@BrianK

Quote:

I don't believe you accept your own arguements. If the case that 600+ scientists and 400+ articles means we should accept this is true was really what you believe this topic would have been 3 threads long. As you would have accepted thousands of scientists and thousands of articles which all state we're going through a period of GW as true.

I don't understand you don't understand the difference. Observational, on the ground verifiable science versus modelled unprovable pseudo science. That seems not that hard to get it.

Quote:

Even at this site of 700 articles what I find is in the site summarized views the periods are not a perfect match with each other. So when did this supposed worldwide occurrance truly start and truly end?

Do you expect perfect start and end date? Sorry Nature is not that cooperative and past reconstructions are consequently not perfect either.

Quote:

The point is this site does not contain all MWP records.

Care to provide the missing papers?

Quote:

Interestingly enough we see you claim submission and without proof.

That was the very point why I did it. The textual explanation is it was an applied example following you own rules: I wrote: Quote:

You see how stupid it is. The only valid reason for rejecting research funded by [put here whatever you want] is because the research is flawed. In that case, the issue is the incorrect science, not the funding.

I thought it was self explaining.

Quote:

I was expecting 700 papers I could read. Perhaps next time you could make it clearer that it's just a site created summary and we'd have to track down the papers elsewhere to verify if the site is right or wrong in their claimed succinct descriptions.

No problem to be suspicious, but apply the same politic to your quoted journalistic news which do not refer to any paper.

Quote:

If we averaged we see a decrease.

Thanks for finally agreeing the obvious.

Quote:

Let's give you the 10 years you want to use to disprove GW

Not GW, just AGW. For GW one has to wait a little longer.

Quote:

Certainly if a 10 year trend disproves the globe is warming then the a 100 year down trend or 0 evidence from Huon Trees provide us a stronger disproof of a global MWP.

See the previous post or Google about proxies misuses by the Hockey Team.

Quote:

If you go back to my statement you will see that I clearly state the scientific claims of that line are supported by research.

Sure, except that you did not refer to the proper quote that was speaking of: Quote:

neatly illustrating the fact that "MWP" is a moveable term[citation needed] and that during the "warm" period there were, regionally, periods of both warmth and cold.

Quote:

Changing effects of climate have impact in different ways on our environment. While the net forests may be increasing there are areas being blighted, says the science, due to effects of GW.

How is it related to my question: Quote:

So what have these trees to do with the AGW scam?

Quote:

So now you're looking down on your own question? The accusation was that I was not open-minded and didn't accept the science. The science you are talking about comes from authories. So yes I agree your question was an appeal to authority.

No. The difference is that Science has no authority on you. Instead you have authority on Science because Science has to convinced you Science is true. You can reject Science even if Science is true (and you have) -- Note it is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of being convinced. -- OTOH Zardoz is the authority because even he is false, he has not to convince you if he is (true or false) for you to accept his authority (this is an example only, I do not imply Zardoz was/is/will be true/false at any time (just to be clear (I am not playing low level game))).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@SpaceDruid

Some interesting and conflicting stories out today.....

Sunspots drop

Deadly Pacific quake keeps surprising scientists
The 2007 earthquake in the Solomon Islands that launched a deadly tsunami is raising a host of challenges for scientists working to understand what happened.
Link

EU: Earth warming faster

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Google Earth had (I've not used it in a while) the ability to show global seismic activity on a yearly basis.

yes, excellent idea.

I've been using this site as they also use Google maps with their system in real time.

Been watching this on and off again, i don't have the figures mapped out but to me I see extended and growing seismic activity just over the last few months.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@SpaceDruid

About the Artic ice thinning widely reported: the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has shifted its standard from "declining multi-year ice" to "declining 2+ year old ice" being the main problem with ice. As 2007 was a record low ice extend, it goes without saying that there isn’t a lot of 2 year old ice left in 2009. OTOH, multi-year ice has increased up to nearly 25% from 2008.

Mass media have evidently and conveniently fall in the trap. You could now feel how easy it is to cleverly select some satellite data and exploit them to fit the agenda. No doubt next year we will be told a "declining 3+ year old ice". Pseudo-science as usual.

Edit: and there you find the opposite evidence using independent military data that Artic ice has thickened in 2006-2007 & 2008.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 09-Apr-2009 at 09:44 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Interesting

From: Quote:

EU: Earth warming faster

Quote:

Nine of 11 experts, who were among authors of the final summary by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 (IPCC),

As there were no scientists among the authors of the IPCC 2007 summary, one wonders what kind of experts they are. Experts in scaremongering surely.

Quote:

Global warming is likely to overshoot a 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) rise seen by the European Union and many developing nations as a trigger for "dangerous" change

Ah yes they are. Do not expect these clowns debunk themselves, they have vested interests.

Quote:

most projected on average a faster melt of summer ice in the Arctic and a quicker rise in sea levels than estimated in the 2007 report, the most authoritative overview to date drawing on work by 2,500 experts.

Strange. Ice extend is above normal:


sea level is stable since 2006:


and it was shown that the 2500 scientists were in fact a few 10th. Recycling scares, pseudoscience and appeal to authority.

I am waiting for BrianK to note with his usual deep scrutiny 'Hey, where are the errors bars on all those numbers?'. Ooops, there are none.
I am waiting for umisef to note with his usual delicate attention: 'Wait, a trend line in sea level? Where is my 2002-2009 quadratic, moron?'

Etc, etc. Boring.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

I don't understand you don't understand the difference. Observational, on the ground verifiable science versus modelled unprovable pseudo science. That seems not that hard to get it.

Sure I get it. I, well and the scientists, disagree with you on what is pseudo science.

Quote:

Do you expect perfect start and end date? Sorry Nature is not that cooperative and past reconstructions are consequently not perfect either.

Let me get this right your observational verifiable science can't actually provide us knowldge of when the MWP truly began to be worldwide effect? Personally I don't care if they're off a year here or there. But in some cases it's 300+ years?

Quote:

Care to provide the missing papers?

You said you provided 3 papers on Antarctica that weren't at CO2science.org. Is your own proof not good enough?

Quote:

Not GW, just AGW. For GW one has to wait a little longer.

Sorry don't see it. Your thought seems to be that AGW is so huge that natural variations don't have an impact. It is impacting but not large enough to negate all variability. In fact, GW is predicted to cause wider fluxuations and more variability in the system.

Quote:

No. The difference is that Science has no authority on you

Okay let's take your defintion. Then Nope there is no appeal to authority. It appears your statement as such was spurious. (again accepting your definition here.)

@BrianK

Quote:

I, well and the scientists, disagree with you on what is pseudo science.

The scientists producing pseudo-science disagree. The one producing verifiable Science do not need to disagree, their results speak for themselves.

Quote:

Personally I don't care if they're off a year here or there. But in some cases it's 300+ years?

And the more you go back in time, the less accurate it is. You will not find perfection in this area. This is the very way Science works (you know that when you have done *real* research work at the lab.) as I showed here: this plot comes from CO2Science. Analysing the plot should provided some interesting responses if one dares to deepen the thought.

Quote:

You said you provided 3 papers on Antarctica that weren't at CO2science.org. Is your own proof not good enough?

I have not verified if they are or not quoted by CO2Science because 1/ it is marginally important, 2/ you were the one claiming the existence of thousand of missing papers with no MWP: your Wikipedia attempt was full of papers proving MWP and which most are on CO2Science. Where are they those 1000th missing papers disproving MWP? The vast majority of papers shows a MWP. Period. If you are not convinced, nothing will. No need to discuss further.

Quote:

Your thought seems to be that AGW is so huge that natural variations don't have an impact.

Don't take me for a believer. I want solid proofs to be convinced by a theory. AGW was just an hypothesis that Physics and observations have easily rejected. What remains is mostly political arm waving by opportunist and/or crackpot pseudo-scientists mass-mediatically relayed by eco-dogmatic politicians, both conveniently brainwashed by the green fascist doctrine:
1/ environmentalists push to replace incandescent lamps: it turns out CFC bulbs are mini-toxic waste dumps and are not reliable;
2/ environmentalists push to ban DDT: result, tens of millions of deaths;
3/ environmentalists try to ban chlorine: no word to describe such level of stupidity;
4/ environmentalists claimed to ban CFC's to save the ozone layer: it turns out even that may be misguided 'science';
5/ environmentalists claims of "overpopulation": we've barely even scratched the surface and there's lots of room left. Besides, population is levelling off now. The same groups who began promoting the global warming hoax (The Club of Rome, the UN) were also behind the population scare in past decades. They apparently have nothing better to do than scaring to justify their existences;
6/ the recent nutty pop culture fad of mythical "sustainability" and a need to "conserve energy": by those that understand the butterfly effect backwards, a mythical marketing project conceived by population reduction advocates and extremists, including the same Club of Rome, the UN, and Big Green, already described in the previous thread, all once again in the anti-human camps. I have never bought into that sustainability myth for even a second.

Ecologism is a marketing doctrine. Ecology is the real Science.

Quote:

GW is predicted to cause wider fluxuations and more variability in the system.

Observations do not corroborate these predictions, quite the opposite.

Quote:

there is no appeal to authority.

So why referring to Zardoz then?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

And the more you go back in time, the less accurate it is

The answer here on science in general is it depends. In far as reconstructions of past climate yes they get harder in time as evidence tends to degrade and becomes less available. Though do note this creates a range of statistical probably. Which for the MWP many of the probability ranges lower end cross the higher end with Mann. If we had some sort of time machine we could verify the exact temp. It might well prove that both cover the temp at the time.

Quote:

you were the one claiming the existence of thousand of missing papers with no MWP:

I claimed thousands of papers on GW. I didn't claim they stated anything about MWP. Some do and some don't. Clearly CO2climate doesn't have every paper containing MWP. The question of why they excluded is something we'd never answer unless we could somehow sit down and question them about the particulars. IMO out of scope of abiilty for either of us here on AW.

Quote:

What remains is mostly political arm waving by opportunist and/or crackpot pseudo-scientists mass-mediatically relayed by eco-dogmatic politicians, both conveniently brainwashed by the green fascist doctrine

Don't forget driven by the Faith of Gaia....

Quote:

environmentalists push to replace incandescent lamps: it turns out CFC bulbs are mini-toxic waste dumps

Comparing bulb to bulb perhaps. Add in the reduction of usage of coal in the system to generate power. (Something we use a lot of in MN) and surprise the net effect is CFC is better. Well, and needless to say less nuclear waste is a 10,000+year better problem.

Quote:

environmentalists claims of "overpopulation":

Unquestionably we are seeing effects of overpopulation on the planet.

Quote:

Observations do not corroborate these predictions, quite the opposite

We of course completely disagree.

Quote:

So why referring to Zardoz then?

You accused me of an appeal to authority. I explained how I saw this. You disagreed with my view and stated you meant an appeal to authority in a different way. I accepted the new way. Applying a statement from a previous thought that is now discarded to accept your method is a misguided and erronous assumption on your part.

BTW -- did you see the news today of NASA's report on melting ice caps and the work done stating it's likely more a factor of cleaner air than CO2? How does non-CO2 government work apply to your the government only does CO2 work blinders?

@BrianK

Quote:

Mann

His work is just a statistical artefact that produces an Hockey Stick even with red noise. In addition, some of the trees he used were largely proved to be unreliable as temperature proxies.

Quote:

I claimed thousands of papers on GW. I didn't claim they stated anything about MWP.

No, you clearly wrote in this post: Quote:

Of course now we see you cry the 700 papers of MWP perfectly correct observation on a world wide effect but the thousands of papers on the same current period are wrong.

Were are these 1000th papers?

Quote:

Some do and some don't.

Correction: the majority does and a few don't.

Quote:

Clearly CO2climate doesn't have every paper containing MWP.

As Wikipedia. CO2Science does not claim to be exhaustive. Rather they provide sufficient papers to demonstrate that MWP was worldwide with relatively large temporal bounds.

Quote:

Add in the reduction of usage of coal in the system to generate power.

I was not discussing the energy efficiency, but the pollution, toxicity and reliability.

Quote:

Something we use a lot of in MN

Here we choose the realistic nuclear way 30 years ago, we don't have this problem.

Quote:

Well, and needless to say less nuclear waste is a 10,000+year better problem.

Long lasting nuclear wastes are indeed a problem currently. Next generation power plants will do better.

Quote:

Unquestionably we are seeing effects of overpopulation on the planet.

There is no thing unquestionable when the claim is incorrect: in Europe population is declining.

Quote:

You accused me of an appeal to authority.

Accused? No. I just noted that you referred to Zardoz as an appeal to authority.

Quote:

I accepted the new way. Applying a statement from a previous thought that is now discarded

Not logical. You accepted the new way, it can not be discarded. Btw the following can not be discussed:
1/ Zardoz is the authority here,
2/ Zardoz's authority here,
because the TOS forbids that expressively. And by commenting here you have accepted the TOS. Thus referring to Zardoz is referring to (his) authority, that is to say an appeal to (his) authority. Clearer now

Quote:

BTW -- did you see the news today of NASA's report on melting ice caps and the work done stating it's likely more a factor of cleaner air than CO2?

No, but this news does not surprised me because I provided last year a paper showing that most part of the small temperature's increase in Europe in the 90' was due to a cleaner air. I am all for a cleaner air. Have you heard of Holdren wanting to pollute the air with particulates, or the degenerated experiment (fertilization) in the Indian ocean?

Quote:

How does non-CO2 government work apply to your the government only does CO2 work blinders?

This is cryptic.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Were are these 1000th papers?

Let me restate in hoping to clear up your confusion. You claim that 700 papers prove a MWP. But, you disscards thousands of papers that prove a GW effect.

Quote:

CO2Science does not claim to be exhaustive

Exactly I'm glad we agree. Now the question remains - Why did they selected some articles and did not select others?

Quote:

I was not discussing the energy efficiency, but the pollution, toxicity and reliability.

If you look again at what I wrote I think you will see I acknowledge you limited your scope to only compare bulb to bulb. Now to my statement which if you take the system into consideration, that the bulb is a part of, fluorscent bulbs have lower pollution than incandescent bulbs. An example: Mecury in fluorscents 6mg for incandescents vs 2mg for fluorscents.

Quote:

Here we choose the realistic nuclear way 30 years ago, we don't have this problem

Your realistic system just shifted the type of pollution to be nuclear waste. A nuclear plant does contribute mercury, simply much less than a coal or oil plant.

Quote:

There is no thing unquestionable when the claim is incorrect: in Europe population is declining.

Europe in decline isn't true. This is probably another discussion as it depends on what one considers Europe. Likely it's own thread. But, let's assume for sake of arguement that Europe is in decline. This doesn't prove the world population is in decline. In fact the opposite is true the world's population continues to increase.

Quote:

Not logical. You accepted the new way, it can not be discarded

Hopefully this explaination will clear up the mistake you made.
TMTiF stated that I commited an appeal to authority. I stated that scientists are an authority (X) so yes the appeal is true. Then I commented on the condition (if X then Y). TMTiF said that my definition on the appeal to authority isn't what was claimed (!X) but instead it's different (A). I agreed to the new claim (!X but A) Then TMTiF asked me why I made such a bad comment on the condition. In effect you asked why I said (if A then Y). Clearly something I never said as I never commented on A. The failure in logic here is not mine.

Quote:

No, but this news does not surprised me

Really you've told us all along how the government is conspiring with the cults of Gaia to only bring forward CO2 science and failing to look at any other cause.

@BrianK

Quote:

Let me restate in hoping to clear up your confusion. You claim that 700 papers prove a MWP. But, you disscards thousands of papers that prove a GW effect.

Your sentence was unclear. Still, the evidences presented by the ~700 papers clearly draw the conclusion that the MWP was warmer than today, thus demonstrating that natural temperature variations are large enough to account for the current small temperature variations encountered nowadays.

Quote:

Exactly I'm glad we agree. Now the question remains - Why did they selected some articles and did not select others?

How many remains? If you don't know the number (and you will not know it if you do not query some Scientific Journals Database), it is impossible to respond to the question. If you need an answer, why not dropping a mail to CO2Science?

Quote:

If you look again at what I wrote I think you will see I acknowledge you limited your scope to only compare bulb to bulb. Now to my statement which if you take the system into consideration, that the bulb is a part of, fluorscent bulbs have lower pollution than incandescent bulbs. An example: Mecury in fluorscents 6mg for incandescents vs 2mg for fluorscents.

True in the USA/UK. Not true in France or in places/homes partially powered with sun/wind/etc: in this cases the environmental impact of CFC is negative. In any case LED is more efficient and cleaner that CFC.

Quote:

Your realistic system just shifted the type of pollution to be nuclear waste. A nuclear plant does contribute mercury, simply much less than a coal or oil plant.

There is no clean and powerful enough technology on the market at this time (the IFR technology was dropped by Clinton). But if you were to replace all coal, oil, nuclear plants with solar or wind or hydro, you will be faced with the following:
1/ none of these technologies is continuous (see for ex. the UK this winter with lack of wind);
2/ the cost per power is prohibitive:


2/ even with large subsidies:


3/ the productivity is too low to be a main energy production supply


4/ detrimental environmental costs and co-lateral damages are rarely assessed and often hidden (long term impact on fauna, removing of cultivable soil for wind or too much land-use for solar, etc);
5/ the productive period is the period of low demand and vice versa;
6/ the lifetime is no better;
7/ some big actors in the green energy are leaving the market.

All in all, what we need is a new nuclear technology. And the sooner the better.

Quote:

TMTiF stated that I commited an appeal to authority. I stated that scientists are an authority (X) so yes the appeal is true. Then I commented on the condition (if X then Y). TMTiF said that my definition on the appeal to authority isn't what was claimed (!X) but instead it's different (A). I agreed to the new claim (!X but A) Then TMTiF asked me why I made such a bad comment on the condition. In effect you asked why I said (if A then Y). Clearly something I never said as I never commented on A. The failure in logic here is not mine.

You are confused: let me remind your statement: Quote:

If you don't truly care please don't make undue accusations. Reference Zardoz..

What make you think that your reference to Zardoz is not an appeal to authority given your previous claim and Zardoz previous moderation comment: Quote:

Oh, and one thing, as a moderator this time: While I find the thread interesting, if you want to continue it drop the personal attacks. ALL of you.

No need to slip to Science or anything else off topic.

Quote:

Really you've told us all along how the government is conspiring with the cults of Gaia to only bring forward CO2 science and failing to look at any other cause.

Twisting my words: what I said is that the current invented CO² hysteria avoids to look at other real and more stringent problems. That does not obviously mean that no other problems are or were being dealt with or/and resolved.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

Just read about the small
earthquake series in Yellowstone.

Apparently the volcano is so huge, that it is capable of causing an ice age, so if it would erupt, then all the talk about global warming would be about nothing.


http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Maps/Yellowstone.eqs

http://www.seis.utah.edu/req2webdir/recenteqs/Maps/Yellowstone.gif

Last edited by tomazkid on 11-Apr-2009 at 09:49 PM.
Last edited by tomazkid on 11-Apr-2009 at 09:48 PM.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@TMTisFree

Quote:

thus demonstrating that natural temperature variations are large enough to account for the current small temperature variations encountered nowadays

Meh. Historically over the life of the planet we see that we're still in a range that's occurred in past history. The question is are the factors driving this range today the same ones in MWP. Showing it is possible does not prove it true.

Quote:

If you don't know the number (and you will not know it if you do not query some Scientific Journals Database), it is impossible to respond to the question

I'm glad you get my point. Thanks.

Quote:

In any case LED is more efficient and cleaner that CFC.

That is true. Supposedly with newer manufacturing procedures and true white LEDs these will likely see a future. Probably more in businesses first then in homes.

Quote:

There is no clean and powerful enough technology on the market at this time (the IFR technology was dropped by Clinton). But if you were to replace all coal, oil, nuclear plants with solar or wind or hydro, you will be faced with the following

I agree there is no perfectly clean technology. Manufacture and delivery of solar cells or wind generations do, of course, cause their own pollution. IFR -- Interesting theory. I'd love to see if the actual product could match the plethora of advantages that are theorizied.

As for using only renewable energy. I doubt anyone is seriously considering replacing the existing plants overnight with renewables. Renewables do have a place and should. Another factor to renewables is that they stabilitize the economy. This is because the price of oil or coal will always fluxuation much greater than the price of wind or sun. This in turn gives businesses more predictable costs and subsequently easier to predict profits.

As for the delivered cost of energy chart there are quite a few local dependencies there. For example -- Solar in MN not a good break even point. Wind generation does compete with coal over a 30 year lifespan. This assumed coal and it's delivery didn't change in price over 30 years. Certainly history shows us that over 30s we're bound to face higher fuel and delivery costs.

Quote:

removing of cultivable soil for wind or too much land-use for solar

This all depends on how it's done. Again here in Minnesota we have windfarms. Several by my house are in fields. They remove under an acre per windmill. Now if one looks to something such as Hawaii you could offshore them. This removes none of their farmland. Putting things in the water can produce a habitat for wildlife. Such as those seen around oil drill rigs.

Solar costs are high and this is much harder to make it pay off. But, as for land use why not use solar panels on top of roofs? It could augment the grid by providing power to the building. In addition more power generation areas increases security of the power supply grid.


Quote:

What make you think that your reference to Zardoz is not an appeal to authority

Nothing I wrote indicates that Zardoz is an authority to be appealed to on the issue of GW. Instead the reference to Zardoz was to act nicer to each other here as he requested. Making false accusations is not nice.


Quote:

I really don't care you agree with the AGW ecoterrorism doctrine, believe in ID or think that your shower drains differently in the northern or southern hemisphere. What is interesting is pointing out why all 3 are wrong

Getting back to this I see you like to be the minority opnion vs the consensus of science, GW, along with being the consensus of science against the minority opinion, ID.

As for the drain it did flow in different directions between my house in the northern hemisphere and that I rented in the southern hemisphere. One went clockwise and the other counter clockwise.

@tomazkid

Quote:

Apparently the volcano is so huge, that it is capable of causing an ice age, so if it would erupt, then all the talk about global warming would be about nothing

Yellowstone is thought to be a supervolcano. If it erupted it would cover a significant part of the US in ash. It would kill millions and wreck the worldwide economy. The equivalent estimate is ~2000 Mt. St. Helens going off at once.

@tomazkid

Quote:

Apparently the volcano is so huge, that it is capable of causing an ice age, so if it would erupt, then all the talk about global warming would be about nothing.

Interesting, thanks.
The FAQ has some useful responses about the Yellowstone supervolcano (PDF): Quote:

QUESTION: What is the chance of another catastrophic volcanic eruption at Yellowstone? ANSWER: Although it is possible, scientists are not convinced that there will ever be another catastrophic eruption at Yellowstone. Given Yellowstone's past history, the yearly probability of another caldera—forming eruption could be calculated as 1 in 730,000 or 0.00014%. However, this number is based simply on averaging the two intervals between the three major past eruptions at Yellowstone — this is hardly enough to make a critical judgement. This probability is roughly similar to that of a large (1 kilometer) asteroid hitting the Earth. Moreover, catastrophic geologic events are neither regular nor predictable.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

Meh. Historically over the life of the planet we see that we're still in a range that's occurred in past history. The question is are the factors driving this range today the same ones in MWP. Showing it is possible does not prove it true.

I agree. Occam's Razor suggests nevertheless to select the simplest explanation when possible. In this case, the alternative hypothesis has no physical basis (if you check the 4 IPCC reports, you will not find any physical explanations, only qualitative claims), is not supported by historical measurements and is not supported by current observations.

Quote:

I'm glad you get my point. Thanks.

If your point was to point out that CO2Science is not exhaustive, I gave it to you some posts ago and CO2Science states nowhere they are. OTOH the Wikipedia article is far less exhaustive than CO2Science and I do not know any other effort at least as exhaustive as CO2Science and with such easy visual demonstration of a worldwide MWP (their Java map). Sure, they are not perfectly exhaustive, but it is the best we currently have and can used easily.

Quote:

That is true. Supposedly with newer manufacturing procedures and true white LEDs these will likely see a future. Probably more in businesses first then in homes.

Incandescent bulbs will be banned in 2012-2013 in Europe, LED's price will certainly drop as we see it more and more in stores nowadays. Currently LED cost price is more at 5, equal at 10 and less at 12-15 years than CFC for a lifetime 3 times the one of CFC (50x to incandescent) and 90% energy economy (70% for CFC). I plan to switch most of my low voltage (25W) lamps (about 40) with LED at next time replacement.

Quote:

Manufacture and delivery of solar cells or wind generations do, of course, cause their own pollution.

My point is that it is difficult to find a ratio pollution per unit power produced of the said technologies over their entire lifespan. Sure it is interesting to be energy-independent even at the home level, but I find it strange to not find such basic study and information easily.

Quote:

IFR -- Interesting theory. I'd love to see if the actual product could match the plethora of advantages that are theorizied.

It was more than a theory. It was studied at the Argonne National Laboratory and demonstrated at the Idaho National Laboratory with successful shut-downs against both Tchernobyl-like and Three Mile Island-like events. Even Hansen has pushed to restart study on IFR to his letter to Obama in 2008. It is unbelievable how stupid stopping IFR research was, a decision of Clinton and Congress under pressure by DoE green doctrinal anti-nuclear advocates (history here). It is a real shame that US has this ability to demolished its best ideas on great scale because of such dogmatic positions.

OTOH there now is an international project called ITER (for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and currently build at Cadarache, France to see if thermonuclear fusion is economically cost effective. Large deployment (read commercial availability) will not be before 2050 though. There are other technologies as Field-Reversed Configuration or Colliding Beam Fusion reactors also studied.

Quote:

As for using only renewable energy. I doubt anyone is seriously considering replacing the existing plants overnight with renewables.

They planned it in recent years in the UK. They are going back fast with the no wind winter they have suffered and energy businesses leaving the renewable market in Europe.

Quote:

Renewables do have a place and should.

At home level and for increasing energy independence, I agree.

Quote:

Another factor to renewables is that they stabilitize the economy. This is because the price of oil or coal will always fluxuation much greater than the price of wind or sun. This in turn gives businesses more predictable costs and subsequently easier to predict profits.

It remains to be proved. Because of the discontinuity and inverted offer/demand in production problems renewable energies will not be main production paths. Then an effective (measurable) action on softening energy price is probably overestimated (dilution), especially if energy prices increase greatly.

Quote:

As for the delivered cost of energy chart there are quite a few local dependencies there. For example -- Solar in MN not a good break even point. Wind generation does compete with coal over a 30 year lifespan. This assumed coal and it's delivery didn't change in price over 30 years. Certainly history shows us that over 30s we're bound to face higher fuel and delivery costs.

Wind competes because of subsidies. If you add the loss of jobs in the balance by switching to green technologies, wind generation does not compete. We switched to nuclear 30 years ago because we have no oil or no coal here. It is an advantage in the current climate hysteria and that is why our garden gnome President can crow as a c0ck in the international political arena (with his feet in the social mud, thus wonderfully representing our emblem, but it is another story).

Quote:

Putting things in the water can produce a habitat for wildlife.

I am not sure that is an ecological advancement.

Quote:

Solar costs are high and this is much harder to make it pay off. But, as for land use why not use solar panels on top of roofs? It could augment the grid by providing power to the building. In addition more power generation areas increases security of the power supply grid.

We do exactly that here because we don't want landscape to be used/destructed with solar panel fields. Solar energy is bought 5 times the nominal cost and the panel is entirely subsidized; it is capitalistically interesting and I planned to put 2x2.5 kW on roof next year.

Quote:

Nothing I wrote indicates that Zardoz is an authority to be appealed to on the issue of GW.

Nice try to slip to GW , but a failed one because nothing *I* wrote indicates that Zardoz is an authority to be appealed to on the issue of GW either.

Quote:

Instead the reference to Zardoz was to act nicer to each other here as he requested.

What I said exactly: a clear appeal to authority as Zardoz is a moderation authority and has already done such authority here as you wrote. QED. That was an interesting exercise thanks.

Edit: changed #### by c0ck to circumvent this stupid machine. What is the problem with a singing "c0ck"?
Edit2: do it really

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 12-Apr-2009 at 10:48 AM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 12-Apr-2009 at 10:47 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@tomazkid

Quote:

Just read about the small earthquake series in Yellowstone. Apparently the volcano is so huge, that it is capable of causing an ice age, so if it would erupt, then all the talk about global warming would be about nothing.

Yes, and a number of weeks ago someone came out and said Yellowstone was ready to blow, and the US Government went after him...shutting him up. Yellowstone could change "our way of life".

I just checked the latest and Philippines just had a 4.7 ( a 4.7 can cause damage). Also Mexico had one in the 4 range

Update: 4/12 Japan a 4.7 and Alaska 4.4, Ukranke

keeping my eyes open

Last edited by Interesting on 13-Apr-2009 at 01:18 AM.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

And IF Yellowstone blows or not there is precious little humans can do about it ,any more than we could stop the Mt. St. Helens eruption that ,in seconds ,pulverized half a mountain and spewed the debis,ash,etc over a huge area.

The pseudo-scientists spewing the global warming noinsense have a political agenda of wanting to control f humanity,.
Those "scientists" are no different than the false priests scrying the future through examining the entrails of sacrificial animals.Those old priests of Baal or whatever manipulated the fearful,ignornant people into all manner of acts that hurt those very people,right up to insane sacrifices of their firstborn.Now the pseudo-scientists are up to the same tactics even to telling people to sacrifice their unborn children for the good of the planet.

It is a FRAUD ! The main goal to take freedom of choice and personal wealth away from the geat er proportion of people so that the self-annointted may enjoy their perks.

Curbing the dumping of significant amounts of known poisons is one thing;but the two-faced bullsirt of limiting use of CFCs in developed countries while permitting their INCREASED production in other countries is just a disguise for transfer of wealth.

Global warming has been detected on Mars ;you don't suppose the cyclical variations of the local star known as the SUN has anything to do with global temperatures?

@BigC

Quote:

The pseudo-scientists spewing the global warming noinsense have a political agenda of wanting to control f humanity,.

agree, they wish power of something....look at todays news item

Cows With Gas: India's Contribution to Global Warming

By burping, belching and excreting copious amounts of methane - a greenhouse gas that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide - India's livestock of roughly 485 million (including sheep and goats) contribute more to global warming than the vehicles they obstruct.

the full story

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Well obviously the answer IS blowing in the WIND!!

All the Indians need do is attach methane collection devices to the animals rear ends.The gas can be transferred to local collection points and burnt in cookstoves thus solving two problems:fuel shortage and pollution!

I suggest duct tape and plastic bags.

Last edited by BigC on 12-Apr-2009 at 06:13 PM.