Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:36:10 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

I have proposed a way to reduce GW if it needs to be reduced or increase
warming if we go into a downtrend. It's very enlightening to see all
the AGW proponents refusing to admit that it just might be feasible,
that we should study it. No, all I get is a feeble objection and a lot
of name-calling. This implies that AGW is politics, not science.

Gary

There are many ways to reduce the impact of global warming - some much less
resource consuming than orbital mirrors.
One is already under way in Spain. It's not an anti AGW initiative and uses
the true greenhouse effect as opposed the the badly named infrared gas
spectrum effect.
If you don't know the area shown in the link it was the desert area where
spaghetti westerns like "A Fistful of Dollars" were filmed.


http://geographyfieldwork.com/AlmeriaClimateChange.htm

Now THAT is a great idea: increase the albedo of certain portions of the
earth, grow foo and eliminate toxic rocket exhaust fumes.

Another cheap mediating method is to add sulphur to jet fuel putting
sulphate into the upper atmosphere.

Ummm, so much for mitigating rocket fumes. Wouldn't that acidify the oceans?
I remember an argument against doing that because of the coral.

I vote for putting the mylar on many square miles of the earth. Great job!

Gary

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 8:04:18 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I certainly hope the supervolcano under Yellowstone is not immanent as
Northern Colorado where I live will be under six feet of ash :-(

I certainly hope that it is not imminent, so that this disaster won't
come in our lifetimes.

If it were immanent, you would already be standing in that ash.

John Savard

Or buried under it. I thought the word looked a little strange, but spell
check didn't complain so I didn't either. I plead kookiness because I
only got four hours of sleep last night (no doubt Peterson will make
another rude comment about that. :-)

Gary

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:36:10 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

I have proposed a way to reduce GW if it needs to be reduced or increase
warming if we go into a downtrend. It's very enlightening to see all
the AGW proponents refusing to admit that it just might be feasible,
that we should study it. No, all I get is a feeble objection and a lot
of name-calling. This implies that AGW is politics, not science.

Gary

There are many ways to reduce the impact of global warming - some much less
resource consuming than orbital mirrors.
One is already under way in Spain. It's not an anti AGW initiative and uses
the true greenhouse effect as opposed the the badly named infrared gas
spectrum effect.
If you don't know the area shown in the link it was the desert area where
spaghetti westerns like "A Fistful of Dollars" were filmed.


http://geographyfieldwork.com/AlmeriaClimateChange.htm

Now THAT is a great idea: increase the albedo of certain portions of the
earth, grow foo and eliminate toxic rocket exhaust fumes.

Another cheap mediating method is to add sulphur to jet fuel putting
sulphate into the upper atmosphere.

Ummm, so much for mitigating rocket fumes. Wouldn't that acidify the oceans?
I remember an argument against doing that because of the coral.

I vote for putting the mylar on many square miles of the earth. Great job!

Gary


Unfortunately if you read some of the links in that article it's only
economically viable at the moment because they use illegal migrant labour
at illegally low wages - slaves effectively. They can't find locals to work
in 45 C temperatures.
The whole greenhouse farming in the area was supposedly discovered by
accident when someone noticed how green the vegetation was under a waste
sheet of plastic.

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 1:38:14 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:36:10 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

There are many ways to reduce the impact of global warming - some much
less resource consuming than orbital mirrors. One is already under way
in Spain. It's not an anti AGW initiative and uses the true greenhouse
effect as opposed the the badly named infrared gas spectrum effect.
If you don't know the area shown in the link it was the desert area where
spaghetti westerns like "A Fistful of Dollars" were filmed.

http://geographyfieldwork.com/AlmeriaClimateChange.htm

Now THAT is a great idea: increase the albedo of certain portions of the
earth, grow foo and eliminate toxic rocket exhaust fumes.

Another cheap mediating method is to add sulphur to jet fuel putting
sulphate into the upper atmosphere.

Ummm, so much for mitigating rocket fumes. Wouldn't that acidify the
oceans? I remember an argument against doing that because of the coral.

I vote for putting the mylar on many square miles of the earth. Great job!

Gary

Unfortunately if you read some of the links in that article it's only
economically viable at the moment because they use illegal migrant labour
at illegally low wages - slaves effectively. They can't find locals to work
in 45 C temperatures.

What does "economically viable" mean? I don't believe any AGW advocate
worries about that. As for heat, put 'em up in the spring, fall or winter.

The whole greenhouse farming in the area was supposedly discovered by
accident when someone noticed how green the vegetation was under a waste
sheet of plastic.

Serendipity

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 8:48:53 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 1:38:14 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 9:36:10 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

There are many ways to reduce the impact of global warming - some much
less resource consuming than orbital mirrors. One is already under way
in Spain. It's not an anti AGW initiative and uses the true greenhouse
effect as opposed the the badly named infrared gas spectrum effect.
If you don't know the area shown in the link it was the desert area where
spaghetti westerns like "A Fistful of Dollars" were filmed.

http://geographyfieldwork.com/AlmeriaClimateChange.htm

Now THAT is a great idea: increase the albedo of certain portions of the
earth, grow foo and eliminate toxic rocket exhaust fumes.

Another cheap mediating method is to add sulphur to jet fuel putting
sulphate into the upper atmosphere.

Ummm, so much for mitigating rocket fumes. Wouldn't that acidify the
oceans? I remember an argument against doing that because of the coral.

I vote for putting the mylar on many square miles of the earth. Great job!

Gary

Unfortunately if you read some of the links in that article it's only
economically viable at the moment because they use illegal migrant labour
at illegally low wages - slaves effectively. They can't find locals to work
in 45 C temperatures.

What does "economically viable" mean? I don't believe any AGW advocate
worries about that. As for heat, put 'em up in the spring, fall or winter.

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 1:05:42 PM UTC-6, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

From, an article in TomDispatch.com:

"In January 2015, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists advanced its
famous Doomsday Clock to three minutes before midnight, a threat level
that had not been reached for 30 years. The Bulletin’s statement
explaining this advance toward catastrophe invoked the two major
threats to survival: nuclear weapons and “unchecked climate change.�

Isn't it strange that "atomic scientists" believe that the two biggest
threats would produce opposite effects: nuclear winter and AGW? Or
are they talking about AGW? How can one tell when they use the "climate
change" weasel-words?

[yammering deleted]

Since then, there has been good reason to consider moving the hands even
closer to doomsday.


As 2015 ended, world leaders met in Paris to address the severe problem
of “unchecked climate change.�

So let's get the mylar deployed.

Hardly a day passes without new evidence of how severe the crisis is.
To pick almost at random, shortly before the opening of the Paris
conference, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab released a study that both
surprised and alarmed scientists who have been studying Arctic ice.
The study showed that a huge Greenland glacier, Zachariae Isstrom,
“broke loose from a glaciologically stable position in 2012 and entered
a phase of accelerated retreat,�

"Hardly a day passes" three years ago? :-)

an unexpected and ominous development. The glacier “holds enough water to
raise global sea level by more than 18 inches (46 centimeters) if it were
to melt completely. And now it’s on a crash diet, losing 5 billion tons
of mass every year. All that ice is crumbling into the North Atlantic Ocean.�

Okay, let's settle down and do a little analysis here. The melting rate
is 5x10^11 kg/yr, check? At a density of 1000 kg/m^3, that would be
5x10^8 m^3/yr, check? The oceans of the earth cover 3.62x10^14 square meters, Check? So the sea level rise due to the melting glacier is 1.4 MICROmeters
per year. So in essence they are predicting that it will take

0.46/1.4x10^-6 = 333000

years to melt! Boy, you AGW rubes will believe anything the "experts"
say, won't you? Does anyone want to comment on the honesty (or competence,
take your pick) of the climate "experts" at NASA now?

[remainder of message deleted for lack of relevance to the above Chicken
Little nonsense]

Gary

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 3:05:42 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

slurp's post deleted

From now on, just provide a link rather than waste bandwidth and emit excessive CO2 with yet another of your insipid copy-and-paste "McArticles."

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:31:03 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 3:05:42 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

slurp's post deleted

From now on, just provide a link rather than waste bandwidth and emit excessive CO2 with yet another of your insipid copy-and-paste "McArticles."

Yes massa. (bows)

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:33:46 AM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:31:03 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 3:05:42 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

slurp's post deleted

From now on, just provide a link rather than waste bandwidth and emit excessive CO2 with yet another of your insipid copy-and-paste "McArticles."

Yes massa. (bows)

If you think AGW is a serious problem and yet still post your ****, then you are being a big hypocrite. But we all knew that anyway. You need to do your part. Following my instructions is a great first step.

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 10:42:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:33:46 AM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:31:03 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 3:05:42 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

slurp's post deleted

From now on, just provide a link rather than waste bandwidth and emit excessive CO2 with yet another of your insipid copy-and-paste "McArticles."

Yes massa. (bows)

If you think AGW is a serious problem and yet still post your ****, then you are being a big hypocrite. But we all knew that anyway. You need to do your part. Following my instructions is a great first step.

You would make a great dictator, yessa massa. (bows)