It is just 34 short years ago that the Green party and it's movement gained an unsightly birth.
Who can forget Paul Ehrlich and such quotes as :
"If I were a wagering man, I would give odds that the UK will not exist in the year 2000"...
or "By the year 2000, we will be fighting in the streets for the last bit of metal needed to sustain our artificial civilization."
or "By the year 2000, we will all remember with fondness the times when we could buy a tank of petrol without hours long waits and rationing."
Or who can forget the tombs of Rachel Carson? "Silent Spring" issued us the doom that we knew we deserved. No more birds. Ever. <snark>
And old Joel Cohen? And Old Barry Commoner? and how about Donella Meadows?
Wow. Money. Money from fear and stupidity. This is the birth of the Greens. I hope they are proud. Silly buggers.
As long as we are on the subject (svw imposes a reality on one that nobody but he is subject to)...
As long as. Let's talk about the fast and slow creation of heavy matter.
In the R-Process.... rapid process.
Iron 56 gets a neutron, another,another,another, another and Iron-61 decays to Cobalt 61 almost instantly. Nano seconds here.
Why?
In the S-Process - Slow (as in Nature)
Iron 56 gets a neutron, another,another. A neutron gets converted to an electon, a proton and an anti-neutrino.... don't get me started on the tau high energy cousin sh*t.
It magically becomes cobalt 59. Just like the fast track that took nano-seconds. Billions of years to nano-seconds. Make up yer minds fer christs sake. Which is it?
Both? It's like we are in a quantum world of all or nothing but fail to see it? Except for old svw. He sees it. But lacks the ability to force the math people to do the math.
What is the real difference between 59 and 61? Why is the biggest more unstable? Why did the biggest take nano seconds and the smallest take billions of years?
The answer MIGHT lie in the inherent difference in the two things. Maybe.
<edit> And that difference seems to be "time". Am I the only one on earth who sees the possibilites? Science for all time has looked for a link between Einsteins "universe" and the Quantum "universe". Here is the link. In a particle of matter. Time. 59 to 61.
Time is the only measurable difference. Just what every good Einsteinian should be interested in. Just what every good Bohr guy should want. Right. If they were not both dead.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe little boy who cried wolf was eventually eaten by one.
It is just 34 short years ago that the Green party and it's movement gained an unsightly birth.
Who can forget Paul Ehrlich and such quotes as :
"If I were a wagering man, I would give odds that the UK will not exist in the year 2000"...
or "By the year 2000, we will be fighting in the streets for the last bit of metal needed to sustain our ...[text shortened]... from fear and stupidity. This is the birth of the Greens. I hope they are proud. Silly buggers.
I have fire insurance for my house. Will it burn down in the next twelve months? Chances are less than one in a thousand. But I still pay my premiums - even if people laugh at my caution.
I would rank greenhouse warming at even odds. Enough to think before increasing CO2 levels.
Originally posted by steerpikeYea. We really need to do all we can to clean up our little "slop pen". Borrowing a bit of imagery from the farm created by George Orwell for our edification. Piggy doesn't want to ruin his own house.
The little boy who cried wolf was eventually eaten by one.
I have fire insurance for my house. Will it burn down in the next twelve months? Chances are less than one in a thousand. But I still pay my premiums - even if people laugh at ...[text shortened]... at even odds. Enough to think before increasing CO2 levels.
I view it as common sense to always clean up after myself. It took me a lot of years to realize that some people don't.
So yes, by all means, let's clean up and leave our kids a world worth having. But let us be sane when we do it. It makes no sense to spend for a "perfect" world when a "good" world will do. Because the graph of "clean vs. money" is non-linear. There comes a point where we might spend our childrens right to a free and good world. Let each generation tax and clean for itself. We have to have faith that the next generation will do the same and that we will do the right thing when taken as "ten generations" not "A single generation for all time".
I really don't know what the odds of greenhouse warming are because none of the studies I have seen allow for the obvious, ie, the variable nature of Sol.
I would love for once to see a graph stating "Adjusted for highly variable output of energy of Sol" on it. But then again, I'm not going to hold my breath. It seems that everyone that I have read to date assumes an absolutely constant output of energy by our sun. Talk about your basic mistake, in my opinion. The reason I think this is that type G0 stars we study at a distance show a bit of "variability" and we know our sun has a 22 year (approx) cycle that "does something important". We just don't know what it all means.
We really need to understand our Sun before we design a perfect world.I mentioned a study in the May 6 issue of Science Magazine. I will mention it again just to illustrate how much we need to learn.
Changes in Earth's Albedo Measured by Satellite
Bruce A. Wielicki, Takmeng Wong, Norman Loeb, Patrick Minnis, Kory Priestley, and Robert Kandel
Science 6 May 2005: 825.
If you don't have a membership, you will have to take my word that the gist of it is that our upper stratosphere and atmosphere are now "too transparent". We are too clean. Too much light/heat energy is not being reflected. This results in big time "heating of the planet".
The real point is that we need knowledge. Not political slogans.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyEnergy balance models take into account the variability of solar output, aswell as tropo/strato/meso and thermosphere composition, planetary albedo, rates of evaporation / evapotranspiration, precession, eccentricity etc etc etc So it hasn't really been overlooked......
[b]It seems that everyone that I have read to date assumes an absolutely constant output of energy by our sun. Talk about your basic mistake, in my opinion
Originally posted by timebombtedThat's a pretty neat trick, seeing as how we don't know what the exact energy output of the sun is. Can you tell me how they do it? I am not doubting you. I just have never seen this correction in any of the global warming papers I have read.
Energy balance models take into account the variability of solar output, aswell as tropo/strato/meso and thermosphere composition, planetary albedo, rates of evaporation / evapotranspiration, precession, eccentricity etc etc etc So it hasn't really been overlooked......
At least some of them (studies) do state that there is no way of adjusting for actual or potential energy variance of the sun.
I would really be interested in these studies if you have examples. Thanks. Mike
Originally posted by StarValleyWySatellites get their energy via solar panels, from the sun. These satellites show that solar energy reaches the earth at a rate of 1370 W/m2 of surface area (energy flux). The energy flux can be used to calculate the suns luminosity.
That's a pretty neat trick, seeing as how we don't know what the exact energy output of the sun is. Can you tell me how they do it? I am not doubting you. I just have never seen this correction in any of the global warming papers I have read.
At least some of them (studies) do state that there is no way of adjusting for actual or potential energy v ...[text shortened]... of the sun.
I would really be interested in these studies if you have examples. Thanks. Mike
Eg Take a sphere with a diameter equal to 1 AU and centered on the sun, calculate surface area (2.8 x 10 to the power of 23) multiply by 1370W/m2. Therefore the suns luminosity (or energy output) = 3.8 x 10 to the power of 26 watts.
The above is from "The Blue Planet" by Skinner et al.
The EBM's use the average figure 1370W/m2, but can also incorporate its variability into different scenarios as this figure will vary depending on numerous factors........ but to date the variability is small. Current predictions are based on historical observations and stats, so I agee we dont know enough about the sun to accurately predict variations in energy flux...........
I will search some peer reviewed journals which i have access to to see if there is something more recent on the subject, cant promise it will be quick as I'm currently supposed to be working.
Originally posted by timebombtedYea. But you failed to notice that all of these fall outside of the margin of error or the MEASURABILITY of solar panels. We need numbers down to 0.0000000001 percent of the output of the sun. I am not just being a bastard. It's just that the flux energy on satellites isn't measurable to within a ten thousandth of the necessary level of accuracy. The sun is big. We are small. It is powerful. We are not. It is hot. We HOPE to be. Cold kills.
Satellites get their energy via solar panels, from the sun. These satellites show that solar energy reaches the earth at a rate of 1370 W/m2 of surface area (energy flux). The energy flux can be used to calculate the suns luminosity.
Eg Take a sphere with a diameter equal to 1 AU and centered on the sun, calculate surface area (2.8 x 10 to the power o ...[text shortened]... nt on the subject, cant promise it will be quick as I'm currently supposed to be working.
Originally posted by WeadleyAww! That's nice. Thank you. You are so kind. But I can stand it is you do. But thanks for trying to cheer me up.
Ill bet you that I dont read any more of your posts.
And if it will help, I can just email you pictures. I know that the two hours it took you to read my post is a real drain on your bug catching time at the swamp.