tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post2281076312196073279..comments2024-03-10T13:59:19.230-04:00Comments on xpostfactoid: Noughty and niceAndrew Sprunghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-74359405312347683152009-12-31T17:15:07.181-05:002009-12-31T17:15:07.181-05:00clarkbeast
I can only find Wilson Flood here
http:...clarkbeast<br />I can only find Wilson Flood here<br />http://mclean.ch/climate/England_Scotland.htm<br />but a search for "Wilson Flood CET is wrong" found nothing. <br /><br />ASP<br />Although the experience of the past 300 years is generally one of progress 300 years is a blip. Lots of scope to go wrong! The short term looks promising but I would not count on the long term eg. <br />http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127001.300-space-storm-alert-90-seconds-from-catastrophe.html?full=true<br />There is more if you look for it!wrs10https://www.blogger.com/profile/03690167607075530872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-81857241239736812362009-12-31T08:46:20.302-05:002009-12-31T08:46:20.302-05:00I am far from denying that global warming may caus...I am far from denying that global warming may cause serious distress to humanity -- or, for that matter, that we might not slide into a new dark age or destroy ourselves. The point of the post is simply that long-term trends indicate otherwise; humanity is extremely adapative, and social as well as scientific progress seems to be part of our adaptation.Andrew Sprunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-49410779376408760762009-12-31T02:21:57.519-05:002009-12-31T02:21:57.519-05:00Okay, William R . . . there's no need for you ...Okay, William R . . . there's no need for you and I to hijack Andrew's comments thread and get into a link-trading war. We both know that you can find anything presented as fact on the internet (look, for instance, at the last link you sent me . . . what is the source for this analysis? Was it published in a scientific journal?)<br /><br />But I apologize for misunderstanding your comment about iron fertilization for ocean absorption of CO2. As you say, the idea has been around for a while, and it is an avenue worth pursuing. We're a LONG way off from being able to say it's the magic bullet that will return atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm or so, but it can be a part of an honest conversation about the issue. Personally, I'd be thrilled if something like this worked out. Given the stakes, however, I think it wise to hedge some bets. That's a rational conservative response.<br /><br />Bottom line for me is that I'm not going to base my opinion about climate change on a YouTube clip from a single scientist (or a movie by a single politician). Given the political noise machine around the issue (from the left and the right), it would be too easy to be misled about an issue that I really only know on the surface. <br /><br />But I AM moved by position statements from the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. To say that these professional organizations are perpetrating the "scam of the millenium" is to indulge in conspiracy theory to a degree that would make the 9-11 "Truthers" look rational.<br /><br />Anyway, if you're interested in further sparring, feel free to visit my blog--it's been the topic of the month. For me, the threshold for honest conversation is an honest answer to the question "What would make you change your opinion?" My answer here:<br /><br />http://clarkbeast.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/weighing-in-on-climategate-a-simple-question/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-3663135065023393372009-12-30T16:07:07.131-05:002009-12-30T16:07:07.131-05:00clarkbeast
Try and keep up to date:-
http://www.gu...clarkbeast<br />Try and keep up to date:-<br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/28/iron-carbon-oceans<br />28 January 2009<br />Ocean iron plan approved as researchers show algae absorb CO2.............<br /><br />This idea has been around a long time (Feb 1990):-<br />http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817939326_283.pdf<br /><br />This guy is good as well:-<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=player_embedded<br /><br />and just to finish off:-<br />http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/01/british-record/<br />No Global Warming in 351 Year British Temperature Record <br />..........Far from being warmer due to assumed global warming, comparison of actual temperature data shows that UK summers in the 20th century were cooler than those of two centuries previously."wrs10https://www.blogger.com/profile/03690167607075530872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-47949122189122244862009-12-30T12:32:34.194-05:002009-12-30T12:32:34.194-05:00Your chart on battle deaths would have had an even...Your chart on battle deaths would have had an even steeper downward slope if the period measured had begun at 1900.<br /><br />~~Nate LevinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-91549695084852384412009-12-30T11:29:24.513-05:002009-12-30T11:29:24.513-05:00William R, you might Google "ocean acidificat...William R, you might Google "ocean acidification" to see how utterly silly your "absorb CO2 into the oceans" statement is. And while you're at it, check out "climate feedback mechanisms" to put your "700 year time lag" into perspective. There are legitimate arguments to have about climate change and how to respond to it, but breezily denying elementary physics and chemistry isn't a solid place to start.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-58951726454567448282009-12-30T08:16:54.031-05:002009-12-30T08:16:54.031-05:00"What's the CO2 ppm in our atmosphere now..."What's the CO2 ppm in our atmosphere now?"<br /><br />Who cares? Not only is there a 700 year time lag between temperature changes and CO2 levels but it has already been pointed out how to absorb CO2 into the oceans. The CO2 thingy is the scam of the millennium.wrs10https://www.blogger.com/profile/03690167607075530872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-44414445430982071852009-12-30T03:51:04.493-05:002009-12-30T03:51:04.493-05:00It would be interesting to separate the progress b...It would be interesting to separate the progress by Region. How has the life expectancy improved Europe, US, Asia, Africa?gnomestrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16158846804727806804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-66472666527446344592009-12-30T02:08:53.141-05:002009-12-30T02:08:53.141-05:00But you do not understand. Predicting disaster sho...But you do not understand. Predicting disaster shows "you care". Suggesting that such dystopian moral grandstanding may be bollocks <a href="http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com/2009/12/about-food-miles-and-other-gestures-of.html" rel="nofollow">takes people's moral toys away from them and show that you "don't care"</a>. So happy new year too!Lorenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00305933404442191098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-41331248400797582062009-12-29T23:43:22.852-05:002009-12-29T23:43:22.852-05:00Meh. What's the CO2 ppm in our atmosphere now...Meh. What's the CO2 ppm in our atmosphere now? Will it be heading down anytime soon? Unless it does, optimism is temporary at best.<br /><br />Happy New Year!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-57388615246204549092009-12-29T20:37:43.870-05:002009-12-29T20:37:43.870-05:00More years times more people does not yield more p...<i>More years times more people does not yield more progress. or happiness. Looking for proof? Head to a "nursing home" and measure the quality of life divided by resources spent.</i><br /><br />That is totally irrelevant. A human being that gets to live past 5 through 67 is not a nursing home patient.Ken Pidcockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15236539087094493564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-66978812390656784432009-12-29T19:36:15.410-05:002009-12-29T19:36:15.410-05:00Global life expectancy at birth was 64 in 1990, 66...Global life expectancy at birth was 64 in 1990, 66 in 2000, and 68 in 2007. Under-5 mortality rates per 1000 live births were 91 in 1990, 78 in 2000, and 67 in 2007.<br /><br />More years times more people does not yield more progress. or happiness. Looking for proof? Head to a "nursing home" and measure the quality of life divided by resources spent.<br /><br />Edgar G Robinson had it right in Soylent Green.phonerangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04907114979294515070noreply@blogger.com