Global Warming

On Apr 16, 7:38 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
wrote in message
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand
engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

I know exactly what you mean. Some people who don't understand CO2 in
the atmosphere are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

Ahh, then you know what I mean. So can you refer me to your atmospheric CO2
paper?

Wait a second. I'm the one who's saying it's complicated. You're
saying it's simple. Since you're the one saying it's so simple, by
your own argument you need to demonstrate that you understand it.
Where's your paper?

On Apr 17, 10:20*am, wrote:
On Apr 16, 7:38 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

wrote in message
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

I could go on but the problem is that people who don't understand
engineering are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

I know exactly what you mean. Some people who don't understand CO2 in
the atmosphere are always discussing it as if it was so simple.

Ahh, then you know what I mean. So can you refer me to your atmospheric CO2
paper?

Wait a second...

SchwartzSoft deliberately left that feature out. Sent to /dev/null
fer sure.

On Apr 17, 12:57 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its
capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK
industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that
economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than
environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear
up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!

Now you're just making stuff up.

I:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_d...ndard_of_livin...
d_GDP

am not:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/T...tage_4/Air_Qua...

making this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest

You're making stuff up about what "many doomsayers swear up and down
will be insufficient," and "more probable."

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...

The scheme had been to design each plant from the ground up.
What is called for is a single design, with options.

Err, please don't tell me that you have an engineering background.

Putting extra effort on a good design then repeating and
improving it is better than many borderline designs.
The latter approach is good for bicycles, automobiles,
and computers. (Today there is really only one or two home
dishwasher designs. My pump developed a leak, and I went
to the vendor who sold me a pump-motor assembly that drops
into all home dishwashers. Cost half a new dishwasher,
but saved dumping the old, or paying for an installation
job I can do myself.) When the design is as complex, easily
buggered up, and dangerous as a nuclear power plant, I
prefer the design team be all the best available. And
they can put a good team on day to day running procedures
to avoid the "Damn, red light is on again. Will somebody
shut it off?" syndrome. You know the plant in Monroe,
Michigan almost blew its top?

--
Michael Press

On Apr 2, 3:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling off.
I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?

Can you say, normal cyclic variations?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w123418D68.DTL

In article ,
Robert Chung wrote:

On Apr 2, 3:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling off.
I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?

Can you say, normal cyclic variations?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...onal/w123418D6
8.DTL

And what's more, there were no great "cries of GLOBAL COOLING" when Ku Ku the
Clown claims there we
_________________________

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s ‹ frequently
offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their
minds ‹ is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and
National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the
unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of
peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven
supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were
neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth
was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming
even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping
Earth's climate on human time scales."
_________________________

http://tinyurl.com/2lvdxo

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Apr 17, 12:57 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
" wrote:
But there are a lot more people in the world who live
within 50 miles of the coastline than there are
total Canadians. (In 2000, 49% of US pop. was within
50 miles of coastline.) Of course, we could just
encourage all those people to move inland or failing
that to newly-arable Canada and Russia. That shouldn't
cost much. And, building all those new houses will
employ many construction workers.

PWhat is the estimated amount of sea level rise? Bangladesh has a very
specific problem because half the country is less than 3' ASL. I live
considerably less than a mile from the coastline, and my house is 50'
ASL.

Doomsayers seem to be reaching a consensus estimate of 28-34 cm on sea
level rise. That's about a foot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

How many new houses will need to be built, really?

Well, lots, but like I said, I think more-frequent
flooding in areas with changing rainfall patterns
will be a problem long before actual sea inundation.
I used to live just north of Washington DC. My
apartment was well above even the local creek level,
but after a heavy rain my bike route to work could
easily be flooded out, and it wouldn't always drain
quickly, in part because the Potomac is a tidal
estuary and the whole area gets fairly soaked by
a combination of rain and tides. It wouldn't take
much rise to put the Jefferson Memorial footings
underwater for several days a year and flood the
basements of many buildings on the National Mall.

If you live close to a coastline, water rise will
change your life even if it doesn't flood your house.
But unpredictable weather extremes are a more
pressing issue. This is also why I think studies
that say "Maybe warming will have economic benefits!"
are whistling past the graveyard. It's unpredictable,
and rainfall patterns may change which could be a
huge problem.

Also, I live in Arizona now and if it gets any hotter
and drier, I'm going to move up there and steal your
water, water down your beer, and pester you by continually
asking you to explain the jokes on the Red Green Show.


As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its
capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK
industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that
economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than
environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear
up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!

Now you're just making stuff up.

I:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_d...ndard_of_livin...
d_GDP

am not:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/T...tage_4/Air_Qua...

making this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest


It was the "It gives some hope" that I was responding to.
It reminded me of this old S. Harris cartoon where two
boffins are at a chalkboard. One has written a set of
formulae, and in one of the middle steps, "Then a
miracle occurs ..."

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/g...ath/math07.gif

Ben

On Apr 17, 7:18 am, wrote:

Economic progress leads to a cleaner environment. Even in our lifetime, we've
seen it. Or at least I have.

Warmer climate is better for people and other living things. Historic warm
periods have not lead to the disasters that orthodox warmism predicts. In fact
they were highly beneficial.

Climate change is a reality. The climate will change, it always has. It has done
so with no contribution from humans. Deal.

Some of the cleaner environment came from bad old
govmint regulation too. Like on cars, and steel plants.

It's a question of timescale. People, animals and
plants can adapt to changes that occur on 20,000
year timescales. Put the same change on a 50-100 year
timescale and there will be a lot of dislocation.
It's not that we'd all go extinct (though some of
the plants and animals will) it's that the quality
of life will be substantially affected. Think of it
as a lifestyle issue.

Ben

In article
,
Robert Chung wrote:

On Apr 17, 12:57 am, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
As for growing economies, please contemplate the economy of 1908 and its
capabilities. For that matter, contemplate the air quality in US and UK
industrial centres at that time versus now. It gives some hope that
economic growth will be sustainable, cleaner, and more probable than
environmental measures which, last time I checked, many doomsayers swear
up and down will be insufficient to solve the problem!

Now you're just making stuff up.

I:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

am not:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/T...tage_4/Air_Qua...

making this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest

You're making stuff up about what "many doomsayers swear up and down
will be insufficient," and "more probable."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...tysupplement.p
olitics

"Kyoto is insufficient and has many faults, But at least there is a
basis for moving forward."

Tell me that isn't emblematic of the Kyoto Accord's general reception.
Admittedly, none of the doomsayers suggest Kyoto would be the full
solution, but the Kyoto protocol, in practice, seems mentioned in the
breach more than the observance.

As for more probable, I'll concede I'm too lazy to back that one up. But
that graph that looks like a hockey stick is extraordinarily compelling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W...1-2003_A.D.png

Those claiming this curve is about to go S-shaped had better have some
pretty good arguments.

My essential sense of things is along the lines of the Evil Economist
model of problem-fixing, which is essentially that it will cost less
(economically speaking, this is practically synonymous with "be easier")
to create prosperity in Bangladesh and start selling them houses on
stilts than it will to make the kinds of changes to human civilization
that will result in a dramatic and relatively rapid change in CO2
emissions, which is the sort of thing that will pay major dividends 100
years from now.

Also, I'll bet the Bangladeshis will like my "you guys have to start
getting rich" plan better than your "blame this weather on China and
America" plan.

Well, maybe they won't, but their kids will have Playstation 9s and
whine to their parents about not being allowed to borrow the family
flying car. So it works out.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

In article
,
Robert Chung wrote:

On Apr 2, 3:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
So then Nova has a program telling us that the Sun is actually cooling off.
I wonder how long before we're hearing cries of GLOBAL COOLING again?

Can you say, normal cyclic variations?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/17/national/w123418D68.DTL

Yes! Keep up the good work, people.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."