On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 06:39:52PM -0500, P. J. Alling scripsit: >> 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.
Cites from the peer reviewed literature, please? Especially for what, exactly, you consider the "medieval warm period". >> 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. There certainly are records of this happening; monsoons *have* failed. (This is the sort of thing Chinese imperial historians tended to write down.) For instance, this year's monsoon is considered to have failed in India; see: <http://www.indianexpress.com/news/failed-monsoon-leads-to-largescale-migration-in-kutch-tehsils/542071/> >> 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. Moist North Africa in the Holocene corresponds with continental glaciation, just like the existence of Lake Bonneville in the North American inter-mountain West. >> 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. Said paper gets its thermo wrong. (Ask anyone who has taken advanced thermo courses; physics profs get their thermo wrong all the time...) See <http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html> Definitely see <http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324> where Arthur Smith points out that we have a well-understood set of equations for the temperature of a planetary body without an atmosphere, and lots of observational data (the Moon, Mercury, etc.) to back that equation; it predicts what we see. Earth is 33 C hotter than that equation predicts, so the atmospheric greenhouse effect is observed, not postulated. (Also for Titan, though much less well characterized in that case.) -- Graydon -- 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.
