The Urge to Explore

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...

: ...And pretend ignorance, if your "when have we seen earth with a warmer
: climate?" question is any evidence.

I asked for empirical evidence. The fossil record doesn't take into
account the burning of fossile fuels!


Gee, all it has is a record of what the Earth is like with higher
temperatures and higher CO2 levels...

Plonk.

"Christopher P. Winter" wrote in message
...

I'm not prepared
to believe that most of the climatologists in the world are fools or con
men,
so I have to believe that this claim of "heat island bias" is a strawman
argument.


Why aren't you willing to believe?

Their have no motivation to claim there isn't a crisis. So long as they
say
there IS a crisis they have safe jobs and fat research grants to rely on.

Do you think they're saints?


No, I think they're scientists.


And fools often think scientists aren't like normal people in the appeal of
money and glamor and security.





There's no way to even start unless we specify what those new
conditions
are. But let's assume for purposes of discussion that global warming is
happening, and that it's going to raise sea levels substantially. Will
you
argue that changing our industrial processes to sequester CO2 output,
and
our
lifestyles to reduce that output, is going to be more expensive than
building
enormous barriers against the sea and relocating low-lying populations?


Yes, I will.

Changing our industrial processes entails a continuing expenditure (mostly
in the form of reduced output for the same inputs) FOREVER.


Way too general. For one thing, CO2 is already being pumped into
declining oil fields to recover product that might otherwise be impossible
to
get.



I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.



For another, lifestyle choice is seldom a purely economic decision.

Actually, by definition it is ALWAYS an economic decision. Every decision
on the allocation of scarce resources to meet wants is an economic one.
That's what economics IS.




Relocating population is a one time expenditure, if there's any
expenditure
involved at all.


But it's a massive expenditure. And it may last a long time. And many
nations are already overburdened with refugees resulting from other
causes.


Not really. We're talking a muti-decade time frame. That's not refugees.
Thats the shift of US population west since WWII.




Sea level rise is a multi-decade process. That time frame is about the
expected life expectancy of buildings.

To relocate the population all that has to happen is for replacement
buildings to be built on higher ground than the ones they're replacing.

The additional expenditure is zero, since the replacement buildings would
be
built anyway, and the effect is to relocate the population ahead of rising
sea levels.


No, there would be additional expenses. Clearing and leveling land,
digging new trenches and emplacing new sewer lines, recreating all the
underpinnings of new communities.


All of which happens anyway as old infrastructure wears out. The net
expense is still zero because the same money will have to be spent on the
same things anyway. Instead of the new building being built here, it's
built there instead.




Rising sea levels is a non-issue economically. The time frame is so slow
that nothing would be lost because of it that wouldn't be lost simply
because of age.


I'm wondering how you know this. Because if, as you assert, no climate
scientist really understands climate science, then they might err in
either
direction. Maybe that last year's film had it right, and New York City
will
be drowned next autumn.


And maybe reducing CO2 emissions will bring about a new ice age that will
destroy civilization and kill of surface life on the planet (cf 'snowball
earth').

ANYONE can play 'maybe' games.




I also wonder if you truly think that places like Angkor Wat, the
cathedral at Chartres, the pyramids of Giza -- and of Yucatan -- have no
value.


Multi-trillion dollar value? Not all of them put together.




And how about decreasing land area coupled with rising population?


Increasing USEFUL land area as Canada and Siberia thaw.

"Dave O'Neill" wrote in message
oups.com...

trying as usual to shoehorn reality into his preconceived notion
of Chicago School monetarism.


Never even heard of it. Google has, to the tune of a whopping 36 hits.

Here's a tip: you obviously don't know squat about economics, don't try
to
criticize something without SOME knowledge.

You've not heard of Chicago School Monetarism??? And you claim to be
working in Economics?

I did my economics A level in 1986 and it was still all the rage.
Milton Friedman? M1, M3 controls? The Phillips Curve?



What you mean is simply called 'monetarism', not "Chicago school
monetarism". As I pointed out, only 36 pages on the entire Web call it
that.

It's a dead theory now, replaced by rational expectations.

Still taught at the undergrad level (like Keynes), but not used in practice.

"Dave O'Neill" wrote in message
ps.com...

I went through that large number of tools because my professors were
illustrating the limits of 'pretty handy tools'.

Either a tool describes reality or it does not. If a tool makes
predictions
that reality doesn't agree with, the tool is wrong. Period. You do
not
adjust or ignore reality to make the tool fit. Ever.

So?



So your zeta function and dynamic control system just went bye-bye.

No, not really, because, based on your replies, you really really have
no clue what I am talking about or why I brought this up.


Gee, too bad you don't have any supprt for your contention to offer...

Shawn Wilson wrote:

And maybe reducing CO2 emissions will bring about a new ice age that will
destroy civilization and kill of surface life on the planet (cf 'snowball
earth').

I don't think anyone's imagining putting carbon where we can't get at
it again. And if we just need more CO2 later then we can use orbital
lasers to vapourise a few coalfields. No need even to dig the stuff
out. Or, if incinerating Pittsburgh is too comicbooky for you, we
could hit the methyl hydrate reservoirs in the ocean. Just warm it up
a little... currently we probably want /not/ to do that, both because
of global warming and because if the ocean suddenly farts then great
waves most likely scour the continents clean all the way down to
bedrock. Maybe.

Shawn Wilson wrote:


So your zeta function and dynamic control system just went bye-bye.

No, not really, because, based on your replies, you really really have
no clue what I am talking about or why I brought this up.


Gee, too bad you don't have any supprt for your contention to offer...

I did, you ignored it. Sorry.

As George, rather well put it, Google is not a substitute for
understanding.

Dave

Shawn Wilson wrote:
"Dave O'Neill" wrote in message
oups.com...

trying as usual to shoehorn reality into his preconceived notion
of Chicago School monetarism.


Never even heard of it. Google has, to the tune of a whopping 36 hits.

Here's a tip: you obviously don't know squat about economics, don't try
to
criticize something without SOME knowledge.

You've not heard of Chicago School Monetarism??? And you claim to be
working in Economics?

I did my economics A level in 1986 and it was still all the rage.
Milton Friedman? M1, M3 controls? The Phillips Curve?



What you mean is simply called 'monetarism', not "Chicago school
monetarism". As I pointed out, only 36 pages on the entire Web call it
that.

shrug

Tens of Thousands refer to those terms.

It's a dead theory now, replaced by rational expectations.

Really? Until the next "rational" expectations come along I expect.

But engineers and dynamic systems still work with Zeta functions - I
wonder why... Oh, that's right, because they still work in the context
and don't alter all the time like Economic theories.

Still taught at the undergrad level (like Keynes), but not used in practice.

Really. The Economist still has articles on neo-Monetarist concepts.

Dave

Shawn Wilson wrote:
"George William Herbert" wrote in message
...

Unfortunately, no. It applies to static systems as well.

Nope. If seven citations aren't enough to pound this simple thing into
your
incredibly thick skull just say so, and I'll post as many as you want.

None of these seven citations contradict what I am saying.

If you don't understand why, you are not equipped to be
participating in this conversation.



Every single one of them directly contradicts your claim. I'm tired of all
the falsehood and ignorance coming from you.

No, really, every single one of them backed up what he was saying.

You just don't understand the science.

Dave

George William Herbert says...
For some reason,
you keep trying to insist we aren't or can't even be
professionals and know what we're talking about.

For values of "some reason" that seem extremely apparent to me.

--
Robert Hutchinson | The Twenty is just so evil. The very name gloats
| over our suffering and powerlessness. It's a
| boot stomping on a human face for twenty minutes.
| -- Shaenon K. Garrity

Wayne Throop wrote:
: Chad Irby
: They came up with similar answers, but it's *impossible* to really
: reproduce someone's work *until the work itself is known*.

"The source code hasn't been published" isn't the same thing as
"the work is not known".

Someone once showed me a program which purported to calculate the
length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle if you gave it the length
of the other two sides.

He refused to show me the source code, though. Just babbled on and on
about "a^2 + b^2 = c^2".

It would clearly be impossible to reproduce his work or verify his
theory without access to his source code, though, so I've dismissed him
as a kook.

--
Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net