Discussion:
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to curb global warming"
Add Reply
Lynn McGuire
2018-11-28 21:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to curb
global warming"

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-would-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS9PZP/story.html

I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.

Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2018-11-28 21:37:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:26:42 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to curb
global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-would-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
They're not talking about "space umbrellas" though, they're talking
something a good deal less ambitious. If "nuclear winter" is real
then induce something similar on a smaller scale by releasing
particulates into the upper atmosphere.

Doesn't have to even have a financial cost--somebody pointed out a
while back that if you change airline fuel to high-sulfur and increase
cruising altitudes you're there.
Lynn McGuire
2018-11-28 22:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:26:42 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to curb
global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-would-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
They're not talking about "space umbrellas" though, they're talking
something a good deal less ambitious. If "nuclear winter" is real
then induce something similar on a smaller scale by releasing
particulates into the upper atmosphere.
Doesn't have to even have a financial cost--somebody pointed out a
while back that if you change airline fuel to high-sulfur and increase
cruising altitudes you're there.
I'm not a big fan of putting aerosols in the upper atmosphere, easy to
get in and hard to get out.

The Earth is warming, we know this to be a fact. The warming has been
going on for tens of thousands of years. I maintain that the warming is
natural and not man-made but that is not relative to this discussion.

I do like space umbrellas even though they are somewhat expensive.
However, the cost of entering space is being driven radically down by
SpaceX and others. And space umbrellas could be easily designed to vary
their coverage and even destroy themselves if needful. I would like to
see protection against screwing up and freezing the Earth, the effects
of a couple degrees C of heating is minor compared to a couple of
degrees C of cooling.

BTW, space umbrellas could be known under another name, solar power
satellites. We have yet to prove this technology in a large way but it
should work.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2018-11-28 22:51:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:26:42 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to curb
global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-would-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon.  If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
They're not talking about "space umbrellas" though, they're talking
something a good deal less ambitious.  If "nuclear winter" is real
then induce something similar on a smaller scale by releasing
particulates into the upper atmosphere.
Doesn't have to even have a financial cost--somebody pointed out a
while back that if you change airline fuel to high-sulfur and increase
cruising altitudes you're there.
I'm not a big fan of putting aerosols in the upper atmosphere, easy to
get in and hard to get out.
The Earth is warming, we know this to be a fact.  The warming has been
going on for tens of thousands of years.  I maintain that the warming is
natural and not man-made but that is not relative to this discussion.
Do you maintain that that warming is accelerating?
Alan Baker
2018-11-28 21:46:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to curb
global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-would-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Why? You claim global warming isn't happening.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-11-28 21:01:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-wou
ld-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQR
vS9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Why? You claim global warming isn't happening.
The ease with which the global warming that isn't happening could be
solved is another proof that it's all a massive conspiracy by
liberals to subjugate the world and engage in some sort of genocidal
pogrom against True Men and their properly submissive women, which in
turns leads to the apocalypse, in which True Men and their properly
submissive women are the only survivors.

Haven't you been reading Lynn's reviews of his survivor porn?

In short, Baker, as fucking *stupid* as you are, Lynn is, at least
sometimes, even stupider. In fact, since he's now posting links to
web page that actually refute his point, he's reached Shawn Wilson
levels of stupid. Quite an accomplishment.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-11-28 23:11:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-wou
ld-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQR
vS9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Why? You claim global warming isn't happening.
The ease with which the global warming that isn't happening could be
solved is another proof that it's all a massive conspiracy by
liberals to subjugate the world and engage in some sort of genocidal
pogrom against True Men and their properly submissive women, which in
turns leads to the apocalypse, in which True Men and their properly
submissive women are the only survivors.
Haven't you been reading Lynn's reviews of his survivor porn?
In short, Baker, as fucking *stupid* as you are, Lynn is, at least
sometimes, even stupider. In fact, since he's now posting links to
web page that actually refute his point, he's reached Shawn Wilson
levels of stupid. Quite an accomplishment.
Inquiring minds want to know, are you sure Lynn hasn't been Shawn Wilson
all along?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-11-28 22:19:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun
to curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-w
ou
ld-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYf
QR vS9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Why? You claim global warming isn't happening.
The ease with which the global warming that isn't happening
could be solved is another proof that it's all a massive
conspiracy by liberals to subjugate the world and engage in
some sort of genocidal pogrom against True Men and their
properly submissive women, which in turns leads to the
apocalypse, in which True Men and their properly submissive
women are the only survivors.
Haven't you been reading Lynn's reviews of his survivor porn?
In short, Baker, as fucking *stupid* as you are, Lynn is, at
least sometimes, even stupider. In fact, since he's now posting
links to web page that actually refute his point, he's reached
Shawn Wilson levels of stupid. Quite an accomplishment.
Inquiring minds want to know, are you sure Lynn hasn't been
Shawn Wilson all along?
One does begin to wonder, but no, it's not possible. Lynn
occasionally says things that aren't stupid, and usually when he
does say something stupid, it's far *less* stupid than anything
Shawn ever posted. These things are clearly beyond Shawn's
abilities. Plus, Lynn doesn't post from a library in Arizona.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-11-28 20:57:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.

"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"

(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)

You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.

(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2018-11-28 23:10:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.

pt
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-11-29 03:46:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun
to curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-w
oul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQ
RvS 9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street
Journal coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said,
“Seriously addressing climate change means cutting carbon
emissions and, ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the
atmosphere. There’
s no
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when
talking about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is
talking strictly about the technical feasibility of "space
umbrellas," not the advisability - a point Wagner himself makes
in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a
greenhouse gas. It is a source of ocean acidification, which is
contributing to the collapse of ocean ecosystems as the
formation of carbonate shells in everything from plankton to
coral reefs becomes more difficult.
Yeah, but Lynn's too simple minded to follow two threads of thought
at the same time.
--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2018-11-29 19:49:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?

Lynn
Alan Baker
2018-11-29 20:06:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon.  If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
How do you know they did?

Before you make a smart-alec answer, the question is really:

How do you know that the oceans didn't change in response to that in
ways that we would find untenable?

Remarking that, "Hey! The world will survive!" isn't really very useful
if it survives in away WE don't care for.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-11-29 21:51:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-5, Jibini
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun
to curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-
woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYf
QRvS 9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while
now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon.  If your neighbor
state bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street
Journal coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said,
“Seriously addressing climate change means cutting carbon
emissions and, ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the
atmosphere. There’s no way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when
talking about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is
talking strictly about the technical feasibility of "space
umbrellas," not the advisability - a point Wagner himself
makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a
greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to
the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in
everything from plankton to coral reefs becomes more
difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm
many millions of years ago ?
How do you know they did?
How do you know that the oceans didn't change in response to
that in ways that we would find untenable?
The counterpoint being, of course, "how do you know it did?"
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
J. Clarke
2018-11-29 20:24:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:49:49 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
That's one that the global warming advocates never want to address.
Alan Baker
2018-11-29 20:36:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:49:49 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
That's one that the global warming advocates never want to address.
No. You're quote wrong.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-11-29 21:52:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:49:49 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-5, Jibini
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the
sun to curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say
-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycY
fQRvS 9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while
now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor
state bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street
Journal coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said,
“Seriously addressing climate change means cutting carbon
emissions and, ultimately, reducing the carbon already in
the atmosphere. There’s no way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when
talking about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is
talking strictly about the technical feasibility of "space
umbrellas," not the advisability - a point Wagner himself
makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a
greenhouse gas. It is a source of ocean acidification, which
is contributing to the collapse of ocean ecosystems as the
formation of carbonate shells in everything from plankton to
coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000
ppm many millions of years ago ?
That's one that the global warming advocates never want to
address.
No. You're quote wrong.
YOu didn't address it. And you won't. Ever. (But if you do, you'll
link to a web site that refutes your position conclusively. As
always.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2018-11-29 22:39:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:49:49 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
That's one that the global warming advocates never want to address.
I would have sworn that I saw a graph once that had 8,000 ppm of CO2 in
the atmosphere way back when but, I cannot find it now.

Lynn
Peter Trei
2018-11-29 22:46:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:49:49 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
That's one that the global warming advocates never want to address.
I would have sworn that I saw a graph once that had 8,000 ppm of CO2 in
the atmosphere way back when but, I cannot find it now.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845/figures/4

pt
J. Clarke
2018-11-29 23:31:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 16:39:18 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:49:49 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
That's one that the global warming advocates never want to address.
I would have sworn that I saw a graph once that had 8,000 ppm of CO2 in
the atmosphere way back when but, I cannot find it now.
That would have been during the Ordovician, way before any land
vertebrates. 8000 is the high end of the estimate however the
estimate is an average over 10 million or so years and there's no way
at present to refine it beyond that. There was a glaciation near the
middle of that period. However a point to consider is that the sun
was also somewhat cooler at the time.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-11-30 01:08:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:49:49 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
That's one that the global warming advocates never want to address.
I would have sworn that I saw a graph once that had 8,000 ppm of CO2 in
the atmosphere way back when but, I cannot find it now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
Quote: "Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere were as high as 4,000
parts per million (ppm) during the Cambrian period about 500 million
years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the
last two million years.[2] Estimates based on reconstructed temperature
records suggests that the amount of CO2 during the last 420 million
years ago was with ~2000 ppm highest during the Devonian (∼400 Myrs ago)
and Triassic (220–200 Myrs ago), with a few maximum estimates ranging up
to ∼3,700±1,600 ppm (215 Myrs ago).[3] Global annual mean CO2
concentration has increased by more than 45% since the start of the
Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years up to the
mid-18th century[2] to 410 ppm as of mid-2018.[4][5]"

Maybe before oxygen generating organisms evolved but even that is
suspect IMO since apparently one of the major effects of the Great
Oxygenation Event was to break down methane into CO2 and water.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Greg Goss
2018-11-30 04:49:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:49:49 -0600, Lynn McGuire
]
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
That's one that the global warming advocates never want to address.
I would have sworn that I saw a graph once that had 8,000 ppm of CO2 in
the atmosphere way back when but, I cannot find it now.
Wikipedia puts the CO2 at the "Great Dying" as 2000. But that's not a
situation we want to duplcate.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Peter Trei
2018-11-30 13:47:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:49:49 -0600, Lynn McGuire
]
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Lynn McGuire
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
That's one that the global warming advocates never want to address.
I would have sworn that I saw a graph once that had 8,000 ppm of CO2 in
the atmosphere way back when but, I cannot find it now.
Wikipedia puts the CO2 at the "Great Dying" as 2000. But that's not a
situation we want to duplcate.
In an earlier post, I linked this chart showing changes in C02 levels
going back 500 million years

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845/figures/4

My takeaway from it is that the last time CO2 rose from a long period at near
our current levels, to over 1000, coincides with the Permian Mass Extinction,
when 96% of ocean species died.

This was in answer to Lynn's question of 'What happened to sea life last time
CO2 rose over 1000 ppm?'

pt
William Hyde
2018-11-30 21:15:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:49:49 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
That's one that the global warming advocates never want to address.
I would have sworn that I saw a graph once that had 8,000 ppm of CO2 in
the atmosphere way back when but, I cannot find it now.
That would not surprise me. We've done climate model simulations of past eras, in particular the Ordovician, at 20X CO2 as that was within the range of estimates for that time.

These estimates of past CO2 have huge error bars, of course. They are achieved in a number of ways, by analysis of rocks formed from old soils (e.g. isotopic abundances and mineral substitution can depend on temperature and acidity, the acidity being linked to CO2) but mainly from inverse modelling, particularly the GEOCARB models of George Berner.

I've done a little of this myself:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249521433_Siberian_glaciation_as_a_constraint_on_Permian-Carboniferous_CO2_levels

Mind you, I don't think there were a lot of cod in the ocean when or if CO2 levels were at 8000 ppm. If you're happy to lunch on acid-resistant dinoflagellates, then eat hearty! Though from the sound of things you should be eating and whipping yourself at the same time. Whatever floats your (acid resistant) boat, I guess.

William Hyde
Juho Julkunen
2018-11-30 04:08:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
That's one that the global warming advocates never want to address.
Shawn Wilson was a global warming advocate, wasn't he?

In that he considered it a good thing.
--
Juho Julkunen
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-11-30 23:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by J. Clarke
That's one that the global warming advocates never want to
address.
Shawn Wilson was a global warming advocate, wasn't he?
In that he considered it a good thing.
IIRC, yes. One can find advantageous aspects to it, like opening up
northern real estate to more practical habitation, and longer growing
seasons. But mostly, Shawn advocated in favor of it beacuse he was
Shawn Wilson, and that was the stupidest thing he could possibly say,
so he *had* to say it.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2018-11-29 20:27:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Poorly.

The last time C02 was significantly over 1000 ppm for a significant period
was about 250 million years ago.

This is known as the 'Permian Extinction' aka 'The Great Dying'.

pt
Lynn McGuire
2018-11-29 22:29:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Poorly.
The last time C02 was significantly over 1000 ppm for a significant period
was about 250 million years ago.
This is known as the 'Permian Extinction' aka 'The Great Dying'.
pt
Wasn't there a great asteroid that hit the Earth at that time and coated
the atmosphere with dust for umpteen years ?

Lynn
Alan Baker
2018-11-29 22:38:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon.  If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Poorly.
The last time C02 was significantly over 1000 ppm for a significant period
was about 250 million years ago.
This is known as the 'Permian Extinction' aka 'The Great Dying'.
pt
Wasn't there a great asteroid that hit the Earth at that time and coated
the atmosphere with dust for umpteen years ?
Do you EVER bother to check anything?
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-11-29 21:53:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 2:50:05 PM UTC-5, Lynn
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-5, Jibini
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the
sun to curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-sa
y-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3yc
YfQRvS 9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while
now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon.  If your neighbor
state bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street
Journal coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said,
“Seriously addressing climate change means cutting carbon
emissions and, ultimately, reducing the carbon already in
the atmosphere. There’s no way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when
talking about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is
talking strictly about the technical feasibility of "space
umbrellas," not the advisability - a point Wagner himself
makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a
greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in
everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000
ppm many millions of years ago ?
Poorly.
The last time C02 was significantly over 1000 ppm for a
significant period
was about 250 million years ago.
This is known as the 'Permian Extinction' aka 'The Great
Dying'.
pt
Wasn't there a great asteroid that hit the Earth at that time
and coated the atmosphere with dust for umpteen years ?
Do you EVER bother to check anything?
Do you? (No, you don't, because you're too fucking *stupid* to even
know what the words mean.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2018-11-29 22:45:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Poorly.
The last time C02 was significantly over 1000 ppm for a significant period
was about 250 million years ago.
This is known as the 'Permian Extinction' aka 'The Great Dying'.
pt
Wasn't there a great asteroid that hit the Earth at that time and coated
the atmosphere with dust for umpteen years ?
Probably not. You're probably thinking That of the Cambrian extinction,
which did in the dinosaurs.

I'm talking about the Permian Extinction, which was much earlier, and much
worse. 96% of ocean species went extinct, and 70% on land.

https://phys.org/news/2015-04-greatest-mass-extinction-driven-acidic.html
http://news.mit.edu/2011/mass-extinction-1118
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009254112002938

The problem appears to have been massive volcanic eruptions (Siberian Traps),
which dumped vast quantities of C02 and other gasses into the atmosphere.

pt
Dimensional Traveler
2018-11-29 22:53:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Poorly.
The last time C02 was significantly over 1000 ppm for a significant period
was about 250 million years ago.
This is known as the 'Permian Extinction' aka 'The Great Dying'.
Wasn't there a great asteroid that hit the Earth at that time and coated
the atmosphere with dust for umpteen years ?
You mean Chicxulub? That was the dino-killer and it was 65 MYA. We're
not sure what caused the Permian Extinction and there are multiple theories.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
J. Clarke
2018-11-29 23:49:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 16:29:39 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Poorly.
The last time C02 was significantly over 1000 ppm for a significant period
was about 250 million years ago.
This is known as the 'Permian Extinction' aka 'The Great Dying'.
pt
Wasn't there a great asteroid that hit the Earth at that time and coated
the atmosphere with dust for umpteen years ?
Not that anyone has demonstrated. There's a notion that it might have
occurred but not enough evidence to be convincing. An interesting
characteristic of that particular CO2 increase is that it followed a
rapid _decrease_ about 100 million years before and stayed at about
the same level through most of the Mesozoic--there was a drop in the
middle--and didn't start decreasing until about 30 million years ago.
This low CO2 level in other words is both a recent and an unusual
condition for the planet, just as the ice age we inhabit is.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Lynn
Greg Goss
2018-11-30 05:02:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Wasn't there a great asteroid that hit the Earth at that time and coated
the atmosphere with dust for umpteen years ?
Asteroidal impact is less well supported for that time than it is for
the K-T dinosaur kill.

The later one has the Chixhulub crater, the arguable "Shiva" crater
near India and smaller possibly related craters in Ukraine and the
North Sea.

Impact theories for that earlier one are much more controversial, and
not convincing to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event#Impact_event

I find the megavulcanism theories more convincing, especially if the
Siberian traps blew off a major coal field.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Robert Carnegie
2018-11-30 11:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Lynn McGuire
Wasn't there a great asteroid that hit the Earth at that time and coated
the atmosphere with dust for umpteen years ?
Asteroidal impact is less well supported for that time than it is for
the K-T dinosaur kill.
The later one has the Chixhulub crater, the arguable "Shiva" crater
near India and smaller possibly related craters in Ukraine and the
North Sea.
And a unique thin smear of iridium everywhere on the planet
on the same fossilised day. "Unique" makes it awkward to
place another "meteoric mass extinction" on a different date.
Post by Greg Goss
Impact theories for that earlier one are much more controversial, and
not convincing to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event#Impact_event
I find the megavulcanism theories more convincing, especially if the
Siberian traps blew off a major coal field.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Greg Goss
2018-11-30 12:13:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Lynn McGuire
Wasn't there a great asteroid that hit the Earth at that time and coated
the atmosphere with dust for umpteen years ?
Asteroidal impact is less well supported for that time than it is for
the K-T dinosaur kill.
The later one has the Chixhulub crater, the arguable "Shiva" crater
near India and smaller possibly related craters in Ukraine and the
North Sea.
And a unique thin smear of iridium everywhere on the planet
on the same fossilised day. "Unique" makes it awkward to
place another "meteoric mass extinction" on a different date.
I'm thinking of a Shoemaker-Levy type of impact, where the various
impacts (Shiva, Chixhulub etc) are all part of the same body.

Unless you're refuting the impact theory for the earlier extinction.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-11-30 16:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Lynn McGuire
Wasn't there a great asteroid that hit the Earth at that time and coated
the atmosphere with dust for umpteen years ?
Asteroidal impact is less well supported for that time than it is for
the K-T dinosaur kill.
The later one has the Chixhulub crater, the arguable "Shiva" crater
near India and smaller possibly related craters in Ukraine and the
North Sea.
And a unique thin smear of iridium everywhere on the planet
on the same fossilised day. "Unique" makes it awkward to
place another "meteoric mass extinction" on a different date.
I'm thinking of a Shoemaker-Levy type of impact, where the various
impacts (Shiva, Chixhulub etc) are all part of the same body.
Unless you're refuting the impact theory for the earlier extinction.
As far as I am aware, no one has found any evidence for multiple impacts
at the time of the K-T extinction event (65MYA).

From my recent reading on the Permian extinction event (252MYA) it
occurred over too long of a time period for an impact event to be a
plausible explanation to me. It might have been _a_ factor but given
the length of time since it likely will be impossible to prove.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Greg Goss
2018-12-01 16:33:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Greg Goss
The later one has the Chixhulub crater, the arguable "Shiva" crater
near India and smaller possibly related craters in Ukraine and the
North Sea.
And a unique thin smear of iridium everywhere on the planet
on the same fossilised day. "Unique" makes it awkward to
place another "meteoric mass extinction" on a different date.
I'm thinking of a Shoemaker-Levy type of impact, where the various
impacts (Shiva, Chixhulub etc) are all part of the same body.
Unless you're refuting the impact theory for the earlier extinction.
As far as I am aware, no one has found any evidence for multiple impacts
at the time of the K-T extinction event (65MYA).
Whether the Shiva structure is a crater at all gets a lot of argument.
I accept it as one, but this is way outside my field of expertise.
The wikipedia article lists two more - one in Ukraine and one in the
North Sea. I had thought that there were more.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Robert Carnegie
2018-11-30 21:26:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Lynn McGuire
Wasn't there a great asteroid that hit the Earth at that time and coated
the atmosphere with dust for umpteen years ?
Asteroidal impact is less well supported for that time than it is for
the K-T dinosaur kill.
The later one has the Chixhulub crater, the arguable "Shiva" crater
near India and smaller possibly related craters in Ukraine and the
North Sea.
And a unique thin smear of iridium everywhere on the planet
on the same fossilised day. "Unique" makes it awkward to
place another "meteoric mass extinction" on a different date.
I'm thinking of a Shoemaker-Levy type of impact, where the various
impacts (Shiva, Chixhulub etc) are all part of the same body.
Unless you're refuting the impact theory for the earlier extinction.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
I don't think that the 250 Mya mass extinction was due to impact.
Though I seem to remember it was temporarily fashionable to blame
most mass extinctions on meteoric death asteroids.

I heard a radio show of a theatre documentary - possibly from a
podcast, too, but I've forgotten - that made a big thing of -
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event#Effects_of_impact>

And particularly that,

"The reentry of ejecta into Earth's atmosphere would include a brief
(hours long) but intense pulse of infrared radiation, cooking exposed
organisms.[56] A paper in 2013 by a prominent modeler of nuclear winter
suggested that, based on the amount of soot in the global debris layer,
the entire terrestrial biosphere might have burned, implying a global
soot-cloud blocking out the sun and creating a nuclear winter effect.
[132] This is debated, however, with opponents arguing that local
ferocious fires, probably limited to North America, fall short of
global firestorms. This is the "Cretaceous-Palaeogene firestorm
debate".

The Chicxulub impact sent a quantity of Earth stuff back out
into space - to fall back down again.
Greg Goss
2018-12-01 14:43:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
I don't think that the 250 Mya mass extinction was due to impact.
Though I seem to remember it was temporarily fashionable to blame
most mass extinctions on meteoric death asteroids.
This also led to the unfortunately discredited Verneshot hypothesis.
You got Chixhulub at the end of the Deccan eruption. You got [insert
claim] at the end of the Siberian eruption.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
William Hyde
2018-11-29 22:17:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Really, Lynn. He didn't remotely say that the oceans "would not survive". A lot of damage can be done to the oceans - and to us and that economy you are so worried about - without making ocean life extinct. Some creatures already live in highly acidic waters and will spread. You probably won't want to eat them, though.

Evolution will allow ocean life to adapt to a slow change from 300ppm to even 2000 ppm. But we are changing ocean PH rapidly.

And a rapid change will cause problems. The closest thing to a natural rise in CO2 as fast as the current caused a rather large number of extinctions. It wasn't one of the major extinction events, but then, Eocene oceans were not also filled with plastic. (Any John Wyndham fan should know that a really great disaster is caused when we do two stupid things, not just one. Or aliens invade.)

This was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, where carbon was added to the atmosphere at about 2-5% of the current rate on average.

The oceans bounced back quite rapidly in geological terms and probably will again. A disaster lasting a mere century or ten we might not even notice in the geologic record. But we would certainly notice it in real time. Small consolation when fish stocks collapse by 2100 to know that they'll be booming again in 2600.

So ocean acidification is real, it is a problem, we are causing it, and solar shades won't help. Got any solar pepto bismol?

William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2018-11-29 22:37:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Really, Lynn. He didn't remotely say that the oceans "would not survive". A lot of damage can be done to the oceans - and to us and that economy you are so worried about - without making ocean life extinct. Some creatures already live in highly acidic waters and will spread. You probably won't want to eat them, though.
Evolution will allow ocean life to adapt to a slow change from 300ppm to even 2000 ppm. But we are changing ocean PH rapidly.
And a rapid change will cause problems. The closest thing to a natural rise in CO2 as fast as the current caused a rather large number of extinctions. It wasn't one of the major extinction events, but then, Eocene oceans were not also filled with plastic. (Any John Wyndham fan should know that a really great disaster is caused when we do two stupid things, not just one. Or aliens invade.)
This was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, where carbon was added to the atmosphere at about 2-5% of the current rate on average.
The oceans bounced back quite rapidly in geological terms and probably will again. A disaster lasting a mere century or ten we might not even notice in the geologic record. But we would certainly notice it in real time. Small consolation when fish stocks collapse by 2100 to know that they'll be booming again in 2600.
So ocean acidification is real, it is a problem, we are causing it, and solar shades won't help. Got any solar pepto bismol?
William Hyde
I guess that I am not a John Wyndham fan since I do not have a clue who
he is.

Ah, _The Day of the Triffids_. I never was a fan of that movie. Never
read the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wyndham

Yes, I am concerned about the amount of trash in the oceans also. Seems
stupid. We will need to clean it up some day AFTER we get the idiots to
STOP dumping trash in the ocean.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2018-11-29 22:40:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Really, Lynn. He didn't remotely say that the oceans "would not
survive". A lot of damage can be done to the oceans - and to us and
that economy you are so worried about - without making ocean life
extinct. Some creatures already live in highly acidic waters and will
spread. You probably won't want to eat them, though.
Evolution will allow ocean life to adapt to a slow change from 300ppm
to even 2000 ppm. But we are changing ocean PH rapidly.
And a rapid change will cause problems. The closest thing to a
natural rise in CO2 as fast as the current caused a rather large
number of extinctions. It wasn't one of the major extinction events,
but then, Eocene oceans were not also filled with plastic. (Any John
Wyndham fan should know that a really great disaster is caused when we
do two stupid things, not just one. Or aliens invade.)
This was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, where carbon was added
to the atmosphere at about 2-5% of the current rate on average.
The oceans bounced back quite rapidly in geological terms and probably
will again. A disaster lasting a mere century or ten we might not even
notice in the geologic record. But we would certainly notice it in
real time. Small consolation when fish stocks collapse by 2100 to
know that they'll be booming again in 2600.
So ocean acidification is real, it is a problem, we are causing it,
and solar shades won't help. Got any solar pepto bismol?
William Hyde
I guess that I am not a John Wyndham fan since I do not have a clue who
he is.
Ah, _The Day of the Triffids_. I never was a fan of that movie. Never
read the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wyndham
Yes, I am concerned about the amount of trash in the oceans also. Seems
stupid. We will need to clean it up some day AFTER we get the idiots to
STOP dumping trash in the ocean.
Why do you assume we can't do both at the same time?
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Lynn McGuire
2018-11-29 23:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon.  If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Really, Lynn.  He didn't remotely say that the oceans "would not
survive".  A lot of damage can be done to the oceans - and to us and
that economy you are so worried about - without making ocean life
extinct. Some creatures already live in highly acidic waters and will
spread.  You probably won't want to eat them, though.
Evolution will allow ocean life to adapt to a slow change from 300ppm
to even 2000 ppm. But we are changing ocean PH rapidly.
And a rapid change will cause problems.  The closest thing to a
natural rise in CO2 as fast as the current caused a rather large
number of extinctions.  It wasn't one of the major extinction events,
but then, Eocene oceans were not also filled with plastic. (Any John
Wyndham fan should know that a really great disaster is caused when we
do two stupid things, not just one. Or aliens invade.)
This was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, where carbon was added
to the atmosphere at about 2-5% of the current rate on average.
The oceans bounced back quite rapidly in geological terms and probably
will again. A disaster lasting a mere century or ten we might not even
notice in the geologic record.  But we would certainly notice it in
real time.  Small consolation when fish stocks collapse by 2100 to
know that they'll be booming again in 2600.
So ocean acidification is real, it is a problem, we are causing it,
and solar shades won't help.  Got any solar pepto bismol?
William Hyde
I guess that I am not a John Wyndham fan since I do not have a clue who
he is.
Ah, _The Day of the Triffids_.  I never was a fan of that movie.  Never
read the book.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wyndham
Yes, I am concerned about the amount of trash in the oceans also.  Seems
stupid.  We will need to clean it up some day AFTER we get the idiots to
STOP dumping trash in the ocean.
Why do you assume we can't do both at the same time?
We can clean it up any time that we want to. However, I doubt that we
can get the idiots to stop dumping trash in the oceans.

Lynn
J. Clarke
2018-11-29 23:39:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:40:40 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Really, Lynn. He didn't remotely say that the oceans "would not
survive". A lot of damage can be done to the oceans - and to us and
that economy you are so worried about - without making ocean life
extinct. Some creatures already live in highly acidic waters and will
spread. You probably won't want to eat them, though.
Evolution will allow ocean life to adapt to a slow change from 300ppm
to even 2000 ppm. But we are changing ocean PH rapidly.
And a rapid change will cause problems. The closest thing to a
natural rise in CO2 as fast as the current caused a rather large
number of extinctions. It wasn't one of the major extinction events,
but then, Eocene oceans were not also filled with plastic. (Any John
Wyndham fan should know that a really great disaster is caused when we
do two stupid things, not just one. Or aliens invade.)
This was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, where carbon was added
to the atmosphere at about 2-5% of the current rate on average.
The oceans bounced back quite rapidly in geological terms and probably
will again. A disaster lasting a mere century or ten we might not even
notice in the geologic record. But we would certainly notice it in
real time. Small consolation when fish stocks collapse by 2100 to
know that they'll be booming again in 2600.
So ocean acidification is real, it is a problem, we are causing it,
and solar shades won't help. Got any solar pepto bismol?
William Hyde
I guess that I am not a John Wyndham fan since I do not have a clue who
he is.
Ah, _The Day of the Triffids_. I never was a fan of that movie. Never
read the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wyndham
Yes, I am concerned about the amount of trash in the oceans also. Seems
stupid. We will need to clean it up some day AFTER we get the idiots to
STOP dumping trash in the ocean.
Why do you assume we can't do both at the same time?
We have x resources. If people are dumping faster than we can clean up
the first step is to reduce the dumping to a level that is cleanable.
William Hyde
2018-11-30 21:24:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Really, Lynn. He didn't remotely say that the oceans "would not survive". A lot of damage can be done to the oceans - and to us and that economy you are so worried about - without making ocean life extinct. Some creatures already live in highly acidic waters and will spread. You probably won't want to eat them, though.
Evolution will allow ocean life to adapt to a slow change from 300ppm to even 2000 ppm. But we are changing ocean PH rapidly.
And a rapid change will cause problems. The closest thing to a natural rise in CO2 as fast as the current caused a rather large number of extinctions. It wasn't one of the major extinction events, but then, Eocene oceans were not also filled with plastic. (Any John Wyndham fan should know that a really great disaster is caused when we do two stupid things, not just one. Or aliens invade.)
This was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, where carbon was added to the atmosphere at about 2-5% of the current rate on average.
The oceans bounced back quite rapidly in geological terms and probably will again. A disaster lasting a mere century or ten we might not even notice in the geologic record. But we would certainly notice it in real time. Small consolation when fish stocks collapse by 2100 to know that they'll be booming again in 2600.
So ocean acidification is real, it is a problem, we are causing it, and solar shades won't help. Got any solar pepto bismol?
William Hyde
I guess that I am not a John Wyndham fan since I do not have a clue who
he is.
Ah, _The Day of the Triffids_. I never was a fan of that movie.
You showed good judgment there.

Never
Post by Lynn McGuire
read the book.
You might like it. British post-apocalypse fiction, instead of American. You could even say it has an EMP in it.

Or you could wait for the upcoming sequel, "Triffids take Manhattan", by Annnoyed American.
Post by Lynn McGuire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wyndham
Yes, I am concerned about the amount of trash in the oceans also.
Good to know.


William Hyde
James Nicoll
2018-12-01 14:38:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
You might like it. British post-apocalypse fiction, instead of
American. You could even say it has an EMP in it.
Or you could wait for the upcoming sequel, "Triffids take Manhattan", by Annnoyed American.
Lamentably, there is an authorized sequel and even more lamentably, I've
read it. NIGHT OF THE TRIFFIDS does involve a NYC plot.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
J. Clarke
2018-11-29 23:38:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:17:36 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Really, Lynn. He didn't remotely say that the oceans "would not survive". A lot of damage can be done to the oceans - and to us and that economy you are so worried about - without making ocean life extinct. Some creatures already live in highly acidic waters and will spread. You probably won't want to eat them, though.
Evolution will allow ocean life to adapt to a slow change from 300ppm to even 2000 ppm. But we are changing ocean PH rapidly.
And a rapid change will cause problems. The closest thing to a natural rise in CO2 as fast as the current caused a rather large number of extinctions. It wasn't one of the major extinction events, but then, Eocene oceans were not also filled with plastic. (Any John Wyndham fan should know that a really great disaster is caused when we do two stupid things, not just one. Or aliens invade.)
This was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, where carbon was added to the atmosphere at about 2-5% of the current rate on average.
The oceans bounced back quite rapidly in geological terms and probably will again. A disaster lasting a mere century or ten we might not even notice in the geologic record. But we would certainly notice it in real time. Small consolation when fish stocks collapse by 2100 to know that they'll be booming again in 2600.
So ocean acidification is real, it is a problem, we are causing it, and solar shades won't help. Got any solar pepto bismol?
Is it _known_ to be a problem or is it _believed_ to be a problem? The
ancestors of those organisms have survived high CO2 levels before, not
just once, but several times including during most of the Cretaceous
IIRC. That certain authorities _think_ that bad things will happen is
not the same as knowing.
Post by William Hyde
William Hyde
Alan Baker
2018-11-29 23:41:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:17:36 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Really, Lynn. He didn't remotely say that the oceans "would not survive". A lot of damage can be done to the oceans - and to us and that economy you are so worried about - without making ocean life extinct. Some creatures already live in highly acidic waters and will spread. You probably won't want to eat them, though.
Evolution will allow ocean life to adapt to a slow change from 300ppm to even 2000 ppm. But we are changing ocean PH rapidly.
And a rapid change will cause problems. The closest thing to a natural rise in CO2 as fast as the current caused a rather large number of extinctions. It wasn't one of the major extinction events, but then, Eocene oceans were not also filled with plastic. (Any John Wyndham fan should know that a really great disaster is caused when we do two stupid things, not just one. Or aliens invade.)
This was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, where carbon was added to the atmosphere at about 2-5% of the current rate on average.
The oceans bounced back quite rapidly in geological terms and probably will again. A disaster lasting a mere century or ten we might not even notice in the geologic record. But we would certainly notice it in real time. Small consolation when fish stocks collapse by 2100 to know that they'll be booming again in 2600.
So ocean acidification is real, it is a problem, we are causing it, and solar shades won't help. Got any solar pepto bismol?
Is it _known_ to be a problem or is it _believed_ to be a problem? The
Ah. We're at that stage.
Post by J. Clarke
ancestors of those organisms have survived high CO2 levels before, not
just once, but several times including during most of the Cretaceous
IIRC. That certain authorities _think_ that bad things will happen is
not the same as knowing.
You assume that because organisms survived by evolutionary adaptation
that they'll be able to do so again?

Well... ...you're probably not wrong.

But what difference will it make to US if those organisms adapt over the
next 1000 years?
Lynn McGuire
2018-11-30 22:13:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:17:36 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Really, Lynn. He didn't remotely say that the oceans "would not survive". A lot of damage can be done to the oceans - and to us and that economy you are so worried about - without making ocean life extinct. Some creatures already live in highly acidic waters and will spread. You probably won't want to eat them, though.
Evolution will allow ocean life to adapt to a slow change from 300ppm to even 2000 ppm. But we are changing ocean PH rapidly.
And a rapid change will cause problems. The closest thing to a natural rise in CO2 as fast as the current caused a rather large number of extinctions. It wasn't one of the major extinction events, but then, Eocene oceans were not also filled with plastic. (Any John Wyndham fan should know that a really great disaster is caused when we do two stupid things, not just one. Or aliens invade.)
This was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, where carbon was added to the atmosphere at about 2-5% of the current rate on average.
The oceans bounced back quite rapidly in geological terms and probably will again. A disaster lasting a mere century or ten we might not even notice in the geologic record. But we would certainly notice it in real time. Small consolation when fish stocks collapse by 2100 to know that they'll be booming again in 2600.
So ocean acidification is real, it is a problem, we are causing it, and solar shades won't help. Got any solar pepto bismol?
Is it _known_ to be a problem or is it _believed_ to be a problem? The
ancestors of those organisms have survived high CO2 levels before, not
just once, but several times including during most of the Cretaceous
IIRC. That certain authorities _think_ that bad things will happen is
not the same as knowing.
Post by William Hyde
William Hyde
I wonder if the ocean acidification advocates have bothered to actually
build models of the "high" co2 environment using a salt water tank, some
coral, some fish, and a co2 bottle / regulator ?

Or, if they are just making computer models of what they think will happen.

This says that quite a few actual models have been built but the
experiments were difficult to run and the results were inconclusive.
The comments are amazing.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/04/ocean-acidification-trying-to-get-the-science-right/

Lynn
Peter Trei
2018-11-30 22:30:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:17:36 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Really, Lynn. He didn't remotely say that the oceans "would not survive". A lot of damage can be done to the oceans - and to us and that economy you are so worried about - without making ocean life extinct. Some creatures already live in highly acidic waters and will spread. You probably won't want to eat them, though.
Evolution will allow ocean life to adapt to a slow change from 300ppm to even 2000 ppm. But we are changing ocean PH rapidly.
And a rapid change will cause problems. The closest thing to a natural rise in CO2 as fast as the current caused a rather large number of extinctions. It wasn't one of the major extinction events, but then, Eocene oceans were not also filled with plastic. (Any John Wyndham fan should know that a really great disaster is caused when we do two stupid things, not just one. Or aliens invade.)
This was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, where carbon was added to the atmosphere at about 2-5% of the current rate on average.
The oceans bounced back quite rapidly in geological terms and probably will again. A disaster lasting a mere century or ten we might not even notice in the geologic record. But we would certainly notice it in real time. Small consolation when fish stocks collapse by 2100 to know that they'll be booming again in 2600.
So ocean acidification is real, it is a problem, we are causing it, and solar shades won't help. Got any solar pepto bismol?
Is it _known_ to be a problem or is it _believed_ to be a problem? The
ancestors of those organisms have survived high CO2 levels before, not
just once, but several times including during most of the Cretaceous
IIRC. That certain authorities _think_ that bad things will happen is
not the same as knowing.
Post by William Hyde
William Hyde
I wonder if the ocean acidification advocates have bothered to actually
build models of the "high" co2 environment using a salt water tank, some
coral, some fish, and a co2 bottle / regulator ?
Or, if they are just making computer models of what they think will happen.
This says that quite a few actual models have been built but the
experiments were difficult to run and the results were inconclusive.
The comments are amazing.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/04/ocean-acidification-trying-to-get-the-science-right/
Lynn
Well, yeah. That site's a shill for carbon producers.

Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and
non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com.
He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials
other than being a radio weather announcer. Watts is on the payroll of
the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.

pt
Titus G
2018-12-01 03:44:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
snip
Post by Peter Trei
Lynn
Well, yeah. That site's a shill for carbon producers.
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and
non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com.
He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials
other than being a radio weather announcer. Watts is on the payroll of
the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.
Why do you, William Hyde and others try to introduce science and logic
when Lynn has already clearly stated that AGW weather will be no more
predictable than climate especially when results can easily be altered
with the use of a cleverly placed parasol.
Losers. Just because you prove him wrong on millions of possibly trivial
irrelevant details doesn't disprove his basic premise that America will
be great again as it was when the Apache, the Commanche, et al, burnt
fossil fuels, (the buffalo could have been marinated in coconut oil),
with complete disregard for the consequent flooding of Houston somewhat
later.
(But I do enjoy reading your interesting posts and on behalf of Shorn
Foreskin, Fourbricks, Masturbaker, McDenuire and myself, thank you for
the comedy.)
William Hyde
2018-12-01 22:24:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Peter Trei
Lynn
Well, yeah. That site's a shill for carbon producers.
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and
non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com.
He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials
other than being a radio weather announcer. Watts is on the payroll of
the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.
Why do you, William Hyde and others try to introduce science and logic
It's like debating creationists: you will never convince the person you are talking to. But it's best not to let their assertions go unanswered.

I suppose I could go for a walk, instead, but it's cold outside and there are wolves.

William Hyde
Peter Trei
2018-11-30 22:35:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:17:36 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Really, Lynn. He didn't remotely say that the oceans "would not survive". A lot of damage can be done to the oceans - and to us and that economy you are so worried about - without making ocean life extinct. Some creatures already live in highly acidic waters and will spread. You probably won't want to eat them, though.
Evolution will allow ocean life to adapt to a slow change from 300ppm to even 2000 ppm. But we are changing ocean PH rapidly.
And a rapid change will cause problems. The closest thing to a natural rise in CO2 as fast as the current caused a rather large number of extinctions. It wasn't one of the major extinction events, but then, Eocene oceans were not also filled with plastic. (Any John Wyndham fan should know that a really great disaster is caused when we do two stupid things, not just one. Or aliens invade.)
This was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, where carbon was added to the atmosphere at about 2-5% of the current rate on average.
The oceans bounced back quite rapidly in geological terms and probably will again. A disaster lasting a mere century or ten we might not even notice in the geologic record. But we would certainly notice it in real time. Small consolation when fish stocks collapse by 2100 to know that they'll be booming again in 2600.
So ocean acidification is real, it is a problem, we are causing it, and solar shades won't help. Got any solar pepto bismol?
Is it _known_ to be a problem or is it _believed_ to be a problem? The
ancestors of those organisms have survived high CO2 levels before, not
just once, but several times including during most of the Cretaceous
IIRC. That certain authorities _think_ that bad things will happen is
not the same as knowing.
Post by William Hyde
William Hyde
I wonder if the ocean acidification advocates have bothered to actually
build models of the "high" co2 environment using a salt water tank, some
coral, some fish, and a co2 bottle / regulator ?
Or, if they are just making computer models of what they think will happen.
This says that quite a few actual models have been built but the
experiments were difficult to run and the results were inconclusive.
The comments are amazing.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/04/ocean-acidification-trying-to-get-the-science-right/
Lynn
It remains a fact that after spending most of the last 300 million years around
ph 8.2, in the past 200 years its dropped to 8.1, which is a 25% increase in
acidity.

pt
Scott Lurndal
2018-11-30 23:40:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
I wonder if the ocean acidification advocates have bothered to actually
build models of the "high" co2 environment using a salt water tank, some
coral, some fish, and a co2 bottle / regulator ?
Or, if they are just making computer models of what they think will happen.
Or maybe they actually measure the acidity of the water in various
places on the planet over a significant period of time? You know,

<https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Quality+of+pH+Measurements+in+the+NODC+Data+Archives>

The term ocean acidification, however, can be a bit misleading;
as the oceans are becoming less basic (but still on the high side of 7).
Scott Lurndal
2018-11-30 23:44:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
This says that quite a few actual models have been built but the
experiments were difficult to run and the results were inconclusive.
The comments are amazing.
<snip URL>

The comments are ridiculous, as are the comments on every
article on that site. A more trumpian environment is difficult
to imagine.
William Hyde
2018-12-01 22:21:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:17:36 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Really, Lynn. He didn't remotely say that the oceans "would not survive". A lot of damage can be done to the oceans - and to us and that economy you are so worried about - without making ocean life extinct. Some creatures already live in highly acidic waters and will spread. You probably won't want to eat them, though.
Evolution will allow ocean life to adapt to a slow change from 300ppm to even 2000 ppm. But we are changing ocean PH rapidly.
And a rapid change will cause problems. The closest thing to a natural rise in CO2 as fast as the current caused a rather large number of extinctions. It wasn't one of the major extinction events, but then, Eocene oceans were not also filled with plastic. (Any John Wyndham fan should know that a really great disaster is caused when we do two stupid things, not just one. Or aliens invade.)
This was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, where carbon was added to the atmosphere at about 2-5% of the current rate on average.
The oceans bounced back quite rapidly in geological terms and probably will again. A disaster lasting a mere century or ten we might not even notice in the geologic record. But we would certainly notice it in real time. Small consolation when fish stocks collapse by 2100 to know that they'll be booming again in 2600.
So ocean acidification is real, it is a problem, we are causing it, and solar shades won't help. Got any solar pepto bismol?
Is it _known_ to be a problem or is it _believed_ to be a problem? The
ancestors of those organisms have survived high CO2 levels before, not
just once, but several times including during most of the Cretaceous
IIRC. That certain authorities _think_ that bad things will happen is
not the same as knowing.
Post by William Hyde
William Hyde
I wonder
You shouldn't.

if the ocean acidification advocates have bothered to actually
Post by Lynn McGuire
build models of the "high" co2 environment using a salt water tank, some
coral, some fish, and a co2 bottle / regulator ?
Yes they have. I have attended seminars on life in a high-CO2 fluid (well, two - I'm retired).

I am neither a biochemist nor a biological oceanographer, but from what I hear the risk is to organisms that have shells (corals) and more complex life forms.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Or, if they are just making computer models of what they think will happen.
I don't believe there are any computer models on the effect of a .2 change in ph on, say, cod.

It's your case to make, anyway, that we can increase the acidity in which fish dwell with no or minor negative consequences. Get to work.

William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2018-12-04 18:10:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:17:36 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun to
curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-woul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQRvS
9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street Journal
coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said, “Seriously
addressing climate change means cutting carbon emissions and,
ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the atmosphere. There’s no
way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when talking
about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is talking strictly
about the technical feasibility of "space umbrellas," not the
advisability - a point Wagner himself makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a greenhouse gas. It
is a source of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the collapse of
ocean ecosystems as the formation of carbonate shells in everything from
plankton to coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm many
millions of years ago ?
Really, Lynn. He didn't remotely say that the oceans "would not survive". A lot of damage can be done to the oceans - and to us and that economy you are so worried about - without making ocean life extinct. Some creatures already live in highly acidic waters and will spread. You probably won't want to eat them, though.
Evolution will allow ocean life to adapt to a slow change from 300ppm to even 2000 ppm. But we are changing ocean PH rapidly.
And a rapid change will cause problems. The closest thing to a natural rise in CO2 as fast as the current caused a rather large number of extinctions. It wasn't one of the major extinction events, but then, Eocene oceans were not also filled with plastic. (Any John Wyndham fan should know that a really great disaster is caused when we do two stupid things, not just one. Or aliens invade.)
This was the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, where carbon was added to the atmosphere at about 2-5% of the current rate on average.
The oceans bounced back quite rapidly in geological terms and probably will again. A disaster lasting a mere century or ten we might not even notice in the geologic record. But we would certainly notice it in real time. Small consolation when fish stocks collapse by 2100 to know that they'll be booming again in 2600.
So ocean acidification is real, it is a problem, we are causing it, and solar shades won't help. Got any solar pepto bismol?
Is it _known_ to be a problem or is it _believed_ to be a problem? The
ancestors of those organisms have survived high CO2 levels before, not
just once, but several times including during most of the Cretaceous
IIRC. That certain authorities _think_ that bad things will happen is
not the same as knowing.
Post by William Hyde
William Hyde
I wonder
You shouldn't.
if the ocean acidification advocates have bothered to actually
Post by Lynn McGuire
build models of the "high" co2 environment using a salt water tank, some
coral, some fish, and a co2 bottle / regulator ?
Yes they have. I have attended seminars on life in a high-CO2 fluid (well, two - I'm retired).
I am neither a biochemist nor a biological oceanographer, but from what I hear the risk is to organisms that have shells (corals) and more complex life forms.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Or, if they are just making computer models of what they think will happen.
I don't believe there are any computer models on the effect of a .2 change in ph on, say, cod.
It's your case to make, anyway, that we can increase the acidity in which fish dwell with no or minor negative consequences. Get to work.
William Hyde
Heh, the world is performing the experiment of doubling the atomospheric
CO2 over the next umpteen years no matter what you or I want. My
customers are busily adding more and more LNG liquefaction trains at $10
billion each for the hungry Asian energy markets. One of them has 12 of
them operating now.

Lynn
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-11-29 21:51:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 4:57:33 PM UTC-5, Jibini
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
"Researchers say it would be cheap and doable to dim the sun
to curb global warming"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/researchers-say-w
oul
d-cheap-and-doable-dim-sun-curb-global-warming/0g5Lg18Cv3ycYfQ
RvS 9PZP/story.html
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state
bothers you, turn off their sunshine.
You should read what you post links to.
"Wagner himself in a February 2018 essay in the Wall Street
Journal coauthored with a Harvard economics professor said,
“Seriously addressing climate change means cutting carbon
emissions and, ultimately, reducing the carbon already in the
atmosphere. There’s no way around it.”"
(Wagner is one of the authors of the paper.)
You really are becoming Shawn Wilson, dude.
(Also, neither author appears to be within his field when
talking about climatology. Wagner is an engineer, and is
talking strictly about the technical feasibility of "space
umbrellas," not the advisability - a point Wagner himself
makes in the article.)
Rising CO2 has other negative effects besides acting as a
greenhouse gas. It is a source of ocean acidification, which is
contributing to the collapse of ocean ecosystems as the
formation of carbonate shells in everything from plankton to
coral reefs becomes more difficult.
pt
How did the oceans survive when the CO2 hit well over 1,000 ppm
many millions of years ago ?
How many mass extinctions have there been?
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-11-30 00:54:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
David DeLaney
2018-12-04 21:08:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
How many mass extinctions have there been?
Five.
Well, five back in history. We've been in the middle of the sixth for some
time now.

Correlated disturbing recent discovery: it seems that in many places, the
number of insects - not the number of species, but the actual quantities of
existing bugs - has dropped sharply over the last few decades. Nobody noticed
until recently because the counting efforts were focussed on how many kinds of
bugs were there, not on how many period - but once it was noticed, certain
long-term studies existed that did let them confirm this was happening.

Possible consequences are scary, including ramifications for birds, bats, fish,
and amphibians as insectivores, as well as the impact on pollinating species.
(Short version: "oh fuck, the human food supply"...)

Dave, NYT article recently
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Lynn McGuire
2018-12-04 21:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
How many mass extinctions have there been?
Five.
Well, five back in history. We've been in the middle of the sixth for some
time now.
Correlated disturbing recent discovery: it seems that in many places, the
number of insects - not the number of species, but the actual quantities of
existing bugs - has dropped sharply over the last few decades. Nobody noticed
until recently because the counting efforts were focussed on how many kinds of
bugs were there, not on how many period - but once it was noticed, certain
long-term studies existed that did let them confirm this was happening.
Possible consequences are scary, including ramifications for birds, bats, fish,
and amphibians as insectivores, as well as the impact on pollinating species.
(Short version: "oh fuck, the human food supply"...)
Dave, NYT article recently
I'll put the number of mosquitos here in Fort Bend County up against any
previous time period.

That and the dadgum hoot owl who sits outside my window every other
month for a couple of nights. He now has a family.

Lynn
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-12-04 20:57:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by David DeLaney
On 11/29/2018 1:51 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
How many mass extinctions have there been?
Five.
Well, five back in history. We've been in the middle of the
sixth for some time now.
Correlated disturbing recent discovery: it seems that in many
places, the number of insects - not the number of species, but
the actual quantities of existing bugs - has dropped sharply
over the last few decades. Nobody noticed until recently
because the counting efforts were focussed on how many kinds of
bugs were there, not on how many period - but once it was
noticed, certain long-term studies existed that did let them
confirm this was happening.
Possible consequences are scary, including ramifications for
birds, bats, fish, and amphibians as insectivores, as well as
the impact on pollinating species. (Short version: "oh fuck,
the human food supply"...)
Dave, NYT article recently
I'll put the number of mosquitos here in Fort Bend County up
against any previous time period.
Mosquitos are not noted for their habit of pollinating food crops.
Post by Lynn McGuire
That and the dadgum hoot owl who sits outside my window every
other month for a couple of nights. He now has a family.
And owls are not insects.

Any more irrelevant nonsense?

The difference between liberals and conservatives isn't that one
has TDS and the other does, it's that one suffers from it, and the
other enjoys it. The hallucinations don't really change much.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Scott Lurndal
2018-12-04 22:08:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
I'll put the number of mosquitos here in Fort Bend County up
against any previous time period.
Mosquitos are not noted for their habit of pollinating food crops.
Not as a first order effect, but bat guano as a pretty good
fertilizer is a second-order effect.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-12-04 23:35:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
I'll put the number of mosquitos here in Fort Bend County up
against any previous time period.
Mosquitos are not noted for their habit of pollinating food crops.
Not as a first order effect, but bat guano as a pretty good
fertilizer is a second-order effect.
Which can be synthesized.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-12-05 06:18:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Lynn McGuire
I'll put the number of mosquitos here in Fort Bend County up
against any previous time period.
Mosquitos are not noted for their habit of pollinating food crops.
Not as a first order effect, but bat guano as a pretty good
fertilizer is a second-order effect.
Bypass the intermediary steps and just go straight to blood sacrifices
in the fields. Much more efficient.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Titus G
2018-11-29 06:51:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 29/11/18 10:26 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
snip
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon.  If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
Lynn
What if the New Kingdom of the Philippines annoys the Okies or Looeasys
first? Given that their umbrellas will be smaller and they will need
more of them, shouldn't their sunshine be turned off before they become
powerful enough to threaten you?

The main problem will be to control the umbrella. I have done no
research but from general knowledge and from what my own experience has
confirmed several times, umbrellas sometimes rip or hole which is
surprising given how little use they are subject to before becoming lost.

Out of curiosity, boredom or maybe because he had just shared a joint, a
cabin crew person would push the sprung open button on the handle
before the BFR delivers the brolly.
William Hyde
2018-12-01 22:27:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
Good one, Lynn.

William Hyde
Robert Carnegie
2018-12-02 03:08:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
Good one, Lynn.
William Hyde
It worked for Sauron! Until it didn't.
Lynn McGuire
2018-12-02 22:54:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
Good one, Lynn.
William Hyde
Thanks, I am fairly sure that I read that in a SF book somewhere and
sometime.

Lynn
Peter Trei
2018-12-03 02:56:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
Good one, Lynn.
William Hyde
Thanks, I am fairly sure that I read that in a SF book somewhere and
sometime.
The idea goes right back to Johnathan Swift.

pt
William Hyde
2018-12-03 19:55:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
Good one, Lynn.
William Hyde
Thanks, I am fairly sure that I read that in a SF book somewhere and
sometime.
The idea goes right back to Johnathan Swift.
pt
And I believe that Lynn was using it in a Swiftian way.

William Hyde
Lynn McGuire
2018-12-03 23:08:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
Good one, Lynn.
William Hyde
Thanks, I am fairly sure that I read that in a SF book somewhere and
sometime.
The idea goes right back to Johnathan Swift.
pt
And I believe that Lynn was using it in a Swiftian way.
William Hyde
I haven't read the Johnathan Swift book(s) since I was a teenager. I
barely remember yesterday much less them !

Lynn
Peter Trei
2018-12-04 00:25:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
Good one, Lynn.
William Hyde
Thanks, I am fairly sure that I read that in a SF book somewhere and
sometime.
The idea goes right back to Johnathan Swift.
pt
And I believe that Lynn was using it in a Swiftian way.
William Hyde
I haven't read the Johnathan Swift book(s) since I was a teenager. I
barely remember yesterday much less them !
"If any town should engage in rebellion or mutiny, fall into violent factions, or refuse to pay the
usual tribute, the king has two methods of reducing them to obedience. The first and the mildest
course is, by keeping the island hovering over such a town, and the lands about it, whereby he
can deprive them of the benefit of the sun and the rain, and consequently afflict the inhabitants
with dearth and diseases: and if the crime deserve it, they are at the same time pelted from
above with great stones, against which they have no defence but by creeping into cellars or
caves, while the roofs of their houses are beaten to pieces. But if they still continue obstinate, or
offer to raise insurrections, he proceeds to the last remedy, by letting the island drop directly upon
their heads, which makes a universal destruction both of houses and men. However, this is an
extremity to which the prince is seldom driven, neither indeed is he willing to put it in execution;
nor dare his ministers advise him to an action, which, as it would render them odious to the
people, so it would be a great damage to their own estates, which all lie below; for the island is
the king’s demesne."
Lynn McGuire
2018-12-04 18:11:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
Good one, Lynn.
William Hyde
Thanks, I am fairly sure that I read that in a SF book somewhere and
sometime.
The idea goes right back to Johnathan Swift.
pt
And I believe that Lynn was using it in a Swiftian way.
William Hyde
I haven't read the Johnathan Swift book(s) since I was a teenager. I
barely remember yesterday much less them !
"If any town should engage in rebellion or mutiny, fall into violent factions, or refuse to pay the
usual tribute, the king has two methods of reducing them to obedience. The first and the mildest
course is, by keeping the island hovering over such a town, and the lands about it, whereby he
can deprive them of the benefit of the sun and the rain, and consequently afflict the inhabitants
with dearth and diseases: and if the crime deserve it, they are at the same time pelted from
above with great stones, against which they have no defence but by creeping into cellars or
caves, while the roofs of their houses are beaten to pieces. But if they still continue obstinate, or
offer to raise insurrections, he proceeds to the last remedy, by letting the island drop directly upon
their heads, which makes a universal destruction both of houses and men. However, this is an
extremity to which the prince is seldom driven, neither indeed is he willing to put it in execution;
nor dare his ministers advise him to an action, which, as it would render them odious to the
people, so it would be a great damage to their own estates, which all lie below; for the island is
the king’s demesne."
Thanks !

Lynn
William Hyde
2018-12-04 19:33:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
Good one, Lynn.
William Hyde
Thanks, I am fairly sure that I read that in a SF book somewhere and
sometime.
The idea goes right back to Johnathan Swift.
pt
And I believe that Lynn was using it in a Swiftian way.
William Hyde
I haven't read the Johnathan Swift book(s) since I was a teenager. I
barely remember yesterday much less them !
Many people use satire as Swift did without having read a word of him, as I did for years.

You'd like him. A conservative curmudgeon who did his best to undermine those socialists, Marlborough and Godolphin. He probably wore a MEGA(1) hat - doffing it once in a while for his MIGA hat.

(1) Yes, I know.

William Hyde
Kevrob
2018-12-04 22:55:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
Good one, Lynn.
William Hyde
Thanks, I am fairly sure that I read that in a SF book somewhere and
sometime.
The idea goes right back to Johnathan Swift.
pt
And I believe that Lynn was using it in a Swiftian way.
William Hyde
I haven't read the Johnathan Swift book(s) since I was a teenager. I
barely remember yesterday much less them !
Many people use satire as Swift did without having read a word of him, as I did for years.
You'd like him. A conservative curmudgeon who did his best to undermine those socialists, Marlborough and Godolphin. He probably wore a MEGA(1) hat - doffing it once in a while for his MIGA hat.
Any MIGAing would have required sending his Ascendancy butt, and
those of his West British cronies, back to MEGAland. :)
Post by William Hyde
(1) Yes, I know.
William Hyde
William Hyde
2018-12-05 20:30:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by William Hyde
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have been advocating space umbrellas for quite a while now.
Plus they could be used as a weapon. If your neighbor state bothers
you, turn off their sunshine.
Good one, Lynn.
William Hyde
Thanks, I am fairly sure that I read that in a SF book somewhere and
sometime.
The idea goes right back to Johnathan Swift.
pt
And I believe that Lynn was using it in a Swiftian way.
William Hyde
I haven't read the Johnathan Swift book(s) since I was a teenager. I
barely remember yesterday much less them !
Many people use satire as Swift did without having read a word of him, as I did for years.
You'd like him. A conservative curmudgeon who did his best to undermine those socialists, Marlborough and Godolphin. He probably wore a MEGA(1) hat - doffing it once in a while for his MIGA hat.
Any MIGAing
But remember, his I and your I coincide only geographically.

would have required sending his Ascendancy butt, and
Post by Kevrob
those of his West British cronies, back to MEGAland. :)
Plenty of ironies here. That's more or less what they did to Sheridan's dad, and he actually was Irish.

Costume dramas set in Ireland can produce a lot of tooth grinding, as it's far too expensive to throw the TV against the wall.

William Hyde

Loading...