There's 50,000,000 more out there

[westwall]

It would have been nice to have spotted these a little earlier I should think. There are an estimated 50 MILLION more unknown asteroids in our solar system. Sure would be nice to know where they were and be able to stop one if it were going to hit. Or you can spend another 100 billion dollars worrying about a one degree rise in average earth temperature...and do nothing about it.

2 Asteroids to Zoom Between Earth and the Moon's Orbit - Yahoo! News

 

[konradv]

Things are being done about it. It's just hard to find things that small in an area so large. GW on the other hand wouldn't require all that money, if the deniers learned some logic and realized that, if GHGs keep going up, warming is inevitable. That's a fact regardless of whether you can prove temps have gone up at all.

 

[westwall]

Things are being done about it. It's just hard to find things that small in an area so large. GW on the other hand wouldn't require all that money, if the deniers learned some logic and realized that, if GHGs keep going up, warming is inevitable. That's a fact regardless of whether you can prove temps have gone up at all.

GW can't END life. GW in the historical record is GOOD for the planet. Asteroids in the historical record are really, really, reeeeaallly bad. If they had more than a few million dollars they would find a lot more much faster. Then we could actually figure out which ones are a risk and do something about them.

 

[editec]

It would have been nice to have spotted these a little earlier I should think. There are an estimated 50 MILLION more unknown asteroids in our solar system. Sure would be nice to know where they were and be able to stop one if it were going to hit. Or you can spend another 100 billion dollars worrying about a one degree rise in average earth temperature...and do nothing about it.

2 Asteroids to Zoom Between Earth and the Moon's Orbit - Yahoo! News

I gather from reading the above that you're suggesting that we're in greater danger from an asteroid strike than we are from Global Weirding?

Or was your point that mankind ought to be doing something more than we already are to find and track such risks?

If that was your point, I'm inclined to agree.

If your point was the risk of asteroids is greater and that therefore we ought to dismiss our concerns about Global Weirding because the threat of asteroids are greater, I'm not in agreement.

Both concerns deserve our attention in my opinion.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is over 1 degree F. now, and will be well over another 2 degrees by the end of this century. Possibly considerably more than two degrees.
Global warming may be twice as bad as previously expected - USATODAY.com


Global warming will be twice as severe as previous estimates indicate, according to a new study published this month in the Journal of Climate, a publication of the American Meteorological Society.
The research, conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), predicts a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise more than 9 degrees (F) by 2100, compared to a previous 2003 MIT study that forecast a rise of just over 4 degrees.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 forecast a temperature rise of anywhere from 2 to 11 degrees by 2100 based on a variety of different greenhouse-gas-emissions scenarios.

 

[westwall]

It would have been nice to have spotted these a little earlier I should think. There are an estimated 50 MILLION more unknown asteroids in our solar system. Sure would be nice to know where they were and be able to stop one if it were going to hit. Or you can spend another 100 billion dollars worrying about a one degree rise in average earth temperature...and do nothing about it.

2 Asteroids to Zoom Between Earth and the Moon's Orbit - Yahoo! News

I gather from reading the above that you're suggesting that we're in greater danger from an asteroid strike than we are from Global Weirding?

Or was your point that mankind ought to be doing something more than we already are to find and track such risks?

If that was your point, I'm inclined to agree.

If your point was the risk of asteroids is greater and that therefore we ought to dismiss our concerns about Global Weirding because the threat of asteroids are greater, I'm not in agreement.

Both concerns deserve our attention in my opinion.

GW in the historical record has been good for the planet. I suggest you read about life during the MWP and the RWP. I then suggest you read about life during the Little Ice Age.
You will notice a vast difference. I then suggest you read about what happens when large asteroids strike the Earth.

I am suggesting that one thing GW is not bad at all it is good. Asteroids on the other hand are very bad. Maybe we should do something to protect ourselves. We are the only race the planet has produced who can. Let's take advantage of it why don't we.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, this is just a bunch of pointy head liberals from some backwoods school call MIT talking, so what the hell do they know? Far better to put faith in the yapping of an unknown poster on and internet board.

http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf

Changes in GHG emissions and carbon uptake lead to a significant increase of both the lower
bound of the 90% range and also the median forcing compared to the results of Webster et al.
(2003). The probability of the radiative forcing being less than 5.0 W/m2 is about 45% according
23
to Webster at al. (2003) but less than 1% according to our new study. At the same time the upper
bounds of the 90% ranges differ by only 0.6 W/m2 between the two studies. In fact the new
upper 90% bound on the forcing due to GHGs (Table 1) only is even lower than the one in
Webster et al. (2003). The slightly higher value of the upper 90% bound for the total forcing is a
result of different changes in sulfate aerosol loading and the fact that forcing associated with
changes in black carbon aerosol was not taken into account by Webster et al. (2003). The total
forcing includes contributions from changes in GHGs, sulfate aerosol, tropospheric ozone as well
as, in present study, black carbon. As shown in section 3.2, use of the revised probability
distributions for the climate parameters leads to larger surface warming and smaller thermal
expansion of the ocean for a given forcing (Figure 3). This effect together with the differences in
radiative forcing described above result in a significantly higher increase in SAT (Figure 8b and
Table 1) than was projected by Webster et al. (2003). While the upper 90% bound for surface
warming projected in this study is noticeably larger than in Webster et al. (2003), (7.4oC instead
of 4.6oC), the changes in the lower part of the projected range are even more significant.
According to Webster et al. (2003) there was a 40% probability of SAT increasing by less than
2oC by the end of 21st century relative to 1990 for the “business-as-usual” emissions scenario, in
the present study surface warming exceeds 2oC in all 400 simulations. We will compare our
projections of possible climate change with projections given in the IPCC AR4 in section 4.4.

 

[westwall]

The RWP was 6 degrees warmer than today. Verifiable in every part of the world it's been looked for. Properity ruled. The MWP was 5 degrees warmer everywhere in the world it's been looked for. Prosperity ruled.

I welcome a 2 degree rise. Hell make it 4 degrees.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, it has not been verified in any way by reputable scientists. If it had, you would be posting the verification instead of just yapping about it.

And an adrupt climate change is going to bring some real surprises, most of them unpleasant.