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: Matt Giwer
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 06:16:42 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro.seti
Martin 53N 1W wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:

Martin 53N 1W wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

Martin 53N 1W wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

Martin 53N 1W wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

Martin 53N 1W wrote:

[...]

Different, yes. Better or worse? All change is not worse. But as the opinions of the science are always worse, it is better the cholera we know than the unknown dangers of bathrooms.

Change is usually good and should be encouraged to avoid stagnation. The problem is with *fast* *extreme* *change* that is beyond what evolution can naturally cope with. We are inducing such unnaturally fast change.

        But I remind you, we are still waiting for greenhouse.

You might not suffer any greater frequency of hurricanes over there in Florida. However, the ones you get will quickly get ever more vicious and cover a larger area. How many times do you need to get hit before you are forced to move home?

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 hit, TV only goes to the worst hit areas but identifies it by the nearest large city which likely only got minor wind damage. It is difficult to find places which have actually been hit twice in the lifetime of a resident. Hurricane force winds are only a measure for meteorologists. Mostly the minimum force only shows places where maintenance has been overlooked. In fact the most serious damage is usually the tornadoes that come with. Of course there are the occasional Cat 5s as hit Homestead in 1992.

I am not denigrating the threat but the national news coverage is not reliable. The one that came ashore south of Tampa last year had two deaths reported in Tampa on the national news as hurricane caused. The local news reported they were both outside in the storm, one was driving. Those are Darwin Award deaths.

[...]

The growing season in many places has lengthed by a month. One can imagine in fifty years everyone adapted to the warmer earth and...

And there's the smack in the face. We are still forcibly increasing the rate of increasing Global Warming. You don't have a leisurely 50 years to add more aircon and build fusion power plants to power them.

We're not doomed yet, but without positive action we soon will be.

But in the last 20 years of imminent doom we are still waiting for greenhouse. So far as the evidence goes it appears to be a crackpot idea. So far it is indistinguishable from Chicken Little. That is a fact. I can't change the facts.

[...]

It takes a bit of digging to discover we cannot account for a full 1/3 of the carbon cycle. We are a percent or two of the artificial part

True enough although I question your percentages. However, we do very well understand the parts of the carbon cycle that are changing and are having an overzealous (greenhouse heating) effect. We are the number one culprit.

The 1/3 is correct but obviously no more than a ballpark estimate. Out of 33% not understood a 1-2% contribution is what? All animal life contributed to CO2 prodution. 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.

[...]

Notice the narrator's spin, "could alter" and "tragic consequences." That is fear of the unknown, of change.

This is a TV program using scientifically accurate UK-English. What was said there is accurate. Perhaps too accurate for street folk to fully appreciate.

Could means could. Tragic is chosen over neutral and beneficial. It is not accurate at all. A simple statement of "unknown" is accurate. Tragic, neutral and beneficial are not accurate.

A more down to Earth translation is that those effects on their own are likely to do as highlighted. Conversely, there may be some supernatural god playing games that we don't know about. For my mind, I'll vote that the changing Global Warming and Global Dimming influences are what are directly causing the weather and climate to consequently change.

Except as I have pointed out we have no knowledge that we are experiencing any weather or climate changes that would be different if we were still knapping flint. Just a couple months ago a finding that the Alps have advanced and retreated regularly by finding tree trunks being exposed by retreating glaciers. Meaning the tree line was much higher. Dating them says not only in human times but that Hanibal crossing that Alps with elephants was likely nothing special in his time as the glaciers were much higher.

Whether those weather changes are good or bad for you depends on what you yourself might want. (Note: That's being accurate in that I don't know what you want. This is hardly a "fear of the unknown".)

It is not a matter of what anyone wants. It would be an unbiased assessment of the differences after they occur for the human race at large. May be hell on chipmunks but not our problem.

NEWS REPORT - MICHAEL BUERK VOICE OVER: Dawn, and as the sun breaks through the piercing chill of night on the plain outside Korum it lights up a biblical famine, now in the 20th Century. This place say workers here is the closest thing to hell on earth.

[...]

But if this dimming is counteracting the CO2 then we have negative feedback so we want both.

And as sulphur compound are credited with increasing cloud reflectivity is it wise to swith to low sulphur coal and oil?

And you fully appreciate how it all works?

        I am aware of the factors involved is all.

Balancing the greenhouse effects and artificially maintaining even higher Global Dimming to try to control the world's temperature and weather is like trying to balance an upside-down pendulum during an earthquake!

You assume a specificity which is not in the climate models. The same models which predict gloom and doom are not able to address this obvious issue.



Assuming the melter are right, would you rather have a little acid rain or the end of dimming which is the only thing that has held of the fact of warming for decades? You want the rapid change you fear even faster?

As to the effect on monsoons, go to drudgereport.com and find 37.1 inches in a single day. It is interesting talking about the 70s and 80s but cycles are cycles.

Yes. It is also very interesting to look a little further to see /why/ there are cycles and what influences them. When one of your nicely round bicycle wheels suddenly becomes buckled, you know you're in for a crash...

Cycles by definition mean beyond human influence. The hurricane cycle has been known for at least a century.

Lobby your politicians to get serious about reducing CO2 emissions.

As in another post here, in the last five years the US population has increased from 250 to 280 million since the 2000 census with as many as 15 million illegals. The US would have to had reduced CO2 production by at least 12% in the last five years simply to not have increased. How?

        Anyone interested in per capita CO2 quotas instead of national quotas?

--
July 2005
Each week Iraq costs America 15 dead, 120 wounded and $2 billion.
A week costs Iraqis at least 15 times as many dead and wounded.
Americans cannot stop it. Iraqis cannot stop it.
Americans do not want it. Iraqis do not want it.
Who wants it? Why is it happening? Why is no one answering?
        -- The Iron Webmaster, 3487
 nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
 flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2

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