Runaway Global Warming Possible!

In article ,
"The Ancient One" wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
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.

Learn some science Lloyd, You've been shot down every time you've reared
your scaly head. Don't make me call Emory again.


If you want to seriously debate global warming, "Bring it on."

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:01:51 GMT, in a place far, far away, Joshua
Halpern made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Well, the adverse consequences sure outweigh any possible beneficial ones.


How do you know that? Do you have a list of both, with quantification
of their economic consequences?

Yes

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm

Sorry, I meant a valid list, in which we can have high confidence.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:04:42 GMT, in a place far, far away, Joshua
Halpern made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

How do you know that reducing C02 would not lead to another ice age?

Stupid question. Reducing CO2 to WHAT!? Reducing it back to preindustrial
would not.

You can't know that. You ignore the effects of the solar cycle.

Of course if you wait 50K years, then yeah, there might be an
ice age.

Glacial advances can occur in decades, not tens of thousands of years.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:20:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Thomas
Palm made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

How do you know that reducing C02 would not lead to another ice age?

You can never be 100% certain about anything about the future. How do we
know there isn't a comet going to hit Earth next year wiping out all life?

In this case, however, we are not talking about reducing CO2 levels but
slowing the increase. If 280 ppm didn't lead to an ice age I doubt 370 ppm
will.

Why do you believe that CO2 levels are the only factor involved?

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:18:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Thomas
Palm made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Good point. My comment was is a false dichotomy. It may be possible to
reduce CO2 emissions and still keep a good level of comfort. But I am
not certain that it is possible.

Please have a look at Sweden. It is a sparsely populated country in a cold
climate and with a high standard of living.

It's not all that high, actually. It's about the same as the poorest
states in the US.

In article ,
"robert j. kolker" wrote:


Let's go on polluting until it
explodes us in the face.

Do not worry, be happy.

I know that song.

What do you recommend? That we impoverish outselves on the mere
possibility that living well will damage the earth? I have a
recommendation. Kill of the Third World and reduce the population of the
earth to between one and two billions. That way we can have fun and not
have to worry about it.

Let's start with the "I've got mine, to hell with everybody else" crowd.


There are too many people and of what earthly use are third-worlders
anyway?

Bob Kolker

In article ,
"oðin" wrote:
OK. Do you think that first world people will generally be willing to
sacrafice energy-based comfort so that third world people *might* not
have to die 100 years from now?

I'm certainly willing to sacrifice a little bit of luxuries to help
provide
decent conditions for future generations. You make it sound as we'd have
to
move back into caves.

How do you know that reducing C02 would not lead to another ice age?


If so, it's pretty easy to put a lot of CO2 back into the atmosphere!

Where I live, it is all hydro-electric. I hate the idea of using coal to
generate electricity. But not many places are lucky enough to be near
water power potential. solar and wind are dynamic, with no good way to
store energy.

.... The coal generating plants don't store energy, either-- it goes out
onto the grid.

Coal is energy storage.

...Suggest you look at one of the alternative energy websites and see what
strides have been made in the battery and generation capacity from
lower-level light technology in the last ten years.

Batteries (at least during manufacture and disposal) are very dangerous to
the environment. They are also expensive and tiny capacity for energy
storage compared to fossil fuels.

My solar powered calculator doesn't need to store energy at all. Shine a
flashlight on it whilst you are in dark basement, and it works.

How many watts? Pftttt! Look, I am not advocating fossil fueled calculators!

If you use a mix of energy sources, one of them is likely to always be on.

Mix? So we build infrastructures based on multiple solutions? How much do
you expect people to pay? And no, it is often a cloudy day with low wind.

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:18:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Thomas
Palm made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Good point. My comment was is a false dichotomy. It may be possible to
reduce CO2 emissions and still keep a good level of comfort. But I am
not certain that it is possible.

Please have a look at Sweden. It is a sparsely populated country in a
cold
climate and with a high standard of living.

It's not all that high, actually. It's about the same as the poorest
states in the US.
Wrong. Measured by literacy, life span, health care, education, etc.,
Sweden exceeds the US.

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:20:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Thomas
Palm made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

How do you know that reducing C02 would not lead to another ice age?

You can never be 100% certain about anything about the future. How do we
know there isn't a comet going to hit Earth next year wiping out all
life?

In this case, however, we are not talking about reducing CO2 levels but
slowing the increase. If 280 ppm didn't lead to an ice age I doubt 370
ppm
will.

Why do you believe that CO2 levels are the only factor involved?
Why do you believe CO2 isn't involved at all?