@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Dandy Also, Lanthanum isn't rare. ...

Excellent - thanks for thwe figures!

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

I didn't wanna hold your hand - I just tried to make you re-read your own post (#431) where I replied to (you had your chance ), as there wasn't a single question included - so...

the questions are Obvious

Global Warming
1) Remember that the actions taken because of the ideology have consequences!!!

2) As hybrid cars gobble rare metals, shortage looms (news item)

3) Action electric cars are cleaner. Consequence rape of the land to build them.

the questions remain Obvious

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

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @Dandy Quote: I didn't wanna hold your hand - I just tried to make you re-read your own post (#431) where I replied to (you had your chance ), as there wasn't a single question included - so... the questions are Obvious Global Warming 1) Remember that the actions taken because of the ideology have consequences!!!

A question is obvious for me if it closes with a "?" (=question mark). A sentence closing with three "!" (=exclamation marks) obviously is NOT a question.

Quote:

Interesting wrote: 2) As hybrid cars gobble rare metals, shortage looms (news item)

I accept this as the header of a news item - but I can't see how this could be a question. If it was, it would end with a question mark.

Quote:

Interesting wrote: 3) Action electric cars are cleaner. Consequence rape of the land to build them.

My grammatical analysis tells me that these are two "normal" sentences/statements.

EDIT:
BTW - what is meant with Action electric cars - I only know electric cars...

Quote:

Interesting wrote: the questions remain Obvious

Maybe for clairvoyants, which I'm not...

Last edited by Dandy on 04-Sep-2009 at 04:44 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Yeah - but TMTisfree claimed "Politics have withdrawn them for political reasons...", which simply is not true for the technologies you mentioned - at least not here in Germany. Here those technologies are supported and aided by our government - and as TMT is from our neighbour country France and most likely knows that, he must have meant something else...

He might be talking about 'fusion' power. However, this is still theoretical. I remember 30 years ago the talk of how the unlimited Fusion Reactor was a decade away. In the USA President Reagan cut the Fusion spending. Along with other spending for 'infinite' energies such as solar and wind.

Wasn't it @Interesting worried about the absence of rare materials? If so Fusion power is even more worrysome. How much tritium is there in the world? Last I recall about 20kg total. How much does it cost to make more? Billions and tens of Billions (as Carl Sagan might say)

One of TMTisFree's statement was 'cheap'... Just on a envelope I don't see Fusion. It's neither inexpensive nor infinite. And of course unproven in actual large scale electricity production. Thus, I'd have to assume my guess of Fusion would also be wrong.

@BrianK

Quote:

How much tritium is there in the world? Last I recall about 20kg total. How much does it cost to make more? Billions and tens of Billions (as Carl Sagan might say)

You have just reminded me why anyone with the technological muscle wants to get to the moon - helium 3.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19296/

Noel

@NoelFuller

Quote:

Hockey stick is back and Michael Mann got nowhere near it

How wrong you are: most of the authors of the paper are Mann's colleagues (see the social network of Mann). Anyway problems with the data and methodologies of the paper are scrutinized here as usual: in short ex post data cherry-picking, upside-down use of data, same flawed statistic used by Mann, etc: scientifically as useless as the HS papers (probably useful for Copenhagen 2009 though). A look at the real temperature data from satellite show no trend (look at the top of the curve, above the melting line in blue):


Quote:

That title was deliberate chosen to stop TMTisFree breathing for a moment :)

Plants love my CO²

Edit: removed the useless note

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 04-Sep-2009 at 09:43 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".

@Dandy

Quote:

Scientists claim the main cause for the decline of the once great Mayan culture was that they ran out of resources:

It was my understanding that Mayas disappeared because of repeated droughts (see f.e. G. H. Haug et al. 2003 Climate and the collapse of Maya civilization, Science or R. B. Gill 2000 The great Maya droughts: water, life, and death). Note that it is not inconsistent with your quote.

Quote:

The substance "coal" exists - no matter if humans exist or not.).

The substance "coal" exists as a resource only because human have thought on how to use it as such. Remove humans, and what remains is just matter (that you call it 'substance' or 'coal' is irrelevant). Matter can be defined as a resource when humans put some thinking on how to use it to fill some needs usually depending on time, space and other constraints. As such a 'resource' is a mere abstraction.

Quote:

Could you please be a bit more specific here and name a few of those "almost infinite solutions for energy"?

It was discussed at length before (or see here, here, here or here (PDF)).

Edit: added and replied to quote #1
Edit #2: added and replied to quote #2

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 04-Sep-2009 at 10:43 PM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 04-Sep-2009 at 09:41 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".

@Dandy

Quote:

Chou, Lindzen and Wong were in one team

No. Chou is currently a PhD student of Pr Lindzen. Wong is from another team.

Quote:

what does this "et al." mean?

Latin: et alter. It somewhat means: 'and all the others who (supposedly) participated but who we can not cite because there are too many and/or not enough place'. Or something like that.

Quote:

Please keep in mind that I'm not really used to think in "camps" in this regard - so I do not know whom you consider to be in which "camp"...

Your reaction is still funny in this context.

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".

@Dandy

Quote:

Quote: In 2006, the American government spent $12billion (£6billion)

I especially like this one from your quote.

Quote:

So I don't want to live in the town - I have to (or else I had to commute everyday, with costs roughly equal to the costs of my appartement, but more time consuming and more nerve wrecking, not to mention the risk of having an accident) - after all I have to earn a living.

What are these trivial problems in front of the saving of the only Earth that exists? Either one acts in line with his ideology, either one is an hypocrite.

Quote:

Typing on a keyboard is a "dirty technology"?

Isn't electronic using so-called 'rare' element(s)?

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:

The sad part is the 'hockey stick' hasn't been a hockey stick for a long time. Mann has updated the graph as scientists have learned more about other periods in history. For example the missing hump of WMP exists. Yet anti-GWers continue to falsely claim it does not.

Mann's results are still suspect (euphemism inside) because:
1/ some data used are not proxies for temperature (speleothem d13C, Graybill bristlecones and Tornetrask series: removing them and the HS disappears). They were clearly identified as unqualified proxies for temperature in the National Research Council 2006 and by Wegman 2006 papers ;
2/ some are even used upside-down (Korttajarvi sediments) ;
3/ some are incorrectly world-sited (France instead of USA) ;
4/ some have been updated in the mean time but updates are conveniently not took in account in Mann et al. 2007 and 2008 ;
5/ more have been released but conveniently forgotten ;
5/ the statistics are as 'imaginative' (read wrong) as before with numerous problems both in consistency and interpretation ;
6/ see McIntyre and McKitrick 2009 for an overview.

If anyone want to know how the Hockey Stick made its way into IPCC's AR4 despite its flaws, read the edifying story titled Caspar and the Jesus paper: Quote:

There has been the most extraordinary series of postings at Climate Audit over the last week. As is usual at CA, there is a heavy mathematics burden for the casual reader, which, with a bit of research I think I can now just about follow. The story is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cyncism that is rife among climate scientists, and I'm going to try to tell it in layman's language so that the average blog reader can understand it. As far as I know it's the first time the whole story has been set out in a single posting. It's a long tale - and the longest posting I think I've ever written and piecing it together from the individual CA postings has been a long, hard but fascinating struggle. You may want to get a long drink before starting, and those who suffer from heart disorders may wish to take their beta blockers first.

Edit: added the HS story link

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 04-Sep-2009 at 10:24 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".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

You have just reminded me why anyone with the technological muscle wants to get to the moon - helium 3.

Except that some want the monkeys stay at zoo.

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:

He might be talking about 'fusion' power. However, this is still theoretical

A little bit more than theoretical as the ITER tokamak will be build soon in South France. I agree though it is just an experiment designed to establish the scientific feasibility of controlled fusion, but still an interesting way with many side benefits. But no, I was not thinking about fusion in the first place.

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:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: In 2006, the American government spent $12billion (£6billion) I especially like this one from your quote.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: So I don't want to live in the town - I have to (or else I had to commute everyday, with costs roughly equal to the costs of my appartement, but more time consuming and more nerve wrecking, not to mention the risk of having an accident) - after all I have to earn a living. What are these trivial problems in front of the saving of the only Earth that exists? Either one acts in line with his ideology, either one is an hypocrite.

So your world is just black and white?
Regarding me acting in line with "my" ideology - I sold my car five years ago, use public transport for greater distances and my bicycle for all rides in Cologne.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Typing on a keyboard is a "dirty technology"? Isn't electronic using so-called 'rare' element(s)?

You mean like sand for the silicon production?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy ... Quote: Could you please be a bit more specific here and name a few of those "almost infinite solutions for energy"? It was discussed at length before (or see here,

Ah - I see.

As you may have read in one of my previous postings, I worked as an engineer for Interatom back in 1982 and e.g. did the statical calculation for the accessible cover of the sodium cooling ponds of the fast breeder in Kalkar - taking an earthquake with a concurrent sodium fire into account.

German Government later stopped Kalkar because of several incidents (e.g. sodium fire - my accessible covers survived, btw) during test runs and under the impression of the Chernobyl nuclear desaster.

So this "almost infinite solution for energy" ended before having started at all...

EDIT:
Fixed typo...

Last edited by Dandy on 04-Sep-2009 at 11:34 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Mann's results are still suspect

Needless to say all science is suspect. That's the nature of science. It continually checks itself and improves as it learns more. What this doesn't excuse is those still calling it a 'hockey stick' and failing to realize it's been changed from working the science.

As for 'McIntyre and McKitrick 2009 ' does this improve their false accusations from their attempt in early 00s? I'd have to find those papers again to see the exact year. They were unimpressive to say the least.

Quote:

A little bit more than theoretical as the ITER tokamak will be build soon in South France.

We may finally get a build. We'll see if it works and if it returns the benefits that the papers predict. Historically all nuclear builds have been more expensive than predicted and have yet to return the projected savings. As for IFR well that's even farther away from reality.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Sep-2009 at 02:51 AM.

@Dandy

Quote:

So this "almost infinite solution for energy" ended before having started at all...

This report for US Congress (PDF) shows the erring ways of the successive US presidents/governments/administrations how to handle nuclear energy question and explains the current state of nuclear question (research, development, demonstration and commercialisation). This one (PDF) lists, at chapter 2.4, the nuclear technology options for the future: like it or not, fast reactors will be built in the future (PDF).

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:

What this doesn't excuse is those still calling it a 'hockey stick' and failing to realize it's been changed from working the science.

The curves from the spaghetti graph in the paper look terribly like HS curve. Now I am no expert in HS device...

Quote:

As for 'McIntyre and McKitrick 2009 ' does this improve their false accusations from their attempt in early 00s?

Comments on data and methodologies used in Mann's 1998 paper were correct and confirmed by many subsequent reanalysis by others. Their 2009 comment is for the Mann's 2008 paper, but some are the same as the previous ones. It seems the UnReal team never corrects and/or acknowledges any error. That is not how Science works.

Quote:

Historically all nuclear builds have been more expensive than predicted and have yet to return the projected savings.

All types of energy production are subsidized, ROI is not the primary key to decide which is best to choose. Fast reactors (generation IV) are mid-term (20-30 years from now) projects anyway. Meanwhile improved LWRs will be build to fill the gap (expected in 2015-2020 here).

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".

Some claim the UN is spreading FUD. A recent paper concludes the UN costs are 2-3x too low And the climate could be even worse LINK

Another study indicates GHG change 2000 Arctic cooling trend

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Sep-2009 at 04:53 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

In short ex post data cherry-picking [...] (look at the top of the curve, above the melting line in blue):

How ironic to have those two phrases in the same paragraph.

Oh, and if you understand that the asnwer to "what's the temperature of boiling water" is independent of the amount of power being used to boil the water (which a self-professed "former scientist" really should), then you should also understand that "the temperature of melting snow is not a proxy for the amount of power melting the snow". Thus "look at the top" is not even cherry picking, it's picking rocks when talking about which fruit is most delicious.

(Oh, and lastly --- "et al" stands for "et alia/alii/aliae", depending on the gender of the "others". You might want to freshen up your Latin at the same time as your science...)

@umisef

Do you mean the paper's title "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling" and the claim that they "found that the cooling trend reversed in the mid-1990s" do not agree with real 1958-2009 artic temperature measurements and thus are misleading? I agree.

(Oh, and lastly --- there is a period after al [et al., not et al]. And Latin is usually put in italic. Those pesky details...)

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".