanting to.
<sigh> A suitable middle ground would be to understand what
we're doing a little better and to make prudent changes in the way we
humans do things, based on that understanding, to mitigate our affects
on the climate system. We don't need either extreme: completely shut
down industry and economies or its equally unpalatable cousin,
unfettered industry and attempted economic growth at the expense of
the atmosphere/ocean system.
[..]
>> >
>> Flying is easy. Brain surgery is easy. Meteorology is
>> extremely hard and climate is an order of magnitude harder than that.
>
>We agree so far, but hard does not mean impossible. It was "hard" to fly one
>hundred years ago...
Understanding is hard. "Control" impossible. From the Feb
BAMMS:
Atmospheric Disturbances Caused by Human Modification of the
Landscape
Christopher P. Weaver and Roni Avissar
Center for Environmental Prediction, Rutgers–The State University
of New Jersey New Brunswick, New Jersey
ABSTRACT
This study documents significant atmospheric effects over the
U.S. central plains caused by human modification of the landscape.
Using observations and an atmospheric model, it is shown here that
diurnal, thermally induced circulations occur during summer over a 250
× 250 km region in Oklahoma and Kansas. Furthermore, it is shown that
the driving force behind these circulations is the landscape
heterogeneity resulting from differential land use patterns, that such
atmospheric phenomena are characteristic of surfaces with this type of
heterogeneity and not limited to infrequent days when unusual wind or
other meteorological conditions prevail, and that the net effect of
these motions is significant, not only locally, but also at the
regional and global scales.
The results are similar to a study conducted by a collegue of
mine who showed that changes in seasonal ground cover from natural
grasses to cereal grains on the Canadian Prairies affected not only
the distribution of seasonal precipitation but also the severity of
summer storms.
Given the inherent fragility of the climate system, how
exactly do you plan on controling it?
>
>> Unless you plan on establishing a totalitarian regime where you can
>> dictate exactly what every single person does, you can't control
>> climate. That's a fact. This is a science forum, David. Facts are good
>> here. You might try using some some time, instead of getting in these
>> endless pissing contests with everyone who doesn't share your "vision"
>> of how things should be done. Believe it or not, there is room in this
>> world for a lot of different opinions and no single persons view is
>> correct. I know, you don't like that either...live with the
>> disappointment.
>
>Wow, that first statement sounds an awful lot like someone opposing
>Kyoto...That you are again reduced to a personal attack is noted. That you
>are the one who is having difficulty accepting that there might be other
>points of view is also noted. Finally, that you found it necessary to clip
>portions of my prior response so as to avoid further embarassment is also
>noted.
Kyoto had many flaws, but at least some action was taken.
Whether that action was the correct one, we'll never know. The
alternative we're now presented with is do nothing and we know for a
fact that that action is not the correct one.
David, tell you what, when you post a science article or two
to this forum, or discuss what you've read in the same we'll talk
again. Until that time, the ONLY thing you're offering to this forum
is your personal little pissing contests and they waste everyones
time. Leave your moralizing at home, where it belongs. In short, use
this forum for what it is intended.
>
>> I'm reminded of another quote from the same period as Shaw,
>> though I can't remember who said it, "Thanks be to God that the Moon
>> and stars are out of reach of the grasping hand of Man."
>
>Yet we have gone to the moon - get it?
Duh, it was written at the beginning of the last century...get
it? Duh, maybe you missed the point of the quote...
>
>PS I note your careful clip of my question about the definition of "alive"
>in the context of the Earth. Not surprised, just that the implication is
>quite clear.
>
I gave it the attention it deserved, David...none.
Eric Swanson
>
>
>Eric Swanson <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
>news:9blnkk$bvmk$1...@news3.infoave.net...
>> In article <9blibe$rgc$1...@ins21.netins.net>, dgos...@gcisolutions.com
>says...
>> >
>> As for a motive, I just wanted to point out how silly the basic idea was.
>> There are probably lots of approaches that would work at ground level
>> with much less cost and greater ease of repair/replacement.
>>
>And yet you did it based on faulty numbers and assumptions. That does not
>sound like a way to be very convincing to me. Instead you have been forced
>to scramble and continue to come up with a whole host of problems that
>appear to be more a matter of technicality than the fundamental flaw that
>you originally tried to point to. I am not asserting that this is the answer
>nor do I think that John was. Simply, it is one of a number of options that
>needs to be explored and researched. I don't think that head in the sand
>attitude that you seem to display is a very constructive one.
What I showed is that there are many variables in the design of such a system.
You have offered an alternative value for one variable. When questioned,
you offered no information on the mass of the structure other than the
Mylar sheet. I still think that my estimate of the total mass of these
satellites would be a better guess than your non-existent numbers.
You will also note that Johne Morton has again chosen to stay silent.
David Ball
wrote:
>To make one point clear, I'm pro-human, modulo some, probably
>instinctive, prejudices against cruelty to animals. I don't think
>humanity owes any duty to other species. Instead of regarding
>humanity as an intruder on the earth, I regard the earth as humanity's
>garden, to be arranged as humanity sees fit.
I think you'll find, John, that there are many who would find
your POV twisted.
>
>Before humanity, there was no morality of any kind on this planet,
>because there were no minds.
Morality is an invention of those who want to justify the
things that they do: "you know, I have slaves because, well, those
people are just not as morally fit as I'am. They're sub-human." Does
that sound familiar? Does that sound scary?
>
>There is no coherent way of assigning rights to non-thinking beings.
>
>
Gee, it's a good thing that rights don't have to be bestowed
for them to exist. Rights are inherent. I don't need you to tell me
that I have the right to exist, or to breath. How arrogant! No wonder
you can contemplate tinkering with things you don't understand.
David Gossman
> In article <9blpj6$5i0$1...@ins21.netins.net>, dgos...@gcisolutions.com
says...
> >
> >
> >Eric Swanson <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
> >news:9blnkk$bvmk$1...@news3.infoave.net...
> >> In article <9blibe$rgc$1...@ins21.netins.net>, dgos...@gcisolutions.com
> >says...
> >> >
> [cut]
> >> As for a motive, I just wanted to point out how silly the basic idea
was.
> >> There are probably lots of approaches that would work at ground level
> >> with much less cost and greater ease of repair/replacement.
> >>
> >And yet you did it based on faulty numbers and assumptions. That does not
> >sound like a way to be very convincing to me. Instead you have been
forced
> >to scramble and continue to come up with a whole host of problems that
> >appear to be more a matter of technicality than the fundamental flaw that
> >you originally tried to point to. I am not asserting that this is the
answer
> >nor do I think that John was. Simply, it is one of a number of options
that
> >needs to be explored and researched. I don't think that head in the sand
> >attitude that you seem to display is a very constructive one.
>
> What I showed is that there are many variables in the design of such a
system.
You did not show that. You were pushed into it when your original simpleton
approach to trying to prove the concept as impossible did not bear out.
> You have offered an alternative value for one variable. When questioned,
> you offered no information on the mass of the structure other than the
> Mylar sheet. I still think that my estimate of the total mass of these
> satellites would be a better guess than your non-existent numbers.
Your numbers have been shown to be based on false assumptions - both the
weight of the film and the structure. That is all I needed to do. I would
not presume to do such a design exersise in a news group discussion. I am
aware that the complexity of such a study needed to provide realisitic
numbers would likely take years of study. We can conclude that you either
are unaware of such complexities or that you were simply trying to come up
with a predetermined solution.
>
> You will also note that Johne Morton has again chosen to stay silent.
Hardly the point.
David Gossman
David Gossman
Ian St. John <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:9blr52$1vrv$2...@news.tht.net...
duck the questions I ask - typical Ian, all he can do is launch personal
attacks.
David Gossman
Ian St. John
> instinctive, prejudices against cruelty to animals. I don't think
> humanity owes any duty to other species. Instead of regarding
> humanity as an intruder on the earth, I regard the earth as humanity's
> garden, to be arranged as humanity sees fit.
>
> Before humanity, there was no morality of any kind on this planet,
> because there were no minds.
>
> There is no coherent way of assigning rights to non-thinking beings.
Morality is about how 'rightly' we conduct *ourselves*. If we damage or
destroy a species, it is *our* morality that is damaged. We diminish
ourselves by our actions. Just as when we spurn our fellow man.
And the issue of 'rights' is bogus. Rights are a collection of tribal values
enforced by society. The 'rights' must stand on their own merit. You cannot
use them to 'justify' themselves. At one time, there was a 'right' to
mutilate slaves so they could not run away...
WesTralia
>
> On 18 Apr 2001 20:29:27 -0700, in article <x4h4rvl...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>,
> John wrote:
>
> >Before humanity, there was no morality of any kind on this planet,
> >because there were no minds.
>
> For a supposedly intelligent computer scientist, you're in actuality,
> an ignorant fool.
>
Ya just gotta love USENET! Where else in the universe can you find
someone who has made a significant contribution to society being called
a ignorant fool by a complete nobody parasitic leech of society!
Gotta love it!
--
WesTralia
If you study chimpanzees you will find that rape and murder are
quite common and I seriously doubt that they give any thought
to their environment.
But I digress and Chive has missed John's point. Without humanity
there is no morality so measuring any species morality is moot.
--
Eric Swanson
All systems designs begin with .some initial assumptions. That those
assumptions change as the design process progresses is normal.
>> You have offered an alternative value for one variable. When questioned,
>> you offered no information on the mass of the structure other than the
>> Mylar sheet. I still think that my estimate of the total mass of these
>> satellites would be a better guess than your non-existent numbers.
>
>Your numbers have been shown to be based on false assumptions - both the
>weight of the film and the structure. That is all I needed to do. I would
>not presume to do such a design exersise in a news group discussion. I am
>aware that the complexity of such a study needed to provide realisitic
>numbers would likely take years of study. We can conclude that you either
>are unaware of such complexities or that you were simply trying to come up
>with a predetermined solution.
No, you offered other assumptions, without proof. For example, your proposed
inflatable structure would likely be composed of cylindrical elements with
thin film stretched between. The next question would be, "What size and
configuration would these require?". And then "How much load would these
elements be subjected to?" and finally, "How much would these elements weigh?",
etc. It's an iterative process, which must be conducted many times before an
optimal conclusion is arrived at.
I began with the statement "Suppose you are using 6 mill plastic sheet".
I made no claim that my back-of-the-envelope estimate was more than a guess.
You continue to offer no supporting information, thus you have no complaint.
>> You will also note that Johne Morton has again chosen to stay silent.
>
>Hardly the point.
My first reply was to Mr. Morton, who has a habit of ignoring postings to
which he is unwilling or unable to reply.
Robert Grumbine
Eric Swanson <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote:
>However, the ice cores indicate a considerable influence of the shorter
>cycles of about 20,000 years duration. It's not just the 100,000 year
>cycle that is important.
That's part of what makes for the long insolation non-minimum.
Not only are there the 20, 40, 100 ky periods, but each of them
have a company of closely-related periods, and all are nested
inside longer periods (up to 4 My, if I remember correctly, for
eccentricity).
>Then, too, humanity has changed things so
>much in the past 10,000 years that all that paleoclimate research
>may be completely off base. For example, what was the effect of
>the removal of several species of large mammals from North America??
That's why I noted that it was for a Milankovitch prediction.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
David Gossman
Agreed, yet you tried to dismiss the whole concept with a simpleton
approach. Thanks for making my point.
>
> >> You have offered an alternative value for one variable. When
questioned,
> >> you offered no information on the mass of the structure other than the
> >> Mylar sheet. I still think that my estimate of the total mass of these
> >> satellites would be a better guess than your non-existent numbers.
> >
> >Your numbers have been shown to be based on false assumptions - both the
> >weight of the film and the structure. That is all I needed to do. I would
> >not presume to do such a design exersise in a news group discussion. I am
> >aware that the complexity of such a study needed to provide realisitic
> >numbers would likely take years of study. We can conclude that you either
> >are unaware of such complexities or that you were simply trying to come
up
> >with a predetermined solution.
>
> No, you offered other assumptions, without proof. For example, your
proposed
> inflatable structure would likely be composed of cylindrical elements with
> thin film stretched between. The next question would be, "What size and
> configuration would these require?". And then "How much load would these
> elements be subjected to?" and finally, "How much would these elements
weigh?",
> etc. It's an iterative process, which must be conducted many times before
an
> optimal conclusion is arrived at.
Again, thanks for making my point - it would take years to come up with an
adequate design.
>
> I began with the statement "Suppose you are using 6 mill plastic sheet".
> I made no claim that my back-of-the-envelope estimate was more than a
guess.
You used that as a basis for dismissing the concept entirely - using some
rather harsh terms in the process. Glad that you are now admitting it was
not a particularly valid exercise on your part. Do you always offer such
harsh critisism on such weak evidence?
>
> You continue to offer no supporting information, thus you have no
complaint.
I pointed to films that were orders of magnitude thinner. That was reason
enough to dimiss your original logic.
>
> >> You will also note that Johne Morton has again chosen to stay silent.
> >
> >Hardly the point.
>
> My first reply was to Mr. Morton, who has a habit of ignoring postings to
> which he is unwilling or unable to reply.
>
I guess I stepped in and he saw no need to do the battle with you. I find
these things a source of amusement. Some people don't like it when they are
simply bashed at with bad data and assumptions.
David Gossman
David Gossman
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:51:42 -0500, "David Gossman"
> <dgos...@gcisolutions.com> wrote:
>
> [..]
> >>
> >Yet I was responding to you on this issue - you brought it up. You can
> >scramble all you want to try to worm out of your assertions. That does
not
> >make them any less false.
>
> David, time for you to call it a day. Go through a list of
> your posts and you'll see no science, but a whole lot of your endless
> pissing contests with people. This is a science forum.
>
As toxicty, dioxins, PCP as a wood preservative, and others. Many of these
were not replied to. Apparently you missed them. The fact is that you should
look at your original post in this thread...
> >>
> >> You honestly don't get it, do you? Are you really that devoid
> >> of understanding? Do you believe that one can't eat meat and respect
> >> the world around them? ROTFL, yet again. David, we're going to have to
> >> agree to disagree. You and I are on two different plains - yours is
> >> full of fear of everything around you, fear that somehow your precious
> >> freedom wll be taken away. Mine is a little more adult in that it
> >> acknowledges the fact that other living things have a right to exist,
> >> a right not bestowed by anything you or I do. You need to grow up.
> >>
> >Again you are the one misjudging. Respect does not require equity. If you
> >eat meat and you don't consider humans to have any higher moral ground
than
> >the animals that you eat, then you logically can have no objection to
eating
> >humans. That may sound silly but it is a logical outcome of the
philosophy
> >that you have presented here. That you then respond by launching personal
> >attacks that you can't back up is no surprise.
>
> Morals are a human invention used to justify actions.
A typical head in the sand illogical approach. Certainly they have been used
for that but you limit yourself and your fellow humans to think that is the
extent of morals.
> Predators have been killing prey since the dawn of time, without
> having morals. It's the way they are. That's a fact of the natural
> world - a natural world that humans, believe it or not, are a part of.
> As far as canibalism goes, that is not a logical extension of
> predation, though there are certainly cases of it in the natural
> world. Of course, when you don't have an understanding of how things
> work, and want to make a point, what you do is go from the sublime to
> the ridiculous, which is exactly what you're doing here.
That is where your logic and assumptions took us. I agree and even pointed
out how ridiculous you were being. Glad you agree.
> You are right in one respect, however, respect doesn't require
> equity. The reverse is a necessary condition, though: equity requires
> respect.
>
I agree, yet you don't have enough respect for life forms you consider your
equal to not eat them. I guess, given your logic about morals that is no
surprise.
>
> >>
> >> Note the word control. Try reading what's posted, David,
> >> instead of twisting it to your own "unique" vision.
> >
> >You are the one picking the single word out of context. I am simply
pointing
> > to the context. Really, who is trying to provide their "unique" vision
to
> >what was said?
>
> Yawn...if you say so, David. Do you have some science to offer
> here, or are we going to be treated to yet more of your moralizing?
>
You started this - I just love following up when someone steps as deeply
into this as you did.
> >>
> >> Maybe you should stick to consulting and leave atmospheric
> >> science to people - the thousands of people who study it every day -
> >> who know what the hell they're doing. Hazardous waste management is a
> >> terrific field of study and when discussions about it come up, we'll
> >> all listen attentively to your expert opinion. When alterations to
> >> climate - suggested out of blind ignorance - come up, why not let
> >> people who know what they're talking about answer the questions. I'd
> >> be embarrassed to answer questions about hazardous waste as I know
> >> next to nothing about it - kind of like you and atmospheric science.
> >>
> >I did not hear him suggest making any changes out of blind ignorance. He
> >suggested research. You are the one who thinks that you already know all
> >that can be known and don't think that any more can be learned. I think
that
> >if you look at my education that you will find that I actually have a
fair
> >bit of background relative to the issues. My degrees were designed around
> >going into planetary sciences and I pursued a multidisciplinary
background
> >with that in mind. It has proven useful in other ways as well.
>
> Close off the Bering Strait? Fertilize the Antarctic with
> iron? You believe these are appropriate courses of action, David?
Not without further research and a demonstration of need.
> Human beings have a very good track record of fucking the atmosphere
> and oceans up: acid rain, ozone depletion, climate change. Even when
> we think we are doing the right thing, we invariably screw it up. How
> many times did firefighters rush into Yellowstone Park to quell forest
> fires, because we "knew" what was best for the forest, only to
> discover that what we were doing was making a mess of things, because
> the forest needed those periodic fires to stay healthy.
> The problem, David, is that we seem to feel that we know
> what's best for the natural world, despite the fact that it's gotten
> along just fine without our "management" since the second that life
> first developed.
Actually the record seems to show that it was almost wiped out a number of
times and without a gaurdian planet intelligent life would likely never have
developed. Now we have the choice of allowing things to occur by chance or
accident or to study and understand enough to build our own future as a
species. Your position is clear.
> Whenever we try to manage or control something on a
> large scale we discover to our wonder that our "control" was an
> illusion and at the first possible opportunity, "control" slips
> through our fingers.
The fallacy of the purely historical argument should be obvious to anyone
reading your post.
> As far as your experience goes, why not use your expertise
> instead of wasting everyones time with your endless moralizing? You
> discuss no science, you post no science, you offer no science. You do
> spend endless amounts of bandwidth argueing endlessly with Chive, Eric
> Swanson, myself and a dozen others who simply don't agree with your
> view of the world.
>
I jump in when you and others make outlandish statements and I do post
science as pointed out above. Your lies are noted. Are you suggesting that I
should not defend myself when posters like Chive launch personal attacks?
Are you trying to control what others post while not living with those rules
yourself? PS Morals are an important part of the application of science to
the real world problems. Would you not agee?
> >> >>
> >> >> I have said that climate can't be controled, but it can be
> >> >> altered through ignorance. Exactly where have I said that the sky is
> >> >> falling? I have said many times that there are two sides to changing
> >> >> climate - the sky is falling and let's fiddle while Rome burns -
> >> >> neither of which is correct because there is a middle ground.
> >> >
> >> >Really? What is that?
> >>
> >> You need to have it explained again? How many times does it
> >> have to be explained to you before you catch on? Tell you what, go
> >> read some of the IPCC summaries for a start. I'm way too busy to hold
> >> your hand again.
> >>
> >I was just asking what your "middle ground" was. I don't recall you ever
> >explaining that to me. Your response suggests that you can't rather than
> >simply not wanting to.
>
> <sigh> A suitable middle ground would be to understand what
> we're doing a little better and to make prudent changes in the way we
> humans do things, based on that understanding, to mitigate our affects
> on the climate system. We don't need either extreme: completely shut
> down industry and economies or its equally unpalatable cousin,
> unfettered industry and attempted economic growth at the expense of
> the atmosphere/ocean system.
>
All comes down to what you define as prudent - my guess is that everyone in
this group would have a different definition. At that point the discussion
is no longer science, is it? I will note for the record that your response
was so vague and nicely politically crafted that we still don't know where
you stand.
> >> >
> >> Flying is easy. Brain surgery is easy. Meteorology is
> >> extremely hard and climate is an order of magnitude harder than that.
> >
> >We agree so far, but hard does not mean impossible. It was "hard" to fly
one
> >hundred years ago...
>
> Understanding is hard. "Control" impossible. From the Feb
> BAMMS:
>
> Atmospheric Disturbances Caused by Human Modification of the
> Landscape
>
> Christopher P. Weaver and Roni Avissar
>
> Center for Environmental Prediction, Rutgers-The State University
> of New Jersey New Brunswick, New Jersey
>
> ABSTRACT
>
> This study documents significant atmospheric effects over the
> U.S. central plains caused by human modification of the landscape.
> Using observations and an atmospheric model, it is shown here that
> diurnal, thermally induced circulations occur during summer over a 250
> в 250 km region in Oklahoma and Kansas. Furthermore, it is shown that
> the driving force behind these circulations is the landscape
> heterogeneity resulting from differential land use patterns, that such
> atmospheric phenomena are characteristic of surfaces with this type of
> heterogeneity and not limited to infrequent days when unusual wind or
> other meteorological conditions prevail, and that the net effect of
> these motions is significant, not only locally, but also at the
> regional and global scales.
>
> The results are similar to a study conducted by a collegue of
> mine who showed that changes in seasonal ground cover from natural
> grasses to cereal grains on the Canadian Prairies affected not only
> the distribution of seasonal precipitation but also the severity of
> summer storms.
> Given the inherent fragility of the climate system, how
> exactly do you plan on controling it?
>
That is why we need the research that John originally suggested. He threw
out options, not solutions. You are making the argument that because we
don't have the answer that there is none. A clear falacy that is getting
rather tiresome in the need that you apparently have to hear it over and
over.
> >
> >> Unless you plan on establishing a totalitarian regime where you can
> >> dictate exactly what every single person does, you can't control
> >> climate. That's a fact. This is a science forum, David. Facts are good
> >> here. You might try using some some time, instead of getting in these
> >> endless pissing contests with everyone who doesn't share your "vision"
> >> of how things should be done. Believe it or not, there is room in this
> >> world for a lot of different opinions and no single persons view is
> >> correct. I know, you don't like that either...live with the
> >> disappointment.
> >
> >Wow, that first statement sounds an awful lot like someone opposing
> >Kyoto...That you are again reduced to a personal attack is noted. That
you
> >are the one who is having difficulty accepting that there might be other
> >points of view is also noted. Finally, that you found it necessary to
clip
> >portions of my prior response so as to avoid further embarassment is also
> >noted.
>
> Kyoto had many flaws, but at least some action was taken.
> Whether that action was the correct one, we'll never know. The
> alternative we're now presented with is do nothing and we know for a
> fact that that action is not the correct one.
We know that for a "fact"? Where do you get these "facts". The fact is that
it is easy to show that Kyoto was nothing more than a small delaying action
at most. At worst it was a scheme to shift wealth between nations ad
implement totalitarianism at the same time.
> David, tell you what, when you post a science article or two
> to this forum, or discuss what you've read in the same we'll talk
> again. Until that time, the ONLY thing you're offering to this forum
> is your personal little pissing contests and they waste everyones
> time. Leave your moralizing at home, where it belongs. In short, use
> this forum for what it is intended.
You first - remember you started with this approach in this thread. And
please feel free to comment on the As toxicity issue or others that have
been posted.
> >
> >> I'm reminded of another quote from the same period as Shaw,
> >> though I can't remember who said it, "Thanks be to God that the Moon
> >> and stars are out of reach of the grasping hand of Man."
> >
> >Yet we have gone to the moon - get it?
>
> Duh, it was written at the beginning of the last century...get
> it? Duh, maybe you missed the point of the quote...
>
I got it - I think that you did not. The quote is a fallacy. We got to the
moon and no harm done.
> >
> >PS I note your careful clip of my question about the definition of
"alive"
> >in the context of the Earth. Not surprised, just that the implication is
> >quite clear.
> >
> I gave it the attention it deserved, David...none.
In other words the logic that would have been thrown back at you was to
embarrassing to want to deal with so you launch another personal attack
instead and thereby demonstrate your own hypocrisy at requesting that I
stick to science. PS Asking for definitions of terms is part of science -
sorry to see that you were not willing to participate but I do understand
your reasons.
David Gossman