Connect with us

global tepid

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by RichD, Dec 21, 2012.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. P E Schoen

    P E Schoen Guest

    "Tunderbar" wrote in message
    Typical selfish remark from denialists, or more accurately, sociopaths. Such
    behavior is defined by being motivated totally by self-interest and having
    no compassion for (or even logical comprehension of) the deleterious effects
    on others. Moreover, the average temperature rise has apparently manifested
    itself as more extreme weather patterns, which are far more destructive than
    a homogeneous change as you apparently interpret this to be.

  2. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    It went up from 370ppm to 385ppm over the period - 4%. From 270ppm
    before the start of the Industrial revolution (roughly 1750 and
    earlier) today has been good for about 0.8 degrees Kelvin of warming,
    barely enough to show above the noise. 15ppm would be about 0.1K, if
    the relationship were linear (which it isn't).
    Too noisy to mean anything except that short term global temperature
    measurements are noisy..
    No. Just irrelevant.
    It's a bit more sophisticated than that.We've seen enough warming over
    the past century to be confident that the rising CO2 levels are
    warming the planet, and the geologists have done enough work getting
    data from the past to be confident that we can now explain what
    happened during the past few interglacials and ice ages.

    Granting that, it's pretty easy to predict that keeping on burning
    fossil carbon and dumping the consequent CO2 in the atmosphere is
    going to make the planet even warmer. At the last IPCC report, the
    high emission scenario gave us something between 2.4K and 6.4K over
    the next century. The modelling has got a little better, and that now
    more like 3.5K to 6.5K.

    The scientist involved would prefer to see us getting closer to or
    below the low emission scenario - 1.1K to 2.9K - because getting over
    2K looks as if it might make life a lot more complicated.
    My Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry accidentally included enough on infra-
    red vibrations and rotations to mean that I know quite a bit about the
    greenhouse effect. For the rest, I read occasional papers in the
    Proceedign of the (US) Academy of Sciences to have a reasonably good
    idea of what it's all about.

    If I was dishonest and unethical, I might be able to get money out of
    Exxon-Mobil and other players in the fossil-carbon extraction industry
    to say the sort of silly things that that you are saying here, but
    they seem to like more flamboyant nutters.

    Correct. Darwin was almost certainly right - his hypothesis was a bit
    premature when he first published "Origin of Species" but since then
    we've learned a lot more about the nuts and bolts of the process he
    imagined, and there's no immediate prospect that his hypothesis is
    going to be falsified.
    You seem to have adopted the moderate enlightenment position - people
    have to be frightened into good behaviour by the threat of punishment
    in a hypothetical after-life.

    Spinoza and the radical enlightenment figures that followed him
    thought that there were perfectly good rational arguments for behaving
    ethically and morally and conforming to a set of sensible laws that
    applied to everybody equally. There have been some interesting animal
    experiment in recent years that make it clear that the higher apes
    have ideas about fairness, without benefit of religious instruction.
    Spinoza seems to have got it right.
    How is he making millions? Al Gore is claimed to be involved in some
    carbon-trading business, but Hansen's just a civil servant.
    He's not predicting the end of the world, just minor climate changes
    which might just be severe enough to end civilisation as we know it.

    During the end of the last ice age, when the climate wasn't warming
    anything like as rapidly as it is now, the Gulf Stream seems to have
    stopped twice. The second shut-down - the Younger Dryas,- was
    relatively brief at 1300 years and started and stopped within about a

    Nobody is predicting anything quite as interesting, not because it
    couldn't happen, but because that kind of event is hard to model. You
    might want to think about how we'd cope with a re-run of the Younger
    Dryas, if that happened again.
  3. P E Schoen

    P E Schoen Guest

    "Mickey Langan" wrote in message
    You are probably getting all of your "facts" from media sources that are
    biased to massage your delusions. But even seven years ago Fox News reported
    that 77% of Americans believe in global warming:,2933,175070,00.html

    Now it may be closer to 85%, in spite of massive right-wing propaganda:

    although some polls show otherwise:

    Many of these are not very recent, but I found this from October 2012.
    Sandy, anyone?

  4. Unum

    Unum Guest

    The running mean levels off at about mid-decade. So what? There
    aren't any straight lines anywhere on the graph. Did someone
    promise you there would be? The 'dramatic temperature rise' you
    told us wasn't happening is clearly evident, more than .5C since 1980.
    I don't remember seeing anyone make the claim that CO2 is the only
    thing that affects climate. I don't think you have either but if
    so bring it on out or STFU.
    I'm not interested in your unsubstantiated opinions.
    So you've got absolutely nothing?
  5. Guest

    It's pretty obvious the earth is warming, has been for a long time.
    Why, not that long ago, North America was buried under a mile of ice.
    Trapped a bunch of wooly mammoths, it did.

    I like it better this way. Mammoths would too.
  6. Guest

    Careful, that logic works in reverse, too--stipulating to your
    assumptions, why would you deny food, transport, medicine, and comfort
    to Africans, Indians, and Chinese? Warmer winters for Canadians?
    Not AFAICT. Until Sandy--which wasn't particularly remarkable itself
    except for unluckily meeting a nor'easter--we've had years of below-
    average activity.

    When a source forever relates the costs of a thing, but never possible
    benefits, it's prima facie evidence of bias. When events are
    continually cherry-picked, ditto.

    Rational decisions require weighing of costs and benefits. If those
    aren't fairly, openly presented, the source has an agenda other than
  7. P E Schoen

    P E Schoen Guest

    "John Larkin" wrote in message
    But if at also permanently pollutes the water supply, when the frackers
    abandon the wells and show the poor people the fine print in their hastily
    signed agreements, they will be SOL. It is much better for the environment
    to use solar, wind, and geothermal, and also teach people how to live
    comfortably with much less energy consumption.
    The weather phenomena taken individually cannot be specifically linked to
    global warming, but the frequency of major catastrophes has been increasing,
    which shows statistical correlation. I don't think we need absolute proof to
    take prudent action.
    At issue is really what needs to be done to protect civilization against the
    catastrophic effects of global warming ("weather" or not it has been caused
    by human activity). A climate scientist whom I know personally stated that
    the effects of global warming would continue to worsen even if caused by the
    burning of carbon fuels, and would probably not show improvement for many
    decades or even centuries if we stopped using fossil fuels today.

    The measures we need to take should be to take preventive measures, such as
    building seawalls and coastal buffers and reinforcing buildings and burying
    power lines and servicing dangerously deteriorated gas lines and other
    infrastructure investments. And we need to reduce energy usage so that
    sustainable sources can be used, and natural resources such as oil can be
    used for more appropriate things like plastics and pharmaceuticals. We are
    already at the point where the "low hanging fruit" has been exhausted and
    the real cost of crude oil extraction will drive costs dramatically if we
    continue to burn it at present rates.

  8. Guest

    Nope, Al Gore's his guy.

    I measure my own energy use in milliGores, 1 Gore being Al Gore's
    average electrical use at his Nashville house (just one of many, one
    might add, and neglecting his natural gas bill) = 18.6 MWHr/month.

    For a while I was at 3 milliGores, drifted up to 10 for a while, but
    last month I got by on 3.2 mG.

    (IOW, I'm a conservationist. Not like those global cooling deniers.)
  9. Guest

    Particularly when that "authority" is in a completely different field,
    which might just as well be in 15th century Ethiopian literature.
  10. WoolyBully

    WoolyBully Guest

    Now there is a vapor we should all be filling the air with!
  11. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    It's not the only information available about what's going on, but it
    does set this latest round of big business trashing inconvenient
    scientific evidence in it's historical context.

    You've been suckered by a well-financed public relations campaign
    directed by the same people who earlier told you that smoking wasn't
    actually all that bad for your health
    Religions have gospels. Science just has evidence, and not-yet-
    falsified interpretations of that evidence. If you were sensitive to
    the scientific content of the propositions that you seem to be
    objecting to, you'd identify - and quantity - the variable that was
    going to create the 3+ K variation. As a clue, it's usually a doubling
    of the atmospheric CO2 level from the pre-industrial 270ppm.

    Your enthusiasm for typing out phrases that you clearly don't
    understand puts you squarely in the "gospel-pushing" camp.

    <snipped more rubbish>
  12. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    The "fact" that the CO2 IR window is "totally blocked" - it isn't -
    doesn't have the significance you imagine. You need to get your head
    around the concept of "effective emitting altitude" which is
    wavelength dependent number. Below that altitude, most of the
    radiation emitted at the wavelength is re-absorbed within the
    atmosphere. At that altitude, half of it makes it out into outer

    It's the temperature at that altitude that thus determines the amount
    of IR radiated to outer space at that wavelength. More CO2 pushes it
    higher, where the atmosphere is colder. Since the IR emitted has to
    balance the essentially constant IR flux from the Sun, the
    temperatures all the way down to the surface have to warm up to keep
    the temperature at the emitting altitude a bit warmer than it used to
    The sun is lot hotter than the earth, and most of it's energy comes in
    above the CO2 absorbtion bands. Look up Plancks Law.'s_law
    It isn't, because it doesn't happen to be true.
    Wrong. And water is another greenhouse gas, and makes a significant
    difference. As the earth surface gets warmer, the 70% of it covered by
    water sustains a higher partial pressure of water in teh atmosphere.
    It's one of the positive feedback mechanisms. Everybody - except you -
    has known about it for years, so nobody is "looking for it" at the
    You obviously haven't got a clue about the physics involved and your
    claims about "lies" and "not following their own methodology" are
    simply evidence of your ignorance.
    Perfectly true. Sadly for your rhetoric, I haven't said anything
    stupid, and you've made lots of stupid errors. I've not been appealing
    to authority, I've been exercising it.
  13. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Krw doesn't know much about physical chemistry, and less about my
    Ph.D. project. He probably doesn't know much about 15th century
    Ethiopean literature either.

    He obviously doesn't know anything about climate science, or he might
    have picked up a few of Marvin the Martian's solecisms. I was
    particularly amused by

    "you'd also see a decrease due to CO2's absorption band in the sun's
    spectral output to the earth."
  14. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    There no logic involved, merely an exposition of historical fact.
    Dream on.
    On the contrary, the technique for devaluing scientific information
    that was invented by the tobacco companies to preserve their right to
    keep on damaging their customer's health for a few more years, are
    exactly the same techniques, occasionally applied by exactly the same
    people, that are being used to cloud your thinking about anthropogenic
    global warming.
    Scarcely. The phrase he used was scientifically illiterate - not even
    wrong, to borrow Dirac's phrase, and there's no way of pointing this
    out without belittling him.
    That's scarcely all I have

    offers rather more.
    So, how would a winner have coped with such a fatuous counter-
    I do and did. The AIP web-site gives chapter and verse. If you are too
    dim to get your head around it, that makes you the loser, not me.
    With people who can't do joined up logic? You do exhibit the nature of
    the problem depressingly well.
  15. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    That should be true of the denialist propaganda, but it does seem to
    be fooling some of the people - Mickey Langan included - all of the
    The denialist propaganda machine has done what it was intended to do -
    to buy a little more time for the fossil carbon extraction industries
    to make a lot more money. It may have done enough to guarantee a human
    population crash in a generation or two - it's certainly done enough
    to make avoiding such a crash a lot more difficult.
    Not exactly. The problem was that they kept on presenting the
    scientific evidence, and the "merchants of doubt" know how to get the
    child-minded to under-value it.
  16. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Pollyanna Larkin see only the positive effects of global warming, and
    expects global warming and more CO2 to do more for crop plants than
    for weeds.
    Not exactly. They do note that extreme weather events ahve become more
    frequent since we started giving the atmosphere a little more energy
    to play with.
    Whereas sensible people will continue to pay attention to serious
    science, rather than the denialist propaganda peddled by the fossil
    carbon extraction industry. Nobody is panicked by anthropogenic global
    warming - it's a slow-moving threat that just gets progressively more
    troublesome. We may find something else more serious and immediate to
    worry about - brain-dead right-wing Americans do make zombies look
    benign - but anthropogenic global warming does seem to have staying
  17. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Not necessary. Solar energy is going to be cheaper than energy
    obtained by burning fossil carbon in a decade or so anyway. Why not
    get them started off right, rather than stuck with 6% efficient coal-
    fired generators (which the Chinese are now shutting down at a great
    rate, at the same time as they are ramping up their photo-voltaic
    production capacity, bringing the cross-over date forward ).
    But hotter summers?
    You haven't been paying attention to the literature, Extreme weather
    has become significantly more likely - more water vapor in the air
    above the oceans is more energy for every weather system to play with.
    Some don't play nice.
    That's statistics for you. The unexpected "black swan" always comes as
    a surprise.
    That's what peer-review is designed to detect. On simple questions
    like that, peer-review works well.
    And which source did you have in mind?
  18. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    It changes weather, not climate - climate balances the energy coming
    in from the sun with the energy re-radiated out to the rest of the
    universe from the upper reaches of the earth's atmosphere.

    Weather - and ocean currents - shift some of the energy from the
    equator, which gets lots, up to the poles which get less. The exact
    routes the energy takes vary from day to day and - to a lesser extent
    - from year to year, but conservation of energy makes climate a lot
    more predictable than weather.

    We tell John this from time to time, but he doesn't know enough to
    make sense of what we are telling him.
  19. RipeCrisbies

    RipeCrisbies Guest

  20. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    "What's clear is that people intuitively can tell they have no real
    argument by the tactics they constantly use."

    The tactics have no logical connection to the reality of the
    arguments. Most of the people who understand and accept the scientific
    evidence for anthropogenic global warming are well aware that
    the denialists and their gullible disciples couldn't care less about
    the scientific evidence, and that educated minority get bored with
    knocking down the same nonsensical propositions time and time again.

    Find your nonsensical proposition and Ill knock it down for you, but
    you'll get your deserved measure of derision in the process.
    Not theories. Facts. Sourcewatch collects it all into a neatly
    organised website.
    Numerous journalist have found Exxon-Mobil's contributions in their
    published company accounts. There's plenty of other evidence.

    It's not the only book on the subject, but Oreskes and Conway have
    documented it better than most.
    Some gravy train. They get the same kind of university jobs as every
    other academic, earn the same kind of money, and get shat on by the
    denialism industry. Oreskes and Conway do mention the ways that the
    denialism lobby has made itself unpleasant from time to time.
    You would. You are too dim to realise that if greenhouse gases had no
    effect, it's not only the climate scientists who'd be out of a job,
    but every physicist as well - the laws of physics would have just
    renegotiated themselves, and we'd be back to propriating the gods.
    Pity about your grasp of reality.
    You are confused. Anthropogenic global warming doesn't involve the end
    of the world, merely a progressive change in climatic conditions. If
    you know so little that you can confuse it with the apocalyptic end-of-
    the-world forecasts that you get from potty religious sects, you have
    to be monumentally dim and ignorant.
    Your point being that you are a gullible sucker for the denialist
    propaganda machine? And that you don't like having this pointed out?
    What a pity.
    Actually, it's in my nervous system; the DNA laid the ground work, but
    if I'd been fed on junk food and exposed to junk education, the best
    DNA wouldn't have been able to put together a nervous system that
    could profit from a decent scientific education. You don't seem to
    have been as lucky.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day