Bad day in Oklahoma

On 2006-03-06, Jay Honeck wrote:
Michael Crichton's excellent discourse on where the "science" of
environmentalism has led us.

Crichton is a fiction writer. I would accept the arguments of one
climatologist over the arguments of ten thousand Crichtons.

Crichton is a medical doctor, a very successful author (of both fiction and
non-fiction work), and one helluva a smart guy.

He's still not a climatologist, though. I agree about the computer
models by the way, the system is still too chaotic with many unknowns --
but that's not the point. Like it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
work out that turning the burner up under a pan of water will add energy
to the system, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that
changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere will cause climate
changes. There is ample evidence that humans have increased the
quantities of CO2 (amongst other gases) since we have good records of
atmospheric composition going back millenia.

It is not even up for debate that one of the properties of CO2 is that
it helps retain energy in the Earth's atmosphere (many gases, such as
CH4 - methane - have a greater effect). Increasing the concentration of
CO2 will increase the amount of energy that is retained by the Earth's
atmosphere as surely as night follows day, or as surely as increasing
the burner under a pan of water means more energy goes into the pan of
water. It isn't even up for debate that the concentration of CO2 has
increased particularly in the last century.

The specifics of what it will do to climate ARE still up for debate,
though. In my part of the world, the debate is whether it will result in
us opening a ski resort on Snaefell because of changes in the Gulf
stream, or whether we'll be growing oranges and olives in our back yards
(we already have palm trees).

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

It is not even up for debate that one of the properties of CO2 is that
it helps retain energy in the Earth's atmosphere (many gases, such as
CH4 - methane - have a greater effect). Increasing the concentration of
CO2 will increase the amount of energy that is retained by the Earth's
atmosphere as surely as night follows day, or as surely as increasing
the burner under a pan of water means more energy goes into the pan of
water. It isn't even up for debate that the concentration of CO2 has
increased particularly in the last century.

What is up for debate is whether we should care, or not. Iowa, in fact,
will be a huge winner in any "global warming" -- but that's beside the
point.

More importantly, all evidence points toward us being able to change/do
precisely nothing about this phenomenon. Given this fact, all the
hand-wringing and whining isn't going to help do anything but sell
newspapers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

What is up for debate is whether we should care, or not.

If we don't care, we will continue to create disasters like Katrina's
impact on New Orleans.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
What is up for debate is whether we should care, or not.

If we don't care, we will continue to create disasters like Katrina's
impact on New Orleans.

Jose


Right Jose, there were no big hurricanes until mean humans started mucking
about. The climate if the planet changes it did it before we were here, it
has done it while we were here, and it will do it after we are gone.

I suppose humans are to blame for the new little Big Red spot on Jupiter?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
What is up for debate is whether we should care, or not.

If we don't care, we will continue to create disasters like Katrina's
impact on New Orleans.

Jose


Right Jose, there were no big hurricanes until mean humans started mucking
about. The climate if the planet changes it did it before we were here, it
has done it while we were here, and it will do it after we are gone.

I suppose humans are to blame for the new little Big Red spot on Jupiter?

We would all be much better off without humans.

Right Jose, there were no big hurricanes until mean humans started mucking
about.

Of course there were hurricaines. Big ones too. Even humongous ones.
But the ecosystem was able to absorb them in a manner that it cannot any
more. There are unintended consequences to everything we do, and the
bigger we do them, the bigger the consequences. This must be borne in
mind when we decide what to do and how to do it.

Swampland serves many valuable functions, including helping to moderate
the effects of a hurricaine on the shore. When we build levees to hold
the water back, we affect the wetlands. When we build a big city where
those wetlands were, build a wall to hold the water back, and then heat
the earth more than it would normally be heated, it's not surprising
that the water level rises a bit.

It doesn't take but a bit.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

("Dylan Smith" wrote)
It doesn't matter whether or not the outer planets are also getting
warmer; adding the results of burning fossil fuel is changing the
composition of the atmosphere - and if the Sun's output is increasing,
will cause *even more* of the sun's energy to be captured. As I said, no
computer model is necessary to make that assessment.


If the outer planets are getting warmer, and we're an inner planet...


WOW - a separate (OT) thought!

Sometime in Greek/Roman times, or later, in the Middle Ages of Europe, I
wonder if people stood on their western shores and smelled smoke from across
the ocean? There must be something out there, they reasoned - land!

Think of the GIANT grass fires in 352 BC...

I got this idea remembering the GREAT Yellowstone blaze of 1988. We smelled
smoke (SMELLED SMOKE!) in the air for weeks and weeks. Our sky, even at
noon, was darkened. Sunsets were red and hazy all summer (July-Sept).

We live 1,000 miles away from Yellowstone, on the Minnesota/Wisconsin
border.


Montblack

The polar ice caps are melting...on Mars. Natural processes and cycles
dwarf what we do with here with power plants and cars. I think we get
wrapped up in our sense of self-importance. Lots of what passes for
climatology is hand-wringing and alarmism.

At one time, where I presently sit was a jungle, and then later covered with
as much as a mile of ice. Why should I expect that the temperature tomorrow
be *exactly* what it was yesterday, or last month, or last year?


"Jose" wrote in message
m...
Right Jose, there were no big hurricanes until mean humans started
mucking about.

Of course there were hurricaines. Big ones too. Even humongous ones. But
the ecosystem was able to absorb them in a manner that it cannot any more.
There are unintended consequences to everything we do, and the bigger we
do them, the bigger the consequences. This must be borne in mind when we
decide what to do and how to do it.

Swampland serves many valuable functions, including helping to moderate
the effects of a hurricaine on the shore. When we build levees to hold
the water back, we affect the wetlands. When we build a big city where
those wetlands were, build a wall to hold the water back, and then heat
the earth more than it would normally be heated, it's not surprising that
the water level rises a bit.

It doesn't take but a bit.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Swampland serves many valuable functions, including helping to moderate
the effects of a hurricaine on the shore. When we build levees to hold
the water back, we affect the wetlands. When we build a big city where
those wetlands were, build a wall to hold the water back, and then heat
the earth more than it would normally be heated, it's not surprising that
the water level rises a bit.

It doesn't take but a bit.

So?

The one part of this entire bogus "crisis" that NO ONE -- and I mean no
one -- ever discusses is this: What can we do about it? What, short of
dismantling the world's economy, can be done to alleviate our perceived
impact on the world's climate? (Note: Hand wringing and brow-beating do
NOT count as "doing something.")

I want one, single example of what can be done to change the situation --
with the caveat that the action must not harm humans living on this planet.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
I want one, single example of what can be done to change the situation
-- with the caveat that the action must not harm humans living on
this planet.

Just one? Okay:
Artificial carbon sequestration.

Otherwise, see this link for a few more options:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigat...global_warming

Solar thermal and nuclear power are effective alternatives to fossil fuels
that would also greatly reduce the impact on the biosphere.

(There is enough uranium dissolved in the oceans to supply all of
humanities' energy needs for several hundred thousand years - at prices
comparable to today's energy prices.)