tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post639917371579365527..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Death, doom and disaster coming soon to a planet in your neighborhoodEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35966552448571876772010-07-14T09:16:57.836-04:002010-07-14T09:16:57.836-04:00J Bowers said...
"I wonder if those who like ...J Bowers said...<br />"I wonder if those who like to gamble with their descendants' lives would play the following version of roulette:<br /><br />The rewards are very high. The wheel has four hundred slots, the croupier has a gun. If the ball falls into only one predetermined slot out of the four hundred the croupier picks up the gun and shoots the gambler in the head.<br /><br />I wonder how many of these gamblers would step up to the table. I especially wonder how many would push their grandchildren to the table."<br /><br />Chances of death in an auto...1 in 100 over a life time, yet we allow our kids to drive, I am neither for nor against warming theories...but we can not live our lives based on what might, could, possibly happen. Time will tell this tale and I think we will find that man kind does not "control" everything. Nature does....NavyVetteAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65397775164135268092010-06-29T21:24:47.860-04:002010-06-29T21:24:47.860-04:00Peeke,
Hansen's calculation looks mainly at c...Peeke, <br />Hansen's calculation looks mainly at coal, petroleum and natural gas. It does not look an nonconventional fossil fuels. There is more petroleum in the Orinoco than in all of the Middle East. It is not necessary to assume continual growth--merely that humans will attempt to maintain continual growth. With human population reaching ~10 billion by mid century and us being dependent on fossil fuel just to produce enough calories to feed even 7 billion, I'd call that a good bet. <br /><br />In India, first they burned all the wood; then they burned all the brush. Now they burn dung for their cooking fires. I haven't looked at how much the wood in the Amazon will add, but I suspect we will find out empirically before humans are done.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49337181414867520572010-06-29T15:25:05.461-04:002010-06-29T15:25:05.461-04:00James Hansen did the math too. He came to 580 ppm ...James Hansen did the math too. He came to 580 ppm CO2. <br /><br />http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/18/93514/869<br /><br />That scenario is Laherre's iirc. It's quite mild. It peaks 2050 and gently goes down the slope. <br /><br />O, and I leave you and your hubris remark alone. My reference to hubris was made simply to bring under your attention that horror scenario's expect mankind to continue growth at the same rate as ever: Assumptions like that used to be considered pipe dreams.peekehttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76188181191688892152010-06-28T08:45:49.015-04:002010-06-28T08:45:49.015-04:00Peeke,
Spoken like somebody who hasn't done th...Peeke,<br />Spoken like somebody who hasn't done the math. I have done the math, and using conservative estimates of 1)petroleum, 2)natural gas, 3)coal and 4)nontraditional sources (oil shale, tar sands, etc.)there is easily enough fossil fuel to get us abov3 1000 ppmv, even assuming that the oceans continue to take up ~50% of the CO2. That is without touching clathrates or considering outgassing of melting permafrost, etc. What is more, as we move toward lower grade fuels, the process of extracting the energy will become less efficient--resulting in higher CO2 emission per joule of energy than we have at present. There is every reason to believe that the concurrent crises of peak oil and climate change will interfere constructively rather than destructively. <br /><br />Thus, the hubris, Peake, is all yours.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42213603226986276052010-06-28T08:21:54.934-04:002010-06-28T08:21:54.934-04:00CoalCoalEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82523255506760913332010-06-28T03:12:10.796-04:002010-06-28T03:12:10.796-04:00Four times the current CO2 level? What hubris to t...Four times the current CO2 level? What hubris to think that there will be enough easy fossile fuel to burn to actually reach that. To make a long story short: that would only happen in the wet dreams of Chigago School economists. The real world will see dramatic downturns of usable fossile fuels somewhere in the foreseeable future. You see, people tend to think like this: There is a shitload of clathrate. We were able to extract a tad. Therefore we will be able to use it all in an ever expanding fashion. That greatly ignores the fact that more then 9o% of clathrate is lied down in lumps in the sea floor. There is no way that will be used up by us. <br /><br />Same story goes for oil shale. <br /><br />We won't. I'd be surprised if CO2 levels get over 600 ppm.peekehttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43963564121964993012010-06-27T18:27:45.526-04:002010-06-27T18:27:45.526-04:00Markeymouse - you mean like this graph shows?
htt...Markeymouse - you mean like this graph shows?<br /><br />http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2000.6/to:2010.6/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:2000.6/to:2010.6/trend<br /><br />Or perhaps you prefer the satellites?<br />http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000.6/to:2010.6/mean:12/plot/uah/from:2000.6/to:2010.6/trend<br /><br />ahem, ahem, cough, cough...<br /><br />still going up...<br /><br />crazy billAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59299258069384202032010-06-27T15:45:15.125-04:002010-06-27T15:45:15.125-04:00Markeymouse says: Ahem, cough, cough, hand up.... ...Markeymouse says: Ahem, cough, cough, hand up.... There has been no material warming for 10 years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66272747204738644862010-06-26T01:15:04.441-04:002010-06-26T01:15:04.441-04:00Seems to me that everyone here has a luck rabbit&#...Seems to me that everyone here has a luck rabbit's foot so we can discount any chance of anything bad happening? <br /><br />But, we can do without any discounting if people are already dying from too much heat owing to anthropogenic warming. Which they are.Chris Dudleyhttp://mdsolar.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53321238964540219752010-06-25T17:47:51.051-04:002010-06-25T17:47:51.051-04:00Question.
Many people would like to think that the...Question.<br />Many people would like to think that the heating will all be in the polar regions but the surface area of +60 deg north and +60 deg south<br />together only amount to 15% of the total world area and the oceans where temperatures may be moderated versus land areas are 71% of the total global area.<br />Doesn't this suggest that the land temperature rise will be a lot more than the global average?<br /><br />Anonymous Freddy(AF)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25837228517804752692010-06-25T06:28:30.851-04:002010-06-25T06:28:30.851-04:00Sherwood and Huber are optimistic.
At least, in t...Sherwood and Huber are optimistic.<br /><br />At least, in the sense that they only consider mammalian heat tolerances, they are being optimistic.<br /><br />Humans rely on the viability of planetary ecosystems, whether they acknowledge it or not. Many non-mammalian species would be profoundly affected long before a 7-8 C shift occurred, and in the process many ecosystems and their essential (to humans) functions would also be impacted - to the point of failure.<br /><br />It's all well and good to think that all the people-bunnies might be able to 'adapt' to such changes by huddling in their bunkers (or whatever else works), but if one's crops, one's forests, one's soils, one's rivers and lakes, and one's flora and one's fauna are all frying to crispy bits because they do not possess the adaptability of said people-bunnies, then the whole idea of human adaptability and human levels of tolerance is a moot point.<br /><br />The short version: what's bad for humans is worse for the rest of the biosphere, and what's worse for the biosphere is just as bad for humans.<br /><br />Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymouse XVII.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52881293349694723422010-06-24T05:18:47.704-04:002010-06-24T05:18:47.704-04:00J Bowers @ 24/6/10 1:23 AM, a slight correction:
...J Bowers @ 24/6/10 1:23 AM, a slight correction:<br /><br />I suspect that: "I wonder if those who like to gamble with their descendants' lives...." should read "I wonder if those who like to gamble with everyone's descendants' lives...."<br /><br />At some stage, there will come a point when everyone except the deniers accepts that mainstream science was > 90% right about the climate all along. At which point.....<br /><br />Sorry Eli, but it has to be said.<br /><br />Vengeance MouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37456805836077130852010-06-24T04:30:25.637-04:002010-06-24T04:30:25.637-04:00Whoops, I meant Jonathan Gilligan. Apologies Jonat...Whoops, I meant Jonathan Gilligan. Apologies Jonathan.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56042190227594358232010-06-24T04:23:41.886-04:002010-06-24T04:23:41.886-04:00Steven Gilligan: "The right question is not E...<i>Steven Gilligan: "The right question is not Eli's "proper discount rate," but Harry Calahan's: "You've got to ask your self one question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya?""</i><br /><br />I wonder if those who like to gamble with their descendants' lives would play the following version of roulette:<br /><br />The rewards are very high. The wheel has four hundred slots, the croupier has a gun. If the ball falls into only one predetermined slot out of the four hundred the croupier picks up the gun and shoots the gambler in the head.<br /><br />I wonder how many of these gamblers would step up to the table. I especially wonder how many would push their grandchildren to the table.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-20483049901541153362010-06-24T01:02:08.593-04:002010-06-24T01:02:08.593-04:00Definitely paws for thought.
Oh for a time machin...Definitely paws for thought.<br /><br />Oh for a time machine to transport the paid denialist-liars to a hot-zone, for their 'personal education'! <br />Instructions: Leave for one month or until well-done.<br /><br />Vengeance mouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91171220558560014272010-06-24T00:32:43.230-04:002010-06-24T00:32:43.230-04:00The 4C science conference in Oxford last fall was ...The 4C science conference in Oxford last fall was alarming enough: "+4 Degrees C By 2060? Alarming But Not Alarmist"<br />http://stephenleahy.net/2009/11/08/four-degrees-of-devastation/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85073603027461043182010-06-23T19:40:26.354-04:002010-06-23T19:40:26.354-04:00This is...horrifying, and weirdly sf-nal.This is...horrifying, and weirdly sf-nal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46611566535557970702010-06-23T17:35:55.007-04:002010-06-23T17:35:55.007-04:00Arthur @ 23/6/10 11:49 AM
"This was all fro...Arthur @ 23/6/10 11:49 AM <br /><br />"This was all from some long paper in BMJ that I no longer seem to have a reference too - maybe somebody can look it up?"<br /><br />Hopped to it and found two pretty quick (both should be publicly available at the URLS below):<br /><br />http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/321/7262/670.pdf<br /><br />http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_information/dissemination/unexpected/death_risk.pdf<br /><br />Both seem to be fairly heavily cited, though you probably want the latter piece.<br /><br />Cheers, <br /><br />Daniel the Yooper bunnyYooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15905153190867109713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75455586752311444622010-06-23T14:49:52.116-04:002010-06-23T14:49:52.116-04:00I believe I noted long ago that the papers Lomborg...I believe I noted long ago that the papers Lomborg used to claim that "cold kills more than heat" or whatever it was he was saying, actually showed the opposite when you took the slope of the curve into account.<br /><br />That is, yes, for any given region of the world, there's a minimum in daily mortality in some mid-range of temperatures, so that both warmer and colder temperatures are correlated with more people dying. But for each 1 degree change in temperature, on the warm side far more people start dying, than on the cold side, and the slope keeps rising with temperature. While on the cold side the slope is a pretty steady gentle one.<br /><br />This was all from some long paper in BMJ that I no longer seem to have a reference too - maybe somebody can look it up? :)Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1832458745586432662010-06-23T11:47:53.950-04:002010-06-23T11:47:53.950-04:00Eli, "temperatures sore" should be "...Eli, "temperatures sore" should be "temperatures soar."<br /><br /><br />BTW, had to comment using Safari as it would not work using Firefox.Jim Eagernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9977783662980443132010-06-23T11:18:24.240-04:002010-06-23T11:18:24.240-04:00One could argue that the US South has been uninhab...One could argue that the US South has been uninhabitable for intelligent life for a very, very long time.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7722365141785857582010-06-23T11:00:31.201-04:002010-06-23T11:00:31.201-04:00Well, the U.S. southern states become uninhabitabl...Well, the U.S. southern states become uninhabitable. Ironic, given that's where a lot of the denialist wingnuttery is coming from.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71804584952626457472010-06-23T09:38:34.764-04:002010-06-23T09:38:34.764-04:00How long can we survive a wet bulb temperature of ...How long can we survive a wet bulb temperature of 35 C? <br /><br />Weather plus global warming (or 7 degrees plus El Nino plus solar max plus a hot spell) equals ???<br /><br />A scared Little MouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25776140072681322572010-06-23T08:33:13.343-04:002010-06-23T08:33:13.343-04:00I remember when I was a Peace Corps bunny in Afric...I remember when I was a Peace Corps bunny in Africa. During the hot season, temperatures would often climb to over 40 degrees C. At such times, one's daily routine became quite simple: 1)Get butt nekkid; 2)Shower with cold water; 3)stand in front of the fan; 4)Repeat until the temperature drops. At noon on such days, nothing stirred, and at night, trying to sleep was torture. Cooking? Fuggedaboudit. The hot season was sufficiently unlivable that the season before it was called the funeral season--where old people in the villages simply gave up the ghost rather than face the prospect of yet another hot season.<br /><br />This is simple thermo. We are heat engines after all.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2550410852225069542010-06-23T07:38:48.125-04:002010-06-23T07:38:48.125-04:00This is very frightening.
You write, "with a...This is very frightening.<br /><br />You write, "with a bit of bad luck warmings of 8C are possible ... at 4xCO2." The paper notes, climate sensitivity "is poorly constrained on the high side (2, 3) and according to <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08017.html" rel="nofollow">one new estimate</a> has a 5% chance of exceeding 7.1 °C per doubling."<br /><br />Thus, if this paper and the study cited above are both correct, there's something like a 5% chance that most regions of earth currently inhabited by people would be uninhabitable.<br /><br />The nagging voice in my head says, "yada yada yada ... can't trust 300-year model projections ...," which is correct. So let's posit a 95% probablity that one or both studies are wrong. That would still leave one chance in 400 (5% times 5%) that in the next few hundred years, a BAU emissions scenario would leave most places people now live too hot to survive in.<br /><br />The right question is not Eli's "proper discount rate," but Harry Calahan's: "You've got to ask your self one question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya?"Jonathan Gilliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09065480842704814847noreply@blogger.com