Runaway Global Warming Possible!
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050124/full/050124-10.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=7440023
http://www.physorg.com/news2831.html
http://www.climateprediction.net
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
Tell it to New England.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
relay61:13:214:23
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <crac...@everywhere.net> wrote in message
news:41F80464...@everywhere.net...
The time frame is intentionally unclear, BBC says 11 degrees hotter C in
about 100 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210629.stm
how sensitive is the prediction 0.01 degree C per year?
We could simply cool the earth down by covering India with Al foil and
reflecting the heat back out to space.
oğin
"Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an injection
of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the
temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says
Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics could
not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the
models.
There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says. The
climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9°C to 11.5°C. "The
uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles Allen."
Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me...
G_cowboy_is_that_a_Gnu_Hurd?
--
You've got the rotting tundra
You've got the loss of albedo from polar ice caps
You've got the loss of albedo from high altitude glaciers
You've got urbanization and deforestation
-gcitagh
-------------------
Http://techlobyte.tripod.com
Ian Stirling
>>> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934
>
> "Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an injection
> of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the
> temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says
> Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics could
> not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the
> models.
>
> There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says. The
>
> Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me...
If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it makes
sense to discard them.
(It makes more sense to fix the model)
Rand Simberg
"relay61:13:214:23" <nos...@nospam.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
<VOICE="Monty Python Characters">
Runaway!
RUNAWAY!!!!!
</VOICE>
Arthur Hansen
altering our weather patterns to cool off the Earth if absolutely
necessary.
Living during a nuclear winter might suck, but it beats everything
dying.
oğin
>> injection
>> of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the
>> temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says
>> Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics
>> could
>> not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the
>> models.
>>
>> There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says.
>> The
>> climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9?C to 11.5?C.
>> "The
>> uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles
>> Allen."
>>
>> Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me...
>
> If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it
> makes
> sense to discard them.
Pffft. Well that is not science. Ever heard of The Michelson-Morley
Experiment? The problem most people had with it was that it *seemed* wrong.
The strength that Einstein had over others was that he took the experimental
result at face value. There were many others as smart or smarter than
Einstein, but Einstein was not entrenched in preconceived notions. Others
wasted time trying to see how the experiment must be flawed. It was not
flawed.
oğin
> makes
> sense to discard them.
> (It makes more sense to fix the model)
Yes. Fix the broken model. If the model causes you to through out cold
results, you should not trust the warm results either. A model should be
taken all or nothing. A model that is broken is a waste of CPU cycles.
jonathan
"oğin" <oği...@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:eJ-dnQvqH5E...@whidbeytel.com...
The problem with these models is they don't include
Darwin. Life is becoming a primary driving force
for global climate change. Life is the source of change
and the source of the solution. Without including all the
complexities of life, politics, public opinion etc
the models are grossly simplified and
incomplete.
Number crunching climate change is little different
than number crunching a thunderstorm. Far more
accurate and insightful information can be gained
from simply watching the radar loops. From watching
the large scale patterns and behavior of the few
primary forces, rather than trying to predict the
motion of each air molecule. The butterfly effect
clearly demonstrates the folly of long term numerical
prediction of a thermodynamic system.
A system dominated by geology, impacts etc will
tend to display chaotic behavior, with large quick swings
from one extreme to the other. Interspersed with long
periods of static behavior.
A system dominated by life....Darwin....typically moves
steadily towards, then oscillates quickly around, the
optimum.
The primary variable is life...nature. Or how far or close
to a naturally evolving system will life on earth become.
A Natural society is a full democracy, the most adaptive
and powerful force for stability and creativity in the
known universe.
So it will be through the expansion and dominance of free
democracies that global climate problems will be solved.
The cure for climate change is political, not scientific.
Stop number-crunching, it's a waste of time. Place your faith
in Nature and champion the spread of democracy. The cure
for /all/ that ails this planet lies there.
Jonathan
s
>
>
Midtown
"jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote in message news:41f86...@127.0.0.1...
>
> "oğin" <oği...@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
> news:eJ-dnQvqH5E...@whidbeytel.com...
> > >> "Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an
> > >> injection
> > >> of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the
> > >> temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism,
says
The equation the used
Increase in temperature in 100 years = 25 C + (1+a) ^ 100
where a = 0.001 +- 0.1 the growth rate per year with "statistical noise"
George
"jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote in message news:41f86...@127.0.0.1...
>
What the fuck are you babbling about now, Jonathan? Becoming? Life has been
changing the global climate, the ocean chemistry, and the very ground you walk
on since the fist microbe released it's first puff of gas into the atmosphere at
least 3.5 billiob years ago. Becoming? Life has been a primary driving force
on the planet nearly since it first coalesced into a planet.
Mike Rhino
news:41F813D2...@hate.spam.net...
> Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> [snip crap]
>
> Tell it to New England.
There is a difference between amount of snow and temperature. Lots of snow
does not contradict global warming. It's just one place and one week. The
overall average temperature could still go up.
James Annan
relay61:13:214:23 wrote:
>
> The time frame is intentionally unclear, BBC says 11 degrees hotter
C in
> about 100 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210629.stm
>
> how sensitive is the prediction 0.01 degree C per year?
There is not really any specific time frame for these calculations.
They are an estimate of the quasi steady-state warming at 2xco2 (ie
570ppm or something - ie 2x the preindustrial state, not 2x today).
Which is a standard value used for assessing the magnitude of climate
change but not a forecast for a specific year. However, if you assume
90 more years at 0.5% cumulative growth in co2, then add another couple
of decades or so to get the upper ocean into quasi-equilibrium, and in
fact it is probably in the right ballpark (the time scale to 2xco2
climate, not the 11C warming itself!).
James
Paul Blay
> We could simply cool the earth down by covering India with Al foil and
> reflecting the heat back out to space.
'simply' huh?
Ian Stirling
Yes.
There are a number of ways to cool the earth that would cost less than
an 11C uncontrolled climate change.
From orbiting sun-shades on down.
Paul Blay
None of which get the adjective 'simple' particularly if the way chosen
is covering India with Al foil. Simple-minded I'll grant.
tadchem
There is an implicit assumption (not yet justified) that climate change
(especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.
Shortly after the end of the last glaciation there was a period in
which the globe was approximately 5° C warmer than it is now and sea
levels were several meters higher.
It is known to anthropologists and archaeologists as the "Holocene
thermal optimum" and was also a time of much greater biomass, the
Sahara grasslands, and much larger forests. Agriculture flourished,
people built cities and learned to write, and trading became
commonplace. The Stone age was supplanted by the Dawn of Civilization.
All without fossil fuel consumption...
When circumstances do not change, adaptation ceases. When adaptation
ceases, species stagnate and become more vulnerable to change.
Change is inevitable. Adapt or die.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Paul Blay
> Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> >
> > http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050124/full/050124-10.html
> >
> > http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934
> >
> > http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=7440023
> >
> > http://www.physorg.com/news2831.html
> >
> > http://www.climateprediction.net
> >
> > Thomas Lee Elifritz
> > http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
>
> There is an implicit assumption (not yet justified) that climate change
> (especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.
There is a working hypothesis on which many studies have been done
that effects of climate change (especially 'global warming') to date
and as predicted to proceed from now have already had and will continue
to have significant negative impact over and above any positive effect.
tadchem
Paul Blay wrote:
<snip repost>
> There is a working hypothesis on which many studies have been done
> that effects of climate change (especially 'global warming') to date
> and as predicted to proceed from now have already had and will
continue
> to have significant negative impact over and above any positive
effect.
"Seek and ye shall find." - Matthew 7:7
You write of "a working hypothesis ... that effects of climate change
... have already had and will continue to have significant negative
impact over and above any positive effect".
That is not good science - it is religion. I would expect something
like this from the proponents of 'creation science', not climatologists
or bio-ecologists. It leads the 'investigator' to bias in data. Data
that fails to validate the hypothesis is not reported and therefore is
unknown to or ignired by later investigators.
A good working hypothesis is unbiased.
What is needed is a "working hypothesis" that seeks to quantify the
effects of climate change *without* the built-in prejudice that
specific impacts are either negative or positive.
Every species that becomes extinct opens up an ecological niche into
which another species may evolve.
Change is inevitable; resist it at your own peril.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Thomas Lee Elifritz
tadchem wrote:
> There is an implicit assumption (not yet justified) that climate change
> (especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.
>
> Shortly after the end of the last glaciation there was a period in
> which the globe was approximately 5° C warmer than it is now and sea
> levels were several meters higher.
You exaggerate obsolete data. Your sea level claims are just plain wrong too.
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/shighlight/archive03/davis.html
Human population during this time was very low.
Thomas Palm
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> There is an implicit assumption (not yet justified) that climate change
> (especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.
Since we've adapted our civilization to the current climate any change will
be bad. Are todays sea levels optimum? Perhaps not, but moving all port
cities if it changes is going to be horribly expensive. What about flood
plains located just about sea level. What will people who live there do if
sea levels rise?
The Ancient One
"Mike Rhino" <octob...@alexanderpics.com> wrote in message
news:pA%Jd.2829$d12....@twister.socal.rr.com...
This was the first year since record keeping began in 1870 that Indianapolis
made it through the entire year without reaching 90F even once. ;-)
Harold Brooks
onlyt...@thetopknows.com says...
And still managed to average 1 F above normal for the year.
--
Harold Brooks
hebrooks87 hotmail.com
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> We could simply cool the earth down by covering India with Al foil
and
> reflecting the heat back out to space.
Socks
maison.mousse
Harold Brooks a écrit dans le message ...
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.1
http://climate.uah.edu/dec2004.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ipcc12.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2001/ann/msustrat2001_pg.gif
http://wwwagwx.ca.uky.edu/all_ky_temp.txt
http://www.co2science.org
http://www.sepp.org/scirsrch/EOS1999.html
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/inuvik.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/fairbnk1.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/cet-1659.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/de-bilt.gif
oğin
>> Indianapolis
>> made it through the entire year without reaching 90F even once. ;-)
>>
>
> And still managed to average 1 F above normal for the year.
What is normal for the year?
oğin
>> (especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.
>>
>> Shortly after the end of the last glaciation there was a period in
>> which the globe was approximately 5° C warmer than it is now and sea
>> levels were several meters higher.
>
> You exaggerate obsolete data. Your sea level claims are just plain wrong
> too.
>
> http://www.pages.unibe.ch/shighlight/archive03/davis.html
How do you know that he is exaggerating obsolete data? You know the truth?
Pftttt!
> Human population during this time was very low.
What does that have to do with anything?
oğin
>> (especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.
>
> Since we've adapted our civilization to the current climate any change
> will
> be bad.
Why? Would we not adapt to change? Yuo seem to be saying that we have done
so in the past.
> Are todays sea levels optimum? Perhaps not, but moving all port
> cities if it changes is going to be horribly expensive.
It is the expense that worris you? Reducing C02 would also be expensive, and
have an impact sooner.
> What about flood
> plains located just about sea level. What will people who live there do if
> sea levels rise?
They will do like the Dutch or the Venetians, or they will migrate.
Harold Brooks
says...
52.5 F.
You can get all of the climate data for Indianapolis from the local
weather service office web site:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ind/cli.php
oğin
"Harold Brooks" <hebro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c62e826b...@news.individual.net...
In article <e_2dnaHeZtY...@whidbeytel.com>, oği...@ragnarok.com
says...
> >> This was the first year since record keeping began in 1870 that
> >> Indianapolis
> >> made it through the entire year without reaching 90F even once. ;-)
> >>
> >
> > And still managed to average 1 F above normal for the year.
>
> What is normal for the year?
>
>
>
52.5 F.
That is an average over what period?
jo...@curtis.ms
>
> There is an implicit assumption (not yet justified) that climate
change
> (especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.
>
Contrary to expectation, ocean warming preceded global warming.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:_aOxAk6pboUJ:climateark.org/articles/2000/1st/stfindal.htm+%22increase+in+subsurface+ocean+temperatures+preceded+the+observed+warming+of+surface+air%22&hl=en
or
http://climateark.org/articles/2000/1st/stfindal.htm
There are 75000 km of midocean ridges capable of hydrothermal
venting (400C) as exemplified by the Arctic ridge:
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2003/pressRelease20030718/index.html
Warmer oceans generate more clouds and snow which reflect sunlight
and lead to global cooling which, if unchecked, leads to snowball
Earth.
John Curtis
Coby Beck
"tadchem" <thomas....@dla.mil> wrote in message
news:1106838542.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> January 26, 2005
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050124/full/050124-10.html
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934
>
>
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=7440023
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news2831.html
>
> http://www.climateprediction.net
>
> Thomas Lee Elifritz
> http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
..There is an implicit assumption (not yet justified) that climate change
..(especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.
I don't think this is assumed, it is hypothesized and supported with
evidence and model predictions.
..Shortly after the end of the last glaciation there was a period in
..which the globe was approximately 5° C warmer than it is now and sea
..levels were several meters higher.
..
..It is known to anthropologists and archaeologists as the "Holocene
..thermal optimum" and was also a time of much greater biomass, the
..Sahara grasslands, and much larger forests. Agriculture flourished,
..people built cities and learned to write, and trading became
..commonplace. The Stone age was supplanted by the Dawn of Civilization.
One *very* sgnificant factor you are ignoring is the speed of change. If
the change in climate is too sudden, it has a drastic effect on all living
organisms. This has been observed at many times in geological history.
Also, the speed of recovery, and yes, perhaps tremendous improvement (but
whatever measure you might choose) is *very* slow by human standards, ie
millions of years, (rather longer than the term of any political leader
anyway).
..All [flourishing, building, dawning] without fossil fuel consumption...
Can you clarify what you mean by this comment?
..When circumstances do not change, adaptation ceases. When adaptation
..ceases, species stagnate and become more vulnerable to change.
..Change is inevitable. Adapt or die.
I agree. But this is true on geological timescales, not on the scale of
decades.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
Lloyd Parker
"tadchem" <thomas....@dla.mil> wrote:
>
>Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
>> January 26, 2005
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050124/full/050124-10.html
>>
>> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934
>>
>>
>http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=7440023
>>
>> http://www.physorg.com/news2831.html
>>
>> http://www.climateprediction.net
>>
>> Thomas Lee Elifritz
>> http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
>
>There is an implicit assumption (not yet justified) that climate change
>(especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.
>
Well, the adverse consequences sure outweigh any possible beneficial ones.
>Shortly after the end of the last glaciation there was a period in
>which the globe was approximately 5° C warmer than it is now and sea
>levels were several meters higher.
Was human civilization (i.e., electric power, computers, communication,
commerce, etc.) thriving then?
>
>It is known to anthropologists and archaeologists as the "Holocene
>thermal optimum" and was also a time of much greater biomass, the
>Sahara grasslands, and much larger forests. Agriculture flourished,
>people built cities and learned to write, and trading became
>commonplace. The Stone age was supplanted by the Dawn of Civilization.
And you seem to want to return us to those days.
The Ancient One
If that's Global Warming I'm all for it. ;-)
Rand Simberg
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>There is an implicit assumption (not yet justified) that climate change
>>(especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.
>>
>
>Well, the adverse consequences sure outweigh any possible beneficial ones.
How do you know that? Do you have a list of both, with quantification
of their economic consequences?
Harold Brooks
says...
>
> "Harold Brooks" <hebro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c62e826b...@news.individual.net...
> says...
> > >> This was the first year since record keeping began in 1870 that
> > >> Indianapolis
> > >> made it through the entire year without reaching 90F even once. ;-)
> > >>
> > >
> > > And still managed to average 1 F above normal for the year.
> >
> > What is normal for the year?
> >
> >
> >
>
> 52.5 F.
>
> That is an average over what period?
1971-2000. The standard averaging period is the last 30 years ending in
0.
Harold
Lloyd Parker
Lloyd Parker
"oğin" <oği...@ragnarok.com> wrote:
>>> There is an implicit assumption (not yet justified) that climate change
>>> (especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.
>>
>> Since we've adapted our civilization to the current climate any change
>> will
>> be bad.
>
>Why? Would we not adapt to change? Yuo seem to be saying that we have done
>so in the past.
OK, we'll put you in charge of relocating Bangla Desh.
Rand Simberg
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>> Since we've adapted our civilization to the current climate any change
>>> will
>>> be bad.
>>
>>Why? Would we not adapt to change? Yuo seem to be saying that we have done
>>so in the past.
>
>OK, we'll put you in charge of relocating Bangla Desh.
Or using the Dutch solution.
oğin
>
> That is an average over what period?
1971-2000. The standard averaging period is the last 30 years ending in
0.
So based on a record of 30 years, you can say what is normal?
oğin
A one meter rise over 100 years... is that so hard?
BillC
The Ancient One
"Lloyd Parker" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:ctbc1q$50t$2...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
Learn some science Lloyd, You've been shot down every time you've reared
your scaly head. Don't make me call Emory again. :p
BillC
"oğin" <oği...@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:yu-dnX4VGp8...@whidbeytel.com...
No, he can't, it's too short a period. And a more intelligent consideration,
even within just 30 years of data, would be how many standard deviations
from average is what he's claiming as an anomalous year.
>
>
The Ancient One
In article <B5-dnfJYEIV...@whidbeytel.com>, oği...@ragnarok.com
says...
>
> "Harold Brooks" <hebro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c62e826b...@news.individual.net...
> says...
> > >> This was the first year since record keeping began in 1870 that
> > >> Indianapolis
> > >> made it through the entire year without reaching 90F even once. ;-)
> > >>
> > >
> > > And still managed to average 1 F above normal for the year.
> >
> > What is normal for the year?
> >
> >
> >
>
> 52.5 F.
>
> That is an average over what period?
1971-2000. The standard averaging period is the last 30 years ending in
0.
Harold
Interesting that during the 70's and 80's it was below normal
temperatures here, don't suppose that could have anything to do with it
though. ;)
In fact during the 70's it was so cold Globally that NOAA scientists
said we were heading into another ice age, and wanted to dust down the polar
ice caps with ash to melt them and avert the catastophe that they were
positive was coming, with millions of people starving to death when it
became to cold to grow crops in the USA. I used to have the link to the
article but lost it in a computer crash.
Now it warms up one or two degrees and they reverse themselves, now it's
Global Warming instead of cooling, and they are still predicting
catastrophes. Ignore them, and I predict in another 30 years the Climate
will still be about the same, fluctuating up and down as it always has.
Some people just aren't happy unless they are worried about something, I
won't worry about this, whatever it does it will seem normal at the time,
and life will continue as normal.
Coby Beck
>
> Paul Blay wrote:
>> There is a working hypothesis on which many studies have been done
>> that effects of climate change (especially 'global warming') to date
>> and as predicted to proceed from now have already had and will
> continue
>> to have significant negative impact over and above any positive
> effect.
> You write of "a working hypothesis ... that effects of climate change
> ... have already had and will continue to have significant negative
> impact over and above any positive effect".
>
> That is not good science - it is religion. I would expect something
You have not presented any reason to say such a thing. Doesn't it depend on
the observational support your hypothesis has?
> A good working hypothesis is unbiased.
Yes. So where is your evidence that the hypothesis you characterize as
religious is not unbiased?
> What is needed is a "working hypothesis" that seeks to quantify the
> effects of climate change *without* the built-in prejudice that
> specific impacts are either negative or positive.
Who disagrees?
> Every species that becomes extinct opens up an ecological niche into
> which another species may evolve.
Again your problem is ignoring the time scales. Extinctions are happening
over decades. Evolving into a new niche requires much more time.
> Change is inevitable; resist it at your own peril.
I agree heartily. Let's change our social and economic dependence on
unsustainable and self-destructive usages of fossil fuels.
Thomas Palm
news:428365aa....@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
OK, then we set you in charge of constructing a "Dutch solution" for
Bangladesh. Make sure to include plans for how you are going to pump out
water from one of the major rivers of the Earth, what you will do with all
sediment the river carries, how long this dam needs to be, and not to
forget, who will pay for this megaproject. Bangladesh can't afford it, and
the global warming isn't their fault anyway.
Thomas Palm
h...@whidbeytel.com:
>> OK, we'll put you in charge of relocating Bangla Desh.
>
> A one meter rise over 100 years... is that so hard?
In some low lying areas, yes. Unfortunately these areas tend to be very
fertile and thus densely populated.
Coby Beck
Doesn't it make a bit more sense than checking the highest temperature
reached all year? What would be a convincing method for you? Devise it,
check it out and let us know what the temperature trend is in Indianapolis
(and how you arrived at it, please).
oğin
>
> I agree heartily. Let's change our social and economic dependence on
> unsustainable and self-destructive usages of fossil fuels.
How?
oğin
>>>
>>> That is an average over what period?
>>
>>
>> 1971-2000. The standard averaging period is the last 30 years ending in
>> 0.
>>
>> So based on a record of 30 years, you can say what is normal?
>
> Doesn't it make a bit more sense than checking the highest temperature
> reached all year?
Yes. It does make more sense than checking the highest temperature in a
single year.
> What would be a convincing method for you?
I know of no such method. Not every question has an answer.
> Devise it, check it out and let us know what the temperature trend is in
> Indianapolis (and how you arrived at it, please).
I have no way to do that. But I do think that temps have been much higher
and much lower in the past. The problem is what does normal mean.
oğin
"Thomas Palm" <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message
news:Xns95EBD5D78A636T...@212.83.64.229...
OK. Do you think that first world people will generally be willing to
sacrafice energy-based comfort so that third world people *might* not have
to die 100 years from now?
Thomas Palm
news:lKedndyTmr1...@whidbeytel.com:
>>> There is an implicit assumption (not yet justified) that climate
>>> change (especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.
>>
>> Since we've adapted our civilization to the current climate any
>> change will
>> be bad.
>
> Why? Would we not adapt to change? Yuo seem to be saying that we have
> done so in the past.
We can adapt, but given high population levels and much fixed
infrastructure it is going to be extremely expensive. Add in that the
effects will strike very differently in different areas and there will be
need for large migration. Unfortunately there are borders along the way,
and major population movements tends to cause wars, and that's when
things start to get *really* expensive. Then some people are going to
want to punish those responsible for the disaster that has befallen their
countries, and those people by then may have access to nukes and then
things can get really nasty.
Another problem is how nature will cope with rapid climate change. This
change is so fast that even under the best of circumstances many species
would find it hard to migrate fast enough to survive. (many plants have
seeds that disperse short distances and really can't move quickly).
Unfortunately this isn't the best of circumstances, humans have
fragmented natural areas, which means that there will be no paths for
many species to migrate as climate zones shift. This means that the mass
extinction that is already going on will speed up further.
>> Are todays sea levels optimum? Perhaps not, but moving all port
>> cities if it changes is going to be horribly expensive.
>
> It is the expense that worris you? Reducing C02 would also be
> expensive, and have an impact sooner.
Reducing CO2 cost a lot less expensive than you think, especially if you
live in a country that hasn't taken even basic measures to reduce
emissions. (I happen to live in Sweden and we did the simplest stuff
decades ago which made CO2 emissions drop by 30%). You can do a lot at a
net economic gain. Having people buy smaller cars saves both money and
the environment, for example.
>> What about flood
>> plains located just about sea level. What will people who live there
>> do if sea levels rise?
>
> They will do like the Dutch or the Venetians, or they will migrate.
To where? In Bangladesh there are about 20 million people who may need to
migrate and in China a similar number. How many of them are welcome where
you live? (And I hope you are ready to pay the ticket too, these are poor
farmers).
Rand Simberg
Palm <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>> Since we've adapted our civilization to the current climate any
>>>>> change will
>>>>> be bad.
>>>>
>>>>Why? Would we not adapt to change? Yuo seem to be saying that we have
>>>>done so in the past.
>>>
>>>OK, we'll put you in charge of relocating Bangla Desh.
>>
>> Or using the Dutch solution.
>
>OK, then we set you in charge of constructing a "Dutch solution" for
>Bangladesh. Make sure to include plans for how you are going to pump out
>water from one of the major rivers of the Earth, what you will do with all
>sediment the river carries, how long this dam needs to be, and not to
>forget, who will pay for this megaproject.
Sounds like an interesting technical challenge. Certainly not an
insurmountable one (it wouldn't be a dam, it would be a dyke).
>Bangladesh can't afford it, and
>the global warming isn't their fault anyway.
If we implement nonsense like Kyoto, no one will be able to afford it.
If the West is responsible for it, then the West can provide foreign
aid and technical advice to mitigate it. We'll have a big problem
here in South Florida as well. We'll just continue to build up, and
build canals, and we'll be able to afford it because we haven't
pauperized ourselves with mindless and hysterical "solutions."
oğin
> infrastructure it is going to be extremely expensive. Add in that the
> effects will strike very differently in different areas and there will be
> need for large migration. Unfortunately there are borders along the way,
> and major population movements tends to cause wars, and that's when
> things start to get *really* expensive. Then some people are going to
> want to punish those responsible for the disaster that has befallen their
> countries, and those people by then may have access to nukes and then
> things can get really nasty.
Yes. I think you are right about all that. That is what I expect to see.
Much the same as we have seen for several thousand years. The real problem
is not global weather change, or sea level change, etc. The real problem is
human population growth. All the things you talk about will happen
regardless of weather.
> Another problem is how nature will cope with rapid climate change. This
> change is so fast that even under the best of circumstances many species
> would find it hard to migrate fast enough to survive. (many plants have
> seeds that disperse short distances and really can't move quickly).
> Unfortunately this isn't the best of circumstances, humans have
> fragmented natural areas, which means that there will be no paths for
> many species to migrate as climate zones shift. This means that the mass
> extinction that is already going on will speed up further.
Yes. Just like 65 million years ago, and to an even bigger extent, 248
million years ago. Even just 20,000 years ago, we had an ice age that kicked
a few species out of the game. Global warming over the next 100 years will
not result in those kinds of extictions, IMO. Shit happens.
> Reducing CO2 cost a lot less expensive than you think, especially if you
> live in a country that hasn't taken even basic measures to reduce
> emissions. (I happen to live in Sweden and we did the simplest stuff
> decades ago which made CO2 emissions drop by 30%). You can do a lot at a
> net economic gain. Having people buy smaller cars saves both money and
> the environment, for example.
Yes. I agree. I produce far less CO2 than most people in my country. Sweden
is doing a good job too. But it is not going to fly with the US or the third
world.
> To where? In Bangladesh there are about 20 million people who may need to
> migrate and in China a similar number. How many of them are welcome where
> you live? (And I hope you are ready to pay the ticket too, these are poor
> farmers).
No. I will not privide any tickets for train, bus, or plane. That would
contribute to CO2!!!
Thomas Palm
news:9dSdnUCaY55...@whidbeytel.com:
I'm certainly willing to sacrifice a little bit of luxuries to help provide
decent conditions for future generations. You make it sound as we'd have to
move back into caves.
Thomas Palm
news:KoWdnSdy06X...@whidbeytel.com:
>> We can adapt, but given high population levels and much fixed
>> infrastructure it is going to be extremely expensive. Add in that the
>> effects will strike very differently in different areas and there
>> will be need for large migration. Unfortunately there are borders
>> along the way, and major population movements tends to cause wars,
>> and that's when things start to get *really* expensive. Then some
>> people are going to want to punish those responsible for the disaster
>> that has befallen their countries, and those people by then may have
>> access to nukes and then things can get really nasty.
>
> Yes. I think you are right about all that. That is what I expect to
> see. Much the same as we have seen for several thousand years. The
> real problem is not global weather change, or sea level change, etc.
> The real problem is human population growth. All the things you talk
> about will happen regardless of weather.
To some extend there will be problems even without global warming, but it
will make those problems a lot worse. Global warming would be a problem
even if population growth stopped today.
> Yes. Just like 65 million years ago, and to an even bigger extent, 248
> million years ago. Even just 20,000 years ago, we had an ice age that
> kicked a few species out of the game. Global warming over the next 100
> years will not result in those kinds of extictions, IMO. Shit happens.
Shit happens occasionally, but that doesn't mean that we should cause it.
Everyone will die eventually, but if you shoot someone that argument is
unlikely to impress the court.
>> Reducing CO2 cost a lot less expensive than you think, especially if
>> you live in a country that hasn't taken even basic measures to reduce
>> emissions. (I happen to live in Sweden and we did the simplest stuff
>> decades ago which made CO2 emissions drop by 30%). You can do a lot
>> at a net economic gain. Having people buy smaller cars saves both
>> money and the environment, for example.
>
> Yes. I agree. I produce far less CO2 than most people in my country.
> Sweden is doing a good job too. But it is not going to fly with the US
> or the third world.
It may not fly in USA at the mnoment for political reasons, but that
doesn't change the fact that USA could reduce its emissions a lot at a
small cost, according to some calculations even with a net profit. Since
the third world already emits a lot less per capita we don't really have
any exuse for putting caps on them at the moment. On the other hand, if
industrialized countries develop efficient technologies to meet their own
obligations to reduce emissions that technology will trickle down to
poorer countries and reduce their emissions too.
>> To where? In Bangladesh there are about 20 million people who may
>> need to migrate and in China a similar number. How many of them are
>> welcome where you live? (And I hope you are ready to pay the ticket
>> too, these are poor farmers).
>
> No. I will not privide any tickets for train, bus, or plane. That
> would contribute to CO2!!!
It's simple, just avoid a similar amount of travel yourself and you've
compensated for it.
Coby Beck
That is a completely seperate topic, and one about which I don't have much
hope anyway. You have removed all of the relevant context in which the
comment was made without adding any of your own and thus it is really hard
to know your motive in asking.
But tell me, are you asking because you agree we should change this and want
to know how we can, or are you asking so you can shoot down any proposal to
thereby pre-emptively avoid having to admit there is a problem any way?
This question is not intended as any insult and I'm not interested enough to
research your past posts to get my own idea about what you really mean, but
it is a very common tactic in these endless political change debates to
avoid having to admit there is a problem by saying we could not do anything
about it any way.
I am really not interested in discussing possible social and economic change
with anyone who holds contempt for the belief we need it.
Coby Beck
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:428774fa....@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:00:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Thomas
> Palm <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> made the phosphor on my
> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>>OK, then we set you in charge of constructing a "Dutch solution" for
>>Bangladesh. Make sure to include plans for how you are going to pump out
>>water from one of the major rivers of the Earth, what you will do with all
>>sediment the river carries, how long this dam needs to be, and not to
>>forget, who will pay for this megaproject.
>
> Sounds like an interesting technical challenge. Certainly not an
> insurmountable one (it wouldn't be a dam, it would be a dyke).
LOL! Spoken with the flip self-confidence only ignorance can provide.
>>Bangladesh can't afford it, and
>>the global warming isn't their fault anyway.
>
> If we implement nonsense like Kyoto, no one will be able to afford it.
Yes, human society has never survived or progressed without massive
consumption of oil, nor could it ever. If we stop burning oil, we will all
live in poverty and despair. Talk about mindless and hysterical.
> pauperized ourselves with mindless and hysterical "solutions."
--
Coby Beck
Firstly, this is a false dichotomy. There are more choices than just "burn
oil, live in comfort" and "don't burn oil, live in discomfort". But to take
your question at its face, no, I don't. People are far to selfish. So
what's your point?
Rand Simberg
Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>>>OK, then we set you in charge of constructing a "Dutch solution" for
>>>Bangladesh. Make sure to include plans for how you are going to pump out
>>>water from one of the major rivers of the Earth, what you will do with all
>>>sediment the river carries, how long this dam needs to be, and not to
>>>forget, who will pay for this megaproject.
>>
>> Sounds like an interesting technical challenge. Certainly not an
>> insurmountable one (it wouldn't be a dam, it would be a dyke).
>
>LOL! Spoken with the flip self-confidence only ignorance can provide.
??
What's ignorant about it? Have you done an analysis to indicate
otherwise? Could you provide a cite for it?
>>>Bangladesh can't afford it, and
>>>the global warming isn't their fault anyway.
>>
>> If we implement nonsense like Kyoto, no one will be able to afford it.
>
>Yes, human society has never survived
Not at its present population.
>or progressed without massive
>consumption of oil, nor could it ever. If we stop burning oil, we will all
>live in poverty and despair. Talk about mindless and hysterical.
We will, unless we come up with a cheaper substitute. That's neither
mindless or hysterical. It's fact.
Harold Brooks
says...
The time period for the conventional definition for climatological
variables is the last 30 years, ending in a 0. I didn't make it up;
it's just what's used as the standard definition, as you can check at
the web site for Indianapolis. The Indianapolis office does have the
old (1961-1990) normals up, as well. The 1971-2000 normals are about
1/3 of a degree F warmer than the 1961-1990 because the 90s were ~1 F
warmer than the 60s.
At
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/documentlibrary/tddoc/td9641c.txt,
which is the data documentation for monthly station normals for the US,
it states "A climate normal is defined, by convention, as the arithmetic
mean of a climatological element computed over three consecutive decades
(WMO, 1989)". The WMO reference is:
World Meteorological Organization, 1989: Calculation of Monthly and
Annual 30-Year Standard Normals, WCDP-No. 10, WMO-TD/No. 341, Geneva:
World Meteorological Organization.
--
Harold Brooks
hebrooks87 hotmail.com
jacob navia
> Some people just aren't happy unless they are worried about something, I
> won't worry about this, whatever it does it will seem normal at the time,
> and life will continue as normal.
>
So you propose to go on polluting "ancient one" ?
Yes, your point of view is not new.
Very ancient in fact.
Let's go on polluting until it
explodes us in the face.
Do not worry, be happy.
I know that song.
Landy
"jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote in message news:41f86...@127.0.0.1...> news:eJ-dnQvqH5E...@whidbeytel.com...
snip
>
> Number crunching climate change is little different
> than number crunching a thunderstorm.
What a wonderful analogy! Can I use that or is it copyrighted?
cheers
Bill
robert j. kolker
> Let's go on polluting until it
> explodes us in the face.
>
> Do not worry, be happy.
>
> I know that song.
What do you recommend? That we impoverish outselves on the mere
possibility that living well will damage the earth? I have a
recommendation. Kill of the Third World and reduce the population of the
earth to between one and two billions. That way we can have fun and not
have to worry about it.
There are too many people and of what earthly use are third-worlders anyway?
Bob Kolker
>
oğin
>> sacrafice energy-based comfort so that third world people *might* not
>> have to die 100 years from now?
>
> I'm certainly willing to sacrifice a little bit of luxuries to help
> provide
> decent conditions for future generations. You make it sound as we'd have
> to
> move back into caves.
How do you know that reducing C02 would not lead to another ice age?
oğin
>> sacrafice energy-based comfort so that third world people *might* not
>> have to die 100 years from now?
>
> Firstly, this is a false dichotomy. There are more choices than just
> "burn oil, live in comfort" and "don't burn oil, live in discomfort". But
> to take your question at its face, no, I don't. People are far to
> selfish. So what's your point?
Good point. My comment was is a false dichotomy. It may be possible to
reduce CO2 emissions and still keep a good level of comfort. But I am not
certain that it is possible. And I do not know for sure if we have too much
or too little CO2 now.
The Ancient One
"jacob navia" <ja...@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in message
news:41f96f7e$0$10443$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr...
> The "Ancient One" wrote:
>
>> Some people just aren't happy unless they are worried about
>> something, I won't worry about this, whatever it does it will seem normal
>> at the time, and life will continue as normal.
>
> So you propose to go on polluting "ancient one" ?
>
I propose that we continue to improve the situation, as we have been doing
for many years now already. Perhaps you are to young to remember how
polluted the US used to be, air water and land. Today we have double the
population and half the pollution, and we get more efficient every year.
Drastic lifestyle change is not needed, change as is feasible is working.
> Yes, your point of view is not new.
>
> Very ancient in fact.
>
> Let's go on polluting until it
> explodes us in the face.
Your ignorance is showing.
oğin
>> If we implement nonsense like Kyoto, no one will be able to afford it.
>
> Yes, human society has never survived or progressed without massive
> consumption of oil, nor could it ever. If we stop burning oil, we will
> all live in poverty and despair. Talk about mindless and hysterical.
Without massive consuption of oil, Europe, Japan, North America, etc. would
not function. We might be put back into the dark ages, and billions of
people might die (not such a bad thing IMHO).
oğin
> will make those problems a lot worse. Global warming would be a problem
> even if population growth stopped today.
How do you know if we are set to enter another ice age?
>> Yes. Just like 65 million years ago, and to an even bigger extent, 248
>> million years ago. Even just 20,000 years ago, we had an ice age that
>> kicked a few species out of the game. Global warming over the next 100
>> years will not result in those kinds of extictions, IMO. Shit happens.
>
> Shit happens occasionally, but that doesn't mean that we should cause it.
> Everyone will die eventually, but if you shoot someone that argument is
> unlikely to impress the court.
Good point. But do we know what the best course of action actually is?
> It may not fly in USA at the mnoment for political reasons, but that
> doesn't change the fact that USA could reduce its emissions a lot at a
> small cost, according to some calculations even with a net profit. Since
> the third world already emits a lot less per capita we don't really have
> any exuse for putting caps on them at the moment. On the other hand, if
> industrialized countries develop efficient technologies to meet their own
> obligations to reduce emissions that technology will trickle down to
> poorer
Good point.
Ed Earl Ross
footprint on the environment. At no other time in the history of
Earth, has humanity released so much CO2 into the air.
oğin
> IMO, reducing CO2 should only be done to minimize the heavy human
> footprint on the environment. At no other time in the history of Earth,
> has humanity released so much CO2 into the air.
Why single out "human footprints"? We are part of nature.
Jo Schaper
Folks could start by using solar/hydro/wind/geothermal electric where
possible. They won't solve the whole problem but could help.
One word: biodiesel. Or entirely bio-ethanol powered cars. (And no, you
don't really need petrol-based fertilizers/pesticides/huge farm
machinery to grow corn.)
Try driving a fuel-efficient car--one that drives right by gas pumps.
Mine, at over 40 mpg, does so. (Car was purchased used, and is 7 years
old, using 'old technology', not high priced hybrid, though I'd consider
one of those for the future.) Car does gravel roads with potholes, and
drives right past SUVs in ditches on ice and snow. No, it can't climb
the sides of arroyos like the TV ads, but I wouldn't take a vehicle
there, anyway.
Support development of long-distance passenger and short distance
commuter rail, instead of petrol-guzzling airplanes, which should be
reserved for flights over large bodies of water, since we no longer have
any but luxury passenger ships.
Roads are good, but do we really need a 6 or 8 lane super slab to go to
the grocery store? Work for flexible or staggered office hours. How much
gas goes up in smoke moving nowhere during so called rush hours?
Put the thermostat at 65-67 degrees F. Wear a sweater if you are chilly.
Shut off lights, appliances, etc. if you aren't using them. Sounds
stupid, but if 270 million people did what their Mom said, we'd save
LOTS of energy.
Who says you have to have dusk to dawn lights over the entire US? Some,
of course, are needful, but do you really need your own personal star?
Install passive solar heating systems. Keep the a/c off unless it is 85
degrees or more. Do what my grandparents did: cook early or late in the
day; remodel the basement as naturally cooler living space.
Recycle plastic. Fix stuff instead of throwing it away until it is broke
beyond repair. Use non-petroleum based cleaners. That citrus stuff they
use in industry really does work.
Lean on congress-critters (in the US) to come up and implement nuclear
storage facilities. I'm not pro or con Yucca Mountain, but if we want to
take advantage of nukes, let's find something to do with the waste.
Drive the speed limit (not 10 miles over). Find your ego somewhere else
but the gas pedal of a monster truck, speedboat, ATV, motorcycle, etc., etc.
It all boils down to appropriate use of technology. The only thing
lacking is will.
oğin
>>>unsustainable and self-destructive usages of fossil fuels.
>>
>>
>> How?
>
>
> Folks could start by using solar/hydro/wind/geothermal electric where
> possible. They won't solve the whole problem but could help.
None of those ideas give you what fossil fuels give you.
> One word: biodiesel. Or entirely bio-ethanol powered cars. (And no, you
> don't really need petrol-based fertilizers/pesticides/huge farm machinery
> to grow corn.)
You must be joking! Diesel and ethanol (bio or not) generates CO2. You do
know that right?
Terrell Miller
>>This was the first year since record keeping began in 1870 that Indianapolis
>>made it through the entire year without reaching 90F even once. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> And still managed to average 1 F above normal for the year.
anecdotal evidence: the last few summers in Atlanta have been much
milder than normal. Typically we get upper-80s to 100s during late July
- mid September. I thing last summer there were only about five days
where it was above 90F.
But the winters have been much milder than usual too, even for Georgia
standards. Most of the time we get highs in the 40s most of the winter,
with a few weeks of 50s and for some reason it always gets into the 60s
right around New Year's (I think it's because that's when the Earth has
"reversed course" and the Northern hemisphere is now suddenly moving
back towards the equator, I have a sneaking suspicion that screws with
the jet stream). And we always get a couple weeks of *real* cold
weather, down near or below 0F.
But the last few years that hasn't happened. We get a lot of 50F,
several weeks of 60F, and only a few days of really cold stuff.
Like someone else said: if that's global warming I'm all for it. Milder
summers and lots of absolutely perfect winter days, with just enough
extreme temps to make things interesting.
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Every gardener knows nature's random cruelty"
-Paul Simon RE: George Harrison
Joshua Halpern
> relay61:13:214:23 wrote:
>
>
>>The time frame is intentionally unclear, BBC says 11 degrees hotter
>
> C in
>
>>about 100 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210629.stm
>>
>>how sensitive is the prediction 0.01 degree C per year?
>
>
> There is not really any specific time frame for these calculations.
> They are an estimate of the quasi steady-state warming at 2xco2 (ie
> 570ppm or something - ie 2x the preindustrial state, not 2x today).
> Which is a standard value used for assessing the magnitude of climate
> change but not a forecast for a specific year. However, if you assume
> 90 more years at 0.5% cumulative growth in co2, then add another couple
> of decades or so to get the upper ocean into quasi-equilibrium, and in
> fact it is probably in the right ballpark (the time scale to 2xco2
> climate, not the 11C warming itself!).
>
It was my impression from the article that they stepped the CO2 from
x to 2x. I imagine the ramp up in temperature was from the response of
the ocean. Are there significant differences if you ramp up the CO2
rather than
having it jump.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
> On Thu, 27 Jan 05 13:29:56 GMT, in a place far, far away,
> lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>>>(especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.
>>>
>>
>
>
> How do you know that? Do you have a list of both, with quantification
> of their economic consequences?
Yes
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
would not. Of course if you wait 50K years, then yeah, there might be an
ice age.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
don't know when.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
>>To some extend there will be problems even without global warming, but it
>>will make those problems a lot worse. Global warming would be a problem
>>even if population growth stopped today.
>
>
> How do you know if we are set to enter another ice age?
>
>>>Yes. Just like 65 million years ago, and to an even bigger extent, 248
>>>million years ago. Even just 20,000 years ago, we had an ice age that
>>>kicked a few species out of the game. Global warming over the next 100
>>>years will not result in those kinds of extictions, IMO. Shit happens.
>>
>>Shit happens occasionally, but that doesn't mean that we should cause it.
>>Everyone will die eventually, but if you shoot someone that argument is
>>unlikely to impress the court.
>
>
> Good point. But do we know what the best course of action actually is?
No, but I know several very bad ones, and what we are doing now is one
of the bad ones.
Did you really go to school to learn how to ask these dumb questions?
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
Let us start the odin asks a stupid question count. 1.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
>>>>I agree heartily. Let's change our social and economic dependence on
>>>>unsustainable and self-destructive usages of fossil fuels.
>>>
>>>
>>>How?
>>
>>
>>Folks could start by using solar/hydro/wind/geothermal electric where
>>possible. They won't solve the whole problem but could help.
>
>
> None of those ideas give you what fossil fuels give you.
>
>
>>One word: biodiesel. Or entirely bio-ethanol powered cars. (And no, you
>>don't really need petrol-based fertilizers/pesticides/huge farm machinery
>>to grow corn.)
>
>
> You must be joking! Diesel and ethanol (bio or not) generates CO2. You do
> know that right?
>
autos and cars you produce less CO2 per unit of travel. Biodiesel and
ethanol
recirculate carbon that is already at the surface in the atmosphere,
soil, or top layer of the ocean. This carbon circulates between those
three reservoirs ever few years anyhow. Fossil fuels bring deeply
buried carbon to the surface that has been isolated for millions of
years. It then enters the surface carbon cycle, and only leaves it
in a time period of several hundred years.
josh halpern
>
>
Jo Schaper
>>>>I agree heartily. Let's change our social and economic dependence on
>>>>unsustainable and self-destructive usages of fossil fuels.
>>>
>>>
>>>How?
>>
>>
>>Folks could start by using solar/hydro/wind/geothermal electric where
>>possible. They won't solve the whole problem but could help.
>
>
> None of those ideas give you what fossil fuels give you.
Huh? Around here, the biggest consumer of fossil fuels are the
electrical power plants, burning coal, natural gas and oil. All fossil
fuels. Generate electricity using non-fossil fuel, you save fossil fuel.
QED.
>
>>One word: biodiesel. Or entirely bio-ethanol powered cars. (And no, you
>>don't really need petrol-based fertilizers/pesticides/huge farm machinery
>>to grow corn.)
>
>
> You must be joking! Diesel and ethanol (bio or not) generates CO2. You do
> know that right?
Sure. But that was not the question. The question was: how do we wean
ourselves off fossil fuel. Simple. Use non-fossil fuel.
jonathan
"George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
news:Wa%Jd.22673$yY6.10868@attbi_s02...
>
> "jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote in message news:41f86...@127.0.0.1...
> >
> > "oğin" <oği...@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
> > news:eJ-dnQvqH5E...@whidbeytel.com...
> >> >> injection
> >> >> of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the
> >> >> temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says
> >> >> Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics
> >> >> could
> >> >> not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the
> >> >> models.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says.
> >> >> The
> >> >> climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9?C to 11.5?C.
> >> >> "The
> >> >> uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles
> >> >> Allen."
> >> >>
> >> >> Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me...
> >> >
> >> > If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it
> >> > makes
> >> > sense to discard them.
> >>
> >> Pffft. Well that is not science. Ever heard of The Michelson-Morley
> >> Experiment? The problem most people had with it was that it *seemed* wrong.
> >> The strength that Einstein had over others was that he took the experimental
> >> result at face value. There were many others as smart or smarter than
> >> Einstein, but Einstein was not entrenched in preconceived notions. Others
> >> wasted time trying to see how the experiment must be flawed. It was not
> >> flawed.
> >
> >
> > The problem with these models is they don't include
> > Darwin. Life is becoming a primary driving force
> > for global climate change.
>
> What the fuck are you babbling about now, Jonathan? Becoming? Life has been
> changing the global climate, the ocean chemistry, and the very ground you walk
> on since the fist microbe released it's first puff of gas into the atmosphere at
> least 3.5 billiob years ago. Becoming? Life has been a primary driving force
> on the planet nearly since it first coalesced into a planet.
This just shows you don't understand the orders of magnitude greater
effect and influence the emergent property of intelligence has on
this planet. The effect life has is related to the level of niche filling
that has taken place. Life is a far larger variable, by leaps and
bounds, than ever before and is becoming the primary force
for change.
That is a good thing, since it means we are ever more being
placed into the steady hands of Nature.
Jonathan
s
>
>
jonathan
"Landy" <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ctbr6o$d07$1...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
Sheez~
> cheers
> Bill
>
>
James Annan
Joshua Halpern wrote:
> It was my impression from the article that they stepped the CO2 from
> x to 2x. I imagine the ramp up in temperature was from the response
of
> the ocean. Are there significant differences if you ramp up the CO2
> rather than
> having it jump.
Yes, in the real system there is a larger time lag due to the deep
ocean taking a long time to warm up. Eg currently we are generally
regarded as being about half-way to equilibrium with the current CO2.
The slab ocean models generally warm up faster, and therefore probably
don't do that great a job at estimating the shape of a transient
simulation. But as I said, in practice a 2xco2 steady state is probably
a fairly reasonable 100 year transient forecast (noting that a huge
amount depends on the emissions scenario). IIRC the IPCC estimates for
these two values are substantially overlapping ranges.
James
oğin
>> know that right?
>>
> Stupid count goes to 2. Irrelevant. Diesel gives higher milage, so in
> autos and cars you produce less CO2 per unit of travel. Biodiesel and
> ethanol
> recirculate carbon that is already at the surface in the atmosphere, soil,
> or top layer of the ocean. This carbon circulates between those three
> reservoirs ever few years anyhow. Fossil fuels bring deeply buried carbon
> to the surface that has been isolated for millions of years. It then
> enters the surface carbon cycle, and only leaves it
> in a time period of several hundred years.
Very good point about the length of the carbon cycle.
oğin
>>>possible. They won't solve the whole problem but could help.
>>
>>
>> None of those ideas give you what fossil fuels give you.
>
> Huh? Around here, the biggest consumer of fossil fuels are the electrical
> power plants, burning coal, natural gas and oil. All fossil fuels.
> Generate electricity using non-fossil fuel, you save fossil fuel. QED.
Where I live, it is all hydro-electric. I hate the idea of using cole to
generate electricity. But not many places are lucky enough to be near water
power potential. solar and wind are dynamic, with no good way to store
energy. Geothermal electric is a great idea for Iceland, but not many other
places...
oğin
"Joshua Halpern" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YUiKd.4698$SP4.1271@trnddc07...
> oğin wrote:
>>>>How do you know that reducing C02 would not lead to another ice age?
>>>
>>>IMO, reducing CO2 should only be done to minimize the heavy human
>>>footprint on the environment. At no other time in the history of Earth,
>>>has humanity released so much CO2 into the air.
>>
>>
>> Why single out "human footprints"? We are part of nature.
> Because unlike nature we can alter our behavior at will.
I think we cannot alter our behavior at will. The Kyoto plan will not be
followed.
George
"jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote in message news:41f9c...@127.0.0.1...
No, it just means that you have no clue as to how much "non-intelligent life"
has affected the planet. For instance, there was very little, if any,
atmospheric oxygen until the advent of photosynthetic life, between 2-3 billion
years ago.
Thomas Palm
news:--idnWn0p9v...@whidbeytel.com:
>>> OK. Do you think that first world people will generally be willing
>>> to sacrafice energy-based comfort so that third world people *might*
>>> not have to die 100 years from now?
>>
>> Firstly, this is a false dichotomy. There are more choices than just
>> "burn oil, live in comfort" and "don't burn oil, live in discomfort".
>> But to take your question at its face, no, I don't. People are far
>> to selfish. So what's your point?
>
> Good point. My comment was is a false dichotomy. It may be possible to
> reduce CO2 emissions and still keep a good level of comfort. But I am
> not certain that it is possible.
Please have a look at Sweden. It is a sparsely populated country in a cold
climate and with a high standard of living. Then check CO2 emissions:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/swe.htm
and compare these with USA:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/usa.htm
USA has almost four times the per capita CO2 emissions, so they certainly
can be reduced! Even Sweden is wasting a lot. For example our cars emit ~
20% more CO2/km than the European average.
> And I do not know for sure if we have
> too much or too little CO2 now.
We know that 280 ppm worked fine for millenia but we have no idea what the
levels we are reaching now are going to do. A good bet if you aren't sure
is to try to stay close to the 280 ppm level we know works.
This is a general rule when dealing with mechanisms you don't understand:
if they work as they are, be very careful about tampering with them.
Thomas Palm
news:f_2dnZwVluJ...@whidbeytel.com:
>>> OK. Do you think that first world people will generally be willing
>>> to sacrafice energy-based comfort so that third world people *might*
>>> not have to die 100 years from now?
>>
>> I'm certainly willing to sacrifice a little bit of luxuries to help
>> provide
>> decent conditions for future generations. You make it sound as we'd
>> have to
>> move back into caves.
>
> How do you know that reducing C02 would not lead to another ice age?
You can never be 100% certain about anything about the future. How do we
know there isn't a comet going to hit Earth next year wiping out all life?
In this case, however, we are not talking about reducing CO2 levels but
slowing the increase. If 280 ppm didn't lead to an ice age I doubt 370 ppm
will.
Thomas Palm
news:Y-OdnTM0D6y...@whidbeytel.com:
>> To some extend there will be problems even without global warming,
>> but it will make those problems a lot worse. Global warming would be
>> a problem even if population growth stopped today.
>
> How do you know if we are set to enter another ice age?
Do you have any reason to expect that we are? All events aren't equally
probable, you know, and it makes a lot more sense to try to avoid the
likely ones than the extremely unlikely.
>>> Yes. Just like 65 million years ago, and to an even bigger extent,
>>> 248 million years ago. Even just 20,000 years ago, we had an ice age
>>> that kicked a few species out of the game. Global warming over the
>>> next 100 years will not result in those kinds of extictions, IMO.
>>> Shit happens.
>>
>> Shit happens occasionally, but that doesn't mean that we should cause
>> it. Everyone will die eventually, but if you shoot someone that
>> argument is unlikely to impress the court.
>
> Good point. But do we know what the best course of action actually is?
With a high degree of certainty, yes, we do know that slowing down the
increase in CO2 levels is the safest thing to do.
Thomas Palm
news:wnnKd.23982$P04.7559@attbi_s03:
> No, it just means that you have no clue as to how much
> "non-intelligent life" has affected the planet. For instance, there
> was very little, if any, atmospheric oxygen until the advent of
> photosynthetic life, between 2-3 billion years ago.
And how long did it take life to create the current oxygen levels in the
atmosphere? The problem now isn't so much that CO2 levels change but the
speed at which they do so. Had this increase taken place over several
thousand years rather than a century it would have been a lot less
disruptive as everything would be given more time to adapt.
George
"Thomas Palm" <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote in message
news:Xns95EC744F032E8T...@212.83.64.229...
I was discussing O2 levels, not CO2 levels. O2 levels have fluxuated throughout
geologic time. Having said that, there is ample evidence (such as the formation
of the iron belt around the Great Lakes) for a huge increase in O2 levels about
2-3 billion years ago (from nearly zero levels), levels that have remained high
(with fluxuations) ever since. This increase is directly associated with the
evolution of photsynthetic species. Life has had a great impact on the planet
since it's inception. We owe the existence of O2 in the atmosphere to life. We
owe the existence of the ozone layer in the atmosphere to life. Life has
created the conditions on the planet that are primarily responsible for it's
perpetuation. And while it is certainly true that man's activities have
resulted in a huge increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is
also true that life has attenuated the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphre for
at least the last 500 million years (as evidenced by the huge paleozoic
limestone deposits that sequestered huge volumes of CO2). It is also true that
the increase in CO2 emission are associated with the rise in global
temperatures, it is also true that the earth has been much warmer in the past
(as evidenced by the fact that there was realtively little polar ice during the
mesozoic) than it currently is, and warmer even than it is forcast to become.
So to me the question is not why is the earth warming, but why it became cold in
the first place.
Rand Simberg
Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>>>Well, the adverse consequences sure outweigh any possible beneficial ones.
>>
>>
>> How do you know that? Do you have a list of both, with quantification
>> of their economic consequences?
>
>Yes
>
>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm
Sorry, I meant a valid list, in which we can have high confidence.
Rand Simberg
Palm <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> Good point. My comment was is a false dichotomy. It may be possible to
>> reduce CO2 emissions and still keep a good level of comfort. But I am
>> not certain that it is possible.
>
>Please have a look at Sweden. It is a sparsely populated country in a cold
>climate and with a high standard of living.
It's not all that high, actually. It's about the same as the poorest
states in the US.
Rand Simberg
Palm <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>You can never be 100% certain about anything about the future. How do we
>know there isn't a comet going to hit Earth next year wiping out all life?
>
>In this case, however, we are not talking about reducing CO2 levels but
>slowing the increase. If 280 ppm didn't lead to an ice age I doubt 370 ppm
>will.
Why do you believe that CO2 levels are the only factor involved?