The world has never seen such freezing heat
in [Design]
|
Prev: Class D audio driver with external mosfets
Next: NE162 mixer: input/output impedance in balanced mode?
From: James Arthur on 26 Nov 2008 12:41 Eeyore wrote: > > bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> On 25 nov, 17:50, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:14:09 -0800,bill.slomanwrote: >> Sure, and I did it here not all that long ago. The IPCC and Al Gore do >> it better - for more and less sophisticated audiences respectively - >> and I'm not going to bother digging out my text and presenting it here >> again. > > Al Gore has NO scientific skills of note WHATEVER. He's a POLITICIAN. He also > (partly?) owns a carbon trading company which will make him fabulously rich if > people believe his propaganda. > > He's on the gravy train. /Will/ make him fabulously rich? He's already made $100 million from it. (Not that that would color his views.) So he's already at least quaintly, mildly pleasantly rich from it. Cheers, James Arthur
From: James Arthur on 26 Nov 2008 12:49 Eeyore wrote: > > Jim Thompson wrote: > >> Charlie E. <edmondson(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> James Arthur wrote: >>>>> "With many regions in their fifth year of drought, the >>>>> government yesterday called an emergency water summit >>>>> in Canberra." >>>> So a shorter drought than the 1880 to 1886 one ! Damn that CO2 in 1880 ! >>> They could go the way that Santa Barbara does. When I was there, they >>> were in the fifth year of a drought, and started building a >>> desalination plant to provide water. They were encouraging >>> conservation so well, that the sewers were backing up due to lack of >>> flow to keep them clear. >>> >>> Then, just after I left, they got some rain, and the drought was over. >>> Then, they got some more rain. And, then some more rain, and they >>> were having mudslides and flooding all over the place. >>> >>> Then, some one did a little research. A hundred years before, there >>> was a great harbor at Santa Barbara, one of the reasons it was >>> settled. But, then they had a drought for six years, and the settlers >>> were hard put to survive. Then it started raining, and raining and >>> raining. The harbor is still a major transportation hub for the town, >>> but it is now called the Airport! >> Ah, Californica, the epitome of how environmentalism can cause self >> destruction. > > Funny how that phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" eludes the AGWists. > > Graham Roads to hell are paved with ... your tax dollars / pounds / euros. Cheers, James Arthur
From: James Arthur on 26 Nov 2008 13:42 Al Bedo wrote: > bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > [regarding orbital variation with feedback] > >> The point is that we need a healthy dose of positive feedback to make >> the explanation work and similar positive feedback mechanisms could >> turn today's barely significant global warming into an end-Permian >> style global extinction. It isn't a high probability scenario, but we >> are taling about the only planet we've got. > > So what feedback are you suggesting? > > Not ice/albedo feedback of the glacials since that ice > extended to mid-latitudes where there was enough insolation > to matter. > > Not water vapor feedback because that doesn't seem to be occurring. > > > What then? He means methane hydrates, stores of methane frozen underseas (that might be freed if temperatures rise enough). Note that by saying "It isn't a high probability scenario", he's saying it's something but might happen, but isn't certain. IOW, "We don't understand, and we don't know. We're guessing." Cheers, James Arthur
From: Al Bedo on 26 Nov 2008 13:52 James Arthur wrote: [Regarding feedbacks] > He means methane hydrates, stores of methane frozen underseas > (that might be freed if temperatures rise enough). Since orbitals are similar to the last glaciation, one could argue that glaciation is a more likely risk. So we should be trying to prevent glaciation rather than warming. -- - When the Rapture comes, can I have your car? When global warming comes, can I have your coat?
From: James Arthur on 26 Nov 2008 14:06
Whata Fool wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >>> You should note that the infra-red spectra of both carbon dioxide and >>> water vapour absorb are line spectra, and the lines aren't all that >>> wide (though this does depend on atmopsheric pressure and temperature >>> - search on "pressure broadening") and they don't overlap to any great >>> extent, which allows both gases to make independent contributions to >>> the greenhouse effect. > > > Sloman resumes the AGW discussion of spectra, with no numbers > showing flux rates. Water vapor has some pretty wide bands, CO2 > much more narrow. Bill's arguments are qualitative. As they must be. So far, AGW is uncomputable, unpredictable, unverifiable. Hence the controversy. Cheers, James Arthur |