by frankiespeakin 100 Replies latest jw friends
TD, concerning who's ahead in the supercomputer world I don't have my info handy but I admit that it is old and dated information. Nevertheless my point was that we need to do more advanced analysis, not to confirm Global Warming, but to fill in the details.
villabolo
Has Global Warming Reached The Tipping Point of No Return?
Atheist apocalypse? We're all gonna die any way. What difference does it make?
Has Global Warming Reached The Tipping Point of No Return?
Deputy Dog saith:
Atheist apocalypse? We're all gonna die any way. What difference does it make?
Deputy, I'm glad to hear that you have no children or grandchildren. Or perhaps you do, in which case I offer them my sympathies.
villabolo
We can't maintain a constant climate on earth, so why worry about it. We can't do anything about the reversal of the magnetic poles, either and nobody is crying about that. The increase in cosmic radiation from that reversal could kill a lot of people, too.
Moshe, fatalistic philosophies are never taken to their logical conclusion by those espousing it. What else can you not prevent? Freeway accidents? Well drive along at 120mph. Pole Reversal is not a legitimate concern. Only Peak Oil followed by Global Warming pose a credible threat to civilization in the coming decades.
When hunger pangs hit unprepared people because of ruined crops try soothing them with "why worry about it." When those people start showing up at your doorstep repeat it like a mantra "why worry about it." I have very little hope that humanity will ever solve anything but a few individuals who have the foresight to "worry about it" will be able to effectively deal with the situation. They will survive and establish a new civilization upon the ruins of this one.
As for not being able to maintain a constant climate that is false by mere virtue of the fact that the climate is being changed by humans. If we can change the climate without even trying we can also stabilize it not merely preventing the consequences of man made Global Warming but also any change in climate due to nature's gyrations.
villabolo
Here is the deal - the really very best of the climate mathematicians have not been able to create a computer/mathematical model which has even come close to predicting the actual warming/cooling overall change. It really is just speculative guesswork, regardless of what they are saying in the news media.
JWoods - What facts or evidence are you going to present to substantiate this premise?
<JWoods - maybe we could save time by you just presenting evidence each time you make a claim, that way I won't have to bother you and everyone else by asking you for it>
I have done some further internet research on some of Lovelock's statements and I've come to some tentative conclusions.
I did some research on his statement about the sun's radiant output being 30% more than in the far distant past(3billion years ago or more)when life started on our earth and I haven't found any conclusive statements here is one of the places I looked;
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/sunclimate.html
| Updated 11 November 2004 | Consequences Vol. 2, No. 1, Winter 1996 |
See also: Editor's summary | The Sun and Climateby Judith Lean and David RindOf the many objects in the universe, only two are essential for life as we know it: the Earth itself, and the Sun: the star around which it circles, year after year. Burning steadily in stable, middle age, the Sun--now about five billion years old--provides an unfailing source of light and energy. The Sun's heat is so intense that at a distance of 93 million miles it warms the surface of the otherwise cold and lifeless Earth some 250°Centigrade, to -18°C (0°Fahrenheit). Thus warmed, the solid Earth releases a |
While I think Lovelock's Gaia theory a good one, and I think his daisy world model simplistically brilliant,, I feel his conjecture about earth's entering into a irreversible warming state a bit premature and not based solidly in data but more an intuitive deduction that maybe slightly biased because of his old age(90). I think it is true that the brain ability to be creative diminishes with age and some of his great thinking and accomplishment are forever in the past.
I don't find his leaps in logic very careful nor cautious he could be right but and I tend to think it the directions he's pointed to needs to be explored further just to cover all the bases.
Also I wounder if his Shaker religious back round may be creeping into his equations conclusions.
I do feel that a source of information over the Internet that makes available all the data to date offers the human species some wonderful opportunities to solve or best manage this crisis of warming, you never know some teenager with a fresh brilliant mind might be able to make best use of the data and offer a workable solution.
If you take a close look at when Physicists do their best work it is when they are young and they got good blood flow to their brains.
It seems as they get older they become less and less open minded becoming bogged down in routine thoughts thus limiting options.
Here's a site that has loads of info about Global Climate Change for those interested:
I have some gold and MREs left over from Y2K and the Ozone Hole. Any buyers?
