Re: any suggestions what to do on global warming?
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: any suggestions what to do on global warming?         

Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: tg
Date: Sep 12, 2008 16:22

On Sep 12, 6:08 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 1:49 pm, Nic hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> the ice caps are melting the ozone is depleting and the
>> long term forcast is overshadowed and outlook duller
>> than Wednesday next March.... and then they tell us its
>> all slowly going to freeze.
>
> While waves continue to be characterized by crests (highs) and troughs
> (lows), whatever the sea level, they are not a handy guide to the
> general sea level, but merely to the disturbances on or near the
> surface.
>

Correct but not necessarily germane to the discussion. Waves do
reflect wind, and wind is and indicator of temperature differences,
and temperature differences are a reflection of energy levels.

What many seem to miss in all this is that a system such as climate
contains sub-systems, and that how those sub-systems behave is a
function of a general energy increase. Consider a glass plate with
some metal inserts---this is something that might be used in an
electrical system to provide isolation of different circuits.

If the plate is exposed to a heat lamp that goes on and off, and it is
well designed, the difference in expansion and contraction between the
metal parts and the glass part will not be a problem. But increase the
heat input by 10%%, and the stresses on the glass may cause
catastrophic failure.

When discussing GCC, we have to remember that what affects humans is
the sub-systems and how they interact. Australia used to export lots
of grain, but a long-term rather than short-term (the usual) drought
has contributed to a major drop in productions, which leads to sharp
increases in grain prices, which for some populations means starvation
and death.

If GCC were taking place over geological time scales, which has been
the norm, there would be no real problem because ecosystems (and human
economies) could adapt. But that's not the case, and that's the
problem.

-tg
>> Is'nt this all some indication, never likely to happen at all
>> because we trust we have the geniuses and manic
>> depressives to supply the solution to our problems?
>> (or are they all now on drugs so hard they can't ....
>> ....ummmm....continue....umm I forget what it was..I'm sure
>> I wanted to go for a rest,..., eh? what was that you just said?,
>> I thought I  saw your lips move...did someone mention some
>> sort of chamber with gas in it?..... Hullo?)
>
>> or shall we go nuclear, or green and make an effort to starve
>> a little bit,  biding our energies to avert a crisis of greater
>> famine or greed.
>
> Good question. How do we decide which, what is economically feasible
> or what is moral?
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!

RELATED THREADS
SubjectArticles qty Group
Re: Global Warming Skeptics = LOSERS. LIARSalt.2600 ·
Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"sci.energy ·
Re: Global warming testsci.military.naval ·
Re: A novel explanation for putative global warming (measuring error, Central Limit Theorem)alt.global-warming ·
Re: global warmingsoc.religion.christian ·