In general, warm seems to be good. People and plants and critters thrive from the tropics up to places that are covered with ice; ice pretty much shuts things down. A couple more degrees C can't matter much and likely makes life better for most of the planet.
Roger the unknown knobs; the climate system is not at all understood and has a history of radically erratic, mostly unexplained behavior. Computer simulations of Earth's climate are, at present, absurd.
We shouldn't be fighting CO2, we should be working on reducing particulates. That is achievable and would help people and critters, without enforcing more poverty on the poorest people.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
affect the downwind climate. And Tidal generators don't affect the sea. And so on...
The people that want to dump SO2 in the atmosphere think it's cheaper to do that than to slow down the rate was which we dump CO2 in the atmosphere.
Windfarms don't affect downwind climate much - any surface detail coverts w ind energy to warmth eventually. Similarly with tidal generators - the moon has been sacrificing orbital energy to stir the oceans for the past few bi llion years on a much larger scale than we can extract energy from the tide s.
Stick enough CO2 in the atmosphere and you can make a real difference - and in fact we already have. Keeping on doing it isn't a good idea.
The kilometre deep ice only covers Canada and the most northerly reaches of the USA. It's called the Wisconsin Glaciation
formatting link
During ice ages the atmospheric CO2 level gets down to 180 ppm, compared with 270 ppm in regular interglacials, and 400 ppm at the moment.
Nobody is proposing to spend enough money to get us back even to 270 ppm. It looks as if the current interglacial would have been a long one, even if we hadn't started digging up fossil carbon and burning it as fuel.
John Larkin's anxieties are nonsenses that he has harvested from a denialist web-site, rather than his own fatuous inventions - he doesn't know enough about the subject to have generated them on his own.
ome people want to start turning them more or less at random in order to re turn the planet's climate to some hypothetical ideal that existed before th e industrial age, yet nobody can point to any time in history that *was* id eal, much less stayed that way for any reasonable length of time.
You are as regrettably ignorant as John Larkin. Human agriculture started d eveloping at the end of the last ice age, a bit more than 10,000 years ago, and atmospheric CO2 levels stayed stable at the typical inter-glacial 270p pm until the beginning of the industrial revolution, around 1750 AD.
The climate sloshed around a bit during the interglacial, as it has in ever y interglacial for the last million years (for which we have pretty well de fined experimental evidence from ice cores) but our agricultural practices coped.
For all practical purposes, any interglacial (with an atmospheric CO2 level around 270ppm) is close enough to ideal.
Anything warmer hasn't been on offer for the past 20 million years, and the last time we had a sudden temperature rise - during the Paleocene-Eocene T hermal Maximum, some 56 million years ago - a lot of new species showed up, which meant that the previously dominant species had had to retreat into r efuge areas where they could survive.
some people want to start turning them more or less at random in order to r eturn the planet's climate to some hypothetical ideal that existed before t he industrial age, yet nobody can point to any time in history that *was* i deal, much less stayed that way for any reasonable length of time.
Up to a point, Mr.Larkin. We seem to be hell-bent on implementing our own v ersion of the
formatting link
which wasn't much fun for the previously dominant species. One persuasive h ypothesis explaining the surprisingly rapid rise in temperature is the rele ase of methane from methane clathrates on the sea floor. We've got quite a lot of trapped methane, and if we put enough fossil carbon into the atmosph ere we could release a lot of that methane, for added extra warmth.
It didn't during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, but the survivors wi ll be making so much money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel to the other survivors (perhaps a million or so of them, all told) that they won't care.
John Larkin's claim to know anything about the current state of computed si mulations of the earth's climate is absurd. He thinks that it is the same a weather-forecasting, which has a roughly ten-day limit.
formatting link
e
talks about the Madden Julian oscillation which takes a month or two go aro und the world.
formatting link
talks about rather longer time scales
John Larkin tells us what the denialist propaganda machine has persuaded hi m to believe. If he knew a bit more he'd be a less gullible sucker for thei r propaganda.
He might even be aware that local photovoltaic cell farms are already the c heapest way way to provide power to the poorest and most isolated people, a nd that if we invested enough to manufacture them on a scale that made a di fference to the whole population of the poor we'd halve their unit price pe r kilowatt and make them cheaper power sources than burning fossil carbon, with the added advantage that the poor wouldn't be competing for a share of the finite and progressively more inaccessible (and expensive) stocks of f ossil carbon.
It would be nice if John learned how to do joined up logic, or absorbed any of the information that gets thrown at him whenever he posts nonsense, but one can be pretty sure that neither is going to happen.
If he couldn't see a way of making money out of lectures at Tulane, he didn 't pay attention, and he's no wiser now.
Not a prudent choice - we've survived ice ages but we evolved a long time after interglacials were as warm as it got.
Mammoths were handy, while they lasted, but we killed them off remarkably rapidly when we invaded their environment.
There is a hypothesis that says that humans evolved culture because it allows faster adaption to the progression from ice age to interglacial and back again than does genetically programmed behaviour.
A fan of intelligent design might ask what the circuit was designed to do.
The anthromorphic principle would suggest that we wouldn't have evolved without ice age/interglacial alternation (which doesn't happen all that often, geologically speaking).
You can select the quantity to use for the X-axis by left-clicking it and typing the desired expression into the 'Quantity plotted' window of the dialog that comes up.
I laid out a test board with a bunch of motley circuits, so I included two instances of your absorbtive lowpass filter, upper left, with edge-launch connectors.
formatting link
Let me know if you ever want a couple.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
Trust krw to get it backwards. The lefties don't want to control climate. T hey want the fossil fuel extraction industry to stop controlling the climat e in a way that creates ever-warmer conditions.
This has implications for all of us, and we all have an interest in moving our economy to run from renewable power sources. That incidentally reduces the income of the fossil carbon extraction industry who are spending a lot of money persuading people as gullible as krw and John Larkin that the proc ess of cleaning up our act doesn't have to go quite as fast as the experts think desirable.
The denialist propaganda machine knows that it hasn't got the kind of evide nce that would persuade people who can think straight, so they concentrate on spreading barely plausible nonsense through the Murdoch-owned media, whi ch appeals to people who don't think all that clearly.
This is something of an over-simplification. For the past couple of million years the earth's climate has had two quasi-stable states - ice age or int erglacial.
During ice ages, the northern reaches of the Northern Hemisphere are covere d with ice sheets, which have a high albedo, and the average temperature at the surface is about 4C cooler than it is now, which means that the oceans soak up more CO2 tha they do during an interglacial, so the atmospheric co ncentration pf CO2 sits about about 180ppm.
Every 100,000 years or so, the Milankovich effect warns up the Northern Hem isphere enough to persuade some of that ice sheet to slide off into the oce ans, which changes the ocean current enough to flip the climate into the ot her more or less stable state - an interglacial, which is what we've had fo r the last 10,000 years or so - where the oceans are warmer, there's somet hing like 270ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and there;s a whole lot less ice co ver over over the northern reaches of the Northern Hemisphere.
Non-linear systems can have several different "equilibrium" states.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.