"Alastair McDonald" k wrote in
message ...

"jonathan" wrote in message ...



Your view implies that as life on earth increases its activity, it's
more likely to cause the climate changes to occur faster and to one or
the other extreme. I don't see it that way, climate changes will occur
faster, but to oscillate around the middle not to an extreme.

That was not what I intended. I was only illustrating examples of
states of the planet where life went on, but mankind would find it
impossible with populations levels as they are at present.


That's always been the big question, will the population
suddenly crash or settle into an equilibrium. The answer
can be deduced easily by looking at two primary variables.
This is a system being pushed far from equilibrium by
increasing population, pollution etc. The first variable
is to decide if the primary forces pushing the system
far from equilibrium are internal or external. The
second variable is the rate of change.

If the driving force is external the rate of change will be
sudden and the system will become chaotic...crash.
This would be analogous to an impact and such.

If internal...and...if the rate of change is less dramatic, the system
will instead organize at the transition. New system properties will
suddenly appear at this critical point. Which will become new driving
forces overwhelming the older destructive ones.
The system will have evolved.


Moreover
we cannot expect to have time to adjust. Geology shows us that
the climate changes abruptly. There are very few beds of rocks
which show a slow transition from one regime to another. Almost
by definition bed changes are abrupt.

Life and our climate coevolve, and as life grows more pervasive
the system will become more adaptive and resilient since that
is a universal characteristic of systems driven far from
equilibrium. As they approach the edge, systems spontaneously
organize and tend to enter a self sustaining cycle. So it
would find the optimum faster and stay near it.

I do not agree that they coevolve. That is the Gaia Theory as yet
unproven. As I see it the climate is driven by physical processes
such as changes in greenhouse gas concentration i.e. the PETM.
Life adjust to the climate, but that can take geological time rather
than that of the human time span.


Intelligence has dramatically increased the rate of evolutionary
processes. The collective intelligence forming within the
internet, for example, will provide a new level of intelligence and
wisdom ...an emergent property that can adapt and change faster
than anything on the planet.

And as the most adaptive system on earth, humanity should
do just fine.



This would require that life on earth operate within principles
that mimic natural ones, being adaptive, open and
civilized. Which means spreading free democracies and
markets that have all those mysterious and unique
properties of life.

They find the best solutions all by themselves.

You seem to be arguing for laissez faire economics which
brought us the General Slump, and the fishing out of the Grand
Banks.


Such an extreme capitalism, like in China today, is just another
rigid form or dictatorship that only guarantees disaster. As it's
imposing a man-made structure onto a natural system...people.


There is no guarantee that systems will evolve to
maximize utility.


There is a way to guarantee that the optimum will be
the final probable state. The static and chaotic system
attractors must be in an unstable equilibrium with
each other. This would be a balance between the
realms of rule of law (static) and freedom (chaotic).

We must insist on a maximum level of freedom and
interaction world wide, but within the bounds of
civilized society. This will form the dynamic or
fluid attractor of competition and the system will
spontaneously self-tune.




The Great Mistake of the last century is to think
humans can micromanage or out-design nature.
Socialism, dictatorships, oligarchies and all kinds
of rigid structures imposed upon the many, by
the few, gave us most if not all of our horrors.

Socialism gave us the polluted Lake Baikal and a dried
up Aral Sea. Capitalism led to the polluted Great Lakes,
and a wasteland in the Florida Everglades.


Extremes of one kind or the other gave us that. Both of those
systems are destructive dictatorships if ruled by the few.
The decisions need to be made by the many and the
opposite will occur...we will begin restoring nature.



To restore nature into the affairs of humanity the power
structure must be reversed. Greater connectivity
among people, so that the many control the few, is
the path. Just such a scenario is unfolding before
our eyes...internet...new democracies and
technologies.

As turning points go, we live in the middle of the Big One!

If we do not do something about climate change, what you
say will prove only too true. It is the USA not Russia which is
opposing any action. Victory in the cold war for the US does
mean it can stay neutral in the hot war against global warming.



The remedy is in spreading democracy and freedom as fast
as we can. America is leading the world in global 'climate' change
in an intelligent way. Pollution, wars, disease, poverty
and unbridled population growth are ALL caused by
the rule of the few. Dictatorships of religion, philosophy
or money are the source of our problems and horrors.


Freedom is the solution.


Jonathan

s






Cheers, Alastair.

"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote in message ...
"Carsten Troelsgaard" wrote in message
. ..
"Eric Swanson" skrev i en meddelelse
...

[Carsten]
Can someone explain to me why "greenhouse gas" is not an
artefact of scientific intimidation: As far as I know, any gass
in the atmosphere acts as a "greenhouse gas" with it's
particular range of low-wave frequencies through which
heat radiates off from the ground.

[Alastair]
No! Nitrogen and Oxygen do not act as greenhouse gases. Only
triatomic & greater gases oscillate at the appropriate frequencies
to trap the out going infrared radiation. None of the atmospheric
gases trap the incoming solar radiation to any extent, and it is this
unidirectional trapping which is the problem. It is the basis of the
rather unappropriate name for the effect.
Increasing greenhouse gases will not cause the world to come to an
end in geological terms, but ... the financial penalties imposed by
Kyoto would not have seemed small beer to have prevented it?
Cheers, Alastair.

[hanson]
Alastair finally admits that he is interested in green $$$$ from the
Kydioto extortions to buy his beer and say cheers. He like Eric
Swansong and all the other doom-saying little green idiots produce
more green house gas emissions here in these NGs than does the
CO2 of a major volcanic eruption. They are here for entertainment
value only and they do represent the character of the unfortunate
disciples who got brain washed by the green bible that says:

= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)

= Environmentalism is by'n large just a hysteria that infected
= hordes of well meaning little green idiots who honestly
= believed that they did help/better/save the world, when
= in reality they were simple the unwitting & unpaid enablers
= and facilitators for the big green crooks who pocketed the
= $green$ from permit charges, user fees & enviro surtaxes.
= The well meaning little green idiots are the sad fallout of the
= largest con that was perpetrated onto mankind in the last 50
= years as they fell victim to this gargantuan green jerk off.
= Or have you never noticed that the issues disappear right
= after the money has been doled out and consumed by the
= greenies...... yet the problems will remain for future green
= harvesting, skimming and milking by the sharp green turds.

ahahaha......ahahahanson

"Lloyd Parker" skrev i en meddelelse
...
In article ,
"Carsten Troelsgaard" wrote:

Can someone explain to me why "greenhouse gas" is not an artefact of
scientific intimidation: As far as I know, any gass in the atmosphere
acts
as a "greenhouse gas" with it's particular range of low-wave frequencies
through which heat radiates off from the ground.

Only those gases that absorb IR radiation from the earth (which would
otherwise escape to space) and re-radiate it in all directions (thus
warming the earth) are greenhouse gases. N2, for example, is transparent
to IR radiation.

Thanks. I've grown to realize that since I posted.
Elifritz is right in the sense that I'm rather unfamiliar with the set of
problems that has focus in the climate debate. It doesn't prevent me
participating though. One question has come up while reading: The low
frequency window that is somewhat central in the wavefrequences where Earth
surface has maximum irradiance seems to be the only radiation conduite
through which Earth irradiates energy - or the only one that seems to be
calculated on. I havn't had much success in finding sources on irradiation
in the transparant parts of the spectrum - and possible mechanisms of
transfer of energi from the opaque to the transparent irradiation.
I'll take a look at the links that Graham P. Davis sent.

Carsten

Given the amount of papers that has been made on climatology for the
passed
10 years, I should know better and stay off the debate. But I'm a
geologist
and cannot be surprised when changing temperatures are registrated.
I'm in no way trying to neglect the care that we should show our
environment, but I certainly would consider other options if I should
approach the problems of receding bio-diversity and lack of fresh water
in
Bangaladesh, than looking at man-made temperature rise. A changing
relative
sea-level is the geological rule, not the exception.

But consider the rate at which it will change.

As for a growing size of a lake in Himalaya, a small tilt of this active
geological region is likely to have the impact that is seen. A rise of
lake-level would otherwise enhance the runoff if not the treshold is
changed.
As for the human habitats of oceanic reafs, general pollution that
inhibits
their natural growth seems to me to be a problem with a possible higher
impact than subtle sealevel changes.
In all, registrating the subtle changes that is reported is fine, but
next
to being somewhat dobious, man-made temperature changes has become a hat
that conviniently covers any odd event.


Carsten

"Alastair McDonald" k skrev
i en meddelelse ...

"Carsten Troelsgaard" wrote in message
. ..

"Eric Swanson" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Will the real John Christy please stand up??
---------------------------------------------------------------------

snip

Can someone explain to me why "greenhouse gas" is not an artefact of
scientific intimidation: As far as I know, any gass in the atmosphere
acts
as a "greenhouse gas" with it's particular range of low-wave frequencies
through which heat radiates off from the ground.

No! Nitrogen and Oxygen do not act as greenhouse gases. Only t
riatomic and greater gases oscillate at the appropriate frequencies to
trap the out going infrared radiation. None of the atmospheric gases
trap the incoming solar radiation to any extent, and it is this
unidirectional trapping which is the problem. It is the basis of the
rather unappropriate name for the effect.

Increasing greenhouse gases will not cause the world to come to an
end in geological terms, but it could make the world far less habitable
for 6,000,000,000 on the planet today. The world survived the last
ice age, but if it recurred do you really think that the financial
penalties imposed by Kyoto would not have seemed small beer to
have prevented it?

What guarantee can you give, that the investment are not put better in other
environtal problems or global benefits, when you know that climatechanges
has happened before in recorded history - without the aid of human.

Cheers, Carsten

Alternatively, the climate could return to the hothouse
world of the Cretaceous with lush jungles in Alaska and New Zealand.
But this would come with a rise of sea level of at least 80m (250 feet).
That means much agricultural land would be lost, along with most
property in ports throught the world. These includes many of the largest
cities such as Melbourne, Sydney, New York, Boston, Seatle. Los Angeles,
Miami, St Louis, Amsterdam, London, Rome, Athens, Calcutta, Shanghai,
Hong Kong, Bankok, ...

Cheers, Alastair.

"hanson" wrote in message
ink.net...

They are here for entertainment
value only ...

Speak for yourself!

Cheers, Alastair.

"Carsten Troelsgaard" wrote in message
k...

"Alastair McDonald" k skrev
i en meddelelse ...

Increasing greenhouse gases will not cause the world to come to an
end in geological terms, but it could make the world far less habitable
for 6,000,000,000 on the planet today. The world survived the last
ice age, but if it recurred do you really think that the financial
penalties imposed by Kyoto would not have seemed small beer to
have prevented it?

What guarantee can you give, that the investment are not put better in other
environtal problems or global benefits, when you know that climatechanges
has happened before in recorded history - without the aid of human.

Cheers, Carsten

I can guarantee that the cost of Kyoto will be much less than the damage
caused by a new ice age, or melting of the Greenland ice sheet which
now seems inevitable.

Cheers, Alastair.

Carsten Troelsgaard wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" skrev i en meddelelse

Snip

Thanks. I've grown to realize that since I posted.
Elifritz is right in the sense that I'm rather unfamiliar with the set of
problems that has focus in the climate debate. It doesn't prevent me
participating though. One question has come up while reading: The low
frequency window that is somewhat central in the wavefrequences where Earth
surface has maximum irradiance seems to be the only radiation conduite
through which Earth irradiates energy - or the only one that seems to be
calculated on. I havn't had much success in finding sources on irradiation
in the transparant parts of the spectrum - and possible mechanisms of
transfer of energi from the opaque to the transparent irradiation.
I'll take a look at the links that Graham P. Davis sent.

Here is another, rather simple one. Basically any search on "radiative
balance" Earth will toss up lost of pages.

josh halpern

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
"If you look at the long-term records of temperatures, you will see
periods
warmer than today and periods colder than today," said John Cristy, a
climatologist at the University of Alabama.

"We don't see the same warming in the deep atmosphere," he said. "If it
were
man-made, that's where you would see the warming."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why are you surprised, Eric? Christy has spoken at coal confabs
for years now. See Gelbspan's books. Of course Christy is not
going to testify that the vertical distribution problems were solved
this year by Fu, et al. That would displease the coal lobby.

Ahh yes. The paranoid left. A fossil fuel man behind every tree they forgot
to cut down.

"Carsten Troelsgaard" wrote:


"Lloyd Parker" skrev i en meddelelse

Only those gases that absorb IR radiation from the earth (which would
otherwise escape to space) and re-radiate it in all directions (thus
warming the earth) are greenhouse gases. N2, for example, is transparent
to IR radiation.

Thanks. I've grown to realize that since I posted.
Elifritz is right in the sense that I'm rather unfamiliar with the set of
problems that has focus in the climate debate. It doesn't prevent me
participating though. One question has come up while reading: The low
frequency window that is somewhat central in the wavefrequences where Earth
surface has maximum irradiance seems to be the only radiation conduite
through which Earth irradiates energy - or the only one that seems to be
calculated on. I havn't had much success in finding sources on irradiation
in the transparant parts of the spectrum - and possible mechanisms of
transfer of energi from the opaque to the transparent irradiation.
I'll take a look at the links that Graham P. Davis sent.

It's not at all clear what you mean by "opaque" and "transparent"
parts of the spectrum. Earth radiates as a gray (almost black) body
so to a good first approximation, Wien's Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann
Law apply. Presumably this is what you mean by "low-frequency
window."


--
Mitt huvud trillar av och det är fullt av godis.

"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote in message ...
"hanson" wrote in message
ink.net...
They are here for entertainment
value only ...

[Alastair]
Speak for yourself!
Cheers, Alastair.

[hanson]
......ahahaha... certainly. I am the first one to insist that these
NG discussions are great entertainment, nothing but entertainment.
OTOH, little green idiots like you think that they are making policy
here..... AHAHAHAHA......ahahaha.... Don't you see, Alastair, you
doom-saying green turd, that it's lunatic fanatics like you that
make these exchanges so entertaining, so much fun.... a bit
along the bumpersticker that says:
"Hire the handicapped - They are fun to watch"... ahahahaha....
Now then, I shall take your advice and speak for myself:
"Alastair my green buddy, you are so ****ing funny, you must read
your last post again. Here it is for your benefit & my entertainment":

"Carsten Troelsgaard" wrote in message
. ..
"Eric Swanson" skrev i en meddelelse
...

[Carsten]
Can someone explain to me why "greenhouse gas" is not an
artefact of scientific intimidation: As far as I know, any gass
in the atmosphere acts as a "greenhouse gas" with it's
particular range of low-wave frequencies through which
heat radiates off from the ground.

[Alastair]
No! Nitrogen and Oxygen do not act as greenhouse gases. Only
triatomic & greater gases oscillate at the appropriate frequencies
to trap the out going infrared radiation. None of the atmospheric
gases trap the incoming solar radiation to any extent, and it is this
unidirectional trapping which is the problem. It is the basis of the
rather unappropriate name for the effect.
Increasing greenhouse gases will not cause the world to come to an
end in geological terms, but ... the financial penalties imposed by
Kyoto would not have seemed small beer to have prevented it?
Cheers, Alastair.

[hanson]
Alastair finally admits that he is interested in green $$$$ from the
Kydioto extortions to buy his beer and say cheers. He like Eric
Swansong and all the other doom-saying little green idiots produce
more green house gas emissions here in these NGs than does the
CO2 of a major volcanic eruption. They are here for entertainment
value only and they do represent the character of the unfortunate
disciples who got brain washed by the green bible that says:

= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)

= Environmentalism is by'n large just a hysteria that infected
= hordes of well meaning little green idiots who honestly
= believed that they did help/better/save the world, when
= in reality they were simple the unwitting & unpaid enablers
= and facilitators for the big green crooks who pocketed the
= $green$ from permit charges, user fees & enviro surtaxes.
= The well meaning little green idiots are the sad fallout of the
= largest con that was perpetrated onto mankind in the last 50
= years as they fell victim to this gargantuan green jerk off.
= Or have you never noticed that the issues disappear right
= after the money has been doled out and consumed by the
= greenies...... yet the problems will remain for future green
= harvesting, skimming and milking by the sharp green turds.

ahahaha......ahahahanson