B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Dec 18, 1:28 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
harvested from denialist web-sites with a vested interest in casting
doubt on what is actually perfectly good science.
The historical record for the last 420 thousand years has the inter-
glacial temperatures peaking at 3K above the current level.
We can be pretty confident that warming up to that level won't get us
into another climate regime, or destabilise any interesting volumes of
methane hydrates.
If we manage to get more than 3K of temperature rise, we are moving
into unknown territory.
55.8 Million years ago, a slow progressive warming managed to get to a
temperature where methane hydrates started coming apart, producing the
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
"Other "hyperthermal" events can be recognised during this period of
warming, including the Elmo event (ETM2). During these events of
which the PETM was by far the most severe around 1,500 to 2,000
gigatons of carbon were released into the ocean/atmosphere system over
the course of 1,000 years. This rate of carbon addition almost equals
the rate at which carbon is being released into the atmosphere today
through anthropogenic activity."
We aren't talking about "1%" regulation in a system which is
controlled by neat negative feedbacks, but rather about driving a
system that includes weak positve feedback loops into a regime when
strong positive feedbacks - run-away warming - has been seen in the
geological past.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Unfortunately your opinions about what is "obviously bad science" areOn Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:04:44 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:41:12 -0800, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:21:27 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
snip
_You_ are one of those helping the very most to turn this group into a
climate denial group rather than to serve as an excellent resource for
the tiny group of people who even _know_ about usenet.
What I mostly try to do is turn this electronic desihn group into an
electronic design group.
snip
I see a surprisingly large number of non-electronic posts from you,
considering that claim.
snip
I have no desire to talk to JT.
Given that he starts so many threads on a subject you suddenly seem so
focused on stemming, you might try that tact. It would, if you are
successful, certainly reduce the problem you seem so concerned about
(when it serves your interest to feign that concern.)
If you don't design electronics, you're a nobody here.
I'm a hobbyist. Is that a problem for you?
Like Sloman.
You mean the person that seems to keep you writing on a subject you
pretend to want to avoid here?
If
you don't like the climate discussions, stop pushing them along with
so much of _your_ energy and maybe go talk with Jim T and ask him to
slow down the new-thread pace a bit.
I never start climate threads. I make relatively few posts about
climate in threads that others start. Rag Sloman and the other guys
who post almost 100% off-topic, about things they only read about.
Note I didn't accuse you of _starting_ the threads.
And I never talk with JT.
You might improve what you claim to want to improve, by doing so.
Can't say until you try. Since I've been pretty much mum on the
subject of late, you seem to be tilting at the wrong windmill. I
don't mind a rare post on the subject, but in general I have learned
that almost everyone here has no skill in the subject and isn't the
least interested in lifting a finger to change it. So I've greatly
reduced any of my contributions there.
As I said, you need to look in a mirror or go after other big fish on
this subject, if you really care that much to change the tenor. There
are much better prizes to be had, John.
You put no personal work into them, that much is
obvious, and I see no reason why anyone else should care when you
respect yourself and what you say so little as that. It may be simply
because you don't even believe in your own abilities to understand any
of it.
I believe that nobody can get usefully predictive data from bad models
of chaotic systems, even people who don't cheat.
Which of course you pretend to know without a shred of personal work.
If so, you have my condolences.
Oh, stop being a fathead. I'm having fun.
You imagine I'm not?
Actually, I have been
gradually taking the impression you are no longer competent to even
read the papers with understanding, anymore. But I could be wrong.
And I want you to show me just how wrong I am on that. But I doubt
you will get off your butt long enough to do so.
Get off your butt and design something. Show your work.
I have, already. And I don't think you missed it, because I remember
some comments from you. But as I said, that's not relevant. My point
(the one you started responding to, remember?) is that those posting
here about climate, like you claiming that the science knowledge
doesn't really exist, neither dares nor bothers to engage the methods,
source materials, and conclusions in a serious way. I've seen not one
single case of it, here.... okay.... except maybe one. But it wasn't
from you.
I just think you just lack confidence in your ability to engage any
serious facet of the subject. But are all too willing to make broad,
sweeping accusations all the same. You don't value your own opinions
on the subject that much, which is sad.
Jon
If you want a detailed scientific debate on climate why are you here?
It is not a climate forum.
It is not the job of engineers here to do the job that "climate
scientists" are paid to do.
It does not stop us having opinions when we see what appears to be
obvious bad science.
harvested from denialist web-sites with a vested interest in casting
doubt on what is actually perfectly good science.
Not that you have any idea what a "suitable" measurment might be.My objection to AGW is to the claim that the science is settled when
the temperature anomaly is clearly based on unsuitable measurements.
It shouldn't.And the anomaly is over egged by quoting it in degrees F or C. 287K
rising by 1K or 2K on the other hand isn't so, politically, alarming.
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.
The historical record for the last 420 thousand years has the inter-
glacial temperatures peaking at 3K above the current level.
We can be pretty confident that warming up to that level won't get us
into another climate regime, or destabilise any interesting volumes of
methane hydrates.
If we manage to get more than 3K of temperature rise, we are moving
into unknown territory.
55.8 Million years ago, a slow progressive warming managed to get to a
temperature where methane hydrates started coming apart, producing the
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
"Other "hyperthermal" events can be recognised during this period of
warming, including the Elmo event (ETM2). During these events of
which the PETM was by far the most severe around 1,500 to 2,000
gigatons of carbon were released into the ocean/atmosphere system over
the course of 1,000 years. This rate of carbon addition almost equals
the rate at which carbon is being released into the atmosphere today
through anthropogenic activity."
We aren't talking about "1%" regulation in a system which is
controlled by neat negative feedbacks, but rather about driving a
system that includes weak positve feedback loops into a regime when
strong positive feedbacks - run-away warming - has been seen in the
geological past.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen