Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Say Goodbye to Global Warming

 Pages:  1  2  

IrC - 17-11-2011 at 17:12

"petition site currently lists more than 31,000 signatories"

From the very Wiki page you linked to. What you are saying is I am a liar because these people are not 'reputable'? Then you put the burden of proof as to their so called 'reputability' on me? Bull, I merely reported what I had read. If you can prove they are not 'reputable' then shut up and do so one by one, all you need to do is prove 30,000 of them are not 'reputable' on a case by case basis to prove I am a liar. I live in America and the premise here is 'innocent until proven guilty'. I could not care less how things run in the country you reside in. By the way implying distortion on my part is calling me a liar just in case you are going to further twist things playing with semantics. Lying implies I was purposely altering truth as opposed to merely reporting what I have read in many reports which is actually the case. Next you claim you caught me distorting facts somewhere else. Vain words without proof. If you have an accusation the burden of proof is on you the accuser. State specifically, precisely, what 'lies' you claim I make and prove your case.

It would be helpful for you to mature to the point that you could refute an opinion by others especially if all they were doing was reporting things they have read without resorting to attack tactics such as calling people 'distorter's of truth' otherwise known as 'liars'.

Of course this is only possible for those who do not have the personality of a rope as seen by the need to say this "Edit: Added quote from original claim to prevent post-hoc editing:". Why would you feel this statement necessary? Is it because this is what you would do and to justify the manner in which you would behave it is needed to imply this is what I would do? I have long known from observation the left always accuses the right of the very things the left do as a matter of normal procedure, while these actions are never taken by the right. Also normal activity is when the left cannot win a debate on it's merits they invariably resort to character assassination as evidenced by so many of your words in this thread. You are claiming 31,000 people are all liars so therefore I am also a liar to bring up the subject of their petition. Of course you are claiming that out of the 31,001 people only you are the bringer of truth. One thing you have accomplished is you have removed all desire on my part to ever waste my time replying to your posts in the future. "I caught you distorting scientific facts" again I say before you can call me a liar prove it. I asked you to state these comments by me that you are claiming as lies and prove it, but you have yet to do so. All I see is rather than defend properly your position in this thread you prefer to turn it into this argument full of your endless character attacks in an effort to destroy the thread. I will only carry this quagmire you are creating out so far, to exercise the right I have to defend myself from the very large number of accusations and insults you are spewing out against me.

Yes I added these last few lines after the post below as this is where these observations fit. But no I did not remove any words as you imply I would likely do in yet another one of your endless false accusations.


[Edited on 11-18-2011 by IrC]

watson.fawkes - 17-11-2011 at 17:47

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
By the way implying distortion on my part is calling me a liar just in case you are going to further twist things playing with semantics.
Distortion can be the result of misplaced political idealism. The ordinary meaning of "lie" requires forming an intent to deceive. So sure, you're either a dupe or a liar. Whatever. You still don't get to have your own facts.

Argue with this page criticizing the completely inflated numbers associated with this study: http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-oism-petition-project.html.

IrC - 17-11-2011 at 19:39

You are the one turning this thread into a name calling character assassinating argue fest so if you have a link you want argued with I suggest you go argue with yourself. I am not going to be dragged into whatever it is you are trying to turn this debate into. Go waste someone Else's time.

bquirky - 21-11-2011 at 00:47

falsification people


its not science if its not falsifiable.

This is the key flaw in AGW. Any result will be made to confirm it.

watson.fawkes - 21-11-2011 at 05:59

Quote: Originally posted by bquirky  
falsification people

its not science if its not falsifiable.
How is this situation any different from astronomy and evolution? Both are situations where you cannot put the system in a lab, put it into some desired initial condition, and watch to see what happens. There are rather a lot of things people study scientifically where you don't have this notion of experimentation. Sometimes the inability to perform a lab experiment arises because of impossibility, as with astronomy. Sometimes it arises because of ethical concerns, as with physiology; see any number of medical experiment review boards.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you believe astronomy is a science.

Mr. Wizard - 21-11-2011 at 08:08

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes  
Quote: Originally posted by bquirky  
falsification people

its not science if its not falsifiable.
How is this situation any different from astronomy and evolution? Both are situations where you cannot put the system in a lab, put it into some desired initial condition, and watch to see what happens. There are rather a lot of things people study scientifically where you don't have this notion of experimentation. Sometimes the inability to perform a lab experiment arises because of impossibility, as with astronomy. Sometimes it arises because of ethical concerns, as with physiology; see any number of medical experiment review boards.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you believe astronomy is a science.


I almost wonder if you are serious with this.

There are many facets to astronomy, but let's just pick one.The theory that gravity is the dominant force responsible for predicting where objects will be a short time into the future. Every prediction is a test of that theory. There were discrepancies , such as the position of Mercury. New theories were proposed, and tested, yielding closer results. Predictions were made about the positions of stars near the edge of the solar disk being moved by the curvature of space by gravity. These were tested, and found closer to the truth than the previous non relativistic theories.

The whole point about science is it CAN be tested, just as the latest CERN neutrinos arriving ahead of schedule throw doubt on the speed of light being the fastest possible. There won't be anybody thrown in jail or burned at the stake if experimental results don't conform to predictions. The opposite of theoretical science is a dogmatic religious or cultural idea that resists inspection or testing or change.

Evolution does a much better job of understanding, predicting and explaining than does 'intelligent design'. For starters, if intelligent design is the source of life, what is the explanation of it's source? What test can we do that would cast doubt on it?


ScienceSquirrel - 21-11-2011 at 08:25

According to the news today it is unlikely that a new treaty will be in place to curb global emissions of carbon dioxide before 2020 and emissions are likely to increase in this period.
Should there be a link between the amount of carbon dioxide and global temperature then I think this will be a good test.
It should be noted that this is a one time shot as an experiment and if there is a strong positive link then we may be in the shit up to our pits.
The postion of Mercury has no effect on life on Earth at all but a couple of degrees Centigrade added to global temperatues will have a huge effect.

bquirky - 21-11-2011 at 10:00


"According to the news today it is unlikely that a new treaty will be in place to curb global emissions of carbon dioxide before 2020 and emissions are likely to increase in this period.
Should there be a link between the amount of carbon dioxide and global temperature then I think this will be a good test."

This is __exactly__ what i mean.

if a measurement of choice goes up it will be considered proof of AGW
if nothing happens no one will consider AGW Falsified.

its not science !

astronomy,geology,evolutionary biology,paleontology, just because you cant put the whole earth in a lab or you don't have a time machine doesn't get you off the hook.



watson.fawkes - 21-11-2011 at 10:06

Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard  
The theory that gravity is the dominant force responsible for predicting where objects will be a short time into the future. Every prediction is a test of that theory. There were discrepancies , such as the position of Mercury. New theories were proposed, and tested, yielding closer results.
I think you miss the point I was making, which is exactly that there's a whole class of science that works by successive refinements of models to observations made outside of a laboratory. Climate science is exactly such a science.

Rosco Bodine - 21-11-2011 at 11:02

There is a transitional realm between science and philosophy where reasonable persons may reasonably disagree. Indeed there are or at least were formerly
many scientists whose higher degrees were in philosophy rather than mathematics. Even for a scientist having no faith, then philosophy becomes the
proxy as a "god of the gaps" to fill in those blanks where mathematics and physics has not adequately described prerceived or theorized "reality".

Science does have its "gray areas" and weather prediction even week to week, sometimes even day to day is definitely an inexact science. Global climate modeling involves complexities which are profound so this entire business of analysis and planning should never be "oversimplified" when it may not even be possible to be reduced to simplest terms for easy human comprehension.

Polverone - 21-11-2011 at 11:10

Quote: Originally posted by bquirky  
falsification people


its not science if its not falsifiable.

This is the key flaw in AGW. Any result will be made to confirm it.


If over the next few decades atmospheric GHG levels continue to rise but global average temperatures stay stable or decline, I would say that IPCC predictions have been falsified. It looks falsifiable to me.

Vogelzang - 21-11-2011 at 14:49

Climate Refugees, Not Found

In 2005, the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) published a color-coded map under the headline "Fifty million climate refugees by 2010." The primary source for the prediction was a 2005 paper by environmental scientist Norman Myers.

Six years later, this flood of refugees is nowhere to be found, global average temperatures are about where they were when the prediction was made and the U.N. has done a vanishing act of its own, wiping the inconvenient map from its servers.

The map, which can still be found elsewhere on the Web, disappeared from the program's site sometime after April 11, when Gavin Atkins asked on AsianCorrespondent.com: "What happened to the climate refugees?" It's now 2011 and, as Mr. Atkins points out, many of the locales that the map identified as likely sources of climate refugees are "not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world."

View the UNEP's climate-refugee prediction map .The program's spokesman tells us the map vanished because "it's not a UNEP prediction. . . . that graphic did not represent UNEP views and was an oversimplification of UNEP views." He added that the program would like to publish a clarification, now that journalists are "making hay of it," except that the staffers able to do so are "all on holiday for Easter."

The climate-refugee prediction isn't the first global warming-related claim that has turned out to be laughable, and everyone can make mistakes. More troubling is the impulse among some advocates of global warming alarmism to assert in the face of contrary evidence that they never said what they definitely said before the evidence went against them.

These columns have asked for some time how anyone can still manage to take the U.N.-led climate crowd seriously. Maybe the more pertinent question is whether the climateers have ever taken the public's intelligence seriously.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870465870457627...



IrC - 21-11-2011 at 17:22

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/16/the-un-disappears-50-milli...



[file]16611[/file]

Since the Scientists and organizations responsible for this report and the following deletion/cover up are not on the petition does that make them 'reputable' even though the 31,000 who disagree are not (according to at least one person here)?

This time it’s the coral – the latest failed climate prediction

http://asiancorrespondent.com/53552/this-time-it%E2%80%99s-t...

After all how dare those petition signers exist when there is nothing but truth from all those defending the 'science' of GW? As for myself I think it is time for any who purport to be scientists to take a hard look at their GW 'science'.


"Notorious" Bias Affects IPCC Climate Models - Unable To Successfully Predict Abrupt Climate Changes

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/10/notorious-bias-affects-ip...


Abrupt Climate Change Simulations

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N43/C1.php


[Edited on 11-22-2011 by IrC]

un_50million800x600.jpg - 61kB

francis - 22-11-2011 at 10:28

Hey IrC,

From February to July of 2012, I am taking my third year analytical chemistry subject, CHEM327, at the University of Wollongong, in Australia.

The subject coordinator is a guy named Dr Stephen Wilson. Here is his Uni page:
http://www.uow.edu.au/science/chem/academics/UOW040180.html

He is an atmospheric chemist.

He is also the Head of the School of Chemistry at UOW.

He works at the Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution station, in Tasmania:

http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/cgbaps/

From that site:

Quote:

The Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station was established in 1976 to monitor and study global atmospheric composition. It measures: greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Measurements have shown more than a 15% increase in carbon dioxide since first taken in 1976 stratospheric ozone depleting chemicals, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)


Dr. Clare Murphy is the subject coordinator for another subject I'll take next session, called Instrumental Analysis. She's also the subject coordinator for second year physical chemistry.

You can see a picture of herself, and Steve Wilson on this page:

http://www.greenhouse2011.com/UserFiles/Presentation/present...

(Steve Wilson is wearing the green jumper, he has a beard and glasses, number 6 from the left. Clare Murphy is the short-haired women, immediately to his left - that is she's 7th from the left).

The Cape Grim station is operated jointly by the CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

Here is the data that's obtained from Cape Grim: it is a graph showing, as you'll be able to see, the measured concentration of CO2 at that station from 1976 to 2011.
http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/

They refer to various Greenhouse gases, and define them, as being measured:

Most GHGs (for example carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs, sulfur hexafluoride) have shown continuous increases in concentration since the mid-to-late 1970s. The growth of some GHGs (for example methane) has slowed recently and some are in decline (CFCs and halons for example). Since the station first began measurements in 1976, carbon dioxide levels have increased by more than 15 per cent. Concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide at Cape Grim have also increased significantly since 1978 by about 20 and 8 per cent respectively. These increases are mostly likely caused by human activities such as fossil fuel consumption and various agricultural practices.

There's a list of the gases, and their measurements since the station began operation.

They refer to pre-industrial concentrations of CO2:


Quote:

Comparison to pre-industrial concentrations Carbon dioxide concentrations in the air were reasonably stable (typically quoted as 278 ppm) before industrialisation (in the timeframe of human existence). Since industrialisation (typically measured from the mid-18th century), carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by about 40 per cent, based on measurements from Cape Grim and on air samples collected from Antarctic ice at Law Dome.



All the instrumental methods are listed; ie the instruments they've use to measure the greenhouse gases.

The quote from the CSIRO-BOM page, referring to greenhouse gas increases, and their causes:

"Since the station first began measurements in 1976, carbon dioxide levels have increased by more than 15 per cent. Concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide at Cape Grim have also increased significantly since 1978 by about 20 and 8 per cent respectively. These increases are mostly likely caused by human activities such as fossil fuel consumption and various agricultural practices.


I'm 25 years old, I am studying my third year of a chemistry degree.

I don't watch the news, nor do I read the Daily Caller (aside from today when I checked the links you posted...it seems like a political website).

Should I disregard what my lecturers tell me? I don't have the time, knowledge and instrumentation to go and measure greenhouse gases on my own.

In Australia, for most young scientists soon to graduate, the CSIRO has a pretty high reputation.

Are they not telling the truth? I am being as earnest as I can possibly be:

Do I ignore what the Head of the schoool of the subject I am studying is teaching me, do I ignore the statements of the scientists who work at the CSIRO, do I ignore a third of the CHEM327 subject matter?

I don't like politics. I dislike it, because it seems like a sports game where people pick a team, or have their team picked, and they back that team no matter what....they change or disregard the facts, they slam the other team, they make up these fantastic stories that maybe true, may not be true - but can never be proved or disproved as true.

But what they never do, what they NEVER do, is sit back and say, "Hm. Maybe that guy, despite that he's on the other team, maybe he is right. Let me think about that."

They always say he's wrong. Flat out wrong - and that's that.

How often do you read the news? How often do you read atmospheric chemistry journals?

I never read either - but I'm enrolled in a course taught by an atmospheric chemist, who is also the Head of School of the subject that I study.

But you think he's lying? Or it's all made up? Some sort of political agenda?

So put yourself in my shoes - I dunno how old you are, but now you're a 25 year old, 3rd year chemistry student who is about to study a subject about atmospheric chemistry, of which one of the components is greenhouse chemistry.

Do you stay home and miss those lectures because you already know the answer?

Do you put politics and news aside, just for an hour, and go to the lecture, keeping an honest and open mind....and after the lecture is done, go speak to the lecturer, and say, "I know you're involved in a cover up!'

What do you do?



---------

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/16/the-un-disappears-50-milli...


Since the Scientists and organizations responsible for this report and the following deletion/cover up are not on the petition does that make them 'reputable' even though the 31,000 who disagree are not (according to at least one person here)?

This time it’s the coral – the latest failed climate prediction

http://asiancorrespondent.com/53552/this-time-it%E2%80%99s-t...

After all how dare those petition signers exist when there is nothing but truth from all those defending the 'science' of GW? As for myself I think it is time for any who purport to be scientists to take a hard look at their GW 'science'.


"Notorious" Bias Affects IPCC Climate Models - Unable To Successfully Predict Abrupt Climate Changes

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/10/notorious-bias-affects-ip...


Abrupt Climate Change Simulations

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N43/C1.php


[Edited on 11-22-2011 by IrC]

497 - 22-11-2011 at 14:59

Francis, I don't think there was much disagreement with the CO2 measurements. Nobody was saying they were falsified. The assumption that CO2 must be the main cause of climate change is what many people are skeptical about. Can your professor show you the irrefutable evidence for that?

Nobody said miss your lectures. Just don't take it as fact without doing your own investigating. Getting all your information from one source is never going to reveal reality.

I really do agree with your assessment of politics though.

IrC - 22-11-2011 at 15:04

francis what I think is it should not be needed for you to ask me whether or not to listen to a lecture assuming you are being taught critical thinking skills. Assuming you are being taught reading comprehension you would have been able to tell from my posts that nowhere have I ever once uttered words to the effect you should not listen to your teachers. Therefore your questions directed to me are without basis in reality. Critical thinking would have shown several things at once. Reading comprehension would have prevented you from directing your questions at me for anything I have said.

One aspect of critical thinking is: it is not the measurements being made but rather the predictions being put forth from those numbers that is in question in either the stories or in my posts. One would think if you kept getting all the answers on your tests wrong you would not be doing well in school. Likewise with predictions which endlessly come forth and endlessly fail. Critical thinking would show that just because a story is on a news site with a political orientation you are biased against and/or being taught to be biased against does not mean the story is untrue. You see like others here due to political bias you shoot the source having never once critically reviewed the story nor any of the evidence it puts forth. Shoot the messenger to hell with the truth. Critical thinking would lead one to wonder why it is always the right putting forth these stories and give due consideration to the fact that the bias from the left causes the left to cover up the truth of their errors, and the reason you only read these stories on sites you are being taught bias against is in reality due to the simple fact that these sites are the only ones out there uncovering the truth.

Or does the story of the U.N. organization 'scrubbing' the site with their errors in prediction mean nothing to you? Is it not a glaring example of hiding errors, one of so many there is not enough time in an average persons day to find them all.

If the scientific community were policing themselves to eliminate errors, lies, agendas aimed at protecting grant money offered by organizations famous for their bias towards one political line of reasoning, and so on; then possibly there would not be a need for investigative reporting aimed at showing the world the real truth behind these predictions. Instead the failed predictions are hidden, whitewashed, ignored, and buried in history. Or have you forgotten these same scientists or in general the entire global scientific community was just as positive and just as loud in proclaiming to the world that we were heading into an ice age during the 1970's. Were they liars then or are they liars now? Were they simply this ignorant then yet they are so smart now? If we could not trust them then why should we trust them now?

I will bet you right now your teachers have not taught you in depth any of the history behind this have they. In fact I have no doubt zero mention has been made of any of this.

The simple answer to your question is listen to the lectures keeping an open mind as to any conclusions. If you trust the people making measurements are both honest and accurate then trust the readings but try with a purely open scientific mind to ascertain what the data is telling you. It is not untrue that the predictions in the stories I linked were made and it is not untrue that all of these predictions were in error. Either in time or in totality or both.

What you are doing is focusing on who told the story and therefore completely discounting it while never once actually researching the facts put forth. If this is what you are being taught to do and this is how you are being taught to think then might I suggest you are in the wrong place of to learn? For all of the time and money your teachers are costing you is this the extent of the critical thinking and reading comprehension skills you have gained? Instead of hoping all knowledge will be handed to you, try learning what you can with an open mind and at the same time applying yourself to broaden your knowledge outside of the classroom you spend time in. 30 years from now you will be amazed at how much you thought you knew now but did not.

Reading this post again it does sound like I am coming off a little harsh or judgmental towards you but this is not my intent. I am not on the attack but rather pointing out what I see from reading your post in terms of biased thinking. If not biased then at minimum the lack of using a broader outlook on the issue. Not to be overcritical of you specifically, rather I see this in virtually everyone I talk to in your age group especially when they are still in the middle of their college years. While it is true any politically orientated news source is going to have their own view on a subject this does not mean you cannot look at the specific facts in each story and judge based upon the merits of each case in question. For example we know the UN had that map posted and we know they erased it from existence, or at least they tried. This leads one to think they have something to hide which implies at worst bias and at least a lack of credibility. Leaving your mistakes out there and putting forth corrections showing you are trying to be honest in my mind gives you greater credibility than trying to bury your mistakes. To me this means you are trying to be honest and are not afraid to admit your mistakes, and are therefore equally honest when you put forth new, more accurate information. This to me increases your credibility whereas going too far in CYA mode in the other direction destroys credibility. Of course the 'your' in this case is the U.N. and their scientists. On the issue of biased thinking in posts previous concerning the petition, a perfect example of this bias is seen in the person or groups attacking the way the petition was circulated and calling this all the evidence needed to discount all signers (and all facts therein).

The only correct way to discount the petition (or in general any other message) is in examining each fact in it as well as the credentials of each individual bringing forth these facts.

Anyone discounting a message based solely upon their dislike of the messenger and/or the way the message was written is without either credibility or wisdom.







[Edited on 11-23-2011 by IrC]

497 - 22-11-2011 at 16:47




DerAlte - 22-11-2011 at 21:51

With apologies for yet again posting a long comment.

Since 1750, WMO says, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen 39 percent, those of nitrous oxide have gone up 20 percent and concentrations of methane jumped 158 percent....

Who was measuring Nitrous oxide and Methane levels in 1750? Oh, I forgot -
they come from tiny bubbles in ancient ice cores if Greenland, don't they? How many tiny bubbles are nedded to obtain a reliable count of 200 parts in 10^9? Accuracy?

............
Quoting E.M. Smith from the Chiefio website:

"This isn't that much of a surprise to me. I'd figured out some time ago that trees and bamboo could consume far more CO2 than I 'produce' via burning oil and gas. I've also pointed out that The West is largely letting trees grow, while mowing our lawns and having the clippings 'sequestered' in land fills (along with an untold tonnage of phone books and junk mail?) while the 3rd world is busy burning and cutting down their forests.

The simple fact is that 'jungle rot' will beat out my 'gallon a day' of Diesel any time. Basically, we in the west grow far more wheat, corn, soybeans, wood, lawns, shrubs, etc. than we burn oil. In the 3rd world, they burn their sequestering plants. (And it takes one heck of a lot more wood to cook a meal than it does coal via a highly efficient furnace / electric generator / microwave oven.) But it's nice to see it documented in aggregate in the 'facts in the air'."
.........
WRT this I have on a roughly one acre plot several large oaks and other trees which I (or my wife) have planted and grown since 1983. They grow fast in the subtropical climate of Florida!

The accumulated biomass in these trees alone, in dried wood, I estimate as > 25 metric tons, bar the wood we have used as firewood, forgetting all the grass clippings, etc., which are mulched or composted and returned to the land. Since wood is mainly cellulose (C6H10O5)n and the C comes from atmospheric CO2 six moles CO2-> 1 mole cellulose unit, I get that 162 parts cellulose comes from 264 parts CO2. So my 25 tons wood used up about 41 tons CO2. Since gasoline is approx. Cn H(2n+2) it produces n CO2 molecules per Molecule gasoline, if properly burned. The weight ratio is thus about 14 to 44. So my 41 tons is equivalent to 13 tons gasoline. Assuming density of gasoline is about 0.85 this is 13/0.85 = 15.3 m^3 in volume = 15.3*10^3 liter = 4042 US Gallons; about 13 years at a gallon/day.

I claim carbon credit for those years; damn, I think that idea fizzled out!
.........
@Francis:

Quote:
But you think he's lying? Or it's all made up? Some sort of political agenda?

No to all. The data, from 1972 onward, would be accepted and has been repeated at numerous stations worldwide. CO2 increase is real. The big arguement is what causes it. As to whether you lecturer has a political bias, if he is a true scientist he does not. Even if he has a political bias, he should be able to compartment it - at least while acting in his scientific mode.

Quote:
So put yourself in my shoes - I dunno how old you are, but now you're a 25 year old, 3rd year chemistry student who is about to study a subject about atmospheric chemistry, of which one of the components is greenhouse chemistry.

I'm three times your age. At your age you are probably at your intellectual peak. It would be sad to get brainwashed (either way) at that age.

Quote:
Do you stay home and miss those lectures because you already know the answer?

Never! Neither you nor (possibly) your lecturer knows the answer. He does probably know more than you do, however, don't you think?

Quote:
Do you put politics and news aside, just for an hour, and go to the lecture, keeping an honest and open mind....and after the lecture is done, go speak to the lecturer, and say, "I know you're involved in a cover up!'


By all means "go to the lecture, keeping an honest and open mind" and "after the lecture is done, go speak to the lecturer" if you have questions re the course material. But "and say, "I know you're involved in a cover up!"???
Good god no!!! You do not know that! If you think you do, be prepared to prove it (and maybe flunk his course). Other wise you gratuitously insult pointlessly. Civility seems to be a dying grace in today's world.

I do not intend to be condescending in the above; I realize you are presenting an extreme case, a strawman.

.......
For the sceptics view, see http://vimeo.com/8865909
1 1/2 hr, don't watch if you have attention deficit or are either a denier or completely convinced already. I admit personal bias: the presenter says he is an engineer, has a knowledge of statistics ( very important!) and is a libertarian - all plusses for me!

......

@Polverone
Your even handed moderation of this thread, and others, has my complete admiration. I may not always agree... but this is the only site I ever bother to post on.

Regards,
Der Alte

Edit: Thanks IRC

[Edited on 23-11-2011 by DerAlte]

fledarmus - 23-11-2011 at 05:08

The problem is that nobody has any real idea what the global effect of human activity will be, in any field. We don't have a system we can test hypotheses on. And over the last few decades, risk prevention has been a major driver in our economy, legal system, and politics. As a society, we have made a conscious decision to spend whatever it takes to avoid any hypothetical injury.

What is driving the climate change debate now is a forecast of the worst imaginable scenarios of climate change, and the demand to prevent that outcome at all costs, on the grounds that regardless of how unlikely the scenario is, the consequences of allowing it to come to pass would be too horrendous to allow any other course of action. Unfortunately, just as we cannot predict with any certainty what our activities will do to the environment without taking remedial action, we cannot predict with any certainty what effect any remedial action might have.

How much of our standard of living, economic productivity, and personal freedom should be sacrificed to prevent any human effect on the environment? The politics of climate change provide positions from "You can't prove we're doing anything at all" to "No sacrifice is too great if it might prevent this future catastrophe from occurring". Where people are in that spectrum largely determines both what they present about climate change, and what presentations they believe.

Note - this is written totally from a US-centric point of view. I really don't have the knowledge to comment about what people in other countries may believe about this issue.

DerAlte - 23-11-2011 at 09:13

@fledarmus

Absolutely agree. It's the old problem of what zero X infinity equals. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, the political dilemma. Scientifically one ought to be a sceptic, case not proven; but politically you flip the coin and suffer the consequences, either way.

But, having lived through WWII in the UK, threats of 'nuclear winter' , 'a new ice age', the cold war, etc., one gets a bit tired of alarmists.

I have a suspicion that man over-rates his importance to this globe-

Regards
Der Alte

Rosco Bodine - 24-11-2011 at 07:51

Warren Meyer is among the rational scientists who when considering global warming would seem to be sensibly referring to the same water planet as is somewhat counterintuitively called Earth, which is the same planet where most humans live, mostly on that smaller part of the planet that isn't under water,.....even though curiously in another sense too many of the land inhabitants houses are still under water even while on dry land :D I laughed out loud at the part of that presentation where Meyer pointed out that the IPCC had correctly predicted 20 times zero events having occurred as predicted. Now there's a perfect record :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q9C7BgLCqg Fields Of Gold

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfyrhQSwK24 Moment Of Peace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge73ajtFV5Q Watermark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-32dBx3dXA Winter Light

IrC - 26-11-2011 at 15:38

Yet another one bites the dust. If I ever own this car or one like it I am keeping it outside away from the house. Does not always have to involve a crash imagine if one of these batteries were poorly constructed to begin with. Not all that uncommon of an event if they start mass producing them.

2nd electric car battery fire involving Chevy Volt

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/nov/25/2nd-electric-...


White Yeti - 26-11-2011 at 18:56

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
Yet another one bites the dust. If I ever own this car or one like it I am keeping it outside away from the house. Does not always have to involve a crash imagine if one of these batteries were poorly constructed to begin with. Not all that uncommon of an event if they start mass producing them.

2nd electric car battery fire involving Chevy Volt

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/nov/25/2nd-electric-...



The idea behind the Chevy volt is really good you have to admit. The design allows for the most efficient use of fuel to date. By running the generator at a constant RPM and delivering constant power, the generator can run at the highest possible efficiency rating for that engine.

I think the mistake they made with the design is that they should have made the battery smaller and incorporated the latest supercaps to optimise battery discharge. The problem with plug-ins is that they are not made for accelerating from a halt. The electric motor can easily take hundreds of amps, but the battery gets damaged every time it is discharged above a certain threshold.

The result: Low battery life.

497 - 27-11-2011 at 08:12

Flow batteries may replace the traditional ones soon.
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=21619.php
About time really.

White Yeti - 27-11-2011 at 10:20

Quote: Originally posted by 497  
Flow batteries may replace the traditional ones soon.
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=21619.php
About time really.


That's true, battery chemistry has not drastically changed for 200 years. Nanotechnology has enabled us to pack more punch into a given mass and volume, but the basic principles are the same. It's about time we make batteries that differ from the usual obsolete designs.

The future depends on how well we develop battery technology, or fuel cell technology for that matter. Generating electricity is one thing, storing it is another story altogether. How can we claim to be an advanced civilisation if we cannot store the energy we produce for future use?

vulture - 27-11-2011 at 23:46

What I basically understood from the last two pages of this thread:

Global warming is not true because:

- The UN made predictions about refugees which were wrong.
- Chevy Li-ion batteries catch fire.

It's not because you discredit one aspect of someone's work that all their arguments and achievements become worthless.

The discussion here contains the same hallmarks of those of 9/11 conspiracy theory discussions.

First of all, avoid pollution (no pun intended) of the debate. Global warming is a fact, the question is whether man made emissions are causing or contributing to it. Climate has changed greatly during the history of the earth, so the question is if we even should interfere. However, I also think that guarding and efficiently using natural resources is a priority regardless of what you think about global warming.

Secondly, be intellectually honest. Most of the "climate deniers" (if that should even be a term) are not against global warming but strongly against government intervention in what they perceive as their inalienable rights.

Government intervention is a political discussion which shouldn't taint or interfere with science, IMHO.

[Edited on 28-11-2011 by vulture]

[Edited on 28-11-2011 by vulture]

IrC - 28-11-2011 at 12:10

"It's not because you discredit one aspect of someone's work that all their arguments and achievements become worthless.

The discussion here contains the same hallmarks of those of 9/11 conspiracy theory discussions."

I find it interesting you say this and also wish to divorce politics from the subject. For this to be possible it would help to first get the 'scientists' to stop playing politics. 5,000 new emails giving direct evidence of corruption along multiple lines. One is data indicating CO2 is not having the large effect on GW as has been the mantra all along. Another is scientists colluding with government to lie, cover up and destroy evidence which disproves the mantra of the left. There is no 'conspiracy theory' needed when evidence exists on such a large scale proving the massive number of lies and corruption on the part of so many so called 'scientists'. So let us look at these words again: "It's not because you discredit one aspect of someone's work that all their arguments and achievements become worthless". Maybe not but when their work is proven to be a pack of lies and cover ups, this to me completely discredits their work. Go ahead, sweep it under the rug, be happy and be part of the cover up. Next:

"Secondly, be intellectually honest." I would say so should you. My comments about burning batteries had nothing to do with denial of any part of this subject. I was pointing out problems with the technology being developed in an attempt to counter GW. So to say:

"Global warming is not true because:

- The UN made predictions about refugees which were wrong.
- Chevy Li-ion batteries catch fire.";

is a bit of a stretch assuming we really are being intellectually honest. Second the incorrect UN predictions were in reference to the tainting of the so called 'science' of GW by the very subject of politics having become inextricably intertwined in all aspects. Hiding mistakes to cover honest errors which when discovered would work against GW claims is in my mind another form of tainted science based purely upon political motivation. Nowhere can you reach the conclusion "Global warming is not true because" concerning my motivations for any posts I made.

You cannot separate the science from the politics because the powers that be will not allow it. Usually in the form of grants for research either given or withheld depending upon where the scientists seeking these grants already stand, or in other words whether or not they are already biased in one direction or the other. If for grants given, if against grants denied. And so it goes. I would be most happy if the science were pure. It is only common sense to see that all the chemicals and heat we are pumping out on the planet is having weather altering consequences and none of them could be for the better to anyone with even a small amount of intelligence. So if people like myself point out errors it is not due to denial but rather to a desire to see proper actions being taken using reason and common sense. Carbon credits the way it is being structured serves to generate tremendous wealth for precisely the wrong entities and does nothing to reduce the problem. Regulations aimed at increasing power for a few and destroying liberty for all the rest is equally bad. Especially when both actions are enacted by false, politically motivated, and grossly exaggerated claims by biased science being directed by biased entities who serve to profit while lives are made to suffer as a consequence. If anyone doubts this just wail until only the wealthy can afford food and warmth. Corn is being burned on a monumental scale which increases exponentially as time goes by affecting every aspect up to and including the ability to support livestock. Meaning not only will grains become scarce, so will meat.

Those who see this as wrong and try to get out the truth are labeled 'deniers' yet this is often not the case at all. They do not see the need to chop off a leg because a toe has become infected. Those who are in the faction of 'rabid deniers' who would argue with the truth when it is proven are just as wrong as those who preach global destruction due to GW coming within a few days based upon false science which is completely politically motivated. I see nothing wrong with protecting 'inalienable rights' when they are being destroyed by politically motivated power and money seeking entities using lies to justify their robbery. Extremes are wrong on either side of the question, true science should be in the middle gathering facts and coming up with accurate models.

I fail to see how any of this is off topic if you go back to the beginning post which started this thread. "Evidently the climate change forecast for the next half century is cooler with increasing cloud cover." If true then the draconian actions being taken based upon GW claims would cause most to end up starving while they freeze due to no food and no way to heat their homes. As far as trying to protect the planet from overuse of energy and resources the one factor which would have the most dramatic benefit is population control in the form of educating the world to stop having very large families. Having 4 or more children by every set of parents sooner or later will be impossible to sustain.


Edited to add the letter 's' to make doubt doubts. Today's post has been brought to you by the letter S. As in the mantra of GW is so full of.


[Edited on 11-28-2011 by IrC]

Rosco Bodine - 28-11-2011 at 12:15

Quote: Originally posted by vulture  
What I basically understood from the last two pages of this thread:

Global warming is not true because:

- The UN made predictions about refugees which were wrong.
- Chevy Li-ion batteries catch fire.

It's not because you discredit one aspect of someone's work that all their arguments and achievements become worthless.


That message meant to be conveyed is that there is a deficiency of reliable science which has significant identified defects associated with the advocates of what are believed only by that advocacy to be effective countermeasures for global warming. There seems to be a lack of pragmatism inherent in the interventionist proposition which becomes the urgent agenda of global warming alarmists and interventionists. Good science is not inclined to throw out the baby with the bath water when reviewing research and findings and theory for reasonableness or validity. But politics and hysteria and paranoia are inclined to trample reason and truth in order to propagandize any agenda whatever, be it global warming or anything else which presents opportunity for deception and exploitation of ignorant people in order to advance any cause, particularly when that can be done for profit.
Quote:

The discussion here contains the same hallmarks of those of 9/11 conspiracy theory discussions.

The alarmist and interventionist position on global warming is dishonestly unscientific in a similar way as the truther hysteria, but that is a more general analogy. The proposition of a countermeasure created Global Cooling Antidote or the proposition of a "resurrected" twin towers are like Humpty Dumpty. All the kings horses and all the kings men can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again, though many may wish it could happen that way.
Quote:

First of all, avoid pollution (no pun intended) of the debate. Global warming is a fact, the question is whether man made emissions are causing or contributing to it. Climate has changed greatly during the history of the earth, so the question is if we even should interfere. However, I also think that guarding and efficiently using natural resources is a priority regardless of what you think about global warming.
Conservation and efficient use of resources is sensible and there is no outcry against good sense prevailing. The matter at issue is what actions represent good sense and what actions do not.
Quote:

Secondly, be intellectually honest. Most of the "climate deniers" (if that should even be a term) are not against global warming but strongly against government intervention in what they perceive as their inalienable rights.

Government intervention is a political discussion which shouldn't taint or interfere with science, IMHO.


Yes, that is really the heart of the matter. Governments do not have a very good track record for efficient and economic sensible use of resources when managing or conducting and regulating even the business of smaller less ambitious projects than terraforming a water planet. Therefore the cynicism or skepticism of many in response to such a huge proposition and grand scheme should be understandable to any rational mind cognisant of history :D

Sedit - 28-11-2011 at 13:16


Quote:

I fail to see how any of this is off topic if you go back to the beginning post which started this thread. "Evidently the climate change forecast for the next half century is cooler with increasing cloud cover." If true then the draconian actions being taken based upon GW claims would cause most to end up starving while they freeze due to no food and no way to heat their homes



This hits the nail on the head about how I feel on the topic of GW. There is not enough evidence for us to start to enforce any sort of laws and restrictions as we have no real idea on the consequences of such actions.

If we are right and humans are causing GW then possibly we can prevent it. If we are wrong and we try to prevent it we can also doom ourselves to a fate worse then the global warming end result.

What we are attempting to do right now with restrictions, regulations and the recent talk about using cloud machines and various technologies to combat GW is akin to trying to medicate a disease we know nothing about with a medication that is untested and are unaware of the full range of long term side effects. The "science" of global warming needs to tread with a much lighter footstep then it is at its current rate, else we may face side effects that are much worse then anything we could have predicted.

vulture - 28-11-2011 at 15:03

I should mention that "intellectual honesty" was perhaps not the term I was looking for. I was implying that for certain people, GW is not the issue but government intervention is. I can understand the latter position, but then just say it. For certain hardcore republicans it seems to be the case that they cannot say "I don't want government intervention" so they use GW bashing as the alternative. Why? Debating government intervention should be a core aspect of any democracy.

Quote:

Go ahead, sweep it under the rug, be happy and be part of the cover up.


I do not wish to be part of the cover up. I get mightily annoyed when I read crap in the papers like "Everest climb completely ice free" this year, which should be obvious baloney to anyone who knows what a glacier is. I would be extremely happy if GW turned out to be a bunch of rubbish, I like my winters cold. ;)

Quote:

I see nothing wrong with protecting 'inalienable rights' when they are being destroyed by politically motivated power and money seeking entities using lies to justify their robbery.


There is nothing wrong with it. It's just that different people have different ideas about inalienable rights. Of course that's not limited to the GW debate. The problem is that it tends to provoke knee-jerk reactions and reason goes out the window.

Quote:

As far as trying to protect the planet from overuse of energy and resources the one factor which would have the most dramatic benefit is population control in the form of educating the world to stop having very large families. Having 4 or more children by every set of parents sooner or later will be impossible to sustain.


Would you also go as far to say that every human should be allotted the same amount of resources? Because then overpopulation pales in comparison with the "overspending" of western countries.

Quote:

Yes, that is really the heart of the matter. Governments do not have a very good track record for efficient and economic sensible use of resources when managing or conducting and regulating even the business of smaller less ambitious projects than terraforming a water planet. Therefore the cynicism or skepticism of many in response to such a huge proposition and grand scheme should be understandable to any rational mind cognisant of history


I agree and understand. The problem I have with it is that it becomes an easy scapegoat used to wipe unpopular topics under the rug. Conserving resources? UN conspiracy to limit my freedoms! See what I mean?

I don't trust corporations to get it done either. So where does that leave us?






DerAlte - 28-11-2011 at 21:28

A few good posts have been posted while I was trying to reply to Vulture. I am too slow and antique to keep up with you youngsters! However, here's my belated 2 cents worth:

Firstly, there is no problem with 'Science'. All GW theory is Applied Science, and maybe mis-Applied Science.

From Vulture:
Quote:
First of all, avoid pollution (no pun intended) of the debate.

Seconded and passed with acclamation!
Quote:
Global warming is a fact, the question is whether man made emissions are causing or contributing to it.


Herein lies a philosophical and scientific point. GW implies that the earth has a 'temperature' and that that 'temperature' has risen significantly over the last 100 years. Please

Define for me, scientifically, what this 'global temperature' is exactly.

The best I could say it that it is the averaged data taken by various meterological stations concentrated in locations where the population density and degree of techological advancement has allowed such measurements to be made. In other words, concentrated over a very small part of the land mass of the earth, and virtually nowhere over oceans. Today's standards did not exist 100 yrs. ago. The validity of the data is a statistical nightmare.

In my garden on a still summer day a shielded thermometer can show a 5C variation over a 60mX60M area; ten minutes later the air temp can fall from 32C to 22C due to a typical thunderstorm, an everyday summer occurrence here. What is the 'temperature' on this tiny plot on that day? A breeze from the local lake can make a 5C difference.

On any given day on the earth somewhere, spot temperatures vary from up to -70C to +60C (173K - 333K - reradiation factor of about 1:14!).

The earth is a dynamical chaotic system, driven by both diurnal and annual cycles. At no point is it ever in equilibrium. If it ever gets there the sun will have to be dead, at 0K, and the moon and planets far distant astronomically. So a 'global temperature' is meaningless except as a (philospophical? metaphysical? political?) concept.

I would agree, if defined as the average of sparsely located and strategically placed thermometers, this average of averages of averages may have risen 0.8+-0.4C over the last 100 yrs., at least in the Northern hemisphere... As for extensions back earlier, they are nothing more than anecdotal or based on fossil records, hardly hard evidence for accurate estimation.

For the documented effects of a sudden decrease in climate temperatures, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

Far more scientifically valid is the rise of CO2 level in the atmosphere. Anyone who denies that is an ignoramus or a lunatic. So also is he who suugests that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere could do other than increase the level.

The question there is what is the major cause; just because it correlates with man's increased carbon fuel useage in recent years is no sure proof of a linear connection. The figures of fuel consumption worldwide are ill known (and subject to political manipulation).

The effect of a rise in ocean temperature on CO2 levels also very poorly understood (simplistic models show this may be fairly severe - for instance, at pH 7 {not realistic - ocean pH varies 7.9-8.2 according to recent data, depending (again!) on location} a 1C rise causes a 3.2% drop in ocean CO2 levels at 15C. Oceanic CO2 is said to be 80-90ppm, indicating a total sequestered CO2 of 1.2x10^17kg vs. atmospheric CO2 of 2.0x10^15kg.

For CO2 to cause really major changes alone, the increase has to be colossal(See the video I quoted above - wish this was available as text).. All the models use strong positive feeback reinforcement of very poorly understood phenomena in order to predict disaster.

Which is why I am very skeptical of it all.

Quote:
Climate has changed greatly during the history of the earth, so the question is if we even should interfere. However, I also think that guarding and efficiently using natural resources is a priority regardless of what you think about global warming.


Absolutely yes! And by all means protect the environment where possible. Sometime in the mid seventies I was in Upper NY state visiting the lakes. I remember Saranac and Placid. Placid looked lovely - crystal clear water, clean rock bottom. It was dead, devoid of life due to acid rain - but beautiful. Now I read that it is being restocked with fish and they are surviving, due to sensible measures taken to limit sufur emissions. Last time I was in the Appalachians at Mount Mitchell (6000 ft +) the trees had not recovered, however. But CO2 is not a pollutant but essential to life.

Quote:
Secondly, be intellectually honest. Most of the "climate deniers" (if that should even be a term) are not against global warming but strongly against government intervention in what they perceive as their inalienable rights.


I am very certainly neither a Republican (any more, due to near terminal idiocy exhibited by recent candidates and the apparent necessity for a card carrying member to believe in some form of fundamental religion) nor, almost more vehemently, a Democrat. An Independant at best; a libertarian, but not an anarchist. Government, as an ancient had it, is a necessary evil. And my motto is Nihil pro certo habete.

I am not a 'denier' but a skeptic. Deniers of GW appear to be such from ignorance; and strong advocates for AGW also seem to suffer from this.

If GW actually does exist in any significant manner, I request that, firstly, 'global temperature' be clearly defined, and secondly, adequate uncorrupted data that has not been massaged by meteorologists (for legitimate purposes - to better predict the weather on a very short term basis) be shown to prove it is significant (in many ways a statistical problem). Given GW, the next step is to show conclusively that this warming is AGW and not due to natural causes. I agree the top priority should be to determine why the CO2 level is rising so rapidly.

Governments, especially democratically elected ones, should have the well-being of their own constituents as a first priority, and not the whims of pseudo-enviromentalists, philosophers or that of International bodies such as the UN where a fifth world country of less than a million inhabitants has almost equal weight with say, India or China. Of course there is always the Security Council (The General Assembly elected Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan and Togo to serve as non-permanent members of the Security Council for two-year terms starting on 1 January 2012.) To say the UN is not political is sheer nonsense, but what party it represents is highly obscure.
Quote:
Government intervention is a political discussion which shouldn't taint or interfere with science, IMHO.


Yes, but... when government interferes with science, should not science at least reply?

Consider Ethanol from corn; or the ignorance of the crass idiots who suggested the ocean's pH be increased by loading lime (slaked or quick)
into the ocean. To make either requires both fuel and emitting copious CO2 into the atmosphere, unless kindergarten chemistry is wrong... I rest my case re political idiocy.

We had a climate change today. As I was writing the first part of this the temperature dropped 5C from 27.8C to 22.8C in a few hours - a front came through.

And, to Irc, who wrote

Quote:
I would let the occupy crowd die in the cold before I would hand them something they were able to work for but refused to simply because they decided all is owed to them.


So say I, too. But I would, and have, give a buck or pocket change to a bum in NYC for his next beer, wine or coffee, his choice. Go figure why. Just look at the mobs in Egypt, Occupy sites here, Greek riots, etc. The impression you get is brainless, senseless followers of some unknown cause, lost in Mob Think. At least the BBC saw fit to interview those outside Tafir (?) Square in Cairo and Alexandria. They realized that you have to have some form of government, and currently it had to be the military; mobs cannot rule.

Der Alte

Rosco Bodine - 29-11-2011 at 00:36

Quote: Originally posted by vulture  
Quote:

Yes, that is really the heart of the matter. Governments do not have a very good track record for efficient and economic sensible use of resources when managing or conducting and regulating even the business of smaller less ambitious projects than terraforming a water planet. Therefore the cynicism or skepticism of many in response to such a huge proposition and grand scheme should be understandable to any rational mind cognisant of history


I agree and understand. The problem I have with it is that it becomes an easy scapegoat used to wipe unpopular topics under the rug. Conserving resources? UN conspiracy to limit my freedoms! See what I mean?

I don't trust corporations to get it done either. So where does that leave us?


One place it should leave us is asking the question why
an "atoms for peace" cheap and safe nuclear power project
such as is promised by the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) design hasn't gotten more serious "scientific" interest
and commercial interest and of course government interest?

There already exists an undeveloped fifty plus year old "clean fission - thorium / U233 breeder reactor" technology which can produce electricity at about half the cost of coal burning plants, and produces low quantities of low level waste products 83% of which are completely decayed within 10 years, the remaining wastes completely decayed in 300 years .....so there is no "faustian bargain" which must be struck with environmentalists or mother nature over fears about long lived dangerous radioactive decay products requiring tens of thousands of years storage as a waste byproduct disposal concern.

Here is an interesting video about LFTR technology, and at the 40 minute time mark it gets especially interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8 The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be

and a page here
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/08/faustian-bargains-w...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ9Ll5EX1jc The Thorium Dream

http://energyfromthorium.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU3cUssuz-U Thorium Energy Future



Ho ho ho :D Merry Christmas to all



[Edited on 29-11-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

vulture - 29-11-2011 at 10:37

Quote:

Define for me, scientifically, what this 'global temperature' is exactly. The best I could say it that it is the averaged data taken by various meterological stations concentrated in locations where the population density and degree of techological advancement has allowed such measurements to be made. In other words, concentrated over a very small part of the land mass of the earth, and virtually nowhere over oceans. Today's standards did not exist 100 yrs. ago. The validity of the data is a statistical nightmare.


That's a good point. One benchmark one could use is ice mass, both glacial and oceanic ice. Their large mass and hysteresis should provide a good safeguard against short term effects. As far as I'm aware, ice mass is mostly decreasing in the Northern Hemisphere, while it seems that the Patagonian icefield is actually increasing and Antarctica decreasing. What do you suggest?

Rosco Bodine - 29-11-2011 at 11:38

Another "green nuclear energy" technology presently in development is
the Travelling Wave Reactor which is a breeder reactor fueled with depleted uranium as the fertile material and U235 as the "igniter" of the progressive
breed and burn core which basically burns for fifty to seventy-five years on one fueling. Microsofts Bill Gates is the CEO of the energy development company
presently trying to get permits for a test reactor to be built outside the U.S.
since the present regulatory environment makes nuclear technology R&D impossible in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

Perhaps it is a sociopolitical problem more than a scientific or technological challenge which accounts for the "death spiral" of all humanity in a world that is "circling the drain" which is the black hole consuming its conventional energy sources at the expense of the global environment. Consumers are being sacrificed upon the altar of ill conceived government regulation which lacks any worthwhile "vision of the future"
having practical or attainable goals involving energy needs
and sound methods for supplying those needs. Maybe a hard look should be taken at governments who bet the peoples wealth and hopes on losers while the authors of such policies line their pockets with bribes, kickbacks, and inflated salaries and bonuses undeserved for their piss poor performance for supplying only incompetent and or dishonest "leadership". The world would do much better
with a management team who actually know what they are doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leEO7_BV590 First Light

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApvYngDxta8 Look To The Future

Ask not for whom the bell tolls ......

[Edited on 29-11-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

DerAlte - 1-12-2011 at 20:26

If you are not already bored, turned off, convinced etc., have a look at the following:

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/ClimChng-Suns-Role...

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/Climate%20Change-N...

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/SEAWATER%20pH%20&a...

An older overview:

http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/Primer6%2002.pdf

Not for general consumption:
http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/When%20the%20Stars...

He has written in the media also:
http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/GORACLE-USA%20Toda...

And, on a more political note:
http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010-International...
......

Regards,
Der Alte

Rosco Bodine - 2-12-2011 at 02:43

Marsh is on the bullseye with his scientific analysis IMO.
Some of his philosphical analysis of the science / religion topic lacks depth....but his analysis otherwise seems sufficiently rational as a GW hysteria debunker. The following excerpt I was reading and thinking we are on the same page precisely on this topic.

Quote:
If the US government were primarily concerned with carbon dioxide emissions, it would
not be pursuing technologies like solar and wind. They are fully aware of the prediction
by the International Energy Agency that says that all alternative sources of energy will
contribute no more than 2% to the world’s energy-supply by 2030 or 2040. They also
know that over 40% of US emissions of carbon dioxide come from the burning of fossil
fuels for electricity generation. Rationally, one would formulate policy to eliminate the
largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions before going after the smaller sources.
If the government were serious about lowering carbon dioxide emissions they would
create significant incentives to replace power plants that burn fossil fuels with nuclear.
After all, nuclear plants emit no carbon dioxide and the technology is mature. Moreover,
they do not emit the real pollutants that cause tens of thousands of premature deaths each
year.
For decades France has obtained almost all of its electricity from nuclear plants. In the
US, the principle impediment to constructing such plants is an irrational regulatory
process that greatly increases cost. The so-called “waste” problem is a political problem
not a technical one. The waste can be “burned” in fast-spectrum reactors—also a mature
technology—thereby using about 99% of the energy in the original uranium, rather than
the roughly 5% gotten today. Following this path means that nuclear power would
become an inexhaustible source of electricity. The radioactivity of the less than 1% of
real waste composed of fission products would fall below that of the original ore in less
than 500 years. Yucca Mountain could accommodate the quantity of real waste for the
indefinite future.
So if carbon dioxide emissions are not the real concern, what is? The answer lies in the
national security area and in particular with the necessity for guaranteeing the supply of
cheap oil.

AJKOER - 3-12-2011 at 12:57

I do accept the observation of global warming. As someone who also has a MS in Applied Statistics, I agree with the noisy data arguments on the macro level, however, what is most shocking to me is at the micro (or local city level) reporting of yearly record high temperatures for a given date with recurring frequency in the last ten years.

With random data, to get repeated max observations (in a universal of data keeping exceeding 100 data points or years) in the sample of the last ten observations (years), clearly suggests a phase shift as this is extremely unlikely.

To be clearer, I am looking at the temporal occurrence of maximum high temperature values at specific locations. In accord with global warming, some places could also be experiencing record lows. Using averages here would not, in my opinion, be the most efficient way to detect/verify a temperature shift associated with global warming, but perhaps studying max observations is and the data is troubling.

hissingnoise - 3-12-2011 at 13:41

A real WTF moment here - US Will Not Air Climate Change Episode of Frozen Planet!!!
How sick is that?



Rosco Bodine - 3-12-2011 at 14:24

Climate Change is a good exercise for critical thinking skills.

The climate change hysteria and interventionism debunkers can have a field day ridiculing the absence of critical thinking skills evident in both the characterization of the problem and the irrationality of the most popular of what are generally considered "earth friendly" alternative energy solutions but at the same time are entirely inadequate and unrealistic as practical proposed solutions. Wind and solar power generation won't solve the problem. They have niche applications but are not general solutions.

Even if it was stipulated that the most extreme pessimistic predictions of GW for the fate of the earth are even understated and imperatively something must be done to abate the threat and a remedy is possible .....a perplexity is found revealed by the fact that the hysterical activism and interventionism supporters in general haven't got any seriousness whatever about implementing nuclear technologies required as a problem solution by the circumstances they believe exist.

This is curiously like a situation where a hippie is dying with an infection and refuses to take synthetic antibiotics which would save their life, declaring it is their enlightened or religious view to rely instead on herbal medicine and chants and talismans since that "alternative" is more "organic" and wholesome, unthreatening, and karma enhancing.

The psychological aversion to nuclear power plants seems to accompany the embracing of "alternative" wind and solar technologies as more karma enhancing, but it really makes no substantive difference towards solving the energy problem except for squandering R&D dollars on what is already known is "alternative" technology inadequate as a solution.

The GW activist and inteventionist movement wants to have its cake and eat it too, evidently since that is more karma enhancing. Critical thinking got lost somewhere in that bargain along with dozens of nuclear power plants that should exist already but do not exist as a consequence.

Getting real about the energy problem means getting nuclear power generation implemented on a grand scale.

fledarmus - 3-12-2011 at 16:32

Quote: Originally posted by AJKOER  


With random data, to get repeated max observations (in a universal of data keeping exceeding 100 data points or years) in the sample of the last ten observations (years), clearly suggests a phase shift as this is extremely unlikely.


Really? How many times has that happened in the last hundred years? How many cities in any one year have reported a record high temperature? A string of record high temperatures of what length? A record low temperature? A string of record low temperatures?

One of the problems with random numbers is that if you collect enough data points, the odds are a lot higher that they will come in strings of highs and lows than that you will have a perfectly even distribution. This is what keeps people coming back to craps tables.

I'm not saying that we are not facing global warming, I am just saying that trying to use a string of isolated extremes as evidence without any context of how often such strings occur doesn't clearly suggest anything at all.

bquirky - 4-12-2011 at 05:12

It is like a dentist investing in the stock market. trying to divine direction in noisy chart

hissingnoise - 5-12-2011 at 13:17

This piece on global warming from HP's Bill McKibben makes for timely reading for anyone interested . . .




DerAlte - 5-12-2011 at 14:55

@ Hissingnoise

Then tell it to China and India - the Us and the West was in recession during that period.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/201...

Der Alte

Bot0nist - 5-12-2011 at 17:57

Quote:

Critical thinking got lost somewhere in that bargain along with dozens of nuclear power plants that should exist already but do not exist as a consequence.

Getting real about the energy problem means getting nuclear power generation implemented on a grand scale.

~Rosco


I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

Rosco Bodine - 6-12-2011 at 09:23

You agree with me because you are a very intelligent man :D
Great minds think alike.

Of course the hydrogen fusion reactor presently in development is an elegant solution but yet decades in the future to be realized, and it is much more complicated than other different breeder reactor technology solutions which are more easily accomplished and less technically daunting and way less expensive to implement.

Therefore there is an obvious irrationality about "betting the entire future" on a hydrogen fusion or more accurately a deuterium fusion reactor technology that is so complicated to implement if and when that future implementation can be accomplished, since complex technology of that sort would not soon be found in widespread use. More simple breeder reactor concepts could be implemented and producing real power at dozens of locations decades before the first hydrogen fusion reactor ever goes online. So for practical consideration, a results oriented management decision by governments acting sanely and sensibly would be prioritizing the more easily implemented technology instead of "reaching for the stars" prematurely.....and putting all the eggs in one basket which is the yet to be realized hydrogen fusion reactor.

Agreed ? This is what bothers me about the GW alarmists and interventionist
"lobby" or "faction" : They are short on "facts" that are really facts and they are short on plans that are really sensible plans .....but they are long on arrogance that they would think qualifies themselves as the "enlightened intellectuals" who should tell the rest of us how its going to be and what we are all going to do,
when they obviously haven't got a clue what is or ought to be. That's what you get when the "experts" aren't really experts ....except in their own minds.

So long as politics instead of engineering governs energy policy, then there won't be any energy policy.


White Yeti - 6-12-2011 at 13:39

I also agree with Rosco. Considering that the new breeder reactor designs are going to revolutionise the nuclear industry, I place my bets on nuclear fission. We have uranium reserves that are good for another 6000 years if we ever decide to draw 50% of our energy from nuclear fission. Breeder reactors are not yet commercialised, but projections predict that they will be commercialised in ~30 years, that's sooner than any economically significant renewable energy sources.

For all you anti nuclear people, the nuclear industry is the only energy industry that deals with its own waste and can still produce massive amounts of electricity cheaply. The only other two energy sources that can continuously produce large amounts of power cheaply and without wastes are geothermal and hydro.

Steve_hi - 6-12-2011 at 15:50

"For all you anti nuclear people, the nuclear industry is the only energy industry that deals with its own waste"

I wonder If all the japaneese who can't return to their own homes and the farmers that can't sell their produce or the fisherman who can't sell their fish, feel that it's the nuclear industry alone who deal with their own waste

Rosco Bodine - 6-12-2011 at 16:08

Quote: Originally posted by Steve_hi  
"For all you anti nuclear people, the nuclear industry is the only energy industry that deals with its own waste"

I wonder If all the japaneese who can't return to their own homes and the farmers that can't sell their produce or the fisherman who can't sell their fish, feel that it's the nuclear industry alone who deal with their own waste


Clearly a case of thoughtlessness regarding site elevation requirements and/or inadequate flotation or snorkelling capabilities .....as well as being proof positive that shit happens....especially with that conventional type of fission reactor.....which is a different and inferior technology to the type of breeder reactors which are being advocated.

White Yeti - 6-12-2011 at 17:19

Quote: Originally posted by Steve_hi  
"For all you anti nuclear people, the nuclear industry is the only energy industry that deals with its own waste"

I wonder If all the japaneese who can't return to their own homes and the farmers that can't sell their produce or the fisherman who can't sell their fish, feel that it's the nuclear industry alone who deal with their own waste


The Fukushima power plant incident was not a reactor failure per se, it was due to the failure of the backup cooling system. It was due to the poor design of the backup safety systems, not the poor design of the reactor. They thought that a 6m wall was enough, and it wasn't. In hindsight it looks like stupidity of engineers, but I think it was just bad luck. The situation turned into possibly the worst case scenario.

IrC - 29-1-2012 at 23:58

Facts speak louder than theory.

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forge...


http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/17324885/article-Temper...


IrC - 30-1-2012 at 02:04

"I thought we'd dispensed with all this (boomerang?) shite months ago!" - Pulverulescent

I point out :

'Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years'

I tend to think of those who deny evidence not fitting their belief system by using hard data, logic, and correct methodology as 'followers'. Instead of disproving the numbers recorded by opponents in a logical and scientific manner they do exactly what you just did. Put down and disrespectfully demean any with an opposing view while trying to make them look like stupid fools with no true understanding. Followers typically think their head is so very big no proper method is required beyond insulting and shouting down all those who do not 'follow'.

The only thing they prove is the scientific method does not apply to them since they are so 'right' that no chance of them being 'wrong' exists. Therefore there is no need to look at things with a truly open mind.

The method is not working on me and never will.


"Not sure the significance of the second article, those temperatures are not at all abnormal."

True but they have had an unusually bad winter with record snow. Plus I thought I would try to dissuade anyone from going on vacation there for yet a few more months.


[Edited on 1-30-2012 by IrC]

Pulverulescent - 30-1-2012 at 03:16

Thanks 497, I'll take that as written ─ though the minor possibility exists that it may simply be heavily disguised sarcasm . . .
The phrase, "vast evidence" seems somehow, er, suspect? (:D)
What 'evidence' I have if any, comes directly from my, now failing, senses . . . (:o)

P

Pulverulescent - 30-1-2012 at 06:25

Quote:
The method is not working on me and never will.

─ IrC, I'm not actively trying to denigrate you or the posts you make, but I am, at times, less than patient with those who misinterpret that which should be beyond reasonable doubt . . .
You seem to associate heavy snowfall with lowering temperatures, when such precipitation is obviously dependent on temperature differences between two air masses impinging on each other!
Polar air meeting a warm air-mass will cause precipitation, the extent of which is directly dependent on the warm air-mass temperature!
Warmer than usual moisture-saturated air will, when it 'meets' its front-producing cold air-mass produce copious precipitation!
I mean, it stands to reason, doesn't it?

P


IrC - 30-1-2012 at 08:08

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent  
I am, at times, less than patient with those who misinterpret that which should be beyond reasonable doubt . . .


Yet you seem to ignore the fact that the data indicates plenty of room for reasonable doubt as is seen by the headlines such as "Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years", and the writings of a large number of scientists with credentials just as impressive as those you choose to believe.

Especially when you have chosen to overlook the politics, and the trillions of dollars in incentives involved, which would obviously imply there is an agenda involved. Or ignoring reports such as this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717...

"In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle."

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent  

You seem to associate heavy snowfall with lowering temperatures


Here you jump at conclusions formed in your own mind of what you think I believe without any evidence to support this conclusion, such as any statements by myself showing that I equate record snow with lowering temperatures. Having lived in Montana for 7 years I can say from experience that such record snow is more often associated with warmer winter temperatures. At 40 to 60 below it does not really snow all that much, right at two to four degrees C is a much more likely temperature for above average amounts of snow, only later does it go really low in temperature. So there was no need for your all too short synopsis on weather theory you thought I needed.

I should add that I see more of this jumping at conclusions in those who support GW than in those who do not. Both sides are ever ready to present graphs proving their claims yet no one seems to be following the money trail which could indicate motivation. If I were to have a tendency to believe one over the other logically I would consider risk. For a person to risk their standing and grant money to go against the politically correct convention, I will give extra weight to their opinion. After all those who risk nothing yet stand to gain greatly are far more likely to be corrupted by an agenda than those who oppose them. Sad that this is the current state of science today but there it is. What are we to do about it. Logic dictates we do not hurriedly destroy our ability to produce energy and food over something so political and involving so much money gain for said destroyers of industry especially if the possibility exists that temperature could go in the other direction. I believe going into an ice age with no heat and no food is far more dangerous than an average one degree possible increase in the next hundred years.




Sickman - 30-1-2012 at 08:58

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxeXHMHOcqQ

1816, The Year Without a Summer!:D

IrC - 30-1-2012 at 09:31

Better headline is Mount Tambora the volcano without an island.

watson.fawkes - 30-1-2012 at 13:53

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent  
Ohhhhh goddd!
I thought we'd dispensed with all this (boomerang?) shite months ago!
And the fucking 'Mail'!
For the illiterate ─ by the illiterate . . .
But sure enough, we're halfway into the Mother of all fucking ice ages?
Jeeez! Gimme a fucking break???
I stopped trying to have a reasonable discussion with the fellow who insists upon having his own facts, including the irrational and disagreeable trait of calling into question anything he already disagrees with and calling other irrational when they disagree with him.

Sedit - 30-1-2012 at 22:32

It was over looked in another one of these Global warming threads but did anyone notice the chart that I posted showing fluctuations over the past 500 years or so in global temperatures? If you took the chart and cut it down the middle and flipped in onto itself you would see that the peeks and troughs varied by so little it means nothing. IE: The data from that chart seem to suggest that we are well within our margin of error when it comes to temperature fluctuations. When the downs take it say... -5 degrees on average and the peaks reach +5 degrees.... then anything suggesting we are seeing something abnormal is nullified. There is much data to back this up but sadly as I began to gather and post chart after chart that thread was once again locked.

Pulverulescent - 31-1-2012 at 01:27

Quote:
I stopped trying to have a reasonable discussion with the fellow who insists upon having his own facts, including the irrational and disagreeable trait of calling into question anything he already disagrees with and calling other irrational when they disagree with him.

To be honest watson, I'm not fully sure which idiot you're referring to, me or Mr 'Hard'Man, since we're both pretty opinionated?
[edit]
Our 'winter' is shaping up to be the warmest on record and last winter broke all records: -18°C where I live!

P


[Edited on 31-1-2012 by Pulverulescent]

GreenD - 31-1-2012 at 07:17

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit  
When the downs take it say... -5 degrees on average and the peaks reach +5 degrees.... then anything suggesting we are seeing something abnormal is nullified. There is much data to back this up but sadly as I began to gather and post chart after chart that thread was once again locked.


Are you trying to say that if you have a higher maximum and a lower minimum this isn't abnormal?

The temperature control of the entire planet is VERY complex... I can't even begin to explain the intricities of all the variable ways to regulate the planets temperature naturally. If you add energy to the system of earth you're not just going to get a warming. You're going to get more broad evaporation, more intense condensation, therefore changing growth patterns, changing CO2 sequestering, changing atmospheric composition, changing energy absorption, etc. Not to mention all the man-made concrete, tar, and so forth on the planet that disrupts these cycles.

I did the calculation once - I think the US is covered between 5 and 10% with concrete and tar. If you think that alone doesn't cause some kind of temperature shifts, I don't know how to convince you. Beyond that the idea of "heat islands" (cities) has been proven scientifically.

franklyn - 8-2-2012 at 13:40

Great , so now there's 10 centimeters of snow on the Sahara desert.
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/people-walk-snow-algiers-algeri...
http://tinyurl.com/87wznh3

I guess then if mean temperature keeps shifting to hotter we can look
forward to 400 ºC in the summer huh.

_____________________________

Not to be outdone , southern Europe ups the ante.
http://tinyurl.com/7rbz5bt



[Edited on 8-2-2012 by franklyn]

White Yeti - 8-2-2012 at 14:16

On that same note, NY usually gets a few feet of snow every year. This year we got a foot in October 2011 and that's it. It's pretty surprising that we're getting such mild temperatures and almost no snow. Last time I checked, the UK was getting more snowfall than us.

I have some pictures of what my yard looked like after the storm; let's just say some trees you can't hug anymore.

Lambda-Eyde - 8-2-2012 at 15:18

Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  
Great , so now there's 10 centimeters of snow on the Sahara desert.
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/people-walk-snow-algiers-algeri...
http://tinyurl.com/87wznh3

I guess then if mean temperature keeps shifting to hotter we can look
forward to 400 ºC in the summer huh.

_____________________________

Not to be outdone , southern Europe ups the ante.
http://tinyurl.com/7rbz5bt
[Edited on 8-2-2012 by franklyn]

I honestly expect better from a site crowded with grown-up scientists...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

franklyn - 8-2-2012 at 15:53

" if mean temperature keeps shifting to hotter "

I'd say that's statistical , certainly the global warming conjecture is.

.

vulture - 8-2-2012 at 16:09

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic and anecdotal evidence.

It freezes in september - Oh lords! Next ice age is around the corner!

It doesn't freeze in january - Oh lords! We're going to fry in a blazing inferno of hot air!

Please...

Pulverulescent - 8-2-2012 at 16:16

Quote:
I'd say that's statistical , certainly the global warming conjecture is.

Conjecture? ─ WTF!
So you believe that climate change is unproven?
Wake up!!! :mad:

P

[Edited on 9-2-2012 by ScienceSquirrel]

IrC - 8-2-2012 at 19:24

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent  
Quote:
I'd say that's statistical , certainly the global warming conjecture is.

Conjecture? ─ WTF!
So you believe that climate change is unproven?
Wake up!!! :mad:

P


Instead of being a drone look at the science. Even if the earth is warming does not mean the greatest percentage of this warming is being caused by mankind. Nor does it mean that it would last over time. So draconian decreases in fuel and food production is not going to make a dent in anything. Other than the nuclear winter which will be seen after the wars which would be the result of mass starvation globally. If you are one of those GW advocates who think we should be walking between our caves and work while eating acorns my question to you is how much of any warming is being caused by the sun and what can humanity do about it.

"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said."

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming :

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-...

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds :

http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-wor...












[Edited on 9-2-2012 by ScienceSquirrel]

Mr. Wizard - 8-2-2012 at 22:29

Whoops, this just in:

The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-m...


franklyn - 8-2-2012 at 22:39

It last snowed like this on the Sahara in 2005. This is the frequency we in the
northeast United States experience big blizzards. Such events occurring near the
equator in such an arid region are dismissed as a fluke that cannot be significant.
Take however the occurrence of uncommon warmth in Antarctica the coldest region
of the earth and that becomes an evil omen presaging doom and global inundation.
Excuse me while I laugh my ass off.

.

turd - 9-2-2012 at 00:01

Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard  
...prediction as to what the weather will be like next year...

Gosh. People who don't understand the difference between weather and climate should be banned from this thread. That's an insult to our intelligence. Global warming is about fractions of a K to at maximum low single digits of K - then all known models break down anyway. Local weather is about +/-50 K yearly and +/-25 K at a given day of the year, at least where I live.
Quote:
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-m...

WTF? Reading comprehension problems or malicious selective quoting?
Quote:
"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/02/08/cu-boulder-...:
Quote:
“The GRACE results in this region really were a surprise,” said Wahr.
(emphasis added)
This is actually good science: Effect confirmed with much more precise data. New data to refine the models. Well done.

Pulverulescent - 9-2-2012 at 00:57

The biggest per-capita contributor to 'global warming', or whatever you want to call it, produces the greater number of 'deniers'!
Carbon dioxide is demonstrably a greenhouse gas

P

[Edited on 9-2-2012 by ScienceSquirrel]

Mr. Wizard - 9-2-2012 at 08:34


I wasn't the one who tried to change the focus (obfuscate) of the debate from "Anthropogenic Global Warming" to "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", while trying to fit the name to whatever would stick to the wall. I'd call it weather. As to not knowing the difference between climate and weather, it might lend a little credibility to the 'Sky Is Falling' crowd if they could make some predictions about weather in the short run. We might let them have the wheel of the car if they quit hitting the wall while trying to get out of the driveway. If I was investing money with a broker, I'd like to see a little competence before I handed my life savings over to somebody. Maybe that's why we end up with the politicians we do, people don't think experience matters, and are willing to believe anything if you put the 'delivery date' far enough in the future, and send the bill to somebody else.

The idea of banning someone from a thread because they don't agree with you is, or should be an embarrassing declaration. It makes me remember the dogmatic representatives of religious, and political groups in our past, and present. Think of the passion and persecution displayed to Galileo and Darwin, and the tactics displayed by proponents of Lisenkoism.

So for those with a nasty vocabulary and ready to duct tape shut the mouths of those who would doubt their holy world saving beliefs; chill out. Try discussing the facts or ideas without resorting to insults. If you must insult, try to be subtle.

I almost forgot. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but so is water vapor. Water vapor accounts for 95% of earth's greenhouse effect. I didn't realize you were trying to convince me CO2 was a greenhouse gas.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

The assumption the US produces the most CO2 is related to the most 'deniers', (I love that phrase, as it gives the exact mindset of the person using it), is quite false. China produces 23.33% of the CO2 and the US 18.11% in 2008, with the estimated figures increasing significantly in favor of China in the following years. Besides putatively having the most AGW 'deniers', the US has the most Nobel laureates. Oh those stupid, loutish, selfish Americans, "We hates it, we hates it, we hates it forever!!"
;)


IrC - 9-2-2012 at 08:50

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent  
The biggest per-capita contributor to 'global warming', or whatever you want to call it, produces the greater number of 'deniers'!

Carbon dioxide is demonstrably a greenhouse gas
P


What you cannot refute with knowledge and wisdom attack with violence and anger.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.h...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/08/earths-polar-...






[Edited on 9-2-2012 by ScienceSquirrel]

White Yeti - 9-2-2012 at 13:18

I still don't understand why everyone is making predictions about the future. No one is correct on this subject matter, neither the advocates nor opponents of GW. Uncertainty is part of life we just have to accept.

Do you guys remember back in 2008? If I remember correctly, that year was supposed to be normal minimum in the solar cycle, but sunspot activity dropped to unexpected levels, almost breaking the previous record in 1913 according to New Scientist. We can try to predict the future, but advocates of global warming are basing their arguments on "what ifs" and predictions. Considering their predictions change all the time, they are uncertain about the future as well. Anyone who thinks they can predict the future is a moron, end of story.

ScienceSquirrel - 9-2-2012 at 13:54

Predicting the futuire is a very risky business.
Resource limitations have faced all human societies through time.
At the beginning of the 20th century humanity faced a huge problem due to a possible shortage of nitrates and that was solved by the Haber–Bosch process.
It was partly responsible for the green revolution but also enabled large scale warfare and more besides by allowing the production of explosives on an unprecedented scale.

GreenD - 9-2-2012 at 14:09

Again;

You burn fuel -> heat, CO2.
You raise cattle -> Methane.

Tahdah, you will see a significant effect on the climate if a population of 6 billion begins to burn oil accross the globe, at the same time removes that which sequesters CO2 (deforestation), as well as disturb pH and toxicity levels in the ocean (algae / coral growth).

To deny this is not in the realm of scientific logic or rationality, it is in the realm of stigmas, bias, and ignorance.

bquirky - 11-2-2012 at 02:43

One mans trash is another mans treasure.

Today Kalgoorlie mine tailings from last century (quite toxic due to the refining methods of the time ) are being gleefully reprocessed to get at the remaining gold deposits that weren't extracted the last time.

Im quite willing to bet that in a century's time our 'radioactive-waste legacy' will be considered quite valuable

as for the question of where to store it. I would have no problem storing it next door. In fact there is a ongoing project to setup a storage facility in Australia I think its a great idea. Make money digging the stuff out of the ground make more money putting it back then in a hundred years time make money digging it up again :)



Endimion17 - 11-2-2012 at 04:11

Quote: Originally posted by bquirky  
One mans trash is another mans treasure.

Today Kalgoorlie mine tailings from last century (quite toxic due to the refining methods of the time ) are being gleefully reprocessed to get at the remaining gold deposits that weren't extracted the last time.

Im quite willing to bet that in a century's time our 'radioactive-waste legacy' will be considered quite valuable

as for the question of where to store it. I would have no problem storing it next door. In fact there is a ongoing project to setup a storage facility in Australia I think its a great idea. Make money digging the stuff out of the ground make more money putting it back then in a hundred years time make money digging it up again :)




That's why radioactive waste from fission reactors isn't waste per se. It's one of the wastes with the best potential as only a fraction of energy is extracted from it.
Not to mention a plethora of various elements inside.
When prices of uranium jump too high, it's time for breeder fission reactors... if economically viable nuclear fusion doesn't kick in in the meantime.

Pulverulescent - 11-2-2012 at 07:07

Quote:
That's why radioactive waste from fission reactors isn't waste per se. .

That is sooo true, and then, of course, ionising radiation, if you get enough of it, will free you of all of your worries in almost no time . . . (:o)

P

Endimion17 - 11-2-2012 at 08:54

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent  
Quote:
That's why radioactive waste from fission reactors isn't waste per se. .

That is sooo true, and then, of course, ionising radiation, if you get enough of it, will free you of all of your worries in almost no time . . . (:o)

P


That's what shields are used for. Do you have any idea how heavily shielded those things are? Have you ever seen highly radioactive waste (HLW) being spread around? Of course not.
My country owns one pressurized water reactor and every single bit of HLW is still in the cooling pool, since the first day in early eighties. Thirty years of power production and everything is still in the pool. It will last for few decades more, and the free space in the pool is enough. That's how much volume of it is produced.
Low level and intermediate level waste is secured in other facilities and does not pose a problem.

I don't really get the whole fear of HLW.
"It will leak after 50 thousand years, and the half time of decay is billions of years, eeeek!" - who the fuck cares? :o
Honestly, I don't give a flying fuck what will happen after ten thousand years, let alone fifty.
Society will evolve, or perish. If we evolve, you can bet we will find the way to destroy it (we do even now, but it's not economically viable).
If we perish... who cares? It will leak, very slowly, and will present a new evolution pressure for an amount of time. It won't destroy the biosphere nor the planet.
Honestly, who the fuck cares?

watson.fawkes - 12-2-2012 at 09:10

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
At least I have facts.
Oh, you meant to say the following, I assume:
Quote:
At least I have fringe science.
Fixed that for you.

Please explain how your piddly bits of inconsistency you keep trotting about as "evidence" countermand the huge body of scholarship that has gone into climate change research. Just to be specific, tell us all how the following document is entirely wrong and can't be trusted on the authority a few web links you've posted: Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

Annex II of this report has the full list of contributors, complete with affiliations. Almost all are at universities and research institutions. There are more than 500 of them. I'll take their well-considered scientific judgment over your ranting about political influence any day at all.

Rosco Bodine - 12-2-2012 at 14:18

This "debate" about practical implementation of global warming intervention schemes which is really the crux and point of argument is like a litmus test for good faith or bad faith, a litmus test which has exposed the matter of dispute as being more of a political and philosophical and legal argument than any scientific debate.
What we see exposed also by the pseudo debate of issues collateral to global warming is a psychosis revealed as the affliction of GW fanatics ....no matter whether the cause of GW is man or the sun or whatever combination of other factors. GW is simply being used as a false pretense for the assertions of "control freaks" and tyrants to lord over, dictate, and govern every aspect of the human life on earth with the false pretense of environmental stewardship and environmental protectionism being a subset of the worn out and generally lame justification for every imposition on man "in the interest of public safety"..... for what reasonable man could oppose anything which serves the greater good ?

The answer is that every reasonable man must always vigilantly question exactly what is it that serves the greater good or only more precisely serves the selfish ambitions of control freaks who want to regulate every aspect of everyones lives so that they live only within what are the boundaries established for their
"sheep pen" by those who would shepherd other men.

Bad faith is evident on the part of the GW fanatics and interventionists, who are basically anti-industry and anti-production and anti-employment and anti-supply side economics ......actually they seem to be a bunch of lunatics who are anti fill in the blank "anything and everything that may be good". And what things are they for is revealing also .....big government oppressively micromanaging everything under the sun.

Stipulate that AGW is real just like they say and offer bona fide engineering solutions to address their unrealistic fears ......and it isn't good enough because another entire set of unrealistic fears then becomes applied to the proposed solutions. The AGW fanatics are doomsayers who are afflicted with a messianic complex where only following their orders whatever those orders may be is equal to a valid and acceptable solution to the perceived "threat" to the world for
which the "false messiahs" are the only saviors .......yet no scientifically valid solutions are offered by the most vocal because abatement of the "crisis" which provides them empowerment as rabble rousers of mass hysteria would eliminate the basis for what makes themselves feel empowered as false messiahs.

No master lion hunter is any longer essential as watchman once the maneater which has been stalking and terrifying the villagers is killed and skinned ....the threat is abated .....so the "policeman" no longer has job security.

So has it been with nuclear power and with natural gas and synthetic fuels
and so has it been for the power hungry enterprise of all industry which supports a modern lifestyle .......whatever practical solutions are proposed are necessarily opposed by those who profit from the green energy scam that is the daughter scam of the AGW scam ......and the lifeblood of the entire beast is bad faith ....duplicitous deception to make people fearful followers of false messiahs come to rescue them from the "world ender" which simply doesn't exist,
selling them on solutions that will prevent the end of the world which would
not have ended absent any of their oversold solutions anyway. It isn't science that the AGW fanatics are selling .......
it is old fashioned snake oil.

ScienceSquirrel - 12-2-2012 at 14:44

I think that climate change is underway but it is too late to do much about it and it is unlikely that we will cut carbon dioxide emissions sufficiently to stop it changing the climate more.
Pumping carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere is only part of the problem.
Humans have gone from being a peripheral species to complete global dominance.
We are extracting and processing huge amounts of materials and more every year.
For example we are extracting a lot more than the sustainable amount of fish from the world's oceans. Some key food species are already extinct or are critically endangered while others are under very heavy fishing pressure.
Some of this is hidden from us by the fact that fish finding and catching technology is increasing so catches can be sustained from a diminishing stock.
Eventually we will reach a situation like the collapse of the Grand Banks cod fishery. It will cease to be practical to fish on a commercial basis.
We are using huge amounts of nonrenewable resources and recycliing very little. We may be able to continue in this way for some time but inevitably we will come to a limit.
Is 9 billion people with increased living standards sustainable?
I doubt it is!

[Edited on 12-2-2012 by ScienceSquirrel]

Rosco Bodine - 12-2-2012 at 23:39

It is an entirely debatable issue whether anything can be done that would be effective as an intervention for GW, but it is not debatable whatsoever that nuclear power generation on a massive scale would rationally be worth trying as a first step abatement of CO2 emission if the GW is AGW. There is no debate about it that nuclear power generation really is the only effective means of realizing in the near future any meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions. Therefore it becomes quite immediately and conclusively a no brainer that if nuclear power generation is not prioritized, then all of the rest of the AGW complaints which are the mantra of the doomsayers is nothing else but disingenuous and deceitful bullcrap because obviously they actually perceive no real CO2 emissions problem which urgently needs to be addressed. Unless nuclear power generation on a huge scale is embraced by the AGW doomsayers, then their entire argument is on its face discredited. At once they are reduced to being nothing but alarmists saying we are all going to die as a result of poor environmental consciousness that they credit to a scientific ignorance which is plainly their own deficiency for rejecting the only techology that offers a solution for their #1 complaint which is CO2 emissions. The AGW fanatics are a sort of incarnation of hypocrisy by reciting the science they like for describing a problem and rejecting the science they don't like which is the only real solution for the problem. It is the worn out old cliche of wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
The AGW fanatics want to "pull the plug" on a world that isn't the world they would wish to have, yet they are obstructionists of the very industry and technology which could evolve the world towards the very thing they say they desire. These are like the idiots who "demand" to board an environmentally friendly train for a journey by train to some divine destination, but they absolutely refuse to travel by rail since railroads are somehow bad.

White Yeti - 14-2-2012 at 13:07

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  
The facts support undeniably my position so plainly that denial then becomes an irrational compulsion of the oppositional defiant disorder type which is more usual for adolescents than for being known as an afflcition of grown men. I am being practical and pragmatic .....but my rational analysis and proposals are falling on deaf ears.


Your position is reasonable as well, but global warming is a manifestation of many factors combined, the irresponsible use of energy resources being one of them. I am a supporter of nuclear power as well, but (again from a pragmatic perspective), we cannot have the entire world to run off of nuclear, simply because nuclear power plants cannot handle peak power loads.

There is no silver bullet solution to the energy problem, we just have to harness energy wherever it is available and as efficiently as possible. Here are some things to do to make the world a better place:
-We use fossil fuels from Venezuela to drive our existing machinery,
-but also harness solar power in the Sahara desert to desalinate water for drinking.
-Cut down massive stretches of forest for lumber, making sure to reforest the land right afterwards; thereby keeping forests young.
-Harness wind power off the coast and harness the immense energy source right under our feet.
-Use solar, geothermal and nuclear energy for process heating.
-Stay away from biofuels and coal, develop battery technology instead.
-Develop smart grid technology to use energy more effectively.
-Improve insulation in existing housing.
-Develop plasma gasification technology to process and recycle garbage.

If there is anything to add to this list, please comment.

Mr. Wizard - 14-2-2012 at 13:46

Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  
Rosco, please argue this fact for me, we're (probably) all chemists here:

1.We burn Oil -> We get heat (energy) and CO2.
2.We deforest the earth -> lower reuptake of CO2 and cause increase in methane (as decomposition, rather than fertilizer to plants
3.We populate the earth with cattle -> Increased methane for a more inefficient means of nutrients, as well as a whole extra step in food processing/shipping/packaging.
4. We are incredibly wasteful with energy -> Leaving lights, heat, and electricity on in abondoned buildings. We all have 200Watt TV's, we jet skii our kids around on lakes for fun (something your 8th generation ago didn't do).

How does 1, in the addition of 2, not completely tell you that we are going to warm the planet? I've made this argument 5 times and so far the only person to dispute it has said "methane has a half-life of 7 years". You still have a billion cattle's worth of methane on top of the increasing amount of degredation from deforestation.

How does #3 not have any impact on the planet?

How does #4, to you, not seem "wasteful"? Did you know that if all of the indicator LED's in the united states alone were disabled we could shut down 13 power plants (ideally, of course). That ALONE should tell you how much energy we use that is not necessary.

How can you possibly form any kind of rational argument if you believe that the combination of 1,2,3 and 4 have absolutley NO EFFECT on the planet's ecosystem? You sir, are a fanatic, a blind religious fanatic, and your religion in materialism.


Maybe some of us have varying amounts of knowledge of chemistry, but I doubt we are all chemists. I'm not. Fact number one is not a fact.

We burn oil and get heat and energy and CO2. True enough, but most of the CO2 come from burning coal and natural gas. I don't have figures for the whole world but the EPA website:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
Admittedly these figures reference the US in 2006. May I assume you are talking about the US when you list humanity's sins? I can't say your are completely right about Fact 1, by omission.

We deforest the Earth. Here in the US we grow more trees than we cut down. We grow 10% of the world's forests, harvest less than 8% of the world's wood and fiber, and produce 25% of the world's wood products.

http://forestry.about.com/od/forestresources/l/aa071502.htm
Take the test at the link. I agree the monoculture of plants used for wood products isn't ideal, but as far as CO2 consumption it is irrelevant. I have driven across the US many times, and I am amazed at the amount of corn, alfalfa, wheat, and hay that is grown. The amount of CO2 they use should count. The original forest or plants don't sequester carbon indefinitely either unless they form coal or peat. I didn't notice any peat or coal when I last walked through the ancient redwoods. Most dead trees and plants in nature break down to methane or CO2 even if they spend some time as mulch or humus. No doubt some organics are carried away in rivers and end up in ocean sediment. The main source of oxygen in the world is marine algae which provide about 75% of the oxygen produced. I'll speculate it uses CO2 to do this. Fact #2 is in doubt. I wanted to quote the percentage of CO2 removed by the Himalayan watershed but couldn't locate it. I will just mention the ‘Urey reaction’ and a link stating all the CO2 in the atmosphere could be removed in 5000 years forming a layer of limestone only 5 mm thick.
http://books.google.com/books?id=bO_U8f5pVR8C&pg=PA10&am...

Raising cattle and animals for food is a very good way to obtain food from land that would otherwise be unable to sustain humans. Can you eat grass, sagebrush or hay? I can't. The area I live in is very dry (desert southwest US). I have explored remote areas around here with 4wheel drive vehicles, and have been amazed at the number of cows, steers, horses, donkeys, and other wildlife in the open range desert. This is all made possible by men who drill small wells to provide water at certain points. In some areas of the world growing grain or rice makes sense, but in other areas only plants that cattle can eat are feasible. These plants allow food to be grown. The marketplace will determine if it's an extra step'.

Do we waste energy? Yes we do. I doubt we would all like to go back to the rigorous and righteous 'sustainable' conditions of the middle ages. Cost of energy will dictate and lead to less waste. I am not talking about government induced causes , taxes, but honest market costs. The availability of energy to dispose of as you want is a great way to determine your standard of living. Waste is not good, but no choice is the worst. I don't want Al Gore lecturing me on my carbon footprint.
Leaving the lights on in an abandoned building means its not abandoned. Perhaps you meant closed for the night? Often there are reasons for leaving the lights on, such as security or maintenance crews or low level heating to prevent freezing. The owner is paying the bills, and must see the value in it. What's wrong with jet skis? I don't have any, but who is to say what we should spend our money and energy on? Eight generations ago we didn't sit around video monitors deciding the fate of mankind either. We could let all the people who want to shut off their electricity do so, and we could shut down a few power plants too. Whoops, no takers. The truth is the biggest waster of electricity is the power company and the losses (7%) they incur while transmitting electricity from where its made to where its used.

Rather than accuse other people of being fanatical, religious, and materialistic; take a deep breath and consider Robert Burns' observation in his "To A Louse":


O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!


http://www.worldburnsclub.com/poems/translations/552.htm

Polverone - 14-2-2012 at 13:56

On pointing fingers at the right targets

To keep atmospheric CO2 constant, biological and geological sinks must be in rough proportion with sources. For at least several decades global sources have been outgrowing global sinks. There are two major challenges: 1) to bring global sources in line with sinks, or vice versa (e.g. via afforestation efforts) and 2) to allocate the effort of amelioration in line with national CO2 debits or credits.

To a zeroth order approximation, we can consider a nation's geographical area as a proxy for its capacity to absorb CO2 through biological and geological sinks. Total CO2 emissions are a product of two things: emissions per individual and number of individuals. Net CO2 emissions are total emissions minus the work of biological and geological CO2 sinks in a nation's territory. The lower the population density of a nation, the more each individual can emit before overwhelming the nation's carbon sinks.

China has about 1/3 the per-capita emissions of the United States, but 4 times the population density -- it's actually outstripping its national carbon sink capacity worse than the US. Likewise Germany: though it has only about half the emissions per capita as the United States, it has nearly 7 times the population density. The CO2 challenge would be much harder if the whole world had the emissions per capita and population density as Germany, as opposed to the emissions per capita and population density as the United States. Canadians can feel justifiably smug on this metric: they have nearly the same emissions per capita as the United States, but a population density only 11% as great. The whole world could comfortably drive pickups, live in detached houses, and eat steak for dinner if the world population density equaled the Canadian population density.

On the long term
Homo sapiens sapiens may have existed for 150000 to 200000 years. If we're planning to be around as long as the average mammalian species, that's at least another 800000 years to go. Fossil fuels are the tiniest, most quickly consumed drop of energy on these time scales. Even our most abundant fossil fuel, coal, has no more than a few centuries of estimated reserves at current consumption rates. You can try making the argument that people should not have to give up fossil fuels, but nature is stubborn and disinclined to listen. Saying that fossil fuels should be used to exhaustion, despite their side effects long outliving their availability, is rather like choosing to play 10 minutes today in exchange for 10 hours of chores next week instead of playing 5 minutes today and doing 1 hour of chores today.

In the 1945 edition of Shreveport's Chemical Process Industries, there is a very interesting section on fuels and power. The most striking point: electricity is priced at 5 cents per kilowatt hour and fuel oil at 5 cents per gallon. Had both these commodities tracked inflation in general, today a kilowatt hour of electricity and a gallon of fuel oil would both cost 62 cents. But heating oil futures for April are over $3.00 per gallon at present, and the retail price of electricity (averaged over all sectors, entire United States) is only 10 cents per kilowatt hour. What of the nightmarish green hippie scenario, where we have to use photovoltaic electric power? Solarbuzz places costs of battery-backed rooftop residential PV at 29 cents per kilowatt hour in a sunny climate, 64 cents in cloudy. If PV technology never gets any better, in real terms it's already cheaper than industrial electricity in 1945.

[Edited on 2-14-2012 by Polverone]

White Yeti - 14-2-2012 at 14:05

Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  
Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti  

-We use fossil fuels from Venezuela to drive our existing machinery,

Sure, but you have to have an underlying message that fossil fuel-cars need to be slowly reduced in number & production, or extremely efficient.


That message is already there, and cars have the potential of becoming much more efficient with natural advances in materials technology, there is no need quit using fossil fuels cold turkey.

Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti  

-but also harness solar power in the Sahara desert to desalinate water for drinking.

Who pays for it? Grow up in a capitalist society, nobody will want to pay for someone else's water unless they can profit.

There will come a time in the near future where it will be down right necessary to secure sources of drinking water (even in the western world), not for profit, but for survival. Think of all the water we use in agriculture and industry, one day we will have to pay the price. And it's not getting any better as time goes on.
Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti  

-Cut down massive stretches of forest for lumber, making sure to reforest the land right afterwards; thereby keeping forests young.

Sounds like a foolish statement. Apparently lumber usage is reducing quickly, as reforestation rises (except brazil). We're close to an equilibrium. However, old-growth forests contain very important diversity. Which, in my opinion, is a haven for medicinal novelty - amongst the appreciation of an evolved ecosystem.


I can't disagree with that, but when I see more and more packaging that is made from plastic rather than cardboard and paper, I wish we would just cut down trees to make packaging rather than make plastic that doesn't disappear from the environment for the following million years, and perhaps longer, unless we make the digestive enzyme ourselves.

Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  

Consumption of meat... That isn't going to please anyone but if you eat corn fed meat, you use 6000 gallons of water for every 10-12oz of red meat. An insane number.

Yep, that's why I don't eat beef and I eat chicken occasionally, but not daily. I agree that people should eat less meat, because quite frankly people eat too much of it. I know people who eat meat at every meal, that kind of diet makes me sick for so many reasons. Also, eat sardines instead of tuna, what applies to beef also applies to fish.

Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  

Efficient irrgation systems (spendy) can reduce water use up to 70%. The problem is water is so cheap that 70% savings still don't benefit the farmer versus implementation cost.

I was actually going to add that to the list, but deleted it, as it is extremely vaguely related to energy use.
Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  

I hate to say tax stuff, but right now, we need a carbon & water tax.


I agree with a water tax, after all the only way to make a point and have an impact is through people's wallets; you have to hit wasteful people where it hurts.

edit: gotta get my homework done, see you guys tomorrow.

[Edited on 2-14-2012 by White Yeti]

GreenD - 14-2-2012 at 14:09

First, thank you Wizard for taking the time to respond. I am fully capable of taking criticism and evaluating it.
Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard  

Maybe some of us have varying amounts of knowledge of chemistry, but I doubt we are all chemists. I'm not. Fact number one is not a fact. [/rquote] [/rquote]Well yes it isI could have used Coal or Natural gas in place of oil, but this does not remove oil from the equation. I was not implying that all our CO2 comes from oil, although I was having a one-track mind when I wrote that, obviously.
Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard  

We burn oil and get heat and energy and CO2. True enough, but most of the CO2 come from burning coal and natural gas. I don't have figures for the whole world but the EPA website:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
Admittedly these figures reference the US in 2006. May I assume you are talking about the US when you list humanity's sins? I can't say your are completely right about Fact 1, by omission.
Yes, it is a well known fact that the US uses 3x more energy (maybe it is gas) per person than I believe any other country on average.
Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard  

We deforest the Earth. Here in the US we grow more trees than we cut down. We grow 10% of the world's forests, harvest less than 8% of the world's wood and fiber, and produce 25% of the world's wood products.

Yes, we have reached an equilibrium in the US, but that does not mean that we are back to neutral carbon levels with respect to deforestation - remember 5% of the US is covered in tar, and who knows how much more is unairable land that cannot grow forest anymore. Point being; even if NOW we are finally at good forestation practices, we still have severely scarred the land, and the pavement is not uptaking any CO2. See what I am saying? We are one of the (ironically) leaders in reforestation, and it seems other countries are strongly going the opposite direction.


Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard  

http://forestry.about.com/od/forestresources/l/aa071502.htm
Take the test at the link. I agree the monoculture of plants used for wood products isn't ideal, but as far as CO2 consumption it is irrelevant. I have driven across the US many times, and I am amazed at the amount of corn, alfalfa, wheat, and hay that is grown. The amount of CO2 they use should count. The original forest or plants don't sequester carbon indefinitely either unless they form coal or peat. I didn't notice any peat or coal when I last walked through the ancient redwoods. Most dead trees and plants in nature break down to methane or CO2 even if they spend some time as mulch or humus. No doubt some organics are carried away in rivers and end up in ocean sediment. The main source of oxygen in the world is marine algae which provide about 75% of the oxygen produced. I'll speculate it uses CO2 to do this. Fact #2 is in doubt. I wanted to quote the percentage of CO2 removed by the Himalayan watershed but couldn't locate it. I will just mention the ‘Urey reaction’ and a link stating all the CO2 in the atmosphere could be removed in 5000 years forming a layer of limestone only 5 mm thick.


I could say the inverse and a 5mm thick limestone layer on the earth's surface burned off in 100 years will bring on global climate change. That fact is clever, but more so shows the surface area of limestone on earth.

Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard  

Raising cattle and animals for food is a very good way to obtain food from land that would otherwise be unable to sustain humans. Can you eat grass, sagebrush or hay? I can't. The area I live in is very dry (desert southwest US). I have explored remote areas around here with 4wheel drive vehicles, and have been amazed at the number of cows, steers, horses, donkeys, and other wildlife in the open range desert. This is all made possible by men who drill small wells to provide water at certain points. In some areas of the world growing grain or rice makes sense, but in other areas only plants that cattle can eat are feasible. These plants allow food to be grown. The marketplace will determine if it's an extra step'.

I'm all for grass fed beef. But if you read closely I said corn fed beef. And in all honesty - you're probably not eating those cows that you've seen out in pasture if you shop in any well known supermarket. You're getting this:

(In all probability)
Quote: Originally posted by Mr. Wizard  
Do we waste energy? Yes we do. I doubt we would all like to go back to the rigorous and righteous 'sustainable' conditions of the middle ages. Cost of energy will dictate and lead to less waste. I am not talking about government induced causes , taxes, but honest market costs. The availability of energy to dispose of as you want is a great way to determine your standard of living. Waste is not good, but no choice is the worst. I don't want Al Gore lecturing me on my carbon footprint.
Leaving the lights on in an abandoned building means its not abandoned. Perhaps you meant closed for the night? Often there are reasons for leaving the lights on, such as security or maintenance crews or low level heating to prevent freezing. The owner is paying the bills, and must see the value in it. What's wrong with jet skis? I don't have any, but who is to say what we should spend our money and energy on? Eight generations ago we didn't sit around video monitors deciding the fate of mankind either. We could let all the people who want to shut off their electricity do so, and we could shut down a few power plants too. Whoops, no takers. The truth is the biggest waster of electricity is the power company and the losses (7%) they incur while transmitting electricity from where its made to where its used.
So you see the problem is not our energy use, but the combination of that, combined with our population. I have seen plenty of "For sale" buildings with their lights on, and the security reasons are bogus. But that is another issue. I have no right to say what you can and cannot do, but I have an inherent need to spread the education of your actions and reactions. The Earth is a beautiful place - I don't need to tell anyone that. I'd like to keep it that way. If you can't see eye to eye on that, then this entire discussion is irrelevant. But having a jet ski, you have to realize has a greater environmental impact that growing a pea plant.
Some more contemporary poetry;
It's something special when you've gone too far,
Neuronal muscles raising the bar.
Sky's the limit, but where's the blue?
In the distance you sense the hue.

... It's a way of life to live and thrive,
All of us bustling and running the hive,
But to stop and stare with love-filled glare,
Its something special when you've gone too far.

A quick walk in the park to calm the blood,
Been cooking and rising - ready to flood
Now slow and steady, and beat to match,
Like a lazy river and some Z's to catch.

Let the eyes be open when you look out there,
The world you see is exceptionally rare,
The beauty, the flowers, the trees, so fair,
Just pop open the eye lids, and hold a long stare.



[Edited on 14-2-2012 by GreenD]

Rosco Bodine - 14-2-2012 at 15:08

To what end is further lowering the standard of living for millions of people who already have no jobs and no hope of finding jobs because of the onerous regulations which caused their plight in the first place being still professed by some as "necessary"? What is more necessary ...indulging the impractical and economically disastrous theories of ideologues and regulators empowered wrongly by legislators who really do not any longer legitimately represent "the people", or taking care of the millions who have become their homeless victims? Maybe the tax collectors and regulators are well satisfied with their endeavors as being a service to humanity, but what of the human rights of those on whom the taxes and regulations along with all the attendant consequences of such laws is only a cruel punishment for no real "crime" which they have ever committed, except for having invested misplaced trust in incompetent and dishonest leaders? What brighter future do those victims have awaiting but to become wards and dependants of the State which created their pitiful condition. How do you think it makes a working man feel to lose job and home and have to apply for food stamps so his family can eat? Go sell that man on your advocacy of the high energy costs and regulations which you think guarantee a brighter future for your grandchildren yet to be born while his children living right now must rely upon charity to eat and have a pair of shoes. I get the clear picture that in many ways I am talking to a brick wall ......there's just no getting through to the kind of mind that is already responsible for basically putting millions of people in todays equivalent of soup lines. All those people who think industry and fuel usage is a bad thing for the United States but is just great for China, Russia, and anywhere else but America are simply crazy. The United States is being made the whipping boy for energy usage beyond what may be usual per capita in other countries, where the comparison is apples and oranges due to the commute distances and population density differences. The United States is spread out over a vast geographical area and transportation takes energy. An industrialized society also requires more energy. People in the future may live in styrofoam igloos covered with solar cells and eat all their own homegrown food from hydroponic greenhouses and ride around on segways while the interstate highway system becomes a place where weeds are growing up through the cracks of abandoned pavement. However in the present a different type of world has been built that is not yet obsoleted by the ideology and fanaticism of a movement of fringe lunatics ....and their political influence is going to be pulled like a rotten tooth, not left to gangrenously afflict and bring death to the entire body of society. Next election is going to be a good time to get rid of the cancer of big government on the economy that has been a disease for the country in more ways than it has been its servant. What kind of joke is a government that presumes to operate for more than three years without even an approved budget? That's not a rational or lawful or legitimate government ....it is an encounter group of crime cartel members scamming a nation.

Suppose just for a purely hypothetical scenario that energy costs in the United States were reducible to 2 cents per kilowatt hour for the power grid energy, and synthetic fuel and or LNG for internal combustion uses was 10 cents a gallon. Suppose the guaranteed valuation of a dollar was set and fixed as 50 kWHr or 10 gallons of synfuel or LNG equals the bearer bond redeemable value for a dollar.

That would immediately go a very long way towards a new industrial revolution in the United States, putting millions of people back to work and making available the industrial complex necessary for retooling and infrastructure for all the AGW fanatics most glorious imagined shangrila sort of futureworld the construction of which must begin of course in the present world. If Arizona is to be paved with hundreds of square miles of solar panels then energy will be required and factories will be required for their manufacture.

[Edited on 15-2-2012 by Rosco Bodine]

Mr. Wizard - 14-2-2012 at 20:08

GreenD.. You didn't say corn fed in the post I quoted; I did read it closely. Are you a farmer? I'm not either but I understand they are fed open range for a while, fed silage, and then to make the meat better, are fed grain near market time. Farmers and cattlemen are very well aware of the best procedures to bring the most meat to market, at the best price.

Your point about the US deforesting is moot. We grow more than we use. I have trouble seeing the point you are trying to make. The information about 5% of the US covered in tar is without any kind of verification. My figures from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States for the contiguous US area is 3,717,873 miles squared, and the paved portion from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070719230638AA... of 61,000 Sq miles give a percentage of 1.6%, which is less than the 5% you mention. You seem to value your opinions as though they were facts. You do seem to have a need to spread education, as you said. Nobody likes to argue with facts that can't be nailed down, or changed as the discussion evolves.:(

dann2 - 15-2-2012 at 17:21


The Chinese lust to own two (or ten) cars, some boats, large (much too big) house(s), eat far too much etc etc etc. They are equally as pig headed and will help eat the planet away.
They are not up at the figure of per capita consumption as there is in the US etc. When they are (along with India) we are all fucked.


Most of what is consumed in the west creates alot of filth which is exported abroad directly or indirectly more and more. Thank god lots of those jobs are not being done this side of the world. They are just too dirty for our nice green natural country (LOL).

Dann2

Bot0nist - 16-2-2012 at 17:47

Agree fully. Windmills and solar are great, but we need those power plants. Nuclear energy, if done right, is a great resource for mankind to exploit.

Rosco Bodine - 16-2-2012 at 18:51

We have an extensive power grid and we need to fully light it up with cheap kilowatt hours to the tune of terrawatt millenia. Make too cheap to meter
become a reality. Show the rest of the world how it's done.

bquirky - 16-2-2012 at 19:39

An electric motor is >90% efficient, while an internal combustion is <35%.



I love electric cars ive actually built two. but sadly this 90 vs 35 % idea isnt true
what is true is at present where I live electricity is cheaper per km than petrol

you have to include the efficacy of each step in the coal -> tires process
each of the following costs some percentage of total efficancy

the motor controller
battery discharge efficancy
battery self discharge
battery charge efficancy
the battery charger
The electrical distribution system <-- this is the big one
the efficancy of the power generation station

if you include all the costs of refining and transporting the oil it probably still works out in the electric cars favor but its not a slam dunk





[Edited on 17-2-2012 by bquirky]

Endimion17 - 17-2-2012 at 06:03

Quote: Originally posted by GreenD  
IrC - "Hypocrites all" is quite a statement. Have you met all of them? I also highly doubt that an electric car is less environmentally friendly than a fossil fuel produced one. . . An electric motor is >90% efficient, while an internal combustion is <35%.

I'm a "greeny" but I'm not one of those fadsters who picked up on it for the style, reputation. I have a solar panel in my back yard, and I'd have plenty more but I rent - I do not own, and further installment would be a very foolish thing to do. I ride my bike to the store, simply 'cause I don't have to drive the car. I fanatically turn off power strips, lights, tvs, monitors, and other electronics when not in use - simply because they don't need to be on. I heavily consider all of my options when I purchase food or clothing, simply because some are more wasteful then others. I'd rather spend a little more money on some healthier food with better practices that aren't breeding grounds for super-bugs/viruses, nurseries for invasive species, or detrimental to the environment as a whole. Plus, usually more expensive food is less processed (not always common sense) and healthier for you. Its food for god sake - you're made out of it - why not pay a little more for some quality?

I don't have an electric car, cause it doesn't make any sense for me at the moment as well as my funds being that of a student. I am going to absolutely purchase this when I land a job that fulfills the monetary requirements:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GywMHb_3hK4&feature=relat... (30,000$ :) ) maybe I'll wait for the 5thh generation.


The problem with electric cars is that their carbon footprint (and other footprints) depends on the source of electricity used for their construction and the source for powering them.
If everyone in USA would all of the sudden start using electric cars, that would be an environmental disaster because that country is mainly powered by fossil fuels.
I can not believe you're focusing on engine efficiency alone. Dude, you have to take into account its whole cost-benefit analysis of the whole live cycle.
The cost of producing the materials for electric cars is huge, compared to regular cars. Not only the energy is an issue, but matter, too. It takes a lot of neodymium, which is extracted, purified and reduced in China (where they don't give a fuck about a whole lot of people, let alone environment). That's an economical problem, too. For instance, USA has some neodymium, but the whole infrastructure for getting it on the table in a metallic form is laughably poor compared to China's.

You can't look at electric cars from a engine efficiency standpoint only. FYI, things that seem to be economically efficient at the local level can be money black holes, promoted by corruption only. There are tons of problems with that.
I'd like an electric car, too, but not if my country burps carbon and sulphur into the atmosphere, and the cars are made in a totally environmentally unfriendly way.

Quote:
I don't, personally, need a nuclear plant. I'm pretty sure with around the price of an SUV I could power more than just my house with wind and solar, especially in a warmer climate. People who set their A/C at 65 and heat at 75 will have trouble with this, though. If you want to buy an SUV and then rely on someone else's power - thats up to you. If you'd rather live where you work, take public transport or be in biking distance with a purchase of renewable energy, that is also up to you!

My only problem with nuclear energy is where are the breeder reactors. Without them - you still have waste, and that waste, if mobile, isn't something you want around your house.


Yes, you can't power your house with a small windmill and few PV panels, but you'll have to spit some hard cash and you'll never have the same amount of kilowatts. Your quality of life would suffer considerably, and by suffer I don't mean "get worse than the luxurious life you're having right now".

There are tons of things to consider. Wind and sunshine can not be the bases of power systems. Ask anyone who works on power grids, ask any professor at mechanical engineering faculty that works with power and power grids.
Wind and sunshine are unreliable, not energy dense enough and too expensive per kwh of electricity produced. They can be an addition to the existing power grid only.

Anyone who says these two can be the bases of a modern power grid obviously knows shit about power grids. I don't know much about them, but I know some basics.

Check out this diagram I made.


It's simplified, but it works as a model. The red part are the basic power needs. They fluctuate slowly through the year, and follow seasonal demands. The base is obviously the thickest part of the graph surface.
The green part is intermediate demand and comprises everything that's not the base and not peak demand.
The blue part are the daily or even hourly fluctuations. Very edgy and sometimes far from regular.

Can you supply the red part with wind and sun? NO. Impossible to do, and if you try to increase the amount of sun/wind power in this sector beyond a certain point, power grid failures occur.

The blue part is interesting. For example, my country is in the process of solving those demands by investing in small hydroelectric power plants which are famous for the speed of going online and offline from the power grid. You can't turn nuclear/coal on and off quickly enough - in order to cover everything they'd have to work all the time and lots of energy would be wasted.
(additional info: almost all hydroelectric potential is utilized in Croatia, and is a part of the base demand; those small PPs are being built on smaller rivers and are a cause of great discomfort to true eco-friendly people because they wreck havoc with the local environment)

Natural gas thermal power plants are pretty quick, yet still slower than hydroelectric power plants, so they can to be incorporated into the green part.

Regarding the unreliability of wind/sun, wind doesn't blow all the time with the same power. Those fluctuations in the power system give headaches to the technitians and can cause power failures (happened already). Efficient sunshine is available through one part of the day. When wind is gone, when sun is gone, natural gas thermal power plants kick in. No batteries (ROFL!), natural gas and that's it.


Do you see now how complicated this gets? It's not "I'm gonna put some panels on my roof and fuck you America!".
Power grids are demanding. It's not just technology, it's an art, too. All power sources need to be economically and energetically during the whole life cycle, and need to be implemented at places and in times when it's appropriate.

[Edited on 17-2-2012 by Endimion17]

watson.fawkes - 17-2-2012 at 21:56

Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17  
There are tons of things to consider. Wind and sunshine can not be the bases of power systems. [...] Wind and sunshine are unreliable, not energy dense enough and too expensive per kwh of electricity produced. They can be an addition to the existing power grid only.
The issue you are raising is one of base load power vs. peak load power. Both solar and wind are indeed candidate for base load power generation.

Solar concentrators can use thermal energy storage to smooth out the output power. One technique is to molten salt to gather heat during the day and discharge it at night. One of these, the Solana Generating Station, is scheduled for completion next year.

Compressed air energy storage is similar for wind power. Wind turbines generate energy that pumps air into underground geologic formations. The combination eliminates intermittency problems with wind storage. There's been a utility scale plant in Huntorf, Germany using this principle that's been in operation since 1978. In this case it's been converting base load power to peak load power, but the same technology is available for wind. I don't know of a wind plant using this technology yet.

Rosco Bodine - 17-2-2012 at 22:22

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti  
Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine  
The facts support undeniably my position so plainly that denial then becomes an irrational compulsion of the oppositional defiant disorder type which is more usual for adolescents than for being known as an afflcition of grown men. I am being practical and pragmatic .....but my rational analysis and proposals are falling on deaf ears.


Your position is reasonable as well, but global warming is a manifestation of many factors combined, the irresponsible use of energy resources being one of them.


The "irresponsible use of energy" is true mainly with respect to excessive use of "security lighting" which should be curtailed particularly in areas where the electricity sourcing such security lighting is generated by combustion fired boilers. However it is not irresponsible use or waste of energy which represents most use of energy, which is generally utilized properly for performing tasks requiring that energy. Because energy is too costly already, waste is only a small fraction of the total energy consumption, nearly all of which is used in a reasonable and efficient manner.
Quote:

I am a supporter of nuclear power as well, but (again from a pragmatic perspective), we cannot have the entire world to run off of nuclear, simply because nuclear power plants cannot handle peak power loads.

Actually that is not true. Global nuclear power is possible.
Quote:

There is no silver bullet solution to the energy problem,

That is "energy werewolf propaganda" for indeed there is
a "silver bullet" available in the applied science "problem solutions" technology portfolio. The problem resides with a lack of "reader comprehension" for the ones who browse that technology portfolio, who cannot make up their mind what is needed to be ordered from the catalog.
Quote:

we just have to harness energy wherever it is available and as efficiently as possible.
No, there is no necessity to "harness energy" wherever it is available as efficiently as possible. That represents an incorrect idea that the energy which is there "unharnessed" is somehow not serving any other useful function in nature as if nature itself was a useless consumer and waster of energy, as if nature must be "corrected" from such error by intervention of mans engineering. Every breeze that blows is not "wasted energy" if it is not being harnessed to drive a wind turbine.
Even the wind and even sunlight have a purpose in nature.
And so do the tides of the ocean and the flow of rivers have a purpose. Some may feel it is no environmental sin to
cover a prairie with windmills or to cover a desert with solar panels, or to build dams and hydroelectric plants.......
yet a nuclear reactor which has a much smaller footprint
environmentally is not so politically acceptable due to the containment breach hazard. That is really the issue along with waste disposal concerns. If those concerns are made non-issues, then nuclear actually becomes in all ways superior to every other method with respect to environmental friendliness, and then a different sensitivity
will become evident about doing things like building windfarms for blenderizing every bird of the air in the region
and filling the air with industrial noise, not to mention the unsightliness of so much ceaseless mechanization.
Quote:

Here are some things to do to make the world a better place:
-We use fossil fuels from Venezuela to drive our existing machinery,
-but also harness solar power in the Sahara desert to desalinate water for drinking.
-Cut down massive stretches of forest for lumber, making sure to reforest the land right afterwards; thereby keeping forests young.
-Harness wind power off the coast and harness the immense energy source right under our feet.
-Use solar, geothermal and nuclear energy for process heating.
-Stay away from biofuels and coal, develop battery technology instead.
-Develop smart grid technology to use energy more effectively.
-Improve insulation in existing housing.
-Develop plasma gasification technology to process and recycle garbage.

If there is anything to add to this list, please comment.


[1] Buy all the oil available from a friendly trade balanced and friendly neighboring state like Canada as a preferred trading partner, accepting delivery through the Keystone pipeline

[2] The United States should focus on making the United States a better place *first* before it can prioritize the expeditionary mission of making anywhere else in the world a better place. The United States should mind its own business and stick to its charter which is its own constitution as a first order of business, and clean up its own messes in its own backyard before sticking its nose in anybody elses business. Put that at the top of the list as a priority and get that done first, then worry about the rest of the things believed to be issues of some global dimensions in some rationally prioritized order. How can the United States better retreat from the audacity and arrogance of behaving as if it was the worlds self-appointed policeman than by demonstrating a sudden and verifiably complete abandonment of excessively oppressing, taxing, regulating, and policing its own citizens and industries? What happened to freedom? What happened to the freedom spoken of in the Declaration and in the Constitution? Why the swift, stealthy reestablishment of so much "English law" and abuses following a revolution to purge such evils and do something better? Did the crown ever chain so many poor or magnify so many rich as this monstrous, duplicitous fraud? A Lancaster says no. The gestapoesque mentality of a tyrant police state and despot is not welcome either domestically or abroad, except by wild men who seek and need a master to rule over them or ignorant sheep who seek and need to be led. All the rest simply resent the imposition of authority which has no valid premise.

[3] Get every person out of government who thinks they are a public master instead of a public servant.

[Edited on 18-2-2012 by Rosco Bodine]

franklyn - 18-2-2012 at 08:59

Seems reasonable given this is the principle by which cloud chambers visualize
charged particles ( radioactivity ) from a disintegrating atomic nucleus.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/scientific-experiment-t...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature1...

http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel...

Global warming advocates also cannot explain how it is that
the supposed mean temperature increase results in decreased
precipitation which depletes glaciers of replenishing snowfall.
As a result the glacier's surface becomes dirtier without a
white cover of new snow , accelerating the surface warming
from sunlight and resulting melt..The glacier recedes up the
valley because there is less weight of recurring snow fall to
push it down hill.

A reasoned analysis of " climate change ".
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/why-it-so-cold-should-big-f...

.

Endimion17 - 18-2-2012 at 10:33

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes  
The issue you are raising is one of base load power vs. peak load power. Both solar and wind are indeed candidate for base load power generation.

Solar concentrators can use thermal energy storage to smooth out the output power. One technique is to molten salt to gather heat during the day and discharge it at night. One of these, the Solana Generating Station, is scheduled for completion next year.

Compressed air energy storage is similar for wind power. Wind turbines generate energy that pumps air into underground geologic formations. The combination eliminates intermittency problems with wind storage. There's been a utility scale plant in Huntorf, Germany using this principle that's been in operation since 1978. In this case it's been converting base load power to peak load power, but the same technology is available for wind. I don't know of a wind plant using this technology yet.


Yeah, I know there are systems that can store energy. I've got a nice hydroelectric example less than 50 km from my place. Big ass tube going more than half kilometre down, been there as a kid several times. The complete efficiency is the problem, not to mention the fact that this only delays the problem of not having proper wind or sunshine for extended periods of time. That's why wind and sun can't be the ultimate base. You can't depend on them. They're unreliable. Sunshine has the exception for some hot, arid regions with extremely high insolation, though not many live there.

I could totally see a molten salt with heat tank working in cities like Dubai. They've got the money for such expensive power sources, although I don't think they'd care about it, with all that oil underneath. They might build it just to amaze stupid Westerners, though, like when they were talking about making a "green city". It's a fucking desert. It wasn't supposed to be green nor can it be "green".

My point was to emphasize the various issues around different power sources. People usually think it's all about the amount of power produced, and it's far from that. At least people at SM should know better than that.

 Pages:  1  2