|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:16:46 -0600, in a place far, far away,
"relay61:13:214:23" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message ... January 26, 2005 http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0501...050124-10.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934 http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7440023 http://www.physorg.com/news2831.html http://www.climateprediction.net Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net The time frame is intentionally unclear, BBC says 11 degrees hotter C in about 100 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210629.stm how sensitive is the prediction 0.01 degree C per year? We could simply cool the earth down by covering India with Al foil and reflecting the heat back out to space. VOICE="Monty Python Characters" Runaway! RUNAWAY!!!!! /VOICE |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"jonathan" wrote in message ... "ošin" wrote in message ... "Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an injection of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says The equation the used Increase in temperature in 100 years = 25 C + (1+a) ^ 100 where a = 0.001 +- 0.1 the growth rate per year with "statistical noise" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"jonathan" wrote in message ... "ošin" wrote in message ... "Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an injection of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics could not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the models. There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says. The climateprediction.net team were left with a range of 1.9?C to 11.5?C. "The uncertainty at the upper end has exploded," says team-member Myles Allen." Discarded only the cooling models? Sounds like fudging to me... If you know good reasons why the model is broken in some scenarios, it makes sense to discard them. Pffft. Well that is not science. Ever heard of The Michelson-Morley Experiment? The problem most people had with it was that it *seemed* wrong. The strength that Einstein had over others was that he took the experimental result at face value. There were many others as smart or smarter than Einstein, but Einstein was not entrenched in preconceived notions. Others wasted time trying to see how the experiment must be flawed. It was not flawed. The problem with these models is they don't include Darwin. Life is becoming a primary driving force for global climate change. What the **** are you babbling about now, Jonathan? Becoming? Life has been changing the global climate, the ocean chemistry, and the very ground you walk on since the fist microbe released it's first puff of gas into the atmosphere at least 3.5 billiob years ago. Becoming? Life has been a primary driving force on the planet nearly since it first coalesced into a planet. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Uncle Al" wrote in message
... Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: [snip crap] Tell it to New England. There is a difference between amount of snow and temperature. Lots of snow does not contradict global warming. It's just one place and one week. The overall average temperature could still go up. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
relay61:13:214:23 wrote: The time frame is intentionally unclear, BBC says 11 degrees hotter C in about 100 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210629.stm how sensitive is the prediction 0.01 degree C per year? There is not really any specific time frame for these calculations. They are an estimate of the quasi steady-state warming at 2xco2 (ie 570ppm or something - ie 2x the preindustrial state, not 2x today). Which is a standard value used for assessing the magnitude of climate change but not a forecast for a specific year. However, if you assume 90 more years at 0.5% cumulative growth in co2, then add another couple of decades or so to get the upper ocean into quasi-equilibrium, and in fact it is probably in the right ballpark (the time scale to 2xco2 climate, not the 11C warming itself!). James |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"relay61:13:214:23" wrote ...
We could simply cool the earth down by covering India with Al foil and reflecting the heat back out to space. 'simply' huh? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In sci.physics Paul Blay wrote:
"relay61:13:214:23" wrote ... We could simply cool the earth down by covering India with Al foil and reflecting the heat back out to space. 'simply' huh? Yes. There are a number of ways to cool the earth that would cost less than an 11C uncontrolled climate change. From orbiting sun-shades on down. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
"tadchem" wrote: Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: January 26, 2005 http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0501...050124-10.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6934 http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=7440023 http://www.physorg.com/news2831.html http://www.climateprediction.net Thomas Lee Elifritz http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net There is an implicit assumption (not yet justified) that climate change (especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad. Well, the adverse consequences sure outweigh any possible beneficial ones. Shortly after the end of the last glaciation there was a period in which the globe was approximately 5° C warmer than it is now and sea levels were several meters higher. Was human civilization (i.e., electric power, computers, communication, commerce, etc.) thriving then? It is known to anthropologists and archaeologists as the "Holocene thermal optimum" and was also a time of much greater biomass, the Sahara grasslands, and much larger forests. Agriculture flourished, people built cities and learned to write, and trading became commonplace. The Stone age was supplanted by the Dawn of Civilization. And you seem to want to return us to those days. All without fossil fuel consumption... When circumstances do not change, adaptation ceases. When adaptation ceases, species stagnate and become more vulnerable to change. Change is inevitable. Adapt or die. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"The Ancient One" wrote: "Mike Rhino" wrote in message news "Uncle Al" wrote in message ... Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: [snip crap] Tell it to New England. There is a difference between amount of snow and temperature. Lots of snow does not contradict global warming. It's just one place and one week. The overall average temperature could still go up. This was the first year since record keeping began in 1870 that Indianapolis made it through the entire year without reaching 90F even once. ;-) So Indianapolis is now the entire globe? Wow. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"ošin" wrote: There is an implicit assumption (not yet justified) that climate change (especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad. Since we've adapted our civilization to the current climate any change will be bad. Why? Would we not adapt to change? Yuo seem to be saying that we have done so in the past. OK, we'll put you in charge of relocating Bangla Desh. Are todays sea levels optimum? Perhaps not, but moving all port cities if it changes is going to be horribly expensive. It is the expense that worris you? Reducing C02 would also be expensive, and have an impact sooner. What about flood plains located just about sea level. What will people who live there do if sea levels rise? They will do like the Dutch or the Venetians, or they will migrate. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CO2 and global warming | freddo411 | Astronomy Misc | 314 | October 20th 04 09:56 PM |
CO2 and global warming | freddo411 | Policy | 319 | October 20th 04 09:56 PM |
global warming could trigger an ice age at any time | Ian Beardsley | Astronomy Misc | 3 | February 24th 04 10:34 AM |