Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 132
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Goldilocks and Global Warming

  1. #1 Goldilocks and Global Warming 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    The fable of Goldilocks and the Three Bears is known to most, part of it is her choosing between given extremes to pursue the option which is "just right".

    So, given the absurd proposition that we can manipulate global climate by affecting atmospheric composition, what results should modern-day Goldilocks seek to achieve? What goals should we set for selves and why?

    Extracted from now-defunct thread is comment by dotcomrade Bunbury:

    Bunbury, thanks. I really think the repetitions of the same old back and forth between pro-nuclear and pro-renewables positions are a waste of effort. How do we get there from here is what matters; 'there' being a still benign climate for our future and 'here' being the impasse the debate's devolved into.



    "Agreed; but it may already be too late. If we were serious about maintaining a benign climate we should have acted twenty years ago. Now we can only hope to mitigate the worst of it and adapt, but of course there are billions who do not have the wherewithal to adapt and we will therefore fight wars."- Bunbury

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Bunbury specifically is invited to explain further why he thinks climate twenty years ago was optimum possible for Earth planet, though other opinions are both welcome and inevitable given nature of TSF, long may it wave!
    Parenthetically, humans have adapted to conditions on every continent, a first for terrestrial mammals, and are the only known species to adapt to EXTRATERRESTRIAL conditions, so it may not be necessary to be so dour as dotcomrade Bunbury regarding future. Good cheer to him and to all this holiday season!

    C3: 2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present




    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,589
    why is this a separate post from the other 2?? Climate change threads you have right now?


    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    985
    False simile,Prince. Global warming is not a fable or a myth but a threat. It is a threat on the order of the rising water level of a river that we have just damed down stream of us. Trying to say, "Water levels rise and fall naturally and there have been floods in the past long before we built the dam." just does not cut it. We don't know what the optimum water level is. But we do know that the dam will change it. You are arguing against finding out how high the water will rise and stopping our dam building before it floods us out. If you want to propose that a warmer average world temp might be a good thing, go for it. It might be. But that is not what is in the immediate offing. More violent weather is what is predicted by increasing the energy in the global weather system. It is hard to see how increasingly violent weather is to anyone's advantage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    This rapid a change in the whole climate will be disastrous, in general, regardless of the eventual plateau regime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    This rapid a change in the whole climate will be disastrous, in general, regardless of the eventual plateau regime.
    Pretty much it. Our agriculture, horticulture, city planning, flood control, irrigation projects, shipping routes, seafood harvesting, insurance rates and many other things are built on past averages and variabilities that no longer apply if there's rapid change; adaptation comes at great expense for wealthy nations and great suffering for poor ones.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Allow Prince to restate the question: "What GOALS should we set regarding global temperatures, and why?" Notice, if you will, it is given for sake of argument that we can significantly overrule all natural causes of variation in climate.

    Obviously we are looking for mild climate- thousands of seasonal residents in southern USA exhibit annual pilgrimage following Sun, as have migratory birds through millions of years.

    Barring complete eradication of seasonal variation, however, year-round mild climate seems out of reach, for some must experience scorching summers in order to enjoy benefits of sunny and mild winters, and converse is true. Given that human habitation is widespread across globe, how to best achieve optimum outcome for everybody?

    Is what we have, or had some twenty years ago, truly most "benign climate" and why? While Prince has nothing but gratitude for participation so far, none seem willing or able to address this question, making him wonder if there is a point to attempting to "reverse" alleged AGW, which Bunbury seems to think cannot be done to start with.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    False simile,Prince. Global warming is not a fable or a myth but a threat. It is a threat on the order of the rising water level of a river that we have just damed down stream of us. Trying to say, "Water levels rise and fall naturally and there have been floods in the past long before we built the dam." just does not cut it. We don't know what the optimum water level is. But we do know that the dam will change it. You are arguing against finding out how high the water will rise and stopping our dam building before it floods us out. If you want to propose that a warmer average world temp might be a good thing, go for it. It might be. But that is not what is in the immediate offing. More violent weather is what is predicted by increasing the energy in the global weather system. It is hard to see how increasingly violent weather is to anyone's advantage.
    Simile is valid IF AND ONLY IF we have power to choose. We do not know what optimum water level is? Prince begs to differ, we know pretty damned well it is high enough to fill irrigation ditches and not much more. When we have control over this we ensure such a level. On another thread esteemed moderator affirmed that violent weather will continue, regardless.

    As was the case twenty years ago, and before.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Bhola_cyclone

    Found a nice paper on the subject: http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    why is this a separate post from the other 2?? Climate change threads you have right now?
    Because Prince concedes in this one climate change is within our power to manipulate. Why are you so cranky? Prince looks forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    This rapid a change in the whole climate will be disastrous, in general, regardless of the eventual plateau regime.
    How rapid? Bhola cyclone produced a rapid change in barometric pressure, as did hurricane which destroyed city of Galveston in 1900. Are such events truly increasing in severity in recent decades? What do records say, we already know what dogma says.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    This rapid a change in the whole climate will be disastrous, in general, regardless of the eventual plateau regime.
    Pretty much it. Our agriculture, horticulture, city planning, flood control, irrigation projects, shipping routes, seafood harvesting, insurance rates and many other things are built on past averages and variabilities that no longer apply if there's rapid change; adaptation comes at great expense for wealthy nations and great suffering for poor ones.
    As most knowledgeable on this subject, Prince asks esteemed moderator to provide direct link between CO2 level and severe storm activity. Such a link must exist, no?

    And also, while you and iceaura know how rapid is "this rapid", Prince does not.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    And also, while you and iceaura know how rapid is "this rapid", Prince does not.
    1 - 4 C mean atmospheric temp boost per century.

    40 - 160 times faster than the last big warming (Cretaceous, 55 - 60 mya), which was itself a low level but noticeable extinction event.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    So in 1900, Galveston was destroyed. 1* C and 100 years later, are hurricanes worse, better, about the same?

    Prince refers you to paper cited in #7. What accounted for warming during Cretaceous?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    And also, while you and iceaura know how rapid is "this rapid", Prince does not.
    1 - 4 C mean atmospheric temp boost per century.

    40 - 160 times faster than the last big warming (Cretaceous, 55 - 60 mya), which was itself a low level but noticeable extinction event.
    NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Data
    Warm water corals further north and breadfruit trees in Greenland? Prince prefers coconut to breadfruit and nominates Cretaceous period for Goldilocks award. Thank you for bringing it to his attention, iceaura! Also, am unable to confirm 1*C per century, from where is it derived?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    Warm water corals further north and breadfruit trees in Greenland? Prince prefers coconut to breadfruit and nominates Cretaceous period for Goldilocks award. Thank you for bringing it to his attention, iceaura!
    Too bad you, and current human civilization, won't be around for a million years to see the new plateau adjustment happen - we're going to be living through the early transition, which looks to be an extinction event of fairly dramatic scale.
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    Also, am unable to confirm 1*C per century, from where is it derived?
    You can find it, or at least the relevant links, on that NOAA site you just came from. A very recent issue of Scientific American has a discussion with all the references you need to check up on the derivation. It's pretty common, as the general consensus is discussed in the relevant circles.

    It's the lower end of likelihood, btw - 4*C is the upper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    You forget, we are in absolute control of global climate under premise of thread, our mastery of the CO2 dial alone overrules every natural influence.

    Under these circumstances, merely by releasing more or less CO2 as desired, we can ensure temperature to our liking, like global thermostat. So do we want it warmer, colder, or just like 20 years ago and why?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    You forget, we are in absolute control of global climate under premise of thread, our mastery of the CO2 dial alone overrules every natural influence.

    Under these circumstances, merely by releasing more or less CO2 as desired, we can ensure temperature to our liking, like global thermostat. So do we want it warmer, colder, or just like 20 years ago and why?
    It doesn't have to be to our liking. Coming from an area where it never snows and often reaches 40C in summer with humidity hovering around 15%, my 'liking' is pretty certain to be very unlike the preferences of people from the steamy tropics or from the icy high latitudes/altitudes.

    It does have to be functional. And that means functional for civilisation as we know it, not for the planet - which can roll along as a snowball or a steaming hothouse - on geological timescales, neither matters.

    When it comes to Goldilocks, agriculture and the human civilisation it supports has developed and thrived in a 'not too hot, not too cold, but just right' period in the planet's climate. (We might add not too wet, not too dry, not too unvarying, not too unpredictable to those specifications.) We're now significantly changing one of the most important physical processes within that climate - the process that retains and radiates energy. I'd hate to guess how badly we could muck it up if we ever got the capacity to change the energy entering the system.

    Come to think of it, that sort of undermines the premise of the thread. CO2 is certainly the biggest control knob for retaining or radiating away energy that has entered the system. But there is no way we can affect energy entering the system (short of weird techno fantasies about giant mirrors circling the planet).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION! CO2 and ONLY CO2 defines the temperature and mankind's control over this is ABSOLUTE!!!

    Now, how cool do you want it on, say, June first?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    But there is no way we can affect energy entering the system (short of weird techno fantasies about giant mirrors circling the planet).
    Actually such mirrors or sunshades would be better deployed at L1 point between Sun and Earth planet. Totally unnecessary since CO2 determines all, despite being trivial trace gas in atmosphere.

    Welcome to forum, hope you are liking it here.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION! CO2 and ONLY CO2 defines the temperature and mankind's control over this is ABSOLUTE!!!

    Now, how cool do you want it on, say, June first?
    So that means that if we reduce atmospheric CO2 the ocean can't trip us up and start releasing its excess - and put us one step forward one step back? Yaaay!

    June 1st is weather - and I'm in the Southern hemisphere so I doubt my thermostat is set the same as most others. If we're talking climate, I'd like the next decade (and lots of others) to have the same temperature, precipitation and ice profile as when I was growing up. Being an old fogey, that means I'm aiming for the 1950s or 60s. That'll do for starters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Charming. Seriously, at some point our knowledge and technology WILL allow us to select the climate desired for Earth planet, and considerable debate can be expected given history so far. People rarely agree on anything but Prince thinks that even his many detractors will join him in inviting you to stay and post to heart's content.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Energy contained in storms is formidable. AGW dogma assures us that such storms will become more severe and frequent as CO2 level rises- is this happening? Not so much.

    Fifty Years of Tropical Cyclones Impacting China

    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/...aug2011a3.html
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    This rapid a change in the whole climate will be disastrous, in general, regardless of the eventual plateau regime.
    Pretty much it. Our agriculture, horticulture, city planning, flood control, irrigation projects, shipping routes, seafood harvesting, insurance rates and many other things are built on past averages and variabilities that no longer apply if there's rapid change; adaptation comes at great expense for wealthy nations and great suffering for poor ones.
    As most knowledgeable on this subject, Prince asks esteemed moderator to provide direct link between CO2 level and severe storm activity. Such a link must exist, no?
    Atlantic tropical storms getting stronger:
    Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Global Warming and Hurricanes

    South Atlantic hurricanes for the first times in recorded history: The Nameless Hurricane - NASA Science

    European heat wave days doubling:
    European Heat Waves Double In Length Since 1880

    Studies of tornado outbreaks...suggestive but thus far inconclusive to the high confidence (95%) standard required of science.

    Mediterranean droughts, increasing: Climate change major factor in more frequent Mediterranean droughts

    Global flood events:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09763.html (other studies show this conclusive for US..yet).

    If you dig around there's actually quite a few more.

    And of course there are places where storms will decrease as well--great of you live in a coastal city--not so good if your agriculture depends on them. The concern is about the change--not the "final state."

    That's just a few.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION! CO2 and ONLY CO2 defines the temperature and mankind's control over this is ABSOLUTE!!!

    We don't need this or your "dogma" statement polemics.
    Yesterday you got a gentle nudge in another thread about a similar issue. There's a sticky about climate subject based on years of watching them go down the toilet and a reminder to keep them civil. You've read some of them and probably already know your statement is a straw-man because no scientist are claiming Co2 is the ONLY thing that effect climates; that too is not the first time. I'm giving you a day to think about how to be more constructive.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 1st, 2011 at 09:42 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION! CO2 and ONLY CO2 defines the temperature and mankind's control over this is ABSOLUTE!!!

    Now, how cool do you want it on, say, June first?
    That's completely wrong. There are many more powerful greenhouse gases, including (but not limited to ) methane, nitous oxide, ozone and water vapor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    This rapid a change in the whole climate will be disastrous, in general, regardless of the eventual plateau regime.
    Pretty much it. Our agriculture, horticulture, city planning, flood control, irrigation projects, shipping routes, seafood harvesting, insurance rates and many other things are built on past averages and variabilities that no longer apply if there's rapid change; adaptation comes at great expense for wealthy nations and great suffering for poor ones.
    As most knowledgeable on this subject, Prince asks esteemed moderator to provide direct link between CO2 level and severe storm activity. Such a link must exist, no?
    Atlantic tropical storms getting stronger:
    Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Global Warming and Hurricanes

    South Atlantic hurricanes for the first times in recorded history: The Nameless Hurricane - NASA Science

    European heat wave days doubling:
    European Heat Waves Double In Length Since 1880

    Studies of tornado outbreaks...suggestive but thus far inconclusive to the high confidence (95%) standard required of science.

    Mediterranean droughts, increasing: Climate change major factor in more frequent Mediterranean droughts

    Global flood events:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09763.html (other studies show this conclusive for US..yet).

    If you dig around there's actually quite a few more.

    And of course there are places where storms will decrease as well--great of you live in a coastal city--not so good if your agriculture depends on them. The concern is about the change--not the "final state."

    That's just a few.
    Thank you, but "digging around" as you say, Prince found also THIS:
    policlimate.com | Ryan Maue's Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity Update

    And THIS: Fifty Years of Tropical Cyclones Impacting China

    And THIS: A 2200-Year Storm History from North Carolina's Barrier Islands

    And of particular interest, since it dovetails to some degree with points made on "extinction" thread, THIS: http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf

    According to the latter source, war is ten time the killer than is extreme weather events and diarrhoeal diseases such as cholera over one hundred times the killer- indeed, weather related fatalities is a very small contributor to global mortality.

    So it would appear there is some difference of opinion here, despite matters being "settled", no?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION! CO2 and ONLY CO2 defines the temperature and mankind's control over this is ABSOLUTE!!!

    Now, how cool do you want it on, say, June first?
    That's completely wrong. There are many more powerful greenhouse gases, including (but not limited to ) methane, nitous oxide, ozone and water vapor.
    Oh, yes, thank you for correction. Water vapor is most abundant AND most subject to variation due to differences in temperature, as could be expected by any child of four. The other gases cited are, like the dreaded CO2, minor trace gases in atmosphere of Earth planet. Excellent point.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION! CO2 and ONLY CO2 defines the temperature and mankind's control over this is ABSOLUTE!!!

    We don't need this or your "dogma" statement polemics.
    Yesterday you got a gentle nudge in another thread about a similar issue. There's a sticky about climate subject based on years of watching them go down the toilet and a reminder to keep them civil. You've read some of them and probably already know your statement is a straw-man because no scientist are claiming Co2 is the ONLY thing that effect climates; that too is not the first time. I'm giving you a day to think about how to be more constructive.
    Prince regrets any breaches of civility which have been committed by any party on this thread and vows to do better, pinky swear.

    As to relative importance of greenhouses gases in atmosphere, Prince has noticed very few clarion calls for reduction of production of other gases cited by Wayne of the Meteors, compared to the deadly carbon dioxide, so perhaps you will understand his confusion.

    Returning to topic, which sadly dotcomrade Bunbury has been too busy in Prince's absence to address, what IS optimum global temperature?

    In clip attributed to Freeman Dyson, eminent scientist with impressive credentials, certainly better than those of Prince and perhaps even those of esteemed (or "steamed"?) moderator, it is proposed climate of 6,000 years past is superior to that of present, among other startling pronouncements:

    Freeman Dyson: Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society - YouTube
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    IS optimum global temperature?
    That depends on what you mean by "optimum."

    If defined as least disruptive to the next few generations--what every temperature you've already built your civilization around is always "optimum."

    If defined as a temperature for which there's the most productive land to grow food for humans on.... don't give a crap about the rest of the biosphere, nor the miserable journey...perhaps a big warmer.

    If you define it as a temperature free of hundreds of miserable tropical diseases---than cooler.

    Most of the climate change discussions focus on the cost of rapid change.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Scrutiny of the article below reveals, surprise, that though no "DETECTABLE" change has been observed to date, it is "LIKELY" or "BETTER THAN EVEN CHANCE" that storm intensity will increase, though total number of storms will decrease or remain essentially unchanged. Though Prince is overwhelmed by such a demonstration of precision, he points out that elementary statistical analysis could prove as much, since the AMO index is likely to increase and this phenomenon has been associated with increased hurricane severity in past.

    So far the AMO phenomenon has not been conclusively linked to greenhouse gas emissions of an artificial nature, nor is it likely to be, being cyclic in nature vs the dreaded CO2 continues to SOAR, positively SOAR, to terrifying and dizzying heights greater every year.

    Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory - Global Warming and Hurricanes

    As for other similar articles of evidence introduced by esteemed moderator, is unclear to Prince how specifically anthropogenic cause of described phenomena has been determined.
    Last edited by The Finger Prince; December 2nd, 2011 at 02:49 PM.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    IS optimum global temperature?
    That depends on what you mean by "optimum."

    If defined as least disruptive to the next few generations--what every temperature you've already built your civilization around is always "optimum."

    If defined as a temperature for which there's the most productive land to grow food for humans on.... don't give a crap about the rest of the biosphere, nor the miserable journey...perhaps a big warmer.

    If you define it as a temperature free of hundreds of miserable tropical diseases---than cooler.

    Most of the climate change discussions focus on the cost of rapid change.
    Then getting people to agree where to set the CO2 dial will be difficult?

    It is common misconception that malaria is "tropical" disease, has been observed anywhere anophles mosquitoes and plasmodium are capable of surviving. Is pathogens and vectors which spread them which cause such diseases, not weather per se. For example, temperature and humidity in Memphis are just as miserable in 21st century if not more so than in mid 19th century when Yellow Fever ravaged this city and much of United States.
    Last edited by The Finger Prince; December 2nd, 2011 at 03:09 PM. Reason: example added
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    If defined as least disruptive to the next few generations--what every temperature you've already built your civilization around is always "optimum."
    Most kinda go with not killing off the civilization you have.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    If defined as least disruptive to the next few generations--what every temperature you've already built your civilization around is always "optimum."
    Most kinda go with not killing off the civilization you have.
    And what is "killing off the civilization [we] have"? Mercifully it is not Yellow Fever, a truly hideous disease. Nor yet Malaria. If one will concede "civilization" exists in North America...
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    This rapid a change in the whole climate will be disastrous, in general, regardless of the eventual plateau regime.
    Rapid change could not POSSIBLY mitigate extreme weather events- or could it? Masters seems to hold that AGW effect if proven to be significant will DECREASE sea surface temperatures, REDUCING effect of thermohaline circulation, thereby reducing frequency of hurricanes of great severity! Prince would add that colder water holds more dissolved CO2 as well, perhaps offsetting to some degree alleged anthropogenic effect.

    Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : Global warming and hurricanes part 1: The natural cycle : Weather Underground
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Killing off the civilisation we have? Our civilisation is based on agriculture, with a generous dollop of protein from the oceans for many populations.

    If we damage agricultural productivity with frequent or more extensive drought and/or floods, we risk the whole of civilisation as we know it. If we had to, we could change our housing to earth covered (or more technologically insulated) to protect ourselves from the worst exposures to hotter temperatures - so long as we did it away from coasts or rivers, but what would we eat?

    And of course, those many millions of people who rely on ocean food will have little or nothing to eat if we continue acidifying the ocean. Their options are much more limited.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    mitigate extreme weather events
    Extreme weather is best viewed as local departures from the norms. A couple of inches of rain in Arizona can result in a huge flood that overflows river banks and destroys hundreds of homes--it would be "extreme weather;" the biggest effect for that same storm where I live would be wearing long pants and packing a rain jacket. Likewise a couple mouth without rain in Southern Florida summer would be an extreme drought, while Seattle often goes months during the summer without more than a trace. Extreme weather is whatever is highly unusual for that location--because life, both wild and human, is adapted to "normal" conditions.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Killing off the civilisation we have? Our civilisation is based on agriculture, with a generous dollop of protein from the oceans for many populations.

    If we damage agricultural productivity with frequent or more extensive drought and/or floods, we risk the whole of civilisation as we know it. If we had to, we could change our housing to earth covered (or more technologically insulated) to protect ourselves from the worst exposures to hotter temperatures - so long as we did it away from coasts or rivers, but what would we eat?

    And of course, those many millions of people who rely on ocean food will have little or nothing to eat if we continue acidifying the ocean. Their options are much more limited.
    And why would we want to so damage agricultural productivity? In Prince's neck of the woods, extensive infrastructure is devoted to mitigating effects of droughts and floods. Moreover he is aware of no policy with intention of doing this, nor yet acidifying ocean, so your point is most obscure.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    mitigate extreme weather events
    Extreme weather is best viewed as local departures from the norms. A couple of inches of rain in Arizona can result in a huge flood that overflows river banks and destroys hundreds of homes--it would be "extreme weather;" the biggest effect for that same storm where I live would be wearing long pants and packing a rain jacket. Likewise a couple mouth without rain in Southern Florida summer would be an extreme drought, while Seattle often goes months during the summer without more than a trace. Extreme weather is whatever is highly unusual for that location--because life, both wild and human, is adapted to "normal" conditions.
    Is NOT "extreme" then, for hurricanes to make landfall frequently summer season along Gulf Coast of USA. And for blizzards to strike Midwest frequently in winter. And earth tremors in California, Oregon, and Washington, randomly. Not extreme, because is local norm. Good to know. This must be why fatalities from same are so low.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    False simile,Prince. Global warming is not a fable or a myth but a threat. It is a threat on the order of the rising water level of a river that we have just damed down stream of us. Trying to say, "Water levels rise and fall naturally and there have been floods in the past long before we built the dam." just does not cut it. We don't know what the optimum water level is. But we do know that the dam will change it. You are arguing against finding out how high the water will rise and stopping our dam building before it floods us out. If you want to propose that a warmer average world temp might be a good thing, go for it. It might be. But that is not what is in the immediate offing. More violent weather is what is predicted by increasing the energy in the global weather system. It is hard to see how increasingly violent weather is to anyone's advantage.
    Your analogy could be better, venerable sir, as many dams are constructed to AID in flood control.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    "...extensive infrastructure is devoted to mitigating effects of droughts and floods. ...no policy with intention of doing this, nor yet acidifying ocean, so your point is most obscure. "

    What on earth kind of infrastructure can mitigate droughts? Irrigation doesn't work when rivers run dry if that's what you're getting at. And groundwaters all over the world are seriously depleted - in many countries, including my own, we've basically been 'mining' water that's taken thousands of years to accumulate. It's going to run out. At the surface, hotter temperatures increase both evaporation rates and precipitation rates. Neither are wonderful for plants which have been selected and developed under more benign climate conditions.

    Acidifying the ocean? Why do you think the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere only increases by half the amount released as emissions each year? It's because around half of it goes into the oceans. And we certainly can't rely on forests to absorb it. The Amazon has been a net source of CO2 in 2 out of the last 6 years. Remember, the 19th century scientists who originally discovered the important features of CO2 didn't call it that. They called it carbonic acid.

    As it accumulates in ocean waters, it lowers the pH. (Remember pH is a logarithmic scale, so small numbers represent large changes.) Like all these things, it doesn't happen evenly all over the world. So some oyster farmers on the USA west Coast have found their young oysters won't develop in seawater - the shell doesn't form. They're now using specially designed water supplies for these tanks.

    And we do have a policy. It's called doing nothing. We're currently changing the atmosphere and the oceans by releasing, in decades, fossil CO2 which took tens of millions of years to accumulate from the atmosphere. (One estimate I saw was that one year's emissions from oil-based fuels alone represents about 93 million years worth of accumulation.)

    Current policies are to continue doing this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    "...extensive infrastructure is devoted to mitigating effects of droughts and floods. ...no policy with intention of doing this, nor yet acidifying ocean, so your point is most obscure. "

    What on earth kind of infrastructure can mitigate droughts? Irrigation doesn't work when rivers run dry if that's what you're getting at. And groundwaters all over the world are seriously depleted - in many countries, including my own, we've basically been 'mining' water that's taken thousands of years to accumulate. It's going to run out. At the surface, hotter temperatures increase both evaporation rates and precipitation rates. Neither are wonderful for plants which have been selected and developed under more benign climate conditions.

    Acidifying the ocean? Why do you think the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere only increases by half the amount released as emissions each year? It's because around half of it goes into the oceans. And we certainly can't rely on forests to absorb it. The Amazon has been a net source of CO2 in 2 out of the last 6 years. Remember, the 19th century scientists who originally discovered the important features of CO2 didn't call it that. They called it carbonic acid.

    As it accumulates in ocean waters, it lowers the pH. (Remember pH is a logarithmic scale, so small numbers represent large changes.) Like all these things, it doesn't happen evenly all over the world. So some oyster farmers on the USA west Coast have found their young oysters won't develop in seawater - the shell doesn't form. They're now using specially designed water supplies for these tanks.

    And we do have a policy. It's called doing nothing. We're currently changing the atmosphere and the oceans by releasing, in decades, fossil CO2 which took tens of millions of years to accumulate from the atmosphere. (One estimate I saw was that one year's emissions from oil-based fuels alone represents about 93 million years worth of accumulation.)

    Current policies are to continue doing this.
    Why rivers should run dry? Prince has seen no evidence of this, in fact, local canals are pretty full at the moment. This seems likely to continue given cited increased precipitation rates. Yes, ground waters are being seriously depleted, so much is true. Fortunately we can use nuclear power to desalinate ocean waters to replenish aquifers and/or ensure adequate surface waters, carbon free, no less! Regarding pH, low numbers represent acidity and scale goes up only to 14. Prince can live without oysters and is aware of no one living on oyster-based diet. Moreover, soft shell crabs are a delicacy, perhaps in time soft shell oysters will find ready acceptance. If half of CO2 goes into oceans, is this not good news? Less into atmosphere to screw up current optimal climate!

    Hooray!

    TSF is most fortunate to have a lady of your caliber joining this forum, hopefully Prince can provide satisfactory responses worthy of your consideration!!!
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    " Why rivers should run dry? " I'm in Australia, these things I know.

    And anyway, the USA is not so flash - the Colorado doesn't even reach the sea any more, or has someone been sensible recently. And rivers don't even have to run dry to cause serious problems. France and Tennessee have both had to shut down nuclear power plants, and other places have had to shut their coal-fired plants, in recent years because of a lack of cooling water. Either not enough water or not cool enough. But shut down nevertheless.

    And increased precipitation rates weren't all that wonderful an experience in Australia this last year or so, nor for those Americans whose land had to be flooded by opening the gates on the Mississippi. (Or Pakistan or Thailand or Brazil or .....)

    Just because you don't eat oysters .... The important thing about shellfish is that many such little critters are prime food sources for other fish (and shellfish). Which won't survive if they miss out on a major food source. And those fish are prey for other fish. And those for others and so on, and on. And at all levels of this food web, people eat selected varieties. Might I point out here that some people eat things that I find exceedingly strange - but if it's nutritious, good on 'em.

    We need variety in natural food supplies and the webs that support them. If we can avoid reducing our own food supplies by ensuring theirs, we should.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    " Why rivers should run dry? " I'm in Australia, these things I know.

    And anyway, the USA is not so flash - the Colorado doesn't even reach the sea any more, or has someone been sensible recently. And rivers don't even have to run dry to cause serious problems. France and Tennessee have both had to shut down nuclear power plants, and other places have had to shut their coal-fired plants, in recent years because of a lack of cooling water. Either not enough water or not cool enough. But shut down nevertheless.

    And increased precipitation rates weren't all that wonderful an experience in Australia this last year or so, nor for those Americans whose land had to be flooded by opening the gates on the Mississippi. (Or Pakistan or Thailand or Brazil or .....)

    Just because you don't eat oysters .... The important thing about shellfish is that many such little critters are prime food sources for other fish (and shellfish). Which won't survive if they miss out on a major food source. And those fish are prey for other fish. And those for others and so on, and on. And at all levels of this food web, people eat selected varieties. Might I point out here that some people eat things that I find exceedingly strange - but if it's nutritious, good on 'em.

    We need variety in natural food supplies and the webs that support them. If we can avoid reducing our own food supplies by ensuring theirs, we should.
    Yes, you have your billabongs. Seasonal bodies of water are common enough, and nothing new. If Colorado does not empty into sea, is this bad? Is not running dry, is being intelligently used. Not that USA can take all the credit for that as it flows through Mexico on its way thither. Here in Arizona we find enough water to run the largest nuclear power plant in the nation, so necessity must truly be a mother. Yes, the Australian delicacy known as "Vegemite", exceedingly strange. Soft shelled oysters are positively pedestrian by comparison.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    According to the latter source, war is ten time the killer than is extreme weather events and diarrhoeal diseases such as cholera over one hundred times the killer- indeed, weather related fatalities is a very small contributor to global mortality
    Cholera is weather related.

    So is war.
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    If Colorado does not empty into sea, is this bad?
    Yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    In history our climate has changed over the eons of time for the entire globe so I'm sure that even though we are contributing to climate change, people will migrate slowly out of areas no longer suitable for their culture. Every generation will not notice changes in climate and will believe that it is not out of the ordinary for seasonal differences. We adapt to these changes as they become the norm just like every other creature has since life began. The ice caps may melt where the sea level will rise but people will be slowly moving back inland as they rise. No one will really notice it or even realize that the previous generations lived where the sea level now consumes its space.

    Our food crops will also have to migrate as the previous areas become unsuitable for growth and move to areas that are now optimal for growth. People are panicking over nothing!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    According to the latter source, war is ten time the killer than is extreme weather events and diarrhoeal diseases such as cholera over one hundred times the killer- indeed, weather related fatalities is a very small contributor to global mortality
    Cholera is weather related.

    So is war.
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    If Colorado does not empty into sea, is this bad?
    Yes.
    Yeah. Treating war and weather as two different sources of death is a false dichotomy. Any serious economic change can motivate people to kill each other in an effort to ensure that they're the ones who get the dwindling resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post


    So you admit adverse weather could occur in the absence of alleged AGW, would that all such alarmists were so honest. Prince suggests that effort be directed to preparing for same instead of squandered on futile measures to limit atmospheric CO2, which Bunbury on another thread seems to imply is hopeless, see "Goldilocks" thread.


    Time does not permit Prince further elaboration, good day gentlemen.

    While that wouldn't be a bad idea, it's also unnecessary to confirm CO2 levels are rising. You can use simple common sense. Take a look outside your window if you live in a major city and notice all the automobiles out there. Ask yourself how often does the average driver have to refill their gas tank? How many drivers are there?


    How probable is it that such an amount of CO2 can be released daily, weekly, monthy, or yearly and not lead to a general increase in the world's CO2 levels? We know that plant life isn't growing by amounts sufficient to cover the increased addition of CO2. Even if it were, the problem isn't the rate at which CO2 is converted to O2, but rather the degree to which the Carbon from that CO2 remains captured somewhere instead of being released again when the plant dies. If plant life were to triple, but the rate at which dying plants trapped carbon didn't increase (either animals were eating them, or insects, or microbes, and releasing the trapped carbon), then it would have no impact anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    Bunbury specifically is invited to explain further why he thinks climate twenty years ago was optimum possible for Earth planet, though other opinions are both welcome and inevitable given nature of TSF, long may it wave! Parenthetically, humans have adapted to conditions on every continent, a first for terrestrial mammals, and are the only known species to adapt to EXTRATERRESTRIAL conditions, so it may not be necessary to be so dour as dotcomrade Bunbury regarding future. Good cheer to him and to all this holiday season!


    C3: 2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present


    It's an interesting study, but it doesn't necessarily tell us about the World temperature. How do we know the higher core temperature was a global event instead of a local one only occurring in Antarctica?

    Regions with lots of ice have that temperature problem I was trying to describe in my other thread. World wide cooling could temporarily cause local heating at the ice caps. It would be the result if new ice were forming, and thereby releasing heat.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    But there is no way we can affect energy entering the system (short of weird techno fantasies about giant mirrors circling the planet).
    Actually such mirrors or sunshades would be better deployed at L1 point between Sun and Earth planet. Totally unnecessary since CO2 determines all, despite being trivial trace gas in atmosphere.

    Welcome to forum, hope you are liking it here.
    A lesser result could be achieved by putting the mirrors on the surface. That's a major part of the effect ice caps have. The ice reflects a lot of sunlight rather than allowing it to be absorbed.

    The problem with trying to put anything in an orbit around the Sun which is closer than Earth's orbit, is the object's orbit would have to be faster than our own. It would not keep pace with us unless it were able to continually expend fuel and propellant in order to keep itself there.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    In history our climate has changed over the eons of time for the entire globe so I'm sure that even though we are contributing to climate change, people will migrate slowly out of areas no longer suitable for their culture. Every generation will not notice changes in climate and will believe that it is not out of the ordinary for seasonal differences. We adapt to these changes as they become the norm just like every other creature has since life began. The ice caps may melt where the sea level will rise but people will be slowly moving back inland as they rise. No one will really notice it or even realize that the previous generations lived where the sea level now consumes its space.

    Our food crops will also have to migrate as the previous areas become unsuitable for growth and move to areas that are now optimal for growth. People are panicking over nothing!
    If only you were right, Barbi. That's what we'd expect in gradual climate change over eons. But that's not what's likely with rapid climate change in less than a couple of centuries.

    One thing that puzzles me, where are these areas that will become "optimal" for growth? If you're looking at the 2 american continents, you've got real problems. Down south there is less and less land visible on any map. Up north, the map looks as though there's land - but there's really not much that can grow stuff. Rock that's been scraped bare of its soil by ice offers no nutrients - in an area of very poor day length for growing seasonal crops. Areas that are now permafrost won't support trees or roads as they melt, let alone farming equipment. The current occasional "drunken forest" will become more widespread.

    If you're looking elsewhere, the north of Europe and Asia is much like Alaska and northern Canada. For the south, there's nothing but ocean between Australia or Africa and Antarctica, and only Sri Lanka for Asia.

    If you're serious, I suggest you start looking at mushroom cultivation, hydroponic vegetable farming based on circulating fertilisation through fish tanks or similar non-grain, non-ocean based food production.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION! CO2 and ONLY CO2 defines the temperature and mankind's control over this is ABSOLUTE!!!

    We don't need this or your "dogma" statement polemics.
    Yesterday you got a gentle nudge in another thread about a similar issue. There's a sticky about climate subject based on years of watching them go down the toilet and a reminder to keep them civil. You've read some of them and probably already know your statement is a straw-man because no scientist are claiming Co2 is the ONLY thing that effect climates; that too is not the first time. I'm giving you a day to think about how to be more constructive.

    Prince has been thinking about this comment for several days. He cannot find straw man- perhaps this straw man is on Enceladus as Meteor Wayne suggests. Is absolutely the case that principal concern about "global warming" is emission of the DREADED CARBON DIOXIDE and its adverse effect upon weather, from High Priest Nobel Laureate Academy Award Winner with unimpressive scientific credentials Al Gore on down to esteemed moderator's barber.

    This implies that CO2 is that portion of affecting climate under our collective control and by manipulation of same we can choose climate desired. Is allegedly DOMINANT over all naturally occurring factors, in fact, if Prince quotes esteemed moderator correctly, (was on another thread). When this became the case is still unknown to Prince, but if esteemed moderator is credible, is most surely the case now.

    The matter is settled, Prince is acquitted of all wrongdoing, and you can apologize now.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    According to the latter source, war is ten time the killer than is extreme weather events and diarrhoeal diseases such as cholera over one hundred times the killer- indeed, weather related fatalities is a very small contributor to global mortality
    Cholera is weather related.

    So is war.
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    If Colorado does not empty into sea, is this bad?
    Yes.
    Yeah. Treating war and weather as two different sources of death is a false dichotomy. Any serious economic change can motivate people to kill each other in an effort to ensure that they're the ones who get the dwindling resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post


    So you admit adverse weather could occur in the absence of alleged AGW, would that all such alarmists were so honest. Prince suggests that effort be directed to preparing for same instead of squandered on futile measures to limit atmospheric CO2, which Bunbury on another thread seems to imply is hopeless, see "Goldilocks" thread.


    Time does not permit Prince further elaboration, good day gentlemen.

    While that wouldn't be a bad idea, it's also unnecessary to confirm CO2 levels are rising. You can use simple common sense. Take a look outside your window if you live in a major city and notice all the automobiles out there. Ask yourself how often does the average driver have to refill their gas tank? How many drivers are there?


    How probable is it that such an amount of CO2 can be released daily, weekly, monthy, or yearly and not lead to a general increase in the world's CO2 levels? We know that plant life isn't growing by amounts sufficient to cover the increased addition of CO2. Even if it were, the problem isn't the rate at which CO2 is converted to O2, but rather the degree to which the Carbon from that CO2 remains captured somewhere instead of being released again when the plant dies. If plant life were to triple, but the rate at which dying plants trapped carbon didn't increase (either animals were eating them, or insects, or microbes, and releasing the trapped carbon), then it would have no impact anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    Bunbury specifically is invited to explain further why he thinks climate twenty years ago was optimum possible for Earth planet, though other opinions are both welcome and inevitable given nature of TSF, long may it wave! Parenthetically, humans have adapted to conditions on every continent, a first for terrestrial mammals, and are the only known species to adapt to EXTRATERRESTRIAL conditions, so it may not be necessary to be so dour as dotcomrade Bunbury regarding future. Good cheer to him and to all this holiday season!


    C3: 2010 Antarctica Peer-Reviewed Research: Ice Core Data Confirms Medieval Period Warmer Than Present


    It's an interesting study, but it doesn't necessarily tell us about the World temperature. How do we know the higher core temperature was a global event instead of a local one only occurring in Antarctica?

    Regions with lots of ice have that temperature problem I was trying to describe in my other thread. World wide cooling could temporarily cause local heating at the ice caps. It would be the result if new ice were forming, and thereby releasing heat.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    But there is no way we can affect energy entering the system (short of weird techno fantasies about giant mirrors circling the planet).
    Actually such mirrors or sunshades would be better deployed at L1 point between Sun and Earth planet. Totally unnecessary since CO2 determines all, despite being trivial trace gas in atmosphere.

    Welcome to forum, hope you are liking it here.
    A lesser result could be achieved by putting the mirrors on the surface. That's a major part of the effect ice caps have. The ice reflects a lot of sunlight rather than allowing it to be absorbed.

    The problem with trying to put anything in an orbit around the Sun which is closer than Earth's orbit, is the object's orbit would have to be faster than our own. It would not keep pace with us unless it were able to continually expend fuel and propellant in order to keep itself there.
    War has multiple causes, as is demonstrated by history. As for cholera is related to poor sanitation and proliferation of disease microbes and hence will occur in any climate, including London's. Cholera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Unbelievable as it sounds, vast areas of globe are destitute of roads, vehicles and drivers. Kojax has selection bias operating, much as he points out in ice core studies. In fact such studies are routinely trumpeted by AGW crowd when data seem to support desired conclusion, Prince notes. Is total contribution from combustion to total atmospheric CO2 indeed trivial? CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube

    Prince has noted on another thread that terrestrial clouds have higher albedo than does ice.

    If mirror/sunshade/power station is situated at L1 point, not only does it reap advantage of greater proximity to Sun and greater Solar flux, it requires little energy to maintain position expended.

    Finally, thanks to all for interest in thread.

    Lagrangian point - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    In history our climate has changed over the eons of time for the entire globe so I'm sure that even though we are contributing to climate change, people will migrate slowly out of areas no longer suitable for their culture. Every generation will not notice changes in climate and will believe that it is not out of the ordinary for seasonal differences. We adapt to these changes as they become the norm just like every other creature has since life began. The ice caps may melt where the sea level will rise but people will be slowly moving back inland as they rise. No one will really notice it or even realize that the previous generations lived where the sea level now consumes its space.

    Our food crops will also have to migrate as the previous areas become unsuitable for growth and move to areas that are now optimal for growth. People are panicking over nothing!
    If only you were right, Barbi. That's what we'd expect in gradual climate change over eons. But that's not what's likely with rapid climate change in less than a couple of centuries.

    One thing that puzzles me, where are these areas that will become "optimal" for growth? If you're looking at the 2 american continents, you've got real problems. Down south there is less and less land visible on any map. Up north, the map looks as though there's land - but there's really not much that can grow stuff. Rock that's been scraped bare of its soil by ice offers no nutrients - in an area of very poor day length for growing seasonal crops. Areas that are now permafrost won't support trees or roads as they melt, let alone farming equipment. The current occasional "drunken forest" will become more widespread.

    If you're looking elsewhere, the north of Europe and Asia is much like Alaska and northern Canada. For the south, there's nothing but ocean between Australia or Africa and Antarctica, and only Sri Lanka for Asia.

    If you're serious, I suggest you start looking at mushroom cultivation, hydroponic vegetable farming based on circulating fertilisation through fish tanks or similar non-grain, non-ocean based food production.
    Dire changes in weather as predicted by alarmist model have in fact largely failed to materialize. Hmmmm, could model possibly be DEFECTIVE?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    There are least important effects that man is having on global climate:

    Adding Co2 to the atmosphere at a rate nearly a hundred times more than the natural average of the planet by volcanoes. By positive feedback this is also raising water vapor.

    Adding methane from horticulture (our cows) and crops (rice and others).

    Adding sun blocking aerosols to the atmosphere (smog and others).

    Adding sun absorbing deposition to the snow and ice (e.g, soot "raining down")

    Complex CFC, Ozone depletion and stratospheric temperature changes over the polar regions.

    Of those Co2 and its coupling with water vapor are probably the largest effects, offset in some regions by the sun-blocking aerosols.

    There are probably more but those are the big ones.
    --
    Now it's fine to discuss any of these as a separate issues, or the relationships and feed backs between them or to the natural forcing.

    What's not fine, is shaping discussion with bold and ignorant assertions that science doesn't also recognize that other effects exist (e.g. such as your earlier Co2 rants); Science most assuredly do recognize those other effect, the natural effects we can recognize; all of them are included in some fashion in the global climate models.

    If you just meant it as a sarcastic joke than please consider that humor often doesn't come off very well in writing and you'll probably need to make it clearer by using a text feature (e.g. mock tags "[joke]"or something) or just keep it to yourself.
    We can still have fun around here so long as it doesn't destroy the scientific conversation.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post

    War has multiple causes, as is demonstrated by history.

    So say the politicians. ... while they line their pockets.


    Unbelievable as it sounds, vast areas of globe are destitute of roads, vehicles and drivers. Kojax has selection bias operating, much as he points out in ice core studies. In fact such studies are routinely trumpeted by AGW crowd when data seem to support desired conclusion, Prince notes. Is total contribution from combustion to total atmospheric CO2 indeed trivial? CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube
    The wind blows all over the world. Areas with cars get more smog, but AGW should occur world wide.

    What I was pointing out is that the ice caps are a special case, because when ice cools it releases heat, and when it is warmed, it releases coldness (or rather absorbs heat). Weather patterns can focus an effect on one area as well. I certainly agree that AGW advocates need to take this into account just as much as detractors do, however. A scientific claim of global temperature change should require samples from multiple areas of the world, which have different climates. Perhaps some buried samples of some kind in Africa will emerge that show Africa was also warmer during the period when the ice cores were taken?


    Prince has noted on another thread that terrestrial clouds have higher albedo than does ice.
    That may be true, but ice has closer proximity to the core samples. The clouds are very far away up in the air.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Clouds. Remember there are high clouds and low clouds, and differing formations in both. The most important thing is that one tends to retain OLR and the other reflects inward SWR by albedo. So there's no guarantee that the net effect is more or less than zero. And there's no guarantee that 'more' clouds will have a warming or a cooling effect. You have to know which kinds of clouds and how much of both.

    As for African climate evidence. I've not checked details but Africa's a big continent with a lot of caves. There are plenty of speleothems available for analysis as well as other evidence in lake and river sediments as well as corals in offshore reefs. And I very much doubt we're the first to think of it.

    CO2 concentrations. There's no point fussing about the fact that the numbers or ratios or percentages 'look' small. What matters is the effect. Think of water. You can colour a couple of litres of water with a millilitre or so of food colouring. And unsurprisingly, add a mere drop more and the colour will intensify. Another drop or two, and you've suddenly overshot the colour intensity you were aiming for. When you're dealing with a large (by comparison) neutral or inactive body of gas, liquid or some combination, it's the effect of the active components that matter. Unfortunately we can't add in a few extra dollops of oxygen or nitrogen to readjust the climate recipe the way we might add water or milk or juice when we've accidentally put in too much salt or sugar to something we're cooking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    In history our climate has changed over the eons of time for the entire globe so I'm sure that even though we are contributing to climate change, people will migrate slowly out of areas no longer suitable for their culture. Every generation will not notice changes in climate and will believe that it is not out of the ordinary for seasonal differences. We adapt to these changes as they become the norm just like every other creature has since life began. The ice caps may melt where the sea level will rise but people will be slowly moving back inland as they rise. No one will really notice it or even realize that the previous generations lived where the sea level now consumes its space.

    Our food crops will also have to migrate as the previous areas become unsuitable for growth and move to areas that are now optimal for growth. People are panicking over nothing!
    If only you were right, Barbi. That's what we'd expect in gradual climate change over eons. But that's not what's likely with rapid climate change in less than a couple of centuries.

    One thing that puzzles me, where are these areas that will become "optimal" for growth? If you're looking at the 2 american continents, you've got real problems. Down south there is less and less land visible on any map. Up north, the map looks as though there's land - but there's really not much that can grow stuff. Rock that's been scraped bare of its soil by ice offers no nutrients - in an area of very poor day length for growing seasonal crops. Areas that are now permafrost won't support trees or roads as they melt, let alone farming equipment. The current occasional "drunken forest" will become more widespread.

    If you're looking elsewhere, the north of Europe and Asia is much like Alaska and northern Canada. For the south, there's nothing but ocean between Australia or Africa and Antarctica, and only Sri Lanka for Asia.

    If you're serious, I suggest you start looking at mushroom cultivation, hydroponic vegetable farming based on circulating fertilisation through fish tanks or similar non-grain, non-ocean based food production.
    Are we experiencing rapid climate change right now? In history, many civilizations became extinct which are believed to be the result of using up all of their resources in that given area which affected the climate in that area which made it now unsuitable for their way of life. Is there really a difference of what happened to them and what we are experiencing now? We already know that you can't continue to grows crop year after year in the same area even if you alternate what you grow from one year to the next. Our water levels are becoming dangerously low all over the world and this is due to the fact there are too many humans using up these resources at a excelerated pace. Rapid climate change if it is global will reduce the global population fairly well while leaving the most adapted survivors to carry on. Right now perhaps this is the reason why rich people are hoarding their money so they can move around fairly easily to a less affected area by climate change.

    Perhaps it is the reason why are government is enabling the situation so most of the U.S. population is so poor that they will never have the option to leave our area in search of a better climate so we all eventually perish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    The ice cores establish isotope ratios of atomic constituents of the lower atmosphere. There is no known mechanism for isolating geographic regions of the lower atmosphere enough to establish large, long term (hundreds of years), and consistent deviations of the absolute values, let alone the trends, of such ratios from the global atmospheric average. That would require global weather patterns of kinds completely absent now and unknown for thousands of years.

    Clouds vary in effect not only by latitude and altitude but by diurnal timing - clouds at night reflect little incoming and trap much outgoing, as is well known and easily observed by people even without instruments. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere may or may not lead to more clouds, but definitely and consistently traps heat 24/7 - since warmer air itself can hold more water vapor without making clouds, this sets up a positive feedback loop of great influence and concern.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    We may be able to control the climate. We shall never be able to control the weather.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Rapid climate change if it is global will reduce the global population fairly well while leaving the most adapted survivors to carry on. Right now perhaps this is the reason why rich people are hoarding their money so they can move around fairly easily to a less affected area by climate change.
    It would work like that if we didn't have nukes. Since we do, what will happen is the group that's supposed to just roll over and die will commit acts of terrorism. Sooner or later, if that group grows large enough, they'll commit acts of nuclear terrorism and trigger MADD, and then the environment's available resources will constrict even faster.

    It becomes a feedback cycle. The Atom Bomb kills people, but then also kills their environment, prompting another war to try and cull the population further, which ... also goes nuclear, further damaging the environment.... prompting yet another war.....etc. It's not the first nuclear war that's so scary. It's the ten or twenty that happen afterward when people are still desperate and scared from the first one.

    Perhaps it is the reason why are government is enabling the situation so most of the U.S. population is so poor that they will never have the option to leave our area in search of a better climate so we all eventually perish.
    Our only chance of convincing the losers to roll over and die: convince them to consent to an economic system which allows for it, and then divert wealth away from them until they starve to death. In theory that might work. In practice I think the illusion of justice will vanish when the hunger sets in, and they'll ultimately withdraw their consent.

    On the other hand, there was a lot of practical psychology at work in the way the Nazis constructed concentration camps. A person entering Auschwitz might entertain the illusion of a hope for survival the whole way through, right up until they were taken into the showers. If you want to prevent armed resistance, that's kind of how you do it. Offer people hope, and take them down little by little.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    It would work since the elite and the leaders of government would take their nukes with them and join other countries elite and leaders of government with their nukes and so on and all of them together allow the masses to die within each country. They could easily survive on what limited supply of resources that were left and wait it out until climate stabilized.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    There are least important effects that man is having on global climate:

    Adding Co2 to the atmosphere at a rate nearly a hundred times more than the natural average of the planet by volcanoes. By positive feedback this is also raising water vapor.

    Adding methane from horticulture (our cows) and crops (rice and others).

    Adding sun blocking aerosols to the atmosphere (smog and others).

    Adding sun absorbing deposition to the snow and ice (e.g, soot "raining down")

    Complex CFC, Ozone depletion and stratospheric temperature changes over the polar regions.

    Of those Co2 and its coupling with water vapor are probably the largest effects, offset in some regions by the sun-blocking aerosols.

    There are probably more but those are the big ones.
    --
    Now it's fine to discuss any of these as a separate issues, or the relationships and feed backs between them or to the natural forcing.

    What's not fine, is shaping discussion with bold and ignorant assertions that science doesn't also recognize that other effects exist (e.g. such as your earlier Co2 rants); Science most assuredly do recognize those other effect, the natural effects we can recognize; all of them are included in some fashion in the global climate models.

    If you just meant it as a sarcastic joke than please consider that humor often doesn't come off very well in writing and you'll probably need to make it clearer by using a text feature (e.g. mock tags "[joke]"or something) or just keep it to yourself.
    We can still have fun around here so long as it doesn't destroy the scientific conversation.
    On Earth planet, "global warming" and "climate change" are generally assumed to be anthropogenic by mass media and mass hysteria and focus of mitigating same centers on curtailing emissions of CO2 produced by humans. This is no more "okay" for Prince than for anyone else, maybe things are different on your planet, maybe one where IPCC models match observed reality accurately. And one where CFCs have not been banned for some years now, or haven't you got the news, esteemed moderator?

    Oh, yeah.

    Good joke, your comparing scientific credentials of Freeman Dyson to those of Al Gore, your AGW prophet of doom. Personally Prince thinks your barber is more qualified than Gore too, but who has Nobel Prize and Academy Award? Funny stuff.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    We may be able to control the climate. We shall never be able to control the weather.
    Bold words. So will we vote on it or what? And where does the boundary between "climate" and "weather" lie for dotcomrade John Galt?
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    Rapid climate change if it is global will reduce the global population fairly well while leaving the most adapted survivors to carry on. Right now perhaps this is the reason why rich people are hoarding their money so they can move around fairly easily to a less affected area by climate change.
    It would work like that if we didn't have nukes. Since we do, what will happen is the group that's supposed to just roll over and die will commit acts of terrorism. Sooner or later, if that group grows large enough, they'll commit acts of nuclear terrorism and trigger MADD, and then the environment's available resources will constrict even faster.

    It becomes a feedback cycle. The Atom Bomb kills people, but then also kills their environment, prompting another war to try and cull the population further, which ... also goes nuclear, further damaging the environment.... prompting yet another war.....etc. It's not the first nuclear war that's so scary. It's the ten or twenty that happen afterward when people are still desperate and scared from the first one.

    Perhaps it is the reason why are government is enabling the situation so most of the U.S. population is so poor that they will never have the option to leave our area in search of a better climate so we all eventually perish.
    Our only chance of convincing the losers to roll over and die: convince them to consent to an economic system which allows for it, and then divert wealth away from them until they starve to death. In theory that might work. In practice I think the illusion of justice will vanish when the hunger sets in, and they'll ultimately withdraw their consent.

    On the other hand, there was a lot of practical psychology at work in the way the Nazis constructed concentration camps. A person entering Auschwitz might entertain the illusion of a hope for survival the whole way through, right up until they were taken into the showers. If you want to prevent armed resistance, that's kind of how you do it. Offer people hope, and take them down little by little.
    It helps to co-opt and/or corrupt existing leadership of such groups. First target of Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was Jewish community leaders.

    Better use of nuclear isotopes is in reactors, not bombs, providing power regardless of weather clemency or climate change of whatever origin, such is the policy of Prince, who again is grateful for all contributions to this provocative thread.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    The ice cores establish isotope ratios of atomic constituents of the lower atmosphere. There is no known mechanism for isolating geographic regions of the lower atmosphere enough to establish large, long term (hundreds of years), and consistent deviations of the absolute values, let alone the trends, of such ratios from the global atmospheric average. That would require global weather patterns of kinds completely absent now and unknown for thousands of years.

    Clouds vary in effect not only by latitude and altitude but by diurnal timing - clouds at night reflect little incoming and trap much outgoing, as is well known and easily observed by people even without instruments. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere may or may not lead to more clouds, but definitely and consistently traps heat 24/7 - since warmer air itself can hold more water vapor without making clouds, this sets up a positive feedback loop of great influence and concern.
    AGW apologists are unwilling to rule out Medieval Climate OPTIMUM as localized European phenomenon, though, hmmmmm...

    Why OPTIMUM? Was warmer than today.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    your comparing scientific credentials of Freeman Dyson to those of Al Gore,
    Where?

    Or are you just trying to raise the shrillness of the discussion without a basis in facts (once again).


    --
    Now if you want to compare them, we can do that...neither is an atmospheric scientist.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    [QUOTE=The Finger Prince;297244]
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    On Earth planet, "global warming" and "climate change" are generally assumed to be anthropogenic by mass media and mass hysteria and focus of mitigating same centers on curtailing emissions of CO2 produced by humans. This is no more "okay" for Prince than for anyone else, maybe things are different on your planet, maybe one where IPCC models match observed reality accurately. :
    Well you're right about that. The actual data is far worse than all of the most pessemistic models.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    AGW apologists are unwilling to rule out Medieval Climate OPTIMUM as localized European phenomenon, though,
    Neither are the experts in the field.

    Why OPTIMUM? Was warmer than today.
    Not all year on average, and not globally at all. But the weather was nicer in the northern northern hemisphere, yes, in many ways, not too many thousand years ago. Badgers where there is now permafrost, forests where there is now tundra, in North America.

    Your point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    We may be able to control the climate. We shall never be able to control the weather.
    Bold words. So will we vote on it or what? And where does the boundary between "climate" and "weather" lie for dotcomrade John Galt?
    Bold words? Not at all. They are natural consequences of the nature of weather and climate and the extent of our technology. I suggest if the truth of these observations is not self evident then you do not know enough about climate or weather to be participating in this discussion other than to ask questions.

    If you wish to continue with your presumptive use of the term dot. comrade please do not do so when addressing me. Your intentions may be positive, but it comes across as patronising and supercilious.

    The distinction between weather and climate is not mine, but that of geographers, meterologists and climatologists. It is taught in first year of secondary classes. Weather are the conditions of rain, wind, temperature and the like occuring from moment to moment. Climate is the average of those conditions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Prince, what I'm not understanding about your argument is, where do CO2 emissions figure in your version of climate? Do you honestly believe they would have no effect?


    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    It would work since the elite and the leaders of government would take their nukes with them and join other countries elite and leaders of government with their nukes and so on and all of them together allow the masses to die within each country. They could easily survive on what limited supply of resources that were left and wait it out until climate stabilized.
    Eventually they'd separate into classes again (upper and lower elite) and repeat the whole process until the lower elite died off leaving only the upper elite. Then the upper elite would separate into upper upper elite and lower upper elite...... etc. The worst part comes when they're living in underground shelters to avoid the fallout above, because then their ecosystem is even more fragile and it's even easier to wipe each other out in Just use gas or shut off essential services and stuff like that. Sabotage your "enemy"'s generators, or use explosives to cave in their tunnel.

    Just imagine some rich, highly entitled dude trying to get by in a shelter, sharing a bunk bed and eating algae. Yeah right. He'd kill his neighbor to get a second bed. Then he'd get a mistress, and start to realize that the more beds he has the more he can get laid, and start trying to kill more of his neighbors to get their beds too. And why stop at beds? Why not get their food and clothes too? Make everyone come to him when they want resources.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Climate is the average of those conditions.
    And not just any old average. The standard definition is 30 years - and has been for more than 30 years.

    If you'd like to use less than that, the latest work tells us that the minimum time required to distinguish climate signal from weather noise is 17 years. Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    your comparing scientific credentials of Freeman Dyson to those of Al Gore,
    Where?

    Or are you just trying to raise the shrillness of the discussion without a basis in facts (once again).


    --
    Now if you want to compare them, we can do that...neither is an atmospheric scientist.
    No. As a matter of fact, Gore has no scientific credentials whatsoever, which is not surprising since cult of AGW is political rather than scientific in nature, so has political front man.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Prince, what I'm not understanding about your argument is, where do CO2 emissions figure in your version of climate? Do you honestly believe they would have no effect?


    Quote Originally Posted by Barbi View Post
    It would work since the elite and the leaders of government would take their nukes with them and join other countries elite and leaders of government with their nukes and so on and all of them together allow the masses to die within each country. They could easily survive on what limited supply of resources that were left and wait it out until climate stabilized.
    Eventually they'd separate into classes again (upper and lower elite) and repeat the whole process until the lower elite died off leaving only the upper elite. Then the upper elite would separate into upper upper elite and lower upper elite...... etc. The worst part comes when they're living in underground shelters to avoid the fallout above, because then their ecosystem is even more fragile and it's even easier to wipe each other out in Just use gas or shut off essential services and stuff like that. Sabotage your "enemy"'s generators, or use explosives to cave in their tunnel.

    Just imagine some rich, highly entitled dude trying to get by in a shelter, sharing a bunk bed and eating algae. Yeah right. He'd kill his neighbor to get a second bed. Then he'd get a mistress, and start to realize that the more beds he has the more he can get laid, and start trying to kill more of his neighbors to get their beds too. And why stop at beds? Why not get their food and clothes too? Make everyone come to him when they want resources.
    Prince has observed presence of CO2 in atmosphere is trace only, and addition made by human activity to trace is not significant compared to other factors, e.g. "natural" influences, which have prevailed for untold millennia prior to advent of industrial civilization and continue to do so today. And we must not allow a mine shaft gap! Safeguard the precious bodily fluids! Do not allow the deadly CO2 to infiltrate little children's ice cream!

    With apologies to Dr. Strangelove, look it up.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    We may be able to control the climate. We shall never be able to control the weather.
    Bold words. So will we vote on it or what? And where does the boundary between "climate" and "weather" lie for dotcomrade John Galt?
    Bold words? Not at all. They are natural consequences of the nature of weather and climate and the extent of our technology. I suggest if the truth of these observations is not self evident then you do not know enough about climate or weather to be participating in this discussion other than to ask questions.

    If you wish to continue with your presumptive use of the term dot. comrade please do not do so when addressing me. Your intentions may be positive, but it comes across as patronising and supercilious.

    The distinction between weather and climate is not mine, but that of geographers, meterologists and climatologists. It is taught in first year of secondary classes. Weather are the conditions of rain, wind, temperature and the like occuring from moment to moment. Climate is the average of those conditions.
    Very well, thank you for explanation, though Prince is not responsible for your perceptions he will honor your request. How can we control average without controlling conditions? Would seem simpler, in fact, to control conditions, as is routinely done when clouds are seeded to induce rainfall, not so? So you are making no sense whatsoever.

    Cloud seeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    [QUOTE=MeteorWayne;297297]
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    On Earth planet, "global warming" and "climate change" are generally assumed to be anthropogenic by mass media and mass hysteria and focus of mitigating same centers on curtailing emissions of CO2 produced by humans. This is no more "okay" for Prince than for anyone else, maybe things are different on your planet, maybe one where IPCC models match observed reality accurately. :
    Well you're right about that. The actual data is far worse than all of the most pessemistic models.
    Do you have such data? Or just baseless claim? Or perhaps raw horse manure? Prince is "right about that" as well, he suspects STRONGLY.

    So far deaths from extreme weather events of most kinds is big yawn recently compared to other causes:
    http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf


    Oddly enough, as deaths due to such events DECLINE, the DREADED CO2 continues to RISE! How can this BE!!! Prince refers to Fig. 5 in link above.

    So go back to stable employment, Wayne, maybe you will find your "straw man" there- Prince rather doubts such are on Enceladus as you have hypothesized on another thread...
    Last edited by The Finger Prince; December 19th, 2011 at 01:39 AM. Reason: link added
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    your comparing scientific credentials of Freeman Dyson to those of Al Gore,
    Where?

    Or are you just trying to raise the shrillness of the discussion without a basis in facts (once again).


    --
    Now if you want to compare them, we can do that...neither is an atmospheric scientist.
    Was on another thread. Actually you simply derided Dyson without mentioning Gore's conspicuous lack of any scientific credentials whatsoever, comparing him to your barber. So Dyson is more like the metaphorical one eyed man versus the blind man represented by Gore- which one would you follow?

    Oh, wait- we already know, heheheheheh...

    Hope your barber has at least one good eye if you want to keep both ears!
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    ...derided Dyson without mentioning Gore's conspicuous lack of any scientific credentials whatsoever...
    He may not be an atmospheric physicist but wiki tells us ....

    he was a "genuine nerd, with a geek reputation running back to his days ... in the House. Before computers were comprehensible [...] Gore struggled to explain artificial intelligence and fiber-optic networks to sleepy colleagues."
    The big difference between Gore and FD is that Gore defers to and relies on experts in the relevant field if it's outside his own area. FD is very entertaining at times - but he gleefully dives in to any topic that takes his fancy and publicly sprays his completely uninformed opinions around.

    He's not the only one. But he takes his well-deserved reputation for his own work and relies on it for a receptive audience to disseminate misinformation and bombastic opinions. As far as I can see he's done no work of any kind in any relevant climate discipline - and he doesn't bother to read through any of even the best-known scientific papers, let alone check out the citations.

    Being clever and well-regarded for it is not enough. If you're not willing or able to do the work yourself, you have no legitimate option but to rely on those who have done the research. Gore does it. FD doesn't.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Very well, thank you for explanation, though Prince is not responsible for your perceptions he will honor your request. How can we control average without controlling conditions? Would seem simpler, in fact, to control conditions, as is routinely done when clouds are seeded to induce rainfall, not so? So you are making no sense whatsoever.

    Cloud seeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Again you are showing a lamentable lack of comprehension.

    Cloud seeding is a questionable practice of dubious value, applicable in only a small precentage of instances to possibly tilt the balance in favour of rain. No other weather modifiers have been seriously proposed or tested. Weather is frequently a chaotic phenomenom, in the technical sense, and as such is not susceptible to control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post

    Prince has observed presence of CO2 in atmosphere is trace only, and addition made by human activity to trace is not significant compared to other factors, e.g. "natural" influences, which have prevailed for untold millennia prior to advent of industrial civilization and continue to do so today. And we must not allow a mine shaft gap! Safeguard the precious bodily fluids! Do not allow the deadly CO2 to infiltrate little children's ice cream!

    With apologies to Dr. Strangelove, look it up.
    This is from wiki, so I don't know how it checks against better sources.

    Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 390 parts per million by volume or 591 parts per million by mass.[34] The total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.16×1015 kg (about 3,000 gigatonnes). Its concentration varies seasonally (see graph at right) and also considerably on a regional basis, especially near the ground. In urban areas concentrations are generally higher and indoors they can reach 10 times background levels. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

    Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4–5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[36][37] Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestationhave caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.


    The question, Prince, is not "How much is there?" but rather "How much does it take to make a difference?"

    Also, don't fool yourself into thinking temperature is the only problem.

    Carbonic acid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The oceans of the world have absorbed almost half of the CO2 emitted by humans from the burning of fossil fuels.[2] The extra dissolved carbon dioxide has caused the ocean's average surface pH to shift by about 0.1 unit from pre-industrial levels.[3] This process is known as ocean acidification.


    When the ocean absorbs CO2 it does it by converting it into Carbonic Acid, or H2CO3, so any increase in global CO2 levels will create a corresponding increase in the acidity of the Ocean's water.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    [QUOTE=MeteorWayne;297297]
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    On Earth planet, "global warming" and "climate change" are generally assumed to be anthropogenic by mass media and mass hysteria and focus of mitigating same centers on curtailing emissions of CO2 produced by humans. This is no more "okay" for Prince than for anyone else, maybe things are different on your planet, maybe one where IPCC models match observed reality accurately. :
    Well you're right about that. The actual data is far worse than all of the most pessemistic models.
    You are challenged to provide evidence for this so far unsupported claim- BEWARE!

    Esteemed moderator takes very DIM VIEW INDEED of unsupported posts- naturally, he will reprimand you most severely for this, if he has not done so already.

    Of course, our esteemed lady dotcomrade has pointed out on another thread the limited relevance of "data", so maybe it is not required for PROPONENTS of AGW- only critics.

    Prince awaits clarification of these matters.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Very well, thank you for explanation, though Prince is not responsible for your perceptions he will honor your request. How can we control average without controlling conditions? Would seem simpler, in fact, to control conditions, as is routinely done when clouds are seeded to induce rainfall, not so? So you are making no sense whatsoever.

    Cloud seeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Again you are showing a lamentable lack of comprehension.

    Cloud seeding is a questionable practice of dubious value, applicable in only a small precentage of instances to possibly tilt the balance in favour of rain. No other weather modifiers have been seriously proposed or tested. Weather is frequently a chaotic phenomenom, in the technical sense, and as such is not susceptible to control.
    Yet AVERAGE of such chaotic phenomena is well within our grasp, and rain, or at least artificially induced rain, does not qualify as "weather".

    You are right, Prince does not understand. He gets wet "whether" rain is induced or not, if you will pardon the expression.

    Perhaps you will revise your definitions again. Or recognize that Goldilocks is NOT character in pedophile Carroll's "Through the Looking-Glass".

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    ...derided Dyson without mentioning Gore's conspicuous lack of any scientific credentials whatsoever...
    He may not be an atmospheric physicist but wiki tells us ....

    he was a "genuine nerd, with a geek reputation running back to his days ... in the House. Before computers were comprehensible [...] Gore struggled to explain artificial intelligence and fiber-optic networks to sleepy colleagues."
    The big difference between Gore and FD is that Gore defers to and relies on experts in the relevant field if it's outside his own area. FD is very entertaining at times - but he gleefully dives in to any topic that takes his fancy and publicly sprays his completely uninformed opinions around.

    He's not the only one. But he takes his well-deserved reputation for his own work and relies on it for a receptive audience to disseminate misinformation and bombastic opinions. As far as I can see he's done no work of any kind in any relevant climate discipline - and he doesn't bother to read through any of even the best-known scientific papers, let alone check out the citations.

    Being clever and well-regarded for it is not enough. If you're not willing or able to do the work yourself, you have no legitimate option but to rely on those who have done the research. Gore does it. FD doesn't.
    Gore's academic record and Dyson's speak for themselves. As for those doing the work, when they admit that warming is more than product of CO2 concentration and all factors are not accounted for, Prince is inclined to believe them.

    Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming : Abstract : Nature Geoscience
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    Prince has observed presence of CO2 in atmosphere is trace only, and addition made by human activity to trace is not significant compared to other factors, e.g. "natural" influences, which have prevailed for untold millennia prior to advent of industrial civilization and continue to do so today.
    The addition made by human activity in the past century alone is almost a third of the total now present.

    All the greenhouse gasses are "trace". CO2 is the most significant greenhouse gas because extra persists longer - methane and the like are more quickly broken down, H2O freezes out and precipitates without the warming from CO2. Having added a third to the most persistent greenhouse gas will have major effects for many years, if we stop adding more immediately.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    According to dogma and computer models of dubious reliability. Meanwhile solar flux varies and cycles responsible for climate since origin of Earth planet continue unabated. It is far from certain that halting combustion on a global sale is warranted or even possible, and other alternatives are rarely discussed by AGW cultists- why?

    Because actual intent is to deindustrialize planet, returning to backward agrarian conditions, killing off billions, probably more than "greenhouse effect" ever would.

    Dire consequences have failed to materialize on schedule predicted- and as previously noted, disease and war are among the many phenomena which have causes other than "global warming". Can you name a single conflict DIRECTLY resulting from AGW?

    Prince will wait while you search for such an example.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince
    The addition made by human activity in the past century alone is almost a third of the total now present.

    All the greenhouse gasses are "trace". CO2 is the most significant greenhouse gas because extra persists longer - methane and the like are more quickly broken down, H2O freezes out and precipitates without the warming from CO2. Having added a third to the most persistent greenhouse gas will have major effects for many years, if we stop adding more immediately



    According to dogma and computer models of dubious reliability.
    According to direct measurement and simple physics unchallenged for decades.
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    Can you name a single conflict DIRECTLY resulting from AGW?
    The indirect stuff is what does all the damage. Like rabies, it's the reaction events that cause all the trouble. Just getting a little warmer air blowing around is no big deal. Getting a record heat wave in Pakistan kills hundreds - most indirectly. Getting record floods in the many slums of the newly relocated Tropical Convergence Zone kills thousands - indirectly. Getting a ten year drought in the borderlands of the Sahara kills millions - indirectly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    by AGW cultists
    (Sigh). You're suspended for a week while the mod team reviews your actions.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
    On this point we are in agreement. Now, while you are sitting out your one week ban, go away and find out how the terms weather and climate are used by meterologists, climatologists, geographers and the like. You will then see that why it may be possible to control the gross features of climate through altering global and regional energy balances (as is is happening inadvertently through greenhouse gas emissions), but not possible to alter the specific conditions, which are chaotic and often catastrophic.

    What ddi you not understand about the insiginifcance of cloud seeding that practically never works and then only in some very, rare, specific marginal circumstances?
    Last edited by John Galt; December 20th, 2011 at 10:03 AM. Reason: Correct the annoying tendency to type know for now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    According to dogma and computer models of dubious reliability.
    No, based on physics that has been understood since the 19th century. The computer models are based on the kniwn science and measured data.

    Meanwhile solar flux varies and cycles responsible for climate since origin of Earth planet continue unabated.
    Indeed. And those are taken into account.

    It is far from certain that halting combustion on a global sale is warranted or even possible, and other alternatives are rarely discussed by AGW cultists- why?
    Wow. Have you read nothing about this subject. I am no expert at all, but I have seen articles on:
    - renewable energy: generation and distribution;
    - nuclear energy use;
    - changes to the organization of societies: e.g. reintroducing farming back to the centers of cities, teleworking;
    - carbon capture: both sequestering at the point of release and an impressive system of distributed collection stations about the size of shipping containers - self funding because there is a market for CO2 as a chemical;
    - improved public transport;
    - more efficient private transport: better engines, more electronic control of engines and driving, etc;
    - changes to agriculture: what crops should be grown where, irrigation, desalination, etc;
    - education in developing countries: to improve farming practices, family planning, health, fuel efficiency, etc;
    - geoengineering solutions;
    - and on and on and on

    Have you really never heard of any of these research areas? You might want to look for some papers on the "wedge" principal, which is a way for working out which combinations of measures in which proportions might be able to address the problems.

    Because actual intent is to deindustrialize planet
    Any evidence for that bizarre claim?

    One thing I have always been slightly puzzled by was the resistance of the US government to the "green movement". There is a whole new market here which other countries (and some US states) are starting to profit from. It would have been more sensible for the US to jump on the bandwagon early, "bigged up" the market potential and support new industries/jobs. But then again, certain past presidents were heavily into the oil industry...

    And, of course, the other thing is that reducing energy use often means increasing efficiency and hence reducing overheads. also good for business.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    One thing I have always been slightly puzzled by was the resistance of the US government to the "green movement".
    Me too. My naive expectation was that the famed entrepreneurial spirit would leap delightedly on a new range of opportunities for money making. Instead of disaffected consumers withholding their money from conventional suppliers, these enterprises would acquire an enthusiastic band of committed customers.

    But no. All this bleating about reverting to living in caves and economies declining into rusted wastelands ensued. And the 'green consumer' was left with some cottage industries and a farmers' market if they were lucky enough to live near one.

    I still don't get it. Even though I am encouraged, surprisingly enough, by 'greenwashing'. Once companies start advertising frequent (but often spurious) claims to green virtue, competition for dollars for "really, truly" green products and services must follow.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In The Basement.
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    False simile,Prince. Global warming is not a fable or a myth but a threat. It is a threat on the order of the rising water level of a river that we have just damed down stream of us. Trying to say, "Water levels rise and fall naturally and there have been floods in the past long before we built the dam." just does not cut it. We don't know what the optimum water level is. But we do know that the dam will change it. You are arguing against finding out how high the water will rise and stopping our dam building before it floods us out. If you want to propose that a warmer average world temp might be a good thing, go for it. It might be. But that is not what is in the immediate offing. More violent weather is what is predicted by increasing the energy in the global weather system. It is hard to see how increasingly violent weather is to anyone's advantage.
    Please try to pause and ... think.

    Nonviolent weather has been by far the exception to all climatic trends throughout human Hx. What are you imagining to be the realistic norm which would satisfy your intuitive expectations?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    Nonviolent weather has been by far the exception to all climatic trends throughout human Hx. What are you imagining to be the realistic norm which would satisfy your intuitive expectations?
    So you agree that a direct consequence of global warming will be an increase in 'violent weather'? What makes you think that this increase will be unimportant since we have survived violent weather in the past? Are you familiar with the distinction between surviving and flourishing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In The Basement.
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    Nonviolent weather has been by far the exception to all climatic trends throughout human Hx. What are you imagining to be the realistic norm which would satisfy your intuitive expectations?
    So you agree that a direct consequence of global warming will be an increase in 'violent weather'? What makes you think that this increase will be unimportant since we have survived violent weather in the past? Are you familiar with the distinction between surviving and flourishing?
    What makes you think you deserve to flourish according to your intuitive expectations?

    Violent weather will make real men out of the pansies and metrosexuals who are everywhere. Lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Since climate varies according to latitude NOW, and always HAS, we may presume it always WILL.

    So the idea of an "optimum" climate globally is totally nonsensical- somebody, or more likely, EVERYBODY, will have something to complain about all year around, wherever they happen to live, just as they do TODAY, which means "Goldilocks" is here.

    What a silly proposition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And, of course, the other thing is that reducing energy use often means increasing efficiency and hence reducing overheads. also good for business.
    Actually, historically, more efficiency leads to greater consumption. Extraction and use of coal and iron as well as generation and use of electricity bears this out, as does computing power and information processing more generally, going back to Gutenberg and the printing press. So yes, good for business- but reduced consumption?

    No WAY.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JoReba View Post
    Nonviolent weather has been by far the exception to all climatic trends throughout human Hx. What are you imagining to be the realistic norm which would satisfy your intuitive expectations?
    So you agree that a direct consequence of global warming will be an increase in 'violent weather'? What makes you think that this increase will be unimportant since we have survived violent weather in the past? Are you familiar with the distinction between surviving and flourishing?
    What makes you think you deserve to flourish according to your intuitive expectations?

    Violent weather will make real men out of the pansies and metrosexuals who are everywhere. Lol.
    Do you like "real men" like Roald Amundsen, polar explorer, who claimed, "Adventure is just bad planning", or his rival Scott, a real DEAD man? Scott managed to get his buddies all killed, too, believing in his own macho bullfeathers so much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    So the idea of an "optimum" climate globally is totally nonsensical
    Couldn't agree more.

    somebody, or more likely, EVERYBODY, will have something to complain about all year around, wherever they happen to live,
    It's not about comfort. It's about what the 'uncomfortable' weather signifies. Frost? Wear your gloves but be glad that your peaches get their annual chilling quota and a goodly number of tree pests die off before the season changes. Flood? Build your house out of harm's way and rejoice in the nutrients regularly added to your pastures and crop fields. (Think of the productivity of the Nile basin before the dam was built.) Hot and humid? Fan yourself, take a siesta. But be pleased with the growth of your citrus, coconut, banana and maize plantations.

    As for the latitude question. The Goldilocks "just right" conditions are the fortunate coincidence of temperate climates neatly lining up with the good soils for crops and pasture productivity. Our civilisation is based on agriculture. One aspect of a warming climate that many people overlook is the expansion of the Hadley cells. Perth in Australia has already suffered a 60% decline in runoff into water storages compared to the pre 1970 averages. The rain still falls - but not as much in Perth's catchments - it's moved polewards so some of that rain now falls over the ocean. In South Australia, it seems the Goyder line has moved 20+km southwards. (The Goyder line is a demarcation between lands/rainfall that can and can't support regular annual crops.) Similar effects are becoming apparent around the Mediterranean.

    It doesn't matter how much we complain about the weather. It does matter how much food we grow.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Hadley had no formal training as a meteorologist and no credentials. How can you believe he came up with anything worthwhile in the field? Obviously it is all rubbish.

    And if we admit that, for the sake of argument, Hadley's so-called "cells" exist, and that they ARE moving somewhere or other, what is taking their place?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady
    The Goldilocks "just right" conditions are the fortunate coincidence of temperate climates neatly lining up with the good soils for crops and pasture productivity.
    That isn't coincidence - the good climate creates the good soil.

    It will take a long time for the new climate regime to create good soil in the formerly in hospitable regimes, if that is even possible under human agricultural pressure - the peat bogs and acidic pine forest mineral scrims of northern Minnesota are not going to grow corn the way the twenty foot deep mollosoils of the Iowa prairie did, in the lifetimes of anyone born this century.

    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Hadley had no formal training as a meteorologist and no credentials. How can you believe he came up with anything worthwhile in the field?
    This is science - anyone can make the key discovery, have the important insight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    It doesn't matter how much we complain about the weather. It does matter how much food we grow.
    We are growing so much food we are burning it for fuel, never fear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    This is science - anyone can make the key discovery, have the important insight.
    Suuuuure they can. You just go on thinking that. Who gets the grants? The pros, that's who. Even if this weren't true, there are millions of cranks out there for every legitimate discovery, pro OR amateur. If you don't believe me, look at the Internet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Suuuuure they can. You just go on thinking that.
    Hadley did. So have dozens of others.

    Attacking well known and standard science because its discoverers lacked what you regard as appropriate credentials is a bit silly, to give you the benefit of the doubt. You planning on throwing out all the major discoveries that were made by those without specific credentials in the relevant field? It's a long list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    We may be able to control the climate. We shall never be able to control the weather.
    huh? Looking over the thread, I saw this- is there any point to it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arthur
    Suuuuure they can. You just go on thinking that.
    Hadley did. So have dozens of others.

    Attacking well known and standard science because its discoverers lacked what you regard as appropriate credentials is a bit silly, to give you the benefit of the doubt. You planning on throwing out all the major discoveries that were made by those without specific credentials in the relevant field? It's a long list.
    Oh, yeah? Look, next you'll be telling me that some lawyer invented calculus, or some sculptor invented philosophy.
    Ridiculous. Only qualified professionals should be allowed to practice medicine and the same goes for science. Otherwise there would be chaos, and you don't want that, do you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Anyway, the idea that there is some "ideal climate" is a load of manure as far as I can see. Were the plagues of Egypt ideal? Were the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s? No. They were awful. Look at the weather OR the climate anywhere in the world today, chances are good it is awful, and was also awful 10, 20, 100, or 200 years ago. There were famines, floods, and droughts then, and there are today, and guess what?

    Forecast for tomorrow looks about the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. About global warming!
    By gius in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: December 8th, 2009, 04:36 AM
  2. Global Warming
    By (In)Sanity in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 4th, 2006, 12:58 AM
  3. Another Cause for Global Warming
    By ghost7584 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 31st, 2006, 01:42 PM
  4. Aside From Global Warming
    By The P-manator in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 28th, 2006, 09:24 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •