Searching \ for '[EE]:: Global Warming as a genuine engineering con' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: techref.massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=global+warming+genuine
Search entire site for: ': Global Warming as a genuine engineering con'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]:: Global Warming as a genuine engineering con'
2006\12\18@204736 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> > > If I spend 5 seconds worrying about greenhouse emissions ...

>> > ... but I don't consider them wasted ...

>> There is nothing humans can do ...

>> Therefore, pointless ...

> This no longer has

>            anything

       ???

> to do with EE.

This looks very very very much like [EE] to me.
Just not about Bimota centre hub EE.

A discussion about GW will, alas, rapidly decay into a
political-religious bun fight with all thinking missing. Which is a
shame.

GW, ie human caused warming, *IS*  *DEFINITELY* real.

:-)

*HOWEVER*, the relative contribution, effect and avoidability of human
contributions is still very very indeterminate.
The true engineering is/would be in gaining an understanding of the
above. Alas, the gravy train is too gravied and the nay sayers too say
naying for this to occur until it's too late and/or we find out it
doesn't/didn't matter.

I personally *suspect* that present trends are towards vastly
overdoing the response, BUT I may very very well be wrong.
Being wrong is not a good choice when it's the whole system one is
playing with.
So "precautionary principle" says we should bite the bullet, feed
(alas) the gravy train and do really really really goos science to
find out the truth.
Really really good engineering plays a necessary supporting role to
this.


       Russell::


2006\12\18@210704 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> A discussion about GW will, alas, rapidly decay into a
> political-religious bun fight with all thinking missing. Which is a
> shame.
>
> GW, ie human caused warming, *IS*  *DEFINITELY* real.
>
> :-)

Maybe. There was an interesting article in Scientific America a couple
of months ago that talked of a possible cyclic effect that seems to
have happened pre-human and caused several of the dinosaur extinctions.

> I personally *suspect* that present trends are towards vastly
> overdoing the response, BUT I may very very well be wrong.

If the article is right, then we are highly underdoing the response. In
fact, it may not be people that have caused the problem, though we may
have made things worse.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Author of: _Linux Robotics: Building Smarter Robots_
                       !
spam_OUTjayTakeThisOuTspamsprucegrove.com     ! "Those who would give up essential liberty to
                       ! purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
http://enerd.ws/robots  ! liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

2006\12\19@005724 by Steve Ravet

flavicon
face
It was suggested that I not post statements such as "humans cannot cause
or relieve global warming" without either an IMO or some substantiation.
So I'll explain.

First is what seems to me to be common sense.  What kinds of changes has
the earth been through that we know about?  We know the earth has been a
complete snowball, covered in snow from pole to equator, at least once
before.  In these conditions the only life to be found on the planet is
that weird stuff that grows in the hot water vents at the bottom of the
ocean.

We know that large portions of North America have been under water.
Just a few weeks ago I went fossil hunting in Ft. Worth and found
incomplete fossils of snails that were 2-3 feet in diameter.  Sea
fossils are found around Denver (5000 foot elevation).  We know that the
Pacific has encroached as far west as Arizona more than once, and that
the river in the Grand Canyon has changed directions multiple times as
the land rises and falls.

We know that Indonesia is all that's left of what used to be a large
continent, its tectonic plate being subsumed by its neighbors.  What is
now a tropical island used to be a snowy mountaintop.

We know that greenland used to be green, and the existence of polar ice
caps is unusual, not usual.

The predictions that accompany GW are pretty extreme:  tropical diseases
run rampant, agricultural disasters, flooding, and widespread death.  I
don't find it credible that human activity could create environmental
change on par with plate tectonics, asteroid collisions, and other
"normal" (in geologic terms) environmental excursions.

----------------------------------------------------------

Second is the modeling.  We only have directly measured temperature data
for the last 150-ish years, and most of this data was collected on land
in the western hemisphere.  There is some historical data from the
oceans, but only from shipping lanes.  How accurate is temperature data
collected by laymen, using 150 year old thermometer technology?  Do we
use 150 year old thermometers in science labs today?  How much error is
there when this incomplete and somewhat inaccurate data is integrated to
come up with a global temperature?

Other temperature data is inferred from tree rings, polar ice cores,
etc.  How much error is associated with these measurements, and how is
that quantified?

The scientists (and therefore their models) don't understand the action
of water vapor in the air.  It has both a warming and cooling effect.
They don't understand, and aren't even aware of, all of the feedback
mechanisms that go into global climate.  

I am skeptical that data of unknown accuracy, and a model that is
admittedly incomplete, can make predictions about fractions of a degree
far into the future.  Would you even bother running a spice simulation
if there was this much uncertainty in your transistor models?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Even if it's real, what can we do about it?  Here's a link to an 8 page
footnoted article that raises good questions:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

The atmosphere as 750 gigatons of CO2 in it.  Other carbon reservoirs
are the surface ocean, deep ocean currents, the land and marine
biomasses.  The sizes of these reservoirs range from hundreds to tens of
thousands of GT.  Transport between these reservoirs ranges from 10s to
hundreds of GT per year.  Human activity contributes about 5 GT per year
to the atmosphere.  The tremendous sizes of these reservoirs, and the
uncertainty in the transport volumes mean that human contributions are
noise in the overall process.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Should we do something anyway?  Bjorn Lomborg, author of the "Skeptical
Environmentalist" notes that a single year of the global cost of the
Kyoto Protocol would pay for water and sewage treatment for everyone in
the world.  Implementing Kyoto is the global equivalent of mortgaging
your house, liquidating all your assets, and borrowing as much money as
possible to build a titanium meteor shield for your house.

--steve

2006\12\19@041425 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
This is well-thought out, Steve.

I'm even skeptical that the icepack is actually melting.  About 3 years
ago, an expedition was launched
to salvage a group of WWII airplanes that were forced down onto an
icepack in the Artic in 1942.
They were expected to be pristine because the icepack should be
negligible as a result of GW.

In fact the expedition failed because the airplanes were buried 300 feet
deep in new icepack. So much
for GW.

--Bob

Steve Ravet wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\12\19@055429 by Victor Fraenckel

flavicon
face
Bob Axtell wrote:
>In fact the expedition failed because the airplanes were buried 300 feet
>deep in new icepack. So much
>for GW.

Not quite true. See:
http://www.thelostsquadron.com/

This recovery was documented on a (I think) Discovery Channel show several years ago and as the link shows at least one of the planes, a P-38 Lightening, was recovered from a depth of 268 feet of ice. 268 feet since 1942 is 4.2 feet per year.

Vic

*____________________________________________________________________________________________*

*Victor Fraenckel
KC2GUI
victorf ATSIGN windreader DOT com**
*


2006\12\19@074807 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Victor Fraenckel wrote:
> Bob Axtell wrote:
>  
>> In fact the expedition failed because the airplanes were buried 300 feet
>> deep in new icepack. So much
>> for GW.
>>    
>
> Not quite true. See:
> http://www.thelostsquadron.com/
>
> This recovery was documented on a (I think) Discovery Channel show several years ago and as the link shows at least one of the planes, a P-38 Lightening, was recovered from a depth of 268 feet of ice. 268 feet since 1942 is 4.2 feet per year.
>
>  
That rates a "not quite true"? The intention was to recover the whole
group of planes. Taking one apart and dragging it 300 feet then taking
12 years for it to get reassembled doesn't sound
like a success....

--Bob


{Quote hidden}

2006\12\19@235009 by Tachyon

picon face
For every bit of 'proof' you post anyone could post an equal amount of
'proof' to the opposite.

This is an issue that has not in any way been decided by the best minds
in the scientific community and no consensus exists one way or the
other. For one of us here to decide the matter is at best, presumptuous.

Given this, it makes your stating one side of the argument as if it were
fact quite antagonistic to people who are more convinced by the other
side of the argument. It also groups you in with political groups who
have an agenda to promote that isn't dependant of scientific fact, but
rather on money and power. Even if they are right, they still attract a
lot of negative attention more due to their motivation than their side
of the argument.

It's not unlike the creation/evolution debate. Taking a firm stand on
either side automatically gets you categorized in with a stereotypical
group of people by the other side. Even though you may or may not fit
into that group at all.

Personally, I don't feel anyone currently can prove human induced global
warming to be fact or fiction so I don't have a side to take and I'm
open to all the arguments on both sides.

I do however agree that it's arrogant and improper for anyone to state
either side as an absolute. At best I question their motivation for such
a statement.


All that aside, I think that it is a fact that most of the things that
are suggested by believers in Human Induced Global Warming (HIGW) are
reasonable anyway. Reducing pollution makes sense. Even if it doesn't
cause HIGW, it still harms the people, animals and plant-life it
touches. Reducing usage of hydrocarbon fuels makes sense. Especially for
countries like the US who must get most of it from countries that don't
like them much and that are unstable. Reducing your heating and cooling
bills makes good fiscal sense, especially in an economy where people
spent more than they saved for the first time since the great
depression. Using more alternative fuels and more efficient materials
just makes sense.
Almost all the things proposed as fixes of HIGW by those that believe in
it are sound ideas in and of themselves, whether HIGW exists or not. So
maybe HIGW is a made up bogeyman to get us to do these things, that
doesn't mean we shouldn't do them.

Granted, I'm more moderate. I'm not going to go live in a commune
wearing hemp underwear and eating vegetables I grew organically myself.
I'm not buying any darn Prius, as I have need of moving more than myself
my wife, two dwarfs and a shoebox. I'll keep my 3 diesel vehicles which
I still contend to be better, more efficient, and cleaner than gasoline
powered vehicles and more practical than hybrids (not to mention much
cheaper and more reliable).
However, I do have or plan on having; solar panels, water boiler heat
(multi-fuel, corn, wood, pellets), diesel generator, bio-diesel
processor, diesel well pump, wind turbine, battery banks, inverters etc.
In my case I don't particularly have any green hippy intentions, I'm
just cheap, and want my independence from reliance on energy providers,
and I like to tinker and enjoy the satisfaction something I've built
myself. In fact this is how I came to be interested in Basic Stamps, and
now PICs and then this list.

Steve Ravet wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\12\20@002703 by Tachyon

picon face
What I found interesting about this expedition was that according to
accepted dating techniques, those P-38's are at least 300 years old or
more. :-)
Oh, and they didn't fail to recover them.

Either the pilgrims had a secret air force, or current core dating
techniques are crap. Though I question most dating techniques as they
all seem to be circular and without frame of reference. eg "this stick
is a meter long because we measured it with this ruler we made and this
ruler is a meter long because we checked it against this stick we
believe to be a meter long."

references:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Dating_cores
http://www.thelostsquadron.com/p-38-pages/p-38-lightning-recovery.htm

Bob Axtell wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2006\12\20@064707 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
None of this is intended to be antagonistic or confrontational. It's
an attempt to genuinely address Steve's points and try to move his
(and others') opinions. If this does not somewhat alter Steve's
perspectives on the subject (provided he reads it :-) ) I'll be
surprised. I've been surprised before today.


Prescript - those who are not interested in my "what we can know and
whether it matters" verbose rant may like to skip to the end below my
signature and look at the comment on the specific points Steve raised.
Much briefer and MAY be useful. Maybe read that part first and then
the rest if still interested.


Steve Ravet said:

> It was suggested that I not post statements such as "humans cannot
> cause
> or relieve global warming" without either an IMO or some
> substantiation.
> So I'll explain.
> First is what seems to me to be common sense.
...

followed by lots of very good and well reasoned material.

I essentially do not disagree with most or all the points and
questions that Steve raised - BUT I come to a somewhat different
conclusion.

I have no axe to grind on almost any subject whatsoever. This may
sound like a surprising statement from a card carrying born again
raving looney evangelical Christian (which I'm sure is the straight
jacket that I'm bound in by many people). But, while there is very
good reason to paint me that way, even that does not stop me
questioning and/or evaluating much within the bounds of Christianity
proper. OUTSIDE those bounds I have no really hard and fast
certainties about any facts at all because, how do we know and how can
we tell? Knowing the answers to those two questions is often as
important in any given area as knowing answers to questions which
directly relate to a given area.

So, Steve has essentially asked these two questions about GW (Global
Warming.). However, he has come up with the answers "We cant know and
we can't tell SO we might as well not bother". My answers to the same
questions go more like this:

1    The whole system constituted by the earth and its environment is
exceedingly complex and we cannot model it perfectly.

2    We care about the answers because the direction that the system
takes affects us and our children's children's children. So much so
that the answers MAY mean that our children's children don't have any
children!

3    If in fact we are able to make a difference to the system we'd
like to know.
[If we can break and/or fix it we want to know]

4    If we are able to know whether we are able to make a difference
to the system we'd like to know.
[We want to know if it's possible to know if we can break and/or fix
it].
This is one level removed from the prior case and is quite a different
proposition and a vital one.

5.1    The consequences of being able to affect the system are utterly
world changing.
5.2    The consequences of not being able to change the system are
utterly horrific.
5 general:   We want to know which it is, even though finding out its
the latter may be a pretty horrific discovery.

6.1    The consequences of knowing we can know are utterly world
changing.
6.2    The consequences of knowing we can't know are ALSO world
changing but in a different way.
This last point is crucial, not just a tautological extension of the
alternatives to make it a tidy and symmetric sequence, and are utterly
relevant to Steve's points.

SO

7 If we can alter the system and
   If the system is going to hell in a handbasket and
       If we can stop it
           Then we almost certainly will want to at almost any cost

8 If we can't alter the system and
   If the system is going to hell in a handbasket then
       We obviously can't stop it
           Then we may want to do something really really really
radical instead.

       eg Developing Space Elevator technology to make off planet
access
           far far far cheaper may be come a multi trillion dollar
international
           priority under that scenario.

BUT

the above do not address knowing and knowing whether we can know.

eg

20 If we can change it and
   If it needs changing
       But we don't know we can change it
           AND we don't know whether we can know whether we can
change it

   Then finding out if we can know becomes a priority

ALAS,  reality as is often the case, is about the most complex mix of
all.
Where we are goes like this.

21 The system MAY be going to hell in a hand basket
   AND if it is Then
       We may be contributing fatally
           AND we may be able to tell whether we are or not
               AND we may be able to tell whether we can tell or not.

That's (as you have no doubt noted) somewhat less precise than
desirable and doesn't cover things exactly BUT is good enough to
proceed from.

22 GW as a long term trend MAY be happening.
Some say yes and some say no and some say ... [[12 3 down in the game
of my childhood]]

23If it IS happening it may lead to  medium to long term catastrophe
due to
   - temperature rise.
   - triggering an ice age. (some models have warming doing this)

24 We are undoubtedly doing things that are contributing to global
temperature increases
BUT
25
- .1 This may have already staved off another ice age.
- .2 This may be a irrelevant contributor to natural trends.
- .3 This may be able to significantly worsen natural ends.
- .4 This may be capable of providing a trigger to add to global
trends in such a way that it produce a catastrophe that otherwise
would
not have happened or which may have happened much later.

It's this latter possibility (25.4) which is the big fear and concern
and priority for addressing.

IF 25.4 and we take Steve's approach we 'die'.

BUT

IF 25.4 and 8 then no matter what we do we die so Steve's approach MAY
be fine.
BUT we may want to do other things differently if we know we are going
to die.

BUT
We are back at 20. We may also be at 25.4 and we may also be at 8 but
we don't KNOW.
We don't know if we know enough to know.
We don't know if we CAN know enough to know.
We don't know if we can do things to make a difference or whether what
we do will.

If the system is going to hell in ....
And we were able to do something about it.
And we could have found out that this was the case and didn't.
Or if we knew we could do something about it.
Then our children's children's children will curse us chapter and
verse, should they ever get to be born.

Alas, the cost of getting to a stage where we can have any degree of
certainty whether

- anything needs doing
- it matters what we do,
- whether we can do enough or the cost of doing enough
- whether we can know whether we can know

is utterly horrendous.
The system is so complex.
The models are so uncertain.
The data is so poor.
The initial conditions are so ill determined

that it will cost billions to trillions to start to find out well
enough.

BUT the worst case cost of getting it wrong when we could have got it
right is a change in the earth's climatic system for thousands of
years. If we precipitate a major climate change the worst case models
say we cannot get it back. One such model is the stopping of the
"Atlantic Conveyer" - the deep Atlantic anti-gulf stream current which
carries warm water far into the North Atlantic and keeps it ice free.
Once stopped this current may take 1000's of years to restart. Once
stopped the UK would become permanently ice bound. This processed has
been modelled now for perhaps several decades. At one stage there were
strong suggestions that the current could be stopped in under 10 years
by high enough CO2 concentrations. Recent things I've seen seem to
suggest that a hundreds of years minimum is more likely. BUT this may
be wrong, and even if right, there was no certainty early on that the
under 10 years figures wasn't right. IF right now in 2006 we fund
that the North Atlantic and the UK were permanently frozen and were
going to stay that way for thousands of years it should be no
surprise - although of course it would be. THAT outcome would have
been an extreme but possible outcome of the models - and we didn't
know. We didn't know the probability or the extent of the effect or
the trigger levels and more. That is just one effect.

*** BUT the worst case cost of getting it wrong when we couldn't have
got it right is also a change in the earth's climatic system for
thousands of years. If we can get to the stage of knowing if we need
to get it right AND that we can or can't actually get it right then it
behoves us to see how well we can refine the probability of the worst
case occurring. ***

If the odds of "all hell freezes over" is 1 in 10^6 per annum then we
may decide to take a punt and go and buy a beer.

If the odds of the North Atlantic freezing over in the next century
lie in the range 0.0000000001 to 0.001 then we better do some work on
finding out how good the 0.001 figure is.  ie if there's 1 1/1000th
chance of the NA going solid before 2106, how much would we like to
spend to see if we can reduce the odds by a factor of 10. If the odds
MAY be 1 in 10, how much then?

And, that's where we are.
There is enough indication that we MAY BE bringing damnation (and some
very fine skating conditions) upon ourselves.
And that we MAY be able to make a difference and that the consequences
of not doing so are REALLY bad, that it may be worth spending a few
100 billions finding out. Even if the answer is "NO" the money may
have been very well spent.

None of this should be a problem for the citizens of earth if we fit
it into our global priority scheme. It's just a cost of doing
business. Levy everyone an average of $16 pa worldwide, adjusted as
per
the agreed international equitable cost model, gather in all the
freely and joyfully given responses and go forth and spend the $100
billion pa of the people's money wisely for the people's benefit.

About here we wake up (screaming if you're Mr JG, sweating profusely\y
with a heart rate of 150 if you're me).
This is NEVER going to work because as soon as there's a spare billion
up for grabs, let along 100B per annum or whatever the gravy boaters,
the swindlers, pork barrellers and all hop on board and utterly foul
the water. The good science goes out the window, vested interest,
career choices, toeing the party line and much more make it impossible
to efficiently determine reality.

There are 4 possible solutions:

- Give up in disgust and walk away.
- Join the crowd, there's money to be had.
- Loudly decry the very existence of any problem and pillory them all.
- Sigh deeply, put hand in pocket, contribute as one must and can and
do one's best to steer the process as best as possible into the good
science and integrity path of finding out what we can know and do.

I am, alas, for the last option.
If 5 to 10% of the input gets to be used effectively we may get
somewhere and we may save the world and we may have our children's
children's children rise up and bless us. We may have them just call
us silly fools for wasting all that money when there was no need. But
I think it's the best game in town when one considers the worst case
outcome if we do nothing.


       Russell

_________________________________________________________________


Some direct "brief" comments

> What kinds of changes has
> the earth been through that we know about?

We (think we) a good enough idea to contribute usefully to the
process.

> ... complete snowball
> ... grows in the hot water vents ...
> ... large portions of North America have been under water ...
> ... Sea fossils are found around Denver (5000 foot elevation).  ...
> ... Pacific has encroached as far west as Arizona more than once ...
> ... Indonesia is all that's left of ... large continent
> ... greenland used to be green ...

Much of the above may be true. Some probably isn't :-) but,

> The predictions that accompany GW are pretty extreme:  tropical
> diseases
> run rampant, agricultural disasters, flooding, and widespread death.

Such GW predictions are pretty much not based on how it happens but on
what happens if it does.
I see no reason not to think that any of these MAY NOT be true. They
are certainly not invalidated by any of the preceding natural list.

> I don't find it credible that human activity could create
> environmental
> change on par with plate tectonics, asteroid collisions, and other
> "normal" (in geologic terms) environmental excursions.

And there's no suggestion that such a comparison is being made. The
effects of GW predictions can be analysed relatively independently of
whether GW occurs or how. IF the seas rise by 300mm then ... . If they
did many major things would happen.

The fact that in the very long term far greater things have happened
on the planet do not mean that smaller events are insignificant to us.
IF we hand about on-planet for another 1 million years + we can
expect to face larger challenges than short term GW. But that's not
the
question here.

{Quote hidden}

Partly addressed by my rant.
The best answer to most things is "as good as science can make it and
getting better by the month, and it will get far far better again if
you can keep at last a few % of those GW $'s flowing into genuine
research."
There are all sorts of ways of measuring all sorts of things and a
person not involved in a particular 'art'  will often be stunned by
what can be done.   It is also possible for scientists to fool
themselves utterly and peer review and independent replication   are
vital in areas of vital science.

BUT most of the above questions appear to have from you the rhetorical
answer "pretty poor" when that's not what  atop scientist in any given
area would say.

> Other temperature data is inferred from tree rings, polar ice cores,
> etc.  How much error is associated with these measurements, and how
> is
> that quantified?

"as good as science can make it and getting better by the month   "

> The scientists (and therefore their models) don't understand the
> action
> of water vapor in the air.  It has both a warming and cooling
> effect.
> They don't understand, and aren't even aware of, all of the feedback
> mechanisms that go into global climate.

BUT their models are as good as science can make them and getting
better by the month and they do try to know that they don't know and
do something about it. Genuine experts have at least  addressing all
those points.

> I am skeptical that data of unknown accuracy, and a model that is
> admittedly incomplete, can make predictions about fractions of a
> degree
> far into the future.  Would you even bother running a spice
> simulation
> if there was this much uncertainty in your transistor models?

What is desirable, given as per my rant that it may be worth almost
any amount of money to plow on blindly while trying to see, is the
building of the best models possible and the determination of the
distribution possibilities. We must be able to say is "the very very
best we can say so far is xxx AND that gives us this sort of outcome
probability distribution.

If the outcome if the SPICE model MIGHT be as important as the outcome
of these models MIGHT be then yes, I'd run it.

> Even if it's real, what can we do about it?  Here's a link to an 8
> page
> footnoted article that raises good questions:

Haven't read it.
Will read it.
Its answers are irrelevant :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
ie given how important the answer MAY be and given how much difference
delaying MAY make and given how much difference acting now MAY make
then being certain before we act is not an option.

{Quote hidden}

The best that can be easily said is that, based purely on GT ratios,
that may be true but that, if we inject it into the stratosphere with
Jet aircraft, send it into the sea as pollutants which then decay,
"just happen" to add it strategically to the sea surface above the
Atlantic Conveyer current "just so", ... THEN it MAY make a fatally
large difference. AND may not. AND we don't know.

{Quote hidden}

Up until the "to" at the end this is probably essentially true.
The next bit is what we don't know about, but the metaphor used is
probably a very bad one.
Coz: *IF* GW can do what it may be able to do and IF we can and do
make the difference and stop the worst case THEN instead doing water
and sewage treatment would lead to a lot better health and a lot more
people alive for now AND utter disaster for the lot when GW  bites (as
it definitely will in this scenario as that was the starting
assumption.) UNTIL we know if the very very terrible outcomes are
possible or, better, what the outcome distributions are, then if
forgoing expenditure on water and sewage get the GW work done it MAY
be a better choice. Having people die short term to save many many
more ling term may be  a "good" choice. But not one I would ever want
to have to make. Why not do both? We could easily do it if we wanted
to. The only reason that substandard sewage and water facilities exist
is because there is not a worldwide will that it not be so. At one
stage ALL US citizens paid an average of $US0.50/day to fund sending 3
men to the Moon. A few more groups of 3 followed but the 1st 3 made
the key point. Turned into current $ and done worldwide that would
produce around 2 or 3 trillion $US a year. That sort of money could do
quite a lot of good. If say everyone in the top half of the world's
income distribution contributed say $US1/day to a fund,(entirely out
of the kindness of their hearts because they decided that they wanted
to*), which addressed the most critical long term needs of the lower
half (no handouts, no direct aid, just FIXING things)(and if Al Capone
and Saddam Hussein and Joseph Stalin all on probation rode shotgun on
the anti-corruption oversight team) then what would be achieved?.
Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

So

> build a titanium meteor shield for your house.

This puts the chance of GW fatally affecting an individual as the same
as a personal meteorite strike.
Obviously this was chosen for effect, but equally obviously there is
no comparison in the relative probabilities.



       regards


               Russell


* Mr JG anti-spoiler clause. He and such are excused their voluntary
contribution if so desired. If he opts out I'll pay $US2/day to make
up for it.


2006\12\20@123902 by gacrowell

flavicon
face
Standing ovation!

{Quote hidden}

2006\12\22@054636 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Here's people who SEEM to have their heads screwed on straight who
claim they can clearly document that sea levels are FALLING

       http://www.iceagenow.com/Sea_levels_are_falling.htm

Sent by a friend.
I've only skimmed it.
The Maldives claim is stunning and easily enough checked.
If true it makes nonsense of what's being said about the Maldives
future internationally.
Interesting.

       Russell


2006\12\22@171433 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> Here's people who SEEM to have their heads screwed on straight who
> claim they can clearly document that sea levels are FALLING
>
>         www.iceagenow.com/Sea_levels_are_falling.htm
> [...]
> The Maldives claim is stunning and easily enough checked.

I'm not sure whether /anything/ in this area can be "easily enough" checked
-- much can't be checked at all, probably, with reasonable effort.


One of the pages that are linked from that location talks about falling
levels in the Arctic:

 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm>

But, kind of hidden in the middle of the article, it says this:

"Taking a global view, ERS-2 still records a sea-level rise.

"Its radar altimetry data can be meshed with that gathered by its sister
spacecraft ERS-1; Europe's leading Earth-observing platform, Envisat; the
US Navy's Geosat Follow-On Mission, GFO; and Nasa's highly accurate
Topex-Poseidon and Jason missions.

"When this is done, ocean waters are shown to have gone up across the
planet by 3.2mm per year for the period 1992 to the present."


So it seems that even though this guy tried to link material that says the
levels are falling, it doesn't necessarily say that :)

Gerhard

2006\12\22@172955 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On 12/22/06, Russell McMahon <.....apptechKILLspamspam.....paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> Here's people who SEEM to have their heads screwed on straight who
> claim they can clearly document that sea levels are FALLING
>
>         http://www.iceagenow.com/Sea_levels_are_falling.htm
>
> Sent by a friend.
> I've only skimmed it.
> The Maldives claim is stunning and easily enough checked.
> If true it makes nonsense of what's being said about the Maldives
> future internationally.
> Interesting.

>From the page:

"The thila has not grown, so it must be the sea that has fallen."

I wasn't able to find a definition for a 'thila' but I think it is a
reef.  How do they know the thila has not grown, ie from plate
shifting, volcanic activity, coral growth, etc?  If they are claiming
a dramatic change from just 50 years ago, wouldn't that have been
noticed elsewhere in the world?

2006\12\22@175907 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Here's people who SEEM to have their heads screwed on straight who
>> claim they can clearly document that sea levels are FALLING

>>         www.iceagenow.com/Sea_levels_are_falling.htm
>> [...]
>> The Maldives claim is stunning and easily enough checked.

> I'm not sure whether /anything/ in this area can be "easily enough"
> checked
> -- much can't be checked at all, probably, with reasonable effort.

As I said, I haven't read it at all mostly, and I only skimmed the
Maldives material *BUT* what I read sounded very factually based and
this aspect could be checked. They have channels which were navigable
until recent decades and now aren't due to falling tidal water depth
and the basis for this would be able to be checked.

> One of the pages that are linked from that location talks about
> falling
> levels in the Arctic:

>  <http://news.bbc.co.> But, kind of hidden in the middle of the
> article, it says this:
> "Taking a global view, ERS-2 still records a sea-level rise.
..
> "When this is done, ocean waters are shown to have gone up across
> the
> planet by 3.2mm per year for the period 1992 to the present."

Extrapolating data in that article.

Arctic water levels have fallen by about 22mm in 10 years

Global average level has risen by about 32mm in 10 years

SO Difference between the tow has change by about 50 mm in 10 years.
or about 25mm / 1 inch every 5 years.

IF that was anything like a long term 50 year trend then in 50 years
the difference between arctic and average global ocean levels would
change by 10 inches / 250 mm.

I think this would be very useful - perpetuum mobile maybe not, but
the differential power levels and underlying phenomena to make this a
fact would be utterly immense. And, are highly suspect. I obviously
don't know enough to start to usefully question WHY this may be a
wrong conclusion, but one would hope that there are a substantial
group of very competent scientists rerererechecking these apparently
inconsistent results.

At 500 years you have a 2.5 METRE mill race. That may be across
hundreds to thousands of miles/km of distance but "clearly" either
such a long term trend doesn't exist OR it is balanced by some other
factors which  change the outcomes as the differences increase OR we
are seeing some immense effect which hasn't been in place
historically. If the latter exists and is "Man Made Global Warming
(tm)" then the magnitudes are such that other indicators should be
equall;y well perturbed.

Lastly - even their super accurate satellite results are liable to be
found after  a decade or two of analysis to have revealed some
previously unknown global phenomenon which utterly confounds the
intended use of the results. (mm per year variation on top of an earth
radius of 6E9 mm is a "rather fine" variation). This is utterly par
for the course when doing such leading edge science with such
requisite precision. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it - just that one
always needs to be looking at what is REALLY happening so that some
decade or other you suddenly see why you've been wrong :-).


       Russell






If







>
>
> So it seems that even though this guy tried to link material that
> says the
> levels are falling, it doesn't necessarily say that :)
>
> Gerhard
>
> --

2006\12\22@181530 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> If they are claiming
> a dramatic change from just 50 years ago, wouldn't that have been
> noticed elsewhere in the world?

That's what *they*  *say*  is being seen elsewhere too :-)


   Russel

2006\12\29@131606 by Kyle Alans

picon face

I would recommend 2 resources for this topic.  First and most accessible is
http://www.realclimate.org which contains discussions and explanations by
people who are actually qualified to discuss and explain climate issues.

Second is a book: A Short Guide to Global Warming
http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192840975

Which is the most concise, factual, and neutral treatment of the matter that
I've read to date.

Regards,

Lance

_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
http://www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701


'[EE]:: Global Warming as a genuine engineering con'
2007\01\10@084315 by Gerhard Fiedler
picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> Here's people who SEEM to have their heads screwed on straight who
> claim they can clearly document that sea levels are FALLING
>
>         www.iceagenow.com/Sea_levels_are_falling.htm
>
> Sent by a friend.
> I've only skimmed it.
> The Maldives claim is stunning and easily enough checked.
> If true it makes nonsense of what's being said about the Maldives
> future internationally.
> Interesting.

Not sure how to reconcile the above with this:


<news.google.com/news?btnG=Search+News&q=global%20warming%20claims%20tropical%20island>
 <http://tinyurl.com/yajwou>

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...