From: antispam@fricas.org   
      
   john larkin  wrote:   
   > On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 12:51:26 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid   
   > (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:   
   >   
   >>Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 21/02/2026 11:55 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
   >>> > Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>> >   
   >>> >   
   >>> >> Anthropogenic global warming has already raised sea surface temperatures   
   >>> >> by more than one degree Celcius over pre-industrial levels. That puts   
   >>> >> 10% more water vapour in the air above the oceans, and 10% more energy   
   >>> >> tinto extreme weather events.   
   >>> >   
   >>> > Where would that energy have gone otherwise?   
   >>>   
   >>> Obviously into warming the oceans even more. This decreases the amount   
   >>> of CO2 they can take up, but since CO2 levels in the atmosphere are   
   >>> going up a lot faster than the oceans are warming up, this is a long   
   >>> term problem. At the moment  about half the extra CO2 we are emitting   
   >>> ends up in the oceans   
   >>   
   >>A wam ocean leads to more cloud cover which reflects more energy into   
   >>space which reduces the overall energy input from the Sun.  Sounds as   
   >>though the system might be stable in the long term.   
   >   
   > Pretty obviously we have negative feedbacks, otherwise we'd be Venus.   
      
   Of course thare are negaive feedbacks.  First, as temperature grows   
   Earth emits more heat radiation.  This grows with fourth power of   
   temperature, so it is pretty strong effect.   
      
   But you ignore simple thing: system with negative feedback and   
   delay will oscilate.  And there are a lot of delays in the   
   system.  There is also a lot of nonlinearties.  When you   
   gradually turn on power to an oscilator it will probably   
   not surprise you that with growth of supplay voltage   
   you get bigger amplitude of oscilations on the output.   
   Depending of details it would not surprise me seeing   
   negative peaks going lower with bigger voltage.  Yet, when   
   you see oscilations in natural system you act as you   
   never saw an oscilator.   
      
   Concerning limits, I do not think Venus-like scenario is   
   possible for Earth.  But having Carbon again wound be very   
   hard for people.  Tropical areas probably would be   
   inihibitable by humans in such a case.  There would be   
   disastrous impact on agriculture: plants that we know   
   how to handle and which we selected over thousends of   
   years would be badly adapted.  Antarctica would melt   
   signifcantly reducing habitable land.  More energy in   
   atmosphere means strongee winds, torndoes, flooding etc.   
   Our current architecture is build on certain assumptions   
   about climate, with changed climate many current buildings   
   will be destroyed and we will need new ones.   
      
   It is not clear to me if attemps to stabilize temperature at   
   level as it was 100 years ago is wise.  Namely there are   
   natural variations and fighting natural change may take   
   too much effort.  But our current impact is larger than   
   natural variations on similar time scale and without global   
   climate control policy will grow.   
      
   Of course, so people want to be "free riders", that is collect   
   benefits but let the other do the work.  This seem to be current   
   US policy.  And of course much of business works on principle   
   "get money now", leaving troubles to government and future   
   generations.  Of course, there is hipocrisy too: European   
   governments are much less eager to adapt electric cars now,   
   when it turned out that Chinese ones are better than European   
   ones.   
      
   But believing that nothing serious is happening to climate   
   is just ignores solid data (which a lot of politicians like   
   to do).   
      
   --   
                                 Waldek Hebisch   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)