> A human can be considered a device that produces about 100W thermal
> and 30W mechanical (average adult) for 24 hours/day, every day (not
> just while the engine is running), ...
To be classified as human the engine MUST always be running :-)
> Also this global warming thing seems to occur while the whole planet
> is on its way into the next ice age (i.e. it's supposed to be
> cooling, not necessarily slowly).
For the quickest POTENTIAL effect towards cooling caused by GW Google
on
"atlantioc conveyor "global warming"
Short term irreversible ice-age for Europe in a decade or two by
stopping the deep circulation path that takes the gulf stream heat far
further north than it 'should" go and jeeps the Nth Atlantic far more
ice free new than it 'should" be.
> Peter L. Peres wrote:
>
>> Also this global warming thing seems to occur while the whole planet is
>> on its way into the next ice age (i.e. it's supposed to be cooling,
>> not necessarily slowly).
>
> Are there any reasonably firm theories about why and when the ice and warm
> ages happen, as well as the intermediate oscillations in global average
> temperature (like the one that caused the Wiking expansion)? My last state
> of knowledge is that these phenomena are not really well understood --
> which seems to mean that we don't really have a clue what exactly is behind
> the current temperature rise.
There are dozens of firm theories, but nobody knows which ones are
right.
n>> Also this global warming thing seems to occur while the whole
planet is
>> on its way into the next ice age (i.e. it's supposed to be cooling,
>> not necessarily slowly).
> Are there any reasonably firm theories about why and when the ice
> and warm
> ages happen, as well as the intermediate oscillations in global
> average
> temperature (like the one that caused the Wiking expansion)? My last
> state
> of knowledge is that these phenomena are not really well
> understood --
> which seems to mean that we don't really have a clue what exactly is
> behind
> the current temperature rise.
There is a vast body of knowledge and good science behind it all. ALSO
though, a vast body of 'riding on the pig's back' freeloaders and
vested-interest lobbyists. Some criticise the whole global warming
theory and call it bad science and worse. The trouble is that it's
extremely hard to distinguish what's what. I have read submissions
from an eminent scientist over several decades that show him turning
from a careful scientist into a "let's all get on the bandwagon and
get heaps of funding" ist. No names (can't remember and wouldn't say
anyway.)
The processes are NOT well understood but there a lot of knowledge has
been acquired and what is clearly understood is that there are very
important things that definitely need to be understood better. It is
certain that we MIGHT be doing bad and very very silly things. It is
possible that we might not be doing silly enough things to make a
really big difference. Our ancestors will curse us chapter and verse
if we get it wrong - but worse if we are wrong when ignore it than if
we are wrong when we go overboard on it.
The sun is a variable star and we are currently in a part of the cycle
where output is (or has been until now) INCREASING steadily for the
better part of a century. There are many shorter term variations and
confounding factors. What is CERTAIN is that we are PROBABLY doing
things to make things worse. (Capitalised words used together
purposefully). The fact that we are near the noise level does not mean
that we cannot make things very much worse by doing things that are
small with respect to natural factors. This is the biggest single
aspect which the deriders ignore. The Lorentz Butterfly is alive and
well in GW.
IF we are to cause a short term catastrophic change the most likely
area appears to be the stopping of the "Atlantic Conveyer". Googling
on that along with Global Warming will tell you heaps. VERY briefly,
there is a deep current loop that takes warm water from the tropics in
the Atlantic and carries it far to the north. If this current stopped
going as high as it does then the North Atlantic would freeze. England
and Northwestern Europe would enter a mini or even sub-maxi ice age.
This current has stopped before. The change can occur in a decade or
two. Once stopped the same mechanisms will not restart the loop if
reversed. It would take ?100's to ?1000's of years to get it going
again.
"As it happens" the largest single effector on the continuation or not
of this current loop is atmospheric CO2 concentration! :-). While
global CO2 increases will generally warm the world up they will
ice-age Europe. Great fun.
The above IS based on good science. Not exact science. But no true
science is ever exact. When you get exact science it's really religion
for scientists :-). [All sing: "What if Darwin was wrong? What if
there is creation? What if all their theories are just religion for
scientists? Shame shame!!! .... ][Google should find that song for you
;-) ]. Those who utterly dismiss and deride the GW scientists are
dangerous and shallow minded idiots. Those who question current Kyoto
lemmingism and Global Warming overboardedness are friends of reality.
We don't know what the truth is, but leaping firmly into either camp
and denying either possible extreme is bad religion.
Agnostic scepticism is the order of the day. And good science to boot.
Russell McMahon
PS
There was a mini ice-age from about (from memory) 1200 to 1700 ish.
The Thames froze to skateable state in Winter. 1/4 or more of northern
Europeans died. Far northern Europe was essentially abandoned. Life
went on.
