On 1/17/2010 5:43 PM, Graydon wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 05:31:25PM -0500, P. J. Alling scripsit:
On 1/17/2010 4:54 PM, Graydon wrote:
So far as the whole anthropogenic climate change thing goes, one might
want to take a photographic perspective on the question and look at the
old and new shots of Glacier National Park.
<http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=626&gid=42&index=0>
So can we stop it? More importantly does it make sense to even try?
I've never seen an analysis of either of those questions that didn't
depend on unicorn dust...
Lets start from the beginning.
It makes sense to try because the hotter it gets, the more violent the
weather gets and the drier (as a global average thing; Ontario is likely
going to get very wet for awhile) it gets.
This is an unwarranted assumption with no particular basis in fact. The
medieval warm period apparently had extremely mild weather, and the
records point to it being actually warmer then than it is today.
If it gets much hotter or
much drier, nasty things happen like "the Asian monsoon rains only
happen some years or shut down entirely".
Once again unwaranted assumption. There's no record that this ever
happened and it cannot be precdicted from current data.
It's hard to keep a civilization going without a consistent food supply.
Food supply is one of those things where you just have to deal with the
weather.
Warm periods in the past coincided with a warm moist North Aferica.
Maybe the Sahara will become the new breadbasket of Europe. Heck I
think there's as much chance of that prediction coming true as any toher
climate prediction. I have the
Of course we can stop it. The two primary contributors are CO2 and
particulate carbon. The CO2 issue means no fossil carbon extraction and
the particulate carbon means no internal combustion engines or blast
furnaces.
Historical data doesn't actually back thus up, the warming trends seem
to have no actual connection with Carbon Dioxide levels in the
atmosphere. You might want to read a Physicists debunking of the
Greenhouse Gas theory. It doesn't stand up to experiment.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
The above linked paper asserts that the greenhouse effect postulated for
the atmosphere violates the second law of thermodynamics. Nothing
violates the second law of thermodynamics. I knew that, but I never
examined the assumptions in climatology. One or the other is a crock.
I can't disprove the paper, and I can no longer accept the standard
climate models.
Neither of those two things is actually an unsolved technical
problem; getting people to make the switch is way seriously an unsolved
problem. (Eg., a couple hundred square km of solar cells could supply
most of Europe's electricity needs if they got stuck in the Sahara or
the Empty Quarter or similar. Figuring out how to build the cell farm,
set it up, and feed an electric grid with it is a solved problem.
Figuring out how to do this so you can get permission to build it, move
electricity across various jurisdictions, etc. when it's never been done
before, is really tough.)
-- Graydon
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
