Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by gbaikie

0
0

“Can anybody tell me how far out of orbit earth would have to move to make it inhabitable for humans? Or do we know? Either too hot or too cold.”

Solar constant is 1.361 kilowatts per square meter. The change of yearly distance from sun is 1.412 kW/m² to 1.321 kW/m²
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
Earth orbit difference:
“Perihelion (106 km) 147.09
Aphelion (106 km) 152.10″
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
So if orbit changes to more circular: 147.09 million km one gets
1.412 kW/m².
If earth were further out [and more circular] to Aphelion distance
it be 1.321 kW/m².
And one compare it to average distance of solar constant of
1.361 kilowatts per square meter.
Or adding 72 watts per square meter is closer, and losing
40 watts per square meter if further away.
If believe CAGW then a 72 watts per square meter of forcing would
dramatically change earth climate.

I think an addition or subtraction of say 100 watts per square meter
would cause a slow change in climate and global temperature, and humans could easily mitigate the long term effects fairly easier, or steps could taken
to change our world in some manner if that was seen as needed in the future. If it was a matter of choice, I think the nearer to sun is better than further from the sun, mainly because where continental land mass are currently located- we would get more arable land.
Wheres cooling by 40 or 100 watts per square meter probably result in losing Canada and Europe beginning within several decades- assuming nothing was done.


Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by lolwot

0
0

“Personally I find it very difficult to believe that a Global Average Temperature of (say) 287.1K produced a Land of Milk and Honey, while an increase to (say) 287.8K will lead us all into Eternal and Terrible Peril.”

What about an increase to 290K?

Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by lolwot

0
0

“Unlike some of the claims of some climate scientists, the sea level rise from 1850 is well-documented.”

What you meant to say is that unlike other claims the skeptics haven’t heaped derision and smear on 1850s sea level data.

It’s all very convenient.

Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Edim

0
0

The annual variation is interesting. The aphelion is in early July (min TSI) and that’s also aproximately when maximum annual global temperature occurs. Minimum temperature is in January and the perihelion (max TSI) is in early January. ~4 degrees colder at TSI peak.

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by BatedBreath

0
0

That solar panels are less expensive than before, does not mean they are not still expensive compared to fossil etc. The fact is they are still hugely expensive, as evidenced by their slow uptake.

Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Neil Fisher

0
0

That’s an, umm, interesting way to look at it. From where I sit, it is more like “Global warming done it!” – “Umm, what about factor X,Y,Z?” – “We don’t need those factors to explain it, so we have assumed they don’t matter”. Strange way to run a science discipline, innit?

Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Peter Lang

0
0

That depends which way we turn. If we turn any further Left, we could crash into the Sun, and that WOULD result in global warming.

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
@GaryM: <i>One of the most liberal states in the U.S.</i> You have to be joking. Even back in 2010 people were saying things like <a href="http://americanmajority.org/feature-content/wisconsin-is-a-conservative-state/" rel="nofollow">this</a>. Look where Wisconsin has gone since. If your understanding of AGW is as reliable as it is of political leanings of states we can pretty much ignore you. In Congress AGW has everything to do with the politics and nothing at all to do with what AGW is actually going to do to the planet. It's becoming all politics and no science in Washington, just like on this blog.

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
<i>Its nothing more than a juvenile playground of unresolved nonsense.</i> More or less so than the deep insights of the contributors to this blog?

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

Ostrom’s approach seems very pragmatic and potentially effective. While I can’t imagine the contributors to this blog taking it seriously, it would great if it resonated with those working on addressing AGW.

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
<i>transit’s today.</i> All done. Those who blinked have missed it.

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

Hey, give CK credit where credit is due. Looks like we have a poet with a pouch. ;)

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by R. Gates

0
0

And that is exactly what a jacket does…absorb heat and alter the thermal gradient between your skin and the cold air.

Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by vukcevic

0
0

DO YOU HAVE DATA?
This graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SeattleTide.gif
shows the (mean monthly and annual) Seattle’s tides.
Does anyone know of a link to a similar graph or even better data file for one of the North Atlantic (and perhaps South Pacific or Indian Ocean) location ?
Thanks in advance.

Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Latimer Alder

0
0

@max_OK

‘Wheat farmers and corn farmers just love what hotter than average summers do to yields. NOT !’

So did humanity’s 10,000 year experiment with crop breeding reach its final pinnacle somewhere around the time of the Land of Milk and Honey referred to above? Of course not. The entirely human-created varieties we have nowadays are best adapted to today’s climate. But as the climate changes we can adapt the varieties to it.

Ad things may be different in your country, but iIn UK wheat farmers tend to dislike the cool wet summers we often get, so an increase in temperatures would probably be beneficial anyway. We do not grow a lot of corn as it is too cold overall but warmer climes would allow us to do so. And warmer better summers would definitely benefit our tourist industry for seaside holidays, and our small but good wine growers.

So it ain’t all one way traffic, however much conservative alarmists are terrified of any change whatsoever.

My point is not that one temperature regime is ‘better’ than another. But that whatever the regime we as a species can adapt to it as they have done over the course of human history


Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

@GaryM and conservatives gain control of Congress

Seems we have a Rip van Winkle among us. Welcome to the second decade of the millennium, a lot happened while you were asleep. :)

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by R. Gates

0
0

The variable nature of the sun does not in any way negate the warming action of greenhouse gases. Put a jacket on and stand still for 5 minutes then try doing 5 minutes of jumping jacks. A variable amount of heat be generated and trapped by the jacket. Earth is different in that the jacket density changes based on different forcings and we have a variable star as our main energy source that also varies somewhat in output.

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

The “actual facts” as you put it are that some combination of influences drove the temperature up quite dramatically since 1970. The CO2 went up dramatically in that period, and we’ve known for a century that increasing CO2 drives up the temperature, and moreover we understand the mechanism by which it does so in considerable detail.

Hence to rule out CO2 as the culprit you would need to propose an alternative cause with a comparably plausible mechanism. Your candidate?

Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
@HAP: <i>More than 50% of all predictions are wrong.</i> More than 80% of estimates of accuracy of predictions are wrong.

Comment on Uncertainty is not your friend (?) by Peter Lang

0
0

These three paragraphs from http://www.tnr.com/blog/critics/75757/why-the-decision-tackle-climate-change-isn%E2%80%99t-simple-al-gore-says?page=0,0 make a lot of sense to me:

In the face of massive uncertainty, hedging your bets and keeping your options open is almost always the right strategy. Money and technology are our raw materials for options. A healthy society is constantly scanning the horizon for threats and developing contingency plans to meet them, but the loss of economic and technological development that would be required to eliminate all theorized climate change risk (or all risk from genetic technologies or, for that matter, all risk from killer asteroids) would cripple our ability to deal with virtually every other foreseeable and unforeseeable risk, not to mention our ability to lead productive and interesting lives in the meantime.
So what should we do about the real danger of global warming? In my view, we should be funding investments in technology that would provide us with response options in the event that we are currently radically underestimating the impacts of global warming. In the event that we discover at some point decades in the future that warming is far worse than currently anticipated, which would you rather have at that point: the marginal reduction in emissions that would have resulted up to that point from any realistic global mitigation program, or having available the product of a decades-long technology project to develop tools to ameliorate the problem as we then understand it?
The best course of action with regard to this specific problem is rationally debatable, but at the level of strategy, we can be confident that humanity will face many difficulties in the upcoming century, as it has in every century. We just don’t know which ones they will be. This implies that the correct grand strategy for meeting them is to maximize total technical capabilities in the context of a market-oriented economy that can integrate highly unstructured information, and, most important, to maintain a democratic political culture that can face facts and respond to threats as they develop.

Since that article was published, World Economic Forum published “Global Risks 2012” http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-2012-seventh-edition . It shows the many risks we face and ranks them. Climate change is not amongs the top risks. That gives a larger picture and begs the question: why doesn’t Lewandowski and those of similar persuasion look at climate change in proper balance with all other tisks, instead of in isolation?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images