Runaway Global Warming Possible!

OK, we'll put you in charge of relocating Bangla Desh.

A one meter rise over 100 years... is that so hard?

Good. Then it will be warmer. I was worried about global cooling (ice age).

"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.

"oðin" wrote in message
...
52.5 F.

That is an average over what period?


1971-2000. The standard averaging period is the last 30 years ending in
0.

So based on a record of 30 years, you can say what is normal?

No, he can't, it's too short a period. And a more intelligent consideration,
even within just 30 years of data, would be how many standard deviations
from average is what he's claiming as an anomalous year.

"Harold Brooks" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...

"Harold Brooks" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
This was the first year since record keeping began in 1870 that
Indianapolis
made it through the entire year without reaching 90F even once. ;-)


And still managed to average 1 F above normal for the year.

What is normal for the year?




52.5 F.

That is an average over what period?


1971-2000. The standard averaging period is the last 30 years ending in
0.

Harold

Interesting that during the 70's and 80's it was below normal
temperatures here, don't suppose that could have anything to do with it
though.
In fact during the 70's it was so cold Globally that NOAA scientists
said we were heading into another ice age, and wanted to dust down the polar
ice caps with ash to melt them and avert the catastophe that they were
positive was coming, with millions of people starving to death when it
became to cold to grow crops in the USA. I used to have the link to the
article but lost it in a computer crash.
Now it warms up one or two degrees and they reverse themselves, now it's
Global Warming instead of cooling, and they are still predicting
catastrophes. Ignore them, and I predict in another 30 years the Climate
will still be about the same, fluctuating up and down as it always has.
Some people just aren't happy unless they are worried about something, I
won't worry about this, whatever it does it will seem normal at the time,
and life will continue as normal.

"tadchem" wrote in message
oups.com...

Paul Blay wrote:
There is a working hypothesis on which many studies have been done
that effects of climate change (especially 'global warming') to date
and as predicted to proceed from now have already had and will
continue
to have significant negative impact over and above any positive
effect.

You write of "a working hypothesis ... that effects of climate change
... have already had and will continue to have significant negative
impact over and above any positive effect".

That is not good science - it is religion. I would expect something

You have not presented any reason to say such a thing. Doesn't it depend on
the observational support your hypothesis has?

A good working hypothesis is unbiased.

Yes. So where is your evidence that the hypothesis you characterize as
religious is not unbiased?

What is needed is a "working hypothesis" that seeks to quantify the
effects of climate change *without* the built-in prejudice that
specific impacts are either negative or positive.

Who disagrees?

Every species that becomes extinct opens up an ecological niche into
which another species may evolve.

Again your problem is ignoring the time scales. Extinctions are happening
over decades. Evolving into a new niche requires much more time.

Change is inevitable; resist it at your own peril.

I agree heartily. Let's change our social and economic dependence on
unsustainable and self-destructive usages of fossil fuels.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Thu, 27 Jan 05 13:33:14 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Since we've adapted our civilization to the current climate any
change will
be bad.

Why? Would we not adapt to change? Yuo seem to be saying that we have
done so in the past.

OK, we'll put you in charge of relocating Bangla Desh.

Or using the Dutch solution.

OK, then we set you in charge of constructing a "Dutch solution" for
Bangladesh. Make sure to include plans for how you are going to pump out
water from one of the major rivers of the Earth, what you will do with all
sediment the river carries, how long this dam needs to be, and not to
forget, who will pay for this megaproject. Bangladesh can't afford it, and
the global warming isn't their fault anyway.

"oðin" wrote in news:VdednRQJXa4noGTcRVn-
:

OK, we'll put you in charge of relocating Bangla Desh.

A one meter rise over 100 years... is that so hard?

In some low lying areas, yes. Unfortunately these areas tend to be very
fertile and thus densely populated.

"oðin" wrote in message
...
52.5 F.

That is an average over what period?


1971-2000. The standard averaging period is the last 30 years ending in
0.

So based on a record of 30 years, you can say what is normal?

Doesn't it make a bit more sense than checking the highest temperature
reached all year? What would be a convincing method for you? Devise it,
check it out and let us know what the temperature trend is in Indianapolis
(and how you arrived at it, please).

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")

Change is inevitable; resist it at your own peril.

I agree heartily. Let's change our social and economic dependence on
unsustainable and self-destructive usages of fossil fuels.

How?