Moon dust fired into space could help stop global warming

[ding]

Why wouldn't you use the quadratic ... r = 0.041 (± 0.025) mm/yr/yr t^2 + 3.2 (±0.5) mm/yr t [where r=rise in mm and t=time in years] ... I don't know, do you think 84 µm is long distance? ... and as the paper points out, 25 years of satellite altimeter data isn't really enough to predict long term changes ... we can only say it has been accelerating, not that it is still accelerating ... "bdfawdgt6ui9o-[['[" -- Dusty the House Cat ...

Carbon dioxide has normal radiative properties ... so it will have a little effect on surface temperature ... SB says so ... the mistake in AGW Theory is that CO2 has extraordinary radiative properties, something that's not demonstrated ...

All I'm saying is that sea levels are rising ... and accelerating ... by slight amounts ... I don't know the cause, though man's carbon emissions contribute; along with deforestation, asphalt pavements, nuclear tests, commercial jet traffic, house cats, artificial lighting and solar panels ... the combined total of a lousy 1/8 inch per year ... ouch, I'm worried for my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren ...

Just like there was a lag between temperature and CO2 there is a lag between temperature and sea level. So whatever changes in sea level now - which isn’t much - is due to temperatures from ~ 1000 years ago. So it is entirely ridiculous to associate sea level changes with todays temperature as it is to associate todays temperature with atmospheric CO2.

 

[ding]

David Roper is entitled to his opinion ... it's a shame no one will publish his work ... I think it might be because he's making up shit as he goes along ...

Okay ... I'LL BITE ... what is the current equilibrium temperature of Earth? ... here's a hint ... it's more than 14ºC, our current temperature ... we know this because radiative forcing is measured at 1.8 W/m^2 ... this value will be zero when we reach equilibrium ...

Sea level is a function of temperature. Which should be obvious. Right? And we can use the existing empirical data from the geologic record to know what it will be for any given temperature. The only graph of any value from Roper is the first one which shows the historical relationship between temperature and sea level. And the thresholds for glaciation at each pole with the resulting sea levels at each threshold.

 

[ReinyDays]

Just like there was a lag between temperature and CO2 there is a lag between temperature and sea level. So whatever changes in sea level now - which isn’t much - is due to temperatures from ~ 1000 years ago. So it is entirely ridiculous to associate sea level changes with todays temperature as it is to associate todays temperature with atmospheric CO2.

The energy transfer is instantaneous ... you know, "power" ... look it up ...

I'm sorry you don't believe in empirical data ... temperatures are 1ºC warmer than they were 140 years ago ... ergo ... the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and all ... the ocean water at the surface is 1ºC warmer ... and has expanded ... call it the top 100 meters ... that's still an enormous amount, with really really high thermal mass ...

it is to associate todays temperature with atmospheric CO2.

The empirical data shows all sources ... assuming equal partitioning, CO2 has a small part of the overall effect ... too small to separate out ... why can't you admit that? ... and why don't you think the quadrupling of human population won't cause ...

... a single degree change? ...

 

[ding]

The energy transfer is instantaneous ... you know, "power" ... look it up ...

I'm sorry you don't believe in empirical data ... temperatures are 1ºC warmer than they were 140 years ago ... ergo ... the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and all ... the ocean water at the surface is 1ºC warmer ... and has expanded ... call it the top 100 meters ... that's still an enormous amount, with really really high thermal mass ...



The empirical data shows all sources ... assuming equal partitioning, CO2 has a small part of the overall effect ... too small to separate out ... why can't you admit that? ... and why don't you think the quadrupling of human population won't cause ...

... a single degree change? ...

Who said I didn’t believe it was 1C warmer today than 140 years ago?

It’s almost if you have never read anything I have written.

 

[ReinyDays]

Who said I didn’t believe it was 1C warmer today than 140 years ago?

It’s almost if you have never read anything I have written.

Then you agree that the oceans are larger ...

 

[ding]

Then you agree that the oceans are larger ...

Than what?

 

[ReinyDays]

Than what?

An instant ago ...

We're adding 1.8 joules of energy to the climate system every second of time, for every square foot of the Earth's surface ... kinetic energy (= temperature) is a good place for this energy to exist ...

 

[ding]

An instant ago ...

We're adding 1.8 joules of energy to the climate system every second of time, for every square foot of the Earth's surface ... kinetic energy (= temperature) is a good place for this energy to exist ...

And?

 

[ReinyDays]

And?

... accelerating sea level rise .. thank you for agreeing ...

 

[ding]

... accelerating sea level rise .. thank you for agreeing ...

Incorrect.

 

[ReinyDays]

Incorrect.

Then what is correct? ... ROFL ... do you think sea levels are lowering? ... ha ha ha ha ... that's stupid ... do you not know how radar works or something? ...

 

[ding]

Then what is correct? ... ROFL ... do you think sea levels are lowering? ... ha ha ha ha ... that's stupid ... do you not know how radar works or something? ...

I think the rate of change is effectively unchanged for the past 6,000 years.

 

[ReinyDays]

I think the rate of change is effectively unchanged for the past 6,000 years.

Then why use weasel words? ... what do you mean "effectively"? ... can't you use a number here? ... a sixteenth inch ain't much, I agree, but the second derivative is still slightly positive ...

How are you explaining the swamping of Northern Frisia in the 3rd Century AD? ... that was only 1,700 years ago ...

 

[ding]

Then why use weasel words? ... what do you mean "effectively"? ... can't you use a number here? ... a sixteenth inch ain't much, I agree, but the second derivative is still slightly positive ...

How are you explaining the swamping of Northern Frisia in the 3rd Century AD? ... that was only 1,700 years ago ...

It means the change is so small as to be meaningless.

 

[Patriot01]

Can you imagine democrats allowing ppl to have affordable gas again?

 

[ReinyDays]

It means the change is so small as to be meaningless.

More weasel words ... what do you think is meaningful? ... can't you use a number? ... or is your math in that sad of shape? ... 84 µm/yr/yr* has meaning, adds up to about a foot over our minimal 100-year climatic time interval ... why do you hate Frisians so much? ...

(* = with only 25 years of empirical data) ...

 

[ding]

Can you imagine democrats allowing ppl to have affordable gas again?

Seems to me that they would rather rich people be poorer rather than poor people be richer.

 

[ding]

More weasel words ... what do you think is meaningful? ... can't you use a number? ... or is your math in that sad of shape? ... 84 µm/yr/yr* has meaning, adds up to about a foot over our minimal 100-year climatic time interval ... why do you hate Frisians so much? ...

(* = with only 25 years of empirical data) ...

Let me know when it doubles.

 

[Patriot01]

Seems to me that they would rather rich people be poorer rather than poor people be richer.

If you want to make creative ppl struggle then why would anyone want to live here? In a free country?

 

[ReinyDays]

Let me know when it doubles.

The third derivative? ... why is that important to this discussion? ... why do you hate Frisians so much? ...