sci.astro.seti
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: OT: go nuclear. Was: Detecting ETI via CO2

Subject: Re: OT: go nuclear. Was: Detecting ETI via CO2
From: Martin 53N 1W
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:53:21 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro.seti
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin 53N 1W wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin 53N 1W wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Martin 53N 1W wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
[...]
already measurably contracted. This is happening now far more quickly than can be expected for any 'natural' cycle. Look up the real measured numbers, they are very significant.

    Last I heard the "measurable" rise has been a debatable 1 cm.

For a measurement in your bathtub, 10 mm is indeed no big deal.

However, 10 mm for the World's oceans is of much greater significance. Such a large change there implies great change in many other ways and other places. Whether or not you get your feet wet is a minuscule part of the story.


You might not suffer any greater frequency of hurricanes over there in Florida. However, the ones you get will quickly get ever more vicious
[...]
I don't see that prediction at all. Work is done by temperature difference. If everything is warmer the temperature difference as a fraction of difference from absolute zero is negligible. As for getting

That's the point. The world average temperature gets warmer whilst the temperature extremes also become greater. The poles get colder and the lower lattitude central land masses get hotter. The weather systems get driven harder.

A further scenario is that the rapid changes then cause intense glaciation at the poles that tip the albedo way high and we suddenly turn into an iceball.

Physics on a global scale is good fun and often unexpected.


[...]
As was explained in a long thread previously, your 'absolute
[...]
The explanation was bullshit. All work, all temperature differences have to be measured from absolute zero. That is the way it is defined and calculated in physics. Thermal work can only be from absolute zero.

Good. Now look at the other parts of the story for what happens.


[...]
And the predictions are that the equator will warm the least and the arctic the most reducing the temperature difference.

Where have you seen that please?



Sorry, your argument for percentage change from absolute zero being small and so somehow negligible is just obfuscation.

As a physicist who passed the course I know what I am talking about. And you?

You should have guessed by now that I've got some alphabetic spaghetti around my name for exploring science and engineering...


[...]
So what would you want to see to convince you?
Where is your 'proof' that nothing is happening?

As everyone knows proving a negative is impossible and those who make the positive assertion bear the burden of presenting their...

So show some evidence that our world environment is stable and balanced. That should be an easy positive for you.


... People produce about a liter of it per breath and you can do the multiplication. People are a trivial fraction of the animal biomass on the planet.

And the people also have machines that convert fossil fuel to liberate CO2 on a vast industrial scale!

120,000,000,000 liters of CO2 per minute just for humans. 7.2 trillion liters per hour. And that is a negligable amount for the animal biomass.

Any pointers to your numbers? (And what assumptions?)

An alternative question is then if it is not we that have radically increased the CO2 levels in the atmosphere over just the last 100 years, then who or what has? (Is the match between increasing CO2 and Human industrialisation just a strange coincidence?)


[...]
Keep in mind this discussion only got started because I said the way to avoid even the dire predictions which I consider mostly nonsense was to convert to nuclear power. Why does this have to go into you defending what I consider nonsense when I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and get rid of fossil fuel consumption?

Because there is more to the story to get a good solution.


I would expect believers in the disasters and loss of life of warming to weigh their fears against the trivial risk from nuclear power. They do not do that. Their attitude is against energy consumption for its own sake which is the irrational greenie position.

Another question is whether we should try to live cleanly and use all resources to their best advantage, or whether we should be lax and sloppy and wasteful... That moves more into 'lifestyle' and 'religion'.


Regards,
Martin

--
----------   OS? What's that?!               (Martin_285 on Mandriva)
- Martin -   To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange.
- 53N 1W -   Mandriva 10LE GNU Linux - An OS for Supercomputers & PCs
----------   http://www1.mandrivalinux.com/en/concept.php3

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>