Runaway Global Warming Possible!

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?

Yes. It does make more sense than checking the highest temperature in a
single year.

What would be a convincing method for you?

I know of no such method. Not every question has an answer.

Devise it, check it out and let us know what the temperature trend is in
Indianapolis (and how you arrived at it, please).

I have no way to do that. But I do think that temps have been much higher
and much lower in the past. The problem is what does normal mean.

"Thomas Palm" wrote in message
. 229...
"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.

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?

"oðin" wrote in
:

There is an implicit assumption (not yet justified) that climate
change (especially 'global warming') is necessarily bad.

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

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

We can adapt, but given high population levels and much fixed
infrastructure it is going to be extremely expensive. Add in that the
effects will strike very differently in different areas and there will be
need for large migration. Unfortunately there are borders along the way,
and major population movements tends to cause wars, and that's when
things start to get *really* expensive. Then some people are going to
want to punish those responsible for the disaster that has befallen their
countries, and those people by then may have access to nukes and then
things can get really nasty.

Another problem is how nature will cope with rapid climate change. This
change is so fast that even under the best of circumstances many species
would find it hard to migrate fast enough to survive. (many plants have
seeds that disperse short distances and really can't move quickly).
Unfortunately this isn't the best of circumstances, humans have
fragmented natural areas, which means that there will be no paths for
many species to migrate as climate zones shift. This means that the mass
extinction that is already going on will speed up further.

Are todays sea levels optimum? Perhaps not, but moving all port
cities if it changes is going to be horribly expensive.

It is the expense that worris you? Reducing C02 would also be
expensive, and have an impact sooner.

Reducing CO2 cost a lot less expensive than you think, especially if you
live in a country that hasn't taken even basic measures to reduce
emissions. (I happen to live in Sweden and we did the simplest stuff
decades ago which made CO2 emissions drop by 30%). You can do a lot at a
net economic gain. Having people buy smaller cars saves both money and
the environment, for example.

What about flood
plains located just about sea level. What will people who live there
do if sea levels rise?

They will do like the Dutch or the Venetians, or they will migrate.

To where? In Bangladesh there are about 20 million people who may need to
migrate and in China a similar number. How many of them are welcome where
you live? (And I hope you are ready to pay the ticket too, these are poor
farmers).

We can adapt, but given high population levels and much fixed
infrastructure it is going to be extremely expensive. Add in that the
effects will strike very differently in different areas and there will be
need for large migration. Unfortunately there are borders along the way,
and major population movements tends to cause wars, and that's when
things start to get *really* expensive. Then some people are going to
want to punish those responsible for the disaster that has befallen their
countries, and those people by then may have access to nukes and then
things can get really nasty.

Yes. I think you are right about all that. That is what I expect to see.
Much the same as we have seen for several thousand years. The real problem
is not global weather change, or sea level change, etc. The real problem is
human population growth. All the things you talk about will happen
regardless of weather.

Another problem is how nature will cope with rapid climate change. This
change is so fast that even under the best of circumstances many species
would find it hard to migrate fast enough to survive. (many plants have
seeds that disperse short distances and really can't move quickly).
Unfortunately this isn't the best of circumstances, humans have
fragmented natural areas, which means that there will be no paths for
many species to migrate as climate zones shift. This means that the mass
extinction that is already going on will speed up further.

Yes. Just like 65 million years ago, and to an even bigger extent, 248
million years ago. Even just 20,000 years ago, we had an ice age that kicked
a few species out of the game. Global warming over the next 100 years will
not result in those kinds of extictions, IMO. **** happens.

Reducing CO2 cost a lot less expensive than you think, especially if you
live in a country that hasn't taken even basic measures to reduce
emissions. (I happen to live in Sweden and we did the simplest stuff
decades ago which made CO2 emissions drop by 30%). You can do a lot at a
net economic gain. Having people buy smaller cars saves both money and
the environment, for example.

Yes. I agree. I produce far less CO2 than most people in my country. Sweden
is doing a good job too. But it is not going to fly with the US or the third
world.


To where? In Bangladesh there are about 20 million people who may need to
migrate and in China a similar number. How many of them are welcome where
you live? (And I hope you are ready to pay the ticket too, these are poor
farmers).

No. I will not privide any tickets for train, bus, or plane. That would
contribute to CO2!!!

"oðin" wrote in
:


"Thomas Palm" wrote in message
. 229...
"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.

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.

"oðin" wrote in
:

We can adapt, but given high population levels and much fixed
infrastructure it is going to be extremely expensive. Add in that the
effects will strike very differently in different areas and there
will be need for large migration. Unfortunately there are borders
along the way, and major population movements tends to cause wars,
and that's when things start to get *really* expensive. Then some
people are going to want to punish those responsible for the disaster
that has befallen their countries, and those people by then may have
access to nukes and then things can get really nasty.

Yes. I think you are right about all that. That is what I expect to
see. Much the same as we have seen for several thousand years. The
real problem is not global weather change, or sea level change, etc.
The real problem is human population growth. All the things you talk
about will happen regardless of weather.

To some extend there will be problems even without global warming, but it
will make those problems a lot worse. Global warming would be a problem
even if population growth stopped today.


Yes. Just like 65 million years ago, and to an even bigger extent, 248
million years ago. Even just 20,000 years ago, we had an ice age that
kicked a few species out of the game. Global warming over the next 100
years will not result in those kinds of extictions, IMO. **** happens.

**** happens occasionally, but that doesn't mean that we should cause it.
Everyone will die eventually, but if you shoot someone that argument is
unlikely to impress the court.

Reducing CO2 cost a lot less expensive than you think, especially if
you live in a country that hasn't taken even basic measures to reduce
emissions. (I happen to live in Sweden and we did the simplest stuff
decades ago which made CO2 emissions drop by 30%). You can do a lot
at a net economic gain. Having people buy smaller cars saves both
money and the environment, for example.

Yes. I agree. I produce far less CO2 than most people in my country.
Sweden is doing a good job too. But it is not going to fly with the US
or the third world.

It may not fly in USA at the mnoment for political reasons, but that
doesn't change the fact that USA could reduce its emissions a lot at a
small cost, according to some calculations even with a net profit. Since
the third world already emits a lot less per capita we don't really have
any exuse for putting caps on them at the moment. On the other hand, if
industrialized countries develop efficient technologies to meet their own
obligations to reduce emissions that technology will trickle down to
poorer countries and reduce their emissions too.

To where? In Bangladesh there are about 20 million people who may
need to migrate and in China a similar number. How many of them are
welcome where you live? (And I hope you are ready to pay the ticket
too, these are poor farmers).

No. I will not privide any tickets for train, bus, or plane. That
would contribute to CO2!!!

It's simple, just avoid a similar amount of travel yourself and you've
compensated for it.

"oðin" wrote in message
...
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?

That is a completely seperate topic, and one about which I don't have much
hope anyway. You have removed all of the relevant context in which the
comment was made without adding any of your own and thus it is really hard
to know your motive in asking.

But tell me, are you asking because you agree we should change this and want
to know how we can, or are you asking so you can shoot down any proposal to
thereby pre-emptively avoid having to admit there is a problem any way?
This question is not intended as any insult and I'm not interested enough to
research your past posts to get my own idea about what you really mean, but
it is a very common tactic in these endless political change debates to
avoid having to admit there is a problem by saying we could not do anything
about it any way.

I am really not interested in discussing possible social and economic change
with anyone who holds contempt for the belief we need it.

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

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:00:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Thomas
Palm made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
Or using the Dutch solution.

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

Sounds like an interesting technical challenge. Certainly not an
insurmountable one (it wouldn't be a dam, it would be a dyke).

LOL! Spoken with the flip self-confidence only ignorance can provide.

Bangladesh can't afford it, and
the global warming isn't their fault anyway.

If we implement nonsense like Kyoto, no one will be able to afford it.

Yes, human society has never survived or progressed without massive
consumption of oil, nor could it ever. If we stop burning oil, we will all
live in poverty and despair. Talk about mindless and hysterical.

pauperized ourselves with mindless and hysterical "solutions."

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

"oðin" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Palm" wrote in message
. 229...
"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.

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

Firstly, this is a false dichotomy. There are more choices than just "burn
oil, live in comfort" and "don't burn oil, live in discomfort". But to take
your question at its face, no, I don't. People are far to selfish. So
what's your point?

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

In article , =20
says...
52.5 F.

That is an average over what period?
=20
=20
1971-2000. The standard averaging period is the last 30 years ending in
0.
=20
So based on a record of 30 years, you can say what is normal?=20
=20
=20
=20

The time period for the conventional definition for climatological=20
variables is the last 30 years, ending in a 0. I didn't make it up; =20
it's just what's used as the standard definition, as you can check at=20
the web site for Indianapolis. The Indianapolis office does have the=20
old (1961-1990) normals up, as well. The 1971-2000 normals are about=20
1/3 of a degree F warmer than the 1961-1990 because the 90s were ~1 F=20
warmer than the 60s.

At=20
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/d...d9641c.txt,=20
which is the data documentation for monthly station normals for the US,=20
it states "A climate normal is defined, by convention, as the arithmetic=20
mean of a climatological element computed over three consecutive decades=20
(WMO, 1989)". The WMO reference is:=20

World Meteorological Organization, 1989: Calculation of Monthly and=20
Annual 30-Year Standard Normals, WCDP-No. 10, WMO-TD/No. 341, Geneva:=20
World Meteorological Organization.

--=20
Harold Brooks
hebrooks87 hotmail.com