A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Runaway Global Warming Possible!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 27th 05, 04:14 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 27th 05, 06:06 AM
Midtown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 27th 05, 06:42 AM
George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old January 27th 05, 07:09 AM
Mike Rhino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old January 27th 05, 08:20 AM
James Annan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old January 27th 05, 11:02 AM
Paul Blay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old January 27th 05, 02:06 PM
Ian Stirling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 27th 05, 02:29 PM
Lloyd Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 27th 05, 02:31 PM
Lloyd Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old January 27th 05, 02:33 PM
Lloyd Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 11:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.