On 1/17/2010 7:15 PM, Graydon wrote:
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".
The period around 1000 AD when the Vikings were settling Greenland and
Wine grapes were growing in Scotland.
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/>
Seems it's a pattern that's happend in the past. I'm sorry I put that
poorly. There's no credence that general global warming has had any
effect on this.
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
I hate to say this but it is in a peer reviewed publication. I expect
that if they got their thermo wrong it will eventually be proven.
However so far not.
--
{\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.
