OT: Global cooling 34 million years ago

essage

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0^^^^^^

i.e., The

erstood

Cap-and-trade isn't going to kill anybody. Burning food to run cars was Dubbya's idiotic scheme to lock in the farming vote - he may have claimed that this reduced CO2 emissions, but the advantage - if any - was minimal and certainly wasn't what motivated the scheme.

Nothing like enough.

They may well do it for their own benefit, Anthropogenic global warming is already starting to crimp their food output, and they haven't got a lot of spare agricultural capacity.

Climate tokenism is foolish. Unfortunately, not doing anything at all is even more foolish. Understanding why it is more foolish does take a better grasp of the science involved than you seem to have.

But not necessarily CO2-emitting energy sources.

Sadly, it isn't. Starvation and warfare can do an even better job, and letting the climate continue to heat up is a great way of getting both, and both play hell with development.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ne=20

=20

=20

n=20

nship,

ional

uspect

2=20

=20

y?)=20

hat=20

=20

r=20

=20

=20

ts=20

nd=20

=20

=20

he=20

s=20

But leftist weenies don't like life. They want to destroy life,=20 whether born or not.

[snip]

Unless you're a leftist weenie. Then things are as you dream them ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
  FDR gave us the New Deal. Obama thinks you deserve a Raw Deal.

Really? How so?

What specific aspect of the climate has changed in a MEASURABLE way enough to impact agricultural output in China a NEGATIVE way?

Mark

Gaia. We are a part of the world.

John

Farmers know how to control weeds. If you offered the average farmer a

10% increase in both crop and weed growth rates, I bet all of them would sign up. We are agressively selective breeding and GM tweaking crops, while nobody is doing that for weeds.

Yes; more CO2 means less interface surface and less water loss. Photosynthesis is not particularly efficient at the whole-plant level, so plants don't really need more sunlight.

Without having to know much biology, the general observation is that when a multivariable system is fully optimized, everything trades off against everything else. So if you make CO2 gathering easier, other parameters can crank up.

John

eone

al

e n

ionship,

ional

uspect

2

y?)

hat

r

ts

nd

he

s

Sure. The fertilising effect of the extra CO2 is capturing about as much CO2 at the US emits. Sadly, the rest of the world - in total - emits three times as much as the USA and the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere keeps on going up. And the carbon capture depends on the continued existence of the tropical rain forests that are capturing some of the extra carbon dioxide. At little more global warming, and they turn into deserts, if we haven't cut them down first

g-point.html

I'd like to know which theory you think your "experiment" is trumping.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

omeone

sual

ase

ion

2

ationship,

rtional

suspect

CO2

tly?)

that

n.

/or

is

ants

and

m

s.

ed

the

is

A bizarre claim, even by krw's irrational standards.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Leftist weenies don't dream about weapons of mass destruction in Irak, and aren't fooling themselves with the idiot conspiracy theory that claims that anthropogenic global warming is a confidence trick perpetrated by the overwhelming majority of the world's climatologists (in pursuit of larger research grants).

I think Jim's going in for projection here.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

meone

ual

se

on

tionship,

tional

suspect

O2

ly?)

that

.

or

s

nts

and

. d

the

is

The part that is working hard on setting up its own personal global extinction.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The aspect that this year gave northern China the worst drought in half a century

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

relationship,

proportional

suspect

Insanely absurd, unless you always trust extrapolation and always ignore feedbacks.

John

"Worst drought in half a century" implies that things were about as bad 50 years ago. And presumably this drought isn't as bad as some other drought farther back in time. And much of the water woes in China are self-inflicted.

There have been floods and droughts somewhere in the world since the dawn of recorded history.

John

If he doesn't understand a simple aluminum electrolytic, how can he claim to understand the so called global warming?

--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I
will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

m...

t

=A0There

en the

l

g), and

ater

ory

e a

ut

o

trated,

ear

brication

output,

rocess

p) can be

are the

the

, it's

ill see

cially

just

=A0Pebble

. y

it's not

ready for

waste

cks of

sand tons

er into

hich

h

's deep

's going

e

han

ousand

er table

east if

You don't seem to know what you are talking about. The reactor wasn't "inherently unstable" alhtough it doesn't seem to have been well- designed The idiots had to do something quite dramatically stupidn to get it to blow up

Three Mile Island seems to have been run by the same kind of idiot, but at least that reactor did have decent containment.

Yet.

And a certain amount of luck.

A few at a time. Of course, if you really want to kill a lot of people

- say half the population of Europe - drop a nuclear bomb on a nuclear reactor and thoroughly dipserse the tons of radiactive material involved.

Even for you, that's a remarkably silly claim. There are plenty of people who do know enough science to know that anthropogenic global warming is a real problem, and have looked at the potential solutions in detail, and - quite reasonably - think that we can maintain and eventually increase our energy consumption without putting the planet at risk, even if we do have to give up venting carbon dioxide directly into the atmosphere

Thomas L. Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded" ISBN 978-1-846-14129-4 would tell you about it, if you were remotely interested in finding out what rational people think about the subject.

Sadly, you prefer to concentrate your attention on the demented claims of the lunatic fringe of the ecology movement - the arguments that they present are sufficiently unsophisticated for you to follow, and absurd enough that you don't have to put any effort into showing that they are dumb.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I'm impressed at how your prejudices constantly overpower your ability to think or to research. This was right in your face:

"The reactor had a dangerously large positive void coefficient. The void coefficient is a measurement of how the reactor responds to increased steam formation in the water coolant. Most other reactor designs produce less energy as they get hotter, because if the coolant contains steam bubbles, fewer neutrons are slowed down. Faster neutrons are less likely to split uranium atoms, so the reactor produces less power. Chernobyl's RBMK reactor, however, used solid graphite as a neutron moderator to slow down the neutrons, and neutron-absorbing light water to cool the core. Thus neutrons are slowed down even if steam bubbles form in the water. Furthermore, because steam absorbs neutrons much less readily than water, increasing an RBMK reactor's temperature means that more neutrons are able to split uranium atoms, increasing the reactor's power output. This makes the RBMK design very unstable at low power levels, and prone to suddenly increasing energy production to dangerous level if the temperature rises. This was counter-intuitive and unknown to the crew."

And it's even more impressive how consistantly you get simple control theory concepts wrong.

John

Unfortunately, Slowman is representative of the types of people now in full-charge of our government :-(

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
       How severe can senility be?  Just check out Slowman.

Right. Humans raised at high altitude develop bigger lungs, adapting to the thinner air.

Most people live at sea level, and have smaller lungs and chests.

Conclusion: a) oxygen stunts lung development. b) oxygen is bad for people.

James Arthur

You can describe the relationship between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the surface temperature of the planet as an "extrapolation" if you like.

It tells us - once again - that you don't understand the physics involved or the geological results that back up the climate models.

It is a bit hard to understand why you want to advertise that you not only don't know what you are talking about but also don't realise how little you know, but you are an adult, and can make a fool of yourself anyway you like.

The "feedbacks" that you are accusing me of ignoring seem to be positive rather than negative. The Milankovich cycles can't be explained without substantial postive feedback, and the new data about the relatively rapid and substantial cooling 34 million years ago that prompted me to start this thread does seem to be difficult to explain without a fair measure of positive feedback - the formation of an ice sheet on Antarctica doesn't seem - on its own - to be enough to explain a 5 degree Celcius drop in global temperature.

It occurred in a rather different context than the Milankovich cycles that have been messing us about for the last few million years.

A nice reflective ice sheet over Canada, Northern Europe, Northern Russia and Siberia obviously raises the albedo of the planet and provides a pretty obvious positive feedback mechanism, but Antartica is nowhere near as big and doesn't intercept all that much sunlight at the best of times, so explaining the large temperature drop at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary does seem to need a different mechanism.

If we managed to reverse that mechanism to warm ourselves back up to Eocene temperatures, life might get excessively interesting.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen