Earth's heat budget

[Arjan Hulsebos]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:33:18 +0100, M Holmes wrote
> Arjan Hulsebos writes:
> 
> > First of all, the problem with all this is that the system's non-linear and
> > very likely chaotic. That means two things: 1) trying to figure out what will
> > happen in the very near future is usually not difficult (the weather tomorrow
> > will be very much like the weather today), but on longer timescales it's not
> > possible anymore.
> 
> Realising this should make you about as skeptical concerning predictions
> for the next 100 years based on IPCC computer models as I am.

Oh, yeah. Just to give an example: theory goes that due to the melting of the
Arctic ice, the water in the Arctic will become less salty, and therefore
lighter. This may stop the Gulf Stream, leading to a much colder Europe. So
far, maybe not so good, but then what? The heat from the tropics will still be
dissipated, and probably in the same amount. Only question is, how? More
hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons? Something else? Noone knows.

> > 2) small differences in starting conditions lead to big
> > differences quickly.
> 
> Which is where the Limits to Growth Report blew up. Turns out we didn't
> have the mass starvation it predicted.


> > So adding .0001% energy to the system may just make a big
> > difference very fast.
> 
> I'm not going to do without stereos, air travel or skiing based on
> *may*.  The Greens will have to bring proof or leave me alone.  I do
> predict that this will largely be the view of most other people on 
> the issue, except where being "green" accords with their common 
> sense anyway.

Problem is, Mike, when "may" has become "has", there's no way back anymore.
Kinda like smoking and lung cancer.
 
> > Furthermore, why add to the problem if you don't have to?
> 
> Some waste product is an inevitable part of living. If you don't believe
> that, try quitting producing your own carbon dioxide and get back to 
> us on how long that lasted. I already agree that we should reduce pollution
> as far as possible, but I don't agree with the cargo-cult thinking of
> the deep Greens that we should eliminate it entirely.

Again, if you can, why not?

> When I buy a house, I'll almost certainly install ground loop heat
> exchange and solar panels.  I'll still want nuclear power for 
> industry though.  I'm neither against large installations, or even industry
> running at a profit.  In fact I think profits are laudable and,
>  absent corruption, measure when someone is doing something 
> worthwhile.

Personally, I'd rather have 100 windmills than one nuclear power plant. When a
techie screws up in a nuclear plant, it's offline for weeks, hence no power.
When a techie screws up with a windmill, it's also offline for weeks, but
still 99% is still available.

> The big problems I see with getting some of this sorted are that many
> green movements are now run by cultish loonies who want to see economic
> growth halted or even reversed, trapping those countries in poverty and
> in producing a godawful amount of pollution for a trivial amount of
> wealth. Those folks are part of the problem, not a solution. Then
> there's the watermelons (green on the outside but the same old reds 
> in the middle - a channel Four presenter) trying to use it all to 
> run our lives for us, and attack the US besides. Then there's the 
> folks who are against new food technology. There are too many folks 
> with an agenda other than getting this fixed who make a lot of noise 
> and hijack the discussion. The people who are part of a circus who 
> travel by jet to whine that we all should quit travelling by jet are 
> not the least amongst these.

Industry isn't interested in fixing it, either. It's not even on their
unhidden agenda.

Gr,

Arjan H
 
--------------------------------
Rock in the 70ies:
   substance inhalation, hotel devastation, and amplifier obliteration